Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.3K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 28 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 353 Fun & Games
- 80 BA Predictor Threads
- 26 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 276 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 105 Current West Ham
- 196 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 10 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 22 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 375 Match Threads
- 50 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 34 Transfers
- 45 Transfer Speculation
- 85 Completed Transfers
- 51 Internationals
- 44 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 103 Football Chatter
- 41 Football Chatter
- 257 Other Teams & Matches
- 23 Other Players & Staff
Comments
The last time any party won more than 50% of the vote was 1931, that is why neither Labour or the Tories want to ditch FPTP, they know that neither of them will ever win enough votes to form a government on their own and as the Tories are currently in government because of FPTP they certainly aren't going to change anything
My view is that until Brexit is given up this country will be ungovernable and brexit must be given up by it's supporters rather than a political party, and that will only happen once the pain of that ludicrous decision is felt in every corner of the country, as I think it will begin to be soon. I think at present as brexit is such a shaper of voting you could hold three elections in three months and neither party would gain a majority. Only when Brexit is out of the equation will other things begin to change peoples vote, and due to the state of public funding and austerity we will get a Labour govt, once leave voters remove their votes from the conservative candidate as brexit no longer an issue.
He is quite categorical: The [negotiated deal] should not lead to unfair competition... there will be major difficulties in obtaining ratification of any future agreement in [the EU] countries, because there will be campaigns against the negotiations. It will be said that Brussels is conducting negotiations with the UK to downgrade environmental and social standards, for example, which will lead to more tax competition. If that happens, everything is over.
He's referring to the terms of a future trade deal which will require the UK to commit to the same (or, I suppose, higher) standards as are in the EU.
Of course, it could be a negotiating stance, but I hope they follow through with this stance.
There is a phrase which will fail to apply by degrees the further these negotiations produce nothing resembling what was predicted by Boris's band of brothers, that phrase is will of the people. As the reality becomes clear the will of the people will change and all that will remain to be done is formulate the democratic circumstance to produce it, so we can confine the most absurd episode in the UK's political history to the bin. We will of course be damaged by it for years to come and our standing and leverage within Europe will be diminished.
I didn't vote to join in the first place and we have gained nothing from joining!
We were trading worldwide before we joined this protectionist club.
We were prevented by the EEC as it was then, from making our own deals with our commonwealth countries. They made the deals and put large tarriffs on goods!
We cannot fish in our own waters as much as we used to. The EU have granted all other eu members fishing rights in our waters. For instance, France is allowed to catch 5 times more cod than the UK and 3times more haddock than us, but doesn't allow us the same quotas in other countries' waters!
Thus decimating our fishing industry!
All those I know who voted leave would still vote the same. I also have friends who voted to stay and they say that if asked again they would change their minds.
They agree that it was a democratic result and should be allowed to stand.
I am nearly 71 and argue that we unwillingly gave away our nationality when we joined a club that can't get it's own accounts in order, but are bringing down other eu countries like Greece and now Italy.
Whose economy is growing. Germany!
We have many nations waiting to sign deals with us, but the EU need our money
and will leave a big hole in their projects.
All this scaremongering will make Leavers
dig in.
We don't like being dictated to, whoever is doing it!
The worlds trading markets have changed beyond recognition from the days prior to us joining the EU and I never really saw any hard arguments clearly demonstrating that we will be able to operate on the world stage as a totally independent nation, as effectively as one that operates within the EU.
I still believe that the vote to leave was primarily an emotional one that was triggered by a focus on the bureaucracy of the EU and fears over immigration. I understand that treaties and commitments exist but at the end of the day, if the situation ever arose where immigration was a truly threatening concern, as we are an island we have a very effective border and can impose restrictions on those borders very quickly indeed and there really isn't much that the continental Europeans could do about it.
I think that we would have been better served trying to improve the EU from within rather that trying to strike out on our own.
Nothing new in the arguments above and maybe viewed as slightly hypocritical seeing how I have made my bed over here, but it represents my tuppence haepenny worth.
;ok
I'm not sure how that squares with the fact that the UK has the 2nd largest catch of any country in the EU and the highest profit margin in the EU (35%)
It is a fact that internationally, technological improvements have resulted in a reduction in the number of boats in nation's fishing fleets. Nothing to do with the EU or quotas. A proportion of the decline in UK fishing fleets (numbers of boats and numbers of people employed in that industry) is due to that - and would have happened anyway and is not going to be significantly reversed by leaving the EU.
Furthermore, fishing quotas aren't only a result of EU membership and aren't only there to share out who gets what. There are also agreements with non-EU countries that set quotas (these won't vanish when we leave the EU); the UK is also part of n UN Convention which will mean there will continue to be limits on the fish catch post-Brexit. Quotas are also necessary for environmental reasons to prevent destruction of stocks (and are successful in doing so - see cod).
Another point about quotas - the UK govt is responsible for allocating its quotas among the UK fishing fleet. While 'small' fishermen might blame the EU, the fact is that much of the blame should be put on the UK govt.
So things won't magically be like it was before the UK joined the EU. When we in any case did much of our fishing in Icelandic waters, who have since then widened the exclusion zone.
Sorry mate but there are so many holes in your comment that it would take even a guy like me who only got a 2:1 in Economics about 2 seconds to refute your points verbally, but about 3 pages of this site would be wasted to explain point by point why you are misguided.
As Chicago said above, we would have been much better off staying in and trying to reform the EU from the inside.
Now we will be like that annoying little dog that yaps all night that our EU neighbours will wish would shut up.
We are in for a really tough time economically if Brexit goes through - that is a fact. And,as a 71 year old, you should have much more thought about what happens to the next generation of kids who will have to deal with the fallout from this.
They may not have the chance to enjoy an equivalent of the post war boom that your and my generation surfed.
It will be a game changer for our way of life, and pensioners will not be around to see it.
Puts on tin hat.....
Don't think that was what was being suggested at all; the reverse if anything.
The point I was making was that my degree is in economics - not the fact that I've got a degree. I know what I am talking about. I can tell the difference between a cry from the heart from Dee and a reasoned debate with a level of knowledge behind it.
I hate the way that a certain generation continually hark back to how great it was before we were in the EU. I lived through it, and it was not all bells and whistles.
Thats why I believe that the Brexit vote was a generational thing, and can only wish that the young voters had shown more interest at the time. If Jezza had been a remainer things may have been different, but you cant re nationalise under current EU rules (counts as state aid) so he and Mcdonnall wants out.
C'est la Vie.
But don't other EU countries have nationalised industries?
I thought state aid only applied to private sector companies in competition with other private sector companies.
Rushes off to find out more ;run
Some reading.
http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/renationalisation-impossible/
http://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180
So problematic, certainly. But not impossible to achieve, in one form or another.
Look at Article 106 TFEU vs Article 345 - they appear to be in conflict.
For Example, if a future Labour government wanted to take over a railway franchise as it comes to the end of its life, and Nationalise that bit, whist waiting for the others to expire, the other franchisees could claim that the state was in competition with it etc.
So the only way to do it would be to buy all of the shares at market rates at the same time, which would cost the country a lot more etc.
That how I see it ;hmm
But re 106 - I think (if I have read it properly, and understood sme of the explanatory notes) a key question would be if the nationalised bit/activity fell within the definition of an 'undertaking' (which has been interpreted by the ECJ as meaning 'business') then the fair competition rules apply. But, if it is outwith that definition (by being classed as a 'public service') then it is not subject to the competition rules.
The fact remains that there are state-owned things (railways, power supply etc) in other EU states, so the rules don't prohibit them. (And of course, our own NHS is a public service.) I imagine it would require perhaps the re-nationalised UK industries to be constituted or operating in a slightly different way the form they took pre-privatisation.
And it might keep the ECJ busy.
But its all moot.
French state railway SNCF has a 35% stake in Govia, they operate the DLR as a joint venture with Amey and started operating the Manchester Trams this month
Dutch state railway NS operates in the UK as Abellio
German state railway DB operates various services as Arriva including London Overground and is also the largest freight operator in the UK
And in February Italian state railway Trenitalia bought the c2c franchise from National Express
Crossed posts - I was hoping you would come in on this !
This silk road of China that everyone is marvelling over watch in 25 years as China calls in on all its debts after the USA kicks off after China overtakes them. The UK has zero to limited resource and relying on a financial sector that in time will evaporate. The UK export market is a joke on the world stage if you take out the financial sector which is pretty much the reason why inequality is continually widening.
There is a huge inequality in wealth which gets bigger every day and its just about keeping that process ticking over. The only way it will end is a straight up reset / revolution.
( I do really )