Politics, politics, politics

[glorygloryeze]

Have you considered that Brxit is turing out to be shables, not because our politicians "don't do it well" but becuase it is an impossibility to deliver value to the UK from it? Camron knew it was a waste of time, May is competent, Brexit is the issue. Easy to blame politicins when the underlying issue is we get a lot from the EU. Now we want to leave and cherry pick the best bits. As predicted that is not so simple.

Who would you put in charge or vote for to deliver Brexit? Now this deluded 70 or so ERG group want to oust May, but they don't evn have a vision for what Brexit would look like. How can you have a 'research group' on Brexit who havn't published an idea for post Brexit Britian. I'm sorry but Brexit remains the biggest farce of our time.

I've outlined what i want in terms of what i want a few pages back (not being under ECJ jurisdiction etc). The fact that many of our current politicians are poor negotiators doesn't change that fact of what i want.
Brexit is the biggest political and economic change we will probably see in our lifetimes, of course it wont be easy (especially as the landscape many politicians have gotten used to is one is the one that they are now being tasked with removing/remoulding).

Who would i put in charge? Someone who is at least at heart a Brexiter; in fact, i actually think Corbyn and McDonnell would be better than May as things stand...i think she has played her hand poorly up to this point, because imo she is a remainer at heart and also tbf Brexit is the biggest political move that a politician would have had to navigate in decades. It would at least be best if it was someone who actually believed in it and then had the zeal to see it through.
Actually, Michael Gove probably would also have been better too imo

 

[glorygloryeze]

This is interesting:


Hungary's PM Viktor Orban has accused the EU of "insulting" his country, as its parliament began considering disciplinary action against Hungary.

MEPs are debating whether his right-wing government's policies on issues like migrants pose a threat to the EU.

It comes just months after the European Commission took the step of launching similar proceedings against Poland.

However, this is the first time parliament has tried to use the power, known as Article 7.

Dutch MEP Judith Sargentini, who wrote a report into Hungary and Mr Orban's Fidesz party, launched the debate.

She said her report "comprehensively lists" attacks on the media, minorities, and the rule of law, that represent "a clear breach of the values of our union".

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban arrived late to the proceedings before launching a blistering attack on the EU and Ms Sargentini's report.

He denounced it as an "abuse of power", and said it contained 37 "serious factual misrepresentations".

"You think you know better than Hungarians themselves", he said, and vowed that Hungary "will not accede to this blackmail".

Liberal MEP and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt attacked Mr Orban, saying he was not his country and that Hungary was "far more eternal than you are".

Mr Verhofstadt also said it would be "impossible today" for Hungary to join the EU "under these circumstances".

But the MEP and former leader of the right-wing, Eurosceptic party UKIP Nigel Farage said both Mr Orban and his country had been insulted.

"Come join the Brexit club, you'll love it," he said.

Eurosceptic Mr Orban was re-elected earlier this year after campaigning on an anti-immigration platform, with Fidesz winning two-thirds of parliamentary seats.

But while he has support at home, critics in the European Parliament say his policies are evidence he does not respect the values of the EU.

A committee of MEPs points to the Hungarian government's approach to migration - including a new law which criminalises lawyers and activists who help asylum seekers - as well as media, the courts and universities as proof.

However, in order for any sort of disciplinary proceedings to go ahead, it needs the backing of two-thirds of MEPs - and it is not clear which way the vote, due to take place on Wednesday, will fall.

If MEPs do decide to support the process, which could end up with Hungary being monitored by Brussels, it may be a very slow process.

The European Commission took the unprecedented step against Poland in December 2017, giving it three months to address concerns that its judicial reforms threatened the rule of law.

However, there is still very little sign that a conclusion is coming, BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming says.


RE Poland, linked in the article:
What is the EU saying?
After almost two years monitoring the situation in Poland, the European Commission - the EU executive - said this was a matter of "common concern" for the 28-member bloc.

At a meeting in Brussels, the Commission decided to launch disciplinary measures, called Article 7, and asked Warsaw to:

• Not apply lower retirement age to current judges
• Remove the discretionary power of the president to prolong the mandate of Supreme Court judges
• Remove the new retirement regime for judges including the discretionary powers of the Minister of Justice
• Restore the independence and legitimacy of the Constitutional Tribunal

The Commission's deputy head, First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, who had conducted talks with the Polish government led by the Law and Justice party (PiS), said there was "no other option" as the "entire structure was affected".



Now Im not saying Hungary (or Poland) is right or wrong, I dont know enough to form a proper opinion, but I find it really unsettling that the EU is trying to impose its will on their Judiciary in such a way, especially as in Hungarys case the party took two thirds of the seats. Thats a huge margin and clearly shows support from the Hungarian people for that leadership - a democratic process.

So these guys are elected, and then the EU doesnt like them so wants to control what they do?

Of course, I understand the EU has its values and ideals and everyone is supposed to subscribe, so its not obviously clear cut - but it still doesnt sit easy with me.

The minds at the heart of the EU have a dictatorial mindset and this is inevitably how they will operate as they push forward their plans; Did you see that they actually would hate Corbyn as PM, because of his "state intervention at times" views?
The Superstate will only be able to continue with a centralised command and control mechanism as it would have to (one-size-fits-all and all that) before eventually failing when citizens realise one-size-fits-all cannot work and they start rioting...honestly the UK is well out of all that imo

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I did not see that they would hate Corbyn, where was that?

 

[r-u-s-x]

The minds at the heart of the EU have a dictatorial mindset and this is inevitably how they will operate as they push forward their plans; Did you see that they actually would hate Corbyn as PM, because of his "state intervention at times" views?
The Superstate will only be able to continue with a centralised command and control mechanism as it would have to (one-size-fits-all and all that) before eventually failing when citizens realise one-size-fits-all cannot work and they start rioting...honestly the UK is well out of all that imo

you want in the EU you have to agree to some principles specifically in this case ECHR & CFR - this is a headline item not hid in the small print. You don't want to abide by them, get enough members to make a change or leave, there is no option to break them and carry on as normal.

 

[glorygloryeze]

I did not see that they would hate Corbyn, where was that?

It's behind a paywall/login, but the Times reported it earlier in May: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fear-of-corbyn-prompts-tough-eu-line-on-brexit-lrcmwgvlx

Fear of Jeremy Corbyn-led government prompts tough EU line on Brexit
Brussels vows to protect single market from Labour’s left‑wing policies


Britain faces restrictions on post-Brexit trade and draconian measures to enforce free-market policies because the European Union fears a future Jeremy Corbyn government.

Senior European officials have told The Times that concerns over Labour’s economic policies are the main reason for the EU’s insistence on a tough “level playing field mechanism” in a future deal after Britain leaves.

 

[glorygloryeze]

you want in the EU you have to agree to some principles specifically in this case ECHR & CFR - this is a headline item not hid in the small print. You don't want to abide by them, get enough members to make a change or leave, there is no option to break them and carry on as normal.

Yep...hence i'm happy we are leaving. The EU on principle should have no say on how a country manages its judiciary systems. Being part of a trading union should just be about those rules and standards of trade. Of course it's much more than that now and ventures into Union "values" like the budding Superstate it has become

 

[SpurMeUp]

I've outlined what i want in terms of what i want a few pages back (not being under ECJ jurisdiction etc). The fact that many of our current politicians are poor negotiators doesn't change that fact of what i want.
Brexit is the biggest political and economic change we will probably see in our lifetimes, of course it wont be easy (especially as the landscape many politicians have gotten used to is one is the one that they are now being tasked with removing/remoulding).

Who would i put in charge? Someone who is at least at heart a Brexiter; in fact, i actually think Corbyn and McDonnell would be better than May as things stand...i think she has played her hand poorly up to this point, because imo she is a remainer at heart and also tbf Brexit is the biggest political move that a politician would have had to navigate in decades. It would at least be best if it was someone who actually believed in it and then had the zeal to see it through.
Actually, Michael Gove probably would also have been better too imo

We had David Davies. An enthusiastic Brexiteer, how did he do?

Trouble is, the true Brexiteers are, I'm sorry, deluded. Many have a vision of colonial Britain which is long gone. There is no going back. We don't have a colony anymore. If you look at pre-EU Britain we were skint - 70s Britain with the 4 day week etc.

You have to face up to the fact that the UK can't get the best bits from the EU, AND do as it wishes with laws and trade. It is one OR the other. It's an impossibility because the EU wouldn't accept a non-member getting a better deal than its members. Which means, by default, anyone with your list of brexit requirements is forced into a Hard Brexit position. Greese Smog, Boris, Farrage are all Hard Brexiteers - not by choice - but by default. Farrage was suggesting the Norway option pre-vote. Until it became clear we'd be in a worse position than we are now.

So, lets look at what a Hard Brexit really means. First and foremost impaired trade with our neighbours pushing up costs and hampering trade. We would need a new Customs department in government and to build an infrastructure at our ports. We'd need a new Trade department too. And a massive re-writing of our laws that would take 20 odd years. We would lose any manufacturing that relied on exports to the EU where tariff are an issue. Cars would see a 10% tariff on WTO terms (more than the profit margin on most cars) and sourcing parts maybe difficult. Car manufacturing would go. Thousands would lose jobs. UK tax revenue would drop. The NHS and schools would have less to spend. I could go on. To say it "won't be easy" is an understatement. It certainly won’t be easy for the 200,000+ people who rely on car manufacturing in the UK for living (the figure is 800,000+ if you look at indirect jobs that rely on car manufacturing). This is just one example, financial services, other manufacturing would also be affected by delivering your list of Brexit requirements.

If you compromised, then something might be possible where we could agree a trade deal and retain key industries. But then that is where May is now. It’s not the people delivering Brexit that are the issue, it is Brexit itself; which is a force against free trade and cooperate with our closest neighbours.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Yep...hence i'm happy we are leaving. The EU on principle should have no say on how a country manages its judiciary systems. Being part of a trading union should just be about those rules and standards of trade. Of course it's much more than that now and ventures into Union "values" like the budding Superstate it has become

Using its economic gains for a commitment to human rights is a good thing not a bad, as far as I can see this has been around since 1950's the EU (via the ECJ) is just ensuring that the member countries apply the rules they have freely committed to when joining the EU.

 

[r-u-s-x]

We had David Davies. An enthusiastic Brexiteer, how did he do?

Trouble is, the true Brexiteers are, I'm sorry, deluded. Many have a vision of colonial Britain which is long gone. There is no going back. We don't have a colony anymore. If you look at pre-EU Britain we were skint - 70s Britain with the 4 day week etc.

If you compromised, then something might be possible where we could agree a trade deal and retain key industries. But then that is where May is now. It’s not the people delivering Brexit that are the issue, it is Brexit itself; which is a force against free trade and cooperate with our closest neighbours.

Many ( with power) are also very rich, they see an opportunity to erode workers rights and become more rich and obtain more assets, these are not deluded and are aware what is good for them is not necessarily good for the country.

 

[glorygloryeze]

We had David Davies. An enthusiastic Brexiteer, how did he do?

Trouble is, the true Brexiteers are, I'm sorry, deluded. Many have a vision of colonial Britain which is long gone. There is no going back. We don't have a colony anymore. If you look at pre-EU Britain we were skint - 70s Britain with the 4 day week etc.

You have to face up to the fact that the UK can't get the best bits from the EU, AND do as it wishes with laws and trade. It is one OR the other. It's an impossibility because the EU wouldn't accept a non-member getting a better deal than its members. Which means, by default, anyone with your list of brexit requirements is forced into a Hard Brexit position. Greese Smog, Boris, Farrage are all Hard Brexiteers - not by choice - but by default. Farrage was suggesting the Norway option pre-vote. Until it became clear we'd be in a worse position than we are now.

So, lets look at what a Hard Brexit really means. First and foremost impaired trade with our neighbours pushing up costs and hampering trade. We would need a new Customs department in government and to build an infrastructure at our ports. We'd need a new Trade department too. And a massive re-writing of our laws that would take 20 odd years. We would lose any manufacturing that relied on exports to the EU where tariff are an issue. Cars would see a 10% tariff on WTO terms (more than the profit margin on most cars) and sourcing parts maybe difficult. Car manufacturing would go. Thousands would lose jobs. UK tax revenue would drop. The NHS and schools would have less to spend. I could go on. To say it "won't be easy" is an understatement. It certainly won’t be easy for the 200,000+ people who rely on car manufacturing in the UK for living (the figure is 800,000+ if you look at indirect jobs that rely on car manufacturing). This is just one example, financial services, other manufacturing would also be affected by delivering your list of Brexit requirements.

If you compromised, then something might be possible where we could agree a trade deal and retain key industries. But then that is where May is now. It’s not the people delivering Brexit that are the issue, it is Brexit itself; which is a force against free trade and cooperate with our closest neighbours.

Well i can tell you, i am NOT somebody looking to regain the British empire!
Just because pre-70s UK had problems doesn't mean we cannot live withough the EU (similarly just because the EU might be prospering now/recently, doesn't mean it will perpetually..)

I simply want the UK outside of the EU Supersate-building process. In fact many would say the EU is itself against free trade; if they are not, we will likely get a decent free-trade agreement with them after Brexit happens. It is politics and their political goals that would stop that happening, i'm sure you'd agree..

 

[SpurMeUp]

Many ( with power) are also very rich, they see an opportunity to erode workers rights and become more rich and obtain more assets, these are not deluded and are aware what is good for them is not necessarily good for the country.

There is that. Ress Mog will not be affected by the NHS being underfunded, it is true. He sees a 'bigger picture' of being Lord of the Mannor with surfs toiling in the fields. But I think they are deluded. Its a public school boy image they have of tradition and Great Britian. Its no coincidance that many of the key advocates of Brexit grew up in the colonies and have fond memories of that era.

Douglas Carswell, the sole Ukip MP during the referendum, was raised in Uganda; Arron Banks, who bankrolled Ukip and the xenophobic Leave.EU campaign, spent his childhood in South Africa, where his father ran sugar estates, as well as in Kenya, Ghana and Somalia; Henry Bolton, the current head of Ukip, was born and raised partly in Kenya; Robert Oxley, head of media for Vote Leave, has strong family ties to Zimbabwe. One can only speculate about how much impact these formative years had on their political outlook, (Carswell attributes his libertarianism to Idi Amin’s “arbitrary rule”) but it would be odd to conclude they didn’t have any.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/03/imperial-fantasies-brexit-theresa-may

Decent article ^ It doesn't mention Hannon who you might call the visionary of Brexit who likewise grew up in the colonies and British boarding school. I think there is a misty eyed desired for a Great (independent) Britian. I think that is actually the heart of Breixt to be honest. It's admirable, romantic, and loyal. Yet completely deluded.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Using its economic gains for a commitment to human rights is a good thing not a bad, as far as I can see this has been around since 1950's the EU (via the ECJ) is just ensuring that the member countries apply the rules they have freely committed to when joining the EU.

Not a bad thing in itself; but clearly applied in a way that continues its Superstate building processes. As i said if it stuck to trade i'm sure all this Brexit stuff wouldn't be happening; it's not like the EU mentions human rights when it trades with the likes of China, Saudi Arabia etc

 

[glorygloryeze]

To be fair there are just as many VERY VERY rich people who back Britain and other European countries staying in the EU; in fact i'd say their rollcall is far longer (and richer..)

 

[r-u-s-x]

Well i can tell you, i am NOT somebody looking to regain the British empire!
Just because pre-70s UK had problems doesn't mean we cannot live withough the EU (similarly just because the EU might be prospering now/recently, doesn't mean it will perpetually..)

I simply want the UK outside of the EU Supersate-building process. In fact many would say the EU is itself against free trade; if they are not, we will likely get a decent free-trade agreement with them after Brexit happens. It is politics and their political goals that would stop that happening, i'm sure you'd agree..

they are pro free trade within the bloc, this is the benefit of the bloc.

Not a bad thing in itself; but clearly applied in a way that continues its Superstate building processes. As i said if it stuck to trade i'm sure all this Brexit stuff wouldn't be happening; it's not like the EU mentions human rights when it trades with the likes of China, Saudi Arabia etc

They are not members, this has been a requirement since the 50s and isn't some new state building plan.

 

[glorygloryeze]

they are pro free trade within the bloc, this is the benefit of the bloc.

But are they happy to let members within negotiate their own deals with outside members?

They are not members, this has been a requirement since the 50s and isn't some new state building plan.

As i say the bloc started out as a trading agreement; going after members who don't reflect the Union's 'values' (which is not an Economic judgement, but a political one) is what has been happening since it morphed more into an organisation that has/seeks Political weight

 

[r-u-s-x]

But are they happy to let members within negotiate their own deals with outside members?



As i say the bloc started out as a trading agreement; going after members who don't reflect the Union's 'values' (which is not an Economic judgement, but a political one) is what has been happening since it morphed more into an organisation that has/seeks Political weight

When did the bloc begin as a trading bloc,as far as I can see this requirement is 1952.

The ECSC had a prime goal to prevent Germany making war, its never been just a trading bloc

 

[SpurMeUp]

Well i can tell you, i am NOT somebody looking to regain the British empire!
Just because pre-70s UK had problems doesn't mean we cannot live withough the EU (similarly just because the EU might be prospering now/recently, doesn't mean it will perpetually..)

I simply want the UK outside of the EU Supersate-building process. In fact many would say the EU is itself against free trade; if they are not, we will likely get a decent free-trade agreement with them after Brexit happens. It is politics and their political goals that would stop that happening, i'm sure you'd agree..

There are those in the EU who are federalists. They would like the eu Commission to do more, and to become a superpower comparable to America. But these people are in a minority and they are also deluded! Just look at the number of languages in europe for a start. Look there are all sorts of views and people around. There are neo-Nazis, Communists etc. doesn’t mean we will see Communism or Fascism take over, and won’t see an EU superstrate either. Who would want it? All the stuff with Hungry being anti-EU at the moment, the Nordic Eurosceptic nations who are happy to trade and stay at arms length, Italy voting for 5 star which is against the Euro etc etc. Can’t you see that distinct EU nations are not into an EU superstrate??? It’s a myth that it is even a possibility, and those who scare people with this myth, are the real exponents of “project fear”.

One last thing. The EU is not against free trade. Its the worlds largest customs union where there are no tariff a few impediments to trade! Even with 3rd countries outside europe, it has free trade agreements which significantly lower barriers to trade (agreements we'd have to try and emmulate with 50m consuers rather then the EUs barginaing power of 550m). At its heart the EU is a customs union. Don't let the Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Boris or any other bozo tell you outherwise.

 

[glorygloryeze]

When did the bloc begin as a trading bloc,as far as I can see this requirement is 1952.

What requirement exactly are you referring to?

In 1957 the Treaty of Rome was signed between 6 countries which become the EEC (European Economic Community) and established a Customs Union. Several decades (and Treaties) later it has morphed into the Economic and Political Union we now know as the EU today...

 

[r-u-s-x]

What requirement exactly are you referring to?

In 1957 the Treaty of Rome was signed between 6 countries which become the EEC (European Economic Community) and established a Customs Union. Several decades (and Treaties) later it has morphed into the Economic and Political Union we now know as the EU today...

European coal and steel community the precursor to the EEC

 

[glorygloryeze]

There are those in the EU who are federalists. They would like the eu Commission to do more, and to become a superpower comparable to America. But these people are in a minority and they are also deluded! Just look at the number of languages in europe for a start. Look there are all sorts of views and people around. There are neo-Nazis, Communists etc. doesn’t mean we will see Communism or Fascism take over, and won’t see an EU superstrate either. Who would want it? All the stuff with Hungry being anti-EU at the moment, the Nordic Eurosceptic nations who are happy to trade and stay at arms length, Italy voting for 5 star which is against the Euro etc etc. Can’t you see that distinct EU nations are not into an EU superstrate??? It’s a myth that it is even a possibility, and those who scare people with this myth, are the real exponents of “project fear”.

One last thing. The EU is not against free trade. Its the worlds largest customs union where there are no tariff a few impediments to trade! Even with 3rd countries outside europe, it has free trade agreements which significantly lower barriers to trade (agreements we'd have to try and emmulate with 50m consuers rather then the EUs barginaing power of 550m). At its heart the EU is a customs union. Don't let the Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Boris or any other bozo tell you outherwise.

It was also a 'myth' that the European Union wanted one currency amongst member states; it was also a myth that they sought Political Union and an EU army, i mean "European Defence Union". You just have to look at the treaties and policies they bring to the table and what come to be and compare to when previously such things were labelled as "pie in the sky" to see the direction of travel.

Don't worry; i don't need to read the Sun or the Mail to see these things. Just reading the words direct from Juncker and co's mouth and articles is enough