Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Why does it need to interact with me personally to affect me?

EU laws affect you via national governments. So you take the government to court for not am working in accordance with EU law.

 

Now you're question is can I take the EU to court and my point is that the EU isn't directly affecting you itself by implementing EU laws.

 

Can you take the EU to court for writing laws you don't like? No.

Can you take our government to court for writing laws you don't like? No. Unless they are breaking EU law in which case you currently can. But you won't be able to after Brexit. So the current system gives you more power.

 

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

But we haven't been conversing about it, we've been conversing around it, you're arguing without making any arguments and I'm trying to get something solid to either respond to or agree with.

 

And EU states can't change which things?  It just sounds like another non-sequitur, one at odds with the point that we need to leave the EU because of the changes they've imposed on us.

What am I arguing about Carl? Tell me please, you’ve asked me questions based on a statement and I answered them, then you claimed I was upset or offended by something that I never even mentioned that I was. I’m not really sure where you are going with this but unless you’ve actually got a point of note to make, what exactly do you want from me?

You think what I’ve said is pie in the sky based on what, oooooh the tories are evil. Well here is a surprise, I don’t agree. Are we done now?

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

What am I arguing about Carl? Tell me please, you’ve asked me questions based on a statement and I answered them, then you claimed I was upset or offended by something that I never even mentioned that I was. I’m not really sure where you are going with this but unless you’ve actually got a point of note to make, what exactly do you want from me?

You think what I’ve said is pie in the sky based on what, oooooh the tories are evil. Well here is a surprise, I don’t agree. Are we done now?

Your answers have been vague generalisations and you've side-stepped my requests for expansion upon them with real world examples.  If you don't want to do that then yeah I guess this conversation can't really go anywhere, just as well I need to head out now anyway  

[Guest Foxin_mad]

58 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Gordon Brown is widely credited as bein responsible for pulling together the G8 and implementing a credible worldwide plan to deal with the crisis.

 

You just called the idea they'd got us growing horseshit then fine minutes later, when kopfkino explains how I arrived at the figure, backtrack to your normal position of well they were rubbish anyway.

 

How you can state random numbers as fact is beyond me.

 

Here's some real facts:

 

The downturn was deeper and longer than it should have been because of Osborne's austerity politics.

 

We remained in deficit longer than we needed to because of Osborne's austerity politics.

 

The cost of austerity has been shown, through multiple versions of independent analysis, to have hit the poor hardest, and the cuts about to be implemented on welfare and working families continue to do so.

 

To point out that it was the risks taken by rich bankers that got us into this mess, but the cuts have fallen on the pubic sector and the poor to get us out, is fact, not class warfare.

Widely credited by who? You? The Guardian?

 

The figures are rubbish, you annualised them based on what exactly, mythology? Kopfkino explained your method but the method is wrong as it assumes growth would have remained the same for the other quarters to which you have absolutely no evidence to support. Also Labour had they returned to government would have had to have made cuts too because they had NO MONEY left in the pot, they might have made tax rises and tried other desperate tricks but none of them were work, taxes were already high, they economy was utterly screwed.

 

You have a go at me for supposedly posting random numbers then do exactly the same:

 

1. No Evidence to support

2. No Evidence to support

3. While I agree there has been a negative impact in some areas, and some areas where vital good services were removed (Surestart). Unfortunately the cost reductions were needed and obviously reducing money for the lowest paid will have a relatively bigger impact on them. We still have a public service and many thousands of public sector jobs have been saved by pay caps. We have to stop people relying on the state when they don't need to, that way we can better support those that really do need the state. Increasing employment and removing the low paid out of income tax bands will help this.

 

Yes rich bankers may have got us here but a Labour government, were happy to let them go unchecked whilst things were rosy. They could have rebalanced the economy, they could have better regulated better. They could have run a surplus during the boom years the protect us when the bust happened. Of course Gordon believed his own hype 'no more boom and bust'. The idea of slow steady growth over a sustained period is the best way to go but his economics didn't..

 

Ok so you want like Corbyn to 'Punish' the nasty rich bankers who make up 75% of our  GDP, that we use to pay for our public services, do you think they will stay and take the punishment or will they relocate to a low tax low regulation economy? What do you propose we replace that tax revenue and number of jobs with? You proposals to 'punish' the rich would destroy the economy over night! And you think Brexit is bad! you aint seen nothing yet!

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

5 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Are you saying Russia is not engaging in military operations of any kind in Ukraine? Let me guess, it was the Ukrainians that shot down MH17? Crimea is rightful Russian territory! Who mentioned anything about Russia using all its might? Invading a country, arming rebels and destabalising it through asymmetric warfare is war in all but name. I frankly don't care if you disagree, that's a fact.

You have described US and UK actions in more than one country there, except warfare not merely in all but name.

 

But there are other sides to this Russia story that should be considered before we denounce them completely as certain elements of power want to do

 

Here is a quote from an article I will send, if you dont want to read the whole article......

 

Well, it's hard to imagine the goodwill and trust that was reigning in the last years of the Soviet Union when Gorbechev and Bush, the father, were in power. The United States essentially played a good role in establishing a peaceful relationship with Russia, and this was done under Reagan, in fact, with the detente that he began with Gorbachev.

 

But the problem quickly went sour following the ironclad guarantees -- those were James Baker's words, to Gorbachev -- that NATO would not expand one inch to the East in return for the Soviet acquiescence in East Germany's re-uniting with West Germany, to become one Germany. Which was a threatening thing at the time, for Russians.

 

 

And the problem began really, during the Clinton years that followed, when NATO did, in fact, decide to expand, not only more than one inch to the East, but all the way up to within artillery range of St. Petersburg, in the Baltics.

 

 

And the sense of encroachment, the troop deployments, especially within the last few years, that have taken place in the Baltics and Poland, has been very strong here. The encroachment on their borders, the surrounding sense from the West.

 

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18686:Russia-vs.-USA:-Who-is-the-Threat

 

There is the whole article.  I like this website because often they include an historical context which many reporting outlets dont go into so much depth on.

[Beechey]

2 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

You have described US and UK actions in more than one country there, except warfare not merely in all but name.

 

But there are other sides to this Russia story that should be considered before we denounce them completely as certain elements of power want to do

 

Here is a quote from an article I will send, if you dont want to read the whole article......

 

Well, it's hard to imagine the goodwill and trust that was reigning in the last years of the Soviet Union when Gorbechev and Bush, the father, were in power. The United States essentially played a good role in establishing a peaceful relationship with Russia, and this was done under Reagan, in fact, with the detente that he began with Gorbachev.

 

But the problem quickly went sour following the ironclad guarantees -- those were James Baker's words, to Gorbachev -- that NATO would not expand one inch to the East in return for the Soviet acquiescence in East Germany's re-uniting with West Germany, to become one Germany. Which was a threatening thing at the time, for Russians.

 

 

And the problem began really, during the Clinton years that followed, when NATO did, in fact, decide to expand, not only more than one inch to the East, but all the way up to within artillery range of St. Petersburg, in the Baltics.

 

 

And the sense of encroachment, the troop deployments, especially within the last few years, that have taken place in the Baltics and Poland, has been very strong here. The encroachment on their borders, the surrounding sense from the West.

 

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18686:Russia-vs.-USA:-Who-is-the-Threat

 

There is the whole article.  I like this website because often they include an historical context which many reporting outlets dont go into so much depth on.

Whataboutism doesn't discount anything I've said. I said earlier in another thread that encroachment is Russia's biggest fear, and NATO expansion has added to that.

We can't pretend like democratically elected governments joining NATO in any way justifies Russia invading foreign countries and annexing their land, though.

 

I've actually read that one before, it's a really good piece!

Edited 13 March 2018 by Beechey

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Your answers have been vague generalisations and you've side-stepped my requests for expansion upon them with real world examples.  If you don't want to do that then yeah I guess this conversation can't really go anywhere, just as well I need to head out now anyway  

Of course it was vague, I even said I couldn’t answer in any depth in the post. 

What part of me stating ‘there is nothing stopping us replicating, refining or improving’ did you disagree with.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Beechey said:

Whataboutism doesn't discount anything I've said. I said earlier in another thread that encroachment is Russia's biggest fear, and NATO expansion has added to that.

We can't pretend like democratically elected governments joining NATO in any way justifies Russia invading foreign countries and annexing their land, though.

What's the difference between a democratically elected government being coerced/bribed behind the scenes to join NATO and being flat-out invaded and annexed by another party? Either way, you get what is essentially a satellite state.

 

Maybe I'm being post-revisionist on this, but there is really precious little black and white moral highground to be had here.

[Beechey]

Just now, leicsmac said:

What's the difference between a democratically elected government being coerced/bribed behind the scenes to join NATO and being flat-out invaded and annexed by another party? Either way, you get what is essentially a satellite state.

 

Maybe I'm being post-revisionist on this, but there is really precious little black and white moral highground to be had here.

You're asking me what thew difference is between joining NATO (an organisation that is based around collective defence) which you can leave at any time, and being invaded, occupied and annexed by the Russian state? I don't think an explanation is necessary, is it?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

You're asking me what thew difference is between joining NATO (an organisation that is based around collective defence) which you can leave at any time, and being invaded, occupied and annexed by the Russian state? I don't think an explanation is necessary, is it?

Yes, I am totally sure a NATO member could leave at any time without financial and/or social repercussions.

 

Sorry, I'm not buying that one side is playing the empire game cleaner than the other - they're just better at masking how they go about it.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

12 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Whataboutism doesn't discount anything I've said. I said earlier in another thread that encroachment is Russia's biggest fear, and NATO expansion has added to that.

We can't pretend like democratically elected governments joining NATO in any way justifies Russia invading foreign countries and annexing their land, though.

 

I've actually read that one before, it's a really good piece!

Thats a fair point.  But if we see that the expansion of NATO as a potential act of aggression, then it makes Russia's actions less deplorable.  Maybe they even see it as a responsibility to protect their nation's interest and the interests of people in Ukraine/Crimea who identify as Russian?  I'm not making that point unconditionally, just think it needs to be taken account of in view of the ridiculous attitutude or press and govt. when talking about Russia

 

There is a great book by Steinbeck where he recounts his travels to the USSR after WWII, right after the iron curtain went up

 

He was asked by Russians 'why does the US hate Russia?'  And the Russian also said, 'the UK is a socialist state, but the US doesnt hate them, why is this?'

 

Very curious vignette for me.  Sad that they believed we would be friends and as far as i've read its the west that spurned that opportunity, twice!  Also interesting that the UK was considered a socialist state and look what a dirty word 'socialist' is for many of us

Edited 13 March 2018 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Beechey]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yes, I am totally sure a NATO member could leave at any time without financial and/or social repercussions.

 

Sorry, I'm not buying that one side is playing the empire game cleaner than the other - they're just better at masking how they go about it.

Mate, have you read the actual treaty? It's Article XIII, any nation can leave one year after depositing its notice of denunciation. Countries might be angry, of course, but there wouldn't be any tanks rolling in to stop it.

What are you on about? Financial reprecussions? Was France embargoed after it withdrew friom the military command?

Edited 13 March 2018 by Beechey

[leicsmac]

Just now, Beechey said:

Mate, have you read the actual treaty? It's Article XIII, any nation can leave one year after depositing its notice of denunciation. Countries might be angry, of course, but there wouldn't be any tanks rolling in to stop it.

 

Of course, just perhaps the odd trade embargo or two to throttle that country economically until it returned to the fold.

 

The freedom to leave is there as clearly stated in the treaty as you say - my argument is that freedom is pretty much illusory as the consequences for leaving are likely to be severe through the application of soft power.

 

I'm giving this all a pretty broad brush, but the way that Russia and the US (and China too, come to that) have conducted their international affairs for the last half century or more just because their ideologies are different is stupid and, more importantly, needless.

[Beechey]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Of course, just perhaps the odd trade embargo or two to throttle that country economically until it returned to the fold.

 

The freedom to leave is there as clearly stated in the treaty as you say - my argument is that freedom is pretty much illusory as the consequences for leaving are likely to be severe through the application of soft power.

 

I'm giving this all a pretty broad brush, but the way that Russia and the US (and China too, come to that) have conducted their international affairs for the last half century or more just because their ideologies are different is stupid and, more importantly, needless.

France withdrew its military from NATO in 1959, and ordered all foreign soldiers out of the country in the 60s. I don't recall reading about any embargoes against France.

Edited 13 March 2018 by Beechey

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Beechey said:

France withdrew its military from NATO in 1959, and ordered all foreign soldiers out of the country in the 60s. I don't recall reading about any embargoes against France.

That's because the US knew NATO would be better off without tanks that only had reverse gear, so they were ok with it.

 

But in all seriousness, fair enough - didn't know that, and it seems that though pissed off the US didn't actually do much in response.

 

I'd still maintain the depiction of NATO as a benevolent world protector and Russia and their allies as the Evil Empire is reductive Cold War rhetoric, however. Each side is as guided by self-interest and maintaining power as the other, even if their methods differ somewhat.

[leicsmac]

In other news...

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/right-wing-canadian-activist-lauren-southern-detained-at-calais-and-barred-from-entering-uk-a3787886.html

 

Border control enthusiast gets annoyed at border controls when they concern her.

[Guest Kopfkino]

 

How very depressing - reinforces the need for a bit more radicalism in government. 

[Buce]

On 06/03/2018 at 11:00, David Guiza said:

Guido, and others, who believe that women should be grateful for what Thatcher did simply because she had a virgina (allegedly) really are delightful. 

 

https://order-order.com/people/margaret-thatcher/ 

 

Growth outlook ‘woeful’:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/mar/13/spring-statement-philip-hammond-growth-borrowing-brexit-live-updates?page=with:block-5aa7d70ce4b0ccc2e5bc5bd6#block-5aa7d70ce4b0ccc2e5bc5bd6

 

#takingbackcontrol

Edited 13 March 2018 by Buce

[Buce]

3 hours ago, Beechey said:

Jesus Christ, are you serious?

 

Are you saying Russia is not engaging in military operations of any kind in Ukraine? Let me guess, it was the Ukrainians that shot down MH17 (using the Buk missile system that they don't operate)? Crimea is rightful Russian territory! Who mentioned anything about Russia using all its might? Invading a country, arming rebels and destabalising it through hybrid warfare is war in all but name. I frankly don't care if you disagree, that's a fact.

 

The idea that you think a war is only a war when a country uses all of its forces is both hilarious and depressing.

 

3 hours ago, Beechey said:

Well in fairness, they are at war with Ukraine in all but name right now

 

The Russians are undoubtedly supporting the ethnic Russian separatists in Ukraine, with arms, training and intelligence. To say that they are 'at war with Ukraine' is just sensationalist hyperbole.

 

If we accept your definition then the US is at war with Turkey because it gives identical support to the Kurdish militia currently fighting the Turks in Syria.

 

 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

6 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

The Labour policies will create more growth argument is tripe anyway. You would need Growth of 7-8% per year at least to pay for the spending plans that Labour are proposing. No western developed nation is ever going to sustain growth like that, particularly a nation that hates business and the rich and has an economy with low manufacturing output and a heavy reliance on financial services; most of which is based on secured loans of London property purchased by wealthy foreign investors.

 

We need to invest and we are investing, unfortunately due to previous fiscal mismanagement we have to take the slow and steady approach else we will all be shafted for generations. Keep this course and gradually we can begin to increase spending without increasing debt any further.

Why couldn’t we do those numbers?

 

I’m sick of people doing this country down.

[Beechey]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

 

The Russians are undoubtedly supporting the ethnic Russian separatists in Ukraine, with arms, training and intelligence. To say that they are 'at war with Ukraine' is just sensationalist hyperbole.

 

If we accept your definition then the US is at war with Turkey because it gives identical support to the Kurdish militia currently fighting the Turks in Syria.

 

 

Sending tens of thousands of soliders into a sovereign nation's land, including assets like APCs, MBTs and aircraft, and proceeding to kill that foreign nation's soldiers is absolutely an act of war. Neither country gains anything from declaring that, however. How can you see that another way? Russia has upwards to 15,000 soldiers and volunteers inside the Donbass region (and 25,000 in Crimea, which is also Ukraine's territory) fighting the Ukrainian armed forces. It's incredibly naive to assume they are just providing logistical and intelligence support.

 

The United States might be on another side of a proxy war to Turkey, and your idea might be true if the US had deployed 15,000 troops into Turkey to fight alongside the KCK, but they haven't, have they?

Edited 13 March 2018 by Beechey

[Buce]

32 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Sending tens of thousands of soliders into a sovereign nation's land, including assets like APCs, MBTs and aircraft, and proceeding to kill that foreign nation's soldiers is absolutely an act of war. Neither country gains anything from declaring that, however. How can you see that another way? Russia has upwards to 15,000 soldiers and volunteers inside the Donbass region (and 25,000 in Crimea, which is also Ukraine's territory) fighting the Ukrainian armed forces. It's incredibly naive to assume they are just providing logistical and intelligence support.

 

The United States might be on another side of a proxy war to Turkey, and your idea might be true if the US had deployed 15,000 troops into Turkey to fight alongside the KCK, but they haven't, have they?

 

The Yanks admit to having 4,000 in Syria. What do you think they are doing there?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/10/31/a-top-u-s-general-just-said-4000-american-troops-are-in-syria-the-pentagon-says-there-are-only-500/?utm_term=.fe83d37463ed

 

Edited 13 March 2018 by Buce

[Guest Foxin_mad]

33 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Why couldn’t we do those numbers?

 

I’m sick of people doing this country down.

Its unlikely that a western developed nation would see growth figures like that. Even powerhouse economies like Germany only see 4-5% growth in boom periods. I dont think there is a precendent for growth figures like that except in developing nations like China/India.

 

I believe in the country more than anyone but if we want sustainable long term growth the a rich hating, britain hating, anti business, far left government is not going to achieve that in any way shape or form.

 

A government that believes in big state and high taxation for all workers is hardly going to drive productivity or growth.

[Carl the Llama]

6 hours ago, Strokes said:

Of course it was vague, I even said I couldn’t answer in any depth in the post. 

What part of me stating ‘there is nothing stopping us replicating, refining or improving’ did you disagree with.

I just think it's a bit of a non-statement, might as well have said "I'm sure everything will be fine".  But I digress, may as well leave it there because there's no point falling out over such a minor point. x

[Beechey]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

The Yanks admit to having 4,000 in Syria. What do you think they are doing there?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/10/31/a-top-u-s-general-just-said-4000-american-troops-are-in-syria-the-pentagon-says-there-are-only-500/?utm_term=.fe83d37463ed

 

Wait are you suggesting US troops are directly fighting Turkish troops? That's not what they'll be doing. They'll be helping anti-Assad forces coordinate against ISIL and government forces.