Some people really don't seem to realise that the U in all these means pretty much the same thing.... UK , USA, EU.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Sorry flecc, they are not facts. They are your chosen interpretation of limited data presented. They are IMHO far from facts. Facts are we have no viable home grown car industry. The coal and steel industries were decimated whilst part of EU. Investment has for a long time been financila and London centred whilst my own home towns have spiralled down the economic ladder. Its time for change and more locally managed investment. Under EU we have seen house prices go up 20 fold in London and barely rise in many northern Cities. Yes, perhaps leaving EU will not change that but the country is crying out for real investment.
And still no comment re the ugly direction thread was taken by certain remainers.?? I think I speak for many ( apologies if not) . Had folk stuck to your economic arguments, KTM,s graphs etc I may well have changed my mind. But when folk come on and insist I,m a racist, tory scum, brexidiot, fascist , I retreat and stick to my own reasoning. I,ve yet to see a remainer criticise any of the mentioned. Its that attitude which has hijacked this thread and actually done real remainers like yourself and KTM a massive disservice. I truly believe its why remainers are not represented at Government. Powers that be do not know what remainers actually want. Many come over as anti capitalist, anti tory, anti brexit , anti fascist...but pro what.?
They are just anti and Brexit just happens to be todays crusade.
And still no comment re the ugly direction thread was taken by certain remainers.?? I think I speak for many ( apologies if not) . Had folk stuck to your economic arguments, KTM,s graphs etc I may well have changed my mind. But when folk come on and insist I,m a racist, tory scum, brexidiot, fascist , I retreat and stick to my own reasoning. I,ve yet to see a remainer criticise any of the mentioned. Its that attitude which has hijacked this thread and actually done real remainers like yourself and KTM a massive disservice. I truly believe its why remainers are not represented at Government. Powers that be do not know what remainers actually want. Many come over as anti capitalist, anti tory, anti brexit , anti fascist...but pro what.?
They are just anti and Brexit just happens to be todays crusade.
Last edited:
Did you actually read the article - and understand it? It's
This obsession with removing the privacy of the rich is misplaced anger
TIM STANLEY
6 NOVEMBER 2017 • 7:27PM
We're obsessed with the goings on of the rich, yet we ignore those who are truly powerful
We mistrust the rich and their power, yet while the state has far more influence over our lives, we do not held it to the same standards
When the Paradise Papers story broke on Sunday, I watched the BBC News channel engage in some flagrant editorialising. The Queen’s private estate invested a sum of money offshore in 2005, which prompted a chorus of “it doesn’t look good”. “Oh no, not good”. “Not good at all”. Well, as the nudist said to the dog walker, if you don’t like what you see, don’t look!
“This desire to know what people do with their money is unhealthy and it has just one motivation: to squeeze them
Before we get onto the question of tax privacy, let’s shoot down this absurd idea that Her Majesty is guilty of something. First, offshore investments are legal. Second, Her Majesty pays tax on all her income. Third, the cash that generates said income is managed not by her but by the Duchy of Lancaster, which is technically run by a member of the Cabinet known as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
In 2005, that would’ve been a Labour Party appointee. So, while the Left is thrilled at the prospect that Her Majesty is the pirate queen of high finance, blame lies not with the monarch but with politicians and speculators. If blame is the right word because, as I said, none of this was actually illegal.
Is it any of our business? In the case of the Queen, maybe, as she is a figure of considerable public interest. But, on the whole, no. This desire to know what people do with their money is unhealthy and it has just one motivation: to squeeze them for every penny they’ve got.
When I was a young socialist I’d have said that was a jolly good idea. We all benefit from public spending, and the more you’ve got the more you should contribute. But as an older, greyer cynic I take the view that the rich shouldn’t have to pay unfairly for the mistakes made by the state.
The state has grown and grown, with no obvious improvement in competence, and the tax share of the wealthy has trebled since the Seventies. This is unsustainable and, in acknowledgement of that reality, moderate governments have long tolerated certain generous tax arrangements to stop the golden goose from migrating permanently abroad.
If a radical Labour government came in and closed the loopholes, investors would relocate altogether. In a roundabout way, tax havens keep pressure on politicians not to raise rates to unreasonable levels and, were the world to eradicate them, the burden here at home would probably go sky high.
If we must suffer the tax haven, why not go for full transparency? Because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and if the super-rich have to fling open their accounts to the rest of the world, you and I will have to do the same, too.
All that will fly out of mine, I hasten to add, is a couple of moths. The only tax haven a poor man like me is ever likely to use is the spot under my mattress. But that’s not the point: privacy is a principle that’s worth losing a bit of tax income to protect.
That’s not a very politically correct thing to write in an age of populism, but I stand by it. We are led to believe that the rich have too much power and influence, but they cannot compete with a state that increasingly has both the technology and the will to examine and regulate every aspect of our lives.
“We’ve all become so used to paying Big Brother to tell us what to do that we’ve ceased to notice it
Take driving a car. To earn the right to crawl along the M25 behind a horsebox, you have to pay for and pass both a theory and practical test, purchase insurance, get an MOT, and cough up for vehicle and fuel tax. The Government not only tells you what speed to drive at but regulates it punitively with cameras – which adds insult to injury given that many of our roads are about as well maintained as the surface of the moon.
We’ve all become so used to paying Big Brother to tell us what to do that we’ve ceased to notice it. And yet the nerve of the state is breathtaking. It is the state that distributes the Queen’s taxes, a branch of the state that arguably deserves responsibility for how it managed her income and now it is the state, via the BBC, that investigates and exposes it.
A line must be drawn. It’s the historic mission of the Conservative Party to draw it. They are supposed to be the people who resist wars against business and wealth, defend due process and protect the rights of the individual.
In recent years, however, they’ve endorsed raw emotionalism, terrified by the belief that what Labour says about tax, justice or the welfare system is what the voters believe, too. Well, they need to stop reading Twitter and talk to some of their more rational constituents.
Yes, every time the Tories take a stand against tax populism, they get horrid headlines in The Guardian, but they have won elections over and over again because the voters understand the facts of life better than Labour and the many agents of the state do.
For decades we have seen the expanding power of the police, teachers, civil servants, social workers and tax collectors, all protected by deference thought due to public servants and the claim that they are acting in the public interest. Who will act in the individual’s interest? The Tories must do so fast, before we’re all forced to go and live in, oh let’s say, Bermuda – drinking piña coladas beneath a tax-free sun.
Last edited:
You are introducing factors that are not relevant to what I posted. It is a fact that the UK is, and for a long time has been, in a far better place economically than it was in 1972. That is the essence of what I posted.
Picking out lots of individual failings doesn't alter that, I could just as easily pick out all the successes, but doing that is no better than yah-boo politics, and it's also doing what you criticise others for, as below:
I am not my brother's keeper.
Just as I am free to express what I wish to, so are they.
.
Can you be united to two bodies of people? Sort of contradiction isn't it ? Mutually exclusive ? United Kingdom part of another Union ? I,m. not sure ??Some people really don't seem to realise that the U in all these means pretty much the same thing.... UK , USA, EU.
Is UK united ? Is,EU really a Union..ask UK, Spain , Catalan and a few others.
Of course you can be in multiply unions. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Trade Union is a union of people, County is a union of parishes, England is a union of regions, UK is a union of Countries, EU is a Union of Countries.
There are many many people who are in all those examples.
Good rant, one of your better ones, still
Who called you racist and all the other things?
Or did you lump yourself in with those Brexit Voters accused of those sentiments, and if you did....
Why did you do so?
Like the Wesh Scots and Northern Irish?
Despite your opinion, we are.
And due to the wide range of its powers and regulations, agreed to by members, the United Nations is also a union, of almost all the nations on earth.
.
This from the BBC
This could be the worst possible news
"
"France will propose that states that do not take the necessary steps to combat tax evasion, should no longer have access to funding from major international organisations such as IMF or the World Bank," he said.
"I hope we can make this proposal to the IMF and the World Bank."
The Brexit paymasters won't like that one, will they?
Rather negates the whole idea, doesn't it?
This could be the worst possible news
"
"France will propose that states that do not take the necessary steps to combat tax evasion, should no longer have access to funding from major international organisations such as IMF or the World Bank," he said.
"I hope we can make this proposal to the IMF and the World Bank."
The Brexit paymasters won't like that one, will they?
Rather negates the whole idea, doesn't it?
Last edited:
For those who collect Porn this is the latest Boris Performance
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/news/90407/excl-emily-thornberry-says-boris-johnson-must-quit-if-nazanin
And this Imbecile wants to be Prime Minister?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/news/90407/excl-emily-thornberry-says-boris-johnson-must-quit-if-nazanin
And this Imbecile wants to be Prime Minister?
You really cant help yourself can you OG?
Yes BJ would not make a perfect PM but then again who would. You dont want May, Johnson,Cameron, Clegg or (I,m assuming ) Corbyn with his anti EU stance...so who do you want ?
Atlee perhaps ? You just cant tell us what you want, only that you dont...
Thought that was James Dean ( or was it Marlon Brando)
What are you rebelling against ?
What have you got...
KTM its impossible to serve 2 unions with contrasting, conflicting goals. That's why Corbyn wants out. And becoming part of USE was never voted on, which its now obvious where EU is heading . Good point though, pity UK is more divided than ever. Wonder why ? ( seriously)
apart from the fact he voted remain and said he would again.
Jeremy Corbyn replied that he would vote Remain. He also reiterated that he voted Remain in the referendum last year.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/10/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-would-vote-remain-another-eu-referendum
He clearly wants to reform it, but who doesn't?
I am not my brother's keeper.
Flecc
So when a fellow remainer attacks leavers,tories,or who ever you feel no responsibility even tho they hide behind remain sentiments and into bargain destroy your own stance.??? ( remainers bringing in anti capitalist, anti fascist,anti tory, anti Brexit arguments have ruined many worthwhile points yourself and KTM have made.. You dont think this attitude has detracted from remain position ? I suspect it has.
Flecc
So when a fellow remainer attacks leavers,tories,or who ever you feel no responsibility even tho they hide behind remain sentiments and into bargain destroy your own stance.??? ( remainers bringing in anti capitalist, anti fascist,anti tory, anti Brexit arguments have ruined many worthwhile points yourself and KTM have made.. You dont think this attitude has detracted from remain position ? I suspect it has.
But his policy is to leave...I ,ve said same. If there were another ref I,d vote remain to save all this argument. Corbyn and Labour are backing leave. ( they backed motions in HoC saying same)
And report I saw said he refused to answer how he voted last time..
But even if he does now support remain why is he not getting unequivocal support from remainers ?? ( Or why didn't he say this at last election)
Its strange , so far into this we are not sure wether leader of opposition wants to remain or leave? Says it all really. Come on somebody what is Corbyn's stance ?
What reminders want is both simple and clear. To remain within the eu , to accept the compromises that membership entails. That is not to say they are ecstatic with all European Union policies or directions. What is difficult to follow in that?
What brexit supporters is extremely unclear and ranges from a belief that " ourselves alone " is better... which incidentally is the Sinn Fein title, to xenophobic , to anti everything anarchists , to nostalgia for a lost world. Mixed in this group are decent people who genuinely believe that the direction of Europe is wrong and believe that they can improve the lot of Britons...
As I see it this is like the dissolution of the monasteries and the reformation in Henry 8ths time . .. a belief that the bigger organisation was wrong, choosing a radical solution to solve an immediate problem then realising that there was a land grab and money to be stolen and justifying after the event...
The only difference is that there is now no new world to discover and exploit
a few basic flaws in this argument. you - nominally vote for the state. you didn't and don't vote for Murdoch, or the power he sways over public opinion. there isn't much you can do to question, challenge or control that. also, public servants are just that - servants acting in the public interest, something usually defined by a code of conduct, professional code, job description. it goes wrong, badly, but often because of what you describe, individual entitlement (which I gather features big in your life) trumping our concern for each other. tax havens don't have this, where they have some fig leave of a set of rules its easily circumvented by tax specialists. under the freedom of information act and data protection act there is relative transparency about state business. there is nothing like this for tax havens and the rich, one has to wait for a data leak. and, take it form someone who does occasionally lucrative research for an employer, the rich do precious little for what they have, mostly its inherited. we certainly don't live in a meritocracy. I get that you are more than a little preoccupied with what's in it for the individual, you, and less so with equity. but yore also co-creating a society, as we all are. create one where that is the base premise and you really have n o one to blame when you get screwed over by the self obsessed, corrupt, narcissistic.
I don't see what's hard to understand about this.
He's on record as saying he voted remain and would still do so. That's a fact.
The current labour policy is to abide by the will of the people, as it was on the 23rd June last year. They don't seem to want to check what is it now, which is why he and his party don't have the unequivocal support of remainers.