Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
If you're looking for someone who was more sure which side posted that flyer, perhaps you should have responded to bilby instead of me, since nothing you wrote relates to anything you or anyone else wrote.
-
Features
Brexit has happened
- Thread starter Jason Harvestdancer
- Start date
If you're looking for someone who was more sure which side posted that flyer, perhaps you should have responded to bilby instead of me, since nothing you wrote relates to anything you or anyone else wrote.
Apparently an Englishman's home is his castle, where he is safe from unlawful search and seizure, but can be required to speak English behind his closed door. It's interesting that this leaflet cites the rule of the majority, without mention of the totality. The Winchester Tower residents might hold a plebiscite and declare that the majority rules for some other language, with just as much legal authority to a piece of paper taped to a door.
laughing dog
Contributor
Wrong.
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
I’d like to see a video of someone speaking Welsh while beating the notice-hanger into submission with a leg of lamb.
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
(Bumping this thread may be inappropriate. I hope the Mods will move this post to a more appropriate thread.)
A former chief advisor to Boris Johnson blasts at Johnson, saying 10 Downing Street is now just a branch of the entertainment industry.
For 16 months, Dominic Cummings was Chief Adviser (and Chief of Staff) to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I don't follow British politics much. This description of Boris Johnson caught my eye because of the depiction's strong similarities to a recent U.S. President.
A former chief advisor to Boris Johnson blasts at Johnson, saying 10 Downing Street is now just a branch of the entertainment industry.
For 16 months, Dominic Cummings was Chief Adviser (and Chief of Staff) to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I don't follow British politics much. This description of Boris Johnson caught my eye because of the depiction's strong similarities to a recent U.S. President.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,353
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
...Postponed to June 30, 2021. And then to December 31, 2021.
It's almost as though the people in charge of "Getting Brexit done" aren't capable of getting Brexit done without causing a massive disaster for which they don't want to accept responsibility.
UK pushes back full Brexit border checks by another six months
...
...
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,855
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
I'm totally with you.
Trying to keep track of the socio-political idiocy here in the USA is impossible. I can't keep track of GB's also.
I see GB as more like a reality TV show on the world stage.
Tom
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,855
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
I do hope the Irish are behaving politely, even though they're now part of an economic power bigger the The British Empire.
It's not our strong suit.
Tom
It's not our strong suit.
Tom
Nope. Riots in Belfast and the DUP (think Irish Taliban and you wouldn't be far off) throwing their weight around after they received a taste of relevance in Teresa May's government,
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,855
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
Oh dear.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but most of my ancestors were poor Irish trash who fled British rule in the late 19th century. Google "A Modest Proposal", by Jonathan Swift for more information.
Tom
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,353
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
The problem is that Johnson has painted himself into a corner. He is required by the terms of the Belfast Agreement (aka Good Friday Agreement) to allow a completely open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The only indication that a border even exists are signs saying 'Welcome to Northern Ireland, Speed Limits in Miles per Hour' (or 'Welcome to Ireland, Speed Limits in Kilometres per Hour').
The Belfast Agreement is underwritten by the EU and the USA, both of whom are required to ensure that the UK and Ireland comply with its terms.
The Withdrawal Agreement, between the UK and EU, is also legally binding on Johnson. It requires that goods moving from the UK to the EU must be inspected and subjected to the relevant tarrifs, duties and taxes; And that international border controls must be applied. However, as the Belfast Agreement specifically prohibits such constraints between Northern Ireland and Ireland, the Withdrawal agreement grants Northern Ireland special status as a part of the EU for customs purposes. It's therefore required that the UK imposes customs barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
But such constraints on trade with the rest of the UK are completely unacceptable to the DUP and other Unionists in Northern Ireland; And Johnson (and his predecessor, Theresa May) promised the DUP that no such constraints would be imposed. That is, Johnson promised something that requires him to break international law.
So far, he has tried to square that circle by dragging his feet on the construction of border inspection facilities for UK-NI trade; But the EU are rapidly running out of patience with this failure to comply with legal obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement.
Johnson and his government have used every pathetic excuse you can imagine for this. They said that they hadn't read the treaty before signing ot, so it shouldn't be enforced. They said that asking them to do what they committed in writing to doing was unreasonable, unfair, and vindictive. They said that the EU should be 'pragmatic' and allow them to ignore inconvenient parts of the treaty that they signed. And they have repeatedly extended the deadline for full customs controls on EU to UK trade, in an attempt to justify their ongoing failure to manage UK - Northern Ireland trade.
There's only one lawful recourse, which is a hard customs border in the Irish Sea. Johnson has to either break his promises to the Unionists, and risk renewed sectarian violence in Northern Ireland; Or illegally break the terms of the Belfast Agreement and risk both sanctions from the EU and US, and renewed sectarian violence in Northern Ireland; Or illegally break the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and risk sanctions from the EU and/or the complete collapse of the Withdrawal Agreement and the end of all protection against the worst case outcomes of Brexit.
Of course, a hard border in the Irish Sea would make Irish reunification far more likely. Which is why the DUP are so deadset against it.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Britain needs pure FREE TRADE in order to fix the mess.
Adopt basic principles of economics, supply-and-demand etc., as the foundation for the future economy, rather than the special-interest protectionism and nativism and pseudo-patriotism and demagoguery of the past.
Britain has an opportunity now to set a new course and serve as a role model for other nations.
"international law"? I'll assume this means the EU is requiring some trade constraints by Britain. If that's correct, then this is the cause of the problem, and Johnson's proper response is to defy this and tell the EU to f**k itself and get its ass out of the way, because free trade works and there's no need for anyone to impose any trade CONSTRAINT onto anyone else. Whoever is demanding any trade barrier to be imposed onto anyone is the cause of the problem -- it's that simple. Get rid of those barriers, whoever or whatever is causing them, and the problem is fixed.
What is the practical need for the inspection facilities to interfere with UK-NI trade? If no one can explain the need for them, then why should this trade obstructionism be enforced?
Why aren't we "running out of patience" with idiots who keep insisting on the need to interfere with free trade across borders? Why doesn't the EU tell these idiots to shut up, or demand an explanation why trade across borders has to be obstructed? Why does everyone just assume, blindly, that we must accept these artificial barriers to trade, which hurt all consumers and cause a lower living standard to all (except maybe to a few uncompetitive crybabies who need to be protected against foreign competition)?
Instead of "dragging his feet" he should just tell the EU to "F**k off!" and let the free market work.
What they should do instead is tell the truth: the only ones who need "inspection facilities" to obstruct trade are special interest crybabies and parasites who inflict damage onto everyone in order to promote their selfish gain, or their narrow xenophobic pseudo-patriotic prejudice.
It also should not be enforced because it was wrong in the first place, as artificial trade barriers are always wrong, and should be defied and repudiated, no matter what mistake produced them and caused someone to falsely agree to them. In the long term there will not be any harm to Britain's economy by refusing to obey misguided trade protectionist barriers imposed by idiots who want to obstruct trade between countries.
They should do whatever it takes to continue avoiding any form of artificial trade barriers. It would probably be best to bluntly proclaim the benefits of free trade and repudiate all forms of artificial trade barriers and dare the EU to try to defend trade barriers with economic arguments, which it cannot do. There is no reasonable basis for imposing trade barriers of any kind.
Another "lawful" recourse would be to enact a Free Trade Law condemning and repudiating all artificial trade barriers of any kind, even from the EU, and repudiating any past agreements to impose such barriers.
The latter is the only practical and reasonable course. The EU must be made to retreat and admit that it is wrong to try to impose artificial trade barriers. On anyone anywhere.
There should be no "hard border" anywhere which imposes artificial trade barriers onto buyers and sellers. If a "hard border" is necessary, let it be one which allows free commerce to flow across. If someone insists on putting the trade barriers there, Britain should disassociate from it and refuse to enforce any such barriers. Total obstinate refusal to enforce any trade barriers, no matter what, cannot hurt Britain's economy in the long term.
solution to all the above:
Eliminate all protective trade barriers, no matter what is the excuse for it. Those who demand any trade barriers are the cause of the problem.
If it means violating something the EU wants, then tell the EU to shove it. The EU has no business requiring anyone to impose a trade barrier onto anyone else. Trading blocs, or trade unions, came into existence originally in order to REDUCE trade barriers, not increase them. It is perverse of any trading bloc to impose trade barriers or to INCREASE the barriers. Any legitimate trade union has no need to do anything other than LIMIT the tariff levels, or put maximum tariff levels, never to put minimum tariff levels on trade or require a tariff or a higher tariff level. No one can give any reason for any such requirement.
It is only certain crybaby labor unions or crybaby business interests who demand protection against foreign competitors. The solution to all of Britain's new trade problems, related to BREXIT, is to eliminate or reduce the tariffs, regardless of any demands from the crybaby protectionist interests and from demagogues in power who are pandering to those special interests.
Britain needs to adopt unilateral free trade, in order to make BREXIT work, meaning it must eliminate all the protective trade barriers/tariffs, and then if the EU sinks to the level of trying to impose trade barriers and enforce them, Britain must defy the EU and defend the principles of free trade (supply-and-demand, profit motive, competition, etc.), which do work if the demagogues and special interest uncompetitive crybabies and Snake Oil Economists just get their butt out of the way and allow the capitalists to serve consumers (and yes, even make more profits if they're more competitive -- How dare they get rich serving consumers and making us all better off --- the dirty capitalist pigs!).
Unilateral free trade would work for Britain (or any other country which would choose that course rather than be bullied by the Fair-Trade thugs), and open their market to all countries and all industries and all global competition.
(As a practical course, it would be appropriate also to have a very low uniform tariff level across-the-board on all imports, no matter what, as a simple revenue-raising tax not aimed at reducing competition. But to facilitate trade rather than slow it down, there should be a different formula for the tax, which would be to base it on the weight and volume of the cargo rather than on the value. A tax on the "value" of the import is subjective and requires artificial and arbitrary calculations which effectively serve as trade barriers by increasing the log-jams at the ports.)
What Britain should do initially is eliminate ALL tariffs unilaterally, reducing them all to zero, regardless what the EU or anyone else demands; but eventually work on a new system of having a low tariff level, uniformly applied to ALL imports of any kind, regardless what is the origin of the imports or the category, coming up with a quick simple formula for assessing a uniform low tariff rate on everything, not based on protectionism but only on a simple revenue-raising need, so that trade serves all consumers and all the citizens, rather than being manipulated by demagogues to serve special interests at the expense of everyone else.
Adopt basic principles of economics, supply-and-demand etc., as the foundation for the future economy, rather than the special-interest protectionism and nativism and pseudo-patriotism and demagoguery of the past.
Britain has an opportunity now to set a new course and serve as a role model for other nations.
"international law"? I'll assume this means the EU is requiring some trade constraints by Britain. If that's correct, then this is the cause of the problem, and Johnson's proper response is to defy this and tell the EU to f**k itself and get its ass out of the way, because free trade works and there's no need for anyone to impose any trade CONSTRAINT onto anyone else. Whoever is demanding any trade barrier to be imposed onto anyone is the cause of the problem -- it's that simple. Get rid of those barriers, whoever or whatever is causing them, and the problem is fixed.
What is the practical need for the inspection facilities to interfere with UK-NI trade? If no one can explain the need for them, then why should this trade obstructionism be enforced?
Why aren't we "running out of patience" with idiots who keep insisting on the need to interfere with free trade across borders? Why doesn't the EU tell these idiots to shut up, or demand an explanation why trade across borders has to be obstructed? Why does everyone just assume, blindly, that we must accept these artificial barriers to trade, which hurt all consumers and cause a lower living standard to all (except maybe to a few uncompetitive crybabies who need to be protected against foreign competition)?
Instead of "dragging his feet" he should just tell the EU to "F**k off!" and let the free market work.
What they should do instead is tell the truth: the only ones who need "inspection facilities" to obstruct trade are special interest crybabies and parasites who inflict damage onto everyone in order to promote their selfish gain, or their narrow xenophobic pseudo-patriotic prejudice.
It also should not be enforced because it was wrong in the first place, as artificial trade barriers are always wrong, and should be defied and repudiated, no matter what mistake produced them and caused someone to falsely agree to them. In the long term there will not be any harm to Britain's economy by refusing to obey misguided trade protectionist barriers imposed by idiots who want to obstruct trade between countries.
They should do whatever it takes to continue avoiding any form of artificial trade barriers. It would probably be best to bluntly proclaim the benefits of free trade and repudiate all forms of artificial trade barriers and dare the EU to try to defend trade barriers with economic arguments, which it cannot do. There is no reasonable basis for imposing trade barriers of any kind.
Another "lawful" recourse would be to enact a Free Trade Law condemning and repudiating all artificial trade barriers of any kind, even from the EU, and repudiating any past agreements to impose such barriers.
The latter is the only practical and reasonable course. The EU must be made to retreat and admit that it is wrong to try to impose artificial trade barriers. On anyone anywhere.
There should be no "hard border" anywhere which imposes artificial trade barriers onto buyers and sellers. If a "hard border" is necessary, let it be one which allows free commerce to flow across. If someone insists on putting the trade barriers there, Britain should disassociate from it and refuse to enforce any such barriers. Total obstinate refusal to enforce any trade barriers, no matter what, cannot hurt Britain's economy in the long term.
solution to all the above:
Eliminate all protective trade barriers, no matter what is the excuse for it. Those who demand any trade barriers are the cause of the problem.
If it means violating something the EU wants, then tell the EU to shove it. The EU has no business requiring anyone to impose a trade barrier onto anyone else. Trading blocs, or trade unions, came into existence originally in order to REDUCE trade barriers, not increase them. It is perverse of any trading bloc to impose trade barriers or to INCREASE the barriers. Any legitimate trade union has no need to do anything other than LIMIT the tariff levels, or put maximum tariff levels, never to put minimum tariff levels on trade or require a tariff or a higher tariff level. No one can give any reason for any such requirement.
It is only certain crybaby labor unions or crybaby business interests who demand protection against foreign competitors. The solution to all of Britain's new trade problems, related to BREXIT, is to eliminate or reduce the tariffs, regardless of any demands from the crybaby protectionist interests and from demagogues in power who are pandering to those special interests.
Britain needs to adopt unilateral free trade, in order to make BREXIT work, meaning it must eliminate all the protective trade barriers/tariffs, and then if the EU sinks to the level of trying to impose trade barriers and enforce them, Britain must defy the EU and defend the principles of free trade (supply-and-demand, profit motive, competition, etc.), which do work if the demagogues and special interest uncompetitive crybabies and Snake Oil Economists just get their butt out of the way and allow the capitalists to serve consumers (and yes, even make more profits if they're more competitive -- How dare they get rich serving consumers and making us all better off --- the dirty capitalist pigs!).
Unilateral free trade would work for Britain (or any other country which would choose that course rather than be bullied by the Fair-Trade thugs), and open their market to all countries and all industries and all global competition.
(As a practical course, it would be appropriate also to have a very low uniform tariff level across-the-board on all imports, no matter what, as a simple revenue-raising tax not aimed at reducing competition. But to facilitate trade rather than slow it down, there should be a different formula for the tax, which would be to base it on the weight and volume of the cargo rather than on the value. A tax on the "value" of the import is subjective and requires artificial and arbitrary calculations which effectively serve as trade barriers by increasing the log-jams at the ports.)
What Britain should do initially is eliminate ALL tariffs unilaterally, reducing them all to zero, regardless what the EU or anyone else demands; but eventually work on a new system of having a low tariff level, uniformly applied to ALL imports of any kind, regardless what is the origin of the imports or the category, coming up with a quick simple formula for assessing a uniform low tariff rate on everything, not based on protectionism but only on a simple revenue-raising need, so that trade serves all consumers and all the citizens, rather than being manipulated by demagogues to serve special interests at the expense of everyone else.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,353
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Wow. That's impressively detached from reality. I suspect you really believe all of it too.
A structure of international relations built over centuries, and shaped to minimise the likelihood of war and to attempt to balance millions of disparate interests has had a huge chunk of it smashed out for dumb ideological reasons, causing major economic disruption and risking a return of centuries of violence only recently quelled on the island of Ireland, and your conclusion is that the only problem is that the UK didn't go far enough in smashing the entire system.
You owe me the time I wasted from my precious life, reading that painful nonsense.
No, it would not be a fucking brilliant idea if everyone behaved like fundamentalist simpletons. Your assumption that really difficult and complex issues are, at heart, simple and amenable to a single universally applicable solution of "MOAR FREEDUM" is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever had the misfortune to read. It's so deeply and systemically wrong that it would take years to identify all of the erroneous assumptions, flaws in reasoning, and logical errors in it, and frankly, it's easier to just let you be wrong, and put you back on ignore.
Goodbye.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
You're wrong if you can't give a reason why.
The simpletons are the ones who religiously impose costly demands on us, based only on tradition and xenophobia, and can't give any reason or practical purpose to be served.
There's no benefit in letting people make free choices? Why shouldn't the DEFAULT position always be pro-freedom, or pro-free-choice? and the burden of proof always be on those who would curtail free choice? If you can't explain why free choice should be curtailed, then we can only assume that your demand is an unjust imposition on society to satisfy a secret selfish motive, or an ideological obsession or prejudice. If that's not the case, then you'll explain what practical need is served by trade barriers (in Ireland or anywhere else) or other curtailment of free choice. Like the need to have taxes, or the requirement to wear masks during a pandemic, etc. Or to have traffic lights and public safety regulations, etc.
Note that the free-trade basher typically cannot address a practical question:
No answer. It is just accepted religiously that trade barriers are handed down by Divine Fiat and must be obeyed without being questioned.
Can any NON-capitalist-bashing ideologue give a reason to require "that the UK imposes customs barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK"?
How are people made better off to have barriers imposed onto them to penalize trade? No one can explain what purpose is served? It's just for the sake of tradition?
What's the evidence that trade would cause war? between who? The Irish would go to war against France? Germany? Timbuktu? How does trading with someone in Ireland cause a war to erupt somewhere? Catholics and Protestants will start killing each other over someone being allowed to engage in trade? or trade between Catholics and Protestants will erupt in a Holy War or Inquisition or a St. Patrick's Day Massacre?
Whose interests are served by penalizing trade? other than uncompetitive crybabies who can't compete? Why should consumers have to pay higher prices (= lower living standard) in order to protect the jobs of uncompetitive crybabies?
The simpletons are the ones who religiously impose costly demands on us, based only on tradition and xenophobia, and can't give any reason or practical purpose to be served.
There's no benefit in letting people make free choices? Why shouldn't the DEFAULT position always be pro-freedom, or pro-free-choice? and the burden of proof always be on those who would curtail free choice? If you can't explain why free choice should be curtailed, then we can only assume that your demand is an unjust imposition on society to satisfy a secret selfish motive, or an ideological obsession or prejudice. If that's not the case, then you'll explain what practical need is served by trade barriers (in Ireland or anywhere else) or other curtailment of free choice. Like the need to have taxes, or the requirement to wear masks during a pandemic, etc. Or to have traffic lights and public safety regulations, etc.
Note that the free-trade basher typically cannot address a practical question:
No answer. It is just accepted religiously that trade barriers are handed down by Divine Fiat and must be obeyed without being questioned.
Can any NON-capitalist-bashing ideologue give a reason to require "that the UK imposes customs barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK"?
How are people made better off to have barriers imposed onto them to penalize trade? No one can explain what purpose is served? It's just for the sake of tradition?
What's the evidence that trade would cause war? between who? The Irish would go to war against France? Germany? Timbuktu? How does trading with someone in Ireland cause a war to erupt somewhere? Catholics and Protestants will start killing each other over someone being allowed to engage in trade? or trade between Catholics and Protestants will erupt in a Holy War or Inquisition or a St. Patrick's Day Massacre?
Whose interests are served by penalizing trade? other than uncompetitive crybabies who can't compete? Why should consumers have to pay higher prices (= lower living standard) in order to protect the jobs of uncompetitive crybabies?
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,144
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
For decades to come Brexit will be taught in history and political science classes are the exemplar of
1, How not to run a referendum
2. How not to be prepared if you actually win
1, How not to run a referendum
2. How not to be prepared if you actually win
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,353
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Well, there's still more than four months to the end of the extension to the extended extension of the transition period, and already the Army are being brought in to keep the supermarkets from running out of food.
Anyone tired of all the winning yet?
Anyone tired of all the winning yet?
barbos
Contributor
British Army is clearly unable to do the job. They should ask Russian Army for help
https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/21...-to-leave-supermarket-shelves-empty-in-the-uk
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I'm not so sure. The mistake the political elites did was that they failed to listen to what the working class were saying. They took them for granted for too long. The Brexit referendum wasn't about Brexit. It was a referendum on the people's confidence with their leaders. They got a much needed wake up call. Yes, it was a shame that this led to leaving the EU of all things. But it is what it is. I see Trump being voted into power in USA the same kind of thing. If you don't take the impoverished uneducated grey masses seriously for long enough, they will rise up and do dumb shit.
In general I think these kinds of things act to keep politicians on their toes. That's not necessarily a bad thing, in the long run.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I think it's too easy of an explanation. It's too self congratulatory. Labelling your political opponents as gullible fools unable to think for themselves is a bit arrogant IMHO. Perhaps there's another explanation?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,730
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Isn't it less supply and more distribution? Regardless, it doesn't look good.
PM Johnson's "Let it (the Pandemic) go" plan has done marvelously at spreading the virus, which sidelined drivers for trucks (called lorry's by the Brits for some reason). Again, this is one of those, well if you are vax'd, why should you care issues. Well, we cared and now there are gaps on the grocery shelves, because the food that should be on them, hasn't been delivered. I'm noticing gaps growing again state side in Ohio. Frozen waffles and confectionaries apparently are stuck in customs or something.
But you know, freedom is awesome. The freedom to wait for food to be delivered is sweet!
Is there anything more absurd than a grocery shortage without a food supply shortage?!