***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 69 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Dave.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 29 Nov 18 at 02:12
|
Right, new volume started - obviously.
I'd just like to say that I'm just as much to blame as the next man (or woman) for some of petty arguments in the last thread, and not following some of the rules outlined above. I was right in that Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
That out the way, lets move on, put what's happened in Vol 67 behind us and carry on with Brexit discussion.
I've brought a few of the more recent discussions over from the vol 67. Anything else you want to continue discussing, then you'll need to make reference to it in this one.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 22 Nov 18 at 11:35
|
>>Record Poverty
Firstly not true, as discussed above.
Secondly forty percent of the population will ALWAYS live in poverty, as defined
fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/
"A household is in relative poverty (also called relative low income) if its income is below 60% of the median household income.
The median is the number 'in the middle' of a set—so half of all households earn more than the median income household, and half earn less."
So Bobby, even if the poor are given ten times as much as currently, forty percent of the population will still be living in poverty. When the poor all have satellite TV and flat screen TVs it's an odd measure of poverty.
Food banks are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Of course people will spend more money on other items if they know they can get their food as a free top-up. Food banks encourage fecklessness. I have no doubt that some people do live in desperate poverty, but just observing that lots of people like having free food is not a way of measuring this.
|
>> Food banks are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Of course people will
>> spend more money on other items if they know they can get their food as
>> a free top-up. Food banks encourage fecklessness.
Either you are being deliberately provocative or you don't know how food banks work. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
You cannot just turn up at a food bank and treat it like a free supermarket. Access is via 'gatekeepers' such as Social Workers, GPs and charities such as Citizens Advice. They will issue you with a voucher for a 'parcel' based on family make up etc. There will be a restriction on number of vouchers an individual can have. Ours is five in any rolling calendar year. ID is required and the providers have measures in place to stop people gaming the gatekeeping system through multiple referrers.
Sometimes people present requesting a food voucher. In other cases we offer one because the client is self evidently in need. Those requesting one will be interviewed by an adviser who will explore their circumstances. The usual reasons are benefit hiatuses or sanctions, sudden loss of income (eg summary dismissal from work) or family crises. Some of these would formerly have had crisis loans/grants from the Discretionary Social Fund. That function was abolished in 2013 and delegated to top tier councils as Local Welfare Provision (LWP). There is now NO LWP in Northamptonshire and abolition pre-dated the effective bankruptcy of the Council. Other shire counties have made identical decisions.
In all of last 40 years I've had an absolute certainty that a twelfth of my salary, or latterly pension, will arrive in my bank on last working day of month. I suspect you have similar good fortune. A large chunk of the population have no such guarantee. Wages fluctuate in agency work or the 'gig' economy; a couple of missed shifts for sickness or whatever and there's not enough money for the rent.
The wait time for Universal Credit has been cut but it's still around 5 weeks even if everything works. That in itself is a big driver of food bank referrals.
The vast majority of people needing vouchers who are seen by myself and colleagues are evidently desperate. Triers on are refused - I declined one who came in about a Parking Ticket and then tried for a food voucher as a parting shot.
|
|
Brompt, excellent, informative and factual post.
|
>> Brompt, excellent, informative and factual post.
>>
+1
Wife was a teaching assistant and often had to make sandwiches for kids with no lunch or money to buy lunch.
She would see mums bringing the kids to school in the middle of winter, dressed in a tee shirt and flipflops because whatever money they did have was spent making sure the kid had a coat and gloves!
The headmaster used to tell her off for feeding the kids whilst handing her pots of jam and peanut butter that he had brought in!
People generally go hungry themselves rather then let the kids not eat.
Foodbanks are a fact of life and if we're not careful we'll see the return of work houses!
|
>> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
Possibly. Thank you for your description. I remain almost completely unconvinced that there is any sense in foodbanks other than as a vote-winner for Labour.
The biggest parcel you are allowed will feed you for three days (according to Trussel Trust) and you are limited to four(?) parcels a year. It really can't be making much difference to people, it has no impact on structural inability to feed yourself. But it's blimmin' good propaganda for the Labour party. I'm afraid that's all that it is.
Many foodbanks are run informally, and without the rules you describe.
The process is woefully inefficient. People give packets of pasta; much better giving cash - which can be gift-aided - and can be purchased in bulk far more cheaply. But it's far better from a propaganda point of view to have people giving food to the needy, it has nothing to do with what is sensible. The worst aspect of these is supermarkets that encourage you to buy their expensive food and put it into the boxes at the back of the shop for donation.
And finally, tinned fruit! Tinned vegetables! Tinned meat! It's positively WW2; is that really the best we can do?
Have a read of some more propaganda here:
www.trusselltrust.org/2015/04/24/eleven-foodbank-myths-you-must-not-fall-for/
Here we have this 'fact', presented as a universal experience: "But going to a foodbank is a last resort when all other coping strategies have been exhausted. It takes courage to admit you cannot feed your family. People wait on the other side of the road for half an hour, or stand outside in the cold, before finally walking through the foodbank door. " And compare that with your own experience: "Triers on are refused - I declined one who came in about a Parking Ticket and then tried for a food voucher as a parting shot."
|
>> >> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
>>
>> Possibly. Thank you for your description. I remain almost completely unconvinced that there is any
>> sense in foodbanks other than as a vote-winner for Labour.
You seem a bit fixed on the Labour Propaganda angle.
The growth of foodbanks is certainly an asset for Labour's campaign but that's because they're an open goal. Idea that Trussell trust and other organisers are politically motivated is, to use one of my favourite phrases. Nonsense on Stilts.
A combination of more aggressive benefit conditionality, sanctions and closure of social fund/failure of local welfare - all products of Osborne's war on claimants - led to growth of foodbanks. Structure of Universal Credit and its wait time added more pressure.
Of course the assistance they provide could be delivered in other ways. The DWP could have a system of grants or loans to help claimants in crisis.....
As they stand foodbanks are a response to acute problems not chronic/structural issues. The latter are for government to solve.
You can make light of tinned food but stuff that's not perishable is essential to the model. if you're choosing eat or heat tinned stew is good. Doesn't need to be boring. Mrs B and I do an excellent Saucisse aux Lentilles from tinned stuff that lives in the caravan.
I buy own label stuff for the foodbank box whenever I'm in Tesco. Baked Beans, Cereal or whatever.
The fact is for a large number of people going to a foodbank is exactly the admission/ordeal suggested in the Trussell Trust's page. That existence of a few shameless chancers in no way negates their experience.
|
Mapmaker, i can't help but think you would benefit from maybe spending some time at a local food bank and seeing the real world out there.
Your response is staggering. And ignorant of the challenges and issues facing many parts of society currently.
|
I have no intention of doing any such thing, Bobby, but thank you for the offer. I suspect you are at least as ignorant (not a pleasant word, but you used it first) of basic economics as you think I am of the challenges and issues facing many parts of society.
If there really is as fundamental a problem as this, then I think it is outrageous that it is tackled with tinned meat. On the other hand I do thoroughly approve of charity working in this fashion. But Brompton, save the cash and donate it by gift aid to the charity. That way their buying power is increased surely at least four-fold through the tax relief and through the benefit of bulk buying.
I once remember NoFM2R writing something along the lines of that at some point in his life he had been very poor and that if he had cash he would spend it on something fun, immediately like a four-pack of beer. If he starved the following day, then it was worth it for the hit of pleasure. That was a very powerful image. It reinforced my earlier point about foodbanks encouraging fecklessness.
|
"save the cash and donate it by gift aid to the charity. That way their buying power is increased surely at least four-fold through the tax relief and through the benefit of bulk buying"
Not fully sure about this, charities often have quite large overheads which need to be funded (staff, offices etc) so a direct donation would at least bypass all those layer.
|
>> Not fully sure about this, charities often have quite large overheads which need to be
>> funded (staff, offices etc) so a direct donation would at least bypass all those layer.
Something has to fund these overheads! Moreover I would be pretty sure that sorting out the haphazard - and sometimes unsuitable - contents of a donations box in the supermarket increases overheads in comparison with allocating a pallet of tinned peaches purchased with cash.
Giving food makes the donor feel good. Giving cash makes the cash work much better.
|
>> If there really is as fundamental a problem as this, then I think it is
>> outrageous that it is tackled with tinned meat. On the other hand I do thoroughly
>> approve of charity working in this fashion. But Brompton, save the cash and donate it
>> by gift aid to the charity. That way their buying power is increased surely at
>> least four-fold through the tax relief and through the benefit of bulk buying.
MM,
I think you're still not understanding how foodbanks work. The Trussell Trust operates nationally but on basis of separate small organisations in each locality. Distribution points bear no relation to a supermarket. It's not even on scale of an old fashioned grocers' shop like Maggie T's father ran.
Food, and other products like soap, feminine hygiene products, is collected from donation points and distributed by volunteers. It's small scale. Even regionally the volume couldn't justify bulk buying and associated logistics.
It is what it is and it works.
It's very difficult to see your comment about tinned products as anything other than snobbery. If the stuff is on supermarket shelves then it's selling in significant volumes to willing buyers.
As to whether they encourage fecklessness we'll just have to agree to differ. Since you're unwilling to visit one you won't find an answer for yourself.
|
>>As to whether they encourage fecklessness we'll just have to agree to differ. Since you're
>>unwilling to visit one you won't find an answer for yourself.
Free stuff has a nasty habit of encouraging fecklessness. Amongst my friends, the couples with the highest-earnings include the most feckless. One is unable to buy anything between the 10th and 23rd of the month (the latter being the spouse's payday) as the monthly allowance has run out and the earning spouse has to pay the grocery bills. Another when told by the high-earning spouse that a new car/whatever isn't possible just goes and borrows the money and expects the spouse to repay the bank loan. And another and another.
Take away the safety net of the state and you encourage people's self-reliance. No caveman had a food bank upon which to rely.
Of course it's obvious that in society it is appropriate to help the poor and needy. BUT, the more you help people, the more they need help. This applies to school children being coached as much as to anything else. It is human nature. It really is a no-win scenario. The arrival of foodbanks has done nothing to encourage self-reliance or saving.
And it suits the left wing to exercise control over the poor by telling them what they are allowed to eat in their food parcels. Communism was all about subjugating the poor and making their lives uniform.
>>It's very difficult to see your comment about tinned products as anything other than snobbery.
Libertarianism, not snobbery. I do not think the poor when in dire straits should have to eat things I would not eat myself (and I don’t mean lobster) and moreover that they have not chosen. For instance liver is cheaper than tinned meat, infinitely nicer and more nutritious – and takes no longer to cook for those worried about a gas bill than reheating tinned meat. It is the choice thing that worries me particularly; bad enough to have to accept charity, worse still to be given your bowl of approved gruel. But then I’m a free marketeer, and you’re not, so I don’t expect you to get that. As Mark said on another thread, the left wing give you what they think you want. Tinned meat, vegetables and fruit in this case.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 22 Nov 18 at 14:53
|
There are some things that you say that have some sense or truth in them.
But I think you lack the practical experience of being there; either a beneficiary or a 'helper', for want of a better word.
There was a time when a can of tinned meat would have made my day. There's just so much rice and soup you can eat. I still love tins of luncheon meat today. So strange how much joy I get from eating as much as I want of it. My children really dislike it; there's probably a message there.
I was helped out of where I was by a man who didn't have a great deal more than I did at a time when I needed it. But that didn't happen on day 1. I was offered help more than once, given help more than once in fact, but for some reason that one took.
We don't know, or at least I don't know, what it is that makes something work in such a situation or not. But I do know that giving someone a can of tinned meat doesn't make it worse. We need to keep helping, all different kinds of help.
On the other hand, we do need a better managed and better targeted aid and welfare system. I could have got aid I am sure, but to walk into a Government office and ask for help is admitting stuff to the world, and to oneself, that one gets through the day by denying.
It is an acceptance of where you are, and that isn't easy.
What we should not do, cause or expect is to make people feel grateful at the time, because again that takes them back to feelings of awareness and acceptance as well as a lowering of their own feelings of self-worth.. Some hope of paying it forward is all that we should expect.
We have one veteran, a man not in the best of health, who needs financial help. He is old, and proud, but needs help. We are very careful to frame it as him receiving what is an entitlement, because he would find being "helped" as mortifying and he might just refuse out of pride"
He flew bombers in WWII. You just never know.
Really, get involved. It will change your perspective, I am almost sure.
For me, that is quite enough blatant soul bearing for one day. Too much, probably. But don't think that me stepping out of this conversation doesn't mean that I don't think there is a really important point here.
To paraphrase, I've been there and I've been here. I remember just how bad being there was, and that I was helped out, so I do a lot to pay it forward as much as I can".
|
>>Secondly forty percent of the population will ALWAYS live in poverty, as defined
Wrong.
Below 60% of the median is not the same as the lowest 40%.
If the median income is £26,000, relative poverty is defined as 60% of that figure, ie £15,600.
The median is used because the number of high and ultra-high incomes skews the mean even higher than the median.
|
>> Wrong.
Acknowledged. Apologies.
Anyway, my point remains; every person who is taken out of "poverty" by this definition makes it harder for the next person to be taken out of "poverty" by this definition. The easiest way to take people out of "poverty" is to reduce the incomes of those who do not fall below the "poverty line".
It is therefore a silly measure.
|
>>It is therefore a silly measure
It is what it is.
As poverty is a subjective term (ie UK poverty is not the same as Sudanese poverty, and a poverty income in London will be higher than one in Sunderland), I suppose it is a better measure of national "income inequality", although as I mentioned above, it largely excludes the super-rich from the calculation.
|
>>It is what it is.
You can't base policy on something that works backwards, though. The recession reduced the number of people in "poverty" as it reduced the median income.
|
>>The recession reduced the number of people in "poverty" as it reduced the median income.
It may have and I expect that a major factor was, unlike previous recessions, unemployment was not a big feature compared to wage stagnation/reduction.
Removing child benefit from people like me likely shifted the balance too.
Minimum wage legislation has had a part to play also - I'd rather see a £10/hr minimum wage than boosting millions of family incomes with various welfare state benefits.
|
>>When the poor all have satellite TV and flat screen TVs
*all*? Source please.
How is that, when commentators want to beat the (allegedly) indolent poor over the head, the flat screen TV is so often cited as evidence of incorrigibility and general antisocial behaviour? Maybe CRT models would be more acceptable?
|
|
.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 20 Nov 18 at 17:27
|
I think it all depends.
If, and its a big if TM gets her deal through Parliament then we can concentrate on the future. That's the way I hope we can proceed
If she fails then I assume she will resign and get a new PM but we will still be facing the fact that we are heading for No Deal Brexit in a few weeks wiht all the damage to our economy that I believe will ensue. That is something for which there is no Parliamentary majority or I believe any real desire in the country
At that point surely there must be a General Election or another Referendum to choose between the only two choices left, i.e. Leave with no Deal or Remain in the EU
|
>>At that point surely there must be a General Election or another Referendum to choose between the only two choices left, i.e. Leave with no Deal or Remain in the EU
How will 48/52 any better than 52/48?
Or do you believe the result will become a 70/30 all of a sudden?
Many people who voted leave did so for emotional reasons.
Some people who voted leave did so as part of a personal agenda.
Many people who voted remain did so preferring no change.
Some people who voted remain did so as part of a personal agenda.
What percentage of each side actually understood and voted for the good of the country?
Because I can see no particular shift in the first 4 groups nor any way the 5th group can become significant.
So we cannot firmly or convincingly unpick it or reverse it.
Add to that, we have breached a seal. Why would anybody believe that we wouldn't breach it again if it suited us? Even if they believe us, they will always snow have a strong contingency against us. That sways decisions.
So let us, without regard to the route we have taken thus far, consider where we should be.
I can explain my view in detail, but an overview is all that is important at this point;
We should be looking for a pragmatic relationship with the EU. We should be looking to be as close to the EU as possible, with every deal possibly, including the so-called four freedoms. But we should not be part of the EU. We should never handcuff our selves to a single thing so thoroughly ever again.
We need to have deals, where the continued advantage of the deal is all that keeps us in it, not the impossibility of leaving it.
And from here to there does not involve a new referendum. It involves the fanatics on both sides winding their necks in and both working for the good of the country.
The details are only just beginning to make sense to me, but I am increasingly convinced it is the way forward.
|
Nope, the current extension is the best we will get, clearly so exposed as the Europeans are now whining about it being unfair to their interests. Had they kept quiet clearly more was on offer.
If this gets rejected by Parliament, we need to crash out hard. No deal, nothing less will satisfy the brexiteers, and the pain and suffering that follows may well shut them up and discredited the wealthy selfish scumbags who promoted the non existent greener grass to the uninformed suckers who swallowed it.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 20 Nov 18 at 18:18
|
I don’t disagree with what you would like to happen but the reality of the situation is that we could well end up with parliament voting against the proposed deal and the country effectively left with the stark reality of a hard Brexit on the 29th March.
If it comes to that is it right that the population have to accept it without a further say either by means of an election or a referendum?
I know Zero wants to see us plunge over the edge but personally I would give the country a chance to confirm that that is what they really want.
|
>> I know Zero wants to see us plunge over the edge but personally I would
>> give the country a chance to confirm that that is what they really want.
They claim thats what they voted for, give it to them.
|
>
>>
>> If it comes to that is it right that the population have to accept it
>> without a further say either by means of an election or a referendum?
>>
That's a fair point, but the problem is that as we have recently discovered, a referendum is not a very useful way of communicating the population's wishes into action.
1) there is no percentage majority stipulation, so anything less than say a 55/45 vote doesn't, to the 45 -ers, confirm anything.
2) there is no agreement or restriction on the number of referendums. Anyone who disagrees with the result of one referendum can immediately start campaigning for another referendum, to the extent of disrupting the implementation of the first.
3) there is no constitutional mechanism in the UK for integrating the result, even a clear-cut one, into the process of a parliament and a representative democracy. We launched into this new process with as little thought to how it would work as if a referendum was merely an opinion poll.
We could have had a law making a referendum result binding on the government if there was a) a minimum turnout requirement, and b) a 2/3 majority requirement, but we didn't, so a referendum merely adds division and confusion. It divides and angers, not unites and pacifies.
So I hope everyone is now sick and tired of this experiment.
The alternative and traditional means for a government to seek a renewed mandate or guidance is a general election. I think that is the only way to proceed now.
The government should clearly state to the commons that if it doesn't back the draft/final deal, whatever that is by the time of the debate, then the consequence will be that we then leave without a deal.
If they lose the vote they should call a general election.
|
If in the event of a rejection of the proposed Deal and assuming the EU are not prepared to negotiate we have a referendum or a General Election the question is going to be "do you want a "No Deal" or do you want to stay in the EU?
If we have a General Election and the choice is left to Parliament since the majority of MPs of both parties are likely still to be Remainers a General Election will almost certainly end up with a vote to Remain.
I rather think the Leavers are not going to be very happy wiht the outcome.
|
'Tis very reassuring to see the Remainers still retain the complacency they had at the time of the referendum.
It was their downfall then and will be again.
Pat
|
I'm not complacent I'm just trying to predict what will happen
What exactly do your think will happen if you assume the following scenario.
1 Parliament reject the current Deal
2 The EU are not prepared to significantly amend thier deal
3 The Prime Minister call an Election
4 There is a vote as to whether we should leave the EU in March without a Deal
My guess is that we remain in the EU. for the reason previously explained
For the record my own view is that for the future of the country we should accept the current deal which whilst I think is not ideal represents a workable compromise, something that many are not prepared to contemplate
|
>> 1 Parliament reject the current Deal
I don't think they will.
>>
>> 2 The EU are not prepared to significantly amend thier deal
I think they will do once they know we won't accept it.
>>
>> 3 The Prime Minister call an Election.
She wouldn't dare, she knows JC would win.
>>
>> 4 There is a vote as to whether we should leave the EU in March
>> without a Deal
There won't be, we haven't put in place the result of the previous vote yet.
>>
Pat
|
If as you say you think the scenario I outlined can't possibly happen and that Parliament will will accept the current Deal there will be no need for General Election or renegotiation will there? We are home and dry and we have a deal that is presumably acceptable to both of us.
I hope that is the case but I rather fear the scenario I outlined is becoming more and more likely
|
I think the deal will change before it's accepted, despite what she said.
Pat
|
>> I think the deal will change before it's accepted, despite what she said.
>>
In what way?
|
Is there even enough time for another referendum if this is the only way to move things forward?
Doesn't it need 6 months from announcing to voting?
|
>>
>> the
>> majority of MPs of both parties are likely still to be Remainers
>>
Are they? Didn't parliament vote to submit Article 50 by 498 to 194?
Of the three parties, only the Libdems actually supported remain, I thought.
|
Are they?
Yes by inclination and without the Government Whips they are substantial majority.
home.bt.com/news/uk-news/how-mps-voted-in-the-eu-referendum-11364110245462
|
>>
>> Yes by inclination and without the Government Whips they are substantial majority.
>>
They say. Some of them said they'd sent in letters of no confidence.
I'm not sure I'd trust any of them.
But I know you're a trusting kind of fellow. I'm suspicious of all officials and politicians..:)
|
It really is enough to make you weep....
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46269757
|
>> It really is enough to make you weep....
The sidebar on that sent me to 'Brexit Blind Date':
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46222586
|
It sent me to some dinner where the female was a reality tv personality.
When she began the dinner conversation by asking for a coke since she was on her period I switched off.
I don't know if it got better, Sometimes life is too short.
|
>> It sent me to some dinner where the female was a reality tv personality.
I just read the summary written in style of Guardian's 'Blind Date' column - first impressions through to marks out 10.
|
After you said that I went back and read the summary
It came across better than I had thought, but not my sort of thing really.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 20 Nov 18 at 22:25
|
>> Found this on another site. Useful note as to why the border is an issue:
>> blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/northern-ireland-for-english-cabinet-ministers-and-other-beginners/
>>
A bit further down on that link above there is this:-
www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index
which states that Ireland is the 6th most democratic country in the world, while the UK is 14th. how/why is the UK less democratic than the RoI?
|
The Final Brexit Political Declaration will be delayed another week yet? Seems unwise.
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46278361
|
Is everybody confused by now? I certainly am is the U.K leaving the E.U or not.
You either are part of the E.U with its regulations and commitments or you are not.This agreement the lady is signing up to is a dog's dinner.It looks like the political powers in the U.K are scared of the consequences of a no deal.This is what happens when you have a referendum for political reasons and the outcome is the opposite you want.Cameron and Osborne should have travelled a bit more outside London and maybe they would have noticed the discontent in the U.K.
|
>>Cameron and Osborne should have travelled a bit more outside London and maybe they would have noticed the discontent in the U.K.
I remember when Cameron and the coalition started. I was working at Cambridge University at the time, the only time I've worked in such an academic environment I think.
I remember the endless discussion and arguments over lunch but I don't think anybody, even those who detested Cameron, ever foresaw just how badly he were going to screw up.
I wish I'd given the many Cameron dislikers at the University a lot more credence now.
|
>> Is everybody confused by now? I certainly am is the U.K leaving the E.U or not.
UK is leaving EU but will continue to follow all EU rules for an indefinte period.
This should make leavers happy was UK is leaving EU.
This should make remainers happy as everything staying as is.
In reality (almost) everyone is unhappy because:
Leavers didn't get what they wanted.
Remainers are asking what was the whole point of this farce.
For me, definition of leaving EU is when 4 freedoms no longer applies to UK. If it applies, then we are in EU (yes, using that logic Norway and Switzerland are also in EU).
Which in turn, brings the question whether we should focus on leaving EU or Single Market.
All these terms are overlapped to make the public more confused. This obfuscation was intentional by politicans so that common public will always try to figure out what they want exactly.
|
|
What is that post for? I get that you're trying to sound informed, though the ridiculous inaccuracies make that a forlorn hope, but what is it actually for? What do you hope to achieve with it?
|
>> This obfuscation was intentional
>> by politicans so that common public will always try to figure out what they want
>> exactly.
Completely wrong on every conceivable level
|
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6417299/EU-turns-Spain-Gibraltar-threats-faces-48-hour-dash-finalise-deal.html
The pact confirms that free movement will end, which could be seen as a win for the PM - but also states that the UK will not discriminate between nationals from different EU countries.
So UK can't have one rule for France and another for Poland.
But what about Ireland? Irish nationals will continue to have FOM to UK after Brexit. But as per above rule it should be same for entire EU27 - right?
So either Ireland loses the right or entire EU27 keeps same right?
|
>> But what about Ireland? Irish nationals will continue to have FOM to UK after Brexit.
>> But as per above rule it should be same for entire EU27 - right?
Sense of deja-vu here but you're reading something into it that's not there.
It's a report (in the Daily Mail!) on a non-binding political declaration.
The detailed negotiations will obviously provide for the 'Common Travel Area' that existed between UK and Republic of Ireland long before either joined the EU.
|
I find Ireland politics very confusing (much more than GB politics). I read on internet about Troubles but still not clear.
It felt to me that Ireland is not very friendly with UK and some people in NI want to join Ireland.
Then why UK offers special benefits to Ireland (like common travel area) and not consider Ireland as just another 3rd country (say France)?
Is it offered as a bribe to prevent any fight between NI and Ireland?
If UK can be friend with Germany (with whom UK fought in WWs) why Ireland can't be good friend with its closest neighbor UK (rather than taking side with EU)?
|
|
Seriously? You have got to be trolling. That post simply cannot be for real
|
>>Seriously? You have got to be trolling. That post simply cannot be for real
The ignorance about the CTA is almost certainly real, as probably the majority of 'natural' Brits will not be aware of it.
But using a lack of knowledge (or ability to google) doesn't exactly strengthen one's arguments...
|
tinyurl.com/uk-eire-cta
It dates back to when Ireland became independent from GB and NI.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 22 Nov 18 at 15:46
|
>> I find Ireland politics very confusing (much more than GB politics). I read on internet
>> about Troubles but still not clear.
I have a modicum of sympathy with that view. Being born in 1959 The Troubles were all over the news in my formative years and well into my working life. It was only in my thirties, having had a particular book with eponymous title pique my interest while lunchtime browsing in WH Smiths, that I began to grasp the full story.
Still like the Flanders and Swann line about the Irish They blow up Policemen or so I have heard and blame it on Cromwell and William the Third
Pretty sure a lot of English people still think it's all about Catholics v Protestants without understanding that religion is actually just a marker for nationality/ethnicity.
|
And there was me thinking you had to pass some kind of history test to be a non eu immigrant...
|
The life in UK test is very simple with multiple choice questions. Time was given 45 minutes but I finished in 3 minutes. It is required for British citizenship only not for coming to UK.
You can check yourself what types of questions are asked in that test.
|
The Political Statement has just been updated. I haven't read it yet, I will do so later and comment here.
tinyurl.com/yaor3jsc
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 22 Nov 18 at 15:55
|
I'm about half way through it.
Very interesting. Anybody care? Because I'm only writing up my thoughts if someone does.
|
My inititial reaction is that it’s all very tentative and vague and that it will take a lot more than a couple of years to reach an actual agreement.
Yes do go ahead. Would me interested to see your views
|
Then Paragraph 23 begins the section on Tariffs.
Here there are cross-implications;
"no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors … with … "single customs territory "
Right, this either takes us into a massive arbitrage industry supported by free trade and disrupting both economies, or it means that our tariffs with other countries must be the same.
I cannot see a third option.
Clearly they feel the same because they go on to say "common principles in the fields of standardisation, technical regulations, conformity assessment, accreditation, market surveillance, metrology and labelling" and....
Paragraph 25 …. ", the United Kingdom will consider aligning with Union rules in relevant areas"....
On into Customs;
Not worth addressing in detail, other than to mention that it does mean that the goal is a full Customs Union such as we have within the EU. It very specifically mentions that the extent of our alignment will be reflected in the level of controls and checks on a border,
It mentions that businessmen will be allowed unrestricted though temporary movement.
Paragraphs 34 - 45 or so then cover this idea of willing alignment and development of the same regulatory and supervisory framework. Again, choosing to follow rather than being told to follow, perhaps.
Paragraph 48 notes the intention to adopt WTO GPA regulation, but states that the parties should seek to go further than that. This covers international procurement. More than WTO GPA is probably EU GPA.
Paragraphs 50 - 57 cover mobility of people. Mostly pretty non-controversial, reciprocal, non-discriminatory between member states. They are also looking to make it much easier for EU members and the UK to cross each others borders for "legitimate travel".
It specifically states that the exception to the point of treating all countries equally is the CTA between UK and Ireland.
Paragraph 60 & 61, is about Aviation and says that a CATA will be established that will recognise UK CAA and EASA as equal.
What does that mean? They want to replicate the EU regulatory environment in the the UK regulatory environment enabling everything to keep flying. I'll tell you now, the ECJ is going to matter here in the future, though it does not mention it.
Paragraph 62 should matter to Pat because it concerns Road Transport. Essentially it says that there will be a regulatory framework which both the UJK and the EU will sign up to though as separate entities. Care to mention jurisdiction?
Paragraph 63 says that the Belfast/Dublin rail link and the Channel Tunnel Rail link will continue to function as is. Somehow or other.
Electricity, Gas and Nuclear.
No change. Only adding regulations in force to make us all continue as w do now with European R&R and market access.
FISHING;
Hmmm.
It says little more than a new fisheries agreement covering access and shares must be established.
Section 14 covers Level Playing fields.
I am not clear on this, though it's pretty broad; "state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, and relevant ta x matters"
But it doesn't really make any statements. one to watch I think.
Paragraph 82 begins the section on Law Enforcement acknowledging that the UK is a non-Schengen country which does not permit free movement.
It all sounds fine, but again there are implications; it's alignment with Union Law, Human Rights and dispute resolution mechanisms implies ECJ involvement. More detail needed, but I think it's obvious what the intended direction is.
Also, it mentions Human Rights but as well as reiterating our commitment to the ECHR, it also mentions alignment with the CFFR( The EU Version).
Again, I think it is the right direction, but that ECJ issue will be there.
All the way up to paragraph 123 covers cooperation and I don't think any of it is controversial.
Essentially though it also says that Law Enforcement will be able to wander much as it does now.
Data exchange
Anti-?money laundering and counter-?terrorism financing
FOREIGN POLICY, SECURITY AND DEFENCE
Sanctions
Defence capabilities development
United Kingdom's collaboration in projects of the European Defence Agency (EDA)
Intelligence exchanges
Space
Cyber security
Civil protection
Health security
Illegal migration
Counter-?terrorism and countering violent extremism
It is worthy of note that it does conclude with "The Parties note that the overarching institutional framework could take the form of an Association Agreement. "
The next 10 paragraphs talk of the management process. Essentially sub-groups for each area reporting though a hierarchy into the Joint Committee which can call on Independent Arbitration if it choose or needs which will deliver binding decisions.
The remainder talks of project management and work programme matters. There is little important about that other than the fact that it exists.
|
tl:dr
It's Stealth BEANO.
To be fair it's actually a great deal better than that. What it will actually do is mean that whilst we have all the same agreements, infrastructure involvement etc. etc. they will be agreements WITH the EU, NOT as PART OF the EU.
I think that's pretty good. But it will come down to the strength of the political manpower and force that is put into it and continues to be put into it.
Done right, it will remove much of the stuff we don't like (Sovereignty issues mostly) but keep the good stuff - cooperation.
I don't think it will bring the independence in trade that people are expecting, but that was never going to happen anyway.
The world got up in arms about the Transition Agreement, and I thought they were being silly. But given that this document is simply 50 pages of *opinions*, then I can only imagine the papers over the next few days.
Any questions or disagreements?
|
Freedom of movement of people is going to be tough still.
|
It boils down to an "agreement to agree".
Something every knowledgeable advisor will tell you not to do, and should never be incorporated into a contract (or "contract").
Because history demonstrates that if you have had to resort to such a construct, you never will (agree, that is).
|
|
Have habitual posters been stunned into silence over Sunday's cataclysmic developments?
|
Not a great deal to add at the moment.
Stocking up on popcorn for the Parliamentary debate in December.
|
So in the past week I've been to three comedy gigs, including a charity do last night at the Palladium which had a number of acts. All of the shows were Big Names.
I can't believe how many of them are still using BREXIT as the basis for a reasonably significant part of their set. The stance generally hasn't moved on much since I last comedy-binged in Edinburgh shortly after the vote, of generally being supportive of Remain and sometimes unkind about Leave and its supporters. They must immediately lose 52% of their audience surely?
Certainly Nish Kumar was heckled for it last night and someone started on one of the others but thought better of it, probably recalling the loud support of Nish's putdown on the heckler.
Maybe the audiences are predictably Remain-heavy. Just as they are largely white (as Nish pointed out!).
|
>> Not a great deal to add at the moment.
Hasn't stopped people in the past ;)
|
>> Not a great deal to add at the moment.
>>
>> Stocking up on popcorn for the Parliamentary debate in December.
Nothing really happened over the weekend, the real stuff comes in Parliament
|
>> Have habitual posters been stunned into silence over Sunday's cataclysmic developments?
>>
No just had other things to do, places to see, people to go etc.
Seriously, thanks Mark, a useful summary
As with the agreement doc, if we want the volume of trade with the EU that we have including all the cross border manufacturing, this kind of agreement with all the accompanying regulation is the only thing that can work, and anyone who thinks our economy could survive throwing EU trade and agreements away for the sake of total independence is misguided at least.
|
The deals with mainland Europe has yet to come.
A leaving agreement from Europe where there is no agreement in parliament on this so- called deal.
|
You have to respect Theresa May. I'm no Tory far from it but she is holding her own.
In the end this deal will go through.
|
On the way home and on R4 some guy called Peter Lilley had and enormous bust-up with the presenter.
Sounded like they had previous form with each over some Brexit document.
|
He got into it with Chris Morris and John Humphreys about a week ago.
He is a conservative Peer and a Brexiteer. He doesn't like being challenged, and as a 75 year old Lord doesn't really give a crap about annoying people.
He wants the PM's deal voted down so that The UK can the do the "Canada-Plus" agreement. Because it's that easy.
|
I remember Peter Liley when he used to speak when they had the Tory conference.
He used to be fair haired arrogant piece of work always calling the underdog.Just my opinion mind you which is problaby irrelevant.
|
I was surprised reading a lot of of the comments in Dutch newspapers what they think about the U.K leaving the E.U.
It is similar to the U.K fifty /fifty.
Rutte their prime head fellow is very right wing.The Labour party and the Catholic party used to be the main contenders running the country.They have proportional representation so nobody gets to big headed and cause to much damage whilst in power.It is a confusing system sometimes but it works.
Rotterdam has a lot of trade with the U.K Their main customer is Germany do.It is a throughput port for the hinterland.Brexit will effect the Dutch more than anybody else in Europe if there are customs checks going back to the old days.I just can't see the U.K leaving the customs union it is self harm if they do.Bussiness are to intergrated in Europe With this Theresa May deal we stay in the system but pretend we are not very clever done .
|
>> I remember Peter Liley when he used to speak when they had the Tory conference.
>>
>> He used to be fair haired arrogant piece of work always calling the underdog.Just my
>> opinion mind you which is problaby irrelevant.
He was SoS for Social Security from 1992, following on from Tony Newton. Difficult to reconcile those two as being in same party.
|
Brexit Discussion - Volume 68 - VxFan