FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > no peeerage for bercow
no peeerage for bercow
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"seems bercow is not the only one who can break with tradition.Boris has too the 1st ex speaker for 230 years not to get one.  "
yet..... i am sure it will eventually come....
I was chuffed that Farage ended up getting sweet fuck all as well.......
we can debate the merits of IDS getting a knighthood... but the poorest, sick and especially disabled people i know are absolutely fuming |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"seems bercow is not the only one who can break with tradition.Boris has too the 1st ex speaker for 230 years not to get one.
yet..... i am sure it will eventually come....
I was chuffed that Farage ended up getting sweet fuck all as well.......
we can debate the merits of IDS getting a knighthood... but the poorest, sick and especially disabled people i know are absolutely fuming"
It's a blessing that these honours are not politically awarded  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"seems bercow is not the only one who can break with tradition.Boris has too the 1st ex speaker for 230 years not to get one.
yet..... i am sure it will eventually come....
I was chuffed that Farage ended up getting sweet fuck all as well.......
we can debate the merits of IDS getting a knighthood... but the poorest, sick and especially disabled people i know are absolutely fuming"
I dont think Farage was ever in line for one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
And in more Honours news:
A list of more than 1,000 addresses of New Years Honours recipients, including those of senior police officers and politicians, has been accidentally published by the government.
The file was uploaded to the official website, but has since been removed.
The Cabinet Office told the BBC: "We apologise to all those affected and are looking into how this happened."
Our new Government starting as it means to go on, no doubt.
If they can fuck something this simple up ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"seems bercow is not the only one who can break with tradition.Boris has too the 1st ex speaker for 230 years not to get one.
yet..... i am sure it will eventually come....
I was chuffed that Farage ended up getting sweet fuck all as well.......
we can debate the merits of IDS getting a knighthood... but the poorest, sick and especially disabled people i know are absolutely fuming"
To be fair IDS it wasn't the idea of Universal Credit that was at fault; after all it did originally have cross party support. The real problem with Universal Credit is that it was introduced during while also implementing a police of austerity. UC should have been cost neutral but was actually used to hide cuts. We should also remember that IDS resigned from the government for that very reason.
All that being said I still think he's a bit of a Twat but not for what he tried to do with UC.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"seems bercow is not the only one who can break with tradition.Boris has too the 1st ex speaker for 230 years not to get one. "
Revelling in dishonourable behaviour by the PM is what makes your day? Its an absolutely cuntish thing to do and the only upside is Nige wasn’t invited to the party either! I guess you’re looking forward to lady Hale being knocked off her perch too because thats what the low life scum who have risen to the top in this government have planned for the future. Freedom is precious and one day you might begin to realise how much of it you are going to lose under the rule of Cummings puppet! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"seems bercow is not the only one who can break with tradition.Boris has too the 1st ex speaker for 230 years not to get one.
Revelling in dishonourable behaviour by the PM is what makes your day? Its an absolutely cuntish thing to do and the only upside is Nige wasn’t invited to the party either! I guess you’re looking forward to lady Hale being knocked off her perch too because thats what the low life scum who have risen to the top in this government have planned for the future. Freedom is precious and one day you might begin to realise how much of it you are going to lose under the rule of Cummings puppet! "
I dont see it as dishonourable behaviour myself although i did see it that way when the little poison dwarf started using the speakers job to further his own beliefs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"seems bercow is not the only one who can break with tradition.Boris has too the 1st ex speaker for 230 years not to get one. "
No surprise there he does not deserve his pension a total discrace he was |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"seems bercow is not the only one who can break with tradition.Boris has too the 1st ex speaker for 230 years not to get one.
yet..... i am sure it will eventually come....
I was chuffed that Farage ended up getting sweet fuck all as well.......
we can debate the merits of IDS getting a knighthood... but the poorest, sick and especially disabled people i know are absolutely fuming"
It is revolting that ids is getting a knighthood |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"seems bercow is not the only one who can break with tradition.Boris has too the 1st ex speaker for 230 years not to get one.
Revelling in dishonourable behaviour by the PM is what makes your day? Its an absolutely cuntish thing to do and the only upside is Nige wasn’t invited to the party either! I guess you’re looking forward to lady Hale being knocked off her perch too because thats what the low life scum who have risen to the top in this government have planned for the future. Freedom is precious and one day you might begin to realise how much of it you are going to lose under the rule of Cummings puppet! I dont see it as dishonourable behaviour myself although i did see it that way when the little poison dwarf started using the speakers job to further his own beliefs. "
BS sticks as much as true shit in this land - he is a better man than you or I and Boris will do his best not to honour the ten years of sterling work Bercow has done so that people remember Boris as being a strong leader whereas anyone who is really interested in the wellbeing of Parliament and democracy will see straight through that and see what a cheap and weak thing that would be to do - petty vindictiveness at its worst. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"seems bercow is not the only one who can break with tradition.Boris has too the 1st ex speaker for 230 years not to get one.
yet..... i am sure it will eventually come....
I was chuffed that Farage ended up getting sweet fuck all as well.......
we can debate the merits of IDS getting a knighthood... but the poorest, sick and especially disabled people i know are absolutely fuming
It is revolting that ids is getting a knighthood"
All this does is devalue a knighthood, it's now as prodigious as a blue Peter badge or a bronze swimming certificate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Change is good ...well done Boris...give the twat f... all ...bias beyond belief..."
This is laughable, even by your woeful standards.
A better example of bias (but certainly not change) would be Boris making Zac Goldsmith, one of his millionaire friends, a life peer; in order that he be able to remain in Cabinet. This, despite the voters of Richmond Park making it clear they didn't want Zac in Parliament, let alone government.
Democracy in this country is a nothing more than a bad joke.
It's been that way for decades. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You could ask the United Nations what IDS has done wrong. But since you have to ask in the first place a) you won't and b) if.you do then you'll say it isn't true.
They've put around 200,000 deaths down as his responsibility. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You could ask the United Nations what IDS has done wrong. But since you have to ask in the first place a) you won't and b) if.you do then you'll say it isn't true.
They've put around 200,000 deaths down as his responsibility."
These were poor people, people with mental and physical disabilities etc.
Not the kind of folk that IDS supporters give a fuck about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You could ask the United Nations what IDS has done wrong. But since you have to ask in the first place a) you won't and b) if.you do then you'll say it isn't true.
They've put around 200,000 deaths down as his responsibility.
These were poor people, people with mental and physical disabilities etc.
Not the kind of folk that IDS supporters give a fuck about."
 tories and their supporters never give a shit about the disabled or poor.
Knighthoods can be dished out to any old arsehole as proven in this case |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So IDS murdered 200,000 people with the poor, disabled and children amongst them ?.? Crikey, that’s serious isn’t it?. He must be a very dangerous person ?"
He's a fucking busy guy then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Arseholes get gongs....no rral news here.
But is the claim that 200,000 people would still be alive today if IDS hadn't intervened, a true reflection?
I am not sure that is entirely accurate but am prepared to stand corrected if real evidence is out there other than speculative, politically motivated analysis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Personally I find it amusing that us common folk take umbrage over which member of the establishment should/shouldn't receive a gong.
I'm not poking fun at the posters here as it's something I've been guilty of too.
As far as I can tell, it has absolutely no impact on our lives either way.
So why do we do it?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Technically speaking, if putting 100,000 disabled people up against the wall and shooting is in the interest of the UK and you do it, then you should be given a peerage.
It's not always about doing good things, a lot of it is doing what needs to be done for the British Empire. Even when you do something good, youre not really rewarded for doing it good, youre rewarded for doing it good for the empire and making the empire look good. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Technically speaking, if putting 100,000 disabled people up against the wall and shooting is in the interest of the UK and you do it, then you should be given a peerage.
It's not always about doing good things, a lot of it is doing what needs to be done for the British Empire. Even when you do something good, youre not really rewarded for doing it good, youre rewarded for doing it good for the empire and making the empire look good."
Glad you are only "technically speaking", although this analogy may prompt some consternation. After all, wasn't it the Nazis that introduced compulsory euthanasia? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Technically speaking, if putting 100,000 disabled people up against the wall and shooting is in the interest of the UK and you do it, then you should be given a peerage.
It's not always about doing good things, a lot of it is doing what needs to be done for the British Empire. Even when you do something good, youre not really rewarded for doing it good, youre rewarded for doing it good for the empire and making the empire look good.
Glad you are only "technically speaking", although this analogy may prompt some consternation. After all, wasn't it the Nazis that introduced compulsory euthanasia?"
An Idea Churchill toyed with using on India and saying it was a technique to be reserved for lower races?
Or Sir Charles Trevelyan who got awarded one for starving people to death by taking crops that didnt fail, and leaving people with only the failed crops during famine in an attempt to clear out land to make large estates for the wealthy.
Or the soliders on bloody sunday who had medals pinned to them for running down the road shooting innocent people dead.
I only bring up these historic issues because you brought up the Nazis. Times have changed but the reason for the peerage remains the same, technically the morality of your actions are not really important to the system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
SOCIAL MURDER:
Social murder is a phrase used by Friedrich Engels in his 1845 work 'The Condition of the Working-Class in England' whereby "the class which at present holds social and political control" (i.e. the bourgeoisie) "places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death".
This was in a different category to murder and manslaughter committed by individuals against one another, as social murder explicitly was committed by the political and social elite against the poorest in society.
"When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder.
"But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live — forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence — knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission.
"But murder it remains."
- Friedrich Engels, 1845 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
That's your interpretation, and you are so entitled to make it if you see fit. I don't deny that some poor have suffered under austerity, however there are many that suffered under a previous government that was spending excessively. I don't hold to the assessment that it is some form of secret conspiracy theory to exterminate the poor from society. People who have genuine need should be helped, however money is not infinite, if it is squandered on unnecessary things, then there comes a time when a painful situation of rebalancing occurs. If you don't believe me, take all your credit cards, go on a massive spending spree, but only on things that have no resale value, then take your savings and do the same. Then, when you have nothing left, see if your life just carries on as normal. This is what previous governments have done, this is why austerity exists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"That's your interpretation, and you are so entitled to make it if you see fit. I don't deny that some poor have suffered under austerity, however there are many that suffered under a previous government that was spending excessively. I don't hold to the assessment that it is some form of secret conspiracy theory to exterminate the poor from society. People who have genuine need should be helped, however money is not infinite, if it is squandered on unnecessary things, then there comes a time when a painful situation of rebalancing occurs. If you don't believe me, take all your credit cards, go on a massive spending spree, but only on things that have no resale value, then take your savings and do the same. Then, when you have nothing left, see if your life just carries on as normal. This is what previous governments have done, this is why austerity exists. "
Ah is this the good old fake news that Labour spend more than the Tories? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No, it is a comment on repeated bad financial decisions made by successive governments. It is absolutely a case that labour made some terrible financial decisions, including the wholesale selling of off gold reserves as a rock bottom price. However, conservative members of parliament didn't not challenge decisions on this hard enough when in opposition, nor did they take sufficient steps to balance the books earlier on. There is still huge waste in government spending, unfortunately it is not always legally possible to cut this first. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Isn't the point about austerity simply the old dilemma of "Guns or Butter"?
If there is a budgetary deficit, then the question shouldn't be whether savings should be made, but where those savings should be made. Cuts to Government services or benefits will hit the less well off.
Alternatively, if savings are not made, Government income needs to be increased. Taxation increases often fail to improve revenue flows.
The problem stems from building up unsustainable debts. Superfluous expenditure should be considered as aspiration and not necessity but successive administrations look at theirvanity projects and turn a blind eye to common sense.
Either way, someone suffers.
Or am I wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Austerity - the removal of funding for essential social services and benefits - was and is a cull of the weakest in society. It fits Engels' definition.
"
It’s always been so under the conservatives .
I read about a guy with thalidomide the other week with no arms and legs being continually harassed to prove can’t work every few months...
The PIP system is broken... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's been the same under nearly all governments, blindly pinning the "blame" on conservatives ignores the root issue of fiscal irresponsibility. An issue exacerbated by the publics ever growing demands to have everything right now. If course people with medical needs etc should not need to wait if there is a way to get treatment sooner, however, many things are truly nice to haves, not necessities. But people will tell you they must have them now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"That's your interpretation, and you are so entitled to make it if you see fit. I don't deny that some poor have suffered under austerity, however there are many that suffered under a previous government that was spending excessively. I don't hold to the assessment that it is some form of secret conspiracy theory to exterminate the poor from society. People who have genuine need should be helped, however money is not infinite, if it is squandered on unnecessary things, then there comes a time when a painful situation of rebalancing occurs. If you don't believe me, take all your credit cards, go on a massive spending spree, but only on things that have no resale value, then take your savings and do the same. Then, when you have nothing left, see if your life just carries on as normal. This is what previous governments have done, this is why austerity exists. "
In a humanitarian world people who are wealthy share that wealth through taxation or charity. Ten years of austerity has made people mean and selfish. Its not anything to do with throwing money left right and centre. Its about hardships imposed because of a banking crisis and misconceived wars in the middle east leading to unbridled immigration. In geo political terms you could extrapolate a cynical view that America and Russia have set in motion a long term plan to undermine the EU by destabilising the middle east and north africa. The question you have to ask yourself is whether you think isolation (running away!) will make it all go away? That is the underlying issue with all of this - closed borders and closed minds vs long term plans  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Isn't the point about austerity simply the old dilemma of "Guns or Butter"?
If there is a budgetary deficit, then the question shouldn't be whether savings should be made, but where those savings should be made. Cuts to Government services or benefits will hit the less well off.
Alternatively, if savings are not made, Government income needs to be increased. Taxation increases often fail to improve revenue flows.
The problem stems from building up unsustainable debts. Superfluous expenditure should be considered as aspiration and not necessity but successive administrations look at theirvanity projects and turn a blind eye to common sense.
Either way, someone suffers.
Or am I wrong?"
You are falling for the spin that austerity was an exercise in financial prudence.
If the objective was to rebalance the public finances, you can do that by raising income and/or reducing expenditure.
The reductions in expenditure disproportionately affected the weakest and most vulnerable in society.
The lie to austerity is revealed by the decision to cut taxes for those at the top.
It is right-wing ideology, a redistribution of resources from those in greatest need to those in least need. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Isn't the point about austerity simply the old dilemma of "Guns or Butter"?
If there is a budgetary deficit, then the question shouldn't be whether savings should be made, but where those savings should be made. Cuts to Government services or benefits will hit the less well off.
Alternatively, if savings are not made, Government income needs to be increased. Taxation increases often fail to improve revenue flows.
The problem stems from building up unsustainable debts. Superfluous expenditure should be considered as aspiration and not necessity but successive administrations look at theirvanity projects and turn a blind eye to common sense.
Either way, someone suffers.
Or am I wrong?
You are falling for the spin that austerity was an exercise in financial prudence.
If the objective was to rebalance the public finances, you can do that by raising income and/or reducing expenditure.
The reductions in expenditure disproportionately affected the weakest and most vulnerable in society.
The lie to austerity is revealed by the decision to cut taxes for those at the top.
It is right-wing ideology, a redistribution of resources from those in greatest need to those in least need. Nothing more, nothing less.
"
Austerity isn't financial prudence, it's what happens when financial prudence has either not been implemented or has failed. Taking more money from people is always harder than cutting a budget. If you take too much, people will see it as a punishment for success, therefore there is no incentive to try. So you end up with loads of people settling for minimum wage jobs rather than take the gamble to start a business. Then your tax take goes down not up. Budgets can be arbitrarily controlled by government, therefore it's a quick fix. Please not this has no correlation with whether that course of action is fair or not.
Also, if you wish to voluntarily increase your tax contributions if you feel you can pay more for the good of society, you can literally just write a cheque to HMRC requesting they take it as an extra a contribution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
"
Brexit isn't about any of this stuff though.
And sure, I get your points above. The system is broken and everyone blames the previous regime.
I'm more cynical. I don't think the government would spend money on the less well off elements of society even if they had spare cash coming out of their ears. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
Brexit isn't about any of this stuff though.
And sure, I get your points above. The system is broken and everyone blames the previous regime.
I'm more cynical. I don't think the government would spend money on the less well off elements of society even if they had spare cash coming out of their ears."
There would be more spending on the less well off, as, in a strictly mercenary sense, a happier population is better for the economy and therefore there is more money to be made. However I can't envisage a government where all the needs of every disadvantaged section of society will be met. It's a noble goal, but not sure it's actually attainable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is no better measure of a society than how it treats its most vulnerable.
They government quite rightly has been weighed and measured and found to be woefully inadequate.
It’s almost as if being vindictive and cruel is a prerequisite to becoming a conservative .
Conservatives will always try to persuade you of the moral justification for selfishness ..It’s who they are.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
Brexit isn't about any of this stuff though.
And sure, I get your points above. The system is broken and everyone blames the previous regime.
I'm more cynical. I don't think the government would spend money on the less well off elements of society even if they had spare cash coming out of their ears.
There would be more spending on the less well off, as, in a strictly mercenary sense, a happier population is better for the economy and therefore there is more money to be made. However I can't envisage a government where all the needs of every disadvantaged section of society will be met. It's a noble goal, but not sure it's actually attainable."
Going on past experience at least Labour governments try to do good, not sure if any conservative government has done anything more than asset stripping |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Isn't the point about austerity simply the old dilemma of "Guns or Butter"?
If there is a budgetary deficit, then the question shouldn't be whether savings should be made, but where those savings should be made. Cuts to Government services or benefits will hit the less well off.
Alternatively, if savings are not made, Government income needs to be increased. Taxation increases often fail to improve revenue flows.
The problem stems from building up unsustainable debts. Superfluous expenditure should be considered as aspiration and not necessity but successive administrations look at theirvanity projects and turn a blind eye to common sense.
Either way, someone suffers.
Or am I wrong?
You are falling for the spin that austerity was an exercise in financial prudence.
If the objective was to rebalance the public finances, you can do that by raising income and/or reducing expenditure.
The reductions in expenditure disproportionately affected the weakest and most vulnerable in society.
The lie to austerity is revealed by the decision to cut taxes for those at the top.
It is right-wing ideology, a redistribution of resources from those in greatest need to those in least need. Nothing more, nothing less.
"
I think your argument is slightly misaligned as you are judging the phrase "austerity" by your own definition and not as a need at times to reduce expenditure in certain areas or take more from certain areas of society.
Suddenly you are equating general austerity to a right wing plot. Actually, I will again use the phrase "guns or butter".
If there isn't enough money in the pot, you need to prioritise. The deficit has to be made up with cuts to expenditure or an increase in the revenue stream.
Each have political implications.
How that is applied is a political decision...."guns or butter".
Unfortunately as I previously said, there are too many vanity projects within Government, many of which do not benefit the majority.
You could argue that UC is a vanity project as is nationalisation of key services.
"Guns or butter".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
"
The relationship with the EU, the linkages established over decades that are about to be severed, span an awful lot more than trade. An awful lot more.
Let me give you one small example.
When a police officer asks for a PNC check on a named individual, the PNC in the UK automatically searches every police database across the EU.
Sever the legal undertakings that make this possible and it can no longer be done in seconds, automatically. Only manually, a process that takes days. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
The relationship with the EU, the linkages established over decades that are about to be severed, span an awful lot more than trade. An awful lot more.
Let me give you one small example.
When a police officer asks for a PNC check on a named individual, the PNC in the UK automatically searches every police database across the EU.
Sever the legal undertakings that make this possible and it can no longer be done in seconds, automatically. Only manually, a process that takes days."
I personally know which country has by far and away the best databases for intelligence and security purposes. 27 losers. 1 winner . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
The relationship with the EU, the linkages established over decades that are about to be severed, span an awful lot more than trade. An awful lot more.
Let me give you one small example.
When a police officer asks for a PNC check on a named individual, the PNC in the UK automatically searches every police database across the EU.
Sever the legal undertakings that make this possible and it can no longer be done in seconds, automatically. Only manually, a process that takes days."
You clearly haven't asked for a Schengen area check (ie a check with the Schengen area databases)......and we are in the EU at present! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
The relationship with the EU, the linkages established over decades that are about to be severed, span an awful lot more than trade. An awful lot more.
Let me give you one small example.
When a police officer asks for a PNC check on a named individual, the PNC in the UK automatically searches every police database across the EU.
Sever the legal undertakings that make this possible and it can no longer be done in seconds, automatically. Only manually, a process that takes days.
I personally know which country has by far and away the best databases for intelligence and security purposes. 27 losers. 1 winner ."
. I would have thought 28 winners would be better for everyone |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
The relationship with the EU, the linkages established over decades that are about to be severed, span an awful lot more than trade. An awful lot more.
Let me give you one small example.
When a police officer asks for a PNC check on a named individual, the PNC in the UK automatically searches every police database across the EU.
Sever the legal undertakings that make this possible and it can no longer be done in seconds, automatically. Only manually, a process that takes days.
I personally know which country has by far and away the best databases for intelligence and security purposes. 27 losers. 1 winner .. I would have thought 28 winners would be better for everyone"
Absolutely. The UK has always said it wanted to continue intelligence and security exchange post Brexit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
In the event of No Deal, all these bilateral arrangements dissolve because there is no legal agreement to underpin information sharing and the like. This is about an awful lot more than trade. An awful lot more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That's your interpretation, and you are so entitled to make it if you see fit. I don't deny that some poor have suffered under austerity, however there are many that suffered under a previous government that was spending excessively. I don't hold to the assessment that it is some form of secret conspiracy theory to exterminate the poor from society. People who have genuine need should be helped, however money is not infinite, if it is squandered on unnecessary things, then there comes a time when a painful situation of rebalancing occurs. If you don't believe me, take all your credit cards, go on a massive spending spree, but only on things that have no resale value, then take your savings and do the same. Then, when you have nothing left, see if your life just carries on as normal. This is what previous governments have done, this is why austerity exists. "
Economics clearly isnt your strong suit is it? Trying to compare a nation's budget to a household budget is fatuous at best. Anyone who thinks the two are analagous isnt the sharpest knife in the block |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
"
Membership of the EU has never determined our monetary policy.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hey ...only the fittest survive ...animal instincts...hey ho"
Everyone can survive and prosper if there is a will for that to happen. Sadly, there are too many people who don't give a fuck about anyone other than themselves and the Tories promote that hateful state of affairs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"That's your interpretation, and you are so entitled to make it if you see fit. I don't deny that some poor have suffered under austerity, however there are many that suffered under a previous government that was spending excessively. I don't hold to the assessment that it is some form of secret conspiracy theory to exterminate the poor from society. People who have genuine need should be helped, however money is not infinite, if it is squandered on unnecessary things, then there comes a time when a painful situation of rebalancing occurs. If you don't believe me, take all your credit cards, go on a massive spending spree, but only on things that have no resale value, then take your savings and do the same. Then, when you have nothing left, see if your life just carries on as normal. This is what previous governments have done, this is why austerity exists.
Economics clearly isnt your strong suit is it? Trying to compare a nation's budget to a household budget is fatuous at best. Anyone who thinks the two are analagous isnt the sharpest knife in the block"
Rubbish, yes of course there are differences between national and household budgets, mostly born of the complexity of all the different income and outgoings, however the basics of fiscal prudence remain the same. If you don't understand that, I'd suggest that maybe you aren't the sharpest tool and are pretty representative of why we waste billions a year servicing interest payments that never needed to exits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
"
The UK already has complete control of monetary policy.
It's a moot point whether a bloc of 65 million consumers (the UK) has a stronger hand in trade negotiations than a block of 600 million consumers.
Basically, there are three big blocs in the world who set the rules - the US, the EU and China.
If you're not writing the rules, you're following them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't see Brexit as an exercise in isolationism. The end result will depend on what trade deals are negotiated. If we end up with good deals with other countries and more control over our monetary policy it may well be a better situation for us. We will not cease trading with the EU.
The UK already has complete control of monetary policy.
It's a moot point whether a bloc of 65 million consumers (the UK) has a stronger hand in trade negotiations than a block of 600 million consumers.
Basically, there are three big blocs in the world who set the rules - the US, the EU and China.
If you're not writing the rules, you're following them.
"
No, the UK does not have complete control over monetary policy. I've already pointed out VAT rates and the issues facing Italy as examples of where a country wants to do something different but the EU rules say no.
I have also not advocated the UK trying to somehow establish itself as a 4th trading block, simply pointed out that it will allow us to explore other options that are not presently available that may be of more direct benefit to the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If we are to brexit then we need to have nothing holding us back that keeps us unable to do our own trade deals...
Being half in and half out will be the worst deal for the UK imaginable |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"If we are to brexit then we need to have nothing holding us back that keeps us unable to do our own trade deals...
Being half in and half out will be the worst deal for the UK imaginable "
We need to stop talking about UK and start talking about GB, because Northern Ireland will be taking the EU rule-book come what may.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
No, the UK does not have complete control over monetary policy. I've already pointed out VAT rates and the issues facing Italy as examples of where a country wants to do something different but the EU rules say no.
I have also not advocated the UK trying to somehow establish itself as a 4th trading block, simply pointed out that it will allow us to explore other options that are not presently available that may be of more direct benefit to the UK. "
I think you need to check the definition of monetary policy.
VAT comes under fiscal policy.
The UK as a fourth trading bloc comparable to the US, EU and China?
Are you still on the sherry?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we are to brexit then we need to have nothing holding us back that keeps us unable to do our own trade deals...
Being half in and half out will be the worst deal for the UK imaginable
We need to stop talking about UK and start talking about GB, because Northern Ireland will be taking the EU rule-book come what may.
"
Yeah I guess but for me UK / GB same thing, I'm not in NI so NI doesn't affect me so it's no biggy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
No, the UK does not have complete control over monetary policy. I've already pointed out VAT rates and the issues facing Italy as examples of where a country wants to do something different but the EU rules say no.
I have also not advocated the UK trying to somehow establish itself as a 4th trading block, simply pointed out that it will allow us to explore other options that are not presently available that may be of more direct benefit to the UK.
I think you need to check the definition of monetary policy.
VAT comes under fiscal policy.
The UK as a fourth trading bloc comparable to the US, EU and China?
Are you still on the sherry?
"
I stand corrected on the definition of monetary policy in the context of this discussion and amend my statement to say we don't have full control over fiscal policy. Also, I specifically stated I was NOT advocating the UK trying to establish itself as a 4th trading block. Definitely no sherry to be found here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That's your interpretation, and you are so entitled to make it if you see fit. I don't deny that some poor have suffered under austerity, however there are many that suffered under a previous government that was spending excessively. I don't hold to the assessment that it is some form of secret conspiracy theory to exterminate the poor from society. People who have genuine need should be helped, however money is not infinite, if it is squandered on unnecessary things, then there comes a time when a painful situation of rebalancing occurs. If you don't believe me, take all your credit cards, go on a massive spending spree, but only on things that have no resale value, then take your savings and do the same. Then, when you have nothing left, see if your life just carries on as normal. This is what previous governments have done, this is why austerity exists.
Economics clearly isnt your strong suit is it? Trying to compare a nation's budget to a household budget is fatuous at best. Anyone who thinks the two are analagous isnt the sharpest knife in the block
Rubbish, yes of course there are differences between national and household budgets, mostly born of the complexity of all the different income and outgoings, however the basics of fiscal prudence remain the same. If you don't understand that, I'd suggest that maybe you aren't the sharpest tool and are pretty representative of why we waste billions a year servicing interest payments that never needed to exits."
It's Economics 101. The basics of fiscal prudence simply aren't the same as you allege. I certainly don't need a lesson in economics from someone who doesnt know the difference between economic and fiscal policy, but thanks for the feeble attempt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
