unbeliever Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 You have some interesting attitudes for someone who (I believe) works in the public sector, in an area that many Taxpayers' Alliance types would consider to be a waste of money. How's your theory of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" coming along, by the way? I offer my services to the state because they find them useful. I policy changes and I'm no longer of use, I'm happy to go into the private sector where I'll get a lot more money and autonomy. I look at what I think is best for the Uk as a whole. It us fundamentally wrong, on every conceivable level, to collect money from people who can barely support themselves thereby arranging that they can't; then give it back to them with the words "government money" scribbled on it and pretend you've done them a service. Handouts should be for people who, despite their best efforts, genuinely cannot support themselves. Everybody else on low incomes can be supported with decent, efficient public services and more importantly: not confiscating the money they earned in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Tzij, will openly admit I know not a lot about the matter but are you saying the Dutch would punish us by refusing to let us use Rotterdam hence making us use another port in another country, such a port may welcome that trade. ---------- Post added 21-06-2016 at 09:30 ---------- Also the rebate they want back, is that for this year or all preceding years Right, time to cut through the simplicity that is in the Leave camp, sorry for the long post. No, I am saying that the Netherlands are in fact a very important trading partner for the UK. In terms of trade it is the third biggest partner for the UK after Germany and the US. (So even bigger than China). People on here, in the past, have said: Who cares about the Netherlands. Well, the simple fact is that the UK should. I also said that the Netherlands are increasingly annoyed with the way the Leave campaign is saying things that are simply untrue (also called lying). Which means that if there was a power-shift post-Brexit (which is likely) in British politics, than the Dutch won't be so forthcoming with niceties and giveaways. They will go to the negotiating table with a steely face and plenty of demands. That is how politics work Panzer1, I realise that is not something that 'common people' take on board, but it is a very definite impact on claims by the Brexit camp that everything will be fine on Brexit. It won't, they assume only from their own position, but negotiation takes two sides. Finally, Article 50, which describes what will happen on Brexit, means that the EU will have A LOT of say in what happens, they will be in a stronger negotiating position, in fact, the UK can go to the EU and say: We want single market, no more free movement of people, and the EU will most likely say: Tough. Or they might say - you can have some trade agreement, but you pay all the rebate back to the memberstates that have funded your reduced membership fee. (all, dating back to day one). That is entirely up to them, and it will be up to the UK to decide whether that is what they want. So there we have it, Leave make claims, one way or another, without any foundation, hoping to win this referendum, desperate to do so. But the reality does not corroborate with their promises. People like you somehow believe Boris Johnson, Gove, Farage and co are not doing this for their own gains. They are, that is the nature of populist politics. They are either too stupid to estimate the ramifications of what they are doing, or so blinded by ambition that they will sell porkies to the British public so that they can take control of the country (we want sovereignty... uhmmm yes, to do what the hell you like). I say this again: Negotiating an exit takes two parties and current law makes it very clear who is the upper party in those negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 This argument that we should apologise for conducting ourselves in a democratic fashion because it creates economic uncertainly is sheer lunacy. I think those making that case ought to have a good long think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzer1 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just watched the sky news section on possible Brexit consequences, which is repeated at 11.30am, this is about the most balanced item on the threats/ promises from both sides that I have seen. Got to admit project fear was even getting to me but having watched this I feel a lot more confident about still voting out, the best bit was about the possible recession explained in lay man terms. Worth a watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just watched the sky news section on possible Brexit consequences, which is repeated at 11.30am, this is about the most balanced item on the threats/ promises from both sides that I have seen. Got to admit project fear was even getting to me but having watched this I feel a lot more confident about still voting out, the best bit was about the possible recession explained in lay man terms. Worth a watch. Did you even read what I said in reply to your earlier post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) I agree totally that a progressive taxation system is fairer than a regressive or flat-rate one. But people who express your views very often argue in favour of a regressive or flat-rate system. I also agree with your theory of "From each according to his (or her) ability, to each according to his contribution". But, again, that's one of the basic principles of socialism (actual socialism that is, of the type that informed policy in Britain and beyond in the post-war years, not the cartoon version that we're fed by the media), and emphatically not of the political ideology that you believe yourself to be aligned with. I'm aligned with the people who actually implement policies I approve of. Not with those who talk about them. I voted for Labour in the late '90s and early 00's. I didn't get what I voted for. Large amounts of money were collected from the people, in a not remotely progressive fashion, and largely wasted. Still more money was borrowed at a time when no government in their right mind would have increased borrowing and also wasted. It was a crude and corrupt con to buy peoples' votes using their own money. Not going to make that mistake again. Edited June 21, 2016 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzer1 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just read it. Got to admit then do not see the point in article 50, would appear that it was put in as a fop to eu general public. You can leave but if you do we will absolutely hammer you. Obviously I have heard the threats from various eu members/ heads of govts but that just puts my back up and makes me more determined to vote out. The most balanced has been Tusk, especially recently saying whatever the result the eu will take it as a wake up call and look closely at themselves. My only problem with tusk is he should have done more in daves renegotiation and obviously I believe the eu will change after all they don,t do stupid things like relocate every 6 months costing millions of they?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Tzij, will openly admit I know not a lot about the matter but are you saying the Dutch would punish us by refusing to let us use Rotterdam hence making us use another port in another country, such a port may welcome that trade.For the n-th time in here...in case of a Brexit vote, there's not going to be any "punishment", there's going to be negotiations about what happens between the UK and the EU and its remaining member states post-Brexit. The UK will ask for its cake and eating it (this is pretty much what the Brexit 'plans' currently amount to, ignoring entirely the respective self-interests of the other 27 EU member states and positing instead that the UK is 'owed' best trading partner status). Each of the remaining 27 EU member states will then tell the UK how far and how much it can swing, depending upon how their respective self-interests balance with what the UK wants. Some will give more ground to the UK, some will give less ground to the UK, and the sum total at the end is that the UK won't be getting its cake and eating it. What the UK won't be getting, you can see as "punishment" if you want. Me, I'd just call that toys thrown out of the pram. Or a cut nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just read it. Got to admit then do not see the point in article 50, would appear that it was put in as a fop to eu general public. You can leave but if you do we will absolutely hammer you. Obviously I have heard the threats from various eu members/ heads of govts but that just puts my back up and makes me more determined to vote out. The most balanced has been Tusk, especially recently saying whatever the result the eu will take it as a wake up call and look closely at themselves. My only problem with tusk is he should have done more in daves renegotiation and obviously I believe the eu will change after all they don,t do stupid things like relocate every 6 months costing millions of they?. They're bluffing. It's really rather obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzer1 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Funny Loob but they sound like threats to me. ---------- Post added 21-06-2016 at 10:06 ---------- But I suppose we have nothing to offer or nothing that the others want in these negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts