The Politics Thread 2019

[eddie]

27 minutes ago, Norman said:

'On top of this, the UK and Australia have both committed to seeking a new ambitious, comprehensive free trade agreement that will allow UK and Australian companies to enjoy an even closer trading relationship after the UK leaves the European Union'.

From the government website on the MRA.

Same with New Zealand. 

Amazing that people think we have only done a deal with the Faroes.

"Committed to seeking a new ambitious comprehensive free trade deal" is not the same as having one, which you claimed.

Have you any comprehension just how long it takes to establish any sort of trade deal at all from scratch?

The timeline relating to post-Brexit agreements currently in place are as follows (plus links giving the detail of what is covered where appropriate)...

• Chile (30/01/2019) - continuity agreement, lower tariffs, higher quotas and preferential origin agreement, protection for British grape growers - NOT free trade
• Eastern and Southern Africa (31/01/2019) - free trade and no quota restriction for 'non-sensitive' goods, but allows for protectionism in 'some circumstances' (no idea what they might be - seeing as our major import is fish, then it might be to protect endangered species, but not specified on government website. ESA countries are Zimbabwe, Mauritius, Madagascar & Seychelles
• Faroe Islands (01/02/2019) - free trade agreement covering goods only - does not cover services and intellectual property (this is surprising, because they are common in FTAs). I guess this is because of the fact that the Faroes is a Danish dependency, outside of the EU. So fish.
• Switzerland (11/02/2019) - Continuity agreement covering some goods currently in the Switzerland/EU agreement, but does not cover services, intellectual property etc. Partial establishment of preferential origin rules. Basically the same as the current agreement.
• Palestinian Authority (18/02/2019) - full rollover of existing Palestinian Authority/EU agreement
• Israel (18/02/2019) - full rollover of existing Israel/EU agreement
• Pacific Islands (14/03/2019) - free trade agreement with Fiji and Papua New Guinea. No quotas, no tariffs immediately on imports to UK, gradual relaxation on tariffs on exports from UK over a period of years.
• Caribbean Countries (22/03/2019) - 14 Caribbean countries - full rollover of existing Caribbean Countries/EU agreement. Currently still to be ratified by 3 of the countries involved. Not a free trade agreement - existing tariffs and some quotas apply.
• Norway and Iceland (02/04/2019) - full rollover of existing Norway/Iceland/EU agreement.
• Andean Countries (15/05/2019) - Peru, Ecuador, Colombia - full rollover of existing Andean Countries/EU agreement.

 

• https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-chile-association-agreement
• https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/esa-uk-economic-partnership-agreement-epa--2
• https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-faroe-islands-free-trade-agreement-fta
• https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-switzerland-trade-agreement
• https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-palestinian-authority-political-trade-and-partnership-agreement
• https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-israel-trade-and-partnership-agreement
• https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-pacific-economic-partnership-agreement
• https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/cariforum-uk-economic-partnership-agreement
• https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/agreement-on-trade-in-goods-between-iceland-norway-and-the-uk
• https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-signs-trade-continuity-agreement-with-colombia-ecuador-and-peru

Note the Andean one above is only the press release. The government haven't published the trade agreement yet, but as it is a continuity agreement, it's just the same as the current EU one.

The total trade covered in the above agreements (both import and export) is about £45 billion pa, of which about £35 billion is with Switzerland. This is about 5% in all of our total of imports and exports. We basically export about £350 billion and import about £650 billion pa - that huge deficit ignores 'services' - the so-called 'invisible earnings.

None of the trade agreements listed above can be considered 'better' than existing arrangements we have, because every single one of the deals is either an extension or a revision of existing deals. This is to be expected, because we are still in the EU. None of them can be considered to be 'new agreements' - just safeguarding existing trade relationships.

I draw no political conclusions from the above, but it has cost me quite a bit of time to research in the interests of being accurate and truthful.

 

 

[eddie]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I thought we could not sign trade deals whilst we were still a member of the EU? 

It's taken us two and a half years to ratify rollover status for just 11 of the existing EU deals, and some of those are on less preferential terms as we currently enjoy. The time to set up a new trade deal from scratch can be between 3 and 10 years, dependent upon complexity and the number and type of goods involved. The average tends to be around 5.5 years.

The biggest problem we have is that we don't have anyone who is experienced in such a task, because we haven't set up any trade deals of our own for about 25 years.

[Carl Sagan]

12 hours ago, RamNut said:

Had to listen to an hour of Nigel Farage on LBC radio on the way back from Wembley.

have to admit that he is a good talker and there was of course a steady stream of callers blowing smoke up his brexit.

but the result of the euro elections staggered me.

His assessment is that the country is still 52/48 pro-brexit but that the Remain vote has been split.

Obviously from a partisan organization, but I thought this was the fairest totalling up of the count. And it adds up to a 52:48 split maintained. I was in Norway not so long ago who also rejected the EU 52:48 in their last referendum and they've not had any of the opposition to that that we've had from the remainers.

9 hours ago, Highgate said:

Maybe several of the lead players were saying similar things but I still have the impression that the British electorate had many different versions of Brexit in mind when voting to Leave.  

It does seem strange to me that a country would vote to do something without knowing what that something would turn out to be, and simultaneously insist that they should, under no circumstances, be given an option to change their mind when it finally does become clear what the original choice actually meant.  

I know it makes sense that in democracies losers should accept the results. But even in General Elections the British electorate get to change their mind every 5 years, at the most.  There is no rule for referendums, so how long do they remain valid?  And how wedded should people be to the notion that they must always be enacted upon?  Say for example polls were showing a clear shift in support towards Remains in the wake of the mess that has ensued since the triggering of Article 50, something of the order of 65%-35% Remain,  Would people still insist that in order to protect democracy the clear and obvious wishes of the general population must be ignored?

One thing I think it's incredibly important to stress is that polls are not elections. Petitions are not elections. Marches are not elections. We live in unusual times with silent majorities who despair of the liberal media leading to the polls frequently being found out (eg Aussie elections, Brexit, Trump, Italy). I think if you have a referendum where you tell the people that it's our choice and MPs will implement what we decide, then that has to be implemented. Call me old-fashioned. It's what pretty much every MP said after the vote, but unfortunately most of them have changed their tune. Either Brexiteers won't bother voting ever again or there'll be a massive restructuring in British politics. I hope it's the latter.

[Carl Sagan]

10 hours ago, eddie said:

Remember this, and who said it?

For every Farage quote you give I can give you back a hundred more from politicians who have lied to the people. If remainers keep trying to prevent us leaving, a likely direct consequence of their actions will be to get Nigel Farage as Prime Minister. If they accepted the result he'd go away.

 

[eddie]

I think that a vote of thanks should be offered up to the botched Brexit, and in particular the Brexiteers, at least as far as Donald Tusk is appearing to be saying.

You have basically turned the tide and killed off Euro-scepticism on the continent, at least for now.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-countries-donald-tusk-president-uk-a8934051.html

[eddie]

4 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

For every Farage quote you give I can give you back a hundred more from politicians who have lied to the people. If remainers keep trying to prevent us leaving, a likely direct consequence of their actions will be to get Nigel Farage as Prime Minister. If they accepted the result he'd go away.

I really don't care. While you are still festering in the glorious independence of the new united kingdom of North England and Wales (also known as the 'NEW Kingdom'), I shall most likely be dead. You'd better make a success of it, because I'm pretty sure that Europe will be glad to see the back of us.

[eddie]

29 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

We live in unusual times with silent majorities who despair of the liberal media

If you thing that the Express, Mail, Telegraph, Sun and Star are 'liberal media' then you are even more cracked than I first thought.

[uttoxram75]

Can't be arsed to work it out but it looks like the pro NHS parties have been hammered by those that will privatise the NHS.

I'm ashamed of my generation. 

Maybe when we've lost all the social gains made by my grandad's and dad's generations we will find the courage to fight back.

 

Or maybe Murdoch was right all along, we just want page 3 tits and plastic patriotism instead of fairness and workers rights.

[G STAR RAM]

54 minutes ago, eddie said:

I think that a vote of thanks should be offered up to the botched Brexit, and in particular the Brexiteers, at least as far as Donald Tusk is appearing to be saying.

You have basically turned the tide and killed off Euro-scepticism on the continent, at least for now.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-countries-donald-tusk-president-uk-a8934051.html

Shows how deluded he is.

I doubt it's killed off Euro-scepticism, just made people see they are indefinitely stuck in the EU and will be treated like poo if there dare to try and leave.

[Carl Sagan]

2 hours ago, eddie said:

If you thing that the Express, Mail, Telegraph, Sun and Star are 'liberal media' then you are even more cracked than I first thought.

Of course "the media" is a great conflation but for most it's what they see on their TVs rather than actually reading in a newspaper (perish the thought). The majority of all UK TV news coverage is strongly anti-Brexit. For those who bother with the print media, the now editor of the Mail was the editor of the Mail on Sunday during the referendum campaign and that paper reflected his arch-Remainer views. He's brought them with him to his new 6-day-a-week job, probably to the consternation of his readership. As well as the Mail on Sunday, The Guardian/Observer (nowadays no more reliable than the Daily Mail but the other side of the coin), the i, the Mirror, the Times, the FT all supported Remain.

And as for your other reply, I'd like to think you have a long and happy life to look forward to where the UK proves it's a great place to be a sovereign independent democratic forward-thinking global-facing country in which the Rams have gained promotion and had their own long innings in the top flight.

[ronnieronalde]

@maxjam and @G STAR RAM, you both know I've put myself through some pretty painful watching and reading to try to better understand some of the things we've discussed. As i know you both have as well.

I'd be keen on both of your views once you watch a couple of videos please.

I won't post links but one is a programme by vice news and covers Paul Golding - I'd ask you to pay particular attention to the crowd of people he surrounds himself with, not even starting with him. Vice also do a good piece on Charlottesville in the US which exposes the mentality of people involved there. 

Secondly I'd ask you to watch a video by Al Jazeera called "us Islamaphobia Inc" and I'd ask you to pay particular attention to the tactics of a lot of the far right groups use in terms of how they get their message across on social and mainstream media, also where their funding comes from and just how much "the industry" is worth.

It's US based but as far as I can see preaches the same message as organisations like Britain First and the EDL here in the UK.

Thoughts?

 

[maxjam]

5 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

@maxjam and @G STAR RAM, you both know I've put myself through some pretty painful watching and reading to try to better understand some of the things we've discussed. As i know you both have as well.

Thoughts?

I've seen the second video you mention before  (Al Jazeera called "us Islamaphobia Inc"), I'll see if I can find the first later tonight.

Charlottesville was big news at the time and something a lot of commentators covered in detail.  I like watching Tim Pool on yourtube, he's done a lot of stuff on Charlottesville and quite balanced imho.

I'm not going to comment on race/'islamophobia' issues on the forums though, its to sensitive and against forum rules. I am only really interested in Tommy Robinson from a censorship/media bias angle - his 'political' campaign for example was heavily censored and negatively spun/outright lied about in the media. 

Now thats okay if you don't like him but if he did get sizeable support mainstream parties would be alerted to the fact and could do something about it. 

Furthermore, and more worryingly, once they get rid of him what is then considered extreme next isn't quite as extreme as it was before.  Who is in control of censorship (left wing media giants) and creeping censorship should concern everyone.

[Stive Pesley]

10 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Furthermore, and more worryingly, once they get rid of him what is then considered extreme next isn't quite as extreme as it was before.

Nah - there is a long commendable history of crushing fascism when it rears it's ugly head. Oswald Mosely, The National Front, the BNP, the EDL - none of those organisations have got "more extreme". Same morons, same message, same (thankfully) small numbers. We continue to fight the message of hate and those that seek to divide. Don't worry your pretty little head about their message being censored - it's an ugly message that deserves censorship

[maxjam]

12 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

 Don't worry your pretty little head about their message being censored - it's an ugly message that deserves censorship

There are plenty of articles and studies online that talk about censorship creep, which is being exacerbated by the social media age we live in - you should look into it.

If you can do it without the disparaging sanctimonious comments I'd be more inclined to discuss it with you further, but its honestly not worth my time or effort.

[ronnieronalde]

5 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I've seen the second video you mention before  (Al Jazeera called "us Islamaphobia Inc"), I'll see if I can find the first later tonight.

Charlottesville was big news at the time and something a lot of commentators covered in detail.  I like watching Tim Pool on yourtube, he's done a lot of stuff on Charlottesville and quite balanced imho.

I'm not going to comment on race/'islamophobia' issues on the forums though, its to sensitive and against forum rules. I am only really interested in Tommy Robinson from a censorship/media bias angle - his 'political' campaign for example was heavily censored and negatively spun/outright lied about in the media. 

Now thats okay if you don't like him but if he did get sizeable support mainstream parties would be alerted to the fact and could do something about it. 

Furthermore, and more worryingly, once they get rid of him what is then considered extreme next isn't quite as extreme as it was before.  Who is in control of censorship (left wing media giants) and creeping censorship should concern everyone.

Having put myself through literally days of watching and reading (including reading a large portion of the quran) I'm rapidly forming the opinion that some "free speech" should be banned though.

Some free speech is dangerous.

I've just watched another half hour video by Jamali Maddix a comedian who met several EDL members and it wasn't pretty watching. Watch it right through and to the end. You won't believe how it finishes. You couldn't make it up if you were looking for the most sensational headlines ever.

Even just the two minute clip of the refugee camp in Calais, how can we be putting our fellow human beings through this poo?

I'm against violence totally but I think the extremists from both sides should be locked in a room and left to fight it out between themselves. Ideally until none of them are left standing.

The ideology both sides are spreading isn't based on wanting to solve anything. It's based on wanting to kill each other and anyone else who disagrees. I'm not sure anymore that any media outlet should give these voices time. In certain cases I think a media blackout is entirely justified.

Whether that's Choudary, Robinson, the idiot from Indonesia, Paul Golding or Al Bagdahdi.

Whether it's the clowns in the UK, In the US, Sweden, Europe as a whole

The worrying thing is that both sides need each others hatred to grow, otherwise they no longer exist. They need to cause division otherwise no-one can follow them.

There's a young black lad in the Jamali Maddix video who come up with a cracking counter argument that SHOULD just knock everything the EDL lad is saying flat on it's face.

"What about what Christianity has done for centuries, you can accept and justify that but you can't "tolerate" this one tiny minority of extremist Islamists" - I think tolerate is the wrong word to use there but struggle to disagree with his point.

The EDL lads comeback? "yeah but nobody talks about the fact it was Black Africans who first created slavery when they took white people as slaves" 

There is no arguing with folk like that.

Then when it comes to child grooming gangs the young black lad has another belting argument.

"what about Jimmy Saville, the BBC cover up, the catholic church" 

A good point well put and I'd add the world of football to that list. Anoher cover up on a massive scale.

Religion has done so much damage to our world, I'd be tempted to ban them all. Cloud cuckoo land bonkers, the lot of them. Free speech certainly has it's downsides.

Both sides arguments are built on lies, creating fear, causing division, exaggerations, made up poo, some bat poo crazy vision of an ideal country that can never be and that never was in the first place and it's based on getting people to hate each other.

The only consolation I've found is that I genuinely believe it's such a tiny minority of both sides who are hell bent on killing each other. The views of the extreme is definitely responsible for that number growing.

I'm not sure I can spend any more time watching and reading this stuff, it's doing my head in to see what we're becoming as people.

[GboroRam]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48451024

Factory shutdowns designed to cope with disruption from a 29 March Brexit, slashed UK car production in April by almost a half.

(apologies for linking to far-left extremist sites)

[eddie]

"Freedom of Speech" is not the same as freedom to force people to listen to - or even to have to consider - your message.

Saying that, I'm very uncomfortable with Boris Johnson being taken to court for lying (no, I will not put the offensive word in quotes - the £350m was a demonstrable lie, even at the time). It is quite possible, given the utter incompetence that has followed him throughout his entire political career, that he actually believed the figure in question. He can't even put a condom on - but even more unfortunately, neither could his father.

 

[ronnieronalde]

11 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48451024

Factory shutdowns designed to cope with disruption from a 29 March Brexit, slashed UK car production in April by almost a half.

(apologies for linking to far-left extremist sites)

When you say cut by almost a half in April, do you mean from March 19 - April 19, 'cos that chart above shows year on year and is closer to a 20% drop than 50%

I'm on your side brexit wise as you probably have noticed but someone will pick you up on those figures very quickly indeed ?

[Van der MoodHoover]

10 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48451024

Factory shutdowns designed to cope with disruption from a 29 March Brexit, slashed UK car production in April by almost a half.

(apologies for linking to far-left extremist sites)

Very poor maths there.

A drop from 1.76m to 1.39m is a fall of 0.37m.

Which as a percentage of 1.76 is a tad over 20%. This is the mathematical convention for showing increases and falls...expressing them relative to 9stsrt point

Which is a bit less than a quarter. 

Not having a pop st your good self, but either the BBC chart is showing something different to the headline or someone doesn't want to follow the mathematical convention....

[tomsdubs]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

I've seen the second video you mention before  (Al Jazeera called "us Islamaphobia Inc"), I'll see if I can find the first later tonight.

Charlottesville was big news at the time and something a lot of commentators covered in detail.  I like watching Tim Pool on yourtube, he's done a lot of stuff on Charlottesville and quite balanced imho.

I'm not going to comment on race/'islamophobia' issues on the forums though, its to sensitive and against forum rules. I am only really interested in Tommy Robinson from a censorship/media bias angle - his 'political' campaign for example was heavily censored and negatively spun/outright lied about in the media. 

Now thats okay if you don't like him but if he did get sizeable support mainstream parties would be alerted to the fact and could do something about it. 

Furthermore, and more worryingly, once they get rid of him what is then considered extreme next isn't quite as extreme as it was before.  Who is in control of censorship (left wing media giants) and creeping censorship should concern everyone.

Can you point me to a left wing media giant? Would love to find one.