• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Gutter Boy said:
A customs union is a protectionist block. It means all members agree to say put a 15% tariff on all external goods, to encourage customers to buy from only within.

So anything other than a FTA with the EU will make us subject to things like that. Which means we won't be free to make more favourable deals across Asia and North America.

I've used this example before, but it why lamb has got so expensive in this country over the past 20 years compared to other meats. It's because the world's big lamb producers (China, Australia, New Zealand, India, Iran and Sudan) are all outside the EU, so it's subject to the EU's external customs tariff .
Click to expand...

Our external tariff position would be no different to it is now. We would also continue to benefit from FTAs agreed by the EU.

Your lamb example bears closer scrutiny. There is a significant danger to UK agriculture and rural communities from tariffs that are too low or quotas that are incorrectly calculated and good luck trying to get the DUP agreeing to it.

It would take decades to negotiate FTAs with the countries that you mention. In the meantime they could frustrate our renewed membership of the WTO by lodging disputes in the knowledge that we will not have the capacity to deal with them.

You also seem to be ignoring the realities of where we find ourselves after the election. The government does not have the numbers to push through its previous (thinly detailed) plan through parliament. The DUP are going to insist on a frictionless boarder with Republic and the Scottish Conservatives are pushing to stay in the EEA. Added to this, there is a growing body of thought that the Salisbury Convention does not apply to hung parliaments.

There is also a very real possibility that we will have another general election this year resulting in a change of government. Do we really want to find ourselves in the position in January where a new government is forced to scrap six months of negotiations and start from scratch. It would leave them at most nine months to complete what most people think should take five years and put the country in real danger.

The only sensible approach right now is to seek cross party support for the terms of departure and our future relationship with the EU. If there is demand to go further in the future, that could be dealt with then but pragmatism needs to win out now.
 
Last edited:
milo said:
Our external tariff position would be no different to it is now. We would also continue to benefit from FTAs agreed by the EU.
Click to expand...
For me, the whole point of Brexit is being able to drop tariff barriers with the world. Escaping that protectionist bubble is something I'm very much looking forward too.

milo said:
Your lamb example bears closer scrutiny. There is a significant danger to UK agriculture and rural communities from tariffs that are too low or quotas that are incorrectly calculated and good luck trying to get the DUP agreeing to it.
Click to expand...
There shouldn't be may quotas or tariffs. If our products are over priced them we'll have to compete just like everyone else.

milo said:
It would take decades to negotiate FTAs with the countries that you mention. In the meantime they could frustrate our renewed membership of the WTO by lodging disputes in the knowledge that we will not have the capacity to deal with them.
Click to expand...
You're thinking too much like the EU.

Trade agreements don't need to be bureaucratic nonsense like they are with the EU, they just have to be 0 tariff, 0 quota. That can be agreed in seconds.

milo said:
You also seem to be ignoring the realities of where we find ourselves after the election. The government does not have the numbers to push through its previous (thinly detailed) plan through parliament. The DUP are going to insist on a frictionless boarder with Republic and the Scottish Conservatives are pushing to stay in the EEA. Added to this, there is a growing body of thought that the Salisbury Convention does not apply to hung parliaments.

There is also a very real possibility that we will have another general election this year resulting in a change of government. Do we really want to find ourselves in the position in January where a new government is forced to scrap six months of negotiations and start from scratch. It would leave them at most nine months to complete what most people think should take five years and put the country in real danger.

The only sensible approach right now is to seek cross party support for the terms of departure and our future relationship with the EU. If there is demand to go further in the future, that could be dealt with then but pragmatism needs to win out now.
Click to expand...
How do we set that out without showing our hands to the EU?

The one thing you can guarantee will happen if we set out terms before the negotiations is that we end up giving everything the EU wants.
 
scaramanga said:
For me, the whole point of Brexit is being able to drop tariff barriers with the world. Escaping that protectionist bubble is something I'm very much looking forward too.

There shouldn't be may quotas or tariffs. If our products are over priced them we'll have to compete just like everyone else.

You're thinking too much like the EU.

Trade agreements don't need to be bureaucratic nonsense like they are with the EU, they just have to be 0 tariff, 0 quota. That can be agreed in seconds.

How do we set that out without showing our hands to the EU?

The one thing you can guarantee will happen if we set out terms before the negotiations is that we end up giving everything the EU wants.
Click to expand...

Fine in theory but no government could see through a policy that would destroy British industry and agriculture.

A zero tariff deal would be quick to negotiate because you are getting nothing in return and have given everything up for it.

We will have to reveal our main objectives at the beginning of negotiations because they will dictate how they will proceed. The EU have been briefing us on the EU27's position for months to help us prepare. The best way to approach this is transparently. It will be impossible to keep secrets anyway.
 
milo said:
Our external tariff position would be no different to it is now. We would also continue to benefit from FTAs agreed by the EU.

Your lamb example bears closer scrutiny. There is a significant danger to UK agriculture and rural communities from tariffs that are too low or quotas that are incorrectly calculated and good luck trying to get the DUP agreeing to it.

It would take decades to negotiate FTAs with the countries that you mention. In the meantime they could frustrate our renewed membership of the WTO by lodging disputes in the knowledge that we will not have the capacity to deal with them.

You also seem to be ignoring the realities of where we find ourselves after the election. The government does not have the numbers to push through its previous (thinly detailed) plan through parliament. The DUP are going to insist on a frictionless boarder with Republic and the Scottish Conservatives are pushing to stay in the EEA. Added to this, there is a growing body of thought that the Salisbury Convention does not apply to hung parliaments.

There is also a very real possibility that we will have another general election this year resulting in a change of government. Do we really want to find ourselves in the position in January where a new government is forced to scrap six months of negotiations and start from scratch. It would leave them at most nine months to complete what most people think should take five years and put the country in real danger.

The only sensible approach right now is to seek cross party support for the terms of departure and our future relationship with the EU. If there is demand to go further in the future, that could be dealt with then but pragmatism needs to win out now.
Click to expand...

We could set our customs tariff at whatever we want it to be. At the moment it's high because the EU is protectionist. But we would have the freedom to lower it to stimulate RoW trade, or rise it to protect our domestic producers - it's the flexibility to be dynamic.

There does seem cross party (Con-Lab) support for the white paper proposals. The only thing Labour wanted different were unilateral EU status (that will be sorted bilaterally soon anyway) and protection for workers' rights (carrying across EU standards into EU law, rather than becoming Singapore; which I think the Tories are fine with, but want to retain the threat of the alternative).

Soft Brexit would be disastrous because 100% of voters would be unhappy. There'd be no return of sovereignty or end of FoM for the leavers, and the EU would dictate rules to us, which would go in a much more German corporatism or French statism direction without the UK's economic liberalism counterbalance. I.e. losing our influence to direct it would make it increasingly unattractive for British interests. It's the worst of both worlds.

The FTA route would get the 52% on board straight away, and the improving economic position as we re-engage the world would slowly win round the rest.

I don't think parliament will be too much of a problem. The Tories will whip their c.25 soft Brexiteers (apart from Clarke) reminding them that the alternative is an election, while the Labour leadership will be deliberately ineffective again so they can appease both their ex-UKIPs and students, while also getting what they ideologically want (an end to big business undercutting British workers through FoM).
 
Last edited:
the dza said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/874225962287857664

Not sure the DUP will be keen on changes that see them lose seats and Sinn Fein gain them.
Click to expand...

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill went through parliament about 6 years ago. This is just the independent Boundaries Commission implementing it. It's always been scheduled to come in in 2018 (following 2016's draft proposals), for the next election after that.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill went through parliament about 6 years ago. This is just the independent Boundaries Commission implementing it. It's always been scheduled to come in in 2018 (following 2016's draft proposals), for the next election after that.
Click to expand...

So nothing can be undone then. Good to know, why even bother having a Parliament? No bills can be scrapped or altered, no legislation changed or passed.
 
the dza said:
So nothing can be undone then. Good to know, why even bother having a Parliament? No bills can be scrapped or altered, no legislation changed or passed.
Click to expand...

The law requires the size and shape of parliamentary boundaries to be periodically reviewed to keep up with demographic changes influencing the number of eligible electors in each area.

Basically this happens every 10 years/2 elections or so. It's independent/neutral. This one is a bit more significant as it is cutting the number of MPs from 650 to 600, in response to both the expenses scandal (an efficiency saving) and the transfer of powers to the devolved parliaments.

But it just happens that this one works out as ending a previous Labour bias.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The law requires the size and shape of parliamentary boundaries to be periodically reviewed to keep with up demographic changes influencing the number of eligible electors in each area.

Basically this happens every 10 years/2 elections or so. It's independent/neutral. This one is a bit more significant as it is cutting the number of MPs from 650 to 600, in response to both the expenses scandal (an efficiency saving) and the transfer of powers to the devolved parliaments.

But it just happens that this one works out as ending a previous Labour bias.
Click to expand...

So Parliament can't try to change a law? Or can't ask for a review given that the changes will have been made on out of date data re. registered voters? As it happens, it doesn't paint a particularly bad picture for Labour but the DUP look much worse off -- so I'm wondering if that will come up in the discussions with the Tories...
 
the dza said:
So Parliament can't try to change a law? Or can't ask for a review given that the changes will have been made on out of date data re. registered voters? As it happens, it doesn't paint a particularly bad picture for Labour but the DUP look much worse off -- so I'm wondering if that will come up in the discussions with the Tories...
Click to expand...

It's very important parliament can't change it. That would be anti-democratic if parties could interfere with the work of neutral bastions of the constitution like the electoral or boundaries commission. It the very definition of gerrymandering.

It would give the Tories a working majority of 2 (Sinn Fein not sitting would mean 296 is the majority line).
 
Gutter Boy said:
It's very important parliament can't change it. That would be anti-democratic if parties could interfere with the work of neutral bastions of the constitution like the electoral or boundaries commission. It the very definition of gerrymandering.

It would give the Tories a working majority of 2 (Sinn Fein not sitting would mean 296 is the majority line).
Click to expand...
Can't change it in law or should change it? Not advocating not changing but what's stopping a majority in Parliament passing a new act regarding the changes.
 
the dza said:
So Parliament can't try to change a law? Or can't ask for a review given that the changes will have been made on out of date data re. registered voters? As it happens, it doesn't paint a particularly bad picture for Labour but the DUP look much worse off -- so I'm wondering if that will come up in the discussions with the Tories...
Click to expand...

The EU wont let us change the law.

To be serious once Labour win an election again they will try to find a way to change it to suit them.

Bit like saying they were against the house of Lords but then promoting record amounts of Lords, if they can try and turn an advantage they will.
 
r-u-s-x01 said:
Can't change it in law or should change it? Not advocating not changing but what's stopping a majority in Parliament passing a new act regarding the changes.
Click to expand...

The House of Lords and the Monarchy are the safeguards against such moves towards dictatorship.

The HoL can delay anything for a year, while the Queen can dissolve parliament and call new elections.
 
the dza said:
We can't have state owned railways, unless they are owned by other states! Silly people. Same goes for energy companies etc.

Free university tuition is something other countries can do, but we can't have that here. Corporation tax in Germany is 30%, that madman Corbyn wants to jack ours up to 26%, the phucking loon. They also have free university tuition, but that's besides the point, we just can't do it here.

Mrs May needs to get on with the job, with the support and sound judgement of the DUP. David Davis says a leadership contest would be "the height of self-indulgence." Well, spot on Dave. I mean who would put the country through some kind of election turmoil just weeks before Brexit negotiations would start? I'm glad we have Mrs. May there so that nothing like that can happen.

As for people earning £80k being classed as rich, LOL. Poor phuckers on this pittance can barely afford to rent a room above a chip-shop, you can't expect their taxes to go up by a couple of percent, they'll end up on the street! Hopefully, Mrs. May will have the strength and stability to make sure we give the disabled less money, those bastards are rolling in it. I saw a bloke the other day who had rims on his wheelchair that kept on spinning when he came to a stop. If we can drive some of these flash bastards to suicide by cutting their benefits, the economy will certainly stay on a strong and stable footing, and we'll be able to ease the pain for business and the poor sods on upwards of £80k.

Get your priorities right, Britain!
Click to expand...


This is all part of the Tory free market, neo-liberal mantra, that resistance is futile, there is no alternative, you must drink the Kool Aid. They are all about the redistribution of wealth, from at the bottom to those at the top. The stats don't lie, look at the stagnant levels of real wage growth. Look a the wage to profit share ratios of GDP. And all you'll ever hear from Tories is that this is good for those who rely on the NHS, for those who are homeless, for those on zero hour contracts, those who attend state schools etc. This is the best of all possible worlds. Ha, ha.
 
r-u-s-x said:
I am pretty sold that the Tories underinvest in public services before pointing to the fact they are not working and being sold off - they are doing it now with Prisons, Schools and NHS.
Click to expand...

Classic Toryism. First you stack the board with like minded neo-liberals. Then you defund it. Then you allow the institution to self contract out services. Then you bemoan performance. Then you put the argument that it's not meeting community expectations, it's partially privatised already, pick some impressive number out of the sky and say it will cost tttthhhhiiiiisssss much to bring it up to scratch. Get your mates in industry to buy it out. Get a big fat job on the board of said industry buyer. Simples!
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Are you serious? Ha, ha. This gave me such a big laugh.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they exist? The whole point of the HoL and monarchy are to be checks against an overmighty government. Otherwise why not just have a single executive chamber exercising the 'will of the people'?

Example. May tomorrow says she's changing election rules and in future they can only happen every 20 years, rather than a maximum of every 5. Cons and DUP vote it through because it secures their position until 2037. What stops that from happening? Not the opposition in the HoC.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Why do you think they exist? The whole point of the HoL and monarchy are to be checks against an overmighty government. Otherwise why not just have a single executive chamber exercising the 'will of the people'?
Click to expand...

Exactly, why not? However, I fail to see how a bunch of geriatric members of the aristocracy, dull headed political hacks and other associated non entities add anything to the democratic process. Modern forward looking democracies are meritocracies and they do not have un elected time servers and reactionary aristocrats in their parliaments
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back