Off Topic Politics Thread

[Beddy]

Beddy, that's a pretty good case for staying in. As you say leaving won't stop immigration, now how about that list of benefits that exiting EU will bring and the timescale we can expect them to come into effect?

Mate I have said so many times before what I want out of Brexit. I have never said we would be better off. Although I believe we won't I have said we should be making our own decisions and not being dictated to by Europe.

Beddy, I think it’s time you started researching facts and posting them. You continually talk about people you know and your contacts. How many millions of contacts do you have? I’m not saying you’re right or wrong, but from a far, it seems that you are talking about rumour and hearsay.

We can all start talking about what we’ve heard or been told. I have worked for some European based companies that don’t cut corners and do get tied down by regulations they adhere too... do they offset the ones you’ve been talking about?

Fats......I don't think it's my place to try and persuade anyone that how I feel is the same as how they should feel. You have to make a judgement based on your own experiences not mine or anyone else. I thought I had said many times what I want out of the Brexit deal. I am not adding to that.....

As for what I hear I thought I had made it plain enough that it is hearsay. I no longer do business with Europeans but I am in touch probably on a weekly if not a daily basis with some of my old customers or their family. Yes I do have a lot of friends over there and Brexit or no Brexit will not stop that.

 

[Archers Road]

Unfortunately Austerity was unavoidable after the f**k up Labour made of spending when they were in charge. Agree it could have been handled better though

I’m sorry but that is simplistic nonsense.

Firstly, Labour did not cause the international banking crisis - however, Gordon Brown’s quick response to it won praise from around the world (but, naturally, opprobrium from the right wing UK press). In underwriting the losses of the U.K. banking sector he put the public purse into significant deficit, but arguably prevented the complete collapse of the economy. Do you remember people queuing round the block to get their money out of Northern Rock? That would have been every bank in the country if Brown hadn’t acted as quickly as he did.

As for austerity being an inevitable response to recession, I suggest you google John Maynard Keynes, and when you’ve researched him, look up Roosevelt’s New Deal. A passing knowledge of the history of the Great Depression should be enough to abolish for ever the misconception that pulling money out of a moribund economy is an effective response to recession.

 

[Archers Road]

Mate I have said so many times before what I want out of Brexit. I have never said we would be better off. Although I believe we won't I have said we should be making our own decisions and not being dictated to by Europe.

Trouble is Beddy, despite repeating yourselves several times, neither you nor Imps nor, as far as I can see, any other champion of Brexit, has managed to offer anything concrete. It’s all abstract platitudes about “multilayered technocrats” or “taking back control”. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just empty words.

Meanwhile, real jobs are being lost, real lives are being affected, and the real economy is facing significant unnecessary headwinds.

 

[ImpSaint]

This is not how that works. Juncker was the PEC candidate for the European People's Party, which had the largest count of MEPs after 2014, and consequently had the first crack at obtaining majority support. He then secured preliminary majority support in the European Parliament, at which point the member-states of the EU had the chance to exercise what amounts to a veto; when they did not, instead endorsing him by 26-2 (Cameron and Orban against), it was put to a full vote of the European Parliament, where he won handily.

It's similar to how Theresa May was the only candidate for PM because she was the leader of the largest party in Parliament. They didn't hold a vote in Parliament on whether Farage should be PM? Tyranny!

Moreover, you are again demonstrating how thoroughly democratic and respectful of the rights of the involved member-states the process is. Juncker was chosen in a free and fair election as the candidate for his party. A free and fair European election was then held, in which his party emerged with the largest share of both seats and votes. He then formed a working agreement with the second-largest party in the European Parliament, providing him with what amounted to a loose majority coalition for his election as PEC. As a further check and balance, the member-states were given the chance to ratify that choice, and did overwhelmingly, at which point a free and fair vote was conducted within the Parliament itself, which Juncker took at a canter.

spitzenkandidaten

 

[ImpSaint]

More spin. Was there a vote and did he get all the votes?

You need to read how it all happened and how it changed from prior votes. Effectively he was bulldozed through as the only option with a "yes/no" vote at a time when the EU parliament was thoroughly in favour of "closer union."

 

[Saints_Alive]

I’m sorry but that is simplistic nonsense.

Firstly, Labour did not cause the international banking crisis - however, Gordon Brown’s quick response to it won praise from around the world (but, naturally, opprobrium from the right wing UK press). In underwriting the losses of the U.K. banking sector he put the public purse into significant deficit, but arguably prevented the complete collapse of the economy. Do you remember people queuing round the block to get their money out of Northern Rock? That would have been every bank in the country if Brown hadn’t acted as quickly as he did.

As for austerity being an inevitable response to recession, I suggest you google John Maynard Keynes, and when you’ve researched him, look up Roosevelt’s New Deal. A passing knowledge of the history of the Great Depression should be enough to abolish for ever the misconception that pulling money out of a moribund economy is an effective response to recession.

Spot on, austerity is the biggest cynical political fallacy of recent history and has caused so much pain, misery and hardship for the people that can least afford to bear it...thanks a lot Clegg.

 

[ImpSaint]

Ummmm ..... did you actually read what I wrote, Imps? When (please god, “if”) we leave the EU there ARE no EU rules which apply between us and any EU country. Therefore, they are free to do as they wish, including allowing anyone to go across the channel. Currently, they are bound by EU rules and cannot do this .....

You are missing the point that there are EU rules about migration across the EU itself. Doesn't matter if we are in the EU or not. You are suggesting that they will ignore internal EU rules letting illegal migrants cross the EU and then will also ignore their own rules letting them pass through their ports to the UK.

As all of these illegal immigrants are trying to claim asylum (rightly or wrongly) Eu's own rules are that they should claim in the first safe country they arrive in. So there is no way under EU law that they can just "ship illegal immigrants to the UK."

Apart from the fact that would be illegal under their own laws it is amazing that you seem to think it is a selling point or even something that should be a threat? They would be breaking their own law. Nothing to do with whether we are in the EU or not. They would have ignored all of their own internal laws.....not for the first time.

 

[Schad]

spitzenkandidaten

Indeed. Now, think about what makes them the "leading candidate". Hint: it was thought to be more democratic for the candidates for the major parties to be known prior to elections, and for the first crack at achieving majority support to be handed to the candidate for the plurality winner, rather than the European Council making the choice. You're angry that they chose a more transparent, electorally-based means of choosing a leader.

 

[ImpSaint]

You haven't been paying attention during Question Time, have you? Highest rate of employment; tax cuts for the poor; the Universal Credit which is saving the lives of millions. And my favourite fom last night - less children in "absolute poverty". Can anyone explain why anyone in Great Britain in 2019 is in absloute poverty? Sorry, it's explained as being a life style choice or something. Hmm.

In future, every time I go to the Foodbank I will shout abuse at the scroungers who come in, looking for handouts. After all they've only got a temporary cash flow problem, the gits.

Honestly, to listen to some people you'd think we had poor people in this country. It's a life style choice.

Yeah, right .... Zero hours; Universal Penury, sorry Credit; incentivising staff to sanction sick people; no services for those with mental health issues .... Obviously I've misunderstood somewhere along the line.

I agree with you on most of the above however we are constantly arguing over facts and "evidence" and I am constantly moaned about as using anecdotal evidence vs someone who has numbers and figures.

There is no argument in real numbers that "absolute poverty" numbers are down, not just in the UK but across the world. "relative poverty" is another matter and one that is very hard to equate to what actually occurs because it is a ratio compared to other people getting richer. For example my family is in the lower echelons of "relative poverty" and thus it is people like me (us) that all the political campaigners on this issue are aiming to attract or gain support from. Problem being that while I might be in their stats I/we are not in the least bit struggling let alone anywhere near actual poverty.

We do agree though that the "absolutel poverty" stat in this country should be zero. Ridiculous that there is any absolute poverty in the UK.

This will never be solved, though while we continue to use these ratio stats. We can argue about inequality separately from judging poverty. A London family might have an income way above my household but I might have it twice as easy. It helps no-one trying to tackle this problem by turning it into a simplistic ratio driven inequality agenda. they should tackle the problem not try and lump several problems in together mish-mashing lots of people that aren't actually requiring that assistance and as I always say "diluting" what they can deliver.

 

[ImpSaint]

I’m sorry but that is simplistic nonsense.

Firstly, Labour did not cause the international banking crisis - however, Gordon Brown’s quick response to it won praise from around the world (but, naturally, opprobrium from the right wing UK press). In underwriting the losses of the U.K. banking sector he put the public purse into significant deficit, but arguably prevented the complete collapse of the economy. Do you remember people queuing round the block to get their money out of Northern Rock? That would have been every bank in the country if Brown hadn’t acted as quickly as he did.

As for austerity being an inevitable response to recession, I suggest you google John Maynard Keynes, and when you’ve researched him, look up Roosevelt’s New Deal. A passing knowledge of the history of the Great Depression should be enough to abolish for ever the misconception that pulling money out of a moribund economy is an effective response to recession.

Totally ignoring facts again. Yes it was an international banking crisis BUT Labour for once had power through a very long boom period. A period that rather than be "prudent" as Brown kept saying, was profligate in their spending, Put loads on the PFI credit card and implemented a changeover of policy pretending to be supporting people when in fact they were giving business free reign not just to stop training people or worry about longevity of staff employment but just treat people as numbers.

No need to train up employees, The state will supply you with trained people from overseas. Keep those employees you have where they are, no need to worry about them moving up the chain.

They made the economy all about money laundering. Forget any worries. "There will never be another recession. We have seen the end to boom and bust."

Pushed the property market as a growth driver to levels that we will likely never recover from.

Your whole mantra as always starts from the crash ignoring what happened prior to it.

and again you ignore that the EU's policy WAS and IS austerity. They, along with the IMF, criticised Osborne heavily for not being Austere enough.

This whole narrative you have above ignores completely the context that these events developed from and to, merely relying on the International aspect of the crash as a defence for how it affected the UK.

This is the whole problem of modern politics. It is very short term and any arguments about it ignore context.

 

[ImpSaint]

Trouble is Beddy, despite repeating yourselves several times, neither you nor Imps nor, as far as I can see, any other champion of Brexit, has managed to offer anything concrete. It’s all abstract platitudes about “multilayered technocrats” or “taking back control”. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just empty words.

Meanwhile, real jobs are being lost, real lives are being affected, and the real economy is facing significant unnecessary headwinds.

No-one on either side can offer anything concrete.

The problem being that anything I or Beddy state will be torn to shreds on here by people that continue to spout nonsense about a "status quo" and what that would mean. There are no definites on either side.

I find it laughable from some (not everyone) on here that bang on about "gambling with the economy" yet fully support Corbyn OR at least parts of his program.

This is the problem of modern polarisation. It isn't that you (collective) or I are right. It is that both you (collective) and I think our choice is right and the other is wrong.

But this constant use of remain being a "known" is laughable. It is not status quo.

If you want a simplified answer from me then it I will play devil's advocate whilst being quite honest and state that if this country is going to f*** things up and go down the swanny then I would rather are own politicians were the guilty party so we could give them a kicking at the polls than it be as a result of EU policy, whether that policy was intended to "protect" or not. The EUs policies are doomed to failure from conflict from within. Solidarity and unity are just words and the whole block is already pulling in very different directions, playing by different rules to each other and even being bound by the EU differently. Look at budget rules and how they refuse Italy's budget even though it remains lower in deficit than the 3% yet they approve Macron's when it is higher than Italy's deficit!!!

It isn't just about the EU. The world is changing. It isn't just about Trump or China. Global economics is changing now and will be much different in the future. The EU's single market will not be of much use in the future.

 

[ImpSaint]

Indeed. Now, think about what makes them the "leading candidate". Hint: it was thought to be more democratic for the candidates for the major parties to be known prior to elections, and for the first crack at achieving majority support to be handed to the candidate for the plurality winner, rather than the European Council making the choice. You're angry that they chose a more transparent, electorally-based means of choosing a leader.

Not at all. No-one knew what that process was. No-one knew how it would work. Juncker was an option pushed onto countries, that even Merkel was pressured to support and even she wavered in support but ended up having to back him heavily against threats from other countries (including the UK.) It wasn't at all transparent to any voter anywhere. Merely a tool for technocrats to appoint their own man, backed by a parliament that most people have no idea how it works. A parliament that is engineered mostly by national parties (across Europe) riding on their own manifestos in order to position themselves to make technocracy rule.

It is a pointless body of people merely there to try and hide how the countries within it bully others. Hiding an agenda of a Franco-German led federalisation of the rest of Europe behind a facade of equality of nations.

 

[Archers Road]

No-one on either side can offer anything concrete.

.

That’s simply wrong Imps. The benefits of EU membership are not difficult to quantify.
The economic ones especially so - unrestricted access to one of the world’s largest markets, for a start.

But I know you are pretty much deaf to any entreaty that appeals to economic factors, preferring the emotive to the pragmatic. So,
I’ll give you another tangible benefit - European Citizenship, and the absolute freedom for my children to live and work anywhere in Europe. I feel it’s loss deeply.

Not all of us look inward for identity Imps. Some of us, possibly those people Theresa May insultingly called “Citizens of Nowhere”, prefer not to be defined by narrow tribal boundaries. The world, for me, doesn’t stop at the end of my street - it begins there, and I regard the imposition of unnecessary barriers between me and the rest of the world as a retrograde step.

 

[Schad]

Not at all. No-one knew what that process was. No-one knew how it would work. Juncker was an option pushed onto countries, that even Merkel was pressured to support and even she wavered in support but ended up having to back him heavily against threats from other countries (including the UK.) It wasn't at all transparent to any voter anywhere. Merely a tool for technocrats to appoint their own man, backed by a parliament that most people have no idea how it works. A parliament that is engineered mostly by national parties (across Europe) riding on their own manifestos in order to position themselves to make technocracy rule.

It is a pointless body of people merely there to try and hide how the countries within it bully others. Hiding an agenda of a Franco-German led federalisation of the rest of Europe behind a facade of equality of nations.

The fact that people do not know how these things work is indeed a problem. But it's not a problem with the function of the EU, it's a problem of engagement which falls both on the institutions of the EU and on its citizenry. Because people have chosen to detach themselves from the EU's necessarily complex systems, they do not understand it, and they resent that which they do not understand. That leads to situations like Brexit, where people are very much against a panoply of largely-imagined slights with a poor grasp on the benefits derived from membership. .

This is absolutely something for which the EU deserves critique. But that critique is that the EU has long had something of a public relations problem of its own making, rather than that it is a shadowy body of scheming technocrats driven to undermine the UK's ability to have the right colour of passport.

Also, you do realize the internal contradiction in what you have posted here, right? That the EU is merely a vehicle for Franco-German domination...yet Merkel herself was pressured into backing Juncker.

 

[davecg69]

You are missing the point that there are EU rules about migration across the EU itself. Doesn't matter if we are in the EU or not. You are suggesting that they will ignore internal EU rules letting illegal migrants cross the EU and then will also ignore their own rules letting them pass through their ports to the UK.

As all of these illegal immigrants are trying to claim asylum (rightly or wrongly) Eu's own rules are that they should claim in the first safe country they arrive in. So there is no way under EU law that they can just "ship illegal immigrants to the UK."

Apart from the fact that would be illegal under their own laws it is amazing that you seem to think it is a selling point or even something that should be a threat? They would be breaking their own law. Nothing to do with whether we are in the EU or not. They would have ignored all of their own internal laws.....not for the first time.

Ah! So you agree that EU laws are important as long as they benefit the U.K. I’ll remember that when I’m chewing on my spam and pink slime imported from Trumpland, as it looks like foodstuffs from the EU will have tariffs slapped on them to “protect” British farmers (who will have lost their biggest market) .......

 

[Beef]

I don't accept your first point, and I know a number of people of colour who get what he is saying about Neeson.

Barnes' first point is that racism is endemic. I remember diversity training in the 80's where we would be asked to consider how being raised in a racist society impacted on our thinking. His point about Neeson's Irish upbringing is very relevant. His second point that then follows on, is that a racist mind-set can be found in all of us regardless of ethnicity.

It is a nuanced debate, and, he is arguing, it is unhelpful to simply polarise debate by using the racist tag. Sadly for John Barnes, nuanced debate has been taken off the agenda - if it was ever there. Did you see the way he was attacked for saying that ordinary punters didn't get the economics debate around Brexit, and was accused of calling Leave voters "thick"? This is where we are with debate in this country and it is frightening.

I have mentioned before that there is a TV programme put out on TF1 at peak time in France that is a debate between two people who hold opposing views. The debate is evidence based and the protaginists listen to each other and reply politely. Contrast this to the screaming at each other seen on QT - or in the Letters column of local and national papers.

I get what he is saying, I just don't agree people should be thanked or even told they have done well for admitting they are or were racist. Add to what Neeson said about walking around the streets wanting for some "black bastard" just to start in him so he could kill him. Then add to the fact he said all this **** when in a interview to publicize his own film!

I agree with him that people should admit racist **** they have done. But those people should not be thanked and it should be a proper apology not a Neeson "I am not racist" bullshit one. If it was a proper apology then many more black people would have agreed with him and said you a dickhead but you admitted you ****ed up.

End of the day it is very much on the individual to say whether they get Neeson or accept a persons apology etc. My main probably with many racist apologies like the "funny tinge" one is they use the line " I am sorry if I offended" instead of actually saying they ****ed up and were racist. That is the real problem for me and that is what makes them not really apologies in my opinion.

The rest I agree with Barnes btw, I just think he lets people off too easy.

For me until white people accept that poc are just the same and deserve to be treated the same racism will never end. Poc especially black people in society are treated like **** throughout their life.

 

[Beef]

Unfortunately Austerity was unavoidable after the f**k up Labour made of spending when they were in charge. Agree it could have been handled better though

Killing the poor and sick was 100% avoidable and to say it wasn't is kind of disgusting. We even have aid agencies etc say this is a crime against humanity yet people still think it was unavoidable.

 

[davecg69]

Thank you for saying what I had been thinking about for a long time.
It’s the Tory Government that has destroyed social housing.
It’s the Tory Government that is destroying the NHS, the last thing of value that we still own.
It’s the Tory Government that is destroying social care.
It’s the Tory Government that is destroying unions and employee’s work rights.
It’s the Tory Government that is giving tax breaks and tax reductions to companies whilst they continue to pay dividends.
It’s the Tory Government that is under funding local councils, especially Labour run councils., forcing some into being on the verge of bankruptcy.
It’s the Tory Government that has privatised every business that could have poured billions of pounds into our coffers.

I am sure there are more, but I can’t carry on, as I have to get my wife to her oncology appointment, whilst it is still covered by the NHS.

I’m not disagreeing with you at all. The sad fact is that, whilst the Tories have sold out to the right wing, Labour has done the same with the extreme left wing. Now they bring back that twat from Liverpool with his Marxist views and cannot even stand up to the ****show of a government who can’t sort anything out.
If only we had a decent opposition party who could bring reasonable taxation to those who avoid them, have actual plans on how we can get the best from EU membership, fund the NHS and stop giving millions to “consultants” (creeping privatisation) and actually do something to stop all this madness, I’d know who to vote for.
At the moment, there’s not a cats chance in hell of me voting for either May or Corbyn, but I’m damn well going to vote!

 

[Archers Road]

I’m not disagreeing with you at all. The sad fact is that, whilst the Tories have sold out to the right wing, Labour has done the same with the extreme left wing. Now they bring back that twat from Liverpool with his Marxist views and cannot even stand up to the ****show of a government who can’t sort anything out.
If only we had a decent opposition party who could bring reasonable taxation to those who avoid them, have actual plans on how we can get the best from EU membership, fund the NHS and stop giving millions to “consultants” (creeping privatisation) and actually do something to stop all this madness, I’d know who to vote for.
At the moment, there’s not a cats chance in hell of me voting for either May or Corbyn, but I’m damn well going to vote!

The twat from Liverpool has been suspended, less than 48 hours after his readmission.

No, you couldn't make it up.

 

[rednright]

Trouble is Beddy, despite repeating yourselves several times, neither you nor Imps nor, as far as I can see, any other champion of Brexit, has managed to offer anything concrete. It’s all abstract platitudes about “multilayered technocrats” or “taking back control”. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just empty words.

Meanwhile, real jobs are being lost, real lives are being affected, and the real economy is facing significant unnecessary headwinds.

Jobs will be lost due to brexit, jobs will be lost due to technological change and perhaps some may be created because of it. Thing is the referendum was about a choice, and I choose to leave the EU. I chose to vote for the EEC back in the day but you must agree that the current structure has moved a long way from that of a purely economic model - too far for me anyway.

To that extent, everybody's personal choice does not need to be justified. This seems to be the point beddy is making. The EU at the end of the day is a political organisation I want out of. There are clearly a lot that prefer the EU and that's fine but that's why we had the ref......