Who should be next UK PM?

This thread is currently locked.

:: New - Old :: Old - New

Pages: Previous | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | Next |

Forum home :: Latest threads :: Search forums
The Comments
26 Jun 2019 8:34 AM by Mickyfinn Star rating in Spain and France. 1833 posts Send private message

Yes Roberto, me too. The attitudes British politicians had back in the day led to and encouraged racial tensions and hostilities. I was struck by those same beliefs written in the files are exactly the same nonsense we hear every day now about EU migrants. I believe those attitudes still prevail not just among politicians but in the wider populous.

You can dress it up any way you like but Brexit was about immigration, period.



_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn Time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz.



Like 0      
26 Jun 2019 8:46 AM by ads Star rating. 4122 posts Send private message

Roberto

To link the Windrush scandal ( and yes it was a scandal) with those who criticise the EU is extraordinary.

The EU Commission have made failings. The UK Govt have made failings. No one denies this.

But it’s essential to discuss these failings in a proper context, to rationalise the issues, identify the problem areas and seek out solutions. But it requires a far more open minded approach and willingness to accept failings if progress is ever to be made.

You seem to infer that criticisms of the UK Government(s) have been overlooked. Not so. Of course there have been many failings and they are addressed by making those decision makers far more accountable, through our accessible Parliamentary structures and justice system. Through the MPs constituencies or email. So many good documentaries are made highlighting these contentious issues which are subsequently debated and rationalised with further media debates and where necessary pressure for reform. But the public get their say....they have the opportunity to be listened to.

The problem with the EU and their decision making is that it is far too remote from citizens. Complaints procedures are not easy, MEPs have failed to respond to genuine concerns, or have felt impotent to acquire change.

Its far more complex than many suggest and sometimes yes it is necessary to go into the most complex of detail to fathom it all out! So apologies if this hasn’t helped. But at the end of the day it’s about listening and responding and setting in place good mechanisms to allow that to happen. It’s about having fair workable enforcement mechanisms to ensure that concerns are not just listened to but are addressed.

 

 





Like 1      
26 Jun 2019 8:47 AM by Mickyfinn Star rating in Spain and France. 1833 posts Send private message

baz - Ask Micky how Greece got dragged into it, he knows, he dragged it in.

Greece was only mentioned in the context of how successfully the EU works in practice. Had the EU not helped Greece during it's difficulties it would have crashed out of the Euro monetary system and probably the EU itself. The country would then have had to rely on IMF funding for a very long time. Solidarity between partner states is a core value of the Union.



_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn Time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz.



Like 0      
26 Jun 2019 9:07 AM by Mickyfinn Star rating in Spain and France. 1833 posts Send private message

In addition to the facts below Johnson's "do or die" exit on 31st October will also inflict the following.

  • loss of the European Health Insurance Card,
  • the need for international driving licences & green cards,
  • the end of the pet passport system,
  • the loss of protection against rip off bank & phone roaming charges, and
  • travellers losing the right to automatic compensation for delayed or cancelled flights?

What has to happen for Britain to leave without a deal on October 31?
There are no legislative steps that need to be taken by MPs to trigger a no-deal Brexit. It is the default option. Under the European Withdrawal Act passed by parliament last year, Britain will automatically leave the EU on October 31 unless the government changes the date (which it did in March) or revokes Article 50.

For Britain to remain a member after that, European leaders will need to unanimously agree a request for an extension and parliament and the new prime minister would have to agree to make it.

Despite some sabre-rattling from the likes of President Macron of France, most EU leaders are determined not to be the ones who get the blame for a no-deal Brexit so are likely to offer an extension. That may change, but the mood music coming out of European capitals and Brussels suggests that even a new Brexiteer prime minister is unlikely to make the EU want to kick Britain out without any kind of deal.

Does Boris Johnson’s ‘do or die’ pledge make no deal more likely?
Yes, but it is not inevitable, even if Mr Johnson wins the leadership election. The biggest obstacle is parliament, where a clear majority of MPs are opposed to a no-deal Brexit. The difficulty for them is how they can stop it.

Normally only the government can bring in the legislation that would be needed to alter the date in the Withdrawal Act. In the run up to March, MPs successfully used parliamentary procedure to request an extension but with Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement dead it is now harder to see a mechanism that they could use.

It is also possible that MPs could trigger an election with a vote of no confidence. However given how long it would take to organise such an election so that a new parliament was up and running before October 31, such a motion would have to be tabled days after parliament returns in September.

Could the Speaker intervene to prevent a no-deal exit?
John Bercow, who has huge discretion in interpreting parliamentary rules, has suggested that it would be possible for MPs to decisively impose their will on a no-deal prime minister.

However, even if they get the opportunity it is not necessarily certain that MPs will take it. This month a cross-party group’s attempt to take control of the parliamentary timetable, to introduce legislation to make no-deal more difficult, failed. In part this was because ten Labour MPs voted with the government while others abstained, showing the unity problems within the party.

The truth is that parliament could legislate to require a prime minister to request a further extension to the deadline, but it would be difficult to get a majority of MPs to force him to accept whatever Brussels offered in return.

Some of Mr Johnson’s supporters believe that if he becomes prime minister and parliament does try to dictate the terms of Brexit, he could still find a loophole enabling him to take Britain out on October 31 if he wanted to.

What is proroguing parliament and could it be used to force no deal?
Until Brexit proroguing parliament was a constitutional formality — and a historical quirk — used to separate different sessions of parliament. Historically it was the prerogative of the Queen but it is now exercised by the prime minister through the privy council. In effect it means dissolving parliament, usually for only a few days, until it is officially restarted by the Queen at the state opening of parliament. Such a dissolution is normally an uncontroversial formality.

However some Brexiteers, including the former leadership contender Dominic Raab, have suggested that the procedure could be used to suspend parliament and prevent MPs from legislating against a no-deal Brexit. A Brexiteer prime minister would simply suspend parliament until after the October 31 deadline.

Such a move is considered to be the parliamentary equivalent of a nuclear option and would trigger a constitutional crisis and drag the Queen into the Brexit debate. She could not object, so would be forced to give tacit consent. The Speaker has warned that he would vehemently oppose this. Meanwhile Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, has publicly warned against putting the Queen in such a position.

If parliament was prorogued, could the Speaker reconvene it elsewhere?
He could but such a move would arguably symbolise a constitutional crisis on a scale that has not been seen since the English civil war ended in 1651.

What happens if the prime minister wants no deal but parliament blocks it?
One option would be to make trouble in Brussels in the hope that EU leaders decide to kick Britain out of the bloc when they meet for a summit in October, before the deadline. There are only a few pieces of European business that the UK could disrupt on its own, but it could side with a minority to block what the majority wants to do. A new prime minister could also threaten to disrupt future EU budget negotiations.

Under Article 50 it would take only one other member state to block an extension to Britain’s membership. While it is unlikely that the EU would refuse an extension, it is possible.

What could parliament do if the EU refused to give Britain an extension?
Until the October 31 deadline Britain still has the right unilaterally to revoke Article 50 and remain a member of the EU. So it is possible that parliament could be faced with a binary choice: either leave the European Union with no deal or do not leave at all.

How are MPs likely to respond to such a choice?
It is hard to predict. There is a clear majority against no deal but just as clear a majority against revocation. It is difficult to imagine MPs unilaterally overriding the referendum result, which is why the possibility of a second referendum remains so attractive to many. However, should it come down to a binary choice it would seem likely that more MPs would back no deal than a revocation of Article 50.

What happens to our trading arrangements under a no-deal exit?
Britain would trade with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules. As far as Brussels is concerned this would mean the UK paying the same import tariffs as other countries that have no trade deal with the EU. This can be as much as 15 per cent on some agricultural products.

Britain would, of course, be free to set its own tariff schedule on imports coming into the country and these could be set low to avoid inflation. However, under WTO rules the UK would have to apply the same tariff rates to all countries until and unless there was a formal trade agreement in place. That means Britain could not set a lower tariff rate for European imports than for those of other countries.

Brexiteers accept that it would be necessary in the medium term to get around the table with the EU to agree a trade deal that is in both sides’ interests. However, the history of such deals suggests that this would be a lengthy process, taking up to five years or even longer. During this interregnum, opponents of no deal warn that many businesses that rely on frictionless trade within the EU would leave Britain and consolidate their operations in mainland Europe. Brexiteers counter that UK businesses would adapt to the new situation, prioritising export markets outside the EU that in the longer term might provide greater prosperity.

What is Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade?
Under WTO rules, states can use Article 24 to establish free-trade agreements and customs unions as an exception to the “most favoured nation” principle, which states that WTO members cannot give preferential treatment to products and services originating from one trading partner over others.

To benefit from Article 24, there must be an agreement between the two WTO members on eliminating duties and other restrictive regulations on substantially all trade. Therefore, Article 24 would not allow the UK to maintain tariff-free trade with the EU in the absence of a negotiated agreement unless the EU also signed up to do the same and so far it has said it will not.

What would be the impact of trading on WTO terms?
The most detailed estimate was calculated by the government using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model with 57 sectors, which concluded that a WTO scenario would cut gross domestic product in Britain by about 8 percentage points over the next 15 years. That is not to say that GDP would actually fall — over the period it would grow by 17 per cent compared with growth of about 25 per cent if Britain simply remained within the EU.

This model takes into account deregulation and trade deals with other countries and assumes the UK implements a relatively restrictive immigration policy after Brexit.

How disruptive would a no-deal Brexit really be?
There are two big uncertainties. The first is how Brussels and individual EU member states react. They may waive new rules to avoid short-term disruption to their interests, at least for an initial period. Or they could either collectively or individually apply them, leading to a long period of confusion and potential disruption.

The other, often overlooked, factor is that Britain preparing for no deal is only one factor in the equation. Many businesses have not yet fully prepared for the prospect of new customs and regulatory barriers that could spring up overnight. There is still time before October for this to happen, but many at the moment are reluctant to sink costs into preparing for a new regulatory regime that they do not want and think is unlikely to happen.

Who would be hit worse by no deal, Britain or the EU?
The gross domestic product of the rest of the European Union is almost six times as big as Britain’s and its population almost seven times as big. So although the total cost to the EU would be bigger, the cost per person in Britain would be higher.

If we crash out do we save the estimated £39bn cost of the divorce bill?
Brexiteers say the estimated £39 billion due under the withdrawal agreement would not be paid in the event of a no-deal exit, to soften the economic impact of crashing out. The EU says that if the UK withdrew the financial settlement it would veto the start of trade talks.

Brussels could also take Britain to court in the Hague to recover at least part of the money, although this would take years to resolve and the outcome would be uncertain. The amount Britain would end up paying is unclear, but it is unlikely that it would be nothing, as some Brexiteers have claimed.

Source: The Times newspaper 26 June 19

 


This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 26/06/2019.

_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn Time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz.



Like 2      
26 Jun 2019 9:13 AM by Jarvi Star rating in Halifax UK and Sucin.... 757 posts Send private message

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz





Like 1      
26 Jun 2019 9:15 AM by johnzx Star rating in Spain. 5242 posts Send private message

As Brenda from Bristol might say, “Micky not another boring rant”





Like 1      
26 Jun 2019 9:32 AM by baz1946 Star rating. 2328 posts Send private message

 

baz - Ask Micky how Greece got dragged into it, he knows, he dragged it in.

Greece was only mentioned in the context of how successfully the EU works in practice. Had the EU not helped Greece during it's difficulties it would have crashed out of the Euro monetary system and probably the EU itself. The country would then have had to rely on IMF funding for a very long time. Solidarity between partner states is a core value of the Union.

Really Micky, the EU helped Greece out, did it? I was on the understanding that America helped Greece out, but couldn't remember much why,  did a little checking on the internet and it does seem that America did help Greece out, hardly your point of how great the EU is with what you first mentioned, sure the EU had to have a hand in the problems somewhere, yet it seems not as much as America did though, and thats only the small bit we know about.

Said before that the EU could have been a great idea, and I do see many good points about the whole system, but the crooks took over once they realised the golden goose kept on laying golden eggs.

Enough already about Greece.





Like 2      
28 Jun 2019 1:03 PM by perrypower1 Star rating in Derbyshire/Fuerteven.... 647 posts Send private message

perrypower1´s avatar

It must be very uncomfortable reading to some of you that yesterday's leak of the report on the Home Office-Windrush affair shows that it was the Home Office and the Home Secretary of the time (T May) that was the biggest cause of the lack of social cohesion in the UK.  Shameful the way these people have and are still be treated becasue of the colour of their skin.

I don't think I would be taking any comfort that Putin has come out and agreed with some of you regarding multiculturalism.  Seems a lot of the right wing on here is actuallu closer to the views of the Communists that Mr Corbyn.





Like 0      
28 Jun 2019 2:42 PM by baz1946 Star rating. 2328 posts Send private message

Got any idea what ....{multiculturalism}....means? Because from my end I don't see much of it happening in the UK.

Putin said something that shook the truth, even the Pope said something much the same.





Like 0      
28 Jun 2019 3:35 PM by Mickyfinn Star rating in Spain and France. 1833 posts Send private message

The 'truth' always lies in the eye of the beholder.

Putin and his ilk and I include Trump and Italy's Salvini are at war with postwar western liberal values. Reason, individual freedom, multiculturalism and the protection of minorities. Multiculturalism means tolerance of human differences. Living together in harmony with others different to ourselves. 

Putin is demonizing minorities for political purpose, migrants who simply seek a better life. Escaping the hellholes of Syria he helped Assad to create. It's an old story. Attacking minorities is always the tool authoritarian figures use to further their cause. There are always those willing to empathize, willing and able to help them along. Jews, gay people, Romanies now its migrants. The authoritarians know the most effective way to defeat liberalism is to make it a culture war against each other.

Brexit is just one more casualty of that same process. The destruction of political values that have provided western nations with the unrivaled peace and prosperity historically we have ever enjoyed. 



_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn Time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz.



Like 0      
28 Jun 2019 5:09 PM by angeleyes1 Star rating in Camposol & Bradford. 403 posts Send private message

angeleyes1´s avatar

Mr Finn what has any of that to do with ‘’Who should be next UK PM?’’



_______________________
When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk.



Like 1      
28 Jun 2019 5:37 PM by johnmcmahon Star rating. 335 posts Send private message

think he's pointing out if the Americans elect a jerk why wouldn't we





Like 0      
28 Jun 2019 6:08 PM by Jarvi Star rating in Halifax UK and Sucin.... 757 posts Send private message

Angel -it has absolutely nothing to do with the next PM. It just gives certain people the opportunity to jump onto their soapboxes - yet again - and go over and over their reasons why we should not leave their beloved dictatorship.... As I have pointed out many times before some people are only concerned about their own individual circumstances, they dont give a toss about the UK. I wonder what they would do with their lives if Brexit wasn't on the radar - very sad....





Like 1      
28 Jun 2019 6:44 PM by ads Star rating. 4122 posts Send private message

A culture war against each other... agreed, but look to the wider perspective and the timeline of any dispute  or disillusionment, such as Windrush, or Brexit, or migration, whatever, and ask yourself what was the initial reason that led to the conflict at each point in time in terms of political change of government. Why were people so minded to change the government, to change the leadership? 

A pattern normally emerges to demonstrate a balance to counteract extremes, so when politicians lose the trust of their electorate they had the power to deselect....it’s called accountability.

What has happened with the structure of the EU taking power away from National Governments however is to skew that natural balance and ability to respond as the MEPs and Commission are too remote, so the norms of natural balance  have become skewed....which has lead to division and distrust.

Unless the EU and National Governments recognise this and look for workable solutions, then the division will only grow and no amount of name calling or blaming the left or right ( tribal behaviour) will solve the problems.

Its time for wider rational reasoning from ALL western politicians to recognise how this can be exploited by others who sadly have other agendas to undermine western values.

So coming back to Brexit...and voting in a PM, ( the two are sadly linked), we as citizens should be shouting loud and clear for the EU and the UK ( no matter who the leader since both appear to want to gain deals) to pressure our politicians both sides of the channel to find mutually beneficial deals. Solve the backstop and move on!

Thereafter hopefully the natural order of balance will be restored, and we will be able to deselect our national government(s) to regain accountability. whenever the need arises.

We should be working together for mutually beneficial deals and not allowing those who revel in division  and tribal nonsense or one-upmanship to scupper that aim.

 


This message was last edited by ads on 28/06/2019.



Like 0      
28 Jun 2019 6:47 PM by Mickyfinn Star rating in Spain and France. 1833 posts Send private message

Mr Finn what has any of that to do with ‘’Who should be next UK PM?’

I was replying to the previous two posts, is that not a forums purpose? Free speech is a liberal concept authoritarianism hates the most so they give it labels such as "fake news". 

Ads - The EU was given powers by all national governments in treaty form approved by said national governments leaders and parliaments. It was a democratic transfer of power to the executive.

 


This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 28/06/2019.

_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn Time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz.



Like 0      
28 Jun 2019 6:58 PM by ads Star rating. 4122 posts Send private message

Yes Mickeyfinn but it didn’t work in its present form ..that’s the whole point.

It’s led to all manner of issues that have remained unresolved.





Like 1      
28 Jun 2019 8:15 PM by angeleyes1 Star rating in Camposol & Bradford. 403 posts Send private message

angeleyes1´s avatar

Mr Finn there is free speech on EOS forum, but please have the good manners and respect to start your own thread subjects.

This thread stated Who would be the best person to be our next prime minister?

Please no B subject comments.’



_______________________
When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk.



Like 1      
28 Jun 2019 9:47 PM by johnmcmahon Star rating. 335 posts Send private message

so why aren't you posting about the next PM instead of commenting on Micky's post ?





Like 0      
28 Jun 2019 11:45 PM by ads Star rating. 4122 posts Send private message

Here’s the Bournemouth hustings with BJ and JH. ( starts after about 8 mins).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5bJk3T5dxtM

 


This message was last edited by ads on 28/06/2019.



Like 0      
29 Jun 2019 8:30 AM by Mickyfinn Star rating in Spain and France. 1833 posts Send private message

ads - but it didn’t work in its present form ..that’s the whole point.

On what level has the EU not worked? That is your value judgement and of course, you have a right to it but from my perspective, the EU has evolved into the most successful economic and political enterprise the world has ever seen outside the USA. I accept reforms are needed as changes necessary and there are some negatives such as the CAP but as in every organisation, it evolves and improves.

Apart from the creation of solitary and cooperation between diverse nations in Europe, here are six tangible benefits the EU has achieved for the benefit of ordinary people:-

1. It gave 500 million people the freedom to live, study, retire or work anywhere.

2. It created one of the world’s biggest tariff-free single markets and a sound money single currency, respected around the world.

3. It won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 for its help in establishing peace in Europe for seventy years.

4. It banished the death penalty

5. It abolished data roaming charges and establish free banking transfers via Serpa.

6. It took sewage off Europe’s beaches and ratified the Paris Agreement on climate change.

 



_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn Time is the fire in which we burn. Delmore Schwartz.



Like 2      

Pages: Previous | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | Next |



This thread is currently locked.


Previous Threads

How much notice does a landlord need to give - 13 posts
Costaluz won cases in 2019 - 2 posts
OAPs dependants allowance - 7 posts
how things have changed over the years.. - 2 posts
CASARES del SOL - Court Case Won - 0 posts
Tax refund Mistake - 25 posts
Are your agents giving your property the best? - 6 posts
Hi everyone - 1 posts
Relationship split but joint owned property - 12 posts
Administrator - 3 posts
Car transport to Spain - 6 posts
Legal house on "suelo no urbanizable" - 10 posts
Driving to spain - 31 posts
What buisness would be good idea. (Legally ) - 2 posts
Power of Attorney - 5 posts
Fuerteventura bank account - 2 posts
swimming pool construction - 0 posts
Retiral - 15 posts
area recomendations - 5 posts
Fight keeps going! Costaluz Lawyers won cases in 2018 and 2019 - 34 posts
Problems with a builder - 22 posts
Court Advice - 2 posts
25 Brexit need to knows ( Martin Lewis) - 94 posts
Maria de Castro in Alcaidesa - 2 posts
Ron - 17 posts

Number of posts in this thread: 373

DISCLAIMER:  All opinions posted on these message boards are the opinion solely of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Eye on Spain, its servants or agents.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
Our Weekly Email Digest
Name:  
Email:
   


This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x