Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:04 pm

Oh, just to add, I got accosted by Owen Jones (a wet dream for some on here), and I also got to here a prominent Brexiteer (who has voted against every deal so far) say that Boris could be the best ever peacetime PM. If he is right, should any of us be voting against him when Corbyn is the alternative? Listen to the Chancellor's speech today and reflect

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:11 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Gauke/Willets/Cooke/Greive presser

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/statu ... 3367097347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lots and lots and lots and lots of reality in there. The Conservative Party is not listening to reality, but who is in on the Brexit side?

The only way they leave is by breaking the law.

You want to go down that route?

I didn't need a presser. I spoke to the man face to face. He seemed desparate for a deal. He is the former Treasurer of the ERG after all but a reform not leave guy. He thinks no deal would wreck the Tories reputation.

You know very well that I want a deal too. I was in a debate earlier with the head of Aston Martin. So I see Gauke's point. The question is, do we have to leave with no deal or risk the Remainers scrapping Brexit altogether if the EU are intransigent for purely political reasons?

Anyway, I've done my bit to try to influence things

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:11 pm

KateR wrote:DA; thank you, makes sense.

so in essence the opposition must win a GE to avoid no deal if a deal with the EU can not be made before New Year. However if the present Government stays in power but with a slim margin and all things remain equal then in 3 months we face the same never ending argument and a deadlock. We are doing Brexit but parliament will block a no deal and the EU will not remove the backstop or give meaningful concessions to May's article to leave.

This post subject could go on for ever, becoming increasingly difficult to see how there is a meaningful change unless the GE brings a totally different group of MP's back into Parliament?

Its a cluster f*ck whichever way you look at it and whatever side you are on. This thread could outlive a fair few of us on here

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:21 pm

it's funny, I was just thinking exactly the same line, will I live long enough or have the will to live to the completion of this thread (much better word than post TY)

So hopefully given Lancasters response we can at least all agree that there must be a fundamental change from todays parliament for this to move forward to the next steps in the process, regardless of which side anyone is on.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:25 pm

KateR wrote:...Let me know when Boris actually says he lied, then I will believe you...

Brilliant.

So in order to believe that the proven liar is lying, you need the proven liar’s word that he lied.

Can you see any potential flaws in this approach?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:27 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, are you not keeping up? Germany's car sector is in a downturn. It may be BMW, Merc and VW are the ones asking to be rescued. Possibly something to do with emissions testing, perhaps.

Just using this post because it mentions issues in the automotive industry.

Daimler (Mercedes) has been fined $1billion over the emissions scandal.

VAG current and former top bosses are in the process of being charged with market manipulation.

These recent developments have the potential to cause serious harm to an already struggling German automotive industry.

All 3 of the major Automotive companies in Germany, BMW/VAG/Daimler have been found to be cheating emissions regulations and colluding with each other to impede changes to regulations.

People keep believing and saying German cars are well made, reliable, eco friendly and good value for money etc.
They're wrong.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:30 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I didn't need a presser. I spoke to the man face to face. He seemed desparate for a deal. He is the former Treasurer of the ERG after all but a reform not leave guy. He thinks no deal would wreck the Tories reputation.

You know very well that I want a deal too. I was in a debate earlier with the head of Aston Martin. So I see Gauke's point. The question is, do we have to leave with no deal or risk the Remainers scrapping Brexit altogether if the EU are intransigent for purely political reasons?

Anyway, I've done my bit to try to influence things

If you told the mad bastards to go for a deal, then fair play

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:49 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Having a ceiling on wealth is entirely reasonable. You can't tell me that a few people dithering over whether to buy a yacht or a helicopter is more important than a lot of people choosing between food or heating.

Do you believe the extremely wealthy (as I described above) should just live here and not contribute? Is that taking back control?

A ceiling on wealth spreads money around the economy, and prevents it from accumulating in large pockets. This keeps capitalism moving forward, because you have many buyers of goods.

We are going toward a situation in which there are a small number of rich, and a very large number of poor. Why would you advocate this?

So, if I've won the euromillions, let's just say £100 million - though I believe latest jackpot may be double that - how much am I allowed to keep?

And, if I've created a business, let's say I've employed 50 people for a few years, and someone decided to offer me £100 million to buy my business - how much am I allowed to keep?

Does it make any different that all the time I've been building up my business I've been working 80 hours a week, let's say for 5 years and then for the next 5 years I'm able to employ a few other people.... and for the first 5 years I'm not making very much, definitely less than minimum wage, and I've no time to take holidays.... then, how much am I allowed to keep?

Or, let's say I'm extremely clever and come up with "the next best thing" and that "thing" saves 1,000s of lives, maybe 10s of thousands of lives - how much am I allowed to keep?

You ask "do you believe the extremely wealthy should just live here and not contribute?" Well, what if they don't live here? There are approx. 200 countries in the world to choose from. Maybe they weren't even born here. Maybe they like to live somewhere else. How much will you tax them if that is the case?

You missed my point. You are forgetting (ignoring?) that we live in the world. There is "more than just the UK." Is this a "worldwide" ceiling on wealth you want to have? or just a ceiling in the UK?

We have all played a part in making Bill Gates extremely wealthy. I'm sure like me you are using a laptop which runs windows and, perhaps, MS Office. Bill Gates is spending an enormous amount of his wealth tackling some of the major causes of poverty in the world. Or, would you have preferred that the US tax authorities placed a cap on Bill Gates wealth - and Microsoft never existed as a result?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:56 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Boris could be the best ever peacetime PM.

Based on what exactly?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:59 pm

Spijed wrote:Based on what exactly?

Its not Crosspool saying that, its a mad Brexiteer MP he met at the conference.

And of course he had to mention the war!

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:59 pm

Tony Connelly
✔
@tconnellyRTE
BREAKING: the UK has proposed a string of "customs clearance centres" on both sides of the Irish border as a key part of its plan to replace the backstop, RTE News understands. The "centres", effectively customs posts, would be located between 5-10 miles "back" from the border.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:59 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:Of course the EU would explore this. The U.K. tied into a CU over which we have no say, a SM that we pay to stay in, have to accept the ECJ and four freedoms etc

What exactly are we leaving? Or is this just a ruse to get a Remain vote?

Its pointless leaving with that. Better to remain at least we could serve A5O again and be out in 2 years and I am a leaver. Hopefully will give a majority for a proper leave. If not there will be a referendum. The whole issue will depend whether remain get to set the question because all along they seem to think that May's failed deal or an even softer one v remain is fair. Totally undemocratic and Jo Swinson is an utter disgrace.

Government of national unity my arse.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:03 pm

Spijed wrote:Tony Connelly
✔
@tconnellyRTE
BREAKING: the UK has proposed a string of "customs clearance centres" on both sides of the Irish border as a key part of its plan to replace the backstop, RTE News understands. The "centres", effectively customs posts, would be located between 5-10 miles "back" from the border.

So a hard border, but not at the border, but not down the Irish Sea.

The sort of compromise that a government fresh out of ideas would go for and try to sell.

EDIT - not looking good from initial reaction from those pesky experts.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:05 pm

If it stops a wall of sorts being built across Ireland then it's not a problem is it?

That's what people want to avoid after all...

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:07 pm

KateR wrote:DA; thank you, makes sense.

so in essence the opposition must win a GE to avoid no deal if a deal with the EU can not be made before New Year. However if the present Government stays in power but with a slim margin and all things remain equal then in 3 months we face the same never ending argument and a deadlock. We are doing Brexit but parliament will block a no deal and the EU will not remove the backstop or give meaningful concessions to May's article to leave.

This post subject could go on for ever, becoming increasingly difficult to see how there is a meaningful change unless the GE brings a totally different group of MP's back into Parliament?

Personally I'm not that keen on a second referendum, I think it will prove toxic for the country and I'd prefer us to leave the EU but keep close ties.

However, if we end up with another hung parliament or super slim Tory majority then realistically a second referendum is the only solution I can see to make progress unless the Tories face down the ERG and agree a realistic deal.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:11 pm

Spijed wrote:Tony Connelly
✔
@tconnellyRTE
BREAKING: the UK has proposed a string of "customs clearance centres" on both sides of the Irish border as a key part of its plan to replace the backstop, RTE News understands. The "centres", effectively customs posts, would be located between 5-10 miles "back" from the border.

And a full 31 days to build them!

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:19 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Oh, just to add, I got accosted by Owen Jones (a wet dream for some on here), and I also got to here a prominent Brexiteer (who has voted against every deal so far) say that Boris could be the best ever peacetime PM. If he is right, should any of us be voting against him when Corbyn is the alternative? Listen to the Chancellor's speech today and reflect

On what basis? He wasn't great as a mayor and he was shocking as a foreign secretary.

If Diane Abbott said that Corbyn could be the best ever peacetime PM would that convince you to vote for him?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:24 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:Of course the EU would explore this. The U.K. tied into a CU over which we have no say, a SM that we pay to stay in, have to accept the ECJ and four freedoms etc

But if you actually go back to the referendum campaign this isn't actually so far removed from what Farage was advocating.
On Question time (and on other occasions) he's on record, ( and on You Tube) as supporting the Norway option.
This involves all the above except being part of the Customs Union.
If it's good enough for the Leader of the Brexit Party then why is it such a problem?
Presumably as disciples of Le Farage, it's what you voted for 3 years ago.
Or have the goalposts moved?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:31 pm

And here we have it

The governments plan to stop the Benn act

https://twitter.com/elliotttimes/status ... 4735047686" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't believe this is what they have got.

The EU won't be the one to cause a "No Deal". Thats been clear since Day 1.

So we've got a plan that will be rejected out of hand because its ********, and a plan to avoid the extension that isn't based on any reality.

Is that the best Cummings and Johnson have got?

We are being abysmally led here boys and girls

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:32 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:So a hard border, but not at the border, but not down the Irish Sea.

The sort of compromise that a government fresh out of ideas would go for and try to sell.

EDIT - not looking good from initial reaction from those pesky experts.

"Mr Gorbachev, move this wall 5-10 miles north"

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:48 pm

Interestingly enough, the UK plans are the same as the Irish one on the infrastructure but the Irish ones are in the event of a "No Deal"

Planning for a "No Deal"?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:54 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Interestingly enough, the UK plans are the same as the Irish one on the infrastructure but the Irish ones are in the event of a "No Deal"

Planning for a "No Deal"?

If both UK and EU agree on "no deal" - does that mean we have a deal?

Asking for a friend.....

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:56 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Interestingly enough, the UK plans are the same as the Irish one on the infrastructure but the Irish ones are in the event of a "No Deal"

Planning for a "No Deal"?

So, if the EU have accepted the ROI plans for near-border checks in the case of no-deal Brexit then they must have to accept the 'identical' UK suggestion that the same would apply to a deal scenario.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:58 pm

Mala591 wrote:So, if the EU have accepted the ROI plans for near-border checks in the case of no-deal Brexit then they must have to accept the 'identical' UK suggestion that the same would apply to a deal scenario.

Er, no

I'm only talking about the infrastructure in place to deal with the situation in the event of a "No Deal".

There has to be a border control between the NI and the Republic in that event for the protection of the EU SM and CU, and the Irish setting it back from the border is about the best they can do under the circumstances.

Its pretty cheeky of the Uk government to think that means doing the same resolves the Irish border issues, and it smacks of a pretty poor attempt to lay the blame for the latest UK failure at the feet of the EU.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:59 pm

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1178790639162609665" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure this is going to help

No election till the spring, and not until Brexit is revolved doesn't sound great.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:25 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1178790639162609665

Not sure this is going to help

No election till the spring, and not until Brexit is revolved doesn't sound great.

Labour MPs in Leave seats are rightfully worried about their jobs.

Who can blame them?

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:26 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1178790639162609665

Not sure this is going to help

No election till the spring, and not until Brexit is revolved doesn't sound great.

But the thought of an election in which millions will vote based on a single issue horrifies me.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:44 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote: There has to be a border control between the NI and the Republic in that event for the protection of the EU SM and CU, and the Irish setting it back from the border is about the best they can do under the circumstances.

And this ^^^^ is the only short/medium term solution to the problem so why not just get on with it now and stop fannying around.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:56 pm

So the plan to stop a hard border in Ireland is to have two hard borders?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:00 am

And the plan to get us the no deal at the end of October that we’ve always needed as a bargaining tool to threaten the EU into giving us a great deal because it terrifies them is to ask the EU to force no deal?

This has moved well beyond parody now! Almost surreal.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:08 am

martin_p wrote:So the plan to stop a hard border in Ireland is to have two hard borders?

Most of the checks will be on the ROI side of the buffer zone but the UK will need to do some random checks. So yes, two trade borders in one buffer zone.

What other realistic solution is there?

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:08 am

martin_p wrote:And the plan to get us the no deal at the end of October that we’ve always needed as a bargaining tool to threaten the EU into giving us a great deal because it terrifies them is to ask the EU to force no deal?

This has moved well beyond parody now! Almost surreal.

Not at all. It looks like the plan if the EU will agree, is to get a deal through the HOC and avoid no deal and avoid BJ breaking his promises and comply with the law and force the remainer alliance to surrender. What's not to like. Sourby's face would be a picture. Because that's democracy.

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:18 am

Spijed wrote:Based on what exactly?

peace, war, it doesn't matter much, the elitist pigs always get the top jobs. churchill was a ****** ******, he destoyed thousands of lives, and now another public school liar will oversee a modern day catastrophe. the voting public in this country are clowns, idiots with a legal right to vote, but clueless in all respects.

atlantalad · Post by **atlantalad** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:20 am

Looking at and reading the wording of the Benn bill it implies the PM only has to reach an "agreement" with the EU. If an agreement between the EU and the PM is reached - even if that is acceptance of a remote customs border, or even a no-deal then the rest of the HOC have no say.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:55 am

Lowbankclaret wrote:You are mixing your drinks in this argument.

I agree with your argument about people being found fit to work who are not.

I agreed we should support people who have fallen on hard times.

Career welfare system claimers who earn more than hard working people I have an issue with.

Try reading my posts properly.

"Career welfare system claimers" - what percentage of people claiming benefits do you think fit this description? The system was already strict when the Tories took over in 2010. They just added varying degrees of sadism to it.

The government estimated something like 1% of benefit payments were fraudulently claimed, but at the same time between £20 Billion and £40 Billion of tax was being evaded. Other groups estimate that number should be over £100 Billion. Yet the government reduced the headcount at HMRC, and increased the number of people investigating benefit fraud. They chased £1.5 Billion rather than chasing the tax money.

And this is mirrored in your great concern over some people with no money gaming the system, and insistence that we not be too hard on the rich.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:20 am

Paul Waine wrote:So, if I've won the euromillions, let's just say £100 million - though I believe latest jackpot may be double that - how much am I allowed to keep?

And, if I've created a business, let's say I've employed 50 people for a few years, and someone decided to offer me £100 million to buy my business - how much am I allowed to keep?

Does it make any different that all the time I've been building up my business I've been working 80 hours a week, let's say for 5 years and then for the next 5 years I'm able to employ a few other people.... and for the first 5 years I'm not making very much, definitely less than minimum wage, and I've no time to take holidays.... then, how much am I allowed to keep?

Or, let's say I'm extremely clever and come up with "the next best thing" and that "thing" saves 1,000s of lives, maybe 10s of thousands of lives - how much am I allowed to keep?

You ask "do you believe the extremely wealthy should just live here and not contribute?" Well, what if they don't live here? There are approx. 200 countries in the world to choose from. Maybe they weren't even born here. Maybe they like to live somewhere else. How much will you tax them if that is the case?

You missed my point. You are forgetting (ignoring?) that we live in the world. There is "more than just the UK." Is this a "worldwide" ceiling on wealth you want to have? or just a ceiling in the UK?

We have all played a part in making Bill Gates extremely wealthy. I'm sure like me you are using a laptop which runs windows and, perhaps, MS Office. Bill Gates is spending an enormous amount of his wealth tackling some of the major causes of poverty in the world. Or, would you have preferred that the US tax authorities placed a cap on Bill Gates wealth - and Microsoft never existed as a result?

Yes I believe there should be a ceiling on wealth. I believe this because having billionaires in a society that also has food banks is morally repugnant. I think that having billionaires in a country where the average family income is less than £40K a year is really bad for democracy.

Such a level of wealth gives them an input - and let's not mince words here, a power - far greater than their solitary person should have within a democracy. I've already mentioned things like ownership of media, funding political parties, and the evidence is right there in front of us. Billionaire owned newspapers champion parties and policies that entrench their position, and billionaires fund the same. It's not a rigged game, but it's pretty close. Why on earth allow some people to become so rich they can do this?

I don't know what level a wealth ceiling should be set at, but probably best at a level that most people could never attain, and definitely below the level of billionaire. I think probably somewhere in the tens of millions. So I ask you, if this were the case, would anyone die or become destitute as a result? Would anyone lose the will to live? Would businesses just collapse? Would the world end? Or would we have people who hit the ceiling and devote their iives to other pursuits, a more democratic country, better funded services, and a country not dictated to by billionaires?

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:24 am

Paul Waine wrote:

You ask "do you believe the extremely wealthy should just live here and not contribute?" Well, what if they don't live here? There are approx. 200 countries in the world to choose from. Maybe they weren't even born here. Maybe they like to live somewhere else. How much will you tax them if that is the case?

You missed my point. You are forgetting (ignoring?) that we live in the world. There is "more than just the UK." Is this a "worldwide" ceiling on wealth you want to have? or just a ceiling in the UK?

Is your opposition to redistributive measures political or practical? It seems you believe that it can't be done, but why should that determine what should be done?

The same argument could be made if, in some post-apocalyptic scenario, the entire country were starving and it were suggested a larger portion of their grain should be shared among the people to alleviate the crisis: 'we sadly live in a world where those with the food can just jet off abroad and leave us worse than we already are'.

You suppose the way-things-are are the way they must be, and you provide no evidence for that assertion, and cannot provide any evidence, for it is a logical impossibility to provide evidence for a value judgement about the way things should or should not be.

Let us discuss the practicability of improving the common lot, sure. I am not an idealist and do not pretend to know the solutions, so will not gainsay expertise but, on a day when the Conservatives have just pitched Labour policies they once derided as requiring the furit of a 'magic money tree', I can't help but wonder whether it is really a case of 'won't' rather than 'can''t'.

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:33 am

Lowbankclaret wrote:I also was a Labour Party member and campaigner.

I and many many people I know cannot vote Labour whilst it run by Corbyn.

He is going to get a shock at the next election.

I understand why people dislike Corbyn, but he is more than one man and so is Johnson: look at the people around them, what they want to do to the country and what they really believe. I've said it before: unless you've got property or a a six figure salary, the new brand of Tories are unlikely to be good for you.

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:36 am

If it be your will wrote:Oh yes, sorry, I got distracted with my tirade against Erasmus.

It's not. It's a hopeless situation for the left now, I think. But if you're asking why I pursued it in the first place I've done it to death on here already. But in brief I maintain that socialism is basically impossible as a member of the EU. You can redistribute wealth, that's fine, but if you want public monopoly ownership of rail and utilities, and make them democratically accountable rather than accountable to the market, it's simply not allowed (4th Railway Package and 3rd Energy Package respectively). If you want to stop the mass outsourcing of the public sector into private operations, it's not allowed (Public Procurement Rules), if you want to curtail abusive, continent-wide labour arbitrage, it's not allowed ('Four Freedoms'), if you want the might of the state to help nurture start up industries that might one day benefit us all, or support crucial, strategic national industries (e.g. steel) it's not allowed (State Aid Rules).

Before anyone says I'm wrong, please, leave it. I'm tired of making the same arguments over and over again, and have given up. I'm just watching it all as a neutral observer these days.

Cheers for the honest response mate and I would (sincerely) be interested to read some anti-EU material from the left-wing side. The entire debate left me cold because I saw it as Tory drama; I only voted because I saw it turning into a populist right movement which has, as I anticipated, totally ****** us up.

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:44 am

Interesting article on Cummings' ideology and, by extension, the vision he's trying to get the Tories to enact: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/dominic ... rexit-blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Certainly, when he was advising Give as a SPAD this is very much the way things started to go)

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:49 am

And one for the amateur (or professional!) accountants here about how the Tories have sold the student loan book to give the impression they are they are reducing government debt when the opposite is the case: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n17/andrew-mc ... -illusions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:08 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:So a hard border, but not at the border, but not down the Irish Sea.

The sort of compromise that a government fresh out of ideas would go for and try to sell.

EDIT - not looking good from initial reaction from those pesky experts.

They are based on Ireland's own no-deal plans, so either way it's going to happen.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:14 am

summitclaret wrote:Not at all. It looks like the plan if the EU will agree, is to get a deal through the HOC and avoid no deal and avoid BJ breaking his promises and comply with the law and force the remainer alliance to surrender. What's not to like. Sourby's face would be a picture. Because that's democracy.

It only looks like that if you've been ignoring reality and anything that has been going on for the last three years.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:16 am

AndyClaret wrote:They are based on Ireland's own no-deal plans, so either way it's going to happen.

If it's a no deal.

Which is what I said.

It's looking like the UK plan is "no deal" which is illegal.

It's almost like it's a plan to save the Tory Party doesn't it?

Which would be a huge dereliction of duty by any government

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:19 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1178790639162609665

Not sure this is going to help

No election till the spring, and not until Brexit is revolved doesn't sound great.

If that's true, that's a huge development, and a very positive one.

A general election at this stage is utterly pointless. It won't resolve anything if it leads to a hung parliament (which isn't that unlikely). MPs would do well to gain an extension from the EU and then pass the legislation for a referendum.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:54 am

Sigh

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/11 ... 2463299584" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its what was rumoured last night.

UK government plan which isn't taking into account the realities. You'd think we'd have learnt that by now.

No chance of being accepted, so we are back to

"how does Johnson avoid breaking his promise to the brexiteers without breaking the law?"

Based on his performances so far, the only thing you can guarantee is that it will be badly thought out, illegal and even more divisive than anything else tried yet.

He's 100% the wrong man, at the wrong time, in the wrong place.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:38 am

HieronymousBoschHobs wrote:
Is your opposition to redistributive measures political or practical? It seems you believe that it can't be done, but why should that determine what should be done?

The same argument could be made if, in some post-apocalyptic scenario, the entire country were starving and it were suggested a larger portion of their grain should be shared among the people to alleviate the crisis: 'we sadly live in a world where those with the food can just jet off abroad and leave us worse than we already are'.

You suppose the way-things-are are the way they must be, and you provide no evidence for that assertion, and cannot provide any evidence, for it is a logical impossibility to provide evidence for a value judgement about the way things should or should not be.

Let us discuss the practicability of improving the common lot, sure. I am not an idealist and do not pretend to know the solutions, so will not gainsay expertise but, on a day when the Conservatives have just pitched Labour policies they once derided as requiring the furit of a 'magic money tree', I can't help but wonder whether it is really a case of 'won't' rather than 'can''t'.

AndrewJB wrote:Yes I believe there should be a ceiling on wealth. I believe this because having billionaires in a society that also has food banks is morally repugnant. I think that having billionaires in a country where the average family income is less than £40K a year is really bad for democracy.

Such a level of wealth gives them an input - and let's not mince words here, a power - far greater than their solitary person should have within a democracy. I've already mentioned things like ownership of media, funding political parties, and the evidence is right there in front of us. Billionaire owned newspapers champion parties and policies that entrench their position, and billionaires fund the same. It's not a rigged game, but it's pretty close. Why on earth allow some people to become so rich they can do this?

I don't know what level a wealth ceiling should be set at, but probably best at a level that most people could never attain, and definitely below the level of billionaire. I think probably somewhere in the tens of millions. So I ask you, if this were the case, would anyone die or become destitute as a result? Would anyone lose the will to live? Would businesses just collapse? Would the world end? Or would we have people who hit the ceiling and devote their iives to other pursuits, a more democratic country, better funded services, and a country not dictated to by billionaires?

Wonderfully idealistic, guys, except you are both only thinking of the UK. It would be very easy to make the UK the "poor peoples' country" by putting a ceiling on wealth with your "no one can be a billionaire" ideals. Haven't you noticed we now have the internet? I'm sure some of us read the media that is published outside the UK and is owned by people living outside the UK. (Washington Post has been quoted a few times on this mb, for example).

Yes, my views are political and my views are in defence of a fair society. If we are concerned about people living in poverty - and, I've got to ask, why do you appear to be concerned about people in (relative) poverty in the UK, but unconcerned about the real poverty in the greater part of the world? Yes, I'd abolish all political privilege: no House of Lords, no "politicians for life." no political family dynasties, no more than one member of a family (including partners) to hold a political post at any one time, no honours (whether political or business or sporting/arts). I'd also "Burst the Westminster bubble" and move parliament to Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham and Bristol (and not in the smartest city centre locations) make parliament see how the country lives. I'd tax income fairly - and not too excess - 40% seems a good maximum, 3/5th for the person who's earned the money, 2/5th for the society they live in. If the country can't manage on these tax rates we've got to look at the way the country is living and spending, not on the tiny, tiny, number who are "doing very well, thank you."

As for HBH's "starving country and only the rich have grain" - how about borrowing to buy the grain that is needed? We will never get out of this idea that the "rich" are making the "poor" poor, if we don't start thinking that we all have to do something ourselves and stop looking for the "hand out" from someone else.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:48 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:If that's true, that's a huge development, and a very positive one.

A general election at this stage is utterly pointless. It won't resolve anything if it leads to a hung parliament (which isn't that unlikely). MPs would do well to gain an extension from the EU and then pass the legislation for a referendum.

Yeah that just what a government for national disunity would do. Unbelievable.

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:01 am

Paul Waine wrote:Wonderfully idealistic, guys, except you are both only thinking of the UK. It would be very easy to make the UK the "poor peoples' country" by putting a ceiling on wealth with your "no one can be a billionaire" ideals. Haven't you noticed we now have the internet? I'm sure some of us read the media that is published outside the UK and is owned by people living outside the UK. (Washington Post has been quoted a few times on this mb, for example).

Yes, my views are political and my views are in defence of a fair society. If we are concerned about people living in poverty - and, I've got to ask, why do you appear to be concerned about people in (relative) poverty in the UK, but unconcerned about the real poverty in the greater part of the world? Yes, I'd abolish all political privilege: no House of Lords, no "politicians for life." no political family dynasties, no more than one member of a family (including partners) to hold a political post at any one time, no honours (whether political or business or sporting/arts). I'd also "Burst the Westminster bubble" and move parliament to Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham and Bristol (and not in the smartest city centre locations) make parliament see how the country lives. I'd tax income fairly - and not too excess - 40% seems a good maximum, 3/5th for the person who's earned the money, 2/5th for the society they live in. If the country can't manage on these tax rates we've got to look at the way the country is living and spending, not on the tiny, tiny, number who are "doing very well, thank you."

As for HBH's "starving country and only the rich have grain" - how about borrowing to buy the grain that is needed? We will never get out of this idea that the "rich" are making the "poor" poor, if we don't start thinking that we all have to do something ourselves and stop looking for the "hand out" from someone else.

Appreciate the response and you've made some interesting points, but you've run my argument together with someone else's which is always a bad move in a forum (in the general sense) like this.

I applaud your suggestion of getting the centre of democracy on the move to other parts of the country: the details are a bit sketchy but it's a good idea. A bit like what myself and Andrew are suggesting.

A national economy does not function like the budget of the average household, and that view is assented to by the vast majority of academic economists and has, despite the Conservatives economic plans, also been accepted by the IMF since early 2010. Austerity is, and was, bad economics - it was also, in my view, morally wrong.

There was no suggestion on my part that there was any malign motive on the part of the 'rich' to make the poor poorer. It is, as you rightly intimate, a nonsensical idea: globally, who are the 'rich' if not the median earners of this country? Graciously, you have now stated that you, like me, want a fairer society and that is a good thing: we are not just trading insults but talking on a plane where we might learn something from on another. That's how political discussion used to be.

As it is, unsurprisingly, I disagree: I think you are pessimistic bordering on defeatist. I think you suppose that a government cannot increase taxes simply because another government might offer lower rates and, as a result, we are beholden to the lowest bidder. This is an empirical argument. Not my forte. Here is what I offer as a riposte: already nations offer lower taxation rates than the UK, so why do companies still continue to trade here? Why do companies trade in nations with an even higher tax burden?

I suggest it is not so simple as you make out, just as it is not simple as the UK being a house whose roof needs mending whilst the sun is shining.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:37 am

The leaked Irish border solution is another ‘out of date’ plan according to Johnson.