Confusion of VIs
-
Posts
17,143 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Confusion of VIs
-
-
Flicking though the channels I have never seen so many excited happy looking journalists, or so many distraught Conservatives. Even if the exit poll turns out to be complete ******** it was worth it for the entertainment value.
Emily Thornberry now calling for May to resign, oh the humiliation.
Even better if the SNP really do lose 20 seats.
-
1 minute ago, pl1 said:
Exit poll does not include postal vote. I can't seem to find any figures on which party does best with this method. At a hunch I'd say Tories, probably why exit poll tends to underestimate them.
If that was a trend it would/or should be allowed for.
-
Just now, pig said:
Nor do I yet. But ... Im not a fan of Corbyn, I don't think a hung parliament is a good thing, but the Torys back in under May is quite depressing. If my feelings were a poll that would be a hung parliament.
Actually im not sure that would mean Brexit had died - 'Hard' Brexit has more chance of being shot down.
I think the Conservatives knew they were in trouble, I have just counted the communications I have had from them in the past two weeks 50+!!!
Brexit possibly dead for two reasons:
if they need the Liberals to form a majority their bottom line would have to be a second referendum.
next to no chance of getting a "no deal" vote through parliament, so the best the Brexiters can hope for is leaving for the EEA, which on here we all know is not leaving at all
-
If the exit poll is right, Brexit may have just died.
However, must admit I don't believe it myself.
-
21 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:
Isn't that fraud?
Only if you could prove intent, in this case and if this is what's going on I imagine optimism/stupidity would be the defence.
-
Just now, iamnumerate said:
Actually I meant trying to rent it out at more than the market rate. Why would any tenant pay more?
They wouldn't, but I understand that some companies will allow you to remortgage based upon and agents valuation and proof that it is being marketed at that rate. Once the money is in the bank you can then drop the rate to something more sensible.
-
4 hours ago, iamnumerate said:
It is almost impossible to understand that mentality.
Using an agents rental "valuation" to remortgage?
-
7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:
1997? The year Labour got into power? Interesting...
Nah, even if we've got measureably more money life in the UK certainly hasn't improved, it's a less pleasant place to live in now than it was then. Not in every possible aspect, but overall, by a long shot.
That's more or less the point I was making.
The EU didn't dictate how we allocated or spent the extra money, in fact they would probably say it is the Anglo Saxon business model that has caused most of our current problems by giving all of the benefit to less than 10% of the population.
-
7 hours ago, hotairmail said:
I'm afraid I don't agree. For a start, the dates conform to more appropriate alternatives like North Sea oil revenues and loosening of capital controls/credit growth but as ever we're arguing over the counter factual so it is nigh on impossible to prove or disprove one way or the other.
You could actually argue that we would have developed a far better balanced, internationally oriented business if we had remained outside but still having north sea oil and credit growth. We certainly wouldn't be going through this Leave hiatus again which to some extent is the result of the original entry itself. And it is likely the population wouldn't have run away in the way it has - putting at risk the public services (schools, health, roads etc) that have been built up over decades.
I agree that the what if debates while interesting will never come to a firm conclusion.
Arguing that the EU was the cause of the UK's runaway population growth ignores that the UK was the main driver of the its expansion to the East. Prior to that FoM was working just fine with reasonably balanced migration across the EU. In fact what bad feeling there is in France and Germany about the UK leaving stems mainly from the feeling that after creating the problem the UK is running away - in both countries clips have been shown from the famous Yes Minister "you have to be in it to destroy it" episode.
-
29 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:
I would suggest that North Sea Oil had more of an impact on our economy than joining the EEC.
Economists are still arguing whether North Sea Oil was actually any overall benefit after you account for the negative impact of an overvalued £.
The fact is the UK stopped its relative decline after joining the EU and has held its own ever since, of course like Hotairmail you can rationalise this in many different ways but being in the EU is the simplest and most likely.
-
26 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:
That's demonstrates my point despite being in the EU we have chosen to take our economy in a different direction to anyone else.
-
32 minutes ago, kzb said:
I agree really. We should all bear in mind the EU has not halted the decline in prospects for most of the population. Whatever it is, it isn't a solution for this problem.
Joining the EU did halt the UK's decline relative to the rest of Europe and most other industrialised nations. Even in the last 20 years we have got considerably richer as a nation.
How we divide up that wealth is not up to the EU to decide, so if most really are/or feel poorer its not the fault of the EU, and leaving the EU to go back to the position where we were declining relative to the rest of Europe seems a strange way to try and solve this separate problem.
-
It's now looking like there is a real possibility of either a hung parliament or May having a reduced majority, rather than the landslide win she was expecting.
This coupled this May's stated position on the Brexit negotiation that seems calculated to force the UK to either walk out of the negotiations or reach the end of the two years without any long term deal or transition arrangements being agreed. https://www.ft.com/content/df86a5c6-49ff-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b
Without a large majority her chances of getting agreement to leaving without a deal (i.e. worse scenario than anything imagined by project fear) through Parliament are slim to none,
So what happens then, taking into account:
The Supreme Court has already ruled Parliament must approve the decision to Leave
Article 50 is almost certainly revocable (according to the man who wrote it)
A poll found only 10% of voters would support Brexit if it left them £100 a month worse off.
https://www.ft.com/content/df86a5c6-49ff-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b
-
38 minutes ago, kzb said:
The parliamentary Brexit committee interviewed high level Aerospace executives a few months back. It was on the BBC parliament channel.
Apparently there is already free trade in aircraft parts, virtually world-wide, via another treaty. Because of this, they didn't seem concerned that Brexit would impact this area of their business. Make of that what you will.
I recall an article shortly after the vote where the Chief Executive of airbus said that his biggest concern was not tariffs it was the additional costs and inflexibility that would be incurred if we left the single market (arising from non tariff barriers and loss of FoM for his staff).
-
20 hours ago, Steppenpig said:
Aah that makes sense then, I underestimated your political cunning. You seem to have changed it from "democracy" to "sovereignty" which are not identical. And "supranational" does not have to be synomynous with "undemocratic".
So you believe the benefits of democracy and those of free trade are not directly linked. I agree. Do you think we should ensure we do not sacrifice any democracy in the pursuit of free trade?
I agree but many on here confuse the two; and don't seem to understand that a democratic decision to share sovereignty via a body such as the EU or other supranational body is just that, a democratic decision. As long as it can be reversed by a subsequent parliament there is no loss of democratic control or sovereignty.
Anyone questioning they quality of our democracy would be better looking at our voting system or the influence of big business via lobbying and ownership of media outlets.
-
4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:
It's who sets the agenda that's at question, not who tries to draw up that agenda into workable proposals.
This is a good summary of the process:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/EuropeanAutomobileManufacturersAssociation.pdf
-
6 minutes ago, tomandlu said:
As Yanis points out, the EU position is logical but inherently undemocratic. The EU is not a democracy itself - the elected MEPs ratify rather than formulate - but nor can it heed individual democracies, since those 'belong' to the individual states, rather than the EU as a body. How on earth is that right or workable?
The Commission produces proposals on behalf of the elected politicians, in a similar way that the civil service does here.
Would you really want legislation drafted by elected politicians, probably not unless you were a lawyer hoping to profit from the resulting mess.
-
23 minutes ago, Riedquat said:
Sovereignty is being the one in charge of your own affairs. A lack of influence with the wider world may or may not be an issue but it's not a lack of sovereignty.
You are not in charge of your own affairs if you are constantly having to bend to the will of others.
Having more sovereignty but with less power to achieve our aims is a backwards step.
-
6 hours ago, Dave Beans said:
As eluded to earlier, if we sign up to future regulative bodies et al, then any decisions made to do so, will be made by the UK parliament...this should lead to more sovereignty...
That's a narrow view of sovereignty.
If you regard sovereignty as the ability to achieve the outcomes you wish for, the test is whether our lone voice has more influence over these bodies final decisions than we obtain by working within the EU to first influence the EU's position.
-
21 minutes ago, Steppenpig said:
That doesn't make sense as a response to my question. You've turned it round to imply it is brexit that undermines democracy.
edit, but I'll assume you intended to indicate that improving free trade would justify sacrificing a little democracy. Anyway, bedtime.
No, I intended to indicate that the two were not directly linked.
However, trade deals increasingly involve agreeing regulations etc. that are overseen by supranational courts and some people do see that as a loss of sovereignty. For those people it remains to be seen whether the post Brexit world leaves us with more or less sovereignty
-
11 minutes ago, Steppenpig said:
If you think free trade is more important than democracy.
We had democracy before Brexit and quite probably will still have it after Brexit.
-
26 minutes ago, tomandlu said:
I voted remain, but to pretend that Yanis is a flag-waver for the EU is a great disservice to both him and anyone else who recognises that the EU, despite its many positives, is a hugely flawed organisation.
Nobody said that, please don't make things up.
The point he made was despite all its flaws it exists and cannot be uninvented. He thought that wanting to leave made about as much sense as India Jones while desperately running to keep ahead of the collapsing road deciding now was the time to stop and try to go back. The world has moved on there is nothing to be gained by being a medium sized power outside of a major trade block and with few or no trade agreements.
-
4 hours ago, Unbowed said:
When I went to Uni back in the 80s, it equated to about 7% of us. Plus 6% going to the old Polys. Now its something like 45%, and I don't believe that all those old colleges of HE calling themselves Universities really cuts it. Its been totally debased.
On top of that the young also face an ever growing number of 'Internships' as a further barrier to employment. Of course as pretty much anyone can now get a degree, it is who you know more than ever.
If you are good enough to get into a Russell Group University its probably well worth it. If you cannot it's probably worth thinking about alternatives that leave you debt free.
-
5 hours ago, crashmonitor said:
Could backfire the Brits are for fair play. The audience were there for lynching Rudd and Nuttall. Shame on the polling organisation that chose this supposedly representative audience.
Apparently the audience was carefully selected to mirror national opinion based upon the 2015 election result.
If so and despite ranty Mail headlines I have no reason to believe it isn't, things are looking even worse for the Tories.
We may have a pissed off electorate that is determined to give the government a kicking irrespective of their policies.
Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.
in House prices and the economy
Posted
The EU position agreed immediately after the vote was that the UK would be offered a deal on FoM ("emergency brake" for maybe 10 years) if they stayed or a clean break. The UK didn't even want to hear about the deal, which is why the EU was going down the clean break route with a 100bn bill for a trade deal.
By describing this as a bad deal, worse than no deal. May has boxed herself into a corner, with both the EU and her electorate, that will now be hard to get out of.