The Politics Thread 2019

[Igorlegend11]

2 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Stupid question. 

What's fundamentally wrong with an EU army? 

Serious questions to you.

How do you see it operating?

Does the UK get to use all our army or just parts of it ?

Under who's control?

Who pays for it ?  

Who decides whether the UK renew any nuclear deterrent?  The EU or the UK?  If the EU decide is that the EU commissionaires?

Do we let our army follow EU foreign policy decisions?  

Do we let EU or NATO have first call on our support ?    What if NATO decides to take no action ( say against Iran ) but the EU decide to take military action.  Do we just go against NATO ? 

Does the EU thus become a nuclear power over night? 

Hopefully thinking about those questions will show you just a few of the issues.   

And I'm sure you will know the referendum was fought with constant denials that there would be an EU Army created  

[Igorlegend11]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

I don't control any army, and never voted for one. 

Who is the EU army to be deployed against? 

The unelected EU commissionaires are hardly going to say in advance. 

They don't even need to ask the MEP's for approval to delpoy the EU army, so it literally could be anyone, anytime, anyhow.

And as NATO will be it's rival we best hope the EU start upping defence spending to sensible levels on a par with NATO 

[Highgate]

4 hours ago, McRainy said:

Yup, he's right. I, for one, wouldn't vote again, and I know many others who feel the same.

Surely if there was a second referendum on No Deal/ Remain for example, Leave voters couldn't resist the opportunity to vote for the Brexit they want. You would be so close....  There is no way parliament would refuse to vote through a No Deal Brexit if the population votes clearly for precisely that sort of Brexit (and that's the crucial part).  There would be no negotiations with Europe to worry about so it would be a done deal.  And you are saying that people who dearly wish for Brexit would rather sit on the sidelines in protest, rather than step up at the crucial moment and make it happen?

Or is it because they feel that a No Deal Brexit would never win a second referendum vs Remain and by not voting 'in protest' they could de-legitimize the Second Referendum ?

[ronnieronalde]

OK, so I know I'm a bit blah blah blah and I know probably only 3 or 4 of you will even read it, never mind pay attention to the message.

I just looked at the profit per employee ratio of the top 100 British companies. (PPE)

For the purpose of my own tiny mind, I decided on a cut off point of £50,000 PROFIT per employee. 

Then I just had to drop one company lower than that because it was HSBC in 63rd place but they have 229,000 employees so we too big to skip.

From the top company which is 3i who make a staggering £5 MILLION PROFIT PER EMPLOYEE (281) down to HSBC who make a "modest" £49,284 PROFIT PER EMPLOYEE.

The top 63 companies employ 2 million 22 thousand 146 people between them. They average £261,527 PROFIT PER EMPLOYEE.

There are 36 UK companies who make over £100,000 profit per employee.

What would be fair? a 0.5% PPE tax? 

So even if you go for the company making the lowest PPE which is HSBC and you use that as a guide for all of the other and charge them a £250 per employee "surplus tax"

That would generate an annual sum of £505 million, 536 thousand 500 quid.

If we took it a stage further forward and charged an average of 0.5% per employee per company (from profit remember)

That would generate 2 Billion 664 million 228 thousand, 884 pounds and  71 pence PER YEAR.

The rich would still be keeping 99.5% of all profit made. You tax the company, not the employees.

Imagine the difference that could make to education, healthcare, welfare.

There is NO WAY it is justifiable for those companies to extort their own employees to such a level and all it shows is how the general labour force are indeed slaves to their masters. There simply is no other way to put it. The profit generated by the general labour force is obscene and it's a real world issue that the wealthy are pocketing the difference on such a grand scale.

[Igorlegend11]

5 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Or is it because they feel that a No Deal Brexit would never win a second referendum vs Remain and by not voting 'in protest' they could de-legitimize the Second Referendum ?

A simple referendum was held 

A simple result given. It is upon MP's to make the exit happen. It was voted for. 

I won't vote in any new referendum. No point. 

The EU made the rules such that we have to leave before they will discuss a trade deal.   As a trade deal is the biggest risk to both our and the EU economy it seems odd to have a referendum on details before we have even been allowed to discuss the 

A lot of people miss the fact we are so far only discussing and trying to agree how we leave in an orderly agreeable fashion..  It is not yet possiblt to discuss our future trade relationship as the EU won't let that be discussed.  

Talk of having a bad deal is premature until we have both left ( ideally in agreement with each other ) and also agreed a trade deal. 

IF the whole exercise is going to be a case of Leave side have to prove to the UK population what the final edit deal and trade deal will look like, then we shouldn't have even tried leaving because we never ever will know what trade deal with EU will be until we have left.

[Uptherams]

3 hours ago, CWC1983 said:

Ive tried to keep out of this thread so far but we are screwed if, and more probobly, when Boris becomes PM. 

He doesnt answer questions that are non scripted but comes out with bluster that people want to hear instead. 

What on earth makes him so popular?

He doesn't answer questions that box him into a corner. Only idiotic politicians do. To the point where you just end up agreeing with the ideology of the person posing the question. No one has all the answers, no one can foresee all outcomes and if you ask loaded questions this is what you get. He's popular because he's not fake and has personality and doesn't want to do it the way all the other twits in politics do. 

 

[Highgate]

38 minutes ago, Igorlegend11 said:

A simple referendum was held 

A simple result given. It is upon MP's to make the exit happen. It was voted for. 

I won't vote in any new referendum. No point.

It would be a different referendum asking a far more precise question, so there would be every point.

The original referendum was in fact too simple. Too vague. 

Say for example it's a no deal scenario.  Wouldn't it actually be incredibly short-sighted for the UK to leave the EU without a deal without first checking if No Deal was in fact less popular than Remaining in the EU?  How would that serve the interests of democracy? 

[ronnieronalde]

27 minutes ago, Highgate said:

It would be a different referendum asking a far more precise question, so there would be every point.

The original referendum was in fact too simple. Too vague. 

Say for example it's a no deal scenario.  Wouldn't it actually be incredibly short-sighted for the UK to leave the EU without a deal without first checking if No Deal was in fact less popular than Remaining in the EU?  How would that serve the interests of democracy? 

 

1 hour ago, Igorlegend11 said:

A simple referendum was held 

A simple result given. It is upon MP's to make the exit happen. It was voted for. 

I won't vote in any new referendum. No point. 

 

I thought I'd read a post over the weekend which mentioned he didn't vote in the first referendum either.

I don't want to rekindle a row but I find that a bit strange.

Didn't care enough to vote first time,  won't care enough to vote if there is a second vote but spends several hours arguing and being incredibly provocative with those people who did care enough to vote.

There's nowt as queer as folk.

 

[ronnieronalde]

4 hours ago, McRainy said:

You vote for or against a government that has a defense policy. 

I think you're assuming people look into policies as much as you do. ( most don't and we're possibly worse off because of that)

I'm fairly sure most people don't go through a parties manifesto line by line and think hang on a bit, the defence budget has gone up from 28 billion to nearly 50 billion since 2000. Are we getting value for money and if not who should I vote for.

Labours manifesto in 2017 indicated we would renew Trident and we'd carry on spending 2% of GDP on defence. 

Is there an alternative? Has any party come out and said they'd dramatically reduce spending on defence AND push for a global reduction.

Chomsky again, this time on the doomsday clock. Before Trump was elected it was set to 2 and half minutes to midnight.

It's currently at 2 minutes to midnight, the closest we've been to Doomsday since 1945 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the early 80's.

Apparently when they meet to review it again there is an expectation they'll move it forward another 30 seconds.

It's not about "defence", it's about being able to threaten and posture.

[CWC1983]

6 hours ago, Uptherams said:

He doesn't answer questions that box him into a corner. Only idiotic politicians do. To the point where you just end up agreeing with the ideology of the person posing the question. No one has all the answers, no one can foresee all outcomes and if you ask loaded questions this is what you get. He's popular because he's not fake and has personality and doesn't want to do it the way all the other twits in politics do. 

 

Honest question, did you see the interview? He acted like a naughty schoolboy. 

He is everything a politician shouldn't be. Tell lies or hides from questions. He should answer questions, irrespective on the difficulty. If they appear loaded its because he has things to hide from. 

Honesty, transparency, not a chance.

If you think a politition should act like you describe then its no wonder we are in the current mess. 

Our PM should be a leader that the country can get behind. He's an embarrassment and will polarize this country even further. That can't be a good thing in the current climate. 

Irrespective of party persuasion, surely everyone can see that. 

 

 

[ariotofmyown]

44 minutes ago, CWC1983 said:

Honest question, did you see the interview? He acted like a naughty schoolboy. 

He is everything a politician shouldn't be. Tell lies or hides from questions. He should answer questions, irrespective on the difficulty. If they appear loaded its because he has things to hide from. 

Honesty, transparency, not a chance.

If you think a politition should act like you describe then its no wonder we are in the current mess. 

Our PM should be a leader that the country can get behind. He's an embarrassment and will polarize this country even further. That can't be a good thing in the current climate. 

Irrespective of party persuasion, surely everyone can see that. 

 

 

The guy with the waste disposal business asked a good question which Johnson especially answered very poorly giving zero re-assurance to small business owners. The same guy was then giggling along like a fool later on with Johnson. I wish the black woman has asked a question about her "watermelon smile".

I'm looking forward to November when we still haven't left and the Brexiteers turn on their man, confused why he hasn't done what he claimed he would. 

Not answers questions and making unfunny jibes might work on a tv debate for a few people. Think you might need detail and skill when trying to re-negotiate with the EU. He should stick to writing semi-racist columns and arguing with his mistresses.

[Comrade 86]

Imagine Boris and Ann Widdecombe had an illegitimate lovechild....

 

 

 

 

 

...on second thoughts, might be best not to

[ariotofmyown]

4 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Imagine Boris and Ann Widdecombe had an illegitimate lovechild....

 

 

 

 

 

...on second thoughts, might be best not to

Imagine if the PM of the UK wouldn't say how many children he had fathered??

[Wolfie]

8 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

OK, so I know I'm a bit blah blah blah and I know probably only 3 or 4 of you will even read it, never mind pay attention to the message.

I just looked at the profit per employee ratio of the top 100 British companies. (PPE)

For the purpose of my own tiny mind, I decided on a cut off point of £50,000 PROFIT per employee. 

Then I just had to drop one company lower than that because it was HSBC in 63rd place but they have 229,000 employees so we too big to skip.

From the top company which is 3i who make a staggering £5 MILLION PROFIT PER EMPLOYEE (281) down to HSBC who make a "modest" £49,284 PROFIT PER EMPLOYEE.

The top 63 companies employ 2 million 22 thousand 146 people between them. They average £261,527 PROFIT PER EMPLOYEE.

There are 36 UK companies who make over £100,000 profit per employee.

What would be fair? a 0.5% PPE tax? 

So even if you go for the company making the lowest PPE which is HSBC and you use that as a guide for all of the other and charge them a £250 per employee "surplus tax"

That would generate an annual sum of £505 million, 536 thousand 500 quid.

If we took it a stage further forward and charged an average of 0.5% per employee per company (from profit remember)

That would generate 2 Billion 664 million 228 thousand, 884 pounds and  71 pence PER YEAR.

The rich would still be keeping 99.5% of all profit made. You tax the company, not the employees.

Imagine the difference that could make to education, healthcare, welfare.

There is NO WAY it is justifiable for those companies to extort their own employees to such a level and all it shows is how the general labour force are indeed slaves to their masters. There simply is no other way to put it. The profit generated by the general labour force is obscene and it's a real world issue that the wealthy are pocketing the difference on such a grand scale.

We already tax for employees via NI. I'm guessing that pretty much all of those companies are plc's.....

Their profits therefore go to shareholders: Beneficiaries: Our pension funds

Profitable company = increased value on stock market: Beneficiaries: Our pension funds.

If you're going to hit millions of people's pensions by taxing more heavily, you're going to have to pay for a higher state pension = more debt or yet more tax.

[eddie]

8 hours ago, Uptherams said:

He doesn't answer questions that box him into a corner. Only idiotic politicians do. To the point where you just end up agreeing with the ideology of the person posing the question. No one has all the answers, no one can foresee all outcomes and if you ask loaded questions this is what you get. He's popular because he's not fake and has personality and doesn't want to do it the way all the other twits in politics do. 

 

Boris is a self-centred, self-serving populist, no more, no less. He appeals to people who are gullible, and are taken in by empty rhetoric. He offers nothing but false promises. For him, it has been an exercise in how to become Prime Minister - he has been playing the 'long game' from the day he wrote two articles for the Telegraph, one basically saying "EU Good" and the other saying "EU Bad" and waited to see which way the current was flowing in order to be perceived as a "Man of the People" before he published the latter.

It is fitting that such a relic will be the final Tory Prime minister of my lifetime because he is an anachronism himself.

 

[eddie]

51 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Imagine if the PM of the UK wouldn't say how many children he had fathered??

Maybe that's what he was alluding to when he said "duck business"? He was referring to his shenannigans and not to business in general?

[Uptherams]

18 minutes ago, eddie said:

Boris is a self-centred, self-serving populist, no more, no less. He appeals to people who are gullible, and are taken in by empty rhetoric. He offers nothing but false promises. For him, it has been an exercise in how to become Prime Minister - he has been playing the 'long game' from the day he wrote two articles for the Telegraph, one basically saying "EU Good" and the other saying "EU Bad" and waited to see which way the current was flowing in order to be perceived as a "Man of the People" before he published the latter.

It is fitting that such a relic will be the final Tory Prime minister of my lifetime because he is an anachronism himself.

 

Let's see what happens, then maybe we try a commie ?

Trouble these days is that politics is packed full of people who don't just oppose, but try to block everything their 'opponent' wants to change or implement. 

[ronnieronalde]

9 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said:

We already tax for employees via NI. I'm guessing that pretty much all of those companies are plc's.....

Their profits therefore go to shareholders: Beneficiaries: Our pension funds

Profitable company = increased value on stock market: Beneficiaries: Our pension funds.

If you're going to hit millions of people's pensions by taxing more heavily, you're going to have to pay for a higher state pension = more debt or yet more tax.

I'm aware I'm out of my depth and simplifying here, it makes me want to go back and finish GCSE Economics, I once got 20 out of 20 for an essay on price elasticity of demand so I think i'm a genius still ?

I don't want to take up your time but if you have time to educate a simple boy, I'd love it.

Who's benefiting from those pension funds? We've got 1.9m pensioners living below the poverty line.

Do you mean it benefits their shareholders pensions or am I missing the bigger picture? How many shareholders does the biggest profit maker 3i have? 

They paid a 37p dividend last year on ordinary shares with a value of 815p (up from 724p year ending 31st March 2018).

The CEO Simon Burrows was paid £6,847,000 in 2018.

I'm trying to find the salaries of the other 4 "Key" executives, Funnily enough it's not in their annual report

I'm reading with interest about the laffer curve right now. Which meant 42 of the FTSE top 100 paid less than 20% corporation tax and 11 paying less than 10%. I'll have more of a clue of the "legal" tax breaks which allow firms to pay less than 20% corporation tax due to legitimate international business interests.

duck me, they don't use much plain english do they?

The report I'm reading (100 odd pages) does suggest conspiracy theorists will be disappointed. Ah well.

 

[Uptherams]

2 hours ago, CWC1983 said:

 

He is everything a politician shouldn't be. 

 

 

Nah, I'm about tired of the bile now from people who think it's their God given right to dictate people's lives and 'lead' when they're just frontin'. A bit tired of the same lame arguements of you must be stupid or uneducated or bigoted to like this or that or so and so. 

Boris is exactly what politics needs right now. It's time for a change. 

 

[ronnieronalde]

5 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Nah, I'm about tired of the bile now from people who think it's their God given right to dictate people's lives and 'lead' when they're just frontin'. A bit tired of the same lame arguements of you must be stupid or uneducated or bigoted to like this or that or so and so. 

Boris is exactly what politics needs right now. It's time for a change. 

 

If Boris is the answer then the question is proper ducked. In my opinion.

I respect your rights to support whoever you want thought pal, genuinely.

Christ but politics is a minefield isn't it.