Politics, politics, politics

[the dza]

Just seeing Davis on the telly in the post-negotiation press conference -- Day 1, he looks phucked already.

 

[Gutter Boy]

So the final bill is a small thing now? I wonder why we're even quibbling about it.

We've always agreed to there being a bill. We just wanted it decided on sensible logic, rather than a random bung/ransom for the EU. If it's done on fair principle, the final sum isn't really important

As I said earlier - worse case scenario is we get the money back in 4 years from saved payments anyway.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

We've always agreed to there being a bill. We just wanted it decided on sensible logic, rather than a random bung/ransom for the EU. If it's done on fair principle, the final sum isn't really important

As I said earlier - worse case scenario is we get the money back in 4 years from saved payments anyway.

Phew. For a minute there I thought we might not have a plan.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

How so?

£350m is our weekly net contribution to the EU. It was never all going to be spent on the NHS (that was just a dumb example for dumb people), but we will have that additional money to spend on things. Some may be directed to subsidising agriculture and the more deprived regions, where we do actually get some EU money back. But we are the biggest net contributor to the EU after Germany, and we will get to keep the money that currently subsidises southern europe's siestas.

Freedom of movement will stop in March 2019 and we will get a replacement work permit system where we can control numbers and prioritise people based on skills and personal relations (spouses), rather than nationality.

The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the dictats from the European Commission will again stop in March 2019. Parliament will be sovereign again for the first time since the EU started pursuing federalism at Maastricht in 1992.

So I do still expect those three things to happen. They are fully complementary to a free trade agreement + research and security co-operation

Absolutely, for sure.

But that was how it was (mis-)sold, in big, naff-off letters on the side of a bus, and to some greater or lesser extent people bought it.

I'm just bewildered that that's an acceptable tactic in these enlightened times.

Yep, FOM will stop. But if the numbers were/ are such an issue (and I think that they are in some areas), then why hasn't non-EU immigration been curbed by successive govts over the years? Presumably the economy needed the work force?

Didn't the white paper say we always had sovereignty, it just didn't "always appear that way" (paraphrasing)?

 

[scaramanga]

Absolutely, for sure.

But that was how it was (mis-)sold, in big, naff-off letters on the side of a bus, and to some greater or lesser extent people bought it.

I'm just bewildered that that's an acceptable tactic in these enlightened times.

Is it any worse than "We're going to increase taxes and everyone's going to continue paying them"?

It's just as pie in the sky and anyone with half a brain should know it's a complete fantasy.

 

[the dza]

Is it any worse than "We're going to increase taxes and everyone's going to continue paying them"?

It's just as pie in the sky and anyone with half a brain should know it's a complete fantasy.

If nobody will pay modest tax increases then why all the bleating about it? If nobody will pay, then what does it matter? All the corporations will move to Germany if we put corporation tax at 26%, because in Germany it's 30%.

What we need to do is lower taxes to zero, let the market dictate wages (they could fall to say, 20p an hour with unlimited immigration), no benefits of any kind and privatise absolutely everything. Imagine the growth!

Scaranomics.

 

[parklane1]

Absolutely, for sure.

But that was how it was (mis-)sold, in big, naff-off letters on the side of a bus, and to some greater or lesser extent people bought it.

I'm just bewildered that that's an acceptable tactic in these enlightened times.

Yep, FOM will stop. But if the numbers were/ are such an issue (and I think that they are in some areas), then why hasn't non-EU immigration been curbed by successive govts over the years? Presumably the economy needed the work force?

Didn't the white paper say we always had sovereignty, it just didn't "always appear that way" (paraphrasing)?

Sorry mate but that is just not true of all those i know they all read it for what is was. Only those who were either blind, stupid or agenda driven saw it as actually meaning that ALL the money would go towards the NHS.

 

[the dza]

Sorry mate but that is just not truth, of all those i know read it for what is was. Only those who were either blind, stupid or agenda driven saw it as actually meaning that ALL the money would go towards the NHS.

The votes of the blind and stupid count just the same, so lies directed at them do matter.

 

[Baleforce]

Sorry mate but that is just not truth, of all those i know read it for what is was. Only those who were either blind, stupid or agenda driven saw it as actually meaning that ALL the money would go towards the NHS.

I know a few nurses who voted on that premise, their agenda was they wanted the NHS to have more money

plenty of people really do believe what they are told

 

[parklane1]

The votes of the blind and stupid count just the same, so lies directed at them do matter.

But it was not a lie, only those who used it as one are the ones who need to look at themselves.

 

[parklane1]

I know a few nurses who voted on that premise, their agenda was they wanted the NHS to have more money

plenty of people really do believe what they are told

But they were not being told that by the sign, only by those who were stupid enough to read it that way and with the agenda of trying to make folks believe its what it said. It never said ALL the money would go to the NHS.

But you second point i do agree with you on, there are plenty of stupid people about.

 

[the dza]

But it was not a lie, only those who used it as one are the ones who need to look at themselves.

Of course it was a lie! They didn't say "now, don't take this literally, but in theory we could get some extra money going into the NHS if we leave the EU, maybe..." They made a definitive statement and repeated it. Just because it was aimed at the gullible doesn't mean it wasn't a lie. It was a lie, the only people who need to look at themselves are people who wilfully manipulated the electorate with utter nonsense that they had no intention of delivering. You might not have been misled by it, but some other people were. I've seen them on the television, very angry about it -- not actors, not activists, just people who voted and based part of their decision on a lie.

 

[parklane1]

Of course it was a lie! They didn't say "now, don't take this literally, but in theory we could get some extra money going into the NHS if we leave the EU, maybe..." They made a definitive statement and repeated it. Just because it was aimed at the gullible doesn't mean it wasn't a lie. It was a lie, the only people who need to look at themselves are people who wilfully manipulated the electorate with utter nonsense that they had no intention of delivering. You might not have been misled by it, but some other people were. I've seen them on the television, very angry about it -- not actors, not activists, just people who voted and based part of their decision on a lie.

The sign said some of the 350 could be directed towards the NHS ( and it would), NOT all of the 350 mill would be given to the NHS. As i said i know lots of folks and they all read it the way i do.

Has i have said IF there were folks that actually thought that is what the message WAS saying then i despair at the lack of intelligence there really is in todays society.

All politicions lie and manipulate the electorate on that we can agree ( we can/should all accept that) but as i said they were those with agendas who tried to convince folks that ALL the 350 mill would go to the NHS.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The actual wording was "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund our NHS instead". So it suggested a link, but never said "We'll divert the £350m pw week we currently send the EU to the NHS budget"

 

[scaramanga]

If nobody will pay modest tax increases then why all the bleating about it? If nobody will pay, then what does it matter?

Because the drop in tax revenue will force an increase on those in the middle who cannot move their finances overseas (or force spending reductions but Comrade Corbyn clearly isn't going to do that).

All the corporations will move to Germany if we put corporation tax at 26%, because in Germany it's 30%.

I sincerely doubt they will move to an area with a higher rate of corporation tax. More likely that they'd move to Ireland or Switzerland. Or even better, just shift profits to a head office located anywhere they want it to be.

What we need to do is lower taxes to zero, let the market dictate wages (they could fall to say, 20p an hour with unlimited immigration), no benefits of any kind and privatise absolutely everything. Imagine the growth!

Scaranomics.

Corporation tax should be zero. Tax it at dividend or as capital gains.

Wages wouldn't fall to zero as you well know. Wages would fall (or increase) in line with supply and demand.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The sign said some of the 350 could be directed towards the NHS ( and it would), NOT all of the 350 mill would be given to the NHS. As i said i know lots of folks and they all read it the way i do.

Has i have said IF there were folks that actually thought that is what the message WAS saying then i despair at the lack of intelligence there really is in todays society.

All politicions lie and manipulate the electorate on that we can agree ( we can/should all accept that) but as i said they were those with agendas who tried to convince folks that ALL the 350 mill would go to the NHS.

It was far more slight than George Osborne's 'if you vote leave, civilisation will immediately crumble and the four horsemen of the apocalypse will ride in' spiel.

 

[parklane1]

It was far more slight than George Osborne's 'if you vote leave, civilisation will immediately crumble and the four horsemen of the apocalypse will ride in' spiel.

And you know the worse thing about that? 12 months on and they are still some who believe it.

 

[the dza]

The sign said some of the 350 could be directed towards the NHS ( and it would), NOT all of the 350 mill would be given to the NHS. As i said i know lots of folks and they all read it the way i do.

It's fairly clear what the sign said:

 

[parklane1]

The actual wording was "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund our NHS instead". So it suggested a link, but never said "We'll divert the £350m pw week we currently send the EU to the NHS budget"

Bingo, that is way most folks i know read it.

 

[parklane1]

It's fairly clear what the sign said:

.
Where does it say ALL 350 mill was going to be given to the NHS?. Come on mate i took you for being a lot better then believing it does.