• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK EU referendum [W:40:728]

EU UK Referendum - leave or stay?

  • The UK should leave if the EU does not agree reform

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    59
I couldn't find the plan.... BBC are reporting this as "Boris saying the govt is failing to explain how Brexit can be positive for the UK."

Does anyone have an idea for what his plan could be or what the positives are?

Well one positive, if you are a conservative.... is that Osbourne is going to slash corporation tax big time to compensate for leaving the EU.. now he has the excuse, but I suspect that it wont be popular among the people at large.
 
Well one positive, if you are a conservative.... is that Osbourne is going to slash corporation tax big time to compensate for leaving the EU.. now he has the excuse, but I suspect that it wont be popular among the people at large.

I wonder how long it's going to be before all those willing idiots in deprived areas who vote so heavily for Brexit realise that what they're getting is indefinite austerity, as Osborne stated last week, more tax cuts to business, as he outlined today, and no cutting of immigration as Theresa May admitted yesterday.

So Brexiteers, tell us what it was all for. You good with that?
 
Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

[Article 218]

For acts of the European Council and of the Council requiring a qualified majority, members’ votes shall be weighted as follows:

Austria - 10
Belgium - 12
Bulgaria - 10
Cyprus - 4
Czech Republic - 12
Denmark - 7
Germany - 29
Estonia - 4
Finland - 7
France - 29
Greece - 12
Hungary - 12
Ireland - 7
Italy - 29
Latvia - 4
Lithuania - 7
Luxembourg - 4
Malta - 3
Netherlands - 13
Poland - 27
Portugal - 12
Romania - 14
Slovakia - 7
Slovenia - 4
Spain - 27
Sweden - 10
United Kingdom - 29

(Absent the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Romania and the Netherlands have a combined total of 53.2% of the “qualified” total)

The *qualified majority* shall be defined as at least 72% of the members of the Council representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...ticle-238.html

Absent the UK, this requires at least 20 states representing 288,324,200 people. The decision to take up negotiations with the UK (following a formal declaration to exit the union and a supporting majority vote in the EU parliament) can therefore be blocked by any combination of eight states or any states comprising at least 155,251,492 people. Germany and France together comprise 147,612,698 people and would therefore need a third partner of at least 7.6 million people to block such a decision (with 12 member states available of that size).
 
~ indefinite austerity, as Osborne stated last week ~

Well, he's given up on the budget balance to go for some kind of stimulus thrust. Generally though yes, I think there will be more austerity but for the purpose of healing our self inflicted wound.

~ but I suspect that it wont be popular among the people at large.

We're going to have to slash corporation tax to attract the same big business that was attacked at every turn. As for the people at large, I doubt many even know what it is.

~ one can find 5 inane platitudes and that's it. If he wants to call those as constituting any sort of plan he's even dumber than I thought.

I can't make my mind up whether most Brexiteers knew there wasn't a plan and voted regardless or they really believed the man.
 
We're going to have to slash corporation tax to attract the same big business that was attacked at every turn. As for the people at large, I doubt many even know what it is.

No it is a bull**** right wing political thing. It was exposed yesterday on the BBC for what it was.

Company has to import 100 million worth of raw materials or other to make its product. That costs now 110 million if not more. They cant raise prices due to competition (at least not in the start). Profit is lets say 100k a year, of which they pay 20% now which means 20k in taxes. With the tax cut that falls to 15k.. big wupti, since they are paying 10 million more already because of the fall of the pound. So do you really think that tax decrease matters? Of course not. It is symbolic. As the business guy said... you need a profit to pay taxes, and with the pounds devaluation that profit is in serious doubt.
 
No it is a bull**** right wing political thing. It was exposed yesterday on the BBC for what it was.

Those two sentences don't belong together.

As the business guy said... you need a profit to pay taxes, and with the pounds devaluation that profit is in serious doubt.

You're pointing things out I'm already aware of, Osborne needs to do something as there seems to be an outflow of business investment opportunities. Equally, as you point out - importers of raw materials will find it harder but those businesses like the city that don't actually import anything won't be as affected.

I think Brexit is a disaster but we have to do something, I'd rather not sit around watching our economy crash and burn just to say "I told you so" to Farage, Gove and Johnson.
 
Well, where British interests are no doubt of utmost priority right now, it seems a bit doubtful that embarking on a tax dumping competition is going to add much to the amiable environment required and desired for post Brexit negotiations on future relationship.

But yeah, not just charity begins at home.
 
Those two sentences don't belong together.



You're pointing things out I'm already aware of, Osborne needs to do something as there seems to be an outflow of business investment opportunities. Equally, as you point out - importers of raw materials will find it harder but those businesses like the city that don't actually import anything won't be as affected.

I think Brexit is a disaster but we have to do something, I'd rather not sit around watching our economy crash and burn just to say "I told you so" to Farage, Gove and Johnson.

The "City" has other problems that higher import costs. A HUGE portion of EURO based trades comes out of London, because London is .. well was part of the EU. All this has to move to somewhere else now.. that is the "higher import costs" for the City of London. Add to that uncertainty for non-Brit peoples right to live in the UK, and you have a lot of insecurity for the banks which aint good.

But regardless, lowering the corporation tax does nothing.. it is in many ways the same with the 75% tax rate France put on their high earners... looked great politically but in reality..
 
The British government seems to be constantly conniving behind the scenes. Lies, deceit, smoke and mirrors, distracting the populace from the important issues are the norm, in fact while we have all been arguing over the Brexit, the Investigatory Powers bill has been passed. Something 99% of people would have rejected outright in a popular referendum. Other unpalatable things will pass soon too. The pound has been heavily devalued, which is something the government has been trying to do for a while.

And now the Tories are a backing out of every manifesto they got elected on and doing something called "disaster economics" which only favours the elite.

I don't doubt that there is more going on behind the scenes than any of us know, the EU may be **** and need of serious reform, but it is way better than giving the Tories free reign to now do whatever they want, which has now been handed to them on a plate by people thinking they have rebelled against the establishment.

This doesn't mean the EU is better or worse than non EU, the latter is subjective. People can be easily manipulated and duped into doing the right thing for the all the wrong reasons.
 
Sometimes the pro-EU advocates have been their own worst enemies. I present Tim Lang.

A Tim(e) of Fear

Posted on 04 Jul 16 by ALEX CULL 5 Comments
We’re teetering on the brink of catastrophe. Or so it would seem, going by the reactions in the media to last month’s EU referendum, in which 52% of the turnout voted for Brexit in an outrageous act of disobedience, rejecting what political party leaders, big business, celebrities and VIPs the world over had made it … Continue reading
 
British people with a Jewish heritage, that fled the Nazi regime is one of the people who is allowed to re-apply for their German identity, normally this happens just 2 or 3 times a year, but since the Brexit vote and the rise in racism and extremism in UK, dozens have approached the German embassy last week alone to apply for German citizenship. Many of those descendants of German Jews who for some reason think that they will be better off in Germany than the Brexit UK.
 
I wonder if the 100,000 who got Irish passport application forms are planning to move too. Not much point in being European if you're not in Europe! TM might kick you out anyway. Living on the south coast there are literally thusands of Europeans, studying English, and working in the hotel and catering industries (sometimes all three at once!) They're all on tenterhooks right now, but then aren't we all!
 
By the time the cognitively dissonant crowd in Westmister has finally gotten itself a figurehead, by the time that figurehead and all have agreed what they will negotiate for, by the time the whole sorry crowd has finally come to terms with reality in such a manner that they understand there will be no negotiations before article 50 is invoked, by the time they then return to their musical chairs to decide what to do now, by the time it then takes to.................., by the time it will take just as much to................

continue at leisure and let wildest imagination not deter you on account of everything being possible with this lot

................we'll all have died of old age.

More importantly those currently fearing deportation will have left England on their own account, simply because it'll be offering nothing worth staying for anymore.

Don't believe me?
Well, truth be told, neither do I.

But I've seen things in my life that I would never have believed either before I saw them.

Happy dreams all :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I came across this blog about Euro myths.

Even if you believe everything is spun to make the EU look good, which is probably true, the explanations do give solid insight into how changes in EU laws and regulations happen and why they happen. Also it shows how much total rubbish is written about the EU. All those newspapers, mostly tabloids, know the reality but are misrepresenting the facts for the political agendas of their owners.

It also explains what kinds of vetoes the UK government wields.

European Commission in the UK - European Commission
 
I came across this blog about Euro myths.

Even if you believe everything is spun to make the EU look good, which is probably true, the explanations do give solid insight into how changes in EU laws and regulations happen and why they happen. Also it shows how much total rubbish is written about the EU. All those newspapers, mostly tabloids, know the reality but are misrepresenting the facts for the political agendas of their owners.

It also explains what kinds of vetoes the UK government wields.

European Commission in the UK - European Commission
Well, don't bother anyone with facts when they already have an opinion.

Probably not even most Europhiles are conversant with all EU laws and regulations, let alone functions of the various administrative and legislative bodies within, but the Europhobes don't even want to be.

Finger in each ear and screeching "no, no, no"
 
Chilcot is only a sleep away!


Out today!

If you feel like you have a spare few months you can read it here:

Iraq Inquiry - The Report

However, the BBC summarises it here, and seems to tell us what we already knew

• The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
• Military action might have been necessary later, but in March 2003: There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein; The strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time; The majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring.
• Judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - known as WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
• Intelligence had "not established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.
• Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.
• The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory".
• The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was on balance a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10's response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear.
• The UK's actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN's Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community "to uphold the authority of the Security Council". But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions.
• In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded.
• There was "little time" to properly prepare three military brigades for deployment in Iraq. The risks were neither "properly identified nor fully exposed" to ministers, resulting in "equipment shortfalls".
• Between 2003 and 2009, UK forces in Iraq faced gaps in some key capability areas - including armoured vehicles, reconnaissance and intelligence assets and helicopter support.
• It was not sufficiently clear which person in the department within the Ministry of Defence had responsibility for identifying and articulating such gaps.
• Delays in providing adequate medium weight protected patrol vehicles and the failure to meet the needs of UK forces for reconnaissance and intelligence equipment and helicopters should not have been tolerated.
• On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him "whatever". But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process; UN authority; and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders.
• Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were "wholly inadequate".
• The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced.
• The report sets out lessons to be learned: It found Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK's relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.
• It said ministerial discussion which encourages frank and informed debate and challenge is important. As is ensuring civilian and military arms of government are properly equipped.
• In future, all aspects of any intervention need to be calculated, debated and challenged with rigour. Decisions need to be fully implemented.

Chilcot report: Findings at a glance - BBC News
 
I wonder how long it's going to be before all those willing idiots in deprived areas who vote so heavily for Brexit realise that what they're getting is indefinite austerity.

So Brexiteers, tell us what it was all for. You good with that?


Also there's too many Leavers complaining about the UK housing, and lack of it. Has the E.U legislated that the UK cannot build houses or is that just plainly the governments fault?

They seem to miss that there will almost certainly be no change at all in freedom of people's movement. But imagine if the UK were to push healthy, working, contributing E.U. migrants out (including the 1000's working in the NHS) and then as a reciprocal arrangement all aging UK immigrants living in Spain, Portugal, and the south of France have to return to the UK + all other adults of working age that are employed. These people will need homes, health care (proportionally more for the old of age) despite not having paid any taxes for 5-10-15 years. What an unbearable disaster that would create?

Take the blinkers off Brexiters and live in this world, this reality and not fantasy land.
 
Also there's too many Leavers complaining about the UK housing, and lack of it. Has the E.U legislated that the UK cannot build houses or is that just plainly the governments fault?
It's the fault of governments who have an ideological aversion to getting involved in providing its citizens with good, affordable housing. Apparently the all-powerful private sector are only interested in building executive homes in high-value areas.

They seem to miss that there will almost certainly be no change at all in freedom of people's movement. But imagine if the UK were to push healthy, working, contributing E.U. migrants out (including the 1000's working in the NHS) and then as a reciprocal arrangement all aging UK immigrants living in Spain, Portugal, and the south of France have to return to the UK + all other adults of working age that are employed. These people will need homes, health care (proportionally more for the old of age) despite not having paid any taxes for 5-10-15 years. What an unbearable disaster that would create?
And all so unpredictable, eh? Numpties.

Take the blinkers off Brexiters and live in this world, this reality and not fantasy land.
Some people much prefer living there.
 
It's almost as if we learned nothing about taking far-reaching decisions without any consideration of the outcome...... Iraq, Libya, Syria, Brexit...
 
Back
Top Bottom