1. shamzie

    shamzie Oh David de Gea <3
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    896
    Country:
    Not one part of your reply backed up what you said previously, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Allow me, if the EU grants a 3 month extension, that's £1 BILLION a month ... so again, why is cashcow so funny. Feel free to respond without being a self important condescending plonker. Thanks
     
    CORE likes this.
  2. sarkwalvein

    sarkwalvein There's hope for a Xenosaga port.
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    7,718
    Country:
    Germany
    I think you might have confused what my post said.
    I didn't say anything previously that needed further backing up. I just find the term funny.
    The response is there itself in the post you quoted. It is a self aggrandizing term. I find funny the extents people go to find terms that sound bombastic.

    Regarding the situation itself, my opinion is also there in the post you quoted: it is a tragedy, both sides lose.

    PS: I wonder what needed backing up according to you... my sense of humor?
    In case we are misunderstanding each other, the "thing I said before", that "Not one part of my reply backed up" is a post that just says ":rofl2:", right?
    That in reply to "cash cow"... is that right?
    So, the smiley that laughs at the term "needs further backing up", more "backing up" than explaining why the term itself is funny to me....... is that what you mean?
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    kumikochan likes this.
  3. Henx

    Henx Member
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018
    Messages:
    22
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Another point... Brexit is costing UK a lot of money, since the referendum.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...how-much-uk-economy-money-spent-a8854726.html

    £66bn is quite a lot. Far, far away from the £1.8bn Boris promised for NHS!
    https://www.theguardian.com/society...omises-one-point-eight-billion-pounds-for-nhs
    I can’t help but feel frustrated by how incompetent government is atm, with this clown in power.

    Just to say how misinformed everyone was at the time of the vote, including our government without plan.
    In my opinion it’s honestly a big waste of money, with more to come.
     
    Xzi likes this.
  4. shamzie

    shamzie Oh David de Gea <3
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    896
    Country:
    It really isn't hard, you were laughing at me saying the EU is desperate to hold onto the UK because were the cashcow. Since then I've asked you to show previous and future budgets for the EU which I'm sure will be available, all while pointing out the fact the UK currently pays £1bn a month, aka ... cashcow. Just asking you to back up why you think the notion of the uk clearly being your cashcow is so funny. I assume Belgium (not a real country) will be picking up the bill from now on.
     
  5. sarkwalvein

    sarkwalvein There's hope for a Xenosaga port.
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    7,718
    Country:
    Germany
    You are sure too insecure. I am sorry to have hurt you, but it is your misunderstanding, I target the statement not the person.
    The message is not directed to you as a person, I am not laughing at you (I don't even know you), but yes I consider the statement as I said many times "self aggrandizing": i.e. trying to put something into a pedestal in comparison with everything else when it is not really something to but in a pedestal for starters, it is not above everything else.

    I said many times why I find the action of posing the uk as a cashcow so funny, but actually it is not funny, it is sad, it again makes me look down at the normal behavior of masses and the reasons for the rise of demagogy. It is what I wrote for nth time above: it is a self aggrandizing term that plays right into sensationalism.

    No more backing up from my side, I will leave this discussion (I mean the discussion with you). It is a waste of time for both of us.
     
    Xzi and kumikochan like this.
  6. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,123
    Country:
    United States
    If you follow this thread we already went through that, this is what the UK pays for 'political funds'.

    When the UK left, we just hiked up rates for everyone else. Its not like we are paying politicians less - or that it would be so hard to pay them.. ;)

    The scheme goes as follows. Rich countries get most of the profits (from 'developing' poorer ones), but poorer ones get developed (and if they have political corruption political elites also get money there). Now - because all the money ends up in the rich countries (even in times of crisis, because they dont default on loans and have the better economies) - you have to give some of it back (basically, to keep the chances of revolts down - (pay for farmers, roads in rural environments, stuff like that - the EU in many cases doesnt straight out pay for those, but has it structured, that local initiatives have to come up with everything thats needed, and part of he financing on their own, and then get the money. (Farmers get payed either way - but.. ;) )))).

    Thats the one billion yearly. That cost you 22bn yearly so far (going with the Business insider number from today). But those 22bn are private earnings - so you would have to tax them first. (At lets say 40%. ;) )


    The 'worry' now was, that further unification, would basically eliminate certain british power structures eventually. France you can 'conceptualice' as 'anti britain' (does basically everything you fear ;) ), and germany was seen as becoming weaker, and maybe getting in line with france on social spending and creating a deeper union (making the states in the south less vulnerable - but also more stable, economically - and yes, this would have meant, to pay more on the side of the UK - but then, profits for businesses should have risen, and you could have taxed them more - if the outcome would have been as expected and not 'failed' as with the eastern expansion of the EU (which the UK pushed for strongly)).

    Currently, France is anything but 'strong' because of internal struggles - and everything relating 'further integration' is postponed. But Macron (President of france) is seen by many fractions as the political weave of the future. (Doesnt have to become that way - things happen, and almost never like you intended - in politics. ;) )

    If thats too complex for you do say so, I think I can still break it down a little.

    But beware, you might just be learning a thing. Past slogans. ;)


    The problem with the UK for us is rather - that the market gets smaller. And our importance, and rate of potential development (progress) slows down. Hence, recession. And its the same issue for you as well (even a little more so). But you remain more independent.

    The problem for the UK rather was their trade deficit (no innovation in the country for some time), not the billion a year in EU fund payments.

    Meaning, you basically wanted to take a page out of Italy's former economic playbook, and devalue the pound a bunch, lower your production costs, so you could become more competitive again. And keep all your decision structures against the efforts that france wanted to move forward on. You were becoming weak. So you threw a hissy fit. ;)

    With you gone the EU becomes 'more unified' politicly, but significantly softer economically. (If hard brexit mostly. Or long term mostly. Both.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
  7. Taleweaver

    Taleweaver Storywriter
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,313
    Country:
    Belgium
    They are available, yes. The way i understand this outline, the budget won't change. So when the UK stops contributing, the remaining members increase their contribution to match (no, not just Belgium...if that's a stab against @sarkwalvein you need to learn your flags...he's from Germany :P ).

    Keep in mind that while I understand your reasoning, I do not agree with it (the money comes from countries but goes to countries as well). And more importantly: neither does...erm...anyone involved in the process, really. Because when things come down to it, the UK (currently) still benefits from programs like Erasmus students, horizon 2020 subsidizing and regional policies (a slight bit of more info). These are things that the UK currently pays for and benefits from. These are part of the negotiations. I assume these are the things newspapers overlook when they describe the contributions as "the UK is a cash cow for the EU". It's not really a lie but it's a perspective. If you don't want any of those things (note: I don't know more details either), then by all means: stop paying for them.

    What I'm worried about (and I assume many people with me) is that the government knows damn well what they're paying for. The current crucification of the EU for being lazy or evil bureaucrats can very well turn quickly into a "the EU is taking away our privileges!!" tantrum when the UK government strips away the EU projects it no longer contributes to.
     
    sarkwalvein and Xzi like this.
  8. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,123
    Country:
    United States
    But strictly speaking, the UK could finance Erasmus with national funds for less than they are paying overall.

    Erasmus btw was seen as a program to create a new transnational leader class and a new cultural understanding, that would then trickle down to other societal groups.

    This failed spectacularly (no social cohesion), not trickle down of 'europeism' just a small international elite, that can take jobs anywhere its most pleasent for them - and that doesnt care about anyone of the rest.

    This already is discussed in liberal forums, mostly with 'we maybe have to tripple the funds for it' as current outcomes.. ;)

    So the main point really is, that you pay for 'structural projects' because it pays more dividends for your business structures anyhow. Same way as 'infrastructure projects in the past have produced economic booms' (not a solution anymore - at least for europe). Over that everyone was in agreement.

    But then the discussion ventured towards, risk in those countries has caused deep economic crisis in the past - which we moved onto taxpayers in the richer countries, maybe we should make those countries more sound socially - by transfering more funds (this time from industry). And the bretish were like, peace - we out. ;)

    So the british were fine with being a 'netto payer' for as long as it was for infrastructure projects to benefit industry. But when it came to social security systems - they bucked and left. (No costs spared.)

    And not even to projects - but only to 'talks about potential projects'. Because 'aaaahhh, Brussels, and sovereignty'.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
  9. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,123
    Country:
    United States
    edit: Rected to an old posting mistakingly. Can be deleted.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
  10. shamzie

    shamzie Oh David de Gea <3
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    896
    Country:
    EU graciously accepts another £3,000,000,000 from the cashcow. All while keeping the UK tied to a union it no longer wishes to be apart of.

    The EU was always going to agree to this extension - because they know we don't want one. They are not our 'friends and partners' they are a hostile political entity determined to subjugate us as an example to others who try to leave their illegitimate union.
     
    CORE likes this.
  11. Taleweaver

    Taleweaver Storywriter
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,313
    Country:
    Belgium
    The "we" you're talking about is far from a majority in the UK.

    You started with 52%

    Then you lost some percentages once it became clear that the politicians had no plan and send a bremainder for these "easy negotiations".

    You probably lost some more when the promises made by the brexiteers turned out to be pipe dreams.

    The debacle in parliament probably left a status quo, though leaving everyone with a bitter taste in their mouth.

    Then you got someone in charge who doesn't give a shit about democracy...who managed to score a deal that your bremainder leader considered "not good enough" years ago.

    It's come to the point that the ONLY time anything brexit related gets a majority in parliament is a mere "okay...we'll continue to talk about it".

    Oh, and of course: youth is largely in favor of remain whereas older people are generally more pro-brexit. This also shifts the percentage, as it's been three years since that vote.

    Bremainders hold million man demonstrations for a second referendum. And brexiteers...sorry...when were you hitting the streets for your rights again? A few weeks ago, I heard someone say you'll easily match that kind of demonstration. But thus far, I haven't read anything about minor (let alone major) demonstrations supporting Johnson in his effort.


    *sigh*

    Sorry, but I really had to put that off my chest. I explained my reasoning why this cashcow perspective isn't true (it's three posts above yours, FFS), and you just ignored it. You do realise that that sort of sulking isn't going to win anyone on either side over, right?
     
    Xzi likes this.
  12. Taleweaver

    Taleweaver Storywriter
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,313
    Country:
    Belgium
    Oh...and I only just read that the EU did indeed grant an extension to January 31st 2020, provided it is "expected to be formalised through a written procedure" (source: Donald Tusk's twitter). I'm not sure if that "expected" is a stab at Johnson's government, but it might as well be. It's all but a secret that he doesn't want an extension; he's pretty much forced by parliament.

    So I'm not sure if there will be an extension to begin with (if "has to be signed by the prime minister" is part of that formalisation, there might be no delay after all).


    Somewhat of good news to the brexiteers: if the deal is ratified earlier, the UK can leave at the end of November or December if they want to. So if for no other reason, can we PLEASE stop this cashcow shenanigans? If you (the proverbial entirety of the UK that's apparently hellbent on leaving the EU) really wanted to leave so much, you could have done this WITH THIS SAME FREAKING DEAL two years ago!
     
    Xzi likes this.
  13. _DrBecks_

    _DrBecks_ Advanced Member
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2018
    Messages:
    84
    Country:
    Germany
    UK will sooner or later regret this decision. Nowadays you can only grow with thinking globally not nationally.
     
    Henx likes this.
  14. JoeBloggs777

    JoeBloggs777 GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2018
    Messages:
    691
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    well it looks like there will be an election on the 9th or the 12th of December

    one thing I'm sure of Labour will lose some MP's and Boris will probably get a majority.


    Labour 16 ponits behind the Tories

    The 'Peoples vote' has trouble at the top
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50206253

    it looks like they've pulled Boris out of his ditch :D
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2019
  15. leon315

    leon315 POWERLIFTER
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,015
    Country:
    Italy
    Not very important here but it's still interesting to let politic-enthusiastic tempers know: guess everyone is awared that Hongkong's recent situation, that many violent black shirt protesters/separatists considered themselves ''British'' and hope UK government give them UK passport :D meanwhile pretending as liberals hongkongers who fight Chinese government which freed HK as british's colony :D
     
  16. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer
    Reporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,442
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    General election on the 12th of December 2019 it seems (the amendment to go for the 9th didn't pass, though it was tight).

    Campaigning will start some time next week so no idea what platforms people are going to run on here, and what kind of spoiler effect negations will be in place (the brexit party people have previously said under certain conditions they will not run candidates to avoid it, no idea what UKIP will be doing here and if they even represent much of anything any more/right now) and what kind of split positions some will take (this current agreement is far from a hard exit which probably annoys some that wanted that sort of thing, and Labour are also somewhat split as their traditional working base also count a great number of people that wish to leave the EU for whatever reason).

    What I am more curious about is some of the other amendments put forward.

    Those included dropping the voting age to 16, allowing EU residents a vote and of course a second referendum. A second referendum at this stage is boring to consider in this and was not selected but the other two have something more.

    The voting age to 16 is somewhat radical as these things go. A token search has very few places with a voting age of 16, much less for national elections.
    It should however be noted Scotland did allow 16 year olds to vote in their independence referendum, and does in some other things within Scotland, as does Wales as of earlier this year, though it will be 2021 before we see it in action. Some of the other UK territories also have such things for their local stuff (Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey) but given most such places have trouble with their young folk wandering off one does wonder if it is more about giving them a stake in things. In terms of Europe then Germany has a little bit of this and Austria quite famously became the first to go 16 for just about everything a while back. Estonia also has some stuff.
    For reference it was 1970 that the UK lowered voting age from 21 to 18 (though with earlier bills), which was somewhat ahead of many other places though not by much.

    Normally at this point I would do some kind of calculation here as I am curious. There was something of a young-old split in voting here (care less about that than the reasons myself -- the whole thing where some of the older set considered joining the EU as snubbing Australia being a fascinating one for me) so if we consider dying off rate and extrapolate backwards* from the then 18 year olds and assume similar turnouts (though that might be fun as 12th of December has some university students, often something of a notable demographic, back home that day or the next as it were from term time where they should technically be registered, thus mandating a postal vote or a trip) that could make for some interesting numbers on an already marginal issue (1269501 votes difference here). However I am lazy and given it seems Labour introduced it and it has the backing of the Scottish National Party and Liberal democrats (both fairly opposed to this leaving the EU lark, though as previously mentioned Scotland has 16 for a great many (don't know about all of the local stuff and whatever else) of the things it can reasonably have them for so that is not entirely unfounded) I am betting they already ran the numbers and it came out in their favour, or at the very least just some good posturing.
    *the Austrian example quite notably had more 16 and 17 year olds voting than their peers a few years older, though I suppose if you have nothing better to do.


    The EU nationals thing though...
    On the one hand there are however many millions living here ( https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/august2019 reckons 2.37 million working here and broadly stable since 2016, though rates from the EU have fallen since then and EU8 countries have had totals fall it seems. Recall earlier that the difference in votes was 1.3 million if you round up) and it is nice to have a say in how the place you are living is run.
    On the other hand national sovereignty... generally viewed as a good thing. I am not sure anywhere grants some kind of reciprocal rights for national elections to people with such a status (or a philosophically equivalent one), give or take the complicated setup with the republic or Ireland (short version is republic of Ireland citizens if they are resident in the UK can vote, not sure what goes for those that lived here and then moved somewhere else within the last 15 years and UK citizens can do most elections over there -- can't do president but that is mostly ceremonial). A scarce handful of places do it for local and county elections, possibly also MEP, but I can't see anything for nationals outside of a very old piece of Australian law (as in needed to be enrolled before early 1984), and a quirk of New Zealand law but I don't want to go there right now (New Zealand permanent residency if you did want to go looking).

    Neither were selected but as it is a time sensitive matter that would require something of a considerable overhaul to the system (that is some extra 3 million in a matter of weeks) and the conservatives threatened to cancel the whole deal if such things passed. Few sources seem to want to report which MP proposed the amendment so I don't know which party that was as of typing this.

    So yeah election time. As mentioned officially it does not begin for a few days but practically speaking they have been gearing up for months here, and an interesting one I saw was Labour refused to rule out a 2021 Scottish independence referendum, despite doing so for 2020. Labour are also somewhat down in the polls which made some question whether they would go for such things but we have weeks to go yet.
    I have not seen what the Conservative losses and resignations are like at this point. However for most practical purposes nobody cares about their local MP or probably even knows their name (even if they have a notable named role it is still good odds that people in their area care that much) so I don't imagine either any independents or loss of brand recognition being an issue. That said another fun one is it was noted the prime minister does not have the best hold on his seat so may take a tactical shuffle somewhere else as not having a seat means you can't lead and we would then have another leadership campaign if the party got in but he didn't.
    Way too early to talk of coalitions here.
    There is going to be some good maths and analysis here, even more so if people do the whole tactical voting thing.
     
    Xzi and KingVamp like this.
  17. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer
    Reporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,442
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    While campaigning is nominally supposed to start in a few days I did one of my long wanderings with the dog today and in a town (something of a border region of a few places that people from all would go to) there was the Brexit party handing out local area personalised leaflets* and speaking to people, with the snippet of conversation I overheard making it seem like they were reasonably well informed. Didn't think to ask if that was the candidate for the place or just a lackey, though doing a search it seems people were told to keep quiet for a few days as the various tactics get figured out so probably just an interest type thing.

    *the sort of thing that usually has a lead time of a few days. Though as mentioned this election has been a long time coming and if they are going to be a single issue party they don't exactly need a nuanced manifesto (not that they have such a thing -- their constitution was apparently only revealed thanks to a freedom of information request, and having read their site it is rather washy on such matters).
     
  18. Taleweaver

    Taleweaver Storywriter
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,313
    Country:
    Belgium
    I'm wondering... I can name a second referendum many things ("polarizing", "tense", "a shouting match", ...) but boring certainly wouldn't be among them. Might I ask why you think this will be considered as such? :unsure:


    I get why (not) letting EU citizens in the UK vote is a controversial topic (it's not that hard to guess what most if not all of those will vote for :P ), but what's with the 16 age limit? forgive my bluntness, but all I hear in the news regarding political parties involves the brexit for the better part of the latter three years. Do your youth properly know whom they're voting for aside for their stance in this debate?
    (no matter how influencial this'll be, it is also but one aspect). :unsure:
     
  19. JoeBloggs777

    JoeBloggs777 GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2018
    Messages:
    691
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    it shows how desperate the Labour party is, to try and allow 16 year olds to vote and EU citizens in the UK.

    No other EU country allows EU citizens to vote in government elections and how crazy would it be at 16 you can vote, but under UK law your still a minor until your 18, you need to be 18 to buy alcohol in the UK are they going to lower that to 16 to?
     
    shamzie likes this.
  20. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer
    Reporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,442
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    It was boring to consider as far as amendments to the bill -- various parties have been calling for one for years now. If it had been selected and happened then I would discuss more. One actually happening would not be boring but as far as constitutionality and whatnot it is of minimal interest really (give or take the moaning from the "we won" set).

    The youth vote thing. That is probably more people trying to make a fairly radical change on the back of a time sensitive bill without any real debate on the matter. As far as 16 year olds voting in general I don't have any particular philosophical, logical or ethical objections -- they are just as likely to be as clueless as everybody else.
    The trend is probably for it to go there (Scotland, Wales, some of the islands that also make up the UK all having such things, as do some generally doing OK European countries and they are not on fire any more than usual) but such things probably ought to follow a longer discussion. That said it would be odd to be able to vote but not smoke (age got bumped to 18 a few years back), not drink save for limited circumstances (18 is the "as much as you have money for" age but younger than that you can have a beer or wine with a meal in a restaurant, to say nothing of doing whatever on private land), possibly not be able to operate a car (17 is the age for cars if you can afford a couple of grand for insurance, scooters and low CC bikes is 16 but it is quite hard to do these days as bike licenses are not easy things to get and suffer considerable restrictions beyond that), only get married with parental consent, can join the military but only with parental consent, and possibly still be expected to still be in school (while not super hard enforced like up to 16 then as of a few years back there is a serious serious push for 16-18 to be either essentially in prep for university or a career training course/apprenticeship).
     
    KingVamp, JoeBloggs777 and Taleweaver like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - benefits, Kingdom, Brexit