Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[Meini Again]

Before the previous page-upon-page between 2 posters

- who read all of it ?
- I gave up... but that's me

Before all that. I posted a YT link that was possibly humbly mis-titled by it's poster as....
"Three Men in a Pub"

Kennedy / Freud etc are reposting and pinning it on their 1mill folowers accounts.

Trust me.... Please.... It's serious info.,,, from

3 Guys in a pub - right - each of them have knowledge of EU borders.
2 High-blown exporters/importers
1 guy who cycled the world, across borders under fire.Liverpool Hero.

In a pub and talking about future 'border' problems for the UK.
PLEASE WATCH THIS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4A...ature=youtu.be



Take 50 Mins out of your life, and you may re-think .... these aren't lies
they aren't spin

It's practical 'day-to-day' explanations of the UK future on trade and borders.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4A...outu.behttp://

[Roubignol]

Be careful British friends. Even out of EU, the fight against liberalism will be hard.

When liberal EU tries to impose wage dumping in Switzerland : link

Federal Council caught between Brussels and unions

Trade unions and Swiss bosses refuse to relax accompanying measures. While Brussels calls for the abolition of controls on building sites. Johann Schneider-Ammann has two weeks to find a solution

[...]


The unions shocked in Brussels

In a report Le Temps has obtained, the EEAS has said all the bad things it thinks about the accompanying measures, which it considers not only "disproportionate", but also "discriminatory". Brussels accuses Switzerland of carrying out too many checks, which it proposes to reduce to 3% of companies sending posted workers. According to the union minutes, the EU would clearly prefer electronic checks. "In general, we should avoid any control on the spot, either on the construction sites."

Basically, the EU would like Switzerland to carry out about ten times fewer checks than today. However, if there is one point on which the Swiss Employers' Union (UPS) and the Swiss Trade Union Association (USS) meet, it is precisely on the necessity and the frequency of these controls.
[...]

The bad example of Austria

For Brussels, the solution is simple: Switzerland must adopt its revised directive on posted work, which enshrines the principle of "equal pay for equal work at the same workplace". "This directive goes in the same direction as Switzerland. We too in the EU want to fight wage dumping, "said German MEP Andreas Schwab.

This is not the experience of the unions in Austria, a country that had to abandon in 2016 a rule similar to Switzerland, an announcement deadline for posted workers. In a letter dated July 4th, the Austrian unions encouraged their Swiss colleagues not to let go on this point. "Since the disappearance of this rule, the fight against the under-wage has become much more complicated. In a risky sector such as construction, the number of abuses went from 27% in 2015 to 44% in 2017, "says the president of the union of construction and wood, Beppo Muchitsch.

For the unions, the eight-day rule "is not negotiable". A little more moderate, the UPS believes that it is "ready to discuss this rule, but only if the EU recognizes the sovereignty of Switzerland in terms of accompanying measures." This is to say how close the margin of maneuver of the Federal Council to negotiate in Brussels will be.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by recluce

Which "options", pray tell?

Other than that, the route appears clear by now. No deal, no waivers, no favours. Hard Brexit and let the UK reap what they sowed. If the Brexiters are indeed right, that harvest should be sweet fruit that will make life in the UK so much better.

If you insist, I will mention a few options if this becomes a pissing contest.

1. Tariffs - in general terms, whatever tariffs the EU imposes Britain will probably emulate. The balance of trade between Britain and the EU is in deficit for Britain and in surplus for the EU. This would also be a powerful incentive for Britain to look elsewhere for her imports and to seek better relationships with non-EU countries.
2. Fisheries. We own much of the North Sea and Channel and Western Atlantic fishing grounds. We would do a far better job of management and conservation than the imbeciles who wrote the Common Fisheries Policy.
3. Sourcing all dairy products at home instead of importing 20% from the EU as we are presently being required to do by EU law.
4. Tariffs on cars would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, but we export 800,000 cars a year to the EU and import 1,750,000 from the EU, so this would hurt the EU as well and most unpleasantly.
5. We could impose mandatory capitalisation on the London bank operations of EU banks, with severance from their EU base. If there is no "passporting" or deal on the exchange of services we probably should do this in self-defence, to prevent another Icesave, where the home country dishonours the obligation to guarantee deposits and expects Britain to pick up the tab. The Icelanders were rather put out when we seized their assets in London to reimburse ourselves after paying the guarantees they wanted to welch on - they ended up paying after all.
6. We could, of course, simply refuse to pay the severance payments. I would be very against such a move because where I come from, if your word is no good, that means you yourself are no good. Also, what worked for Britain against Iceland over Icesave would also work for the EU against Britain, and if it was because Britain had welched and refused to pay, I would be very happy to see the EU teach my government a lesson in the same way. However, it is an example of how Britain could make herself awkward if she wanted to.
7. There was some fairly loose talk from the Irish recently about how they might close Irish airspace to British flights in the event of a no-deal Brexit. But they forgot that the polar routes from western Europe (including Ireland) to North America pass through British airspace. Not particularly clever; but Britain has the strategic position here, not the EU.

There are all sorts of reasons why this would be harmful to Britain and the intangible, non-economic damage would be the first and most important reason. This would be the end of friendship between Britain and the EU member countries, and only our mutual enemies, such as Russia, would gain from such a failure of diplomacy. The laughter of our enemies will be our only reward if we quarrel. But that is what we could risk if we fail to make a deal.

[monogroover]

Originally Posted by Brecht

Wow, the British establishment must really be afraid of Jeremy Corbyn and a genuine Labour Party. Now I'm not up to date with everything currently going on in the UK but I stumbled upon an article today morning that disgusts me beyond words. Apparently three Jewish newspapers, the Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and the Jewish Telegraph have launched an unparalleled campaign of slander against Mr. Corbyn. They even went so far as claiming that a government led by Corbyn could pose an existential threat to all British Jews. I think Mr. Corbyn ought to sue their arrogant asses right now.

The British mainstream press have been on the forefront of a smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn ever since he got elected as Labour's new leader. At the same time, the chauvinists who think Brexit is going to resurrect the British Empire, hate him for not being a staunch Brexiteer or whatever the fuck they blame him for. Now since nothing worked in bringing him down, let's send out a couple of Jewish organisations and newspapers to make him look like a new Hitler.

Corbyn is a blinkered, laughable extremist from the hard left of his party who made a career out of snivelling at the feet of terrorists - any vicious or hateful cause going, as long as it's against the interest of his own country - and was quite properly never considered by his party for any position of responsibility until a leadership election in which the disenfranchised dregs of society were given a chance to take over Labour's asylum for £3 a go.


His most prominent claim to fame is his passionate support for the Provisional IRA's campaign of murderous violence against British service personnel and civilians. Don't believe the revisionist guff that he met them in the cause of peace. Actually I'm sure you do. But he regularly attended commemorations to honour dead terrorists. He believed in "force of arms" to defeat his own country. He described convicted IRA terrorists as "political prisoners", demanding better conditions for them.

Corbyn is the first to condemn any military action by his own country, which has led some to imagine him as some sort of advocate of peace. But the truth is that Corbyn will often support lethal violence provided that it's directed against the United Kingdom.


So too do the people he chose to support him in his shadow cabinet. Diane Abbott, laughably now the shadow home secretary once said that "a defeat for the British state would be a great liberation". John 'Provo' McDonnell, hilariously now the shadow chancellor, openly praised the "bombs and bullets" of his friends in the IRA, praising the "sacrifice" of the terrorists and calling for them to be "honoured". His idea of "peace" is British surrender.



It's not merely the newspapers who despise Corbyn. His own MPs tried to get rid of the poisonous old fool as leader two years ago, and passed a vote of no confidence in him by 172 votes to 40. Of course Jeremy didn't have the personal dignity to resign.


He speaks warmly of his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah.



The British security services - not the newspapers - long had a file open on him because they knew that he was a determined enemy of his own country.



If you think he's been "smeared", I'm afraid you've been suckered very easily. His obvious anti-semitism is the least of it.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by ********

Thing is, the EU is 500m people to trade with. Companies that were located in the UK are already moving back into the EU.

There are more than 500 million people in other places. Neither for that matter will Britain suddenly cease to trade with those 500 million people in the EU. The terms of trade need to be agreed and obviously we in Britain would prefer those terms to be favourable rather than adverse. But even if there is a total embargo, we would still trade, as happened during the Napoleonic Wars when the Continental System was meant to prevent any British trade with Europe whatsoever, and we still traded.

Originally Posted by ********

Meanwhile the UK would crash out and be desperately trying to fill a huge hole in its economy. Naturally every other country would be looking to exploit this weakness with trade deals that suit them.

Vraiment? Shroud waving yet again? I decline to move my bowels. We will in all cases be free to govern ourselves and this is much more important than whether or not holiday makers have to pay more pounds when they draw €100 from a cash machine. The Remain argument always bangs on about the economy but never talks about our nationhood.

One way or another, this will work out. Britain imports a lot from the EU and neither side will want that to stop. The logic for a free trade agreement is strong and will remain strong even if we have to leave with no agreement just to make clear that we are serious about free trade in services. The risk for the EU is that Britain will reconfigure her economy to a basis position that there are no special terms with the EU at all, which would be a big opportunity for other trading partners and for our domestic producers, as we are perfectly capable of growing fresh fruit and vegetables if we have to.

Originally Posted by ********

Also, it has to be pointed out that the WTO is unelected and unaccountable, so moving on to those rules is a loss of sovereignty and giving away control.

At least the WTO doesn't try to tell us to give council flats to people who have never even visited the UK before and have just arrived at Victoria Coach Station. The WTO is concerned with trade only and has no ambitions to govern its member countries. There is no world in which Britain can do anything she likes. But there is a world in which Britain can run her own affairs and interact responsibly with all nations outside - the WTO is a peaceful forum where disputes can be peacefully resolved.

Originally Posted by ********

That is a myth.

Is it? And yet we import more than 20% of our milk from the EU and many thousands of British dairy farmers went bankrupt. To be fair, Mrs Thatcher did tremendous harm when she abolished the Milk Marketing Board for purely ideological reasons; I suspect she is not resting in peace. But this is one of many areas where we could benefit by the change. There is no need to import milk, we are perfectly capable of producing all the milk we need, just as we always used to do.

Originally Posted by ********

True, but I'm sure we would continue to import a lot of those cars anyway and just pay higher prices for them. After all, what are you going to buy, a Vaxhaul?

I would probably buy a Honda Civic in that situation; though the Vauxhall Astra is still a rather good car, you know. If they still made Fords here that would be my first choice (I think Ford is a very good brand) but on the whole, I reckon the Honda Civic would be the way to go.

Originally Posted by ********

It's the loss of the manufacturing as it moves to the EU that will do us real harm.

In this world, cost and profit is more important than ideology. It is possible indeed that some manufacturers could relocate but it is also likely that some with a larger sales footprint in the UK, such as Ford, would increase their investment here to offset the effect of tariffs. What is also likely is that, faced with actual or even imminent disruption, the politicians would be forced to come up with a deal on trade in goods.

Originally Posted by ********

There goes a bit part of our economy.

The pull factors for financial services and banking in London are not exclusively dependent on EU membership. There are good reasons for EU banks to want to trade in London. But just as the EU quite rightly regulates the financial sector, so do we, and rightly so. The experience of 2009 has taught us that we humble citizens are the insurers of last resort when banks fail, so it is important to protect ourselves from this risk. No doubt the EU will see it in the same light.

Originally Posted by ********

So you do understand what the problem is then? If we don't pay our credit rating tanks and other countries assume we will just walk away from any deals we don't like. It would be economic suicide.

And actually we probably couldn't avoid it in the end. The EU would simply use the WTO, which would allow them to do things like ignore British patents and copyrights until the loss is made up.

Sure - creditworthiness is a fancy way of saying whether or not you are a country of good character. If your word is no good, then you yourself are no good. No one will do business with you if your word is no good; that's how it is.

Originally Posted by ********

Take a look at the flight path of aircraft taking off in South Korea. They fly around North Korea, and it's not a huge detour for them. That includes the ones going north up over the pole.

On the other hand the UK is hemmed in on three sides by EU airspace, and even the polar routes normally cross it unless you want to add 2-3 hours to the journey.

But that's almost trivial compared to the loss of access to the EU itself.

Speaking purely selfishly, I don't like flying anyway and I am not frantically worried. If it means no third runway at Heathrow, I will be pleased. Somehow I doubt that the EU will elect to deny access to its airspace. We have the option to do likewise in such a case and it would be a classic no win situation.

Originally Posted by ********

We agree on that at least. The UK needs to be realistic and make a decision about what it actually wants. Unfortunately I don't think that is possible with the current government.

Something else I agree with [just for a change]. I made up my mind about Theresa May in the 2017 election - she is a shit house rat.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The Remain argument always bangs on about the economy but never talks about our nationhood

You're close to 60 years behind reality, my friend. No one minds if you wave flags and sing songs, but nationalism is toxic in many situations, especially yours

You don't have a democratically elected government. Ever thought of that? You're always ruled by rigged minorities. All of Europe knows that, though all are shocked when they find out

And you call that "taking control". By who exactly? A minority again?

[haroldeye]

Originally Posted by palo5

You're close to 60 years behind reality, my friend. No one minds if you wave flags and sing songs, but nationalism is toxic in many situations, especially yours

You don't have a democratically elected government. Ever thought of that? You're always ruled by rigged minorities. All of Europe knows that, though all are shocked when they find out

And you call that "taking control". By who exactly? A minority again?

Palo my friend we are looking to the future not the past. My invite for you to come to the UK and find out still exists.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Palo my friend we are looking to the future not the past. My invite for you to come to the UK and find out still exists.

Whenever Luguvoy comes to Britain to face justice, my invitation to Comrade Palo is also activated and he can come to London to face my cooking. Now that we are Brexiting, his Euros will go a lot further.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Whenever Luguvoy comes to Britain to face justice, my invitation to Comrade Palo is also activated and he can come to London to face my cooking. Now that we are Brexiting, his Euros will go a lot further.

Well, it's very kind of you. But there are obvious problems with a country that presumes guilt before innocence and believes in trial by newspaper. Especially when they have no evidence, have court hearings in secret, and the defendants are Russian

Is your cooking so good that you can tempt me anyway?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

Well, it's very kind of you. But there are obvious problems with a country that presumes guilt before innocence and believes in trial by newspaper. Especially when they have no evidence, have court hearings in secret, and the defendants are Russian

Is your cooking so good that you can tempt me anyway?

You can't film a British court hearing but it isn't held in secret - the media and the public are allowed to attend and watch and listen. As for evidence, the court hearing can settle that one, but the radiation trail is pretty damning evidence, not only of culpability but also of the imbecile stupidity of the plot. But what was reported is not evidence; the court will be concerned with what the Prosecutor can actually prove.

Don't forget that the murder victim is Russian as well, even if you would quite legitimately regard him in the same way as we British regard people such as the Cambridge Five. He was murdered in cold blood on our territory and that is why we are forced to react.

I can cook.