simmo
Senior Jockey
Well there is one good thing to come out of the £25 membership fee and the resulting barrage of new members - at least the party won't have to rely on corrupt contributions from Owen Smith's former employers to fund themselves.
Brexit
- Thread starter icebreaker
- Start date
When she announced her candidacy she cited the fact that she'd "stood up to the police" as a reason why people should vote for her. She actually went further though and invoked the Lawrence Report and Hillsborough as evidence of this. I think you could just easily ask what either of these had to do with her. Neither enquiry was commissioned by her (both fell under Jack Straw as it happens), yet she seemed to be trying to take credit I assume for allowing them to be published (one of which she was in opposition for anyway). The only major enquiry she's commissioned that I can recall was the fiasco over child abuse where she kept nominating commission chairmen who had to stand down because they had personal friendships with those under investigation
I think the issue with Orgreave in particular is that it was a dangerous step towards politicising the police force, and it remains a matter of the record that not a single person arrested there was ever charged. The collusion of the BBC was also a worrying development
I don't think there's anything wrong with asking a left-field question now and then in the hope of catching a Prime Minister out, although that's all it is. Admittedly not in the same format, you might remember how Margaret Thatcher got seriously wobbled once when Diana Gould challenged on the course being steered by the General Belgrano and the only thing that saved her from an embarrassing exchange was Sue Lawley (loyally) intervening and terminating the question.
I'd agree it fits the descritpion of pet project though, and suspect Seamus Milne, having a written a book on it, might also have a hand in the question
Having said that, the nature of the two questions different. Thatcher had gotten caught out on a matter of fact, May was only really being asked to answer why? She could simply say that there were no plans to hold an enquiry. The most Corbyn might achieve is a little bit embarrassment that would only largely be heard amongst the people who follow these things in light of the previously disingenuous claims that Theresa May had made
Last edited:
Urm.... certainly more relevant than Corbyn
Probably to be expected I'd have thought in the immediate recalibration period. I'm still waiting for the first polls to see if there's any signs of buyers remorse? The nearest proxy I think we've seen is some BBC survey that suggested that 61% thought the result should be considered "advisory"
simmo
Senior Jockey
I would regard any payments made by organisations to political parties, with said political parties later passing policy which is financially advantageous to those organisations as being, at minimum, morally corrupt, even if not legally.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
simmo
Senior Jockey
A look at coal and renewable energy companies payments to the SNP and/or local councils would also be instructive, I believe.
Payments to political parties from unions as well then
as for orgreave, perfect proof positive that soclialism is dead. To be filed alongside paganism and flat earthers
fatcher fatcher fatcher. Miners miners miners. It's permenantly 1985
talk about living in the past. If there is nothing current to seize upon just fcking give up. Draw a line. It's dead. Inert . It's Venezuela
left field? How about a question about the corn laws or the unresolved issues from the battle of hastings
as for orgreave, perfect proof positive that soclialism is dead. To be filed alongside paganism and flat earthers
fatcher fatcher fatcher. Miners miners miners. It's permenantly 1985
talk about living in the past. If there is nothing current to seize upon just fcking give up. Draw a line. It's dead. Inert . It's Venezuela
left field? How about a question about the corn laws or the unresolved issues from the battle of hastings
Last edited:
The economy was declining growth-wise before Brexit, because austerity (in real economic terms) has run its course.
The problem is that austerity (in a political and ideological sense) is still hardwired into monetary policy, so it will take a lot of thought about how to undo it. Ed Balls was essentially right in 2015 when he said austerity would choke off growth.
I'm guessing these figures don't even fully take in the impact of brexit yet, so the 9/4 on the U.K heading to recession before end of 2017 looks a bet. I doubt those odds are available with Hills anymore.
Last edited:
Its ts a good indicator but a snap shot. Hardly a surprise when thought through. other indicators are positive
economists certainly don't agree on the significance of this and it's no real surprise that the BBC have led with it.
simmo
Senior Jockey
I wouldn't be averse to stopping payments from unions if payments from companies were stopped (although that would no doubt lead to US style payments coming from individuals within companies - you know how those Tories are with fiddling finances.)
On your other points - blah blah blah, you sound like a jumping copy of Steely Dan - utter pish over and over and over.
You have got this the wrong way round - the payments are not corrupt, it is the actions taken by a political party influenced by these donations that are corrupt.
simmo
Senior Jockey
They are both corrupt.
Corbyn and his supporters are right to point out smiths background. In fairness. I can buy that
it highlights the clear choice between someone who has worked for a business that has saved millions of lives with its research and production and someone who has worked with terrorists and holocaust deniers
it highlights the clear choice between someone who has worked for a business that has saved millions of lives with its research and production and someone who has worked with terrorists and holocaust deniers
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
The dreadful carnage in France and Germany over the last month, and the resultant outrage by politicians and citizens alike in both countries, prompts a couple of questions in me.
Firstly, should free movement of people (and absorption of refugees) across the EU, now be considered a de-facto security-risk, and should this 'defining principle' of the EU, be indefinitely suspended and replaced by a checks-based/visa system?
And secondly, if a checks-based system was to be adopted, would this be so fundamental a change in EU policy, as to render the Referendum result, if not invalid, then perhaps open to question?
Firstly, should free movement of people (and absorption of refugees) across the EU, now be considered a de-facto security-risk, and should this 'defining principle' of the EU, be indefinitely suspended and replaced by a checks-based/visa system?
And secondly, if a checks-based system was to be adopted, would this be so fundamental a change in EU policy, as to render the Referendum result, if not invalid, then perhaps open to question?
Last edited:
I'm loathed to use Brietbart as a source, but according to them, Juncker has already rejected the possibility of tightening up border controls on our behalf
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/25/juncker-vows-eu-open-borders-always/
(I say according to them advisedly, as they supply the context rather than a complete quote)
Basically, the people of Europe are not going to agree to be target practise indefinitely. The Scandanavians and Dutch have started their own citizens patrols (still miles away from being an armed militia at this stage, albeit guns are quite easy to acquire in Finland). In the wake of Nice one of the lesser reported actions that I think it was the French Interior Minister announced? was an appeal to "patriots" to present themselves to recuitment centres and volunteer for the national reserve (the first sign of low key citizen engagement and state training in civil defence). Tonight the state governor of Bavaria is sounding a clarion of sorts too
Mr Seehofer said that Germany must "do whatever is necessary to protect our citizens".
He said: "What we have here is an entirely new dimension of terrorism, the Islamist-minded terrorism, and we have to have intense discussions on this challenge in Bavaria and in Germany as well as prevent and repress it.
"That is the big challenge we face, and therefore any attempts to contextualise the problem are inappropriate.
"Every attack, every act of terrorism is one too many. Islamic terrorism has arrived in Germany and the people are rightly expecting us to stand up to this courageously."
Basically the people of Europe are going to start pushing back against their governments before much longer, and they in turn are going to start pushing back against the Commission, perhaps reminding Juncker who really holds the democratic mandate
Specifically though, a vast majority of the attacks to date (both the deadly ones and the mass sexual assaults) have seemingly come from people of North African extraction (rather than the much maligned Syrians), and even then, its tended to be domiciled European citizens rather than new arrivals. Is there any evidence that border controls would prevent these?
Would rebordering constitute grounds to invalidate the EU referendum result? Well if things have become so bad that Juncker is forced into giving up free open borders, then there would seem next to no prospect of winning a second referendum under what I could only imagine would be significantly degraded conditions. I could possibly see however that with changed circumstances, and with Article 50 presumably being a work in progress, we might be able to hit the pause button to see what happens
There are other potential blockages along the road too. What if the fascists win in Austria in November? (a distinct possibility now). Will the EU invoke article 7? Then there's the French elections in May 2017. Hollande is a dead duck waddling. Marienne Le Pen has about 30% of the vote at the moment and looks set to win the first round. Conventional wisdom is that she'll lose the second round, but if these attacks become a daily occurance would you be confident that the French will have had enough by then?
UK remain voters might actually find themselves rooting for the FN now as the departure of France from the EU will pretty well signal a major overhaul, or its death. Well with so many well paid jobs and vested interests at stake there is no way the Eurocrats will accept abolition, so they'll definitely agree to reform negotiations, in which case the UK could come back to the table and legitimately suggest that there has been a substantive material change
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/25/juncker-vows-eu-open-borders-always/
(I say according to them advisedly, as they supply the context rather than a complete quote)
Basically, the people of Europe are not going to agree to be target practise indefinitely. The Scandanavians and Dutch have started their own citizens patrols (still miles away from being an armed militia at this stage, albeit guns are quite easy to acquire in Finland). In the wake of Nice one of the lesser reported actions that I think it was the French Interior Minister announced? was an appeal to "patriots" to present themselves to recuitment centres and volunteer for the national reserve (the first sign of low key citizen engagement and state training in civil defence). Tonight the state governor of Bavaria is sounding a clarion of sorts too
Mr Seehofer said that Germany must "do whatever is necessary to protect our citizens".
He said: "What we have here is an entirely new dimension of terrorism, the Islamist-minded terrorism, and we have to have intense discussions on this challenge in Bavaria and in Germany as well as prevent and repress it.
"That is the big challenge we face, and therefore any attempts to contextualise the problem are inappropriate.
"Every attack, every act of terrorism is one too many. Islamic terrorism has arrived in Germany and the people are rightly expecting us to stand up to this courageously."
Basically the people of Europe are going to start pushing back against their governments before much longer, and they in turn are going to start pushing back against the Commission, perhaps reminding Juncker who really holds the democratic mandate
Specifically though, a vast majority of the attacks to date (both the deadly ones and the mass sexual assaults) have seemingly come from people of North African extraction (rather than the much maligned Syrians), and even then, its tended to be domiciled European citizens rather than new arrivals. Is there any evidence that border controls would prevent these?
Would rebordering constitute grounds to invalidate the EU referendum result? Well if things have become so bad that Juncker is forced into giving up free open borders, then there would seem next to no prospect of winning a second referendum under what I could only imagine would be significantly degraded conditions. I could possibly see however that with changed circumstances, and with Article 50 presumably being a work in progress, we might be able to hit the pause button to see what happens
There are other potential blockages along the road too. What if the fascists win in Austria in November? (a distinct possibility now). Will the EU invoke article 7? Then there's the French elections in May 2017. Hollande is a dead duck waddling. Marienne Le Pen has about 30% of the vote at the moment and looks set to win the first round. Conventional wisdom is that she'll lose the second round, but if these attacks become a daily occurance would you be confident that the French will have had enough by then?
UK remain voters might actually find themselves rooting for the FN now as the departure of France from the EU will pretty well signal a major overhaul, or its death. Well with so many well paid jobs and vested interests at stake there is no way the Eurocrats will accept abolition, so they'll definitely agree to reform negotiations, in which case the UK could come back to the table and legitimately suggest that there has been a substantive material change
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
It's more about the mindset of continental Europeans, reet.
It doesn't really matter if open-borders is a contributory factor or not. If the perception is that they are part of the problem, then it may lead to demands for tightening of controls by citizens and/or politicians.....and as Warbler suggests, there would likely be very little that JC Juncker could do to prevent it, if it was the 'will of the people'.
It might only need one country to revoke Schengen temporarily on the grounds of national security, for several others to fall into line, and it becomes self-fulfilling.
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
No, it shouldn't. Approx 245,000,000 people move around Europe every year. And foreign nationals moving within the EU don't have free movement. This is Daily Mail stuff.
This is wishful thinking on your part.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
You don't appear to have accounted for the context, Simo i.e. the demands which might be made in France and Germany, for a tightening of the rules. This is not Daily Mail stuff from me; it's more about Le Figaro or Die Welt stuff from them.
As to the second part, you're right, but then I knew that already. I'm more interested in what others think about it, should part 1 come to pass.
Schengen has been suspended before. The French did it to the Italians when the Italians were just waving north african immigrants through
The only (recent) terrorist attack I can think of that involved crossing European borders however was that committed by Belgians in Paris. I recall reading somewhere else (I think it was during the national ID card debate) that only 3% of terrorists are ever caught at border checks. Pragmatically speaking, the economic gains associated with free movement probably do outweigh the security gains, but there is also an issue of real world politics. A drip feed of these stories (and they seem to be happening every 2 or 3 days now) is going to build pressure, and the likes of Juncker won't be able to abate these indefinitely
If the UK is able to satisfy itself that immigration was an influence in the referendum result (and the post research suggests it was the second biggest factor) and if Europe begins a process of addressing this, then I suspect they could be present a case for changed circumstances. I doubt however that the two timetables will collide. The EU might be many things, but one thing that no one has ever accussed it of is alacrity. I'd guess that the UK will have left by the time the EU faces up to what's developing
The only (recent) terrorist attack I can think of that involved crossing European borders however was that committed by Belgians in Paris. I recall reading somewhere else (I think it was during the national ID card debate) that only 3% of terrorists are ever caught at border checks. Pragmatically speaking, the economic gains associated with free movement probably do outweigh the security gains, but there is also an issue of real world politics. A drip feed of these stories (and they seem to be happening every 2 or 3 days now) is going to build pressure, and the likes of Juncker won't be able to abate these indefinitely
If the UK is able to satisfy itself that immigration was an influence in the referendum result (and the post research suggests it was the second biggest factor) and if Europe begins a process of addressing this, then I suspect they could be present a case for changed circumstances. I doubt however that the two timetables will collide. The EU might be many things, but one thing that no one has ever accussed it of is alacrity. I'd guess that the UK will have left by the time the EU faces up to what's developing
"Decisions about he UK should be taken in the UK"
Specifically though immigration and borders was surveyed as a separate expressed preference allowing those who've been brackted as xenonphobes/ racists to identify with that option. It was clearly a factor (a big one) but not the biggest
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
Specifically though immigration and borders was surveyed as a separate expressed preference allowing those who've been brackted as xenonphobes/ racists to identify with that option. It was clearly a factor (a big one) but not the biggest
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
The bit I don't get about the immigration argument, and its apparent influence over the Referendum result, is that immigration from the EU is significantly lower than immigration from the Commonwealth (particularly the Indian sub-continent) and elsewhere. Not only are the numbers smaller from the EU, none of these other countries offer the reciprocal benefits of free access that the EU does, so you would think it was the 'least bad' form of immigration?
If immigration was really such an issue, surely - one would think - the 'other' type of immigration would have warranted more discussion - yet it was rarely, if ever, mentioned.
Perhaps this was because it wasn't relevant to the EU dialogue? Perhaps its influence has been massively over-stated? Or perhaps the 'other' kind of immigrants are next in the cross-hairs?
If immigration was really such an issue, surely - one would think - the 'other' type of immigration would have warranted more discussion - yet it was rarely, if ever, mentioned.
Perhaps this was because it wasn't relevant to the EU dialogue? Perhaps its influence has been massively over-stated? Or perhaps the 'other' kind of immigrants are next in the cross-hairs?