British Politics

[Dazey]

40 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The only people I hear discussing the empire are remaniacs and the EU (Tusk). Being able to make bilateral trade deals and not restrict one's migration quota to a closed-off ''bloc'' is not a sign of regression but progression.

Good luck with those bi-lateral trade deals under Boris' withdrawal agreement.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Good luck with those bi-lateral trade deals under Boris' withdrawal agreement.

We already have many continuity agreements in place. 

[Dazey]

52 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

We already have many continuity agreements in place. 

Most of which rely on a continuation of regulatory alignment which isn't going to help with any future US trade deal.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Most of which rely on a continuation of regulatory alignment which isn't going to help with any future US trade deal.

I have never doubted this country's ability to prosper outside the EU. We'll see who is right. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have never doubted this country's ability to prosper outside the EU. 

But that's just because you are very ignorant about economy and business and have an inflated sense of British superiority.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But that's just because you are very ignorant about economy and business and have an inflated sense of British superiority.

Not really. It quite literally means that I have never doubted the country's ability to prosper outside the EU. 

Edited December 16, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not really. It quite literally means that I have never doubted the country's ability to prosper outside the EU. 

And I explained why.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

And I explained why.

And you explained wrongly. 

[DieselDaisy]

Caroline Flint's assessment on Labour's failings. She speaks a lot of sense in my opinion,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/15/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-labour-working-class

 

And now we know how Boris won,

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[action]

historically, there was never a time when england managed without outside input. for example, they were constantly at war with france, over resources and land. they needed colonies to suck empty and so on.

this notion that england somehow is bigger than it's circumference, is an illusion

[soon]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And now we know how Boris won,

 

Cutlery based witchcraft. That was my second guess. 

[action]

there is a reason brittannia 'ruled the waves' - it was a necessity. ships were needed to import goods from the colonies. If england could sustain its population on its own, that wouldn't have been necessary.

the fact that england has been an "empire" in the past, is only proof of the inherent need of england to broaden their horizons. For the same reasons as germany, they needed "lebensraum", so to speak. 

How england will maintain it's life standard without outside resources, after brexit, is a mystery to me.

Edited December 16, 2019 by action

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, action said:

historically, there was never a time when england managed without outside input. for example, they were constantly at war with france, over resources and land. they needed colonies to suck empty and so on.

this notion that england somehow is bigger than it's circumference, is an illusion

England had been around for circa 900 years before the British Empire - I say ''British'' as the Scottish played a disproportionate rule in imperial governance and there were Welsh and Irish contributions - become a power, and there is actually an academic debate on how much the colonial periphery economically fed the imperial metropole as the upkeep of empire was so tremendously high. This post anyhow resides on a fallacy seeing that nobody is proposing that the United Kingdom recede into ''island isolation'' with Brexit; the UK will still be a member of the Council of Europe, still be a member of the UN (security council), still be a member of the Commonwealth, and still be a member of NATO.

[DieselDaisy]

25 minutes ago, action said:

there is a reason brittannia 'ruled the waves' - it was a necessity. ships were needed to import goods from the colonies. If england could sustain its population on its own, that wouldn't have been necessary.

the fact that england has been an "empire" in the past, is only proof of the inherent need of england to broaden their horizons. For the same reasons as germany, they needed "lebensraum", so to speak. 

How england will maintain it's life standard without outside resources, after brexit, is a mystery to me.

Settlement colonies were barely instigated by the metropole, and were notoriously unproductive and difficult to govern (case in point the thirteen colonies). Much of the British Empire did not even consist of settlement colonies, but was actually administered by very few Europeans (case in point, the ''jewel'', India). Your argument only makes sense - let's just assume that the Empire was instigated by the stress of England's population growth? - however if the United Kingdom was using the rest of the European Union as a place to to dump her surplus population as she had been doing with white colonial settlement; however, the number of UK nationals living in the EU rests at 1.3 million in comparison to the number of EU citizens living in the UK: 3.6 million. 

Economically the UK is actually a net contributor to the EU, i.e. we put in more than we gain,

Edited December 16, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Caroline Flint's assessment on Labour's failings. She speaks a lot of sense in my opinion,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/15/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-labour-working-class

Emily Thornberry's suing her.  

[bucketfoot]

18 hours ago, soon said:

Its as if she didnt understand that The Offices' David Brents songwriting wasnt to be taken seriously. 

That's very harsh on Brent, he actually knocked out a couple of decent tunes.

It's not all bad news for EU Supergirl, though, she's still far more talented than Lily Allen.

 

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

And now we know how Boris won,

 

The spoon bender loves to take a bit of credit for himself. He claimed to have moved the ball for the penalty against the Jocks in Euro 96 as well, if you recall? Absolutely mental.

[bucketfoot]

10 hours ago, action said:

Seriously: how will you survive? You'll eat rocks, weed and drink sea water?

Oh Gawd!!! We're doomed! Doomed I tell you!! DOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!

Fallout UK.... coming 2020.

 

[soon]

18 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

It's not all bad news for EU Supergirl, though, she's still far more talented than Lily Allen.

Y'know, until I just looked her up, I thought Lily Allen was the actress with the incredibly thick neck from Game of Thrones. 

But if she cant compete with Free Love Freeway than she's not worth hitting play. 

[DieselDaisy]

One wonders how the world coped before 1993 when the European Union came into existence? Even if we trace its precedents we only go back as far as 1951, whereas (an unified) England has existed for 1093 years, and the United Kingdom 313 years. How did we cope? How did the world cope? How did Appetite for Destruction come out? It was released before the EU came into existence! This surely is the moment HAL breaks down seeing as the world cannot possibly exist without the EU?!!!!

Of the top 10 countries by GDP, six of them (soon to be seven) are not members of the European Union. There are a further two countries in the top twenty who, despite not belonging to the European Union, are European. In fact the UK will be joining a club of circa 22 nations, all European but not in the EU; none of these countries are isolationist but have forged bilateral relations and sit upon the usual intergovernmental-security bodies. It is actually rather impossible to be isolationist in Europe given the paucity and geographic make-up of the place.  

The United Kingdom will still play a sizable role in Europe, chiefly through the Council of Europe/ECHR and NATO/OSCE, both of which she played a key role forging. She will still be a member of the ESA (European Space Agency). She will still be a member of the EBU (Broadcasting Union). More facetiously perhaps she is not leaving UEFA. Because, believe it are not, there exists a lot of integration that is non-EU (other examples, the EFTA, the Baltic Sea States Council, etc etc). Brexit specifically refers to the European Union. 

PS

Rebecca Long-Bailey and Angela Rayner are a bit too Corbynist - more so Long-Bailey who is the one running apparently. Long-Bailey backed Corbyn in 2015 for crying out loud. Labour needs a clean break from the horror that is Corbynism. It needs Caroline Flint. Oh well! 

Also, the Nicky Morgan thing, plonking her in the Lords and giving her a cabinet post, is absurd cronyism at its best. 

Edited December 16, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[action]

13 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

still be a member of the Council of Europe, , , and .

a hobby club talking about the grand issues, without any real advantage. won't put food on the table. in fact, none of the institutions you mention will do that:

Quote

still be a member of the UN (security council)

not much use, but you can still vote on sanctions on syria.

Quote

still be a member of the Commonwealth

a ceremonial vehicle, if that. that's like saying, I have a ferrari while showing your 1/18 model

Quote

still be a member of NATO

if turkey or russia attacks us, the NATO will not be of much use. The USA won't be there to save your ass, like they did during WWII. the NATO is a tiger without teeth.

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by action

[action]

15 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Settlement colonies were barely instigated by the metropole, and were notoriously unproductive and difficult to govern (case in point the thirteen colonies). Much of the British Empire did not even consist of settlement colonies, but was actually administered by very few Europeans (case in point, the ''jewel'', India). Your argument only makes sense - let's just assume that the Empire was instigated by the stress of England's population growth? - however if the United Kingdom was using the rest of the European Union as a place to to dump her surplus population as she had been doing with white colonial settlement; however, the number of UK nationals living in the EU rests at 1.3 million in comparison to the number of EU citizens living in the UK: 3.6 million. 

Economically the UK is actually a net contributor to the EU, i.e. we put in more than we gain,

that stat represents the "social security" balance between nations. the "poorer" nations are on the top of that diagram, because they need more money.

if england is with the richer nations today, then you need to have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge they gathered that wealth while being a member of the EU.

I repeat: how will england sustain its population, when the common market will be gone. What with import taxes, limited agricultural production in england, limited resources in england (which have been heavily drained already, over the centuries?)

all england got, at this point, is the shiny memory of it's history. England has their culture, it has nice people, and idiot politicians. But england was never, in and of itself, capable of maintaining life standard within its borders.

I think england is going the way of greece, to be honest

Edited December 17, 2019 by action

[Dazey]

16 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Economically the UK is actually a net contributor to the EU, i.e. we put in more than we gain,

Basically a load of disingenuous nonsense. At this point you're just deliberately misrepresenting reality. You're acting as though that contribution comes with no benefits and that simply leaving means that we just pocket that extra cash. The point is that the contribution allows us to trade tariff free with the other 27 countries in the EU and the financial benefits of this far out-weigh the upfront cost of membership.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Dazey

[Dazey]

3 hours ago, action said:

that stat represents the "social security" balance between nations. the "poorer" nations are on the top of that diagram, because they need more money.

if england is with the richer nations today, then you need to have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge they gathered that wealth while being a member of the EU.

I repeat: how will england sustain its population, when the common market will be gone. What with import taxes, limited agricultural production in england, limited resources in england (which have been heavily drained already, over the centuries?)

All good points but @DieselDaisy will never acknowledge any of it because all he cares about is getting back at the EU for something to do with fish from half a century ago.

[SoulMonster]

It is of course possible to throw around studies supporting anyone's position on Brexit while neglecting any study that is contrary, but what is more interesting is what the consensus of economists think, and "there is a broad consensus among economists that Brexit will likely reduce the real per-capita income level in the UK" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit)

Of course this is not what Diesel wants to hear, so he will likely continue to post misleading data like the graph above trying to make it seem like he knows what he is talking about and that Brexit won't hurt the UK economy.

 

More from wikipedia:

"There is overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement among economists that leaving the European Union will adversely affect the British economy in the medium- and long-term.[a][39] Surveys of economists in 2016 showed overwhelming agreement that Brexit would likely reduce the UK's real per-capita income level.[40][30][31] 2019 and 2017 surveys of existing academic research found that the credible estimates ranged between GDP losses of 1.2–4.5% for the UK,[39] and a cost of between 1–10% of the UK's income per capita.[27] These estimates differ depending on whether the UK does a Hard or Soft Brexit.[27] In January 2018, the UK government's own Brexit analysis was leaked; it showed that UK economic growth would be stunted by 2–8% for at least 15 years following Brexit, depending on the leave scenario.[41][42]

According to most economists, EU membership has a strong positive effect on trade and, as a result, the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[43][44][45][46] According to a study by University of Cambridge economists, under a hard Brexit, whereby the UK reverts to WTO rules, one-third of UK exports to the EU would be tariff-free, one-quarter would face high trade barriers and other exports risk tariffs in the range of 1–10%.[47] A 2017 study found that "almost all UK regions are systematically more vulnerable to Brexit than regions in any other country."[48] A 2017 study examining the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration" found that there would likely be "a significant negative impact on UK GDP per capita (and GDP), with marginal positive impacts on wages in the low-skill service sector."[49][27] It is unclear how changes in trade and foreign investment will interact with immigration, but these changes are likely to be important.[27]"

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, action said:

if england is with the richer nations today, then you need to have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge they gathered that wealth while being a member of the EU.

1972, on the eve of the United Kingdom joining the EC, the UK was the fifth largest economy in GDP. We are currently 5th-6th (depending on who you ask?). 

3 hours ago, action said:

I repeat: how will england sustain its population, when the common market will be gone. What with import taxes, limited agricultural production in england, limited resources in england (which have been heavily drained already, over the centuries?)

Already, despite being a fully-fledged EU member state and firmly in the European Customs Union, 47% of UK imports, nearly half of UK imports in otherwords, come from outside the European Union!

It might interest you to know that twenty continuity agreements have already been signed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842. Following Brexit, which should be 31st January 2020, there will be a eleven month ''transition period'' which will be occupied by trade talks between the United Kingdom and the European Union, from which there will hopefully be a trade deal. These negotiations will be precarious and no doubt combative but ultimately it is as much in the EU's interest to sign a trade deal as it is the United Kingdom's as we have a trade deficit with Germany worth circa 20 billion (truthfully, we barely trade with most EU states but only a few, Germany, Netherlands being at the forefront). Ultimately, exports to the United Kingdom account for about 8% of EU exports. 

Then there is the spectre of a, dare I say it, United States trade deal? The United States is the UK's largest trading partner: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44802666 

3 hours ago, action said:

But england was never, in and of itself, capable of maintaining life standard within its borders.

Nobody has claimed that, at any point in her history, ''England'' has been autarkic. Indeed, our geographic positioning and historical development makes that impossible. 

3 hours ago, action said:

I think england is going the way of greece, to be honest

Greece is a member of the Eurozone and not, at least in the immediate future, about to ''Grexit''. Thus the circumstances between Britain and Greece are totally different and not worth the analogy.

I'll just dismiss your assessment of the intergovernmental bodies the United Kingdom will still be a member of with all the flippancy it deserves. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by DieselDaisy