Brexit...

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, Newty82 said:

You've only heard about 'Leave' getting done for it in the media but not much of a sniff about 'Remain' being naughty?

The press were hugely pro Brexit so the fact that they had no remain misdemeanours to report says a lot. Any sniff of remain naughtiness would've been front page on every red-top. 

[Bailey]

5 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

Two things here: People do not take risks and put themselves through university in a vacuum. Opportunity to do so doesn’t arise from a black hole. Poverty is a vicious cycle and permeates every bit of a child’s education, whether in my country or yours. Extra taxes are not a punishment. They should and can be a way of leveling the playing field for those who were not afforded the same opportunities at birth that many of us on this forum probably were.

Secondly, it is common knowledge that wealth, when distributed to the lower and middle classes, has a far greater effect on the economy than when distributed to the wealthy, who simply absorb extra money into their wealth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/04/better-economic-growth-when-wealth-distributed-to-poor-instead-of-rich

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/piketty-saez-zucman-income-growth-inequality-stagnation-chart

http://factmyth.com/factoids/people-with-more-money-save-more/

I am not for one second suggesting it as simple as my OP but its a theoretical example. You can say Uni but it can be any opportunity to learn a trade and develop skills. Ultimately you have to create an environment that promotes people to want to be better and a system that helps those people achieve those desires. I come from a working class family, parents with no real education but ones that have been fortunate enough to come from stable families. The govts responsibility is to make sure that every penny spent on nationwide education is well spent and that every child, no matter their background, receives that same opportunity to learn. I know that isnt the case, and it isnt easy to achieve, but it must be the aim. Its then up to the parents and community to make the most of that resource, keeping the kids in school, out of gangs and away from drugs. Socialist policies should be there for those that really need it and when they need it. In this country, its there for too many people who dont want to do anything with it and are expecting a handout and not there for people who need help to get them through tough times while they get themselves back on their feet. Instead people are forced into credit and a spiral begins. This also feeds into re-offending rates, repeated drug taking, the breakdown of households and families and another spiral begin. 

Regarding tax, I am not suggesting that the rich get taxed the same as the poor but I am not a believer in wide tax brackets. I did an A level essay on the proposal from the Adam Smith Institute for a flat tax but I appreciate there are financial models and articles advocating whichever stance you wish to take. Punishment was probably the wrong word but level of taxation on lower and middle classes is excessive. I am not talking about the super-rich and multinationals of this world but the people who start at the bottom and work their way up. The harder it is for these classes of people to prosper, the less jobs will be created, the workforce will be less skilled and we find yet another spiral.

5 hours ago, Newty82 said:

Can I ask a genuine question...

I try my best not to be too left or too right, so I don't have any particular favoured party. Rather I've voted in the past based on what I feel is right at that time.

So why is it that the Tories are so bad for the UK? And if they are so bad, why have they had more time governing the UK than any other party?

I dont know about them historically but when your last two leaders are Ed Milliband and Jeremy Corbyn you are going to struggle. David Milliband would have probably taken over from Cameron but the trade unions saw to that. 

If the Tories had a half decent leader, Labour wouldnt have had a sniff under Corbyn. They should be winning every poll out there given the fuckwits in Westminster but its still very close. If a new version of Blair or a Cameron came to head either party now they would win by a street!

[Newty82]

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

In all honesty I was born into a Labour voting family, my grandads uncles and cousins on both my parents side of the family were miners in the north east, my father didn’t want that life and joined the RAF in 1937 as a 16 year old, he met my mother a about 2 or 3 years after the war my mum was working in the NAFFI on a base he was stationed at. 

When he left the RAF in 57 he headed back to Newcastle married me mum, he got a job on a mine but as a fitter but hated it then I come along in 59 and he decided to come south to make a better life for his family it took him 3 years to get settled in Swindon then me and mum joined him, they were both staunch Labour people but very caring and community minded do anything for anyone if they could. 

There ethos and ethics rubbed off on my brother and myself, and to this day we are both labour voters and for us it’s a with our conscience because we vehemently believe it’s a vote for poorest in our society and not just the wealthiest. 

And that wasn’t a rant mate that was the realist version of me you are going to get on here. 

Love it!

But this has been a hunch of mine that I've seen before. Generations are born into what to vote for. They vote a certain way because that's what they have heard from being a kid etc.

Would you say you've lived a good life? Without going too deep into your privacy by the way!!!

[Newty82]

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

The press were hugely pro Brexit so the fact that they had no remain misdemeanours to report says a lot. Any sniff of remain naughtiness would've been front page on every red-top. 

I don't think they all were Mike!

I'm pretty sure for every 'For' there was an 'Against'.

[markjazzbassist]

2 hours ago, Newty82 said:

Love it!

But this has been a hunch of mine that I've seen before. Generations are born into what to vote for. They vote a certain way because that's what they have heard from being a kid etc.

Would you say you've lived a good life? Without going too deep into your privacy by the way!!!

My whole family and all my relatives are die hard conservatives.  I am the only socialist liberal hippy in the family, yes I hold my own in holiday political debates.

[rubecula]

no idea what any of my relatives vote for and I don't really care overmuch,  I hope they vote with thought and compassion, but no idea as it is none of my business.  I have never told them how I vote either.

[Palfy]

2 hours ago, rubecula said:

no idea what any of my relatives vote for and I don't really care overmuch,  I hope they vote with thought and compassion, but no idea as it is none of my business.  I have never told them how I vote either.

I think that old adage of it's between me and the ballot box, is a great excuse for people who are afraid to stand up and be counted.

Come on Rubes stand up mate

[Palfy]

5 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

My whole family and all my relatives are die hard conservatives.  I am the only socialist liberal hippy in the family, yes I hold my own in holiday political debates.

Something you may be able to answer Mark, on our news we see that a lot of the areas where Trump has his biggest support people are still flying the confederate flag, what significance does that symbol hold for these people in the USA today.

[Palfy]

8 hours ago, Newty82 said:

Love it!

But this has been a hunch of mine that I've seen before. Generations are born into what to vote for. They vote a certain way because that's what they have heard from being a kid etc.

Would you say you've lived a good life? Without going too deep into your privacy by the way!!!

Define what you mean by good life, are you meaning morally, spiritually, wealthy or something else.

[Matt]

11 hours ago, Newty82 said:

 

 

Interesting though isn'tttt it?

You've only heard about 'Leave' getting done for it in the media but not much of a sniff about 'Remain' being naughty?

Edit: Also interesting your response there Matt. Nice happy laughing face once you seen that Remain did so to. 

More a laugh of disbelief at the whole cluster fuck to be honest. 

[MikeO]

10 hours ago, Newty82 said:

I don't think they all were Mike!

I'm pretty sure for every 'For' there was an 'Against'.

In terms of titles maybe but not in terms of circulation.

Out had the big three that (let's be honest here) those of somewhat lesser intelligence buy, the S*n, the Mail and the Express with a combined circulation of around 3.5m plus the Telegraph which brings the total up to about 4m.

In had the Mirror, the Times (so Murdoch could claim he won whatever the result), the Guardian and the FT; total circulation figure of less than 1.5m.

[Bailey]

Old article on the LSE website about possible options available on Brexit, especially the trade off between immigration and customs: 

Many supporters of remaining in the EU are in denial about Brexit, writes Simon Hix.  But if the referendum result is not accepted, the 48% who voted to stay are in danger of being sidelined in an extremely important debate. We need to accept the fact that the UK is leaving the EU, and emerge from it with the best possible deal. He identifies four policies pro-European Leavers – as well as dismayed Remainers – could adopt.

Remainers need to accept that the Commons is unlikely to overturn the referendum result.  Chris Hanretty has estimated that a majority voted for Leave in 421 Westminster constituencies.  Many of the Remain MPs, in both the Conservatives and Labour, will quickly change their positions.  Parliament will also not want to provoke a constitutional crisis by voting against a popular majority.

So we are leaving the EU, and the sooner this is accepted by Remain voters and campaigners, the sooner we can think about what the majority of the British people want in terms of Britain’s future relations with the EU.Denying the referendum result also ignores an underlying reality: that the UK has been drifting from the centre of gravity in Europe for several decades.  We may have been leaders on the single market and enlargement in the 1980s and 1990s, but since then we have become increasingly isolated.  Our political elites, in both Labour and the Conservatives, have never accepted that the EU is a political project, not just an economic one, and this is unlikely to change.  We have been heading for the exit door for some time.

The new Conservative cabinet seems to be divided between two groups:

The hard-Brexiteers, such as the Brexit secretary David Davis and international trade secretary Liam Fox, who want a clean break with the EU – which may mean leaving the single market, restrictions on immigration, perhaps a new free trade agreement with the EU, new trade deals with other countries, and radical deregulation and tax-cutting to maintain our global competitiveness.

The reluctant-Remainers, such as chancellor Philip Hammond and home secretary Amber Rudd, in contrast, are likely to favour moving into the European Economic Area temporarily, but only if the UK can extract concessions from the EU to allow restrictions on the free movement of people.

Beyond that, there does not seem much else this group can agree on – and with Theresa May’s commitment that “Brexit means Brexit”, I suspect the hardliners will win out in cabinet battles over the choices ahead.

A pro-European Leave position

What is missing, then, is a “pro-European Leave” position.  This is not a misnomer.  This position accepts that we are leaving the EU, but also sets out a set of policies to establish a close and permanent relationship between the UK and the EU.  This would be the preferred outcome of a clear majority of voters: most of the 16.1 million who voted to remain, as well as many of the so-called “liberal leavers”.  For example, a recent poll by ORB found that 20% of Leave voters would prioritise single market access over restricting immigration.  This position could entail four main policies.

First, the UK should be a member of the European Economic Area for as long as possible, to preserve free movement of goods, services and capital, including “passporting” for financial services.  This may not be sustainable in the long-run, as the EEA was not designed for a large country like the UK.  In the longer term, a new framework for “not in the EU, but in the European single market” might emerge, but that is not on the table at the moment.

Second, the UK should maintain free movement of people, but with an “emergency brake”, if that is achievable.  Yes, many people voted Leave to restrict immigration.  However, maintaining free movement of people is vital for our service economy, including the creative industries and our universities as well as financial services, and is crucial for younger generations of Brits who value this “right”.  Maintaining free movement of people may be the only way to remain in the EEA.  Free movement of people would guarantee the rights of 1.2 million Brits living elsewhere in the EU and the 3 million EU citizens currently in the UK.  Recent survey data from YouGovsuggests that a narrow majority of British citizens still favour free movement of people.  Also, with a falling pound, a downturn in the British economy, and fears of xenophobia in Britain, there is likely to be a significant drop in EU migrants coming to the UK in the next few years, which will take some of the sting out of this issue.

It might be possible to negotiate an emergency brake within the EEA, such as a monthly quota on the number of national insurance numbers issued to EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens elsewhere in the EU.  But if that is not achievable, we should accept free movement and commit to keep negotiating on this issue, as part of a reform of free movement in the EEA or even in the EU as a whole, which is now on the table.

In addition, supporting the continued free movement of people should be combined with flanking policies to address the legitimate concerns of the millions of people negatively affected by large-scale migration.  For example, the government should clamp down on employers who pay cash to undercut the minimum wage, and there should be targeted public spending to alleviate pressure on schools, hospitals, and housing.

Third, there should be close social and cultural co-operation with the EU.  This should include UK participation in educational exchanges such as Erasmus, European scientific co-operation such as the European Research Council and the Horizon2020 research programme, and European film and TV collaboration such as the MEDIA programme.  This would be valuable for cultural engagement and social relations, and would also be critically important for the economic interests of our universities, our scientific researchers and our creative industries, who contribute £84bn per year to the UK economy.  In practice, this policy would mean the UK paying into these parts of the EU budget, but this would be a small price to pay for the funds received and for a ‘seat at the table’ when key decisions are made about European education, science and media.

Fourth, there should be close UK-EU security co-operation.  We cannot allow the UK leaving the EU to destabilise European security, for example by encouraging Putin to stoke up trouble in the Baltic States.  The UK should commit to close and permanent foreign, security and defence co-operation with the EU, such as collaboration between foreign policy and defence officials and an annual UK-EU security summit.

Who will make the case?

These positions are surely supported by almost all of the 48 per cent who voted Remain.  They are also supported by many of the “liberal leavers”, who perhaps make up 10-15 per cent of the Leave voters.  In other words, a large majority of the British people want the UK to maintain the closest possible relations with the EU.  In contrast, only a small minority supports the version of Brexit advocated by the leading Brexiteers in Theresa May’s cabinet.

The problem, though, is that no one seems to be articulating this “pro-European” version of Brexit.  The Labour party is embroiled in in-fighting, while the Liberal Democrats are promising to campaign in the next election to take Britain back into the EU.  Could a new movement emerge from the Britain Stronger In campaign?  Could someone on the moderate wing of Labour step up to articulate this vision?  Could someone on the pro-European wing of the Conservatives step forward?  Or could a new party be created from outside parliament, by civil society leaders, industrialists and representatives from the creative industries, and intellectuals and opinion formers?

Without a new force to articulate these views, to represent the majority of the public who want a close and permanent relationship between Britain and Europe, we may end up isolated from our continent, and suffering the disastrous economic, political and social consequences that will result.

 

Personally I dont have an issue with immigration, again I think the issues have arisen by multiple Govts failure to manage the levels of immigration and actively intergrate these people into society and infrastructure to support the increased population in different areas of the country.

[markjazzbassist]

4 hours ago, Palfy said:

Something you may be able to answer Mark, on our news we see that a lot of the areas where Trump has his biggest support people are still flying the confederate flag, what significance does that symbol hold for these people in the USA today.

It’s a symbol of racial oppression.  You see it mostly in the south wth racist whites still mad they lost the civil war, or up north here you see it out in the country where uneducated country folk who have never met a black person believe they are the devil due to upbringing or just plain ignorance or misinformation from the news.  

 

We are are the only country that honors the losing side of a civil war, what a joke.

[MikeO]

34 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

 

We are are the only country that honors the losing side of a civil war, what a joke.

Not exactly, the Royalists lost the English Civil War and our royals are still honoured, they just became figureheads rather than holding any real power.

[johnh]

16 hours ago, MikeO said:

The press were hugely pro Brexit so the fact that they had no remain misdemeanours to report says a lot. Any sniff of remain naughtiness would've been front page on every red-top. 

Except that other tabloid - The Guardian.

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, markjazzbassist said:

It’s a symbol of racial oppression.  You see it mostly in the south wth racist whites still mad they lost the civil war, or up north here you see it out in the country where uneducated country folk who have never met a black person believe they are the devil due to upbringing or just plain ignorance or misinformation from the news.  

 

We are are the only country that honors the losing side of a civil war, what a joke.

Right didn’t realise it was racial I thought that the the states that fought for the confederacy were still harbouring thoughts of being free of the Union, all though I did know the biggest issue fought over in the war was the abolition of slavery.

These people must be a large part of the population to have pushed Trump over the winning line. 

[nyblue23]

4 hours ago, Palfy said:

Right didn’t realise it was racial I thought that the the states that fought for the confederacy were still harbouring thoughts of being free of the Union, all though I did know the biggest issue fought over in the war was the abolition of slavery.

These people must be a large part of the population to have pushed Trump over the winning line. 

Most use it as such relatively unconsciously... usually people who deny that racism still exists and take almost nationalistic pride in their white Southern roots. A few use it explicitly to signify white supremacy.

And yeah it’s a disturbingly large group, though not even close to a majority of white folks.

[nyblue23]

20 hours ago, Bailey said:

I am not for one second suggesting it as simple as my OP but its a theoretical example. You can say Uni but it can be any opportunity to learn a trade and develop skills. Ultimately you have to create an environment that promotes people to want to be better and a system that helps those people achieve those desires. I come from a working class family, parents with no real education but ones that have been fortunate enough to come from stable families. The govts responsibility is to make sure that every penny spent on nationwide education is well spent and that every child, no matter their background, receives that same opportunity to learn. I know that isnt the case, and it isnt easy to achieve, but it must be the aim. Its then up to the parents and community to make the most of that resource, keeping the kids in school, out of gangs and away from drugs. Socialist policies should be there for those that really need it and when they need it. In this country, its there for too many people who dont want to do anything with it and are expecting a handout and not there for people who need help to get them through tough times while they get themselves back on their feet. Instead people are forced into credit and a spiral begins. This also feeds into re-offending rates, repeated drug taking, the breakdown of households and families and another spiral begin. 

Regarding tax, I am not suggesting that the rich get taxed the same as the poor but I am not a believer in wide tax brackets. I did an A level essay on the proposal from the Adam Smith Institute for a flat tax but I appreciate there are financial models and articles advocating whichever stance you wish to take. Punishment was probably the wrong word but level of taxation on lower and middle classes is excessive. I am not talking about the super-rich and multinationals of this world but the people who start at the bottom and work their way up. The harder it is for these classes of people to prosper, the less jobs will be created, the workforce will be less skilled and we find yet another spiral.

I agree with most of this. Taxes are far too high in the U.S. for lower and middle classes as well, and loopholes often allow multinational corporations to pay next to nothing in taxes. A flat tax in some ways makes sense, although 30% of 24,000 pounds a year makes a wage of just over 16,000, where 30% of 240,000 and you’re still sitting very pretty.

Either way, the most important investment should be in education, as education will prevent that cycle that you feel too many welfare recipients in the U.K. fall into. In a capitalistic society, money management and financial literacy should be taught from a very young age, and generally speaking, all schools should be funded equally according to their levels and number of students. Better education policies and funding would go a very long way toward alleviating so much injustice, in turn stimulating the economy and probably even allowing for eventually lower tax rates as the wealth gap decreases.

The problem right now is that almost no one in either of our countries starts from the bottom and works their way out. Socioeconomic mobility has become almost non-existent. You may have come from a well-supported working class family (as did I, though we’d call ours lower-middle class), but if your parents had two incomes and supported you even emotionally through your education, you were still a lot better off than many:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/an-analysis-of-2-decades-of-efforts-to-improve-social-mobility

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/491240/

[MikeO]

Got that from this.

[Matt]

26 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Got that from this.

If the baby is passed back to its parents, it’d probably end up with social services before the week was through

Also, The Independent has fallen so far from grace in the last 20 years. 

[holystove]

45 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Got that from this.

I think a new General Election is more likely than a second referendum.

Tory infighting is getting worse and might eventually reach breaking point, but more importantly it is way too late to pass the necessary legislation to hold a referendum before brexit-date.

Having said that, I would bet on neither (2nd ref or GE) happening.  

 

[Bailey]

14 minutes ago, holystove said:

I think a new General Election is more likely than a second referendum.

Tory infighting is getting worse and might eventually reach breaking point, but more importantly it is way too late to pass the necessary legislation to hold a referendum before brexit-date.

Having said that, I would bet on neither (2nd ref or GE) happening.  

 

I think the fear of Corbyn might just be enough to stop the Tories to avoid pushing a GE through.

I wouldnt be surprised if they delayed Brexit by at least a couple of years and held a second referendum. Having said that I would doubt whether they could agree on the question that needed to be asked.

[Matt]

It wouldn’t really be a second referendum would it? If they actually managed to do their jobs instead of bickering and stabbing each other in the back, they could call a “final vote” (with a stipulation that no follow up vote would be allowed in the following 20 years, and that a clear majority is needed) with the following 3 options (as an example) which would have to be explained and validated by an independent adjudicator:

1) “hard” Brexit - sever all ties where legally possible as soon as possible. 

2) “soft” Brexit - whatever that means. 

3) remain

In the case of no clear majority winner, a new date is proposed for another vote and the teams behind each option have to work harder to get their case across. For me, thats the next step in the process, acknowledging the initial referendum result (thus “respecting democracy” even though that’s a horseshit argument) and actually showing some progress and development rather than humiliating the union infront of the world. 

[Bailey]

16 minutes ago, Matt said:

It wouldn’t really be a second referendum would it? If they actually managed to do their jobs instead of bickering and stabbing each other in the back, they could call a “final vote” (with a stipulation that no follow up vote would be allowed in the following 20 years, and that a clear majority is needed) with the following 3 options (as an example) which would have to be explained and validated by an independent adjudicator:

1) “hard” Brexit - sever all ties where legally possible as soon as possible. 

2) “soft” Brexit - whatever that means. 

3) remain

In the case of no clear majority winner, a new date is proposed for another vote and the teams behind each option have to work harder to get their case across. For me, thats the next step in the process, acknowledging the initial referendum result (thus “respecting democracy” even though that’s a horseshit argument) and actually showing some progress and development rather than humiliating the union infront of the world. 

I think it would be difficult to get a clear majority with 3 options although if the PM was clever she would put 3 options in as it would split the leave vote!

[Romey 1878]

46 minutes ago, Matt said:

It wouldn’t really be a second referendum would it? If they actually managed to do their jobs instead of bickering and stabbing each other in the back, they could call a “final vote” (with a stipulation that no follow up vote would be allowed in the following 20 years, and that a clear majority is needed) with the following 3 options (as an example) which would have to be explained and validated by an independent adjudicator:

1) “hard” Brexit - sever all ties where legally possible as soon as possible. 

2) “soft” Brexit - whatever that means. 

3) remain

In the case of no clear majority winner, a new date is proposed for another vote and the teams behind each option have to work harder to get their case across. For me, thats the next step in the process, acknowledging the initial referendum result (thus “respecting democracy” even though that’s a horseshit argument) and actually showing some progress and development rather than humiliating the union infront of the world. 

 now that it looks like a remain vote would be the majority you think another referendum should have the stipulation that there would be no follow up vote. You should be a politician!

[Matt]

9 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

 now that it looks like a remain vote would be the majority you think another referendum should have the stipulation that there would be no follow up vote. You should be a politician!

Not at all. I said make it clear to the people what the choices are and put a full stop after it. As Bailey said, it’d be damn hard to get a majority so whatever is the choice would have to be a compromise  

Or are you implying that there should be a second referendum on the initial questions because people are realising what a gigantic fuck up they’ve created? Not confident that Leave was the right choice? Just teasing. I honestly hadn’t thought about it the way you put it, I was just explaining what I think should’ve happened the first time round. 

[Romey 1878]

23 minutes ago, Matt said:

Or are you implying that there should be a second referendum on the initial questions because people are realising what a gigantic fuck up they’ve created? Not confident that Leave was the right choice? Just teasing. I honestly hadn’t thought about it the way you put it, I was just explaining what I think should’ve happened the first time round. 

I said I'd vote leave again tomorrow. I wasn't implying anything, I just found it funny that with polls showing remain in the lead, which is what you want, that you think if there's to be another referendum then it should be honoured with no chance of challenging it.

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

I said I'd vote leave again tomorrow. I wasn't implying anything, I just found it funny that with polls showing remain in the lead, which is what you want, that you think if there's to be another referendum then it should be honoured with no chance of challenging it.

Honestly dont pay attention to polls, they mean nothing anyway, so I had no idea that was the case when I wrote the post  

I know you weren’t implying anything! I still don’t understand why you’re so adamant to leave though. 

[pete0]

10 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

 now that it looks like a remain vote would be the majority you think another referendum should have the stipulation that there would be no follow up vote. You should be a politician!

I just find it strange that the government require unions to get a 50% turnout for a strike. Yet don't require the same for when helping make major decisions themselves. 

[Romey 1878]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Honestly dont pay attention to polls, they mean nothing anyway, so I had no idea that was the case when I wrote the post  

I know you weren’t implying anything! I still don’t understand why you’re so adamant to leave though. 

You don’t read this thread then? Because Mike posted them here  otherwise I wouldn’t know about them either. 

37 minutes ago, pete0 said:

I just find it strange that the government require unions to get a 50% turnout for a strike. Yet don't require the same for when helping make major decisions themselves. 

Because Governments are selfish, self-serving cock wombles.