Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
If May had gone into this with a 'name-your-price-and-we'll-pay-it' approach, would you have praised her for it?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
If May had gone into this with a 'name-your-price-and-we'll-pay-it' approach, would you have praised her for it?
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Daniel Hannan has a lot to answer for. His book and facade legitimised many of the Brexit myths. He wasn't even born in the UK as far as I recall. Like many oversees ex-pats he developed a misty eyed notion of Grand Britannia fulled by public school and the Conservative party. He is completely and utterly naive. Yet...at least he had the balls to set out a vision of sorts. A dream rather than a reality as it turns out. Some of his ideas are plausible, but his underlying premise is so fundamentally flawed and out of touch with reality. Two simple facts illustrate:
- Countries trade most with their neighbouring countries. Obvious? You'd think so.
- The EU will never provide the UK with better trading terms than it had while within and contributing to the EU. Obvious? You'd think so too. But not to articulate well presented Mr Hannan. Deluded, he said we'd get better terms with the EU if we left.
The other key players behind this debacle are Borris Johnson and UKIP. Johnson knew full well that Brexit was bad for Britian and tweeted as much less than 6 months before the referendum. He called it a "waste of government time". Had Borris been sucking on Hannan's deluded crack pipe vision too? Or more cynically following his own political aims? I don't think Borris even knows. I don't think he can stick to a position, but flits from one thing to another without a proper vision himself. Both Borris and Hannan are men of words. Not men of commerce or practicality. They create stories not realities.
So what of UKIP? Farrage wrote in the Torygraph yesterday, we should tell the EU to do one and not pay a settlement. How does he feel about the global banks departing London for Paris and Frankfurt? Or car manufacturers and various other industries preparing for hard Brexit with non-UK contingency plans?
Behind UKIP and much of the funding for Brexit are financial interests. Of the £24m that was given to the Leave campaign (that was declared, it looks like more was given off the books) most came from 5 extremely wealthy individuals. These people are business men. They are motivated by money. They are great at making money. And leaving the EU is just a part of that aim for them. Do they give a fuk about Sovernight or immigration? Of course not. It doesn't affect their profits. Leaving the EU for them is a chance to make more money, that is all. The 5 are: Arron Bank, Crystal Palace co-owner Jeremy Hosking, investment billionaire Peter Hargreaves, motoring entrepreneur Robert Edmiston and hedge fund manager Crispin Odey.
What's funny about the last one, is that his Hedge Fund shorted on a UK recession, and its value halved when the UK didn't tank last year! Though maybe his position will play out next year as the UK faces serious challenges. It seems odd doesn't it, to fund a Leave the EU campaign, and then bet against its success? Almost like making money is the real name of the game...
Last edited:
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Interest rates are at all-time lows. They managed to fall to a new low following the brexit vote. They ARE going to rise, brexit or no brexit.
The approach probably should have been similar to how the EU proposed the bill, we think we owe X because of these items (lots of people saying this at the outset). You can then negotiate the differences and have the negotiations in a less confrontational manner. We went in saying we wont tell them what we think we owe as it gives us a disadvantage and we wont pay anything /only a few £bn. The fact that she has done the complete opposite means criticizing her is valid. We massively overplayed out hand or we were deluded into believing "they need us more than we need them"
Maybe (speak to Japan about that) but they were raised at this time largely due to the fall in GBP due to BREXIT.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
We'll agree to disagree on that. But my honest opinion, from the other side of the debate is that you're doing your argument no favours whatsoever by trying to pin an increase in your mortgage payments on brexit given the extraordinary level of interest rates...
Edit. Why weren't you on a fixed rate, btw? ;-)
Last edited:
The original point I was responding to was regarding that Brexit has not cost anyone any money (apart for the 1%). We can comment on what has happened rather than what we predict would happen if the vote did not happen. Inflation is higher largely due to the rising cost of imports, which in turn was largely due to the fall in GBP due to the uncertainty caused by Brexit. There is a direct link between Variable rate mortgages increasing and Brexit, unless you have a different view this is a fact.
Whether there would have been a raise anyway (debatable in the short / medium term) is not really relevant to the point I was responding to, the Brexit vote is costing me money since the vote, including increased mortgage payments.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Without going back and checking dates etc., I think I'm right in saying that the Bank of England have been signalling their intention to 'normalise' monetary policy for some considerable time, probably pre-brexit. The US are further down this road than us, and I don't think it's unrealistic to say we're following their lead. You may well be correct on the very specific points that you make but speaking in more general terms, interest rate rises should not come as a surprise to anyone, irrespective of the brexit situation.
Blaming interest rate rises, or more evocatively, "increased mortgage payments" on brexit smacks of scaremongering, and doesn't help your argument in my view.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Didn't Japan have 0% interest rates for almost 20 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Would you say the UK has benefited financially from Brexit? Or will do in the future? If so how do you see this working?
I think you may be attributing weight to this comment that I did not have in my response. I was responding to the specific point : -"Who is poorer? Not me. Not you. Not any of the 99%" no scaremongering just a direct response to a point that is demonstratively false, part of that is due to increased mortgage payments that are linked to the Brexit vote.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
It will necessitate structural reform. Clipping the wings of financial services, moving towards a planned and sustainable industrial strategy, and rebalancing from London to the rest of the country.
A population decrease by ending FoM will also ease housing and infrastructure pressures.
All could have been done within the EU - the fact it wasn't most likely means it will not happen outside of the EU either.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
That's great but you'd lose marks for not answering the question. Is there any financial benefit to Brexit, if so how will it work? Saying that by making people poor or in your words "rebalancing" will benefit everyone, is tenuous at best. Essentially what you're saying is you'd like London to decline and to have more factories in the UK, a bit like failed Soviet Communism. Is there anyone left who has a viable Brexit vision?
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
The concept of economic benefit is looking through a neo-liberal prism. There's social benefit, which is much more important. People working less, doing more fulfilling jobs/activities, with a fairer distribution of resources.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Have a feeling this idea was socialised before. Yes yes it was! In 1848 when this guy published a manifesto
Baleforce
Ron Henry
economic benefits do a great job of feeding my kids, pretty sure they can't eat social ones
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Have a feeling this idea was socialised before. Yes yes it was! In 1848 when this guy published a manifesto
The big issues with socialism/communism are:
i) state intervention in society, not just economic planning
ii) that the left are tied to the idea of work defining life, rather than being something we should try and reduce. They always want to own the capitalist structures, not disassemble them
Degrowth is something new, only made possible by automisation. These are ok introductions:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/riccardo-mastini/degrowth-case-for-constructing-new-economic-paradigm
https://theconversation.com/life-in-a-degrowth-economy-and-why-you-might-actually-enjoy-it-32224
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Only because the system is designed so that you can be oppressed/held hostage by that.
With universal basic income, everyone gets fed and housed, and then can do something purposeful to fill their time.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
On the surface Marxism and Degrowth appear to be quite sensible: constantly looking for profit and financial advancement is unsustainable. With icecaps melting capitalisms strain on the planet is not ecological. Communism wanted us to focus less on material, degrowth for us to consume less? Is that right?
In theory both are fine. The issue is implementation. How could you impose this onto economies successfully? How would it work? How could it possibly work in a planned imposed form? In lieu of a viable alternative, aren't the EUs air quality laws and environmental policies some of the most advanced the world has seen? From wikipedia:
The European Union (EU) is considered by some to have the most extensive environmental laws of any international organisation.[1] Its environmental policy is significantly intertwined with other international and national environmental policies. The environmental legislation of the European Union also has significant effects on those of its member states. The European Union’s environmental legislation addresses issues such as acid rain, the thinning of the ozone layer, air quality, noise pollution, waste and water pollution, and sustainable energy.
Has anyone donated to wiki?
Last edited: