Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

Why did they let all these pauper countries into the EU ? What was the point ?

I can't see how it benefits me to build roads in Lithuania or some similar shithole when the streets here need repaired.

Do you believe the streets will be repaired once Britain stands alone?
Do you believe the Tories will suddenly have a change of heart and start taxing the cocksuckers in the City of London properly that boast about paying fewer taxes than their cleaning lady?
Do you believe the selling out of British assets and real estate (that could be used to house actual Britons) to Russian and Arab billionaires will stop?



Like I've said before: No one else made you sell out your country to these people. No one else made you scrap your manufacturing industry. You even sold out your prized football clubs to foreign oligarchs!


Where's Brussels to blame in all of this self-inflicted damage?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by laberbacke

Do you believe the streets will be repaired once Britain stands alone?
Do you believe the Tories will suddenly have a change of heart and start taxing the cocksuckers in the City of London properly that boast about paying fewer taxes than their cleaning lady?
Do you believe the selling out of British assets and real estate (that could be used to house actual Britons) to Russian and Arab billionaires will stop?



Like I've said before: No one else made you sell out your country to these people. No one else made you scrap your manufacturing industry. You even sold out your prized football clubs to foreign oligarchs!


Where's Brussels to blame in all of this self-inflicted damage?

Firstly, once we are genuinely self governing, the buck will stop at Parliament.

Secondly, when we have left the EU there will be a severance payment, but after that the EU will get no more annual payments out of us. I am sure it will manage. I am also sure that our annual net contribution can be better spent at home.

The management of our domestic economy is a British issue and always has been. So also is our policy regarding immigration and property rights.

Thank you for caring, naturally.

[hoss]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Just as when a man propositions a woman and is turned down, both morally and by law he must take no for an answer, when a country is polled in a referendum and makes a decision, that decision is final.

Just as there is no rule and no law against proposing again, there is no rule against holding a referendum for a second time.

If you are so sure about leaving being the right decision, why are you so insecure about repeating that decision? Because you know that you were lucky to find the remain supporters asleep the first time and it won't happen a second time.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by hoss

Just as there is no rule and no law against proposing again, there is no rule against holding a referendum for a second time.

If you are so sure about leaving being the right decision, why are you so insecure about repeating that decision? Because you know that you were lucky to find the remain supporters asleep the first time and it won´t happen a second time.

It is contemptible to repeat a referendum on the same question because you didn't like the answer first time. That is why.

[hoss]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Here is a nice little graph I borrowed from the BBC. Britain contributed about €3bn more than she got back in 2007.

Sorry, but the whole "net contribution" argument is rather meaningless because it only shows the fiscal aspect of EU membership. Every fiscal system implies a redistribution of the revenues. You do have the same within every member state. There are net payers and net recipients. Being a net payer only shows that you are economically stronger than others.


You only get the whole picture of the benefits of EU membership if you include the increase in profits and earnings of the private sector of the economy generated by barrier free trade within the EU. Regrettably there are no simple graphs to visualize this, but believe me, Britain does benefit from EU membership on a grand scale.


If the hard Brexit takes place, you will have a live experiment taken on you to prove the economic value of an EU membership.

[hoss]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

It is contemptible to repeat a referendum on the same question because you didn't like the answer first time. That is why.

If the outcome of the referendum was influenced by lying propaganda there is at least a reason to repeat it. It would be contemptible to stick to a decision that was based on false assumptions.


And to return to the proposition metaphor, many a marriage is the result of a repeated proposal. Some goals are worth to swallow one´s pride.

[hoss]

Originally Posted by laberbacke

Do you believe the Tories will suddenly have a change of heart and start taxing the cocksuckers in the City of London properly that boast about paying fewer taxes than their cleaning lady?

Isn´t this in fact the core of the problem? If your social system does not work, it is not the fault of the EU. Your own national politicians set up the rules that redistribute money from the bottom to the top instead of vice versa. This is the old capitalist game: take from the poor, give to the rich and blame someone else, preferably a minority: foreigners, unemployed etc.


In my perception the disdained EU politicians and their bureaucracy have fought very courageously and efficiently against international hyper capitalism. They took on giants like Amazon and Facebook, something no national government dared to do. If there is any political organization that fights for the right of the small man, it is the EU.

[Devius]

MPs across the political divide should "abandon outrage" and attempt to "forge a consensus" over Brexit, Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd has said.

In the Daily Mail, Ms Rudd wrote: "Brexit is in danger of getting stuck."

It comes after the PM's bid to make her Brexit deal more acceptable to MPs suffered a blow when EU leaders said it was "not open for renegotiation".

Meanwhile, ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage has told the BBC that he thinks there might be another referendum.

And Labour has said the withdrawal deal is now "dead in the water".

Details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46575210

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

It is contemptible to repeat a referendum on the same question because you didn't like the answer first time. That is why.

But if the original vote was "we vote for a deal that isn't actually on offer" then where are you?

A referendum on a deal that exists: that I understand. The Danes were faced with a 1992 vote on Maastricht, looked at the deal, and said no. The deal was amended, and in 1993, they then said yes

That all makes sense.

The Brexit vote was based on a speculation about what sort of deal might be available to the UK; turns out that that deal isn't available. All there is PM May's deal, which isn't much like what was mooted at the time of the 2016 Referendum

Why not put the deal that actually exists, which the Government has negotiated, to the people?

Its no longer a case of "Leave" vs "Remain"-- its "here is what the Government will obligate the British nation to do-- yes or no?"

[scoundrel]

test