Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Elections have always been held on a Thursday for as long as I can remember mate so I don't see what the issue is. I'd imagine pretty much everyone has a polling station within walking distance of their house so it really shouldn't be a problem. They're open from 7AM to 10PM so unless you're working a 15 hour shift between those times everyone should be able to find a spare 10-15 minutes to cast their vote. If not, you can always register to vote by post which is what an increasing number seem to be doing.
By the way, my dad is 77 and still works full time 5 days a week yet he took the time to cast his vote!
And turnouts have been shit for the best part of 20 years regardless. I'm not saying it's a rational excuse, that people think they don't have time to vote but I'd say that data clearly shows that the higher percentage of retirees the greater the turnout which suggests the current system which sees elections held on Thursdays for no reason isn't helping.
That of course won't solve the large problem of voter apathy, which has its roots in the FPTP system even though it (obviously) was not a factor here, but it's a start.
Elections are on Sundays in France - sound more sensible, but suppose anything remotely European will now be taboo
I don't think the day of the week really comes into it, if anything people tend to move around a bit more at weekends and could find themselves even further away from the polling station than during the working week. I was heading out to site on the Thursday morning of the referendum but made sure I got there to vote at 7AM before heading off as I couldn't be 100% sure I'd make it back.
If there is a discrepancy between youth turnout and older voters (and that's debatable from the stats I read around the referendum) then it's much more likely to reflect the differing mindsets of the two groups. For the older generation, particularly retirees they see voting as a duty that was worth fighting for and as a privilege not to be squandered. For the younger generation it's a Catch 22 situation where many do not vote because they feel their voice is not heard and none of the politicians represent them yet why should the politicians temper their policies to suit the youth if they are unlikely to vote.
If there is a discrepancy between youth turnout and older voters (and that's debatable from the stats I read around the referendum) then it's much more likely to reflect the differing mindsets of the two groups. For the older generation, particularly retirees they see voting as a duty that was worth fighting for and as a privilege not to be squandered. For the younger generation it's a Catch 22 situation where many do not vote because they feel their voice is not heard and none of the politicians represent them yet why should the politicians temper their policies to suit the youth if they are unlikely to vote.
We've had such opinion polls since the referendum but they're probably further from the truth than those based on electoral math imo anyway. Both flawed, wouldn't take either at face value.
That one is 11% down on estimated youth turnout than an article in The Guardian claimed just last week.
Does anyone know if it's true that if an immigrant leaves the country for good then after 6 months they can reclaim all taxes paid to the state?
Its the same poll I think.
The difference is that this is the LSE write up by a couple of academics and the first report was the raw survey conducted by Opinium.
I'd argue that this is almost certainly the most reliable data we are likely to get for a few months at any rate.
It depends on the fiscal year, if he spent more than 6 months of the fiscal year in England, he will have to pay his taxes in England but if he spent 5 months in England and 7 in an other country he isn't imposable, but he needs to prove that he paid his taxes in the other country.
If someone leaves the country part way through the tax year after having earned less than the tax-free personal allowance of £11,000, he can claim back the tax he has paid in the tax year. But that applies to anyone (immigrant or otherwise) who stops working partway through the tax year.
That's like beating the Bible in book sales. That means you've really made it.
Just seen today's Sun. Kelvin calling it right as ever...
Remember the petition some of us signed to push for a second referendum? Just got this by email:
I wouldn't hold your breath. Aussie comic on TV is asking what we're moaning about- loads of jobs have been created post-Brexit- PM, UKIP leader, shadow cabinet, England manager and new presenter of Top Gear.
According to Davis, Britain will want full access to the single market and full control over the borders. The deal will be similar to Canada's BUT unlike Canada whose exporters of financial services won't get a financial passport to the EU the British will expect that to be offered to them. Happy days indeed
Also according to Davis, we should be accelerating the signing of TTIP with the US.
I thought some people on here (and elsewhere) were saying that one of the reasons to leave the EU was because of the upcoming TTIP deal and how horrific it was? So before we had the US negotiating with a 27 country block, any one of whom could have vetoed the deal.
Now instead we have a party with a majority in parliament and an unelected leader with an ideological slant towards such deals who can sign that very same deal without any real opposition (and who wants to).
Its almost like some of us were saying that leaving would make us more likely to sign such deals....
I thought some people on here (and elsewhere) were saying that one of the reasons to leave the EU was because of the upcoming TTIP deal and how horrific it was? So before we had the US negotiating with a 27 country block, any one of whom could have vetoed the deal.
Now instead we have a party with a majority in parliament and an unelected leader with an ideological slant towards such deals who can sign that very same deal without any real opposition (and who wants to).
Its almost like some of us were saying that leaving would make us more likely to sign such deals....
The US will get a much better version of TTIP with us than they would be able to negotiate with the EU, we wont require anywhere near so many consumer or social protections. GM food, meat pumped up with unspeakable amounts of chemicals, pharma companies marketing pills to us over the counter, its all coming.
feck, that's depressing
and predictable, but those of us that predicted this would be the most likely case were just scaremongering. Despite us offering evidence that our own government had already circumvented EU regulations to permit the import of dodgy Chinese steel at the expense of our own industry.feck, that's depressing
Yes but some people on here (Nick) couldn't see the wood for the trees and despite repeatedly being told this continued to pretended that TTIP was somehow a good reason to leave.
dont worry - apparently we are at the back of the queue so that will surely take decades?
Or looking at it another way: dont worry, Trump will win the US election in November and he hates free trade deals.dont worry - apparently we are at the back of the queue so that will surely take decades?
That's what I've been saying all along. Do you really think that a country that is as large of a continent would bother giving an island in the middle of the sea favourable terms? A nation which is 1/3 the size of one of their states (ie Texas)? Surely the UK can't afford to refuse any sort of trade deal with the US especially now that they seem to have burnt bridges with the EU.
I may sound aggressive or anti British but I am not. I am emotional on this because I've seen it happening in my own country in the 80s. Our isolationist PM burnt ties with the West (including the Brits) and left us exposed to all sort of bullying as we bend over backwards to accommodate dictators in a desperate bid to keep our economy afloat. Also if you think that politicians don't hold grudges or that they (especially those who come from countries were human rights are virtually non existent) will give your people preferential treatment then think again. FFS You're sending Boris to seal trade deals with people whom he just insulted. That's crazy.
The UK is not Malta but there again it is pretty closer to Malta then to lets say China when compared to the economic giants such as the EU, the US, Canada and China itself. It will be a small fish dealing with a big fish here and that rarely ends up well especially if the former is cocky and deluded.
At least we can vote out any government that imposes any pernicious trade deals. At the last count Cameron, Miliband and Clegg were all 100% behind TTIP as well.
China's economy is about 3.5 times bigger than the UK and the UK economy is about twice the size of Canada's. The UK economy is around $2.85 trillion and Malta's is $11.2bn.
You are wildly wrong in your perceptions.
I still think it was one of the most valid reasons (one of few). If we're going to be shafted with it then at least do it because of democratically elected backers... even if they are cnuts.
At least you can speak with your local MP on the matter.
Which we still could have done thanks to the unilateral veto we had. There was no situation in the EU where we could have had TTIP forced on us without the 'democratically elected backers' in this country supporting it.
Yeah thats true enough i forgot there was a unilateral veto, France i believe already blocked it once IIRC.
However, It still doesnt sit comfortably with me as there's always influence applied over such decisions in the EU, if we blocked it until it was perfect for us there'd be repercussions elsewhere. I dont think MPs or the opposition have much influence in shaping such deals, not to the extent that they would on those passed nationally. Once its applied would we have had much room to exit the arrangement? Genuine question
I'm for the EU in a lot of ways such as rights and standards but i dislike these common trade deals across the board. By definition they cant be the best deal for every party.
German MEP was on CNN last night saying saying free access to market without freedom of movement was impossible.
But don't worry, Davis says otherwise.
But don't worry, Davis says otherwise.
Access to single market is important for 93% of Remain and 42% of Leave voters according to a recent poll. That means a huge majority of the country are not thick and want it, and means that it is vital to secure.
If it comes with free movement, as it always has, then tough on all those who want to limit immigration from the EU, IMO. Noone can expect Davis et al to negotiate around that one, surely.
If it comes with free movement, as it always has, then tough on all those who want to limit immigration from the EU, IMO. Noone can expect Davis et al to negotiate around that one, surely.
To be fair what he is saying is a bit more nuanced than that. Its worth going into this in a bit more detail because he has actually given quite a clear proposal of what he wants to do.
Davis thinks this is a game of chicken and ultimately they will swerve first. His position is that we organise trade deals while negotiating with the EU, so that the deals come into effect the day we actually exit. We have deals lined up with China, India, Australia, Canada, the US and others, so that as soon as we leave the EU, and are free to enter deals with other countries, we walk from one free trade area, into another, far larger one, comprising many bilateral deals. From those deals we negotiated we draw the confidence to tell the EU that if we dont get the deal we want (immigration controls) we WILL walk away from the single market. That yes, we will be disappointed to leave it, but that we are also willing to do so because we have other deals we can fall back on. This does not take into account the quality of the deals we have in place with the US etc, or what exactly they mean for consumers in this country (or exporters), but the point is, from an economic perspective, they would be there. That is the argument.
Davis believes that once they realise we will not be bullied into accepting their terms (free and unrestricted movement) and that we dont actually "need" the carrot they are dangling in front of us (the single market) because we already have a nice juicy steak (a pile of free trade deals) they will fold. The logic that they need to subject us to a punitive settlement will fall apart because them kicking us out wont hurt us anyway. We will trade, grow and prosper with or without their single market, so they might as well give us - and themselves - a good deal. There will be no point in biting off their nose to spite their face, because the face doesnt care about the nose anyway.
To his credit, while he does seem to believe the EU will ultimately back down, he acknowledges it may not. His point is that even if it doesnt we'll be OK because by the time we were actually out of the single market we would have arranged its replacement, in the form of bilateral deals with countries that together have a much bigger population than the EU, and with faster growing economies.
This is not without its problems. One I mentioned already, which is that in order to fast track a whole load of free trade deals inside two years, we are going to have to give away quite a lot in terms of consumer protections. These are the kinds of things that hold up deals. If you want to check the power of the corporations you need to carefully think through what concerns you have and how to address them, in ways that minimise the economic costs to the deal. That takes time. Agreeing to let goods be imported and exported across the board in the same way is easy and can be done fast, but that means a race to the bottom in terms of standards.
There is also the issue of whether a large number of deals can be negotiated simultaneously, despite the fact that we dont have civil servants with the requisite experience. Some of the countries that have offered to lend us negotiators to help us, like Australia, are the same countries we want to do deals with. So Im not sure how that will work. The EU is also saying not only can we not enter deals while we are a member, we cant even negotiate deals to be entered later. So that is also a problem - though I dont think that will be the reason the whole thing fails.
What use is a unilateral veto within the EU pertaining to trade deals? Trade deals are so complex that we will only know the true implications once they are signed and TTIP will be signed by the EU eventually.
If TTIP is the horror show that a tiny minority of commentators are predicting, if we are outside the EU then an opposition party can run an election campaign on making changes to that deal to the will of the people.
I think May has been smart in putting Leavers in charge of negotiations. When the ultimately fail, people know who to blame.
Yup. That way they can't snipe from the sidelines.
The unilateral veto meant we had the chance to read it and block it or ask for any changes to bits we didn't like and also meant that every other EU country had similarly read it and hopefully weeded out any nasty bits if we were too lazy or stupid to have spotted them. Now we're just going to leave it up to Boris to make sure we get the best deal out of the US, you'll have to excuse my lack of confidence.
The idea that Boris is incapable of shooting himself in the foot is probably a tad too hopeful, I'm just undecided on whether I hope he's taken his foot out of his mouth first or not.
Me too. The best thing about the last few days has been that specific element of May's new cabinet.
Im going to particularly enjoy watching Leadsom try to get her head around what to do with the farmers who wont be getting their CAP subsidies. But watching Fox and Johnson try and negotiate trade deals, and Davis try and negotiate with the EU leaders, will also be very interesting.