The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (192 Viewers)

Astute · Jan 19, 2019

Mucca Mad Boys said:
All the best to you and your family, and I hope the old dear makes a full recovery!

I’ve never questioned the bias of YouGov, so I’ll assume that’s not directed at me. When it came to general polling, YouGov was the only outlier which polled a decisive lead for the Tories — most of the others had them neck and neck with a 1-2% lead for either Con or Lab, a couple had them in the same %.

The example I used specifically was on the 50p tax which is only on the highest earners (£150,000+ P/a), and about 48% were in favour of a radical 60p tax (too far in my eyes), but this was in 2014-2015. However, in 2018, people were willing to pay more income tax and NI if it went towards the NHS. I can find the link if need be.

Simply put, I was challenged on the idea of Corbyn having popular policies. Generally speaking, the public is more left than right on the economy when it comes to taxation and nationalisation and is more to the right on the issue of immigration.

But what are the policies of Corbyn and how would they be funded?

So you say that YouGov is biased but you quote them as stating a fact.... or stating a biased poll. This is why I try to keep away from quoting YouGov. They don't publish the numbers as they come in. They are all weighted and change the results.

I am not against immigration at all other than we should have a say in the skills provided. Otherwise we will continue to have a skills shortage in certain areas. Then we have those with the skills we need that are not allowed to enter the UK as the government has put a limit on the total number as they are from outside the EU.

Grendel · Jan 19, 2019

martcov said:
Who does it belong to?

It’s not nationalised as labour would want. It’s a private company whose shares are owned by the state which is a big difference.

Old essay boy made a point about banks being nationalised and he without being capable of realising it came close to why Corbyn and McDonnell despise the EU as it prevents them from total public control of finances and commanding heights.

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
But what are the policies of Corbyn and how would they be funded?

So you say that YouGov is biased but you quote them as stating a fact.... or stating a biased poll. This is why I try to keep away from quoting YouGov. They don't publish the numbers as they come in. They are all weighted and change the results.

I am not against immigration at all other than we should have a say in the skills provided. Otherwise we will continue to have a skills shortage in certain areas. Then we have those with the skills we need that are not allowed to enter the UK as the government has put a limit on the total number as they are from outside the EU.

We need unskilled or semi skilled workers. We have a shortage e.g. agriculture and hospitality.

Astute · Jan 19, 2019

martcov said:
But, how many of the executed were later found to be innocent in the past? Does it prevent murders? No. Does it increase murders because you kill the witnesses as well? Probably. Does it reduce the state to the same moral level of a murderer by taking life? Yes. I think the state should not be involved in legal murder. Having said that, accidentally killing a murderer when freeing a hostage or similar I don’t have any outrage with. I think you only need to look at the USA to see the effect of the death penalty. Do they have less crime than we do in States which have the Death penalty? Not that I know.

Yes it does prevent murders. Are you saying that nobody has been sentenced for a crime and not done it again after a long sentence? It happens all the time.

Like I said with 100% certainty. 99% not good enough.

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Grendel said:
It’s not nationalised as labour would want. It’s a private company whose shares are owned by the state which is a big difference.

Old essay boy made a point about banks being nationalised and he without being capable of realising it came close to why Corbyn and McDonnell despise the EU as it prevents them from total public control of finances and commanding heights.

Die Deutsche Bahn AG (kurz DB AG, umgangssprachlich auch nur DB) ist ein deutscher Konzern mit Sitz in Berlin. Er entstand 1994 aus der Fusion der Deutschen Bundesbahn und der Deutschen Reichsbahn sowie der Umwandlung in eine Aktiengesellschaft. Das zu 100 % bundeseigene Unternehmen ist das größte Eisenbahnverkehrs- und Eisenbahninfrastrukturunternehmen in Mitteleuropa und bereits seit mehreren Jahren international tätig.[3]

Yes, as you say it belong 100% to the state. It is nationalised. There is some competition allowed, but it is a state owned company.

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
Yes it does prevent murders. Are you saying that nobody has been sentenced for a crime and not done it again after a long sentence? It happens all the time.

Like I said with 100% certainty. 99% not good enough.

Look at the murder rate where the death penalty is allowed and where it is not allowed.

Astute · Jan 19, 2019

martcov said:
We need unskilled or semi skilled workers. We have a shortage e.g. agriculture and hospitality.

The higher the population the more we need.

At least when we build the millions of houses on farmland as you say should happen we will need less agricultural workers

Astute · Jan 19, 2019

martcov said:
Look at the murder rate where the death penalty is allowed and where it is not allowed.

In countries where guns are allowed you mean?

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
Yes it does prevent murders. Are you saying that nobody has been sentenced for a crime and not done it again after a long sentence? It happens all the time.

Like I said with 100% certainty. 99% not good enough.

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
In countries where guns are allowed you mean?

No. In a country where there are states with and without the death penalty the states without the death penalty have lower murder rates. That is consistent.

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center

clint van damme · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
Yes it does prevent murders. Are you saying that nobody has been sentenced for a crime and not done it again after a long sentence? It happens all the time.

Like I said with 100% certainty. 99% not good enough.

What you'd basically be saying if you jailed someone is we won't execute you because there's a doubt.
Lawyers would have a field day, it's unworkable. You either allow judges to hand out the death penalty based on a guilty verdict or you don't.

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
The higher the population the more we need.

At least when we build the millions of houses on farmland as you say should happen we will need less agricultural workers

No. We need unskilled or lowly skilled workers now. If we have less food we will need less workers. If our parents have less care we will need less workers. Great arguments.

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

clint van damme said:
What you'd basically be saying if you jailed someone is we won't execute you because there's a doubt.
Lawyers would have a field day, it's unworkable. You either allow judges to hand out the death penalty based on a guilty verdict or you don't.

He has yet to explain why you have more murders if you execute people. According to Astute, you stop murders by killing people. So the murder rate in states with executions should be lower. It isn’t. I tried to explain, but I would like Astute to explain.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 19, 2019

Grendel said:
No we can’t - you really are struggling to keep up - the NHS doesnt mean public ownership of healthcare

You use so many words but say absolutely nothing of substance

Germany has private railway operators it’s not nationalised

No, I’ve explained how Parliament works constitutionally and you’ve failed to make any kind of rebuttal. You’ve made the claim that Parliament can’t do ‘x, y and z’ without EU approval and that is factually wrong. Provide ONE example (or more of you’re up to it) where the EU has blocked an Act of Parliament?

Who provides healthcare to the vast majority of the public? The NHS, which is state run, if it’s not nationalised, what is it? It’s not a private corporation. I never made the claim that all healthcare is nationalised.

The German railway largely publicly owned, 33,000km of its 41,000km railway network is under direct public ownership. It’s largest railway service provider is DB which is 100% owned by the Government. The example @martcov provided, the firm was 75% owned by local government! I’m not an expert on the German railway, but it seems as if local government is heavily involved in the services that are ‘privatised’. Either way, the the German railway is dominated by public ownership.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
But what are the policies of Corbyn and how would they be funded?

So you say that YouGov is biased but you quote them as stating a fact.... or stating a biased poll. This is why I try to keep away from quoting YouGov. They don't publish the numbers as they come in. They are all weighted and change the results.

I am not against immigration at all other than we should have a say in the skills provided. Otherwise we will continue to have a skills shortage in certain areas. Then we have those with the skills we need that are not allowed to enter the UK as the government has put a limit on the total number as they are from outside the EU.

Look at the Labour manifesto of 2017, that will provide the information you seek. Labour attempted to cost its policies, and the Tories spent more time producing documents ‘debunking’ these costing than costing their own manifesto. Managed to find £10bn for DUP support though. Instead of trying to make a party political point, I’ll use this example to demonstrate that the Government can find money when it’s necessary.

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Mucca Mad Boys said:
No, I’ve explained how Parliament works constitutionally and you’ve failed to make any kind of rebuttal. You’ve made the claim that Parliament can’t do ‘x, y and z’ without EU approval and that is factually wrong. Provide ONE example (or more of you’re up to it) where the EU has blocked an Act of Parliament?

Who provides healthcare to the vast majority of the public? The NHS, which is state run, if it’s not nationalised, what is it? It’s not a private corporation. I never made the claim that all healthcare is nationalised.

The German railway largely publicly owned, 33,000km of its 41,000km railway network is under direct public ownership. It’s largest railway service provider is DB which is 100% owned by the Government. The example @martcov provided, the firm was 75% owned by local government! I’m not an expert on the German railway, but it seems as if local government is heavily involved in the services that are ‘privatised’. Either way, the the German railway is dominated by public ownership.

They want to sell DB and have tried to make it profitable by cutting costs which has resulted in a detioration of services. They are now investing, one reason being the competition from FLixxbus. Cheaper and more comfortable with WiFi. They are now on a major catch up, so there will be less profit and the sale will be further postponed. No sale in the near future and no demand for privatisation from the public. Just demand for investment.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 19, 2019

Grendel said:
It’s not nationalised as labour would want. It’s a private company whose shares are owned by the state which is a big difference.

Old essay boy made a point about banks being nationalised and he without being capable of realising it came close to why Corbyn and McDonnell despise the EU as it prevents them from total public control of finances and commanding heights.

You’ve misrepresented my fundamental point of Parliament having the power to nationalise an industry or company. It’s not a party political point at all. Does the UK Parliament have the power to enact these policies? Yes. Does the EU possess a mechanism to block an Act of Parliament? No.

Grendel · Jan 19, 2019

Mucca Mad Boys said:
No, I’ve explained how Parliament works constitutionally and you’ve failed to make any kind of rebuttal. You’ve made the claim that Parliament can’t do ‘x, y and z’ without EU approval and that is factually wrong. Provide ONE example (or more of you’re up to it) where the EU has blocked an Act of Parliament?

Who provides healthcare to the vast majority of the public? The NHS, which is state run, if it’s not nationalised, what is it? It’s not a private corporation. I never made the claim that all healthcare is nationalised.

The German railway largely publicly owned, 33,000km of its 41,000km railway network is under direct public ownership. It’s largest railway service provider is DB which is 100% owned by the Government. The example @martcov provided, the firm was 75% owned by local government! I’m not an expert on the German railway, but it seems as if local government is heavily involved in the services that are ‘privatised’. Either way, the the German railway is dominated by public ownership.

Fucking hell its like teaching a child how to piss in a potty.

You’ve at least gone from nationalised to dominated and I suppose that’s a start. You are starting the backtrack.

The reason an act of Parliament hasn’t been rejected is because the government of whatever persuasion knows it would be suicide for EU integration if it passed an act that contravened legislation from the EU. A perfect example actually is the 2008 banking crises. Even left leaning articles acknowledge the government had to change its proposals at least 7 times with the Eu before finally allowing the act to go forward. It could therefore have passed 7 acts of Parliament and all would have been rejected by Brussels

The death penalty point was purely to illustrate that you can pass an act in parliament but hhs act of allowing the legislation to become law does not exist in Westminster but Brussels. The whimsical notion of a fully nationalised rail industry is lovely but will not be allowed as it goes against the Monopoly legislation as defined by Brussels. Corbyn and McDonnell have adopted the advice from Nicol and with respect I think he is far more of an expert in this area than you.

Socialist state ownership means ownership of the whole industry. That’s why for your information all socialists oppose the Brussels parliament - along with its policy on immigration. Again it’s funny you post about the right and immigration. The real left are far more opposed to uncontrolled immigration through the Eu than the right. Read the SWP and Communist manifestos

Grendel · Jan 19, 2019

Mucca Mad Boys said:
You’ve misrepresented my fundamental point of Parliament having the power to nationalise an industry or company. It’s not a party political point at all. Does the UK Parliament have the power to enact these policies? Yes. Does the EU possess a mechanism to block an Act of Parliament? No.

So can the government introduce the death penalty without EU consent - yes or no?

Sky Blue Pete · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
Thanks all the old dear is recovering.

I would be happy to pay more tax although I think I pay enough already..... as long as it goes where it is needed and not in the pockets of the rich.

YouGov? Last week it was good to quote. Yesterday it was biased. But already it is good to quote again. YouGov is either biased or it isn't. Which one is it?

Wrong

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 19, 2019

Grendel said:
So can the government introduce the death penalty without EU consent - yes or no?

I’ve answered that. Yes, Parliament could pass an Act of Parliament tomorrow if there was a majority.

The EU couldn’t stop Hungary from passing legislation that breached it’s charter of human rights.

It’s opened ‘legal proceedings’, but to answer your question... the UK doesn’t need EU consent to pass legislation.

Astute · Jan 19, 2019

clint van damme said:
What you'd basically be saying if you jailed someone is we won't execute you because there's a doubt.
Lawyers would have a field day, it's unworkable. You either allow judges to hand out the death penalty based on a guilty verdict or you don't.

You can't release a dead person and compensate them.

And you can't let everyone off just for the occasional person who fabricates evidence.

Astute · Jan 19, 2019

Sky Blue Pete said:
Wrong

What is wrong?

YouGov had remain much higher than any other poll. It was celebrated on here.

YouGov had the Tories with a much higher lead than anyone else. Those same people said it was a biased poll.

Now you have quoted a YouGov poll.

Can't think of anything wrong with this at all.

Sky Blue Pete · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
What is wrong?

YouGov had remain much higher than any other poll. It was celebrated on here.

YouGov had the Tories with a much higher lead than anyone else. Those same people said it was a biased poll.

Now you have quoted a YouGov poll.

Can't think of anything wrong with this at all.

Sorry you gov are normally wrong that’s all

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 19, 2019

Grendel said:
Fucking hell its like teaching a child how to piss in a potty.

You’ve at least gone from nationalised to dominated and I suppose that’s a start. You are starting the backtrack.

The reason an act of Parliament hasn’t been rejected is because the government of whatever persuasion knows it would be suicide for EU integration if it passed an act that contravened legislation from the EU. A perfect example actually is the 2008 banking crises. Even left leaning articles acknowledge the government had to change its proposals at least 7 times with the Eu before finally allowing the act to go forward. It could therefore have passed 7 acts of Parliament and all would have been rejected by Brussels

The death penalty point was purely to illustrate that you can pass an act in parliament but hhs act of allowing the legislation to become law does not exist in Westminster but Brussels. The whimsical notion of a fully nationalised rail industry is lovely but will not be allowed as it goes against the Monopoly legislation as defined by Brussels. Corbyn and McDonnell have adopted the advice from Nicol and with respect I think he is far more of an expert in this area than you.

Socialist state ownership means ownership of the whole industry. That’s why for your information all socialists oppose the Brussels parliament - along with its policy on immigration. Again it’s funny you post about the right and immigration. The real left are far more opposed to uncontrolled immigration through the Eu than the right. Read the SWP and Communist manifestos

The German railway system is publicly owned, and would constitute a monopoly by EU law. The EU aren’t going to turn around to Germany and demand they break up their publicly owned industry. The same applies to France. Britain still owns most of the railway system, the infrastructure belongs to the state and the the services are contracted out. In practice, if the Government chose to simply let those contracts expire, the services would be in public hands too.

Anand Menon (a professor of European Politics at KCL) rejects the claim of Nicol, citing the example of French and German railway systems. There could well be a legal framework within the EU that technically would nationalisation ‘illegal’, but politically, there’s no framework to enforce it. Can the EU stop the UK pursuing a programme re-nationalising certain industries? To go full circle again, no it cannot.

Just look at the example of Hungary with their legislation that makes helping assylum seekers illegal (numerous HR breaches). I don’t think the EU would stand up to the UK over re-nationalising the railways, for example.

clint van damme · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
You can't release a dead person and compensate them.

And you can't let everyone off just for the occasional person who fabricates evidence.

And that's why guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt and sentences handed out accordingly.
You can't have sentences based on varying levels of confidence in the conviction, which is what you are proposing.

Grendel · Jan 19, 2019

Mucca Mad Boys said:
I’ve answered that. Yes, Parliament could pass an Act of Parliament tomorrow if there was a majority.

The EU couldn’t stop Hungary from passing legislation that breached it’s charter of human rights.

It’s opened ‘legal proceedings’, but to answer your question... the UK doesn’t need EU consent to pass legislation.

I didn’t say legislation -.i said make it law.

Mart can we have the death penalty in the uk?

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 19, 2019

Grendel said:
I didn’t say legislation -.i said make it law.

Mart can we have the death penalty in the uk?

You do know that in the UK, the legislation Parliament passes becomes law?

Given your high-handedness and condescension, that would be hilarious!

Astute · Jan 19, 2019

Sky Blue Pete said:
Sorry you gov are normally wrong that’s all

Which is what I say. I don't like the way they use weighting. But some try to hammer me for saying so.

Astute · Jan 19, 2019

clint van damme said:
And that's why guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt and sentences handed out accordingly.
You can't have sentences based on varying levels of confidence in the conviction, which is what you are proposing.

Some people are sentenced because of unreasonable doubt. Others are sentenced when everyone knows 100% it was them. For instance someone caught in the act.

Some people should never get released. But there are always those who support and give them a voice until released. And some then get released when it is known they are still a danger. It is one time that human rights are used wrongly.

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
You can't release a dead person and compensate them.

And you can't let everyone off just for the occasional person who fabricates evidence.

Are you saying that the relations of a wrongly convicted executed person have no rights to compensation?

Or that people get let off by not being executed and instead being sentenced to long terms? And you would be ok with the occasional innocent being hung to make sure guilty people couldn’t get away with fabricating evidence? Nice person.

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
Some people are sentenced because of unreasonable doubt. Others are sentenced when everyone knows 100% it was them. For instance someone caught in the act.

Some people should never get released. But there are always those who support and give them a voice until released. And some then get released when it is known they are still a danger. It is one time that human rights are used wrongly.

People are assessed as whether they are a danger. Occasionally mistakes are made, but there are less murders without capital punishment than with.

Astute · Jan 19, 2019

martcov said:
Are you saying that the relations of a wrongly convicted executed person have no rights to compensation?

Or that people get let off by not being executed and instead being sentenced to long terms? And you would be ok with the occasional innocent being hung to make sure guilty people couldn’t get away with fabricating evidence? Nice person.

No my shadow. They can't be brought back to life. But you know this. You are just on a mission to try and argue the toss about everything I say.

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Grendel said:
I didn’t say legislation -.i said make it law.

Mart can we have the death penalty in the uk?

As soon as we leave the EU. I know it has been a constraint for some on here, but Brexit will make it easier to pass laws to kill convicted prisoners. Gibbet Hill could be put back in use. Astute could watch the wronguns being hanged and then left for the ravens hanging dead in a cage. Ravens eat the eyes first apparently. I prefer the EU requirement not to have the death penalty myself.

martcov · Jan 19, 2019

Astute said:
No my shadow. They can't be brought back to life. But you know this. You are just on a mission to try and argue the toss about everything I say.

No. You just say things that are not true. Which I pull you up on.

The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (192 Viewers)

As of right now, how are thinking of voting? In or out

Remain

Leave

Undecided

Not registered or not intention to vote

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency