Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[Connor]

Labour not changing big jobs in shad cabinet, so guess Abbott stays?

Looks like it's a wait and see if she can return to the role.

Disappointed Ed wasn't drafted in somewhere but delighted that coward Cooper hasn't been given a role, especially after it was expected for her to start a leadership campaign had we been pummeled in the election.

Unlucky there girl.

 

[Brennan]

Only proves what a complete and utter hypocrite he is. He is of course perfectly entitled to his views, as are we all but when he stands on a platform as the face of the Liberal Democrats it becomes a bit of a joke since he's neither of those things.

How is he a hypocrite ?

 

[evilwebby]

Not entirely shocked by Farron's resignation, but quite surprised. It's not as if the LDs are blessed with an army of potential leaders in waiting on the backbenches. Personally I don't like the guy's style of mouthy soundbite and points-scoring rather than engaging in a respectful and mature discussion is a complete turnoff.

 

[Armel]

So what is the purpose of the EU if it is a 2 tier system?
I am all for the Common Market that was originally joined, but political and economic union are plain mad.
I don't follow politics in the normal course so I may be wide of the mark, but it is seen as desirable to have a convergence on taxation as well isn't it?
Effectively, unless it is a superstate with complete intergration with all nations immersed and subsumed into the state, it will always be a pipe-dream.
People are people, national interests will always be a factor surely?
Educate me.

The purpose is quite straightforward. Groups of countries (mainly Western-European countries) should be able to press ahead, in certain matters, without being blocked by certain other countries. Mainly the founding countries want this, for a very simple reason: the East-European countries are a nightmare to work with concerning matters like climate, asylum seekers, labour rights ...

I've got no issues with a certain degree of political and economic union. Sometimes, for the sake of subsidiarity this is needed; though this is a delicate balance. They aren't going to do anything about taxation; there is no majority for that. There is no need for a superstate; you can have something in between. Tbf in areas where there is a lot of cooperation, national interests tend to converge or oppose each other in the same country. E.g: The trans-national cooperation setup between the harbours of Gent (Belgium)-Terneuzen (Holland)-Vlissingen (Holland). It made sense to merge them (they are all public entities), because this way they would be able to become more efficient and more competitive against the harbours of Antwerp (Belgium) and Rotterdam (Holland). It also makes sense to practice certain competences on a supranational level, to avoid unnecessary things like excessive transaction costs etc; scale advantage...; and not only things related to level the playing field for the internal market. Let's take the Rome I, II and III regulations. Some brilliant work concerning the conflict of laws. It's simply marvellous in all the good things that those regulations have achieved. Do people care? No they don't but it has an incredible impact on their lives and it's thousand times better than everything before. Then there were principles, national law (still is used a lot today since a lot of countries off course aren't part of the EU) and truth be told a lot of unfairness.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

How is he a hypocrite ?

He was leader of the LIBERAL Democrats and he's anti gay marriage. He's perfectly entitled to his faith and I respect him for EVENTUALITY chosing his faith over his political position (notice how he only did so after not making the massive gains the clown thought he would in the GE). However it's a joke that he stood as for a party that directly confilicted with his views and faith at all if he wasn't able to represent the ideals of that party. Hypocrite.

 

[Ruairi77]

He was leader of the LIBERAL Democrats and he's anti gay marriage. He's perfectly entitled to his faith and I respect him for EVENTUALITY chosing his faith over his political position (notice how he only did so after not making the massive gains the clown thought he would in the GE). However it's a joke that he stood as for a party that directly confilicted with his views and faith at all if he wasn't able to represent the ideals of that party. Hypocrite.

Don't read too much in to a name, Australia are governed by the Liberal party who are socially conservative.

 

[Tubey]

The problem with Farron is and always was that he was meant to be a politician reflecting a liberal, secular society. He was out of tune with those he was meant to represent and wished to govern.

It was nothing to do with what the Liberal Democrats are as a party - he could have been a Tory and had the same problem.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Don't read too much in to a name, Australia are governed by the Liberal party who are socially conservative.

I dont know about the Australian party but the Liberal Democrats used to stand for something in this country mate. They really did until Nick Clegg whored them out in 2010 and made them a laughing stock and a moral vacuum of a party.

 

[Brennan]

He was leader of the LIBERAL Democrats and he's anti gay marriage. He's perfectly entitled to his faith and I respect him for EVENTUALITY chosing his faith over his political position (notice how he only did so after not making the massive gains the clown thought he would in the GE). However it's a joke that he stood as for a party that directly confilicted with his views and faith at all if he wasn't able to represent the ideals of that party. Hypocrite.

He voted for gay marriage and then abstained from another vote, and clarified why. He didn't vote against.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

The purpose is quite straightforward. Groups of countries (mainly Western-European countries) should be able to press ahead, in certain matters, without being blocked by certain other countries. Mainly the founding countries want this, for a very simple reason: the East-European countries are a nightmare to work with concerning matters like climate, asylum seekers, labour rights ...

I've got no issues with a certain degree of political and economic union. Sometimes, for the sake of subsidiarity this is needed; though this is a delicate balance. They aren't going to do anything about taxation; there is no majority for that. There is no need for a superstate; you can have something in between. Tbf in areas where there is a lot of cooperation, national interests tend to converge or oppose each other in the same country. E.g: The trans-national cooperation setup between the harbours of Gent (Belgium)-Terneuzen (Holland)-Vlissingen (Holland). It made sense to merge them (they are all public entities), because this way they would be able to become more efficient and more competitive against the harbours of Antwerp (Belgium) and Rotterdam (Holland). It also makes sense to practice certain competences on a supranational level, to avoid unnecessary things like excessive transaction costs etc; scale advantage...; and not only things related to level the playing field for the internal market. Let's take the Rome I, II and III regulations. Some brilliant work concerning the conflict of laws. It's simply marvellous in all the good things that those regulations have achieved. Do people care? No they don't but it has an incredible impact on their lives and it's thousand times better than everything before. Then there were principles, national law (still is used a lot today since a lot of countries off course aren't part of the EU) and truth be told a lot of unfairness.

So it is fine to have a 2 tiered system where the Eastern Europeans can act as they like on certain issues or are the national governments being dragged through the courts now for non-compliance?
You assert that they aren't going to do anything with taxation, but there have been serious discussions about this in the fairly recent past.
Which competences at supranational level are you talking about, which transaction costs, and which economies of scale.
Not being argumentative, but it would appear that you are very pro-European, I am sceptical, and the suggestion that a 2 tiered system is good is against the basic founding tenets of the EU?

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

He voted for gay marriage and then abstained from another vote, and clarified why. He didn't vote against.

I didn't say he had ever voted against gay marriage. It doesn't change the fact that his personal views mean that he was never a Liberal, he didn't bealieve in the cause he was fighting for and this has been proven by the fact that he now feels unable to fight for that cause and keep his faith. If he feels so strongly about the issue he was in the wrong party to begin with.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I didn't say he had ever voted against gay marriage. It doesn't change the fact that his personal views mean that he was never a Liberal, he didn't bealieve in the cause he was fighting for and this has been proven by the fact that he now feels unable to fight for that cause and keep his faith. If he feels so strongly about the issue he was in the wrong party to begin with.

Without wanting to get too philosophical, it all depends on what is liberalism. It's all fairly subjective. Liberalism here in Britain is very different to perceived Liberalism in the US. Just like Farrons view of Liberalism is clearly not shared by many here.

If he feels he needs to resign and leave politics to keep his faith then that's up to him. Who are we to judge. Each to their own...

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Without wanting to get too philosophical, it all depends on what is liberalism. It's all fairly subjective. Liberalism here in Britain is very different to perceived Liberalism in the US. Just like Farrons view of Liberalism is clearly not shared by many here.

If he feels he needs to resign and leave politics to keep his faith then that's up to him. Who are we to judge. Each to their own...

Everyone knows the type of Liberal that is expected from the Liberal Democrats it's not a big secret. I'm not having a go at him for his faith at all, quite the opposite. I have far more respect for him now he's resigned then I did before. I to would feel unable to be part of the Liberal Democrats due to my faith but I would never join that party because I wouldn't be able to uphold the beliefs and ideals the party holds much less represent it as leader. He must of know he wouldn't be a be to represent the ideals of the Lib Dems properly.

 

[Armel]

So it is fine to have a 2 tiered system where the Eastern Europeans can act as they like on certain issues or are the national governments being dragged through the courts now for non-compliance?

You assert that they aren't going to do anything with taxation, but there have been serious discussions about this in the fairly recent past.
Which competences at supranational level are you talking about, which transaction costs, and which economies of scale.
Not being argumentative, but it would appear that you are very pro-European, I am sceptical, and the suggestion that a 2 tiered system is good is against the basic founding tenets of the EU?

I don't see an issue with 2 tiered systems. I quite like the declaration of Rome from 25 March. They won't be able to act as they please; and they will be dragged to plenty of courts I suspect (as is the case atm; finally I would say). It's just a way to create more integration for countries that want this and are ready for this. Let's call it premium club membership. I see it as a way to correct the mistakes of the past; they were able to join too soon. A bit like the Greece joining the euro mistake; shouldn't have happened so soon.

Are you talking about the recent talk about the Tobintax? Because okay that might happen; if Belgium backs down (I don't think this will happen though- NVA will have problems in the next elections if they do). You also have the European wide corporate tax system that Moscovi wants to introduce. Again I don't think this will happen. I would be quite content if it happened but am highly sceptical since they've tried to do something similar in 2011 and some time before that. Somebody will get cold feet.

I was mainly talking about legal transaction costs (but you can find other examples), because that's what I know most about. Not only for the internal market but for simple things like when you've married two women in two different countries. An efficient way to find in how many states they can sue you; which law is applicable... Stuff like that. Supranational I mean for things like the climate and such; more efficient. There are things that are better dealt with on a higher level; the European courts have done some stellar work on environmental issues (pollution doesn't stop at borders). The costs of different legal systems in different countries across the EU is very high (lots of needless costs of involving extra lawyers and others); harmonization etc is the key. The EU is doing some stellar work here, if you're interested in contract law you should really read this http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/civil/docs/dcfr_outline_edition_en.pdf (it's a beauty; it's supposed to be a preparation for a European contract law).

Yes I admit to being quite Pro-European. I can't be bothered with the founding tenets, the non-discrimination principle is one of the most important principles in EU law; some of them would do well to read up on it.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

I don't see an issue with 2 tiered systems. I quite like the declaration of Rome from 25 March. They won't be able to act as they please; and they will be dragged to plenty of courts I suspect (as is the case atm; finally I would say). It's just a way to create more integration for countries that want this and are ready for this. Let's call it premium club membership. I see it as a way to correct the mistakes of the past; they were able to join too soon. A bit like the Greece joining the euro mistake; shouldn't have happened so soon.

Are you talking about the recent talk about the Tobintax? Because okay that might happen; if Belgium backs down (I don't think this will happen though- NVA will have problems in the next elections if they do). You also have the European wide corporate tax system that Moscovi wants to introduce. Again I don't think this will happen. I would be quite content if it happened but am highly sceptical since they've tried to do something similar in 2011 and some time before that. Somebody will get cold feet.

I was mainly talking about legal transaction costs (but you can find other examples), because that's what I know most about. Not only for the internal market but for simple things like when you've married two women in two different countries. An efficient way to find in how many states they can sue you; which law is applicable... Stuff like that. Supranational I mean for things like the climate and such; more efficient. There are things that are better dealt with on a higher level; the European courts have done some stellar work on environmental issues (pollution doesn't stop at borders). The costs of different legal systems in different countries across the EU is very high (lots of needless costs of involving extra lawyers and others); harmonization etc is the key. The EU is doing some stellar work here, if you're interested in contract law you should really read this http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/civil/docs/dcfr_outline_edition_en.pdf (it's a beauty; it's supposed to be a preparation for a European contract law).

Yes I admit to being quite Pro-European. I can't be bothered with the founding tenets, the non-discrimination principle is one of the most important principles in EU law; some of them would do well to read up on it.

You and I will never agree on this mate, as I am not a proponent of a one size fits all political, economic and legal system..
The Tobintax you mention is that the one in relation to Financial Transactions or Currency Transaction or both?
You would be happy for a European corporation tax rate (or any harmonised rate). I'm speechless. Two of the main fiscal levers in an economic system are taxation and interest rates, with a standard Europe wide rate, the Eurozone countries would have centralised interest rates via the ECB and taxation. If I misunderstand and you see flexibility in the system by using a state and federal tax system, could work I suppose, but do you not have to double up on the admin?
Greece and various other countries were guilty of "creative" accounting and reporting to join the Euro weren't they, so not a case of them and others joining too soon, they shouldn't have been in had the books been looked at properly.
Let's not beat about the bush, the expansion of the Euro was lead by political will rather than economic sense.
I hope that I have not been offensive, but in it's future guise, it's a huge no to the EU from me.