Printable View
As I’ve said before, in the UK and the USA there are significant fiscal transfers between richer and poorer regions which compensate for imbalances within countries. This doesn’t happy to anything like the same extent within the eurozone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Really? I think the eurozone do it better than the US if anything. And yes that’s the whole point of the wealthier EU countries contributing more to benefit the less wealthy. Doh!
What are you talking about, that's totally incorrect. There is no mechanism at all in the eurozone at the moment for fiscal transfers. What there is in the European Union as a whole is a budget where there are some net contributors and some net beneficiaries. But this only amounts to about 1% of the GDP of the EU countries combined. Now compare this with the USA where taxes collected at the federal level amount on average to 17% of American GDP. This is a good article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...l-integration/
In the UK the amount of common taxation and subsequent distribution is of course much large than that.
Looks as if leaving with No Deal is getting more likely day by day. Bring in on. Remember, that's what the majority voted for nearly 3 years ago. The Labour MP John Mann is spot on when he says any deals can be sorted after we have left.
The truth is that the majority of MP's do not want to leave and therefore not carry out what their constituents voted for even though they all " respect the result of the referendum".
Unfortunately I still think the so called Norway plus option is the likeliest outcome where we stay in the single market and currency union. This would be total travesty of a Brexit. Andrew Lilico in the Telegraph puts it well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy
So the EU would still set our laws, do our international agreements for us, set our tariffs, control our borders, command our police, and so on. Maybe we’d get not to participate in some annual cultural exchange programme, and of course we’d no longer have to send MEPs to Strasbourg or Brussels.
But in everything of importance we’d still be in the EU, just without getting to vote any more. It’s difficult to imagine how MPs think UK voters will accept that that is truly leaving the EU. I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered anyone who said to me “You know, the big problem with the EU is we just have too much influence over what goes on there. If we could just stop the UK from having votes at the Council of Ministers and no longer have any MEPs representing our interests, it’d all be fine.”
Agreed, it would be pointless. At least currently the UK has a seat in the Council of Ministers, an EU Commisioner and 73 MEPs. With the Norway option, it would be little more than observer status, with the ability to make suggestions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
In about 500 years when the UK can bring itself to have another referendum, on whatever topic (Scottish Independence aside), maybe they will first identify clearly what the aim is and much more importantly how they will get there BEFORE asking the people if they should proceed.
And don't go arguing that "Leave the EU" is a clear aim. I think the last two years and that appaling withdrawal agreement, would seem to dispute that.
A second referendum is far more likely now than it ever has been since the last one and I’m still holding out for one. No deal is thankfully almost dead and yeah a soft Brexit more likely too. Although the soft Brexit is pointless it’s at least something that recognises the split in the country and feels like a sensible compromise that could broadly satisfy both points of view. Still pointless though and not nearly as good as remaining 😊
Funny reaction on Radio 4 this morning by an icelandic politician when asked about the UK joining the EEA and a customs union. His reply was "why would you do that"?
When the N.I issue was mentioned he replied that the border between Norway/Sweeden works OK.
He did not appriciate that dissident republicans would see killing a border guard, as a major propaganda victory.
Have you not been keeping up? Even the MPs campaigning for it seem like they aren't putting it forward tomorrow when they can set the agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
Seems the penny has dropped on that one and it's dead.
Sometimes Pat, a view from someone with no major dog in the fight can be quite illuminating.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Why, indeed, would we do that? And who is proposing a return of border guards??
A second referendum is Theresa May’s only possible get out clause if she can’t get her deal through, won’t go against the manifesto for soft Brexit and won’t rescind article 50. So if parliament tries everything and still can’t find a way the only option left on the table is a second referendum. Keep up 😉Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
And yeah a general election is another option too but with both the tories and labour up shit creek in terms of how they’d possibly draw up their manifestos that’s perhaps best done at a later stage
It is becasue of the made-up issue with the EU border on the Island of Ireland, where magic cameras can read number plates from that they can identify if foodstuffs meet EU standards and correct tarifs have been paid. And if this is not the case then the magic cameras erect a force field to stop said vehicle from progressing across the border.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
And all that is dependent on said magic camers not being vandalised by the local republicians.
I only follow politics to a very basic level, but to me i can't understand what a 2nd referendum will achieve?
If 'leave' win again, surely we'll just be in the same situation with an impasse in parliament.
If 'remain' won this time, then the consequences for politics in this country don't seem to bear thinking about.
That horse has long since bolted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
What you think the avid brexiteers will become terrorists? And even if a possibility that’s still no reason not to do it. Only this morning a report from that polling expert John Curtis feels that today there is an extremely high probability that to leave the EU is no longer the ‘will of the British people’. If we do leave the campaign will just change from remain to rejoin and will if anything get strongerQuote:
Originally Posted by Travs
The Tories won't fight another GE under May. But I would be amazed if there isn't a draft manifesto ready to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
Once May goes, I think things will change fast to a General Election. Sonner the better.
I don't think here will be civil unrest or anything like that... but a referendum billed as a 'once in a lifetime' chance to decide our future in the EU, seems incomprehensible that it could be overturned 3 years later. Then what happens.... best out of three...???
My personal view is that leave would win again. Then where are we? Still no majority in parliament. They have already displayed that any so-called 'will of the people' doesn't mean a jot, so we have wasted 9 months to be back at the same place.
I'd support a referendum along the lines of "no deal" or "leave with current deal".... but i'm afraid the remaining ship seems to have sailed, and to bring it back makes a mockery of the political system in the country (which is already at it's lowest ebb).
You are right Travs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
If Remain win 52 / 48 I wonder what concessions they will give to Leavers? Maybe a best of 3? In fact what would they have given had ref 1 been like that?
As Stolly said earlier "something that recognises the split in the country and feels like a sensible compromise that could broadly satisfy both points of view"
Somehow, had Cameron and his mates won 52/48 I cannot see they would have offered the 48% anything. It would have been stupid as the options with the EU were only ever In or Out. This halfway stuff is bogus fudge from people that want to pave the way for a return.
I actually think there are other issues here linked in to Devolution.
The English outside of London are largely ignored. They have been left out of the Assemblies that Wales, Scotland and NI have.
London has it's assembly, strong links to Parliament and International standing.
England has proportionately more people per MP as well, so pro rata less voice in the Commons.
England outside of London has a democratic deficit and was strongly pro-Brexit. There will be consequences for the politics of the UK.
Travs, it is way beyond that.
The mistake was over three years ago with that stupidly simplistic question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" The vast majority of "out" voters did not give a second's though to the the N.I issue. John Major & Tony Blair and the Irish Goverment kept higlighting it but nobody was listening.
A senior commentator/journalist for one of the heavier weight newspapers wrote the following last weekend. I paraphrase.
"498 MPs led by the front benches of both parties voted at the second reading to trigger Article 50. This became law, and prescribes that if the U.K. cannot get the deal it wants, then we leave with no deal. The subsequent vote against no deal is actually non-binding. Therefore the U.K. should leave on March 29th."
Many of those MPs, who voted for Article 50, then voted against no deal, which demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding of the law and parliamentary processes. There is also their total blindness to the serious constitutional consequences of their other subsequent actions. Hopefully the electorate will highlight the MPs self-serving hypocrisy at the next General Election, regardless of their political affiliation.
500 years? That's a joke, at the moment some people can't go three.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
What's the point of having another referendum when the result of the first one hasn't been respected and enacted? Why not leave and then in a number of years time if people think Brexit hasn't worked out a referendum could be held on whether to apply to rejoin.
It's total hogwash so say it wasn't clear what the Leave camp wanted to achieve. It couldn't have been clearer in the referendum, take back control of our laws, borders and money. That means leaving the single market and customs union. By all means if the EU had wanted to agree a mutually beneficial free trade deal that would have been good. For the moment they are only interested in keeping us in vassalage so we should leave without a deal.
Those campaigning for a second referendum also want to have only May's terrible deal and Remain on the ballot paper - exuding no deal. Talk about Hobson's choice! Far more leave voters favour leaving without a deal than May's agreement. So not only do these campaigners not respect the result of the first referendum they want to rig the question in a second one.
Why did the Irish Revenue Commissioners Chairman Niall Cody say in 2017 they were not looking at sites for customs posts, as technological fixes and checks away from the border would suffice? He said he was “almost 100 per cent certain” there would be no need for border posts."Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
This best of three standard answer is balderdash in the circumstances but you’ve highlighted the problem with referendums full stop. They give an indication of views at one point in time but aren’t then called and checked regularly (unlike voting for MPs). It’s often quoted nowadays but Germany voted by referendum to end parliamentary democracy and appont Hitler as a dictator in 1933. Not the best of decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
More to the point all polls now point to remain being the will of the people as to a certain extent does the march at the weekend and the petition. No political party should really want to force through something voted for almost 3 years ago that no longer applies. That’s a guaranteed vote loser.
As for a no deal vs remain referendum MR, I’d be well happy to vote in that
On the polls, John Curtis - seen as the most eminent pollster was on TV last week saying it's too close to call, with poll averages around 2-3% ahead for remain, which is in line with the polling pre referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
You can also look at polling published in the last 48 hours, Comres I think, that shows leaving without signing the WA is now the preferred option and that was also in an earlier ICM poll.
and we already had a no deal - remain referendum and you lost, and haven't stopped moaning about it since :D
So 'remain' win a 2nd referendum (in my view this is unlikely... at best it's a 50/50 chance)… what happens then. Do we forget the result of the first referendum?
What happens in 3 years time when (purely theoretically) there is another groundswell to leave the EU. Do we go through it again? Or do the remain 'winners' say no the people spoke three years ago.
The votes were cast. If we go back on the referendum, in my view, it's opening up one heck of a s**t-storm for the future...
Wayne summed it up best in Auf Weidersehen Pet.... "so everybody gets what nobody wants... that's democracy"
Interesting in the Commons just now.
The Leader of the House issued a statement about the Statutory Instrument required to align us now with the 2 new dates of 12th April and 22nd May.
The EU has put these dates forward and May agreed them so they are a matter of law. The Commons has to agree the SM to bring our law in to line with the decision.
But the key point was that the 12th April is the new leaving date.
The 22nd May is the leaving date only if the Commons approve the WA by the 29th March ie Friday night.
The Commons aren't sitting Friday.
The MPs have control of the programme tomorrow for their indicative votes.
Looks like a shit or bust meaningful vote 3 on Thursday.
If the WA isn't passed Thursday we leave on April 12th under International Law - under what is commonly referred to as "no deal" scenario.
Here is a more recent article saying the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
https://www.thejournal.ie/revenue-pr...55703-Jan2019/
I wonder if his "Plan" has been OKed by the EU, and if so why the backstop?
Politics DrPat :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I think you mean John Curtice, to distinguish him from my dad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Talking of John Curtice “There’s seemingly room for debate about whether leaving the EU is still the ‘will’ of the majority of voters in the U.K.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...996.html%3famp
Simple . The backstop is designed to hamstring uk negotiation.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Absolutely. The whole case for the backstop is unraveling as it becomes clear that there would be no hard border in the event of no deal. Any customs checks would take place away from the border. It’s deeply depressing that the British Government has allowed itself to be fooled into agreeing to the backstop. It was only ever there as a means to weaken the UK and kept under the control of the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
That's right Richard. Shauneto was saying Democracy was an ongoing process but we wouldn't have heard any of that talk from him if Remain had won. Indeed Dominic Sandbrook writing in the Daily Mail Monday: 'And whether we like it or not, the plain fact is that Britain must find room for both tribes, the 17.4 million who voted Leave as well as the 16.1 million who voted Remain.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Well he's a Remainer who knows full well any compromise between Leave and Remain is a win for Remain. Again we wouldn't have heard any of this compromise nonsense if Remain had won. Not a squeak. In fact all those Leave politicians who think they can achieve anything like Brexit through compromise are fools.
Good points Chris. So let's leave remainers out of the argument briefly. The question remains: what sort of leave do we think the majority of leavers voted for? Or perhaps more pertinently, what sort of leave do leavers favour now?Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
I disagree Travs. I think there will be a breakdown of law and order if Parliament continues to deny the result. In the end though Brexit will go through as our political class are replaced by those promising to take control and implement the result. It'll be easy because people will look at Theresa May and say a radical party can't be any worse than that liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
The government couldn't manage a piss-up in a brewery.
We know what leave meant the question was clear. Whatever relationship with EU is the best while honouring the principles of the winning side.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Now I don't believe in a second ref but if someone twisted my arm the only one's who could take part would be the 17.4 million winners. They would decide between the alternatives that honour the result. So Mrs May's deal wouldn't count.
I know what you're going to say to that......
Is Rees-Mogg about to fall prey to the 'let's compromise' trap? I really like him so I hope not.
You really like him????? WowQuote:
Originally Posted by CL
So the only people allowed a future vote would be those who listened to and believed the lies peddled by the fool Farage and his racist cronies and Boris the fool. Sounds logical :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by CL