Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

BRITLAND

UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Bartleby
2 hours ago, Smith John said:

Your usual, intentionally confusing waffle aside, sivis, a customs union is still a union. It's in the name ffs...

Apparently, his post of a grand total of four sentences proved such an arduous challenge to read that you forgot that the referendum asked specifically about the European Union, not any other “union”.

 

Terms like customs arrangements and common market access are fundamental terms for understanding the nature of EU membership. If they’re throwing you for a loop, then you badly need to do some basic research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham

I accept that it's possible to be outside the EU and still be in a customs union with them - but is that going to cut the mustard?  We move from being a full member and world's fifth largest economy, to fifth largest economy which then takes its economic orders from an external entity.  Sure, you can form a customs union with the EU if you are approaching it from the outside, but to peel off from the herd and still expect the herd to listen to an outrider?  Then of course you'd have all the internal UK voices pointing to the faults of the new reality and how much better full membership would be and couldn't we just change our minds and go back in?

 

The problem with opposing Leave is that you can't just say "Remain", because the two sides aren't just opinions, there was a vote.  That means you have to go rhetorical, questioning exactly what leaving meant and suggesting that we do leave but only a little teensy bit.  Or using every legal obstacle and challenge known to man in order to remain whilst po-facedly maintaining a respect for the democratic process.  Was that referendum a case of too much democracy?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Short Stay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bartleby
20 minutes ago, Short Stay said:

I accept that it's possible to be outside the EU and still be in a customs union with them - but is that going to cut the mustard?

Economically speaking it would, considering its positive effects on the reduction of trade barriers and increased international investment, as evidenced in Turkey. Being in a customs union with the EU does not in any way imply that the state is a member: what it tends to mean is nothing further than the creation of a free trade area with a common external tariff. This does not have to apply to all sections of the economy, as (if I recall correctly) the EU-Turkey customs union does not include agriculture, public procurement, or the service industry.

 

As for being "listened to" as an outsider, if your point is that the UK would inevitably be the junior partner with regards to trade with the EU that's true......however that would be true even without a customs union. It would remain true even with any other kind of agreement as well, which the UK inevitably would have to make as the EU will very likely continue to be their most important trading partner going forward.

 

I don't see how a customs union would give any more leverage to remainers than, say, a no-deal Brexit; if anything it appears to me the latter would be more likely to do that, given its larger amount of immediately visible economic impact, especially as I've known a fair few leavers who gleefully point to how the economy hasn't altogether imploded as evidence of their vindication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham

The idea that people only voted to leave the EU, and therefore by default acquiesced to remain in all the other parts of the European Project, is disingenuous. I suspect that most Leavers wanted to leave Europe per se. I also suspect that more generally they'd rather do without 'Community','Partnerships','Stakeholders', and quite possibly 'equality and diversity' too. Many Leavers probably find those concepts 'Problematic'.

 

I accept that we may well be better off at least in customs union but I, for one, just can't get excited about, or even get along with, some harmonised behemoth of Orwellian proportions.

For some reason unknown to me I've never liked it when politicians in my neck of the UK make the case that we should emulate the high tax, social welfare economies of some of our European neighbours. I've looked at what was on offer and thought "That looks really interesting - not".

 

I've long thought that talk of how the economy has done well since the vote, despite dire warnings to contrary, was premature because the economic shock would probably come after we left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bartleby

I don't think anyone here is arguing that people acquiesced to anything by default (past ceasing EU membership) - that's actually the point, that just as they didn't say they wanted to remain in some specific type of arrangement other than EU membership, they also didn't say they didn't either. Because that wasn't asked of them.

Edited by Bartleby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Exactly that. The in/out referendum was a binary decision on membership of a single entity. This has been subsequently been inferred by Brexiteers to mean a "clean break" from all institutions we have access to through the EU- except a few like Europol which they quietly ignore- even though this is clearly logically fallacious.

 

I'm not trying to suggest that Brexiteers don't hold this view- I'm sure they're pretty popular in the Brexit Party meetings at least- I'm highlighting the stupidity of claiming this position is representative of a majority, or even a significant minority, of Brexit voters, without any evidence.

 

That said, I think if you described the functions of European institutions like the common market, the customs area or EC, to most Vrexit voters, without using their names, they'd probably support them in principal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

It kind of looks like the Torries will win. Do the British all have Stockholm syndrome or something? Having lived in both Britain and Australia I can tell you that Britain is comparatively very poor, very violent and very incohesive and needs radical change but also the Torries are shooting themselves in the foot everyday with Brexit and the electorate seems to be rewarding them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finite

The last election had polls stating the Conservatives holding a massive majority and the reality was that they lost badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
19 minutes ago, Finite said:

The last election had polls stating the Conservatives holding a massive majority and the reality was that they lost badly.

 

They didn't lose, they just watched that poll lead vanish.  The Tories ended up with the largest number of seats, but no majority to force through Eeyore's plans.

Boris is making a great job of following in his predecessor's footsteps, even down to the fact that anyone embarrassing has vanished from the scene.  Rees-Mogg has dropped off the radar, Cleverley is being kept away from public duty after his initial campaign appearances made him look like a complete arsehole, and the rest of Boris' cabinet rarely match Boris' announcements on the campaign trail.  Even Boris himself is hard to catch a glimpse of in public, outside of carefully managed engagements!  The differences between Eeyore's 2017 campaign and Boris' are quite difficult to separate.

One difference is that this time Boris seems quite eager to suppress bad coverage.  The Daily Mirror has been banned from the Tory Battle Bus tour and Boris shirking the Channel 4 debate, leading to it's cancellation, stinks of Tory revenge because C4 News is very happy to make Tories squirm when they appear for interview, even their news stories in general make the Tories look crap generally, which isn't difficult to be fair.  The tactics the Tories are using smack of playing from the Trump rule book, even down to manipulating their supporters as much as possible with plays like changing their CCHQ Twitter account to appear as an official Fact Checking site, or using a dirty tricks website, appearing as a Labour manifesto page, but really being a nice hack job of it.

The only time we see Boris for what he really is, is when he's forced before the public he doesn't have any control of.  The Question Time debate made him look like a bumbling tosser, unrepentant of his past comments and unable to talk of anything beyond Brexit.  Corbyn was actually statesmanlike and changed tact from the earlier debate.  By making his neutral stance on the 2nd ref, totally official and stating he needed that stance to help facilitate the outcome of the referendum, he made a lot of reamainers take notice.  The polls showed he won big last night, only Sturgeon came close to the performance of Corbyn and no one outside of Scotland can vote for the SNP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith John

^The Daily Mirror and Channel 4 ffs... And this is why we can't have nice things. And this is coming from someone who despises the current Tory party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grotti Vigilante
On 11/22/2019 at 9:23 PM, Clem Fandango said:

It kind of looks like the Torries will win. Do the British all have Stockholm syndrome or something? Having lived in both Britain and Australia I can tell you that Britain is comparatively very poor, very violent and very incohesive and needs radical change but also the Torries are shooting themselves in the foot everyday with Brexit and the electorate seems to be rewarding them.

Because there is generally no other choice in what is practically a two-party system. Conservatives or Labour. Labour are proposing radical changes that are questionable based on the fact they plan to pay for everything by adding extra tax on the top 5% of earners, but nobody else, and Jeremy Corbyn isn't exactly a moderate himself, nor is his deputy John McDonnell. Boris Johnson is merely the devil the electorate knows, which is a politician who lies and deceives his way to power with little regard for anyone else. There's probably a lot more to it than that, but given that leaving the EU is the biggest issue facing the UK at the moment, I don't think most people want the fuss of new deals and new referendums. I think they just either want to get it done and dusted, or to just stop the whole thing.

 

But the thing is, the Conservatives are the ones promising to get it done and dusted to which we can then move on, but Labour are promising a new deal and new referendum, which will take even longer and require more delays. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats, who are the biggest major third party, are promising to stop it all together. Leavers have one voting option they can all get behind, but the Remainers are split in that they have Labour if they want another referendum, or Lib Dem if they want to stop it all together. This plus the fact there's a whole remain alliance with Greens and Lib Dems promising to stand aside for each other. Basically, Remain's best chance is a coalition, which will cause more delays. It's really a no-win situation, and as a non-partisan voter I can see that very much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith John

I'm at the point that so long as the SNP get wiped out, I'll be a happy chappy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Isn't the SNP pretty popular in Scotland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It's looking more and more like they'll be doing the wiping than receiving it. Entirely plausible that they'll win all but a handful of the seats in Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham
7 hours ago, Svip said:

Isn't the SNP pretty popular in Scotland?

Unfortunately yes. Scotland used to be solidly Labour but something changed, maybe 10 or 15 years ago, and nobody is quite sure why.  Why anyone would want to make a country smaller by splitting it off from an already small land mass is beyond me (unless of course one argues that by becoming smaller one will somehow become larger).  Apart from that, to me, England is looking more and more like a Third World country, but I expect that's not the reason the majority of Nats vote the way they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grotti Vigilante
2 hours ago, Short Stay said:

Unfortunately yes. Scotland used to be solidly Labour but something changed, maybe 10 or 15 years ago, and nobody is quite sure why.  Why anyone would want to make a country smaller by splitting it off from an already small land mass is beyond me (unless of course one argues that by becoming smaller one will somehow become larger).  Apart from that, to me, England is looking more and more like a Third World country, but I expect that's not the reason the majority of Nats vote the way they do.

One of the biggest reasons behind Scottish Independence is the fact Westminster lives within this London bubble that doesn't represent the interest of the vast majority of people. Scotland is particularly unsatisfied with this because, as a region that votes mostly against the Tories, it's always the Middle England marginal seats that decide the outcome. Probably why they stopped voting Labour, because it's a Westminster party that began to lose touch. You talk about wondering why you'd want to get smaller, but in actually bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. Large countries might have big military might and such, but often powers are too centralised for everyone.

 

Even in the UK the interests of northern England aren't the same as the southern regions. Smaller nations are easier to represent, which is probably why Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Switzerland arguably have better political systems compared to Russia, China and the United States.I don't necessarily agree with independence, that's something I'm undecided on. But what I do agree with is the very principle that grants the Scottish National Party it's very existence, which is decentralisation and devolution. Scotland's interest are better represented in the Scottish Parliament than anywhere in the UK's is by Westminster. I hope that's cleared a few motives up for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crokey

The shift to SNP from Labour in Scotland, was that in years gone by SNP and Labour were basically the same, except SNP wanted the independence. But when Blair came along with New Labour and were more Tory than the Tories were (at that time), then momentum shifted to SNP.  As Scotland has long been anti-Tory, and that magnified during the Thatcher years (The Pits and Poll Tax).  Although that did soften in the coalition years, and also due to Ruth Davidson (who was quite progressive for the Tories), I doubt if I would be wrong in saying that the Tories will be wiped out in this election in Scotland, mainly because of Boris and whaff-whaff-whaffing Etonian London-centric, GeT bReXiT dOnE sh*tck which is basically vomit inducing in Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Let's also not forget every single constituency in Scotland backed remain in the referendum. Any party campaigning of a manifesto of implementing Brexit is at odds with the political will of the majority of the population. And until quite recently the SNP were the only explicitly revoke-and-remain (or equivalent) party there was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

The SNP is not just a protest vote though, there are specific policies that people support, mainly revolving around managing and attracting foreign investment. They are also associated with already existing social democratic reforms such as free university. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham
20 hours ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

One of the biggest reasons behind Scottish Independence is the fact Westminster lives within this London bubble that doesn't represent the interest of the vast majority of people. Scotland is particularly unsatisfied with this because, as a region that votes mostly against the Tories, it's always the Middle England marginal seats that decide the outcome. Probably why they stopped voting Labour, because it's a Westminster party that began to lose touch. You talk about wondering why you'd want to get smaller, but in actually bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. Large countries might have big military might and such, but often powers are too centralised for everyone.

 

Even in the UK the interests of northern England aren't the same as the southern regions. Smaller nations are easier to represent, which is probably why Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Switzerland arguably have better political systems compared to Russia, China and the United States.I don't necessarily agree with independence, that's something I'm undecided on. But what I do agree with is the very principle that grants the Scottish National Party it's very existence, which is decentralisation and devolution. Scotland's interest are better represented in the Scottish Parliament than anywhere in the UK's is by Westminster. I hope that's cleared a few motives up for you.

It is possibly to the UK's benefit as a whole that power and wealth is concentrated in one region as opposed to being spread equally across the whole country. I assume that the same holds true for every country in the world.  I also accept that a balance must be struck so that all power is not concentrated too much, or even entirely, in one dominant region.

 

If Scotland were to become independent what's to say that England wouldn't make life difficult for it?  No doubt the SNP would argue that it would be in England's best interest to give Scotland a 'Good Deal', much as Brexiteers argued it would naturally fall to the EU's interest to accommodate the UK's best interests.  The myth of 'Grown Up Politics' would be advanced in argument.

 

No doubt Scotland could trade with Europe through its sea ports, across the short North Sea distance, and the EU would be magnanimous in return, but England would be understandably peeved in the short to medium term and would be less accommodating.  Also, an independent Scotland would be somewhat stuck out on a limb, with a non-EU country lying between it and the EU, and it would be surrounded by water (almost), not having other countries adjacent to itself with which to trade and run transport links to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finite

21332942-0-image-a-107_1574420409223.jpg

 

Y'know it's odd to see forumers on the BBC, nice of you to show up Smith John!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bartleby

The 2014 Scottish Referendum on Independence was pretty close, with a 55/45 vote to remain in the UK....and recall that at the time remaining in the EU was given as one of the key benefits of doing so. Not that they would be able to remain at all even if they left the UK tomorrow, as from a legal standpoint they would have to re-apply as a new country unto themselves, but this is something I'm sure sticks in the craw of many Scots.

 

A huge problem I could see for an independent Scotland is that they would presumably need to adopt their own currency, unless either some kind of transition period was agreed with the UK where they could still use the GBP or if this new currency could be pegged to the pound or Euro. Nevertheless, from an economic standpoint it would likely end up being more of a fiasco than Brexit itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grotti Vigilante
58 minutes ago, Short Stay said:

It is possibly to the UK's benefit as a whole that power and wealth is concentrated in one region as opposed to being spread equally across the whole country. I assume that the same holds true for every country in the world.  I also accept that a balance must be struck so that all power is not concentrated too much, or even entirely, in one dominant region.

I don’t believe so. The fact that most of the power and wealth is concentrated in London and the south-east was one of the key reasons people voted to leave the EU in Labour heartlands. They felt unsatisfied with the way things were and that they as a region and demographic had been left behind. Fact is, the interest of the north is different than the south, but Westminster has failed to serve them. Leaving the EU won’t solve all these problems, but the fact they felt life couldn’t be worse says a lot about the way the system works. 

 

4 minutes ago, Bartleby said:

A huge problem I could see for an independent Scotland is that they would presumably need to adopt their own currency, unless either some kind of transition period was agreed with the UK where they could still use the GBP or if this new currency could be pegged to the pound or Euro. Nevertheless, from an economic standpoint it would likely end up being more of a fiasco than Brexit itself.

This might not be as complex as it seems. When I was getting money exchanged at Dubai International Airport one time, they had options for Scottish notes even though the same rates applied as the regular GBP. I reckon just establishing the Scottish Pound as a separate currency after transitioning from GBP seems fairly decent. However given that this fiasco of leaving a 40-year old political union is a mess, imagine trying to leave a 300-year old economic and political union with vastly greater integration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
22 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

This might not be as complex as it seems. When I was getting money exchanged at Dubai International Airport one time, they had options for Scottish notes even though the same rates applied as the regular GBP. I reckon just establishing the Scottish Pound as a separate currency after transitioning from GBP seems fairly decent. However given that this fiasco of leaving a 40-year old political union is a mess, imagine trying to leave a 300-year old economic and political union with vastly greater integration.

 

After the last IndyRef,  the SNP went off to lick their wounds, but they also resolved the question of the currency that dogged them all the way through the first referendum process.  Rather than dithering and after not getting any warmth from the EU for a rapid return post-leaving the UK Union, they instead green lit the plan to establish the Scottish Pound as a 'stopgap currency.'  It'll exist as a sole currency for a while, but likely not forever, as Scottish Independence means they can adopt a EU Single-Market  economy, day 1 after leaving London control, and be allowed to rejoin that (also establishing the hard EU border on the UK mainland, annoying English Brexiteers no end as a nice side effect of this arrangement), but it could be several years before they return to the EU as a full member, if they even choose to, and probably adopt the Euro by doing so.

 

As for leaving the UK Union, it really isn't that difficult.  A lot of the relevant detail is already run from Holyrood as part of the devolved assemblies, including setting some taxation detail and lawmaking powers.  About the one area the Scots don't have much say away from London is Foreign Affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham
2 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

I don’t believe so. The fact that most of the power and wealth is concentrated in London and the south-east was one of the key reasons people voted to leave the EU in Labour heartlands. They felt unsatisfied with the way things were and that they as a region and demographic had been left behind. Fact is, the interest of the north is different than the south, but Westminster has failed to serve them. Leaving the EU won’t solve all these problems, but the fact they felt life couldn’t be worse says a lot about the way the system works. 

People in the regions may have voted a certain way because they were unsatisfied with the current setup, and this of course has led in no small part to the current political situation.  But that does not mean that inequality is bad in itself.  An analogy would be with the current arguments re the UK education system.  It is an argument (nay, a mantra) that elitism is necessarily a bad thing.  I say it ain't necessarily so, and that to have a bunch of people who are supremely confident, have a common understanding and common values, may be more efficient that a rag-bag committee of individuals who all have competing interests and hinterlands.  I'd further assert that those who clamour for equality and diversity are mostly interested in the advancement of their own progeny or their own small interest group.

 

Individuals are chaff to the Nation's grain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grotti Vigilante
2 hours ago, Short Stay said:

People in the regions may have voted a certain way because they were unsatisfied with the current setup, and this of course has led in no small part to the current political situation.  But that does not mean that inequality is bad in itself.  An analogy would be with the current arguments re the UK education system.  It is an argument (nay, a mantra) that elitism is necessarily a bad thing.  I say it ain't necessarily so, and that to have a bunch of people who are supremely confident, have a common understanding and common values, may be more efficient that a rag-bag committee of individuals who all have competing interests and hinterlands.  I'd further assert that those who clamour for equality and diversity are mostly interested in the advancement of their own progeny or their own small interest group.

Equality and diversity has absolutely nothing to do with my arguments, nor has elitism. What my argument is all about is power and wealth being too centralised in Westminster and London, most especially with matters in England, in which the interests of London and the south-east are placed above all others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham
18 hours ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

Equality and diversity has absolutely nothing to do with my arguments, nor has elitism. What my argument is all about is power and wealth being too centralised in Westminster and London, most especially with matters in England, in which the interests of London and the south-east are placed above all others.

You are quite right, equality and diversity have little to do with your arguments.  I just like to stick em in where I can.  That is known as politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.