INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our
Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#301
Post
by Alan H » July 15th, 2016, 9:45 am
Latest post of the previous page:
George Osborne’s austerity choked off the recovery: Brexit is his legacyBy March 2015, George Osborne was pulling together his final budget before the general election. The austerity chancellor had already hacked billions from health, education and social security; now he planned to slash billions more. But he had prepared one massive give-away: the complete abolition of taxes on savings, worth well over £1bn in lost revenue.
It was costly, at a time when the government was cutting to the bone. It was unjust, throwing millions at the richest, who needed it least. And it was a kick in the teeth to all those whose lives had been turned upside down in the past five years. The idea was blocked by Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrat coalition partners.
Osborne’s response is recorded by David Laws, Clegg’s ally in government negotiations. It ranks as among the most revealing things ever said about the Conservatives’ austerity strategy.
The multi-million-pound spending spree wasn’t justifiable, admitted Osborne, according to Laws’ recent memoir, Coalition. “It will only really be of help to stupid, affluent and lazy people, who can’t be bothered to put their savings away into tax-efficient vehicles!” said Osborne. “But it will still be very popular – we have polled it.”
Disabled people could kill themselves to put an end to the government’s reign of terror, and the chancellor would shrug. Working-class kids could live on foodbank lunches and ministers would claim they had no alternative. But shovelling cash at the people seen as undeserving by their very own benefactor? That, Mr Austerity would happily do. Anything to buy votes.
Remember that exchange as the moist-eyed tributes to Osborne come in over the next few days from his friends in the Conservative party and press. “A great chancellor,” says his former aide. The man himself has kept it uncharacteristically modest: “I hope I’ve left the economy in a better state than I found it.”
If only, George. While at Oxford, Osborne was a member of the Bullingdon Club and during his six years at Number 11, he trashed the economy as thoroughly as the Bullingdon boys trashed their restaurants.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#302
Post
by Alan H » July 15th, 2016, 2:39 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Nick
- Posts: 11027
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
#303
Post
by Nick » July 15th, 2016, 5:07 pm
A moment's thought will show the stupidity of this article. The UK has the best growth in the EU and the highest employment ever, and has create more new jobs than the rest of the EU put together. It is the failure of the EU which has prevented the economy from growing even faster. But what do you expect from a history graduate in
the Grauniad?
-
Nick
- Posts: 11027
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
#304
Post
by Nick » July 15th, 2016, 5:13 pm
Should be in the "Slow news day" thread, Alan....
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#305
Post
by Alan H » July 15th, 2016, 5:42 pm
Nick wrote:Should be in the "Slow news day" thread, Alan....
If you don't think her views are wrong and belong to a previous century...
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#306
Post
by Alan H » July 17th, 2016, 12:02 pm
Our new masters:
THE NEW CABINET: KEY APPOINTMENTS
Prime Minister: The liberal, one-nation one who introduced the snooper’s charter and Go Home vans.
Foreign Secretary: The one who spins deceit and makesjokes about foreigners.
Home Secretary: The one who said you couldn't trust the Foreign Secretary to take you home at the end of the evening.
Brexit Secretary: The one who said we could negotiate trade deals with EU nations separately even though they only negotiate as the EU and we have no trade negotiators.
Trade Secretary: The one who joins the cabinet after having had to resign from the cabinet.
International Development: The one who said we should get rid of the Department of International Development.
Environment: The one who backs fox-hunting, selling off forests, and made up stuff on her CV. Surprise fact: she's a mother.
Climate Change: No-one. Because the way to combat climate change is to pretend there's no climate change.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#307
Post
by Alan H » July 18th, 2016, 6:17 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#308
Post
by Alan H » July 18th, 2016, 7:07 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Nick
- Posts: 11027
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
#309
Post
by Nick » July 19th, 2016, 1:21 pm
As we account for about .8% of the world's population, and our high energy prices mean that we use less than otherwise, I'd say the answer was "precious little".
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#310
Post
by Alan H » July 19th, 2016, 2:40 pm
Nick wrote:
As we account for about .8% of the world's population, and our high energy prices mean that we use less than otherwise, I'd say the answer was "precious little".
The UK is seventh in world's top contributors to climate change (contributing about 5%), mostly because of past contributions. Some would say that creates a moral imperative to do what can be done in the future to mitigate the effects of that contribution on others. That's anyone with a social conscience and a concern for others at least, but I'm not sure of what our future contributions are likely to be.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Nick
- Posts: 11027
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
#311
Post
by Nick » July 19th, 2016, 4:33 pm
There's a difference between "the UK" and "the UK leaving the EU".....
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#312
Post
by Alan H » July 19th, 2016, 4:34 pm
Nick wrote:There's a difference between "the UK" and "the UK leaving the EU".....
It certainly doesn't change history, does it?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#313
Post
by Alan H » July 19th, 2016, 5:07 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#314
Post
by Alan H » July 19th, 2016, 9:10 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
jdc
- Posts: 516
- Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm
#315
Post
by jdc » July 21st, 2016, 2:26 am
Nick wrote:A moment's thought will show the stupidity of this article. The UK has the best growth in the EU and the highest employment ever, and has create more new jobs than the rest of the EU put together. It is the failure of the EU which has prevented the economy from growing even faster. But what do you expect from a history graduate in
the Grauniad?
Austerity has been rather popular in recent times with other countries in the EU hasn't it? Perhaps it choked their recoveries too? What policies did other countries follow after the global financial crisis and how did their recoveries go?
Wren-Lewis had an interesting post a couple of years ago about Osborne's Plan B:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... lan-b.html Numbers from the latest OBR forecast allow me to give more detail on how Plan A was in fact put on hold, and the recovery we have had has followed a suspension of austerity.
-
animist
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
#316
Post
by animist » July 21st, 2016, 1:52 pm
this thread is so useful because the situation is so dynamic, and it will be interesting therefore to look back on what I and others thought at a particular time - I have to say that IMO the comments are more interesting if they stick to Brexit itself rather than drifting off into the Labour v Tory stuff! Anyway, at present my prediction is that Terry May will go for some trade deal with the rump EU which resembles Norway's. She will try to sell this to the great uninformed UK public as a genuine Brexit even though the xenophobes will still be stuck with EU migration, and she will probably hype up her appeal by saying that her deal is the best Britain can get - and that she'll resign if we (in a second referendum) don't back it!
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#317
Post
by Alan H » July 21st, 2016, 2:17 pm
animist wrote:Anyway, at present my prediction is that Terry May will go for some trade deal with the rump EU which resembles Norway's. She will try to sell this to the great uninformed UK public as a genuine Brexit even though the xenophobes will still be stuck with EU migration, and she will probably hype up her appeal by saying that her deal is the best Britain can get - and that she'll resign if we (in a second referendum) don't back it!
But if this is just EEA membership that allows access to the Common Market yet at a cost (more than we're paying now?) and with all the rules that we currently have to abide by but without any say on them in the future, how is she ever going to sell that to the public (without the lies we say in the referendum campaign)?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
animist
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
#318
Post
by animist » July 21st, 2016, 8:39 pm
Alan H wrote:animist wrote:Anyway, at present my prediction is that Terry May will go for some trade deal with the rump EU which resembles Norway's. She will try to sell this to the great uninformed UK public as a genuine Brexit even though the xenophobes will still be stuck with EU migration, and she will probably hype up her appeal by saying that her deal is the best Britain can get - and that she'll resign if we (in a second referendum) don't back it!
But if this is just EEA membership that allows access to the Common Market yet at a cost (more than we're paying now?) and with all the rules that we currently have to abide by but without any say on them in the future, how is she ever going to sell that to the public (without the lies we say in the referendum campaign)?
Alan, you are a rational person with a more than transitory interest in this issue - naughty! The British people are so stupid that they voted for Brexit without exploiting the immeasurable resources of the Net to find out the lies of the press, so I do believe that something like this could work, though I think Terry (Terri? She's a lady) would need to show some reduction in contributions in order to sell her product, I agree. Unlike you, I don't believe that Brextwits have the slightest interest in, or awareness of, the loss of influence within the EU that Brexit, in whatever shape it takes, will involve
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#319
Post
by Alan H » July 21st, 2016, 10:46 pm
May gets Hollande ultimatum: free trade depends on free movementStanding alongside the new prime minister, speaking in French with an official translator, he said: “It’s the most crucial point. That’s the point that will be the subject of the negotiation.
“The UK today has access to the single market because it respects the four freedoms. If it wishes to remain within the single market it is its decision to know how far and how it will have to abide by the four freedoms.
“None can be separated from the other. There cannot be freedom of movement of goods, free movement of capital, free movement of services if there isn’t a free movement of people … It will be a choice facing the UK – remain in the single market and then assume the free movement that goes with it or to have another status.”
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#320
Post
by Alan H » July 22nd, 2016, 12:00 am
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#321
Post
by Alan H » July 22nd, 2016, 10:07 am
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?