May's Brexit Plan

[PeterC]

1 hour ago, Sprint95m said:

Okay, seeing as it is seasonal, I'll bite.

What is wrong with Turkey, Peter?

 

Ian.

Erdogan etc etc etc. a loooong list of human rights violations.

[richy_rich]

36 minutes ago, DeTRacted said:

Apart from the brief petrol shortages after the Yom Kippur war in '73 I can barely remember rationing, as that stopped in the mid '50s. I certainly can remember the incessant strikes in the '70s and early '80s though, including the winter of discontent, and really do not want to go back to that sort of thing. 

The UK was also bailed out by the IMF in '76 wasn't it?  That was the Labour government pre-Thatcher though IIRC.   I do get the feeling that we're heading for a decade or so of "that sort of thing" again, at least in terms of upheaval and political unrest.

 

[zetecspit]

Sorry, my post, in retrospect, is poorly worded.

I agree largely with what you say, she was needed to drag UK PLC out of clutches of the shop stewards and so on.

Going back in time, I meant to the 50's and 60's All looks lovely, nice simple times etc. Truth is. people had very little of anything. The house I grew up in, there were 3 cars in the whole road when I was born. Today each house probably has 3 cars. Few had foreign holidays at all, and medical care was nowhere near as advanced. Nope, people are much better off today. Partly because of the lasting peace after 2 devastating (economically as well as the more obvious ) world wars . And the cooperation between european countries has been a huge factor.

But all that seems to be coming to an end. Not just Brexit and the chaos it is causing, but the changes that are bubbling up in other countries too. I think the eurocrats have misjudged how countries like to retain their sovereignty,and the EU has tried to push too far. 

[PeterC]

21 minutes ago, zetecspit said:

Sorry, my post, in retrospect, is poorly worded.

I agree largely with what you say, she was needed to drag UK PLC out of clutches of the shop stewards and so on.

Going back in time, I meant to the 50's and 60's All looks lovely, nice simple times etc. Truth is. people had very little of anything. The house I grew up in, there were 3 cars in the whole road when I was born. Today each house probably has 3 cars. Few had foreign holidays at all, and medical care was nowhere near as advanced. Nope, people are much better off today. Partly because of the lasting peace after 2 devastating (economically as well as the more obvious ) world wars . And the cooperation between european countries has been a huge factor.

But all that seems to be coming to an end. Not just Brexit and the chaos it is causing, but the changes that are bubbling up in other countries too. I think the eurocrats have misjudged how countries like to retain their sovereignty,and the EU has tried to push too far. 

All that cannot fail to end. Theres only one planet and that level of consumption if it were to be applied globally, needs three planet's resources. Climate change also puts a severe limit on "eceonomic progress".  Its not poltics that dicates we pull in our acquisitive horns, we will be forced to by nature. Politicians are utterly incapable of promoting "smaller is beautiful" Our grandchildren are going to have a tough time surviving this century.

Peter

Edited December 17, 2018 by PeterC

[Chris W]

4 hours ago, richy_rich said:

The UK was also bailed out by the IMF in '76 wasn't it?  That was the Labour government pre-Thatcher though IIRC. 

No, it wasn't.  The fact that this view still persists after 40 years shows what a great propaganda coup it was for Mrs T at the 79 election.

Denis Healey approached the IMF for a loan facility but in the end, it wasn't required so UK didn't borrow from IMF.  However, the fact that he had asked allowed the Tories to claim that Labour were financially incompetent and had to go 'cap in hand' to be 'bailed out'.

It's a bit like the 'Brexit Bus' which, of course, didn't state that £350m would be spent on the NHS but made two statements that,  those who can't read properly, might infer it had.

Cheers

Chris

 

 

 

[zetecspit]

I can read, and whoever wrote that statement was obviously wanting people to believe what it says. The statement is all one sentence for a start, the "let's" does not start with a capitol letter (if we are being picky, but notice they do use a capitol L for the more honest statement at the very bottom) So either written by an incompetent idiot OR meant to be clever enough to mislead but with wiggle room to deny it. Or both.

[richy_rich]

6 hours ago, Chris W said:

No, it wasn't.  The fact that this view still persists after 40 years shows what a great propaganda coup it was for Mrs T at the 79 election.

Denis Healey approached the IMF for a loan facility but in the end, it wasn't required so UK didn't borrow from IMF.  However, the fact that he had asked allowed the Tories to claim that Labour were financially incompetent and had to go 'cap in hand' to be 'bailed out'.

The UK did borrow from the IMF in 1976 though,  although they didn't need to use the full amount : http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/sterling-devalued-imf-loan.htm

Quote

Following the agreement with the IMF, the overall economic and financial picture improved. Interest rates were soon reduced and the pound quickly appreciated in value. By the end of 1977, partly as a result of new oil revenues, there were improvements in the balance of trade. Britain did not need to draw the full loan from the IMF. Nevertheless, the IMF crisis reinforced a change in policy orientation away from full employment and social welfare towards the control of inflation and expenditure.

It was also paid back quickly, here's a quote from Denish Healey's autobiography

Quote

Moreover, I drew only half of the loan offered in return by the IMF, and had repaid it all - or the equivalent - by the time I left office.

 

 

[PaulAA]

6 hours ago, Chris W said:

.... UK didn't borrow from IMF. 

 

Erm... yes it did, just not all of the USD 3.9billion that Denis Healey had negotiated. Ref here.

 

6 hours ago, Chris W said:

It's a bit like the 'Brexit Bus' which, of course, didn't state that £350m would be spent on the NHS but made two statements that,  those who can't read properly, might infer it had.
 

 

The conflation of the two statements was intended to deceive.  And serial liar Farage stated on record on 9th June 2016 that the money would be spent on the NHS (despite his post-referendum back-tracking).

However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, how was the Red Bus statement meant to be read by Joe Public?

Paul

[Rod1883]

Paul

The message on the bus didn't say 'let's spend it all on the NHS instead' so it was, and is,  clear to me that the money we no longer would have to send could be spent on things we want to spend it on - including the NHS.

Rod

[rhino_mac]

4 hours ago, zetecspit said:

 

Quote:

"Paul

The message on the bus didn't say 'let's spend it all on the NHS instead'"

Certainly looks like it did to me.

The  government have already said the NHS won't see a penny because the £350m a week will need to be spent on duplicating projects like REACH and other regulations we will no longer be part of, but need to comply with to continue to trade with the EU. That and the fact the economy will suffer (everyone has agreed on this) so the £350m most likely will be lost from the economy so not be available to anyone, let alone the NHS.

It was a cheap line to get all the Sun readers to back the leavers - and it worked. The problem was it wasn't based on fact so for this reason alone there should be another referendum. The voting populace was sold a bucket of lies. "No deal is better than a bad deal" was another one - that seems to be missing from most politicians vocabulary nowadays.

[richy_rich]

It was a good move, the bus. 

It got people talking/arguing about issues tangential to the one at hand (was the figure 350 million, or less, or more, net or gross? What does the slogan actually mean?) 

It's lottery numbers but 350 million isn't very much really, I think the NHS costs in the order of 2-3 billion a week.

Of course 350 million seems a lot of money but for the UK as a whole it likely represents less a couple of percent of weekly revenue.

Anyway, both leavers and remainers are at least now agreed that the NHS isn't getting the 350 million anyway (and possibly never was...) 

[Iain]

When ever  I see these lorrys around the South West it makes me smile...

 

[Rod1883]

4 hours ago, rhino_mac said:

Quote:

"Paul

The message on the bus didn't say 'let's spend it all on the NHS instead'"

Certainly looks like it did to me.

The  government have already said the NHS won't see a penny because the £350m a week will need to be spent on duplicating projects like REACH and other regulations we will no longer be part of, but need to comply with to continue to trade with the EU. That and the fact the economy will suffer (everyone has agreed on this) so the £350m most likely will be lost from the economy so not be available to anyone, let alone the NHS.

It was a cheap line to get all the Sun readers to back the leavers - and it worked. The problem was it wasn't based on fact so for this reason alone there should be another referendum. The voting populace was sold a bucket of lies. "No deal is better than a bad deal" was another one - that seems to be missing from most politicians vocabulary nowadays.

There was plenty of debate at the time and it was clear that the figure was gross, and the choice we could have on where to spend it was part of the attraction of taking back control of our political decisions. Yes, the situation has changed and the economy generally (across the whole of Europe) isn't as good as it perhaps was, so will there really be £350million to assign? I don't know, but the principle of having our elected politicians* decide on our behalf has got to be better than remote EU bureaucrats doing it, hasn't it?

*No matter what we think of our Politicians - at least we have the opportunity to elect them every few years or so - something that the size and complexity of the EU machine effectively denies us.

[Janner]

8 hours ago, PaulAA said:

Erm... yes it did, just not all of the USD 3.9billion that Denis Healey had negotiated. Ref here.

 

The conflation of the two statements was intended to deceive.  And serial liar Farage stated on record on 9th June 2016 that the money would be spent on the NHS (despite his post-referendum back-tracking).

However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, how was the Red Bus statement meant to be read by Joe Public?

Paul

Paul

Messer Bliar and Brown were serial liars as well, read 'Broken Vows'

All in all I suggest that leavers and remainers abjectly failed to tell the truth then and still have difficulty now.

Anyone who really, truly believes that one side lied and one didn't, really doesn't understand politics or politicians.

Left, centre, right, they are all the same, in it for power, money, power self promotion, power.

 

John

[PaulAA]

John

Now you are taking the comment out of context and overlooking - intentionally or otherwise - my previous posts on the subject.

Excusing a misrepresentation with 'they all did it' is not a good enough reason, although it does seem that British politics is increasingly characterised by the lowest common denominator.

Paul

[PaulAA]

1 hour ago, Rod1883 said:

*No matter what we think of our Politicians - at least we have the opportunity to elect them every few years or so - something that the size and complexity of the EU machine effectively denies us.

Repetition does not make something true. In what way is the combination of no direct election of cabinet, PM, HoL, Head of State and Civil Service make the UK model more democratic than the European one?

[PeterC]

1 hour ago, PaulAA said:

Repetition does not make something true. In what way is the combination of no direct election of cabinet, PM, HoL, Head of State and Civil Service make the UK model more democratic than the European one?

By dilution of  representation. My vote for a westminster MP counts more than a vote for an Assembly member in Cardiff. And my vote for a MEP is barely worth owt at all. I only write to my MP , the others have no power to speak of.

Peter

[AB|W]

Paul,

"...although it does seem that British politics is increasingly characterised by the lowest common denominator.."

Ah yes, some of the members are even from the North,  one or two Johnnies that didn't even go to Oxbridge, can you believe it, standards have definitely slipped.

Alan

 

[DeTRacted]

Neither are truly democratic.  In a real democracy the poplulace gets to vote on everything.  What we have is an elected oligarchy which has the benefit of being a lot less cumbersome as a system but which can result in the kind of disconnection between the government and the governed which we see at present. This is reinforced by the party system which means an independent candidate has little chance of being elected to the UK parliament and virtually no chance at all of becoming an MEP.

As Peter says- the further that gets from the grass roots and the larger the constituency the worse it becomes, so the euro-parliament is really a complete unknown to the electorate. 

There are a mere 751 MEPS representing around 380 million voters so about 505k each but they are decided by PR which means the party system dominates and the person(s) actually elected may have no connection with your particular area.   Our parliament has 650 MPs representing 46.5M voters so about 71.5k each and we do get to vote directly for one known person.  I know which I prefer.

 

[Janner]

2 hours ago, PaulAA said:

John

Now you are taking the comment out of context and overlooking - intentionally or otherwise - my previous posts on the subject.

Excusing a misrepresentation with 'they all did it' is not a good enough reason, although it does seem that British politics is increasingly characterised by the lowest common denominator.

Paul

Paul

If I have, then I apologise unreservedly.

I have tried to inwardly digest the whole thread, as it has progressed, so may very well have forgotten some of the views offered . . . . .who says retirement is fun?

I have to admit being somewhat frustrated at the apparent entrenched positions of both sides of this arguement.

(At this point I have to state that I voted leave, for a myriad of reasons), but, I can remember, see and hear the constant stream of distortions being delivered by both cabals.

The thing that really sticks in my craw is the constant whining about a 'peoples vote' which is another refurendum, disguised so that (they think) the great unwashed won't recognise it.

IF there is another refurendum, irrespective of the result, I want at least best of 3 and would prefer best of 5.

We have the political system we have.  Right or wrong, it is what it is.

There was an election, a refurendum and another election.  The results are what they are,  they cannot be changed.

If the result had been to remain, would I be screaming cheat, liar, I want another one?  No I wouldn't.

I lost the refurendum i n 1975 and suffered 18 years of the EEC (OK, not so bad) and 25 years of the Eu as a result.   I have never whined about wanting a 'peoples vote' just because I didn't like the outcome . . . . .which I didn't.

There has never been a vote or refurendum, on being part of the Eu, until 2016.  The result was leave.

Please, everyone, lets just get on with it.

 

John

[AB|W]

John,

You are correct the establishment only believes in the results of election / referendums if it meets their aims, anything else is a mistake and must be corrected. Hence the media histrionics after Donald Trump was elected, our Brexit votes  and numerous contested results in third world countries.

Even the language has changed, from holding what used to be called "differing views", now is called just "wrong", with the expectation that a differing opinion is incorrect and therefore worthless and may be disregarded.

Whatever the outcome of Brexit there will be interesting times ahead for democracy. But then democracy is too old fashioned for the twenty-first century isn't it?

Alan

 

[PaulAA]

16 minutes ago, DeTRacted said:

Neither are truly democratic.  In a real democracy the poplulace gets to vote on everything.  What we have is an elected oligarchy which has the benefit of being a lot less cumbersome as a system but which can result in the kind of disconnection between the government and the governed which we see at present. This is reinforced by the party system which means an independent candidate has little chance of being elected to the UK parliament and virtually no chance at all of becoming an MEP.

As Peter says- the further that gets from the grass roots and the larger the constituency the worse it becomes, so the euro-parliament is really a complete unknown to the electorate. 

There are a mere 751 MEPS representing around 380 million voters so about 505k each but they are decided by PR which means the party system dominates and the person(s) actually elected may have no connection with your particular area.   Our parliament has 650 MPs representing 46.5M voters so about 71.5k each and we do get to vote directly for one known person.  I know which I prefer.

 

Rob

I could set out the factual errors in your summary, but I think I'd just be doing it for my own benefit.  I admit that I'm an avowed Remainer, because I believe that, flawed as it is, the EU does a pretty good job in offsetting the pendulum swings of national politics and providing a trading environment that unifies tariffs and regulations in the world's biggest single market.  It has also done far more for the UK than any party political govt has ever done to stimulate regional growth and infrastructure.  Three cheers for 'our' sort of democracy.  So much misinformation has been spread  - and a lot of it repeated in this thread - that truth has become almost irrelevant.

Also almost irrelevant is that the referendum was flawed, tainted and fundamentally ill-conceived.  I honestly don't believe that a second referendum (whether it is given a confrontational title like 'People's Referendum' or not) will repair the damage that has been done.  I also don't believe that it will achieve a meaningful result.  You have a system of democracy and 650 MPs to deliver not you want, but what they conclude is best for you.  All the referendum achieved was to provide a cloak of public opinion for these 'representatives' to hide behind and convince themselves that they are fulfilling The Wish of the People.

It could have been handled differently, to be a less abrupt and less damaging process, but we have David Cameron to thank for that.  The one glimmer of hope is that he will face retribution, if not in this life, then in the next, for the damage he has done to Britain for a generation to come.

As of this evening, it appears that you are in the hands of the DUP again.  A small religious faction on the fringe of British politics will decide the fate of the country.  I can only wish you well.

Paul

[Nick Jones]

Pretty fair summary I reckon.

Just goes to show what a shit-storm can come from a non-binding (!), simplistic and badly framed referendum, without setting sensible thresholds to trigger drastic action.  EG 60% of votes cast or 50% of total electorate in favour.  I also think it would have been fair to include 16 and 17 year olds (as with Scottish referendum) as they are the ones who would have to live with the consequences.

Personally I have zero (even negative) respect for the original result.  Ask a simplistic question, call it "non-binding", tolerate bare-faced lies, propaganda and mis-information without calling foul and then call it a sweeping victory for democracy and vow to gold plate it.

Of course the brexit brigade hate the idea of another vote.  The original was framed in the only way that could produce a "win" for them and even then it was hardly a rousing victory given the numbers who had (and probably still have) no idea what they are voting for.

My own view is that a "re-trial" is the only reasonable way forward.  I agree that it will be messy and unpleasant and the result will still be close - but probably in the other direction.  It will still be a horrible mess  and intensely divisive, but better than the alternatives I feel.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the whole thing is just how terribly badly it's been handled by the pathetic excuse for a government we currently suffer - and the equally inept opposition -  Which brings poor prospects for the country whatever happens next

[Chris W]

18 hours ago, richy_rich said:

The UK did borrow from the IMF in 1976 though,  although they didn't need to use the full amount : http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/sterling-devalued-imf-loan.htm

It was also paid back quickly, here's a quote from Denish Healey's autobiography

 

 

Thanks for the correction Rich.

It's now killing me that I can't remember where I picked up the misinformation about, what I thought, was misinformation!  I thought it was from an interview with DH but since you quote his autobiography it can't have been.

[Chris W]

18 hours ago, PaulAA said:

The conflation of the two statements was intended to deceive.  And serial liar Farage stated on record on 9th June 2016 that the money would be spent on the NHS (despite his post-referendum back-tracking).

However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, how was the Red Bus statement meant to be read by Joe Public?

I agree totally that the intention was to suggest that the money could or should be spent on the NHS but it didn't work for me because:

The £350m was gross (as was amply discussed at the time)

There were plenty of other things discussed that also would have to be funded......farmers, science & research, infrastructure projects (remember the bloke in the Welsh valley)

I don't think we should keep throwing more and more money at the NHS

but most importantly, Vote Leave wasn't the Government so they couldn't make spending commitments on the Government's behalf.