The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

Note to History: Mnangagwa is a homicidal, vicious, anti-democratic, racist cxxt. He's not the new hero that he's been made out to be, he's simply a continuation of the old failed order.

He may put on a new face but the cash will end up in he same accounts, probably more of it actually.

[BWFC_Insane]

So May's managed to persuade her ministers to agree to "paying the EU considerably more money" to try and move the talks that are already months and months behind forward.

We're doing really well at this negotiating lark.

Sack the lot of them and start again.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

...and meanwhile the "dash for diesel" under the last Labour government has led to 24.6 million tonnes of the stuff being burnt last year (with 12 million tonnes of petrol burnt in the same period). Even though it now transpires the Labour government were warned (officially) that diesel was not as green as was being made out. So much for the paragons of a socialist economy and defenders of the environment.
Sack the lot, and lets start again too.

[BWFC_Insane]

...and meanwhile the "dash for diesel" under the last Labour government has led to 24.6 million tonnes of the stuff being burnt last year (with 12 million tonnes of petrol burnt in the same period). Even though it now transpires the Labour government were warned (officially) that diesel was not as green as was being made out. So much for the paragons of a socialist economy and defenders of the environment.
Sack the lot, and lets start again too.

Keep up, that's already happened.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

...and meanwhile the "dash for diesel" under the last Labour government has led to 24.6 million tonnes of the stuff being burnt last year (with 12 million tonnes of petrol burnt in the same period). Even though it now transpires the Labour government were warned (officially) that diesel was not as green as was being made out. So much for the paragons of a socialist economy and defenders of the environment.
Sack the lot, and lets start again too.

Keep up, that's already happened.

ok, I got that wrong.

[Harry Genshaw]

So May's managed to persuade her ministers to agree to "paying the EU considerably more money" to try and move the talks that are already months and months behind forward.

We're doing really well at this negotiating lark.

Sack the lot of them and start again.

May, like you, supported Remain. I'm interested - what would you do now in her place? Have they negotiated badly or are the EU being intransigent?

[Bruce Rioja]

So May's managed to persuade her ministers to agree to "paying the EU considerably more money" to try and move the talks that are already months and months behind forward.

We're doing really well at this negotiating lark.

Sack the lot of them and start again.

Well, 4ucking fiasco is what the country voted for!

[BWFC_Insane]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42149793

Ha. So the "brexit impact papers" haven't been withheld by government over some Brexit bombshell, but instead to cover up the government's shoddy analysis and lack of planning. Brilliant.

Full steam ahead pip pip...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42149793

Ha. So the "brexit impact papers" haven't been withheld by government over some Brexit bombshell, but instead to cover up the government's shoddy analysis and lack of planning. Brilliant.

Full steam ahead pip pip...

Of course there's a lack of planning. The government, and the opposition, and all the Luvvies of London Town couldn't have got together and planned for this because a) they thought Remain was in the bag, and b) even if they had a tiny-teeny tinsy-winsy idea they were going to lose they had no idea how pouty their fellow Europeans would get about it.
And before you get all pouty about it, the Labour party are equally as guilty over lack of planning. There are many Labour constituencies that voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, but the party executive have no coherent stance about even if they support Remain or Exit.

[TANGODANCER]

Just so I'm clear about all this: This is our country we're talking about and not just Tory, Labour, Ukip, Greens, Screaming Lord Whatsit and all the rest, isn't it? You know, England, Britain and not just Parliament and Politics, Lords and Commons etc? It is the same country that voted rightly or wrongly ( can anybody really know?) to leave the E.U. and go it alone?

Well, then, Since the decision carried , should we not be all sort of pulling together to make that decision mean something, or at least give it a vote of confidence by getting behind it as a country? We can hardly say, hey Brussels and co, we might have made a mistake and can we please say sorry and come back in the gang hut? Or are we going to make a total laughing stock of ourselves by squabbling like chickens over grain seeds under the collective heading of disagreeing internal "politics"?

Teresa May, like it ot no, is Prime Minister and she should be up there in the pulpit giving it that old-fashioned religion called Great Britain, you know, that Great Britain that she and all those other lads and lassies from all over the globe only a couple of weeks ago turned out to lay wreaths for the millions that died fighting for it. That Great Britain that's really should be a tad more than parades and polished brass buttons and bands playing "Send her Victorious". See, right now, we don't look too victorious about much the way I see it. Now if there were some solution in sight, or may be even a hint of togetherness amongst a government famous for its parties slanging each other and making even more cuts by the day, I might start believing that politics actually means someting more than a bunch of sleek overfed M.P's riding around in shiny cars between lunches and campaigns. It surely must be obvious to all of them that Great Britain ain't looking too great right now?

Amen.

[BWFC_Insane]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42149793

Ha. So the "brexit impact papers" haven't been withheld by government over some Brexit bombshell, but instead to cover up the government's shoddy analysis and lack of planning. Brilliant.

Full steam ahead pip pip...

Of course there's a lack of planning. The government, and the opposition, and all the Luvvies of London Town couldn't have got together and planned for this because a) they thought Remain was in the bag, and b) even if they had a tiny-teeny tinsy-winsy idea they were going to lose they had no idea how pouty their fellow Europeans would get about it.
And before you get all pouty about it, the Labour party are equally as guilty over lack of planning. There are many Labour constituencies that voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, but the party executive have no coherent stance about even if they support Remain or Exit.

The Brexit minister was one of the leading lights of the Brexit campaign.

Also May has constantly stated her government is determined to "deliver Brexit". Seems as though they are determined but incapable!

[Bruce Rioja]

Can somebody please just make Donald Trump go away? The latest from the absolute thundercunt is to re-tweet racist shite from Britain's First.

What a complete and utter bellend.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

This idea that somehow discussing a "EU divorce bill" is somehow a fault in the logic of Brexit is boiling my pee.

A few comments off the Beebs website illustrate the naivety of argument: "Brexit: now officially confirmed as the most expensive childish, spite fuelled tantrum in the history of the human race/ This amount is way too much. How can be moving to WTO rules be more expensive than this/ Time to scrap Brexit altogether. Even Boris says it's on the rocks. Save the money for hospitals, schools, social housing..."

Well actually no, just like the Big Bang Theory and the Expansion of the Universe there is a lot of mythologising and misunderstanding surrounding EU-UK Budgetary Facts.

Let's start with the basic net payment that the UK has given to the EU since we joined in 1973. As of this year that stands at £368.5bn - that's pounds not Euro's. If you translate it into Euros at the rates the pound equalled the Euro at each year the money was handed over this comes to €645bn. And that's net not gross. And let's tackle the misunderstanding about the rebate too: the net price is the price after the rebate, because the rebate actually isn't a rebate - the money simply isn't handed over to be subsequently handed back, it is an accountancy exercise deducted from a theoretical 'membership fee' (for example the membership fee for the UK in 2016 was £17.7bn - the amount that was actually handed over to the EU was £13.7bn (i.e. minus the theoretical rebate), and the amount that the EU spent on the UK was £4.3bn - thus the UK's net contribution was £9.4bn [net=gross-'rebate'-EU spend on UK).
And like the expansion of the universe, the gross fee that Britain pays to the EU is increasing over time, and not at a steady rate either. The UKs gross fee for 2017 is 19bn and for 2018 20.5bn. (plus the 2016 figures which Remoaners use all the time, was significantly lower than the contributions for each of the years between 2012-2015). If we had not voted to leave the EU, UK contributions to the EU from 2019 to 2023 (estimated over the EU's own 5yr planning period) would have equalled more than £120bn with a guestimate (based on previous actual year's proportions) to cost the UK a net figure of £80bn.
So to put it bluntly, if we hadn't joined the EU in 1973 we would have saved this country a truly staggering €734bn by the time we actually do leave the EU and including the period we will be paying for into the future.
Thus the accusation from Remoaners that by settling the divorce bill at €50bn we are somehow being done over by the Brexiteers is bollox. The €50bn 'divorce bill' covers the period when, if we hadn't left, we would have handed over €89bn net anyway. Remember there is no benefit from this net contribution, it is simply a wedge of moolah we hand over to the Europeans, most of which goes to French, Polish and Romanian farmers (the CAP swallows most of the EU budget - yeh, I know some of our farmers are net beneficiaries of CAP, but the UK isn't, that small net benefit is calculated in the deductions from the UKs gross contribution before we calculate what our net contribution is). Duh!

[BWFC_Insane]

This idea that somehow discussing a "EU divorce bill" is somehow a fault in the logic of Brexit is boiling my pee.

A few comments off the Beebs website illustrate the naivety of argument: "Brexit: now officially confirmed as the most expensive childish, spite fuelled tantrum in the history of the human race/ This amount is way too much. How can be moving to WTO rules be more expensive than this/ Time to scrap Brexit altogether. Even Boris says it's on the rocks. Save the money for hospitals, schools, social housing..."

Well actually no, just like the Big Bang Theory and the Expansion of the Universe there is a lot of mythologising and misunderstanding surrounding EU-UK Budgetary Facts.

Let's start with the basic net payment that the UK has given to the EU since we joined in 1973. As of this year that stands at £368.5bn - that's pounds not Euro's. If you translate it into Euros at the rates the pound equalled the Euro at each year the money was handed over this comes to €645bn. And that's net not gross. And let's tackle the misunderstanding about the rebate too: the net price is the price after the rebate, because the rebate actually isn't a rebate - the money simply isn't handed over to be subsequently handed back, it is an accountancy exercise deducted from a theoretical 'membership fee' (for example the membership fee for the UK in 2016 was £17.7bn - the amount that was actually handed over to the EU was £13.7bn (i.e. minus the theoretical rebate), and the amount that the EU spent on the UK was £4.3bn - thus the UK's net contribution was £9.4bn [net=gross-'rebate'-EU spend on UK).
And like the expansion of the universe, the gross fee that Britain pays to the EU is increasing over time, and not at a steady rate either. The UKs gross fee for 2017 is 19bn and for 2018 20.5bn. (plus the 2016 figures which Remoaners use all the time, was significantly lower than the contributions for each of the years between 2012-2015). If we had not voted to leave the EU, UK contributions to the EU from 2019 to 2023 (estimated over the EU's own 5yr planning period) would have equalled more than £120bn with a guestimate (based on previous actual year's proportions) to cost the UK a net figure of £80bn.
So to put it bluntly, if we hadn't joined the EU in 1973 we would have saved this country a truly staggering €734bn by the time we actually do leave the EU and including the period we will be paying for into the future.
Thus the accusation from Remoaners that by settling the divorce bill at €50bn we are somehow being done over by the Brexiteers is bollox. The €50bn 'divorce bill' covers the period when, if we hadn't left, we would have handed over €89bn net anyway. Remember there is no benefit from this net contribution, it is simply a wedge of moolah we hand over to the Europeans, most of which goes to French, Polish and Romanian farmers (the CAP swallows most of the EU budget - yeh, I know some of our farmers are net beneficiaries of CAP, but the UK isn't, that small net benefit is calculated in the deductions from the UKs gross contribution before we calculate what our net contribution is). Duh!

Given you yourself have discussed the "economic pain" we will experience could you conservatively forecast how long this will last, what impact this will have on GDP and thus the true economic cost of Brexit....

[Lost Leopard Spot]

This idea that somehow discussing a "EU divorce bill" is somehow a fault in the logic of Brexit is boiling my pee.

A few comments off the Beebs website illustrate the naivety of argument: "Brexit: now officially confirmed as the most expensive childish, spite fuelled tantrum in the history of the human race/ This amount is way too much. How can be moving to WTO rules be more expensive than this/ Time to scrap Brexit altogether. Even Boris says it's on the rocks. Save the money for hospitals, schools, social housing..."

Well actually no, just like the Big Bang Theory and the Expansion of the Universe there is a lot of mythologising and misunderstanding surrounding EU-UK Budgetary Facts.

Let's start with the basic net payment that the UK has given to the EU since we joined in 1973. As of this year that stands at £368.5bn - that's pounds not Euro's. If you translate it into Euros at the rates the pound equalled the Euro at each year the money was handed over this comes to €645bn. And that's net not gross. And let's tackle the misunderstanding about the rebate too: the net price is the price after the rebate, because the rebate actually isn't a rebate - the money simply isn't handed over to be subsequently handed back, it is an accountancy exercise deducted from a theoretical 'membership fee' (for example the membership fee for the UK in 2016 was £17.7bn - the amount that was actually handed over to the EU was £13.7bn (i.e. minus the theoretical rebate), and the amount that the EU spent on the UK was £4.3bn - thus the UK's net contribution was £9.4bn [net=gross-'rebate'-EU spend on UK).
And like the expansion of the universe, the gross fee that Britain pays to the EU is increasing over time, and not at a steady rate either. The UKs gross fee for 2017 is 19bn and for 2018 20.5bn. (plus the 2016 figures which Remoaners use all the time, was significantly lower than the contributions for each of the years between 2012-2015). If we had not voted to leave the EU, UK contributions to the EU from 2019 to 2023 (estimated over the EU's own 5yr planning period) would have equalled more than £120bn with a guestimate (based on previous actual year's proportions) to cost the UK a net figure of £80bn.
So to put it bluntly, if we hadn't joined the EU in 1973 we would have saved this country a truly staggering €734bn by the time we actually do leave the EU and including the period we will be paying for into the future.
Thus the accusation from Remoaners that by settling the divorce bill at €50bn we are somehow being done over by the Brexiteers is bollox. The €50bn 'divorce bill' covers the period when, if we hadn't left, we would have handed over €89bn net anyway. Remember there is no benefit from this net contribution, it is simply a wedge of moolah we hand over to the Europeans, most of which goes to French, Polish and Romanian farmers (the CAP swallows most of the EU budget - yeh, I know some of our farmers are net beneficiaries of CAP, but the UK isn't, that small net benefit is calculated in the deductions from the UKs gross contribution before we calculate what our net contribution is). Duh!

Given you yourself have discussed the "economic pain" we will experience could you conservatively forecast how long this will last, what impact this will have on GDP and thus the true economic cost of Brexit....

No I didn't. I refer you to page 822 of this thread. I quite clearly stated financial pain, not economic; I also expressed at the time these are two separate concepts.
Plus in my above post, I point out there is no overall fiscal cost, in fact we gain by hundreds of billions of Euros.
Any economic pain, which is quite theoretical, is a matter of argument and belief with no grounding in fact possible. We can explore it post factum if you like, but whether we have pain or gain it will be businesses, not the UK government or taxpayers, that suffer or thrive.

[Prufrock]

Now they love a bit of net spend.

Brexiters = Megson fans.

:negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative:

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Remainers often state that the EU hold all the cards. They don't.
Six million Brits with £20bn worth of insurance written by European companies versus thirty million Europeans with £40bn of insurance written by UK companies. All of which become contractually invalid/void after Brexit without an agreement.
There are plenty of other examples.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Now they love a bit of net spend.

Brexiters = Megson fans.

:negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative: :negative:

As pointed out previously, you really do like your oh so hilarious images don't you? And, as previously, I'll refer you to your own 'signature':
Prufrock says "Basically, if you can't make your meaning plain with all the richness of the English language and you have to resort to cartoon faces... you're a dick". Prufrock then proves the proposition he himself put forward.

[Bruce Rioja]

If the Brexit bill ends up at £60B then that'll be roughly £1K for every man, woman and child in Britain. Well done, you wankers who were reclaiming all that lovely cash for the NHS as per the Battle Bus

[Little Green Man]

If the Brexit bill ends up at £60B then that'll be roughly £1K for every man, woman and child in Britain. Well done, you wankers who were reclaiming all that lovely cash for the NHS as per the Battle Bus

The cabal (Fox,Redwood,Rees-Mogg et al) that has seized the tiller of the Tory party are set upon on a very low tax Singapore-style economy. There will be no NHS with them in charge. But at least we'll have our country back.