| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
On the high side but that is from the perspective of somebody who lives in a country which has seen a real terms wage decrease/stagnation (depending on what figures you believe) for at least 10 years.Originally Posted by life on mars
Conflating a 240k salary with criticisms of corporate greed over CEOs that take home £10s of millions while their companies are in decline is a bit mad.
You realise that the vote isnt random right? If remain wins a second vote then it means people have changed their mind, it is called democracy.Dont give up
we can have a vote and decide again
then if they dont get the right vote, we can vote till they do
If you are one of these Brexiteers who would want to leave even if the public no longer want to then you are no better than a remainer who wants to stay by 'any means necessary'.
The leave campaign promised something undeliverable and there is no getting away from that.
So if the 2nd ( or 3rd or 4th ) vote was still leave, the remainers would be happy with that and not whine about 30% of the population didnt vote, so they might not want to leave, so we should remain ?? ?
This is one of the blatant hypocrisies of modern day UK politics and the public isn't switched on enough to see through it.
The same people who criticise high senior level public sector pay, defend high private sector pay even when the companies in question rely primarily on public contracts.
The kind of crappy monopolising privatisation that our government's appear to love blurs these lines to the point where they are impossible to distinguish
University pay is a great example, it is seen as public money (and draws a chorus of gasps when it is published) even though they are effectively run as businesses in a competitive marketplace, the kicker however is that if the kids don't go on to get good jobs Joe public covers their fee loan + some healthy interest.
I can't speak for all people who voted remain but a vote on the deal makes sense to me given how turbulent the negotiations have been compared to how the public were told they would be.
A second vote also puts to bed your final point, if people don't vote after knowing how close it is then they clearly dont care. I would imagine there were remainers and leavers who were convinced not to vote by polls that suggested a clear win for remain so a second vote would give a clearer picture all round.
I would then be in favour of following the public's choice. At the moment we don't know what the public's choice is. It certainly isn't chequers, I don't think people want a no deal (although I would prefer that to a half way solution like chequers).
The main logical criticism of a 2nd vote is really simple but not somewhere Brexiteers want to go because it smears then as much as anyone else. The public is still horribly uninformed about brexit, they don't know what any of the outcomes entail. They don't even know what no deal means ( and we would obviously need a clear picture of what remaining means too for the vote to be legitimate)
Brexit solved :
Irish ministers have dismissed a suggestion from a radio presenter that the best way to end the Brexit impasse is for an “Irexit” which would see the country leave the EU to join the UK.
I would agree to a simple yes or no vote on the deal May , nothing else on the ballot paper .
In my view it gets us over the undemocratic way of changing a vote that has been delivered by a lot of people .
Democracy is all well and good but very few people who voted for Brexit knew what they were actually voting for and the ramifications thereof. There are very good arguments for leaving the EU (a concept that has enormous flaws and which will probably end in tears) but the vast majority of Brexit voters I come across or see interviewed in vox-pops on the TV are incredibly ignorant of the economic and other consequences but our fate was put in their hands.
I don't pretend that I knew all of the ramifications myself and I can't say I know anyone on the Remain side that did. All I know is that I wouldn't put my trust and future in the average voter on the street.
Popcorn time.
https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak...70368005226496
Never mind the salaries the pension liability is my concern ,which goes way beyond salary earnings
It was one of the very first discussion points placed on the table in front of the UK , not Trade, not the Irish Border,Free movement, nope what will the UK contribute as part of their CONTINUED pension liability .
I just can't imagine ,certain political minded folk accepting this , if it was a fat cat banker ,rich old Tory , some old rich capitalist ( and rightly so )
We should be even handed with all excessive spends ,especially when its tax payers money ,funding them .
My battle bus would have shown the incredible liability of wages , buildings , pensions to the ordinary tax payers in Europe :
32 thousand people plus expenses ( I bet not many on minimum wage)
EU's total pension liabilities are £35.8 billion
€1.756 billion euros per year running costs .
Now there's a real socialist battle ground argument to be had , and one I'd enjoy AND SUPPORT ???
Finally somebody talking about the real issues, as opposed to project fear.
There are 32 thousand civil servants working in the EU then? Seems reasonable, how many are there in the UK?
The EU civil service salaries takes up 3% of their total budget
I know it might sound strange but the the amount of financial liability we agree to pay the EU is pretty minor in terms of the issues we have in leaving.
Once we triggered Article 50 to leave the EU within two years we seemed a little surprised about what happened next. Some thought that this would trigger the negotiation of the easiest trade deal with EU in history.
Unfortunately the EU had different ideas. They proposed and we bowed down to a sequential negotiation where we first agreed a withdrawal agreement before moving to an agreement of the future relationship once we have left on 29th March 2019.
The withdrawal agreement needed to cover at the least three key points around the status of citizens post withdrawal, the treatment of the Irish Border and the net financial contributions the UK would make for its assets and liabilities.
In December 2017 Theresa May came back from Brussels in triumph that she had agreed with an EU on these points allowing discussions around future trade relationships to commence. The agreement included the level of financial commitment we would make, INCLUDING PENSIONS, and a backstop on the island of Ireland.
Since then the UK recognised that it needed more time to negotiate its future relationship and the EU agreed a transitional period where from March 2019 for 21 months to 31st December 2020 where for all intents and purposes we will take EU rules, have no say in them and pay more for the privilege.
We finally presented the Chequers proposal that has been rejected by most sides within the UK and without. The aim now in the time remaining of Article 50 to conclude the withdrawal agreement, including the Irish backstop which since we signed up to in December 2017 has been in some dispute and enter into a political agreement on our future relationship that all can be agreed by the Conservative Party, Parliament the EU its 27 remaining member states and its Parliament before we officially leave on 29th March.
If we don't we leave with no deal with all that entails. The good this from your point of view is that is that if that happens then we don't pay any contributions for pension provisions. Sounds great when you put like that I guess!!
I read today that the Royal college of Nursing, British medical association and the Royal College of Midwives are against Brexit.
Then you have Nigel Farage, Arron Banks Boris Johnson and Liam Fox.
Says it all for me.
Are you annoyed about our cut or the absolute level?
If it is the former then surely this is just a sum and part of the negotiation and if it is the latter then you should have raised it years ago...
Did you think it would be cheap to run a supranational organisation that does our bidding around the world???
The fact that Brexiteers have no problem being intrinsically associated with Mr Banks says a lot.
'No deal is better than a bad deal' appears to have become 'come on guys please, this bad deal is better than no deal'.
Rhetoric meets reality.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/a...mpression=true
This article sums up May's issues quite nicely
Good analysis around the UK's negotiations with itself. However, no sooner do you post something on this subject that the mathematics (math ffs) change. Now around 84 loyalists after Jo Johnson resigns!
It doesnt matter what May delivers or agrees as her opponent's will not under any circumstance support or vote for any deal , as their real goal is power , bugger the people , or the effects of Brexit upon them ,I'm still waiting to see there detailed alternative plan .
We are just used as a political football.
For a labour voter you sure do love May and dislike labour.
Great summary, the only incey wincey hole in it is that the majority of the groups openly opposed to this deal already have power - remainer tories, erg, dup, scottish tories
This isn't about power. It is about taking this supposed mandate and delivering something that absolutely nobody wanted in the name of compromise. She was told at the very start that it was stupid, she told us to trust her because she is a fantastic negotiator and now 2.5 years after the vote she is in a dark room trying to convince even her feckin pals to support it. Tomorrow once she has threatened them into submission she will have to start working on the people who don't like her.
I would have hated to take up this mantle up , as there is no win .Great summary, the only incey wincey hole in it is that the majority of the groups openly opposed to this deal already have power - remainer tories, erg, dup, scottish tories
This isn't about power. It is about taking this supposed mandate and delivering something that absolutely nobody wanted in the name of compromise. She was told at the very start that it was stupid, she told us to trust her because she is a fantastic negotiator and now 2.5 years after the vote she is in a dark room trying to convince even her feckin pals to support it. Tomorrow once she has threatened them into submission she will have to start working on the people who don't like her.
The deal was always going to be one of compromise , and when the vote was made had not idea of what they were really voting for , or voted for a single issue or two .
I still think this issue is being used as a political battle in every quarter ,in every party ,and all of the parties are vying for a popular vote ,trouble is the country is split down the middle as is the parties .
I'm guessing those very parties are rubbing their hands in glee , with a no vote on the deal approaching , if that happens I'm hopping the main opposition parties come forward with their version of the deal to put it right ( part of me believes they don't have one, or do any better with regards to getting a deal, accepting to all )
I think folk should realise there is no good news on this one or golden opportunity.
Well you would have hated to take up the mantle but Theresa May certainly barged her way to the front of the queue when the opportunity arose.
She then almost single handedly initiated and executed the worst election campaign in living memory when you look at the poll lead she frittered away and the weakness that introduced by having to rely upon a minority party.
She then painted a load of unnecessary red lines that appeased the hard Brexiteers but handcuffed negotiators and looked even weaker when these red lines were softened. Its difficult to remember that pre and post referendum a range of options what Brexit could be were being articulated by the same Tory ministers and backbenchers who now are filleting May for negotiating one they don't like.
To give her credit she seems to be driven by a sense of duty. She has survived this far mainly due to the cowardice of other Tories who would rather criticise and undermine but didn't have the guts to put themselves forward as alternatives when they knew they would have to pick up responsibility for a crock of shit.
Labour at one level has been little better as aside from a clearer commitment to being in a Customs Union it won't/can't articulate a clear vision that keeps its party/members/voters aligned. However where I disagree with your attempt to spread blame is that it is the duty of HM Opposition to oppose. The six tests, impossible as they are to achieve, are all promisory notes made to voters mainly by Tory Brexiteers or government.
The best way to get Labour to come clean on its vision for Brexit/not Brexit is via the ballot box where they will be forced to set this out in a way that there is no compelling need in opposition.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
