advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect (2022 remastered edition) II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you're getting your parities confused. The £ Sterling buys €1.2 this evening. Not magnificent, for sure, but not €1/£1 either.

A Euro, meanwhile, collects $98 cents.

Nope. Tonight, the 1 £Sterling buys you 1.11 Euros. £1.00 has not bought 1.20Euro for a very long time
 
Meanwhile, the European Commission will remain unelected, and unaccountable.

This is very misleading.

https://fullfact.org/election-2019/ask-fullfact-eu-commission-unelected/

"The European Commission isn't directly elected by citizens in the EU. But the President of the Commission needs to be approved by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who are elected by voters from member states. MEPs also vote on whether to approve Commissioners who are nominated by governments of member states."

Since we (used to) elect MEPs, and since we elect our government should we not then trust those people to be able to select competent members for the commission ? After all no democracy is absolute - they are all "representative" beyond a certain point, and just as well, since most of us don't have anywhere near the amount of time to micromanage the country via direct democracy.
 
Nope. Tonight, the 1 £Sterling buys you 1.11 Euros. £1.00 has not bought 1.20Euro for a very long time

My apologies, of course you are absolutely right. I meant to write €1.12. And it's obviously slipped slightly in the past 20 mins!
 
This is very misleading.

https://fullfact.org/election-2019/ask-fullfact-eu-commission-unelected/

"The European Commission isn't directly elected by citizens in the EU. But the President of the Commission needs to be approved by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who are elected by voters from member states. MEPs also vote on whether to approve Commissioners who are nominated by governments of member states."

Which is itself, of course, very misleading.

Since we (used to) elect MEPs, and since we elect our government should we not then trust those people to be able to select competent members for the commission ? After all no democracy is absolute - they are all "representative" beyond a certain point, and just as well, since most of us don't have anywhere near the amount of time to micromanage the country via direct democracy.

Sure (except, as you pointed out above, the EP doesn't exactly 'select' the Commissioners. They are nominated by the (notionally) national governments. You should also always bear in mind that the Commissioners do not work for or represent their national governments, (in fact are explicitly prohibited from doing so), they work for, and represent the aims and aspirations of, the European Commission.

It all boils down to how you define 'democracy',I guess.
 
Which is itself, of course, very misleading.



Sure (except, as you pointed out above, the EP doesn't exactly 'select' the Commissioners. They are nominated by the (notionally) national governments. You should also always bear in mind that the Commissioners do not work for or represent their national governments, (in fact are explicitly prohibited from doing so), they work for, and represent the aims and aspirations of, the European Commission.

It all boils down to how you define 'democracy',I guess.
Sounds pretty good compared to ours.
It all boils down to how you define 'shitshow', I guess.
 
Interesting unity of view by European newspapers’ UK correspondents :
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...lists-on-britains-mood?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“A country claiming to be Global Britain has, meanwhile, since Brexit, become a narrow minded, anti-immigrant, internally divided society. Driven by a sect-like group of conservative Brexiters it has ended up with a minister of energy who is a climate sceptic. It tells you a lot about the state of the UK that Jacob Rees-Mogg is more reactionary in his environmental policies than the new king Charles III.”
Tessa Szyszkowitz, UK correspondent for Austrian weekly newspapers Falter and Profil

I forgot to mention, I enjoyed reading that piece in the ever dependable Grauniad. Sure enough, if it quacks and waddles, it is almost certainly a canard. Whilst Ms Szyszkowitz's own country is indeed admirably open to immigration, particularly from Turkey and the former Yugoslavian states, I feel she unfairly maligns the UK. Internally divided we might be, but that hardly makes us unique within or across Europe or the EU. However, on immigration we are notably libertarian, with something approaching a record 400,000 people who weren't born in the UK going into the workforce in the last year, if I recall correctly a total of some 2 million since that infamous annus horribilis, 2016. Last year work visas were issued to 110,000 people from India, 22,000 from the Philippines, 18,000 from Nigeria,15,000 from Ukraine, and significant numbers from Zimbabwe, South Africa, Pakistan, Australia, and even Russia. Remember that of the 3.5 million EU nationals who were expected to take up residency post-Brexit, well in excess of, erm, 6 million eventually did so. The country has offered refuge to 3 million people from Hong Kong, should they wish to come (many have). On top of this, last year there were some 500,000 study visas granted, many of the recipients of which will undoubtedly remain here and come into the workforce.

Small-minded and anti-immigrant? Hardly. Critics and supporters alike would describe this as expansionary, even something along the lines of 'open door'. The Johnson government, despite some notional noises to the contrary, even seemed quite relaxed about the 30 odd thousand people who have braved the sea-lanes of the Channel in flimsy dinghies so far this year alone, or the £billion odd spent on hotels in which to accommodate them whilst they faf about with their asylum claims, most of which are ultimately granted, the balance being largely allowed to slip away into the nether regions of the UK economy.

The EU, meanwhile continues to do its white fortress thing, bribing Turkey millions of Euros to keep more immigrants out of Germany, and setting up quasi-concentration camps in North Africa, and being reluctant, incidentally, to help Italy with the million or so Africans sleeping rough in southern City parks and streets, certainly one of the causes of the issue over which the bien pensants of pfm are having a slightly frantic pearl-clutching session elsewhere in the off-topic threads.

An aside; whilst there were many uncomfortable truths in the linked piece, I can't for one minute think why you forgot to quote another of the correspondents, Antonello Guerrera of La Republica, who wrote, Sure, British politics looks shambolic. After four prime ministers in six years, the UK suddenly resembles Italy. But the UK has, despite its flaws, what I consider the best electoral system in the world, which simultaneously secures local representation and stability (if PMs do well) and filters out extremist parties with no presence on the ground."

Gosh! Could that be faint praise, or even the real thing? Anyway, I wouldn't exactly call it 'unity of view'. Let's face it, unity of view isn't exactly a thing in the EU.
 
Sounds pretty good compared to ours.
It all boils down to how you define 'shitshow', I guess.

Well, if you insist, but you might also ask yourself whether it's a shitshow worse than the Italian, German, French, Hungarian or Swedish shitshows.
 
I forgot to mention, I enjoyed reading that piece in the ever dependable Grauniad. Sure enough, if it quacks and waddles, it is almost certainly a canard. Whilst Ms Szyszkowitz's own country is indeed admirably open to immigration, particularly from Turkey and the former Yugoslavian states, I feel she unfairly maligns the UK. Internally divided we might be, but that hardly makes us unique within or across Europe or the EU. However, on immigration we are notably libertarian, with something approaching a record 400,000 people who weren't born in the UK going into the workforce in the last year, if I recall correctly a total of some 2 million since that infamous annus horribilis, 2016. Last year work visas were issued to 110,000 people from India, 22,000 from the Philippines, 18,000 from Nigeria,15,000 from Ukraine, and significant numbers from Zimbabwe, South Africa, Pakistan, Australia, and even Russia. Remember that of the 3.5 million EU nationals who were expected to take up residency post-Brexit, well in excess of, erm, 6 million eventually did so. The country has offered refuge to 3 million people from Hong Kong, should they wish to come (many have). On top of this, last year there were some 500,000 study visas granted, many of the recipients of which will undoubtedly remain here and come into the workforce.

Small-minded and anti-immigrant? Hardly. Critics and supporters alike would describe this as expansionary, even something along the lines of 'open door'. The Johnson government, despite some notional noises to the contrary, even seemed quite relaxed about the 30 odd thousand people who have braved the sea-lanes of the Channel in flimsy dinghies so far this year alone, or the £billion odd spent on hotels in which to accommodate them whilst they faf about with their asylum claims, most of which are ultimately granted, the balance being largely allowed to slip away into the nether regions of the UK economy.

The EU, meanwhile continues to do its white fortress thing, bribing Turkey millions of Euros to keep more immigrants out of Germany, and setting up quasi-concentration camps in North Africa, and being reluctant, incidentally, to help Italy with the million or so Africans sleeping rough in southern City parks and streets, certainly one of the causes of the issue over which the bien pensants of pfm are having a slightly frantic pearl-clutching session elsewhere in the off-topic threads.

An aside; whilst there were many uncomfortable truths in the linked piece, I can't for one minute think why you forgot to quote another of the correspondents, Antonello Guerrera of La Republica, who wrote, Sure, British politics looks shambolic. After four prime ministers in six years, the UK suddenly resembles Italy. But the UK has, despite its flaws, what I consider the best electoral system in the world, which simultaneously secures local representation and stability (if PMs do well) and filters out extremist parties with no presence on the ground."

Gosh! Could that be faint praise, or even the real thing? Anyway, I wouldn't exactly call it 'unity of view'. Let's face it, unity of view isn't exactly a thing in the EU.
...IF PMs do well...?
 
I forgot to mention, I enjoyed reading that piece in the ever dependable Grauniad. Sure enough, if it quacks and waddles, it is almost certainly a canard. Whilst Ms Szyszkowitz's own country is indeed admirably open to immigration, particularly from Turkey and the former Yugoslavian states, I feel she unfairly maligns the UK. Internally divided we might be, but that hardly makes us unique within or across Europe or the EU. However, on immigration we are notably libertarian, with something approaching a record 400,000 people who weren't born in the UK going into the workforce in the last year, if I recall correctly a total of some 2 million since that infamous annus horribilis, 2016. Last year work visas were issued to 110,000 people from India, 22,000 from the Philippines, 18,000 from Nigeria,15,000 from Ukraine, and significant numbers from Zimbabwe, South Africa, Pakistan, Australia, and even Russia. Remember that of the 3.5 million EU nationals who were expected to take up residency post-Brexit, well in excess of, erm, 6 million eventually did so. The country has offered refuge to 3 million people from Hong Kong, should they wish to come (many have). On top of this, last year there were some 500,000 study visas granted, many of the recipients of which will undoubtedly remain here and come into the workforce.

Small-minded and anti-immigrant? Hardly. Critics and supporters alike would describe this as expansionary, even something along the lines of 'open door'. The Johnson government, despite some notional noises to the contrary, even seemed quite relaxed about the 30 odd thousand people who have braved the sea-lanes of the Channel in flimsy dinghies so far this year alone, or the £billion odd spent on hotels in which to accommodate them whilst they faf about with their asylum claims, most of which are ultimately granted, the balance being largely allowed to slip away into the nether regions of the UK economy.

The EU, meanwhile continues to do its white fortress thing, bribing Turkey millions of Euros to keep more immigrants out of Germany, and setting up quasi-concentration camps in North Africa, and being reluctant, incidentally, to help Italy with the million or so Africans sleeping rough in southern City parks and streets, certainly one of the causes of the issue over which the bien pensants of pfm are having a slightly frantic pearl-clutching session elsewhere in the off-topic threads.

An aside; whilst there were many uncomfortable truths in the linked piece, I can't for one minute think why you forgot to quote another of the correspondents, Antonello Guerrera of La Republica, who wrote, Sure, British politics looks shambolic. After four prime ministers in six years, the UK suddenly resembles Italy. But the UK has, despite its flaws, what I consider the best electoral system in the world, which simultaneously secures local representation and stability (if PMs do well) and filters out extremist parties with no presence on the ground."

Gosh! Could that be faint praise, or even the real thing? Anyway, I wouldn't exactly call it 'unity of view'. Let's face it, unity of view isn't exactly a thing in the EU.
Yes immigrants have always been welcomed. Here’s one example,


she dwarfed the in laws and most of the peasantry, then there were the hats- god forbid sitting behind her at Wimbledon.
 
Last edited:
Via the Guardian. The Brexit fantasy is alive and well.

Brexiteer Daniel Hannan blames fears of Labour government for market chaos

A Conservative peer and former Brexiteer has suggested the market chaos of recent days has been driven by concerns over a possible Labour government rather than the government’s own economic policy.

Daniel Hannan, one of the key Conservative voices behind the push to leave the EU, wrote an article for the ConservativeHome website playing down market concerns about the £45bn package of (unfunded) tax cuts announced by chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng.

In the piece, which was published on Wednesday and immediately widely mocked online, Lord Hannan wrote:

What we have seen since Friday is partly a market adjustment to the increased probability that Sir Keir Starmer will win in 2024 or 2025 - leading to higher taxes, higher spending, and a weaker economy.

Some pundits don’t like Truss, others have never forgiven the Tories for Brexit, yet others are horrified by the idea that growth, rather than equality, should be the Government’s priority. Fair enough. But let’s be clear-headed about what is happening.

Kwarteng’s plan has prompted unease among some Tory MPs even as the free-marketeer wing of the party has shrugged off concerns about the impact of the tax-cutting strategy.

Hannan downplayed the significance of the tax cuts in historical terms.

To blame these tiny tax reductions for the fall in the pound is akin to a fly alighting on an exhausted shire horse as it lies down to sleep, and telling itself that it wrestled the mighty beast to the ground.

He also suggested the drop in sterling reflects a “measure of surprise” that interest rates have not risen faster.

Don’t pretend that higher interest rates represent a failure of Trussonomics. They are precisely what the premier (and her chancellor) want to happen.
 
Brexit wasn’t quite Britain’s final debasement but it appears to be in hand now with the Party’s fourth leader in six years. An isolated international laughing stock but Truss has her trump card still to play- Northern Ireland.
 
Brexiteers still struggling to get unpatriotic economic forecasts out the door:

"Treasury will not publish OBR forecast delivered to them on 7 October until 23 November


The Treasury said that Liz Truss, Kwasi Kwarteng and the OBR discussed the “economic and fiscal outlook” as well as the process for growth forecasts. However, they said the forecast – which they will receive on 7 October – won’t be published until 23 November. The government also said it “values” the OBR’s scrutiny."
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsB
Brexit wasn’t quite Britain’s final debasement but it appears to be in hand now with the Party’s fourth leader in six years. An isolated international laughing stock but Truss has her trump card still to play- Northern Ireland.
More to come, I fear.
 
Truss has her trump card still to play- Northern Ireland.

Sadly, that'll be around for a wee while yet. There was a big meeting on Irish reunification in Dublin at the weekend, studiously avoided (naturally) by the Unionists. Unfortunately, it was reminiscent of Mark Twain's comment about the weather - everyone talks about it, but nobody ever seems to do anything about it. No plans beyond "wouldn't it be a good idea, if..." At least Leo Varadkar had a clear view of the size of the task, of how to incorporate two diametrically opposed points of view into a single country. ^The Shinners were, as usual, firmly in "If I ruled the wortld, every day would be the first day of spring" territory. So, alas for everyone, Liz will have her Northern Irish club for a while yet.
 
Maybe there's a third way? Northern Ireland can leave the UK, but not join Ireland. That way, both factions get some, but not all, of what they want. Isn't that the art of compromise, of negotiation?
 
Maybe there's a third way? Northern Ireland can leave the UK, but not join Ireland. That way, both factions get some, but not all, of what they want. Isn't that the art of compromise, of negotiation?

Float it off to sea and park it next to Rockall
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top