Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[Mal Hombre]

When you consider that the Brexit campaign had effectively been going on for years,It beggars belief that no one ever gave any thought to how it would be accomplished and what would happen afterwards.

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by judy84

Mr Jacques, I have made some statements which I think you have misinterpreted, but I am not going to enter any arguments on here just give my thoughts.

What misinterpretation? On the contrary, I think we perfectly understand each other. Especially since you now seem to realise that the Irish border could become a significant stumbling block in those Brexit negotiations.

Originally Posted by judy84

Some of the advantages I have seen from remainers for staying in the EU:
No visa requirement or border restrictions for holidays or business travels to EU countries, no roaming charges for mobile phones, no restriction on watching Netflix in EU countries.

There are a lot of advantages that you have forgotten.
* All the EU programmes that benefit the regions overlooked by the British government. Those EU programmes aim to reduce regional wealth disparities:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-how-does-thi/
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/...2009/uk_en.pdf
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/20...fited-from-eu/
* British farmers will greatly suffer when they no longer receive funds through the Common Agricultural Policy:
https://fullfact.org/europe/how-much...ve-eu-funding/
* And British citizens also benefit from EU agencies. For instance, British cancer patients can be treated because radioactive isotopes can quickly be imported to the UK. With Brexit, the UK will no longer be a member of Euratom:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit...at-risk-2018-3
* And then, there are the advantages of being part of the single market and customs union, which have boosted the British economy and job growth. We are talking about trillions of pounds, which is much more than the UK's contribution to the EU budget.

Originally Posted by judy84

I can add a few more:
No more worrying about having to change money at EU borders because we will be forced into the Euro (and Schengen), no more worrying about defence budgets because it will be taken over by PESCO, no worries about higher wages when we can encourage cheap workers from Albania and other countries and our "quota" of immigrants not to mention free movement when German-based "refugees" are given citizenship, no worry about calculating rebate...there isn't going to be any, getting the economy moving by increasing inflation with an increase in Corporation Tax by 3% which goes to the EU and reducing the amount of tariffs that countries can keep by increasing the EU take to 90%.

Is that the Brexiters' Project Fear? No one is talking about forcing the UK to adopt the Euro. In fact, there are other EU members which have retained their own national currency. Same thing with Schengen and Pesco. On the other hand, I must admit that if the UK wants to remain in the EU, it is unlikely that it will keep its rebate.
About cheap workers, it's the UK's fault. The Home Office has set a salary threshold for non-EU workers (£35,000). Which means that the Home Office can refuse to grant a visa or can deport workers earning too little (Albania is not an EU member). Then, you have cheap EU workers, and that's also the UK's fault. I see a lot of EU citizens working in England in the catering industry, and as nurses and builders. I guess those jobs are not attractive enough for a lot of Brits. And for highly skilled jobs like doctors, engineers and computer programmers, British companies recruit EU citizens because the training in the UK is not good enough and they therefore have a shortage.
Not sure why you are complaining about the 3% turnover tax:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7941116.html
Do you understand that it's to fight big corporations like Amazon, Google, Apple and Co. that are avoiding taxation? Unless you think tax avoidance is fine, even if it means less money for public services.

Originally Posted by judy84

The Eu budget is set to be €1.279 trillion for 2021 to 2027 up from €864.3 billion for the period 2007–2013.The figure amounts to 1.11% of the EU27’s gross national income (GNI), a significant rise compared to the previous budget cap at 1.03% of the GNI In 2016, the UK’s gross contribution to the EU amounted to £19 billion per annum.The UK currently provides approximately 12% of the resources available to the EU budget.If the UK were to stay in the EU the UK's contribution to the EU budget could be expected to be a lot higher than £19 billion pa.

So what's your point? Germany and France contribute more to the EU budget than the UK. You mention a gross contribution of £19 billion a year, but that figure is misleading. The UK's net contribution is in fact £8.6 billion (gross contribution of £17 billion, minus a rebate of £4 billion, minus £4.5 billion of EU spending on the UK):
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-m...ee-55-million/
The EU budget will be fine without the UK: Brussels will have to trim some programmes and possibly borrow from banks and financial institutions. But thanks for worrying.

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by judy84

The EU has launched legal proceedings against the British Government for repeatedly breaking the bloc’s tight air pollution rules.
EU judges in Luxembourg will be able to hit Britain with huge fines under the bloc’s “infringement proceedings”.

The EU's ruling's will continue after brexit.Barnier said in order for a trade deal to be signed Britain would have to continue to comply with the EU’s environmental regulations.
He said there could be no reduction in environmental standards after Brexit as Britain could otherwise seek a “competitive advantage” over its neighbours.
Barnier added a “non-regression clause” must be included in the EU’s agreement on the future relationship with the UK to guard against a softening of rules.

The EU is not seeking revenge or punishment for Brexit. You understand that Germany and France have also breached EU rules on air pollution and are sued like the UK. I have no problem with those EU environmental laws. Lung cancer is a major cause of death in the UK and in Europe in general. Those EU laws are good for the citizens.
The alternative for the UK is to diverge from EU laws and turn Brexit into a race to the bottom (i.e. fuck health and the environment, let's make plenty of money). To clarify, Barnier did not say that complying with EU environment laws was a sine qua non condition for a trade deal, but if the Brits reject those laws, they will only get a weak deal. The French, the Spaniards, the Italians are not interested in buying chlorinated chicken, hormone-injected beef and other substandard products. It may be good for the British economy but not for EU citizens.

Originally Posted by judy84

Some thoughts:
Wonder how much of this pollution is due to the German car industry lying about emissions. If proven could the UK lay a claim against Germany for damages?
Do they insist that every third party they have trade deals with must also abide by EU emissions regulations to reduce competitive advantage? If not, why not?

The German car industry has been the most stained by the diesel emissions scandal. However, there were other nations guilty of cheating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
So I'm glad that Volkswagen had to pay a hefty fine. But keep in mind that pollution mostly remains local. If London produces a lot of pollution, the bulk of that pollution will remain around London. PM10 particles only travel 30 miles maximum, while PM2.5 particles can travel hundreds of miles:
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/what...-matter-551513
If pollution could spread evenly, then the UK would have the same pollution level everywhere, which is not the case. Air pollution in Cornwall is much lower than in London.

Originally Posted by judy84

One point to note we have millions of EU citizens living in the UK and they add to the pollution levels. Do we get “pollution credits” from the countries they have come from? Can we pro rata any fines to these countries as their citizens are contributing?

Your comments about pollution from EU citizens don't make any sense and reek of europhobia. First, those EU citizens are impacted by their own pollution and by the pollution produced by the Brits. And second, what should we say about British expats living in EU countries? And can the UK seriously claim the moral high ground when it is more polluted than Ireland and Norway?
Go to page 80 for air pollution in Europe:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/h...B75?sequence=1

[judy84]

No Brexit:
UK could remain in the EU but on worse terms, says Guy Verhofstadt. If Britain changes track and decides to remain a member of the European Union it could lose perks such as budget rebates and opt-outs, according to the European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7790886.html

So if the UK wanted to rejoin the EU it would have to submit an application for membership as if it were applying for the first time.
That probably means signing up to the Schengen area on passport-free movement and, importantly, committing to joining the euro. It would also mean recommitting to the goal of “ever closer union”.

[judy84]

The UK's overall net contributions are even higher than those shown in the official EU budget. The UK also pays further amounts to the EU which are not formally included in the EU's budget, and which do not appear in any summaries you will read in the British media or in House of Commons Library report,eg administrative costs, co-funding of EU projects.



The new EU budget plan seeks to fill the roughly €12-15 billion annual hole left by Brexit (Budget Commissioner Gunther Oettinger), which is what UK has been paying in.

http://www.money-go-round.eu/Country.aspx?id=UK

The Commission has proposed changes to the current overall financing – “Own Resources” – system and diversifying the budget’s sources of revenue.

The proposed new own resources include:

1)20 percent of the revenues from the Emissions Trading System

2)A 3 percent call rate applied to the new Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base

3)A national contribution calculated on the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste in each country.
These proposed taxes will disproportionally hit UK compared to other EU countries.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-b...ramework-blog/

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/site...may2018_en.pdf

The increase in GNI and the inrcease to 1.11% take of that GNI by the EU together with no rebate and the extra revenues means UK will be paying about £22 bn pa if we were to stay in the EU.

[judy84]

The EU is insisting on a "level playing field" as part of the Brexit negotiations. In other words it is trying to prevent the UK from operating as an independent country in all respects, with its own taxation policies and other frameworks which would make the UK a more competitive country than those in the EU.
What could be a more obvious lack of a level playing field than that of UK businesses being forced to compete with businesses in countries with a minimum wage being 1/5th that of the UK? That is the current situation whilst the UK is still in the EU. When the UK leaves, it will still have this un-level "playing field".

In addition companies operating in one country can make royalty payments to parent companies overseas, enabling them to shift profits out of countries with higher corporation tax rates.
In 2016 the EU Commission ruled that Ireland had given the US multinational Apple illegal state aid by allowing it to pay an effective 1 per cent corporation tax.

“These practices undermine fairness and the level playing field in our internal market, and they increase the burden on EU taxpayers,” said EU tax commissioner Pierre Moscovici.

Multinational companies shifted profits through Ireland – an accounting technique designed to avoid corporation tax - equivalent to almost a quarter of the country’s GDP between 2010 and 2015.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8244456.html

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by judy84

No Brexit:
UK could remain in the EU but on worse terms, says Guy Verhofstadt. If Britain changes track and decides to remain a member of the European Union it could lose perks such as budget rebates and opt-outs, according to the European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7790886.html

So if the UK wanted to rejoin the EU it would have to submit an application for membership as if it were applying for the first time.
That probably means signing up to the Schengen area on passport-free movement and, importantly, committing to joining the euro. It would also mean recommitting to the goal of “ever closer union”.

Of course that is a speculation on top of a speculation, in that Britain has not even made enquiries concerning either a rescinding of the Article 50 notice or an application to re-join. I don't find the points made surprising, in that Guy Verhofstadt is a contemptible person and there are many other just like him in the EU parliament. For the Leavers this is actually helpful, in that it confirms the correctness of Britain's decision to leave. There is no likelihood that the British people would consent to such terms - I for one would sooner pan fry my own genatalia than consent to joining the Euro, or the Schengen area, let alone commit Britain to "ever closer union".

Leprosy...
I'm not quite the man I used to be...
Little things keep falling off from me;
Ohh I believe in leprosee.

Syphilis...
It all started with a little kiss...
Now it hurts me when I take a piss;
Ohh I believe in syphilis.

Why she had to go, I don't know;
She wouldn't say.
She just held a vote;
Now she going her own way..a..aay.

[scoundrel]

So; more than two years after the referendum and fifteen months after the Article 50 declaration, there appears to be a plan for our negotiating position vis a vis the EU and Mr Barnier, whose silence during the last few weeks has been eloquent. I have to say I have no idea why this could not have been discussed and agreed a lot sooner than now, but this is where we are at.

A few points are immediately striking to me, the most significant one being that we are not leaving, merely forfeiting the advantages of membership in order to retain all of the disadvantages.

Even at that, the notion that Britain can be in a "combined customs territory" and yet not subject to the authority of the ECJ, which is the arbiter of the rules, strikes me as very unlikely. Equally, Mrs May tried to propose that extra funding for the NHS would be paid for by a "Brexit dividend" - but membership of a customs union is fee-paying by nature, so the "Brexit dividend" will be so much hot air.

If this model constitutes success for Mrs May, I hope we fail and have a hard Brexit with no agreement.

[Roubignol]

For all the members of this forum who understand French, here is an example how French population was betrayes by their elites.

2005 : Quand les Francais ont dit non à l'Europe
(2005: When the French said "No" to the UE)

Both right and left liberal Presidents (Sarkozy and Hollande) have manipulated the laws to fuck the French Democracy.

In fact French population was against the liberal and antisocial politics written in the new European Constitution.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

...manipulated the laws to fuck the French

Sounds good!