Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

Here you can comment on political news, create threads for open discussion.

Moderators: PoshinDevon, Soner, Dragon

Post Reply
User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 201 of 301 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

waz-24-7 wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I’d call their bluff and go for no deal.
Time to be strong, the EU will wipe their feet on us if they sense weakness in our resolve to leave on fair terms.
Hmmm
one up -manship is hardly the best course of action here.

The negotiations have been completed and the deal is agreed. Now its down to parliament OR the people.
The UK government is on verge of collapse. What do the people think?

Point of order. The deal is not agreed. What is on the table is a “draft” agreement which needs to be signed off by both the U.K. and E.U. member states.

We are already very vulnerable and its now a damage limitation exercise. The UK has most to lose here.
Accept the deal, which is a rubbish one, and we are by all intents locked in until we can escape.
NO Deal is a disaster for the UK economy and the UK government will surely implode.
2nd referendum.... Panic stations and our soft underbelly is exposed for attack particularly if its accept the deal.

We should never have let it get to this. Absolute lunacy. In my opinion Mr Cameron lost this for us. He gambled on a REMAIN vote and lost.
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 202 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: So as we wound our way down the EU road, and say the Central Bank takes over more tasks do you think the Bank of England cut staff?
If you look at the figures the size of the UK's civil service is today close to half what it was when we joined the EEC in 1973.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:There are a few good arguments to stay in efficiency and value for money isn't one of them.
There are some good arguments for leaving the EU but efficiency and value for money from government is not one of them.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 203 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:At least we wont have faceless buerucrats creating their own empire
in my humble opinion and with all due respect what utter nonsense.


User avatar
Dalartokat
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012 12:54 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 204 of 301 in Discussion

Post by Dalartokat »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YMc9vkAoW7I

Prime minister May has been talking on LBC Radio with Nick Ferrari as the host and answering questions from the public. If your interested you can listen to the interview.
Old Soldiers never die, they simply fade away, never to be forgotten.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 205 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
If you look at the figures the size of the UK's civil service is today close to half what it was when we joined the EEC in 1973.
Erol knowing how efficiently they can rejig crime figures and the unemployment figures by relabelling I don't believe that for one second, more Guardian BS, flick to their vacancies section will show you how lean the Civil Service is. I'm guessing they sacked a few cleaners and hired an outside contractor, that kind of stuff.

From when I started work a lot of businesses have created a lot of fat such as bloated Human Resource Departments or Compliance Departments there is no way the Civil Service is half the size it was in 1973, get real.
erol wrote:
There are some good arguments for leaving the EU but efficiency and value for money from government is not one of them.
Seriously? It's one of the greatest gravy trains ever invented but swallow up some propoganda and spin about how efficient and uncorrupt it is.I'm happy to supply examples if you wish?

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 206 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
in my humble opinion and with all due respect what utter nonsense.

Erol was there a particular bit of that episode you wanted me to watch or was the point that our government is also run by faceless bureaucrats as illustrated in Yes Minister?
This the old even though I can't refute what that scientist is saying because its 100% true so as I can't attack that I'll try and link him to the oil industry or the tobacco industry ploy?

I wouldn't argue that our government is also run by faceless bureaucrats but that isn't really an argument is it? We have more chance of ours being accountable than the EU and if you have a problem you don't just accept it do you?

We pay for our government who should be capable of negotiating trade deals with countries outside the EU but the EU won’t allow them to do this. So we have to pay additional money to the EU for them to do something they will not allow our own government to do. How can that be value for money?

Maybe not all of them are faceless.

Peter Mandelson, sacked twice for lets call them anomolies and as dishonest a politician as Britain has seen, rolls up Britain's European Commissioner for trade. Four years keeping his head down and that's another £30k in his pension pot.

Kinnock, rejected twice by the British electorate somehow becomes our Commissioner. Gaffed his wife in and got his boy a job as a research assistant. Nice family business there.

So I can see why many MPS are fighting for the EU, it's a great retirement home and if you cock up in Britain it's a second, very lucrative chance.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 207 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

waz-24-7 wrote:
Indeed,
Should the people now have their say.

ACCEPT the deal, NO Deal or REMAIN
They did, you must have missed it. We voted to leave

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 208 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Erol knowing how efficiently they can rejig crime figures and the unemployment figures by relabelling I don't believe that for one second, more Guardian BS, flick to their vacancies section will show you how lean the Civil Service is. I'm guessing they sacked a few cleaners and hired an outside contractor, that kind of stuff.
You are free to choose what ever you want to believe and choose to believe something simply because it reinforces what ever else you want to believe in, as you are free to dismiss anything that challenges such beliefs as being Guardian BS. None of which changes the actual reality, which is that there are vastly less UK civil servants today than there were in 1973.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:From when I started work a lot of businesses have created a lot of fat such as bloated Human Resource Departments or Compliance Departments there is no way the Civil Service is half the size it was in 1973, get real.
Not half but in that ballpark. Around 750,000 in 73 around 430,000 today. I know that does not suit you which is why I think you choose to simply not believe it.
erol wrote:Seriously? It's one of the greatest gravy trains ever invented but swallow up some propoganda and spin about how efficient and uncorrupt it is.I'm happy to supply examples if you wish?
Where have I said that the EU is more efficient or less corrupt than UK national government ? All I am really hearing is 'government' is one of the greatest gravy trains ever invented, which is an easy populist claim but few I suspect really would like to live in a world without any government.
erol wrote:I wouldn't argue that our government is also run by faceless bureaucrats but that isn't really an argument is it?
You were the one who claimed when we leave the EU "At least we wont have faceless buerucrats creating their own empire". I point out that fallacy in your claim and you respond by saying that it not an argument ?
Faceless bureaucrats , who try and empire build, are part and parcel of government. You can not have government without such. If you were to say 'at least we will not have predominantly foreign faceless bureaucrats empire building when we leave the EU' that to me would be a valid and honest position. To just say when we leave the EU 'we wont have faceless buerucrats creating their own empire' is to me exactly the sort of emotive demagoguery rhetoric that has typified the debate and that I personal detest.
erol wrote:We have more chance of ours being accountable than the EU
Easy to claim and even easier to believe if it suits your preconceived notions but again is it actually true ?

You can compare the EU commissioners that head up the EU commissions various departments with the UK permanent secretaries that head up the various UK government departments and ask which have greater or lesser accountability. But doing starts with the idea that you actually care what the truth is rather than just reinforcing what ever it is you want to believe.

You could ask who and how someone gets to be an EU commissioner compared with a UK permanent secretary. Are they appointed by 'elected officials' or not. Are they appointed for defined terms of office or not. Does an elected government or parliament have an ability or mechanism to 'sack' such officials or not ? How much transparency is there that allows you to answer such questions for each ? To me it is pretty clear that if you ask these kinds of questions with a genuine interest in reality , then the claim that the UK's 'faceless bureaucrats' are inherently and obviously more 'accountable' than the EU's is dubious at best and just nonsense at worst.
erol wrote:and if you have a problem you don't just accept it do you?
Is that an argument ?
erol wrote:We pay for our government who should be capable of negotiating trade deals with countries outside the EU but the EU won’t allow them to do this. So we have to pay additional money to the EU for them to do something they will not allow our own government to do. How can that be value for money?
Should Scotland and Wales be free to negotiate trade deals with other countries outside the UK without Westminster stopping them from doing so ? How is that 'value for money' ? To me this is just an issue of 'scale' and if the argument is that the EU scale is too 'big', the UK national scale is 'just right' but individual national components of the UK union is 'too small', then I need to understand why. Otherwise to me it just looks like choosing whatever scale best fits what you want is the only reason why that scale is the 'best' one.

Peter Mandelson , Kinnock. Who appointed these people as the UK's commissioners ? Was it an elected government voted in by the people of the UK ? How long do they remain commissioners ? Can the elected EU parliament remove them before their term ? Who appointed Sir Mark Sedwill to be head of the UK civil service and Cabinet Secretary ? Sir Simon McDonald to head up UK diplomatic service ? Sir Chris Wormald to DoH ? Sir Philip Rutnam to Home office ? Sir Tom Scholar to Treasury ? and on and on, sir this, sir that sir the other. How long do they remain in their posts ? Can the elected UK parliament remove these people ?

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 209 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
waz-24-7 wrote:
Indeed,
Should the people now have their say.

ACCEPT the deal, NO Deal or REMAIN
They did, you must have missed it. We voted to leave
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/br ... 33416.html

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 210 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
waz-24-7 wrote:
Indeed,
Should the people now have their say.

ACCEPT the deal, NO Deal or REMAIN
They did, you must have missed it. We voted to leave
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/br ... 33416.html
Ok so the Swiss like to have lots of referendums, and?
One thing I noticed is they often leave a bit of time before asking the same question. That wouldn't suit the EU, with them you are having another referendum ASAP until you get the correct answer.

Also if you believe in government by referendum, did I miss the vote on going into the EU?
Every indication I've seen is that the vote would have been no. People like the status quo so that isn't that surprising.

There is a massive difference between choosing to join something and choosing to stay in it
Last edited by EnjoyingTheSun on Fri 16 Nov 2018 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 211 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: You are free to choose what ever you want to believe and choose to believe something simply because it reinforces what ever else you want to believe in, as you are free to dismiss anything that challenges such beliefs as being Guardian BS. None of which changes the actual reality, which is that there are vastly less UK civil servants today than there were in 1973.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:From when I started work a lot of businesses have created a lot of fat such as bloated Human Resource Departments or Compliance Departments there is no way the Civil Service is half the size it was in 1973, get real.
Not half but in that ballpark. Around 750,000 in 73 around 430,000 today. I know that does not suit you which is why I think you choose to simply not believe it.
OK that's really impressive 320,000 people I didn't know that.

Let's factor in they will now have an enormous IT department, HR department, Compliance Department, publicity departments etc etc none of which would have been a factor back in 1973. It might be me but we seem to have a lot more cabinet posts and junior cabinet posts than we had back in 1973 so they will all need a department wont they?

So really we would be talking of probably nearer half a million of those old jobs?

Ok So where did those jobs go? How did they make the cuts? It is something to be proud of so let's hear the secret?
Where are those banner headlines 20,000 jobs lost?


Salaries are a big expense usually the biggest, the cuts must have been enormous. What is the budget now compared with then?
Or was it lets chop some cleaners and get in an outside contractor. You know like when they cut nurses and then hire agency which is the same nurse? Move some people from central government to local government that masks that.

Come on Erol you aren't that naive surely?

Those sort of figures they can bury easily as well you know. Have a flick through the government jobs in the Guardian how many of those extremely well paid jobs even existed back in 1973? Diversity departments etc etc.

The UK civil srvice needs a root and branch review, moving it to Brussels isn't going to help and we have to start somewhere.

artistabroad
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2012 8:56 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 212 of 301 in Discussion

Post by artistabroad »

Also if you believe in government by referendum, did I miss the vote on going into the EU?
Every indication I've seen is that the vote would have been no.
There was indeed a referendum on 5th June 1975 on whether to remain in the European Community (the Common Market), which the U.K. had entered on 1st January 1973. The turn out was 64% with 67% in favour of remaining.

I am well aware that the although the European Community later became the European Union it is now a very different concept than it was in 1975.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 213 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

artistabroad wrote: There was indeed a referendum on 5th June 1975 on whether to remain in the European Community (the Common Market), which the U.K. had entered on 1st January 1973. The turn out was 64% with 67% in favour of remaining.
Huge difference between voting to go in and staying in.

Not that we will ever know but it would be interesting to know how many remainers from 1975 became leavers in 2016.

Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 214 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Ok so the Swiss like to have lots of referendums, and?
I found the article interesting. There was stuff in it that I was not aware of. To me it prompted though about 'referendums' and the 'will of the people' and what these buzz terms actually mean in practice. Then again I am not trying to just 'prove' an already set position. 600 hundred referendums in the last 150 years in Switzerland vs what 3 in the UK ever ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: That wouldn't suit the EU, with them you are having another referendum ASAP until you get the correct answer.
If the UK does end up having another referendum, then that will be as a result of the UK choosing to do so. The EU has no mechanism or means by which it can force the UK to have another referendum. So for me the idea that it is the EU that is trying to force the UK in to having another referendum is yet again just rhetoric divorced from reality to create impressions that do not stand up to scrutiny if look at objectively.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Also if you believe in government by referendum, did I miss the vote on going into the EU?
I have not said that I am a believer in government by referendum. What I am a fan of is consistency. I do make best judgements about if those who today claim that the snapshot 'will of the people' two years ago is so democratically sacrosanct that it can not even be changed by the will of the people today , are sincerely committed to the concept of rule by the will of the people or if it is just useful rhetoric for them. So if someone who has a years long history of advocacy for 'government by referendum' says to me 'there must not be a 2nd referendum until the decision of the prior one has been implement' , my judgement would be that their view probably is a sincere reflection of principal for them. When I am told such by people who have never shown any interest in or support for the concept of 'government by referendum' but just happen to be ardent leavers, then my suspicion is their protestations are not really about principals of democracy and the 'will of the people', but just about ensuring that they get what they personally want.

artistabroad
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2012 8:56 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 215 of 301 in Discussion

Post by artistabroad »

Not that we will ever know but it would be interesting to know how many remainers from 1975 became leavers in 2016
No idea, but there is a map on Wikipedia of the U.K. showing percentages that voted yes in 1975. It seems to me the complete opposite of the voting pattern in 2016!
Attachments
9AF0ADA2-AE82-4656-ACFE-8F93C753A70E.jpeg

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 216 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The UK civil srvice needs a root and branch review, moving it to Brussels isn't going to help and we have to start somewhere.
I have no argument against the idea that a root and branch review of the civil service is desirable , or for that matter the same for EU civil service. What I do have a problem with is this idea that in order to pursue an objective of 'less government' it is best to start with 'getting rid' of all the 46,000 EU employees rather than looking at reducing the 433,800 UK. For me I do not see a sincere commitment to 'less government' in such an argument. For me a sincere commitment to 'less government' would argue lets have less EU civil servants and lets also have less UK civil servants as well. If anything reducing the UK ones should be a higher priority than the EU ones because the UK meets 100% of the costs of the UK ones but only some fraction of the cost of the ten times less EU ones. My problem is with the attempt to 'co opt' ideas like 'less government' to the UK leaving the EU. The two things are not linked in the way some present imo. You can have 'too much government' in or out of the EU. Nothing has stopped the UK reducing the size of its government in the last 40 years and it has indeed done so whilst in the EU (Thatcher being one, but not the only one, of the prime movers in achieving this). The idea that what is stopping us doing so further is membership of the EU, is to me nonsense / rhetoric.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 217 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: If the UK does end up having another referendum, then that will be as a result of the UK choosing to do so. The EU has no mechanism or means by which it can force the UK to have another referendum. So for me the idea that it is the EU that is trying to force the UK in to having another referendum is yet again just rhetoric divorced from reality to create impressions that do not stand up to scrutiny if look at objectively.
So the EU has no form on manouvering for another referendum when the original answer was no? They just say as you wish and leave it there? Seriously?
What do you make of the quote from Jean-Claude Junker on the French referendum, "“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue.”
erol wrote: When I am told such by people who have never shown any interest in or support for the concept of 'government by referendum' but just happen to be ardent leavers, then my suspicion is their protestations are not really about principals of democracy and the 'will of the people', but just about ensuring that they get what they personally want.
I was amazed and proud of the people that despite all the government threw at it they still voted to leave.

I am not a fan of referendums but on a matter that is so important they have a place rather than bury a policy in a manifesto.
I also think that when the ruling party changes leader they should be obliged to go to the people again. Like her or not you must acknowledge that Thatcher personally got a lot of votes so to replace her with Major without going to the people isn't terribly democratic.
My favourite example was in the GLC elections when Andrew McIntosh's labour won the vote and within 24 hours he was deposed by Ken Livingstone.

What is interesting is when we went in to the EEC it was virtually an invisible part of Ted Heath manifesto. Check it out. No referendum nothing.
We had a referendum in 1975 when the EEC still resembled a trading association and then waited over 40 years when is was apparent it was anything but.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 218 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
What I do have a problem with is this idea that in order to pursue an objective of 'less government' it is best to start with 'getting rid' of all the 46,000 EU employees rather than looking at reducing the 433,800 UK. For me I do not see a sincere commitment to 'less government' in such an argument. For me a sincere commitment to 'less government' would argue lets have less EU civil servants and lets also have less UK civil servants as well. If anything reducing the UK ones should be a higher priority than the EU ones because the UK meets 100% of the costs of the UK ones but only some fraction of the cost of the ten times less EU ones. My problem is with the attempt to 'co opt' ideas like 'less government' to the UK leaving the EU. The two things are not linked in the way some present imo. You can have 'too much government' in or out of the EU. Nothing has stopped the UK reducing the size of its government in the last 40 years and it has indeed done so whilst in the EU (Thatcher being one, but not the only one, of the prime movers in achieving this). The idea that what is stopping us doing so further is membership of the EU, is to me nonsense / rhetoric.
For one I don't believe there are only 46,000 EU employees when you examine their own employment figures they don't add up.
Or that we have made slashing cuts to our civil service either. I read the papers everyday I would be suprised if any government since 1973 cut tens of thousands from the civil service at a swoop without boasting about it.

As for the costs, we do pay a proportion of the EU costs. Probably more than many countries.

How is it that the EU wages are set pro rata to the highest wages in the most expensive country and the tax rate is set at the lowest? So if the average wage for say a transport administrator in Bulgaria is £5,000 per year but the same job would warrant £50,000 in Denmark the Bulgarian EU transport administrator gets the £50,000. Obviously he wont pay the Danish rate of tax because we can find that Estonia say pays a very low rate of income tax so we will have that as our benchmark. The Bulgarians wont mind because the other countries who contribute more are subsidising these fiddles.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 219 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:So the EU has no form on manouvering for another referendum when the original answer was no? They just say as you wish and leave it there? Seriously?
What I am saying is when Ireland had a second referendum after the 1st one asking the Irish people to ratify the Lisbon treaty or not came up with a no, it was not the EU that decided Ireland will have a second referendum. It was the democratically elected government of Ireland that made the decision and not the EU and for me the will of the people expressed in the 2nd was no more or less valid than that expressed in the first, just more recent.
The narrative that the EU forced the democratically elected government of Ireland have a 2nd referendum against that governments will is for me not credible, though I understand the value of such a narrative for those with certain objectives. The narrative that the UK and Greece forced Makarios to accept the 1960 Cyprus agreements against his will, that has some credibility as far as I am concerned. But that the EU forced the Irish government to hold a 2nd referendum on the Lisbon treaty against their will ? Nah sorry I am just not buying it I am afraid.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 220 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:For one I don't believe there are only 46,000 EU employees when you examine their own employment figures they don't add up. Or that we have made slashing cuts to our civil service either. I read the papers everyday I would be suprised if any government since 1973 cut tens of thousands from the civil service at a swoop without boasting about it.
As I have already said you are free to believe what ever you want.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politi ... vants.html
Reflecting her {Thatchers} commitment to reducing the size and scope of the state, the number of civil servants fell by 171,000 in her term. This felt like a seismic shift – but, as the Institute for Government has noted, the reductions seen in the past three years are going further and faster.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:As for the costs, we do pay a proportion of the EU costs. Probably more than many countries.
For me there is no 'probably' about it. What we pay relative to other member states is just a matter of fact. On a per head of population basis the UK pays more than many member states and less than Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, France and Austria and as near as dam it the same as Italy.

In any case you have missed / side stepped entirely the point I was making as to why tackling UK civil servant numbers is a logically higher priority than just axing all EU civil servants if the objective is genuinely 'less government'.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 221 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Let's factor in they will now have an enormous IT department, HR department, Compliance Department, publicity departments etc etc none of which would have been a factor back in 1973. It might be me but we seem to have a lot more cabinet posts and junior cabinet posts than we had back in 1973 so they will all need a department wont they?

So really we would be talking of probably nearer half a million of those old jobs?

Ok So where did those jobs go? How did they make the cuts? It is something to be proud of so let's hear the secret?
Where are those banner headlines 20,000 jobs lost?


Salaries are a big expense usually the biggest, the cuts must have been enormous. What is the budget now compared with then?
Or was it lets chop some cleaners and get in an outside contractor. You know like when they cut nurses and then hire agency which is the same nurse? Move some people from central government to local government that masks that.

Come on Erol you aren't that naive surely?

Those sort of figures they can bury easily as well you know. Have a flick through the government jobs in the Guardian how many of those extremely well paid jobs even existed back in 1973? Diversity departments etc etc.
Let's have a look at some cabinet posts. Culture Secretary? Thst has evolved from the secretary of state for national heritage and we didn't have one of them before 1992. It wont take much research to see how many new junior minister for pencils we now have compared with 1973. I'm pretty sure they aren't typing their own letters.

Even if we ignore the additional departments or new workers such as IT, HR etc and trust that 320,000 jobs cut.
Let's have a look at the different Governments.
Labour 1973-1979
Conservative 1979- 1997
Labour 1997-2010
Conservativ 2010 to present.

Each of those governments has shed an average of 80,000 jobs or lets say the 11 parliaments have cut nearly 30,000 civil service jobs each? I don't believe it.
Think about it logically. That would be such a banner headline in any manifesto but I don't remember any.
Why? Because they know the other side would destroy it and point out those jobs had been simply relabeled and still existed.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 222 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: It was the democratically elected government of Ireland that made the decision and not the EU
After they got EU assurances about tax, abortion and military neutrality would not be affected by Ireland ratifying the treaty?
Repackage it and have another go, seen that one before. We got a lot of assurances pre our referendum in 1975 which turned out to be hogwash.
Those assurances to Ireland wont be worth a jug of warm pee in the fullness of time. Nothing stops the project It can't work if countries can pick and choose what bits they like.
The EU is happy to take one step back for a year or two to take four steps forward but ultimately you are doing what it wishes.


Do you have any thoughts as to why after several French nons why suddenly the French couldn't get us in quick enough by 1971?

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 223 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
Reflecting her {Thatchers} commitment to reducing the size and scope of the state, the number of civil servants fell by 171,000 in her term.
Ok let's say I accept that, she took power in 1979, any cuts from 1973 to 1979?
So working on the 320,000 and ignoring all the new departments we would need who cut the other 150,000?
John Major?
Blair and Brown I would imagine took on civil servants.
Didn't see much of an iron will from Cameron.
Don't think any of them would be shy if they chopped 50,000 jobs.

erol wrote: In any case you have missed / side stepped entirely the point I was making as to why tackling UK civil servant numbers is a logically higher priority than just axing all EU civil servants if the objective is genuinely 'less government'.
We'll we are leaving the EU so lots of cuts there. The UK liasons with the EU, fair few cuts there. Slowly slowly catchee monkey.
Logically do you not think an appeal court and the House of Lords is enough layers of appeals for a criminal on legal aid? Why stop with the European Court why not go to the UN? I know it's only money but...…..

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 224 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Think about it logically. That would be such a banner headline in any manifesto but I don't remember any.
Why? Because they know the other side would destroy it and point out those jobs had been simply relabeled and still existed.
People often see , believe and remember (or forget) what they want to , regardless of reality.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/146680 ... -jobs.html

If you want to believe that there are more UK civil servants today than there were in 1973, you go right ahead and believe it. Just do not expect me to believe such when you are the only source making this claim that I have found researching this issue vs the countless other sources that claim otherwise.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 225 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: We'll we are leaving the EU so lots of cuts there. The UK liasons with the EU, fair few cuts there. Slowly slowly catchee monkey.
Your original argument, as I understood it, was leaving the EU furthered the cause of 'reducing government' and thus this was a good reason to support leaving the EU. If you want less government then you should support leaving the EU. I think that argument is flawed and have explained why I think it is flawed. Why I think our national desire and ability to 'reduce government' is only marginally affected by the small (in relative terms) amount of EU civil servants that we only have to partially support vs the 10 times or so greater number of UK civil servants we have to support entirely ourselves.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Logically do you not think an appeal court and the House of Lords is enough layers of appeals for a criminal on legal aid? Why stop with the European Court why not go to the UN? I know it's only money but...…..
If 'saving money' is your objective why not have no system or courts of appeal at all ? It is the whole 'scale' thing again. In the absence of any reason why 'national' is the 'just right' scale but anything bigger is wrong or smaller is wrong, then to me it seems that the reason why 'national' is the 'right' scale is simply because that best fits what you want to believe.

Even when we leave the EU there will still be a 'higher court' than the UK's own national ones, namely the ECHR. I personally like the concept that there is, for human rights at least, a court that is higher than sovereign national ones and am more than willing to pay a proportion of the cost for funding such. I think such pan national institutions are good for the UK but even more so I think they are good for countries like say Turkey even more so. I am proud of the UK's historic leadership and dominant role in the founding and shaping of the CoE and ECHR as I am saddened at our apparent new found rejection of these principals and ideals that led us to play such a major role in the creation of such bodies. Not everyone is motivated by what is best just for themselves personally but can also care about what matters for a greater and wider good. I personally do not arbitrarily place the limit of that 'greater good' at the UK's national borders.

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 226 of 301 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

Taken from FB. It’s not heavy with stats, figures, rules etc.....and will obviously have some flaws but it certainly resonates with me. Take it for what it is........no doubt some will just dismiss it as pie in the sky.

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott has a few words about the U.K. and Brexit.

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

kerry 6138
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon 05 Oct 2015 6:38 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 227 of 301 in Discussion

Post by kerry 6138 »

Dont suppose Tony Abbott has dual Nationality !

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 228 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Think about it logically. That would be such a banner headline in any manifesto but I don't remember any.
Why? Because they know the other side would destroy it and point out those jobs had been simply relabeled and still existed.
People often see , believe and remember (or forget) what they want to , regardless of reality.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/146680 ... -jobs.html

If you want to believe that there are more UK civil servants today than there were in 1973, you go right ahead and believe it. Just do not expect me to believe such when you are the only source making this claim that I have found researching this issue vs the countless other sources that claim otherwise.
Intends to make cuts....
So Bliar and Brown's Labour didn't increase the public sector by the thick end of a million jobs? Before you say it isn't the same as the civil service they are still on the government payroll and easy enough to relabel.
Personsally I don't see much difference between a bin man and a refuse collector.

You'll agree that there are a lot of posts that must have been created since 1973? HR, IT, Compliance, that Bliar favourite communications etc. So they must have cut a lot more than 320,000 jobs no?

So where were the cuts made? No links to specifics. You like Yes Minister you must remember the episode on showing non existent cuts?


It's a bit like the argument to holocaust deniers, OK they didn't die in the concentration camps then where the hell did they disappear to?

It does amuse me that you will swallow some nonsense but not use your logical mind on other stuff. You will bring up the Koch brothers throwing around a few tens of millions because they are the bogey men of the left at the drop of a hat but ignore the tens of BILLIONS that the renewable energy lobby are throwing around to gain influence.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 229 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

PoshinDevon wrote:Taken from FB. It’s not heavy with stats, figures, rules etc.....and will obviously have some flaws but it certainly resonates with me. Take it for what it is........no doubt some will just dismiss it as pie in the sky.

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott has a few words about the U.K. and Brexit.

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015
100% this.
"Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get."


Put on your big boy trousers and fight, they will bend, they have to.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 230 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: If 'saving money' is your objective why not have no system or courts of appeal at all ? It is the whole 'scale' thing again.
Not the Waz you believe in anarchy nonsense.
erol wrote: Even when we leave the EU there will still be a 'higher court' than the UK's own national ones, namely the ECHR.
Not binding if not in the EU thank good.
erol wrote: I personally like the concept that there is, for human rights at least, a court that is higher than sovereign national ones and am more than willing to pay a proportion of the cost for funding such.
I'll let you feel twice as virtuous you can pay my share too.
erol wrote: Not everyone is motivated by what is best just for themselves personally but can also care about what matters for a greater and wider good. I personally do not arbitrarily place the limit of that 'greater good' at the UK's national borders.
So France is in the EU to solely help the other nations of Europe?
Any thoughts on their about turn in 1971 on letting us join? I'll give you a clue after finally sorting out the CAP they needed another mug to help pay for it

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 231 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: So Bliar and Brown's Labour didn't increase the public sector by the thick end of a million jobs? Before you say it isn't the same as the civil service they are still on the government payroll and easy enough to relabel.
Personsally I don't see much difference between a bin man and a refuse collector.
A NHS nurse is a public servant, they are not a civil servant. This whole thing started with your advocacy for 'less government' and the false idea that leaving the EU was the best way of getting less government vs just cutting our own civil service, that even after the reductions in numbers since 73 is still ten times that of the EU's , which we only pay partly for. Then when challenged on figures for civil servants and given the evidence of cuts to civil service being reported in the news, that you claimed never happened because you had no memory of ever seeing such in the newspapers, you start talking about public servants, which makes no sense at all given the starting point of the discussion.

Are you ever going to show any evidence that supports your claim that civil service numbers have not declined since 73 and today, other than that your own 'common sense' tells you that must be true , thus it must be true and what is more very one else including me should believe it is true?

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 232 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Not binding if not in the EU thank good.
De Jure the rulings of the ECHR are binding on all those nation states that signed up to the treaties. ECHR rulings are binding on Turkey and Turkey is not in the EU for example.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 233 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: So Bliar and Brown's Labour didn't increase the public sector by the thick end of a million jobs? Before you say it isn't the same as the civil service they are still on the government payroll and easy enough to relabel.
Personsally I don't see much difference between a bin man and a refuse collector.
A NHS nurse is a public servant, they are not a civil servant. This whole thing started with your advocacy for 'less government' and the false idea that leaving the EU was the best way of getting less government vs just cutting our own civil service, that even after the reductions in numbers since 73 is still ten times that of the EU's , which we only pay partly for. Then when challenged on figures for civil servants and given the evidence of cuts to civil service being reported in the news, that you claimed never happened because you had no memory of ever seeing such in the newspapers, you start talking about public servants, which makes no sense at all given the starting point of the discussion.

Are you ever going to show any evidence that supports your claim that civil service numbers have not declined since 73 and today, other than that your own 'common sense' tells you that must be true , thus it must be true and what is more very one else including me should believe it is true?
Knew you would zero in on nurses.
We have hired 100,000 administrators but if you even look at cutting some we'll scream that you are trying to cut nurses. Surely no-one buys into this BS anymore?
So we have a million new nurses? where are they hiding?

Public sector employees hides a multitude of different jobs as you well know they aren't all nurse as teachers. There are over a million employed in public administration that is separate to the NHS.

OK specifically what cuts have they made, in what departments?

I know they have hired IT departments, HR, communications consultants, social media consultants, compliance etc but what have they chopped?

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 234 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Not binding if not in the EU thank good.
De Jure the rulings of the ECHR are binding on all those nation states that signed up to the treaties. ECHR rulings are binding on Turkey and Turkey is not in the EU for example.
Turkey is trying to get in we are trying to get out. If we are going to be hamstrung by Lisbon and Maastricht then we might as well carry on and become Bavaria or Normandy or whatever their plans are.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 235 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:You will bring up the Koch brothers throwing around a few tens of millions because they are the bogey men of the left at the drop of a hat but ignore the tens of BILLIONS that the renewable energy lobby are throwing around to gain influence.
It feels like I am in a discussion with trump. Care to show any evidence what so ever that the renewable energy lobby spends 10's of billions on lobbying ?

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus ... &year=2018

compare with

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus ... &year=2018

You are the one that constantly but totally selectively goes on about 'lobbying' and the money spent on it. And then you make up figures out of thin air to suit as well. You ignore any and all lobbying, no matter how persistent and large, by groups like the oil and gas industry and tobacco industry, whilst going on and on about lobbying from groups, no matter how vague and amorphous, that promote things your common sense tells you is wrong.

For the record I mentioned the Koch brothers before in response to your claims. What I said (and still stand by) was
The idea that some left wing lecturer has more hidden subversive unseen control and impact over the daily lives of ordinary people than say the Koch brothers do is to me laughable. You seem obsessed with the leftist lecturers and the 'hidden' power you think they have over our lives and yet appear at best uninterested in the Koch brothers and at worst an apologist for a system that gives them such ability. I find that strange myself if the issue is unelected people controlling your and every one else's lives in hidden and non transparent ways.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 236 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Not binding if not in the EU thank good.
De Jure the rulings of the ECHR are binding on all those nation states that signed up to the treaties. ECHR rulings are binding on Turkey and Turkey is not in the EU for example.
Turkey is trying to get in we are trying to get out. If we are going to be hamstrung by Lisbon and Maastricht then we might as well carry on and become Bavaria or Normandy or whatever their plans are.
Turkey is already a member of the CoE and a signatory to the ECHR treaties as the UK is and will remain after Brexit. The ECHR is not an institution of the EU. It is an institution of the Council of Europe - a body (unlike the EU) that the UK was instrumental in creating.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 237 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Knew you would zero in on nurses.
You want to leave the EU because you want less government, yet the EU accounts for 10% of the government that national government does and we only pay a fraction of the costs for it. The argument makes no logical sense to me. When I also point out that the UK even whilst in the EU has manged to reduce the size of government in terms of the civil service numbers, you state you do not believe it and say it can not be true because if it was there would be news paper articles covering political parties pledges to reduce numbers if this had happened and you did not remember ever seeing such articles. I show you one such article and you then move from civil servant numbers to public sector workers numbers. It like trying to wrestle with a squid.

I think I am done for now, as they say 'when the fun stops, stop.'

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 238 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: It feels like I am in a discussion with trump. Care to show any evidence what so ever that the renewable energy lobby spends 10's of billions on lobbying ?
https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/pub ... ance-2017/
erol wrote: You seem obsessed with the leftist lecturers and the 'hidden' power you think they have over our lives and yet appear at best uninterested in the Koch brothers and at worst an apologist for a system that gives them such ability. I find that strange myself if the issue is unelected people controlling your and every one else's lives in hidden and non transparent ways.
Everyone goes to school and since Bliar it seems pretty much everyone goes to university. Our schools and universities are riddled with left wing teachers. Which is fine, each to their own but they use their position to preach their views which isn't on.


Sure the Koch brothers and others lobby one spends their money influencing it one way the other will spend their money influencing it the other way. For the most part it cancels itself out.

If the tobacco companies are lobbying that hard they certainly arent winning the battle are they?
Climate change alarmist though, I wouldnt mind being a tenner behind them?

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 239 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: It feels like I am in a discussion with trump. Care to show any evidence what so ever that the renewable energy lobby spends 10's of billions on lobbying ?
https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/pub ... ance-2017/
erol wrote: You seem obsessed with the leftist lecturers and the 'hidden' power you think they have over our lives and yet appear at best uninterested in the Koch brothers and at worst an apologist for a system that gives them such ability. I find that strange myself if the issue is unelected people controlling your and every one else's lives in hidden and non transparent ways.
Everyone goes to school and since Bliar it seems pretty much everyone goes to university. Our schools and universities are riddled with left wing teachers. Which is fine, each to their own but they use their position to preach their views which isn't on.


Sure the Koch brothers and others lobby one spends their money influencing it one way the other will spend their money influencing it the other way. For the most part it cancels itself out.

If the tobacco companies are lobbying that hard they certainly arent winning the battle are they?
Climate change alarmist though, I wouldnt mind being a tenner behind them?

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 240 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: You want to leave the EU because you want less government,
No I want to leave the EU because I don't want to become a province in a super state. Any savings we can make along the way are a bonus.
erol wrote: When I also point out that the UK even whilst in the EU has manged to reduce the size of government in terms of the civil service numbers, you state you do not believe it and say it can not be true because if it was there would be news paper articles covering political parties pledges to reduce numbers if this had happened and you did not remember ever seeing such articles. I show you one such article and you then move from civil servant numbers to public sector workers numbers. It like trying to wrestle with a squid.

I think I am done for now, as they say 'when the fun stops, stop.'

You sent me an article that Labour plans to..... Always a good way to dampen something down. I always tell my better half I plan to decorate the spare room.
You watched Yes Minister, always hold an inquiry etc.
I don't doubt they moved some civil servant numbers on paper and I suggest the 1 million extra public sector employees might be a good hiding place. They have 1 million administration staff which might be a good place to start?

Always ways to fiddle figures.

Example.
Young kid unemployed picking up £50 a week unemployment benefits or he signs on to a YTS scheme and the government gives his employer £50 to give him a trivial job until the £50s runs out.
He is now not unemployed?


Selling council houses keeping the money to reduce rents and then taking money from central government to house the homeless in B & Bs. Big saving there!


I know both of the above were both Thatcher moves. Still confident in that 170,000 she cut?

I worked in the private sector.
Over the last ten to twenty years I watched an IT department grow to an enormous size which seemed to do very little. Lots of chiefs very few Indians.
Any problems we had we used to have to get outside help in.

When I started work we used to have personel department of one who basically gave us our wages and a staff rep who we could air our grievances to.
We ended up having a massive HR department which used to call so many meetings that I needed more staff to attend their meetings. Constant appraisals which take up man hours and are a total and utter waste of time etc.

I could go on and on but the point I am making is this is firms in the private sector who have to make a profit but even they are becoming a morass of administration.
You believe or expect me to believe that the civil service and the public sector and the EU with access to the free money tree have suddenly become this lean mean units? No way it doesn't happen like that.

In the real world people who get up the slippery ladder reward their mates, creating a job if they have to. Once you get a manager title you obviously need an assistant. And on and on it goes until they either go bankrupt or someone comes in and does some housecleaning.

Bodies that don't have to have financial discipline because they are in the public sector and self audit don't cut 300,000 to 500,000 jobs. Don't doubt they hire more logistic experts to move people and hire a large amount of communication people to spin but real cuts no way.
Who and when?

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 241 of 301 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

Hmmm.....

Both clips do not last long but say a lot. The first one in particular is IMO a good reason for leaving the E.U. Take just 3 minutes to watch them both.

No doubt some will be dismissive or cover their eyes in the hope they don’t see it coming.

https://www.facebook.com/26299547741527 ... 672348188/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0wFii8 ... ture=share
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 242 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
erol wrote: It feels like I am in a discussion with trump. Care to show any evidence what so ever that the renewable energy lobby spends 10's of billions on lobbying ?
https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/pub ... ance-2017/
If there is anything in the link you provided that even relates to the amounts the renewable energy lobby spends on lobbying in your link, let alone that supports your claims that they spend 10's of billions lobbying, then I am unable to see it. Compared with the links I gave which are specifically about sums spent by different entities and groups of entities on lobbying (in us).
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Sure the Koch brothers and others lobby one spends their money influencing it one way the other will spend their money influencing it the other way. For the most part it cancels itself out.
You are the one constantly pushing the narrative that the 'renewable energy lobby' or the 'anti smoking lobby' is influencing 'public policy' as a result of the sums they spend. So explain to me why is lobbying from groups you disagree with a 'problem' when lobbying from groups you do not have such a disagreement with is not a concern because 'the other side cancels it out' ? Can you not see the inconsistency there ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:If the tobacco companies are lobbying that hard they certainly arent winning the battle are they?
Who says they are not 'winning' ? Now who is being the naive one ? You think they spend the sums they do and get no result from that money spent ? Any time lobbying from the tobacco industry achieves a delay in the implementation of policies and legislation that seeks to reduce the number of smokers, they 'win'.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Climate change alarmist though, I wouldnt mind being a tenner behind them?
Not really sure what the expression 'being a tenner behind' means but having said that I suspect my reply would be along the lines of - Would you mind be a tenner behind the climate change deniers (Exxon Mobil, Marathon Petroleum, Koch Industries, Chevron Corp, Shell, BP etc etc etc) ?
Last edited by erol on Sun 18 Nov 2018 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 243 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:You sent me an article that Labour plans to..... Always a good way to dampen something down. I always tell my better half I plan to decorate the spare room.
Why did I post that link ? It was a response to your claim
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Think about it logically. That would be such a banner headline in any manifesto but I don't remember any. Why? Because they know the other side would destroy it and point out those jobs had been simply relabeled and still existed.
Here the key word is 'manifesto'. Manifesto as in pledges to do such and such. To me your original claim was specifically about pledges and the lack of evidence of such. I provided evidence of pledges and your response is 'yeah but that is just a 'pledge'.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I know both of the above were both Thatcher moves. Still confident in that 170,000 she cut?
Yes I am still of the opinion that the total number of UK civil service employees has decreased by significant amounts over the time the UK has been a member of the EEC / EU. As I say find me any source that would disagree with that assertion, other than you personally and I might well be willing to change my view. However if all you have got is 'government fiddle figures so I must be right and everyone else wrong on this' and 'I never saw any public pledges from governments in that period to reduce civil service numbers' then for me that is not going to do it I am afraid.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: When I started work we used to have personel department of one who basically gave us our wages and a staff rep who we could air our grievances to.
We ended up having a massive HR department which used to call so many meetings that I needed more staff to attend their meetings. Constant appraisals which take up man hours and are a total and utter waste of time etc.
So when did you start work ? Mid to late 70's ? Yeah great times of efficiency and productivity in the UK, public sector or private sector. A shinning example of a 'better way' we used to do things back then. Strangely enough that is not my memory of that period in the UK.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:You believe or expect me to believe that the civil service and the public sector and the EU with access to the free money tree have suddenly become this lean mean units? No way it doesn't happen like that.
I have never said that government, national or EU federal have become 'lean mean units'. You are the one who said that when we leave the EU then "At least we wont have faceless buerucrats creating their own empire" and now you are saying that UK government will always try and increase its size and what is more argue that the number of UK civil servants today must be more than it was in 73 because government will always not just tryt to increase in size but will always succeed in doing so. See the inconsistency here ?

Yes there are forces that mean 'government' will always try and increase in size but my problem with your narrative is the the lack of recognition that as well as these forces there are also always forces that will try and limit these tenancies. Using your 'man in the street common sense' approach , it is clear that the forces from within government to increase in size do not always win out over the forces that seek to stop this. If they did not then why is not everyone employed in government jobs ? Yes governments, be it national or EU federal will always try and increase in size and just as surely 'society' will try and limit this tendency.

As I say if you want to present any evidence that the number of civil servants in UK government has increased in size since 73 , other than your own 'personal common sense tell me' evidence, then I am more than happy to consider such. However if all you have in the way evidence is 'common sense tells me there must be more civil servants today than in 73', then that is not likely to convince me much.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 244 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

PoshinDevon wrote:Hmmm.....

Both clips do not last long but say a lot. The first one in particular is IMO a good reason for leaving the E.U. Take just 3 minutes to watch them both.

No doubt some will be dismissive or cover their eyes in the hope they don’t see it coming.

https://www.facebook.com/26299547741527 ... 672348188/
Sorry but for me, the person in the clip above, that I assume is a MEP, no more or less represents what the 'EU is all about' than Nigel Farage, also an MEP, represents what the 'EU is all about'. There are MEPs, like the example in the clip, that clearly do believe that the best way forward is ever increasing movement towards a 'united states of europe' just as there are also MEPs who believe that the EU should be destroyed.

For me if anything this clip undermines the idea that the EU has a secret and hidden agenda to evolve in to a United states of Europe by deception than it 'proves' this.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 245 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
You are the one constantly pushing the narrative that the 'renewable energy lobby' or the 'anti smoking lobby' is influencing 'public policy' as a result of the sums they spend. So explain to me why is lobbying from groups you disagree with a 'problem' when lobbying from groups you do not have such a disagreement with is not a concern because 'the other side cancels it out' ? Can you not see the inconsistency there ?
Totally acknowledge the lobbying by the oil companies and tobacco companies but will argue with the fact that the lobbying by the other side is almost treated as a few concerned citizens spending a few pounds saved in the selfless fight.
An example is the way the Enstrom and Kabat study on passive smoking that took 40 years on nearly 120,000 subjects and proved zero. That is written off as sponsored by the tobacco industry which is a very selective narrative. It was originally sponsored by the anti-smoking lobby who didn't like the result. At which point the authors searched around for funding. I wouldn't argue that the tobacco companies jumped in for their own reasons but to say they sponsored it is a very selective truth.

Btw wind turbines and solar panels and the like is a business like any other.
erol wrote:
Who says they are not 'winning' ? Now who is being the naive one ? You think they spend the sums they do and get no result from that money spent ? Any time lobbying from the tobacco industry achieves a delay in the implementation of policies and legislation that seeks to reduce the number of smokers, they 'win'.
Ban on advertising.
Ban on smoking in pubs or any public spaces.
Massive taxation.
They certainly need a different set of lobbyists.
erol wrote: Would you mind be a tenner behind the climate change deniers (Exxon Mobil, Marathon Petroleum, Koch Industries, Chevron Corp, Shell, BP etc etc etc) ?
Absolutely not but this comes back to hypocracy. Exxon, Mobil etc make no bones about the fact they are in the business of making money.

Its like when you linked that link on Rees Mogg's voting record as an example of his hypocracy. I pointed out that even if you don't agree with his voting it is only illustrates hypocracy if he votes one way and does something completely different.

Apart from the obvious examples of Abbott and Harmon views on education I'd point to man of the people Michael Moore who claims not to own any stocks and rallies against companies such as Halliburton when his IRS filings show he made a healthy 15% profit on his Halliburton shares. No doubt he writes off the commissions he pays to his brokers Fleet Financial as a tax write off.

To be fair to Moore he does idolise Chomsky who despite believing corporations are "just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and Fascism" and believes capitalism is a "grostesque catastrophe" does like to invest in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. I suppose TIAA-CREF might only invest in ethical oil companies and military contractors to be fair.

By all means have a view but I don't think it's too much to try and live by it. Well if you think it works of course.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 246 of 301 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: So when did you start work ? Mid to late 70's ? Yeah great times of efficiency and productivity in the UK, public sector or private sector. A shinning example of a 'better way' we used to do things back then. Strangely enough that is not my memory of that period in the UK.
Yes and we certainly had waste then but we have as many bodies now just in different jobs that are hard to explain.
You might have thought that 10 bin men on a route was too many but taking 5 off and moving them into HR etc and hiring another 3 to administer them doesn't seem better to me.
I know your Guardian will struggle without the adverts for diversity councillors but.....

erol wrote:
As I say if you want to present any evidence that the number of civil servants in UK government has increased in size since 73 , other than your own 'personal common sense tell me' evidence, then I am more than happy to consider such. However if all you have in the way evidence is 'common sense tells me there must be more civil servants today than in 73', then that is not likely to convince me much.
Give me some time Erol, it isn't as easy because my side of the street isn't as acomplished at the narrative as yours

The NHS is an example and I do have some experience albeit third hand of this.
Back in the day you had a ward run by a sister, usually played by Hattie Jaques!
Under her would be nurses and the work force would be filled by SENs who had completed much of the Nurse training but fallen a little short. Some people can do exams and some can't. The other tasks on wards were carried out by auxileries.

Now the average ward has one nurse and usually just auxileries under her. They need the nurse because of the drugs.

Now I'm a huge fan of the NHS, I wouldn't argue that nurses are underpaid and we are short of them hence the current allocations on the wards but one thing we have now got in abundance is administrators and management. The nurse now spends 90% of her time writing out reports to justify the admin staffs lives and races around to oversee the drug allocation.

Now an absolute fortune is pumped into the NHS and no doubt it could do with more money but I'd like an attempt made to rationalise the administration and management so we get value for that money.

The problem is if cuts have to be made, who will be tasked with making them? The nurse or the "procurement analyst"? What do you reckon is the "procurement analyst" going to chop their assistant or one of the auxileries?


Banner headline nurses sacked rather than NHS chops someone who no-one could figure out what the hell they did.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 247 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Totally acknowledge the lobbying by the oil companies and tobacco companies but will argue with the fact that the lobbying by the other side is almost treated as a few concerned citizens spending a few pounds saved in the selfless fight.
An example is the way the Enstrom and Kabat study on passive smoking that took 40 years on nearly 120,000 subjects and proved zero. That is written off as sponsored by the tobacco industry which is a very selective narrative. It was originally sponsored by the anti-smoking lobby who didn't like the result. At which point the authors searched around for funding. I wouldn't argue that the tobacco companies jumped in for their own reasons but to say they sponsored it is a very selective truth.
Where have I personally ever said or argued that the 'other side's lobbying is just a few concerned citizens spending a few pounds in a selfless fight' ? Compared with the number of times you have dismiss evidence (that does not suit your position) out hand on the basis that it is the product of 'lobbying' and thus has no value what so ever ?

I have no problem with 'factoring in' the effect of 'lobbying' just as long as it is factored in from both sides. I do have a problem with 'factoring it in only from one side' and ignoring or dismissing it from the other as suits a given position. This is what it feels like you do vastly more regularly than I ever do I am afraid. As I have said I am a fan of consistency.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Btw wind turbines and solar panels and the like is a business like any other.
Indeed they are businesses and large and powerful ones at that. However the idea that they are larger and more powerful than the hundred year old oil and gas businesses is where I have an issue.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Ban on advertising.
Ban on smoking in pubs or any public spaces.
Massive taxation.
They certainly need a different set of lobbyists.
When ? If the tobacco industry spends say 10 million on lobbying that delays the implementation of a ban on advertising by say two years and that 2 year delay represents increased revenue of 100 million over those two years, then that is, in my book, a 'win' for the lobbyists.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Exxon, Mobil etc make no bones about the fact they are in the business of making money.
Where as the anti smoking lobby does make bones that it is about trying to reduce and stop smoking ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Its like when you linked that link on Rees Mogg's voting record as an example of his hypocracy. I pointed out that even if you don't agree with his voting it is only illustrates hypocracy if he votes one way and does something completely different.
You need to go back and read that discussion again I think. I posted Mogg's voting record in response to your claim that 'left' politicians happily supported legislation that affected other people adversely, safe in the knowledge that such legislation would have no impact on them personally. I posted Mogg's record to show the simple truth that politicians on the right also do this. That was the point at which you then tried to make out that what we were talking about was hypocrisy. Now having 'moved the goal posts' you then go on to kick ball after ball in to the moved goal posts (all your subsequent stuff about hypocrisy of Moore and others on your 'enemy list').

If you want to argue with me that those of the 'left' are inherently more hypocritical than those from the 'right' I am more than happy to engage with such a discussion. I am however slightly miffed at you having that discussion and making out I am having that discussion when in fact I was discussing if the those of the 'left' are more willing to support legislation that affects others but not themselves than those of the 'right' and specifically in your response to your claim that those of the left do this.
Last edited by erol on Sun 18 Nov 2018 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 248 of 301 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Yes and we certainly had waste then but we have as many bodies now just in different jobs that are hard to explain.
You might have thought that 10 bin men on a route was too many but taking 5 off and moving them into HR etc and hiring another 3 to administer them doesn't seem better to me.
Yeah all well and fine but where is the evidence that reduced numbers of civil servants today vs 73 is all the result of such 'shuffling' and that in reality such numbers have increased since 73 ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I know your Guardian will struggle without the adverts for diversity councillors but.....

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Give me some time Erol, it isn't as easy because my side of the street isn't as acomplished at the narrative as yours
Take all the time you like but I suspect you are finding it hard to locate anyone who supports your view that in fact civil service numbers in the UK have increased since 73 is not down to my side of the street having a more accomplished narrative than yours and more down to the case being that actually even your side of the street accepts that there are less UK civil servants today than in 73. Why not send an email to Mogg's office asking him if civil service numbers have increased or decreased in the UK since 73 ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The NHS is an example and I do have some experience albeit third hand of this.
What are we talking about here ? Civil service numbers or public sector workers ? I have been addressing this (imo false) idea that leaving the EU is an effective way and great place to start in terms of reducing then number of civil servants and administrators the UK has to support. From where I am sitting when I explained why I think leaving the EU only has a marginal impact on this compared to how much we reduce such in UK national government, rather than address the counter point I made, you instead then started to talk about public servants rather than civil servants. So now I am no longer sure what it is we are talking about.

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 249 of 301 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

erol wrote:
PoshinDevon wrote:Hmmm.....

Both clips do not last long but say a lot. The first one in particular is IMO a good reason for leaving the E.U. Take just 3 minutes to watch them both.

No doubt some will be dismissive or cover their eyes in the hope they don’t see it coming.

https://www.facebook.com/26299547741527 ... 672348188/
Sorry but for me, the person in the clip above, that I assume is a MEP, no more or less represents what the 'EU is all about' than Nigel Farage, also an MEP, represents what the 'EU is all about'. There are MEPs, like the example in the clip, that clearly do believe that the best way forward is ever increasing movement towards a 'united states of europe' just as there are also MEPs who believe that the EU should be destroyed.

For me if anything this clip undermines the idea that the EU has a secret and hidden agenda to evolve in to a United states of Europe by deception than it 'proves' this.

The person in the clip is Guy Verhofstad a former Belgian President. He is the European Parliament's representative in the Brexit negotiations. He advocates a federal Europe.

I would say a very influential person within the E.U. Parliament.

The EU is slowly but surely going down the road to morphing into some form of super state, removing sovereignty and diluting the right of the electorate to be governed by a party selected into office via a democratic election. Is this really how the U.K. wants to end up? It may take time but 40 years after joining we are already well on our way to this being the final end game for the E.U.

There are many millions of us that do not want this.

Sorry Erol, but I cannot agree with your thoughts on this one.
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

User avatar
waz-24-7
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sun 24 Aug 2014 2:37 pm

Re: Brexit - Sensible thoughts on a highly charged topic

  • Quote
  •   Message 250 of 301 in Discussion

Post by waz-24-7 »

I think the current state of BREXIT and the choices are not being discussed sufficiently.

Given the Brexit referendum result 2 years ago. The government has negotiated the divorce. The terms that formulate the agreement have now been released.

It is abundantly clear that many senior politicians, brexiteers and remainers are not happy with the deal.

Now is the critical time for the UK, UK government and the people.

The deal is as I have said rubbish. However in my opinion it the best of a bad job. Therefore my vote is to take the deal.

Some will vote to oust Mrs May and go for no deal. This is certainly a lose lose situation for the UK and to lesser extent the EU.
Some will say put it to the people as a second referendum DEAL or NO DEAL or REMAIN.

Comments invited.

Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS - Kibkom North Cyprus Forum”