Politics, politics, politics

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

PFI (I.e. public services and projects run by private companies) provide better value for money than state run equivalents right kids?....WRONG!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42724939

 

[scaramanga]

Which is somewhat irrelevant to my point, which was about the context of voting leave.

But your arguments are more pro free market and (small C) conservatism then Brexit per se. It just so happens there is much alignment.
But even you draw a decent level of distance between (big C) Conservatism and the current Tory govt and delivery of Brexit.

Absolutely, they're a shower of brick.

Unfortunately the referendum is one of those once in a generation events - we won't get another chance and just have to hope this lot muddle through.

 

[scaramanga]

PFI (I.e. public services and projects run by private companies) provide better value for money than state run equivalents right kids?....WRONG!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42724939

That's not what the article says.

The only criticism that's been quantified is the cost of finance in PFIs. That's obviously a bad idea and one I've been critical of since The One-Eyed Pension Thief used them extensively to keep his profligate spending and associated debt off of the government's balance sheet.

The alternative to PFIs isn't necessarily public provision, private provision of contracts can occur without the need to pay above market rate finance costs. The problem with that is that it will show a huge leap in borrowing, meaning that the great unwashed will get a true sense of just how much governments spend.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Regardless of how likely France or Netherlands have an apatite to leave now can you see it would make a nationalist/ anti eu party easier to elect in these count if they point to the cake and eat it that was granted to the UK?

I do not think its self preservation but that what they lose by being in the bloc is more than made up by what they get out of it.

Not arguing that they are correct just this is mindset they are going into negotiations, that they will accept short term pain for a longer term stability. Up until now they have kept quite in line with their statements of intent

And this is my point. Why would they leave?

We are pretty unique, I think, in having the size of economy to actually have a punt at going alone. I dont see how that works for Poland, as your example.

I do appreciate that it could give rise to more nationalist parties, but when your entire economy is based on being in the EU, on the movement of people and funds, on what they take out of the pot, where is the argument to leave?

What makes you think Poland is a net loss? Do you mean who pays in and who gets out grants? That's only a very small part of the equation

If that's all that is considered why let them in the first place, why not kick out all negative contributors. The EU is a lot more than redistribution of cash by contributions.

The EU is an ideology. For me, thats the problem. Id be quite happy it was a straight trading bloc without the 4 freedoms and ever closer union and all that.

I do understand it is more than just contributions. My point is, if you are one of those negative contributors, unlike the UK, where is your incentive to leave?

 

[SpurMeUp]

And this is my point. Why would they leave?

We are pretty unique, I think, in having the size of economy to actually have a punt at going alone. I dont see how that works for Poland, as your example.

I do appreciate that it could give rise to more nationalist parties, but when your entire economy is based on being in the EU, on the movement of people and funds, on what they take out of the pot, where is the argument to leave?




The EU is an ideology. For me, thats the problem. Id be quite happy it was a straight trading bloc without the 4 freedoms and ever closer union and all that.

I do understand it is more than just contributions. My point is, if you are one of those negative contributors, unlike the UK, where is your incentive to leave?

I think the point is, the EU can’t give the UK better terms than members have. I’m sure you’ll agree, that’s not something they can do as it would make a mockery of membership.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[r-u-s-x]

And this is my point. Why would they leave?

because if you leave you can get all the benefits and none of the costs like the UK.

My point is, if you are one of those negative contributors, unlike the UK, where is your incentive to leave?

Because you see you can get the benefits and none of the controls.

No one is completely happy with the EU but their respective grievances are offset by the benefits they get out of it. If they saw a non member get those benefits without their costs they will be inclined to follow.

Same as any club if you allow someone outside the club to enjoy the benefits without the costs it wont be long before all members look for the same.

 

[Baleforce]

It's not a simple case of financials, Poland might not be a financial net contributor but having a large skilled and movable work force has benefitted the whole bloc, for example, what would the financial impact on UK development projects have been had this workforce not been available?

Losing FoM will really hurt us for the foreseeable future.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Losing FoM will really hurt us for the foreseeable future.

It's something we've lived without for hundreds of years before 2004. Social dumping benefits big corporations, not the native or originating societies.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I think the point is, the EU can’t give the UK better terms than members have. I’m sure you’ll agree, that’s not something they can do as it would make a mockery of membership.

because if you leave you can get all the benefits and none of the costs like the UK.

Because you see you can get the benefits and none of the controls.

No one is completely happy with the EU but their respective grievances are offset by the benefits they get out of it. If they saw a non member get those benefits without their costs they will be inclined to follow.

Same as any club if you allow someone outside the club to enjoy the benefits without the costs it wont be long before all members look for the same.

And what benefits are they? One mans treasure is another mans trash, dont forget.

We want to trade. In order to do so we will no doubt still be bound by EU standards etc. It may even end up with us contributing anyway.

However, we dont want the freedom of movement (as a big part of why we are leaving) and so want to opt out of that.

Would Poland? I doubt that very much, given they are making huge gains from exactly that FoM.

It's not a simple case of financials, Poland might not be a financial net contributor but having a large skilled and movable work force has benefitted the whole bloc, for example, what would the financial impact on UK development projects have been had this workforce not been available?

Losing FoM will really hurt us for the foreseeable future.

I am in no way talking down Poland, to be clear. Just pointing to the differences between us and why the whole "If we leave everyone will leave" argument really isnt that simple to my mind.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't agree it's punishment or threats, they will not allow the benefits of being on the EU.

a lazy analogy would be a golf club, everyone pays fees so you can keep the upkeep, mow the lawns etc. If one member is allowed to use the course without paying fees they get the benefits of the course and it goes as normal, if everyone suddenly decides to join course goes to ruin them everyone is worse off.

It's a benefit if you are the only one not paying in, if no one is paying in every one is worse off.. Human nature to want to be the one cheating so have to stop anyone cheating.

To extend your analogy;

Us leaving the club means that the rest of the members don't provide enough in fees to pay the greenkeeper. So now they'll have an inferior course to play on. All the rich members of the village with handicaps are already members, so any new members will not only be joining with reduced fees, they'll also be hacking up the fairways and leaving pitch marks on the green.

The leaving member also happened to run the local security firm and did the club security for free. So now they will have to find the means to pay for a professional security firm or accept yobs tearing it up around the place on mopeds overnight.

The other three members of the 4 ball, Günter, Pierre and Daan are now having to buy all the drinks in the clubhouse and they're not happy about the cost as all the new members want free drinks too.

 

[Baleforce]

It's something we've lived without for hundreds of years before 2004. Social dumping benefits big corporations, not the native or originating societies.

hmm, depends on what time scale you use to measure native/originating

 

[scaramanga]

All of which I believe we would have a veto on. So as long as we don't want It, it doesn't happen. So no, not lies. Leave on the other hand basically made brick up constantly... and when remain brought up the reality of the situation they called it project fear.

https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630

See Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty, etc.

 

[r-u-s-x]

And what benefits are they? One mans treasure is another mans trash, dont forget.

We want to trade. In order to do so we will no doubt still be bound by EU standards etc. It may even end up with us contributing anyway.

However, we dont want the freedom of movement (as a big part of why we are leaving) and so want to opt out of that.

Would Poland? I doubt that very much, given they are making huge gains from exactly that FoM.


I am in no way talking down Poland, to be clear. Just pointing to the differences between us and why the whole "If we leave everyone will leave" argument really isnt that simple to my mind.

Other countries will not necessarily want the same deal we get but they will see that we can get all we want and remain outside. Poland want FOM but no responsibility to refugees and controls on their freedoms etc.

We can go into the details of what every country would want if they could but not sure if my views on that bring anything to the table? What I will say is the EU negotiators have said you cant be better off outside the Bloc than in it and this is the way they have appeared to approach the talks. So far we have rallied against their position only to back down when we realized they were not shifting and I cant see what is different that will change the pattern.

 

[r-u-s-x]

https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630

See Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty, etc.

Can that plan be Vetoed? serious question the commission cant push it on their own can they?

Regarding Lisbon that was the Irish government pushing for a revote was it not - anything the EU could have done to force them?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Other countries will not necessarily want the same deal we get but they will see that we can get all we want and remain outside. Poland want FOM but no responsibility to refugees and controls on their freedoms etc.

We can go into the details of what every country would want if they could but not sure if my views on that bring anything to the table? What I will say is the EU negotiators have said you cant be better off outside the Bloc than in it and this is the way they have appeared to approach the talks. So far we have rallied against their position only to back down when we realized they were not shifting and I cant see what is different that will change the pattern.

But this is the point Im making, what is "better off outside the bloc?".

What is better for us is clearly not better for Poland, IMO.

So what exactly is the situation?

We, and actual Island, want to control our borders. Want to pull out of "ever closer union" (and any benefits that might include) and simply trade with the bloc.

I think we are in a pretty unique situation, in that we are a major contributor, in that we are an Island, we have our own currency, and in that we have the potential to capitalise on leaving. Im not sure I see many (any?) that applies too.

So apart from "The UK got what they wanted" what is the supposed "better off"? Its relative, isnt it? Would Spain benefit from the same thing as us? I think not. The Eastern countries? I dont think so.

What is this "better off"? Other than "its what we wanted".

"Better off" for other nations could be exactly what they have now, or even more ever closer union, why does it follow that what we want would even be desirable for other nations?

 

[r-u-s-x]

To extend your analogy;

Us leaving the club means that the rest of the members don't provide enough in fees to pay the greenkeeper. So now they'll have an inferior course to play on. All the rich members of the village with handicaps are already members, so any new members will not only be joining with reduced fees, they'll also be hacking up the fairways and leaving pitch marks on the green.

The leaving member also happened to run the local security firm and did the club security for free. So now they will have to find the means to pay for a professional security firm or accept yobs tearing it up around the place on mopeds overnight.

The other three members of the 4 ball, Günter, Pierre and Daan are now having to buy all the drinks in the clubhouse and they're not happy about the cost as all the new members want free drinks too.

Maybe - I know this is a view but just don't see it myself. Up until now the EU negotiators have got largely what they set out to get, my view s this is because they are fairly inflexible as they are negotiating largely on their principles and are in a strong enough position to insist (you may disagree with their principles but they have been transparent on what they are). I see nothing to indicate this will change in round 2.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630

See Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty, etc.

Red flag! Holy fudge...

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Maybe - I know this is a view but just don't see it myself. Up until now the EU negotiators have got largely what they set out to get, my view s this is because they are fairly inflexible as they are negotiating largely on their principles and are in a strong enough position to insist (you may disagree with their principles but they have been transparent on what they are). I see nothing to indicate this will change in round 2.

It certainly looks that way, but I think the next round will tell where things really are.

Round 1 was the divorce bill. What they get on us leaving. We werent interested in this, we are interested in the ongoing relationship. Given the time constraints this was all the leverage they needed.

Round 2 being that ongoing relationship, well, for me, this is where we will get real perspective on either sides intentions.

 

[scaramanga]

Maybe - I know this is a view but just don't see it myself. Up until now the EU negotiators have got largely what they set out to get, my view s this is because they are fairly inflexible as they are negotiating largely on their principles and are in a strong enough position to insist (you may disagree with their principles but they have been transparent on what they are). I see nothing to indicate this will change in round 2.

My view is that it's entirely down to poor negotiation.

We should have walked the moment they insisted on getting everything out of us before they would start discussing what they were going to offer us. It was clearly not a negotiation from the outset and we should have refused to be a part of their grandstanding.

 

[r-u-s-x]

But this is the point Im making, what is "better off outside the bloc?".

What is better for us is clearly not better for Poland, IMO.

So what exactly is the situation?

We, and actual Island, want to control our borders. Want to pull out of "ever closer union" (and any benefits that might include) and simply trade with the bloc.

I think we are in a pretty unique situation, in that we are a major contributor, in that we are an Island, we have our own currency, and in that we have the potential to capitalise on leaving. Im not sure I see many (any?) that applies too.

So apart from "The UK got what they wanted" what is the supposed "better off"? Its relative, isnt it? Would Spain benefit from the same thing as us? I think not. The Eastern countries? I dont think so.

What is this "better off"? Other than "its what we wanted".

"Better off" for other nations could be exactly what they have now, or even more ever closer union, why does it follow that what we want would even be desirable for other nations?

Are you talking about now or the future? The EU are able to think longer term.

If I am a nationalist party I would point to the UK deal and use that to promise we could get what we want outside of the EU. Right now it is unlikely anyone would want a UK deal but if the UK is given preferential treatment it is more likely in the future that others will point to this and the EU would be less stable.

I am not saying that any country wants the deal that the UK would get, but every country wants a special exception and if one can get it why not all- because this would lead to the breakup of the EU.