roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Not sure voting to leave, or stay for that matter, based on disliking one of the UK parties is that healthy myself.
Bearing in mind, that all of them, except UKIP, campaigned to stay.
Just dont get the logic in that.
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
Not sure voting to leave, or stay for that matter, based on disliking one of the UK parties is that healthy myself.
Bearing in mind, that all of them, except UKIP, campaigned to stay.
Just dont get the logic in that.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
these are the people who will likely suffer the most from a hard Brexit
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
I had many many discussions with people who wanted to give Cameron a pasting and to use their vote to do that. The reason was austerity the Tory party issue. If Cameron had won the vote austerity would have become more brutal.
For many many people austerity and the fall out from that was the main issue in their life. The EU was secondary to them surviving the extremities of austerity. If Cameron had won, austerity would have been more brutal as he would have to appease the likes of Duncan Smith in an attempt to keep the Tory party together. Smith was instrumental in bringing in his sanction regime against the poor, disabled, vulnerable etc.. That left many people destitute.
At the moment it looks like this round of austerity is being scaled back. That will please many many people.
The Tories are so weak they have had to begin talking about ending austerity. When the likes of John Redwood inearly 'in tears' and with a quivering voice announces to the world that ' there are those that are suffering due to austerity'. Would indicate that the poor, vulnerable, disabled are going to get temporary relief from austerity and the sanction regime imposed on those not in work.
As far as 'suffering' with hard Brexit. They are suffering now and any relief would be welcome.
At the moment the Bank of England are so concerned with debt and the possibility of mass defaults on loans as in 2007/08 that they are demanding Banks hold more cash. In or out of the EU this was happening. The vast amounts of QE money lent to buy property, shares and commodities has led to unsustainable bubbles. They crash and we are back to 2007/08 but even worse as there is even greater amounts of money lent.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
You should probably spend more time thinking through "cause" and "effect"
Hard Brexits all round
Oooo Errr Matron!!!
Oooo Errr Matron!!!
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
How do people 'forget' why the UK had to rein back spending. It's not actual austerity because most on here haven't experienced real austerity, but that's another discussion. Debt brings with it the need to cut back, everyone understands this in their real life or business but refuse to understand it when it involves the tories. A recap, the last Labour government left the economy in deep crap (there's no money left). The coalition government (and the LD's do deserve some credit here for behaving like a grown up party) took the necessary actions to address the debt by reducing the deficit. It now looks like the tories will steal all of the Corbyn promises and relax the deficit reduction purely for political reasons and not economic ones, but this is what some of the people want so let them have it and let the kids pay for it........
Raphael_Hythloday
Player Valuation: £25k
They didn't.
The government's own statistics suggest you are incorrect. The current debt to GDP ratio is 89.9%. In 2010 it was 76%. Only six other countries inside the G20 have a higher percentage: Japan, Italy, USA, Spain, France and Canada.
In 2010 the UK government borrowed £144bn, which was the equivalent of 9.9% GDP. The year before, in 2009, the UK government borrowed a record £154bn as a consequence of the banks's failings in 2008.
The deficit is the easier of the two issues the fix. The current UK government are borrowing more money now than in 2010.
You need to understand a simple de facto: what politicians call the deficit, does not necessarily mean the budget deficit. An easy mistake to make, yet a mistake nevertheless.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
More evidence of Chairman May's secrecy and shambles from the ft:
With power vacuum at top of government, ministries compete to shape process
by: James Blitz and George Parker in London
A turf war is under way between the different ministries competing to shape Brexit, with the process more Balkanised and uncoordinated since June’s election, according to senior civil servants.
Two weeks after the UK began formal negotiations to leave the EU, the cabinet is deeply divided over what Britain’s goals should be. Meanwhile, the departure of the prime minister Theresa May’s chiefs of staff, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, has left a power vacuum in Downing Street.
“Nick and Fi exercised a stranglehold over Brexit policy which constricted discussion and meant many Brexit issues were never properly discussed between departments,” said one leading civil servant.
“Now that they have gone, it’s a relief. But the way in which they hounded ministers and officials meant many issues were never properly thought through in a collaborative way.”
Another official said: “We have got to a stage where a lot of key questions on Brexit still need to be properly thrashed out in conversations. For example, we have not had a detailed discussion across departments about what the impact of leaving the single market will be for specific sectors of the UK economy. This has to change.”
As the battle across Whitehall begins, the Department for International Trade, led by Liam Fox, announced last week it will begin talks on a US-UK trade deal in Washington on July 24, as it tries to underscore its importance.
But Philip Hammond, the chancellor, and business secretary Greg Clark are pushing for a transition deal that maintains current trading relations with the EU, even if that means Mr Fox will be unable to strike trade deals in the meantime.
Treasury officials have written an unpublished paper which challenges the DIT to prove it can line up free trade agreements with non-EU countries that can outweigh the loss of European trade associated with leaving the customs union. Mr Hammond is likely to use the findings of that paper later this year to press home his case for staying close to the customs union.
Some are critical of the role played by the Department for Exiting the EU (Dexeu).
“Dexeu is supposed to be a secretariat drawing together a common Whitehall position on Brexit,” said one official. “But the central problem we face is that Dexeu is also a department whose lead minister [Davis] has a strong view of what Brexit should look like. It is both a player and a referee and it can’t be both.”
Some senior figures remain particularly critical of what they say is the secretive role played by Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary at Dexeu who is also the prime minister’s chief Sherpa at the Brexit negotiations.
“Olly keeps too much of our negotiating position in his head and that isn’t helpful,” said one official. Another agreed, adding: “That has certainly been the problem for much of the last year. Excessive secrecy is one of the reasons why the [EU] Commission is now far better organised at every level than we are.”
Even inside Dexeu, there is unease about how Mr Robbins manages his dual role, reporting to Mr Davis and to Mrs May.
“It can get very confused,” says one departmental figure. “Sometimes Olly has sent papers up to Number 10 which David Davis doesn’t get to see. Sometimes Nick Timothy would get sent papers from Olly that nobody else did.”
One official noted that Lord Bridges, a former Dexeu minister who resigned earlier this month, was kept out of the loop. “He was not allowed to see cabinet papers on Brexit, even though he was defending policy in the Lords.”
With power vacuum at top of government, ministries compete to shape process
by: James Blitz and George Parker in London
A turf war is under way between the different ministries competing to shape Brexit, with the process more Balkanised and uncoordinated since June’s election, according to senior civil servants.
Two weeks after the UK began formal negotiations to leave the EU, the cabinet is deeply divided over what Britain’s goals should be. Meanwhile, the departure of the prime minister Theresa May’s chiefs of staff, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, has left a power vacuum in Downing Street.
“Nick and Fi exercised a stranglehold over Brexit policy which constricted discussion and meant many Brexit issues were never properly discussed between departments,” said one leading civil servant.
“Now that they have gone, it’s a relief. But the way in which they hounded ministers and officials meant many issues were never properly thought through in a collaborative way.”
Another official said: “We have got to a stage where a lot of key questions on Brexit still need to be properly thrashed out in conversations. For example, we have not had a detailed discussion across departments about what the impact of leaving the single market will be for specific sectors of the UK economy. This has to change.”
As the battle across Whitehall begins, the Department for International Trade, led by Liam Fox, announced last week it will begin talks on a US-UK trade deal in Washington on July 24, as it tries to underscore its importance.
But Philip Hammond, the chancellor, and business secretary Greg Clark are pushing for a transition deal that maintains current trading relations with the EU, even if that means Mr Fox will be unable to strike trade deals in the meantime.
Treasury officials have written an unpublished paper which challenges the DIT to prove it can line up free trade agreements with non-EU countries that can outweigh the loss of European trade associated with leaving the customs union. Mr Hammond is likely to use the findings of that paper later this year to press home his case for staying close to the customs union.
Some are critical of the role played by the Department for Exiting the EU (Dexeu).
“Dexeu is supposed to be a secretariat drawing together a common Whitehall position on Brexit,” said one official. “But the central problem we face is that Dexeu is also a department whose lead minister [Davis] has a strong view of what Brexit should look like. It is both a player and a referee and it can’t be both.”
Some senior figures remain particularly critical of what they say is the secretive role played by Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary at Dexeu who is also the prime minister’s chief Sherpa at the Brexit negotiations.
“Olly keeps too much of our negotiating position in his head and that isn’t helpful,” said one official. Another agreed, adding: “That has certainly been the problem for much of the last year. Excessive secrecy is one of the reasons why the [EU] Commission is now far better organised at every level than we are.”
Even inside Dexeu, there is unease about how Mr Robbins manages his dual role, reporting to Mr Davis and to Mrs May.
“It can get very confused,” says one departmental figure. “Sometimes Olly has sent papers up to Number 10 which David Davis doesn’t get to see. Sometimes Nick Timothy would get sent papers from Olly that nobody else did.”
One official noted that Lord Bridges, a former Dexeu minister who resigned earlier this month, was kept out of the loop. “He was not allowed to see cabinet papers on Brexit, even though he was defending policy in the Lords.”
So you are saying austerity should not end and that the public sector - the nurses, teachers, police, fire service etc. - should only have 1% wage increase. The Tories can only end austerity and the pay freeze by taking money from the magic money tree. No surprising the Tories are trying to pinch Labour's clothing for political purposes as they can't come up with anything original.
Some said May and her sidekicks - Johnson, Davis and Fox (who seems to have disappeared from the Brexit negotiations) - were the best people to lead the negotiations. Nothing could be further from the truth. They have gone from megaphone negotiations demanding all and sundry to sheepishly be unprepared for any negotiations. They are like rabbits in the headlights.
Due to their incompetent they are leading the economy into deep crap unless they change tact. Which they will probably do and pay for special treatment here and there for the car industry and the financial sector and allow the farms, fruit and veg pickers and the NHS to get the labour they want and to have special treatment for the island of Ireland. They will introduce a 'visa' system to be able to claim that 'we are controlling immigration from the EU'.
They will probably pull out of the ECHR and the European court of Justice - in 1972 when the Tories took us in without a vote they signed up and surrendered the sovereignty of UK law to the European court, as well as signing up to the 4 freedoms capital, goods, services and labour - in the Treaty of Rome and subsequent directives until 1975. People had a chance in 1975 to bring back sovereignty to the UK but the majority voted not to, indicating that they were satisfied with relinquishing sovereignty to the EU.
With every passing day, more and more of the bigwigs in the country and coming out of the woodwork and demanding a resolution. The time is ticking on the Tories and they know it.
Raphael_Hythloday
Player Valuation: £25k
The economy isn't the issue. It's pretend. Entirely fictional. Economists follow their pseudo science as if it's gospel. "We are controlling the deficit..." blah, blah, blah. Who cares? It isn't important.
What matters is the ideology. We are in the process of moving accountability from the hands of democratically elected officials into the pockets of private corporations. Meaning we are moving closer to a fascist state.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, despite the irony, suggested this could be a problem when addressing the US Congress in 1938. He said: "The first truth is that liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
Last edited by a moderator:
neil999
Player Valuation: £80m
Of course this assumes that spending reduction is the only way to cut the deficit...
Another 'theory' would be increased taxation, closing tax loopholes etc
Its almost like this argument has been happening for decades..........
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Of course....but tax increases to the rich usually result in a lower tax take, tax loopholes have been addressed to some degree but there is far more that can be done, but the only surefire way of getting more tax is by increasing tax across the board. I have no problem with any party clearly stating that we will pay for things by increasing tax, but pretending it can be done by 'taxing the rich' is just a con.......
- Status