The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (171 Viewers)

[Otis]

I do wonder if a big problem with British politics these days is there are at least two parties within the Conservative party and at least two within Labour too.

There's been a fair bit of movement towards the centre from both parties in the last twenty years or so (Blair's New Labour) and I think that has caused a lot of alienation.

Will they ever be united?

I assume there has always been differing wings of the main parties, but I think this moving (or illusion of moving) to the centre ground has caused quite a lot of fracturing in recent history.

I used to know what Labour stood for and the same with the Tories. It's now become rather blurred.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

No horse has died in the national since 2012..... The best thing they ever did was make the fences easier and much less dangerous.

Yes every death is one too many. But a moron is someone who compares a certain death where people pay to watch the deaths than accidental ones.

Two in 2012. One was of which was riderless. Maybe he was loving it so much he thought it’s never going to get better than this so I’ll end it now.

Increase in race horse deaths recorded by Animal Aid - Animal Aid

 

[skybluetony176]

I do wonder if a big problem with British politics these days is there are at least two parties within the Conservative party and at least two within Labour too.

There's been a fair bit of movement towards the centre from both parties in the last twenty years or so (Blair's New Labour) and I think that has caused a lot of alienation.

Will they ever be united?

I assume there has always been differing wings of the main parties, but I think this moving (or illusion of moving) to the centre ground has caused quite a lot of fracturing in recent history.

I used to know what Labour stood for and the same with the Tories. It's now become rather blurred.

The Tory party is a bit like the bloods and the crips at the moment. All from one place but hate each other.

 

[clint van damme]

Two in 2012. One was of which was riderless. Maybe he was loving it so much he thought it’s never going to get better than this so I’ll end it now.

That made me laugh

 

[Ashdown]

May has never had any intention of allowing a no deal Brexit.
Her deal will be voted down and she'll and take it to a second referendum which Remain will win.
Job done for May the Remainer.

And hereth begins a period of awful unrest. Democracy would never be trusted again. I like thousands of others wouldn't bother voting in anything in future.

 

[Ashdown]

I do wonder if a big problem with British politics these days is there are at least two parties within the Conservative party and at least two within Labour too.

There's been a fair bit of movement towards the centre from both parties in the last twenty years or so (Blair's New Labour) and I think that has caused a lot of alienation.

Will they ever be united?

I assume there has always been differing wings of the main parties, but I think this moving (or illusion of moving) to the centre ground has caused quite a lot of fracturing in recent history.

I used to know what Labour stood for and the same with the Tories. It's now become rather blurred.

This movement on both sides towards the centre is just called towing the line, appeasement to the perpetually offended and of course political ambition !

 

[dutchman]

We'll be under WTO rules if there's no deal.
You should perhaps look up how that works.

Thank you, I did do:

Why a no-deal Brexit is nothing to fear | The Spectator

"While tariffs on some EU goods — agricultural goods and automobiles in particular — would be higher than 3 per cent, economic gains secured from an independent trade policy and a more pro-competitive environment should compensate UK consumers."

And that contradicts my statement in what way?

 

[clint van damme]

Thank you, I did do:

Why a no-deal Brexit is nothing to fear | The Spectator

"While tariffs on some EU goods — agricultural goods and automobiles in particular — would be higher than 3 per cent, economic gains secured from an independent trade policy and a more pro-competitive environment should compensate UK consumers."

And that contradicts my statement in what way?

You can't put tariffs on one WTO member without putting them on all of them, you are governed by your schedules (One for goods one for services).
So if we do it to the EU we do it to everyone. Seen as we actually need to import stuff it wouldn't be wise to introduce punitive tariffs which could affect us importing goods we need.

The article you've linked confirms what I'm saying as it states that the EU won't be able to treat us differently to other WTO members which is correct.

That's why the first thing we'll do if we leave with no deal is try and negotiate a free trade deal with the EU.

 

[dutchman]

You can't put tariffs on one WTO member without putting them on all of them

I wasn't suggesting tarriffs would 'only' be put on EU members. The fact is a 3% tariff will be put on EU imports which is greater than the 0% currently imposed and will raise revenue for the UK treasury. How they choose to spend it is another matter.

I notice you haven't responded to the point that fewer EU nationals would qualify for "free" NHS treatment in UK hospitals?

 

[clint van damme]

I wasn't suggesting tarriffs would 'only' be put on EU members. The fact is a 3% tariff will be put on EU imports which is greater than the 0% currently imposed and will raise revenue for the UK treasury. How they choose to spend it is another matter.

I notice you haven't responded to the point that fewer EU nationals would qualify for "free" NHS treatment in UK hospitals?

What are you talking about hospitals for, we were on about a specific point regarding tariffs?
You are taking a very over simplified view of the tariff situation.
With trade deals you can control what you import under the terms of those deals. Under WTO we lose a certain amount of control.
So for example, we might produce 100 tons of onions but need 200 tons so we need to import 100.
We could have a trade deal with say Russia where we allow them to export 100 tonnes to us tariff free and put a punitive tariff in place after that. So we get the 100 tonnes we need but we don't over import and affect our own farmers sales.
We lose that control under WTO as we have one size fits all schedules.
As some one posted earlier, why is every country in the world trying to move away from WTO schedules and negotiate trade deals?

 

[martcov]

1. New taxes on EU imports
2. Fewer EU nationals entitled to free NHS treatment

GDP falls and the 8,1 bn net EU contribution has gone. No money.

EU Nationals leave and their N.I. Contributions go. No money.

WTO tariffs on exports. Unemployment rises. No money.

May has already said extra NHS money would come from taxation.

Another leave myth.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

What are you talking about hospitals for, we were on about a specific point regarding tariffs?
You are taking a very over simplified view of the tariff situation.
With trade deals you can control what you import under the terms of those deals. Under WTO we lose a certain amount of control.
So for example, we might produce 100 tons of onions but need 200 tons so we need to import 100.
We could have a trade deal with say Russia where we allow them to export 100 tonnes to us tariff free and put a punitive tariff in place after that. So we get the 100 tonnes we need but we don't over import and affect our own farmers sales.
We lose that control under WTO as we have one size fits all schedules.
As some one posted earlier, why is every country in the world trying to move away from WTO schedules and negotiate trade deals?

I know the answer to that

Strong and stable

Or they don’t want their sovereignty

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I do wonder if a big problem with British politics these days is there are at least two parties within the Conservative party and at least two within Labour too.

There's been a fair bit of movement towards the centre from both parties in the last twenty years or so (Blair's New Labour) and I think that has caused a lot of alienation.

Will they ever be united?

I assume there has always been differing wings of the main parties, but I think this moving (or illusion of moving) to the centre ground has caused quite a lot of fracturing in recent history.

I used to know what Labour stood for and the same with the Tories. It's now become rather blurred.

Political parties all have factions within them, a change in party systems will not change that.

Our parliamentary system offers more stability than its European counterparts that use more proportional systems. Take Germany, it’s had to have enter yet another grand coalition because neither major party can go into coalition with the ‘extreme’ parties in their Bundestag since their Liberal party has collapsed.

Generally, with the last 8 years in UK politics being the exception, party’s win majorities and go about the business of Government right away without coalition building processes (which can be v lengthy in places e.g. Spain). It’s not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, but strong and effective government (beciase it rarely loses parliamentary votes) is a good thing, overall.

 

[dutchman]

What are you talking about hospitals for, we were on about a specific point regarding tariffs?

It was in my original post to which you responded!

1. New taxes on EU imports
2. Fewer EU nationals entitled to free NHS treatment

 

[dutchman]

WTO tariffs on exports. Unemployment rises.

Since when did Britain export anything? All it does is import!

 

[clint van damme]

It was in my original post to which you responded!

So it was, I was responding to point 1.

As for the NHS we have reciprocal agreements in place. I wouldn't know how many UK citizens take advantage of that arrangement, I know I have in the past in Portugal, and I don't see that arrangement ending as a good thing.
There are a lot of non EU nationals who use the NHS, some from countries we don't have reciprocal agreements with and some from countries that the NHS can claim back the cost of treatment but actually recover only a small percentage. That isn't going to end post Brexit.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

And hereth begins a period of awful unrest. Democracy would never be trusted again. I like thousands of others wouldn't bother voting in anything in future.

How would a second referendum, ‘people’s vote’ be a betrayal of democracy?

A lot of people don’t understand the situation we’re in as a country. May’s Brexit deal is going to get smashed in Parliament, as you’d think most of the 117 Tory MPs who had ‘no confidence’ in May will vote against it. If this happens, the government is deadlocked because it cannot pass its Brexit deal. The government will have to seek a new mandate from the people, with another general election or a second referendum. Our MPs are elected to vote with their consciences on behalf of their constituents, that’s representative democracy.

This ‘betrayal’ you talk of sounds like you’re spitting your dummy out because the Brexit wasn’t as utopian as the likes of Farage, Boris, Gove and Rees-Mogg made out to the public. Liam Fox’s ‘EU trade deal will “easiest” to negotiate in history’ turned out to be laughable — and goes to show how Leavers underestimated the Brexit process.

 

[dutchman]

How would a second referendum, ‘people’s vote’ be a betrayal of democracy?

There was a 'people's vote' in 2016 and the traitors lost!

 

[dutchman]

So it was, I was responding to point 1.

As for the NHS we have reciprocal agreements in place. I wouldn't know how many UK citizens take advantage of that arrangement, I know I have in the past in Portugal, and I don't see that arrangement ending as a good thing.

They won't end. Reciprocal health treatment agreements have nothing to do with the EU will continue long after its demise. One of them is with Canada!

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I wasn't suggesting tarriffs would 'only' be put on EU members. The fact is a 3% tariff will be put on EU imports which is greater than the 0% currently imposed and will raise revenue for the UK treasury. How they choose to spend it is another matter.

I notice you haven't responded to the point that fewer EU nationals would qualify for "free" NHS treatment in UK hospitals?

Tariffs work both ways, y’know? A trade war is good for no one as barriers to free trade generally isn’t good for the economy. Our economy relies on the City of London’s financial district, and you bet EU financial services will relocate to Frankfurt if Brexit does get finalised. Also, pursuing an independent trade deal with Trump’s America will put the UK at a disadvantage — look at how he’s leveraged Mexico, Canada and Korea when negotiating FTA’s with them.

The NHS is a universalist system, meaning everyone is entitled it. Europeans living in the UK will be entitled to it regards of Britain’s being in the EU or not. EU nationals living in Britain are paying into the system, so absolutely deserve their share of the pie. The reason NHS costs are rising is because of an aging population, and an overweight population, not because EU nationals are using the NHS en masse. In fact, diabetes is a bigger threat to the NHS than EU nationals. NHS fraud accounts for 1% of the NHS budget and those costs are largely because of people falsely claiming exemptions to dental and prescription costs. So if the NHS factored into your decision in voting Brexit, you’ve had the wool pulled over your eyes.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

There was a 'people's vote' in 2016 and the traitors lost!

The 1975 referendum was also a ‘people’s vote,’ if the argument is referendums should be binding in posterity, then the 2016 referendum shouldn’t have happened. But, of course you don’t believe that. MPs are elected by ‘the people’ and they’ve judged that this deal is not good for the national interest. Including the staunchest Brexiteers.

If Brexit really is the ‘people’s will,’ why aren’t you for another referendum? If the government can’t get a deal through Parliament, it’s a chance for the people to reassert it’s committment to Brexit. The only logical conclusion to resistance to this is that Brexiteers are afraid they’ll lose.

The government has concluded that Brexit will make the UK ‘worse off’ in all its projections — 4 scenarios, ranging from no-deal Brexit to Hammond’s plan. If anything, sleepwalking into Brexit on the basis of a weak, 1.8% majority, won by misguiding the public is fundamentally ‘treacherous,’ in my estimation.

 

[skybluegod]

So it was, I was responding to point 1.

As for the NHS we have reciprocal agreements in place. I wouldn't know how many UK citizens take advantage of that arrangement, I know I have in the past in Portugal, and I don't see that arrangement ending as a good thing.
There are a lot of non EU nationals who use the NHS, some from countries we don't have reciprocal agreements with and some from countries that the NHS can claim back the cost of treatment but actually recover only a small percentage. That isn't going to end post Brexit.

To be fair CVD, I agree with you on the Tariffs/WTO stuff, but in terms of the NHS, we do offer out it's services too freely, without claiming it back.

These were the latest facts (at least that I could find):

In 2015, EEA countries and Switzerland claimed against the NHS for over £674 million of costs of treating people from the UK overseas. In the same year, the NHS claimed for £50 million of equivalent costs for treating EEA and Swiss citizens in the UK.

We treat a lot more EU citizens than UK Citizens get treated abroad- but the NHS doesn't claim back (for some weird reason)- on an unrelated point this is what pisses me off about Tory cuts, we are cutting funding for certain areas- "to be more efficient" yet we have huge drains on money which we ignored.

 

[Captain Dart]

We'll be under WTO rules if there's no deal.
You should perhaps look up how that works.

Lamont was on the telly the other day explaining that even under the WTO there is a transitional period (up to 1 yr I believe) so the tariff change is not sudden.
WTO | intellectual property (TRIPS) agreement text - transition arrangements
Funny how that's been largely ignored by MSM.

 

[Captain Dart]

This movement on both sides towards the centre is just called towing the line, appeasement to the perpetually offended and of course political ambition !

Grrrrr.. I can't take it any more, it's toeing the line.

 

[Grendel]

The 1975 referendum was also a ‘people’s vote,’ if the argument is referendums should be binding in posterity, then the 2016 referendum shouldn’t have happened. But, of course you don’t believe that. MPs are elected by ‘the people’ and they’ve judged that this deal is not good for the national interest. Including the staunchest Brexiteers.

If Brexit really is the ‘people’s will,’ why aren’t you for another referendum? If the government can’t get a deal through Parliament, it’s a chance for the people to reassert it’s committment to Brexit. The only logical conclusion to resistance to this is that Brexiteers are afraid they’ll lose.

The government has concluded that Brexit will make the UK ‘worse off’ in all its projections — 4 scenarios, ranging from no-deal Brexit to May’s plan. If anything, sleepwalking into Brexit on the basis of a weak, 1.8% majority, won by misguiding the public is fundamentally ‘treacherous,’ in my estimation.

Sorry the first aspect is nonsense - the referendum was for the EEC not the Eu abd there was no - “what Europe are you voting for” - cabinet minutes show the cabinet of the day deliberately misled the public regarding future political union as they knew it would hamper their desires for the acceptance of the vote

As for being afraid to lose how does that actually even work. Referendums are a generational thing. Otherwise what you are actually saying is that referendums should be based on opinion polls - they should not. They should be based on a political party manifesto to have one. This is how this one was excercised and remember a party stood on a second referendum commitment in the 2017 election. Otherwise you face the issue of 3rd 4th and 5th referendums - after all what would you be afraid of?

 

[clint van damme]

To be fair CVD, I agree with you on the Tariffs/WTO stuff, but in terms of the NHS, we do offer out it's services too freely, without claiming it back.

These were the latest facts (at least that I could find):

In 2015, EEA countries and Switzerland claimed against the NHS for over £674 million of costs of treating people from the UK overseas. In the same year, the NHS claimed for £50 million of equivalent costs for treating EEA and Swiss citizens in the UK.

We treat a lot more EU citizens than UK Citizens get treated abroad- but the NHS doesn't claim back (for some weird reason)- on an unrelated point this is what pisses me off about Tory cuts, we are cutting funding for certain areas- "to be more efficient" yet we have huge drains on money which we ignored.

But is that because we don't claim back money we are entitled to?
And if so I don't think the reason is weird, it's the oldest tactic In the capitalist book. Take something state owned, refund it, make it not fit for purpose, privatise it and sell it off.

 

[clint van damme]

Lamont was on the telly the other day explaining that even under the WTO there is a transitional period (up to 1 yr I believe) so the tariff change is not sudden.
WTO | intellectual property (TRIPS) agreement text - transition arrangements
Funny how that's been largely ignored by MSM.

I'm not sure that relates to what we've been discussing but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
I can't see anything that states a transition period unless agreed within our withdrawal agreement.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Sorry the first aspect is nonsense - the referendum was for the EEC not the Eu abd there was no - “what Europe are you voting for” - cabinet minutes show the cabinet of the day deliberately misled the public regarding future political union as they knew it would hamper their desires for the acceptance of the vote

As for being afraid to lose how does that actually even work. Referendums are a generational thing. Otherwise what you are actually saying is that referendums should be based on opinion polls - they should not. They should be based on a political party manifesto to have one. This is how this one was excercised and remember a party stood on a second referendum commitment in the 2017 election. Otherwise you face the issue of 3rd 4th and 5th referendums - after all what would you be afraid of?

The first aspect is nonsense because my point isn’t that the 1975 is binding — nothing can bind parliament, even the EU. The irony of you saying there was no ‘what Europe are you voting for’ is that right now, the public hasn’t decided ‘what Brexit are you voting for’. As was the concept of Europe vague in 1975, the concept of Brexit is even vaguer in 2018.

If you want a political science debate, so be it. If you want to be technical, referendums aren’t legally binding to the government. They are advisory, and the government has gone away, attempted to carry out the referendum result and is in a position where it cannot do so. The government physically cannot pass a Brexit deal at this moment. The Government will likely face an opposition motion of no confidence as well. Tell me, what is the alternative to another GE and/or referendum? The government has lost the confidence of parliament. These aren’t the words of a lefty ‘remoaner’, they are the words of Rees-Mogg. If Parliament votes down the agreement on 21st January, the government will have to call an election and/or referendum. So no, referendums aren’t necessarily generational, especially when the country is in a state of crisis.

What am I afraid of? A no-deal Brexit which, if projections are accurate, could lead to a loss of 5-9% of GDP, which is catastrophic. So a second referendum is an opportunity for the public to either reaffirm its commitment to Brexit OR to change its mind. This is an infinitely a better solution than to sleep walk into Brexit.

 

[skybluegod]

But is that because we don't claim back money we are entitled to?
And if so I don't think the reason is weird, it's the oldest tactic In the capitalist book. Take something state owned, refund it, make it not fit for purpose, privatise it and sell it off.

Yes it is (know someone who does a lot of work on NHS, and says they are terrible for it)...

Interesting, do you think that is where the NHS is going?

 

[clint van damme]

Yes it is (know someone who does a lot of work on NHS, and says they are terrible for it)...

Interesting, do you think that is where the NHS is going?

Who knows for sure. I hope not.

 

[Ashdown]

GDP falls and the 8,1 bn net EU contribution has gone. No money.

EU Nationals leave and their N.I. Contributions go. No money.

WTO tariffs on exports. Unemployment rises. No money.

May has already said extra NHS money would come from taxation.

Another leave myth.

Complete speculation, EU nationals are not going to just pack up , theyvet made lives here and there will be no obligation to leave.

 

[Ashdown]

The first aspect is nonsense because my point isn’t that the 1975 is binding — nothing can bind parliament, even the EU. The irony of you saying there was no ‘what Europe are you voting for’ is that right now, the public hasn’t decided ‘what Brexit are you voting for’. As was the concept of Europe vague in 1975, the concept of Brexit is even vaguer in 2018.

If you want a political science debate, so be it. If you want to be technical, referendums aren’t legally binding to the government. They are advisory, and the government has gone away, attempted to carry out the referendum result and is in a position where it cannot do so. The government physically cannot pass a Brexit deal at this moment. The Government will likely face an opposition motion of no confidence as well. Tell me, what is the alternative to another GE and/or referendum? The government has lost the confidence of parliament. These aren’t the words of a lefty ‘remoaner’, they are the words of Rees-Mogg. If Parliament votes down the agreement on 21st January, the government will have to call an election and/or referendum. So no, referendums aren’t necessarily generational, especially when the country is in a state of crisis.

What am I afraid of? A no-deal Brexit which, if projections are accurate, could lead to a loss of 5-9% of GDP, which is catastrophic. So a second referendum is an opportunity for the public to either reaffirm its commitment to Brexit OR to change its mind. This is an infinitely a better solution than to sleep walk into Brexit.

If projections are accurate......that's a big if !

 

[skybluetony176]

Since when did Britain export anything? All it does is import!

In which case your WTO argument becomes weaker not stronger.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Since when did Britain export anything? All it does is import!

Mmmmm I wonder why? Is it so those with money can make more by using cheap labour??? Oh yes that’s right

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

If projections are accurate......that's a big if !

No, it's not a 'big if'. The Government has taken the 'best case' and 'worse case' scenarios, including May's own plan, and has still concluded that Brexit will be bad for the economy. This isn't a guess of what will happen, it's a calculation, know the difference.

Brexit will make UK worse off, government warns

Reality Check: What is an economic forecast?

Here's a parliamentary paper on Brexit, from Jan 2018:

https://www.parliament.uk/documents...EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf