Little England and not-so-Great-Britain

[ilostmypassword]

Great Britain has always been little, but we are Great because we can fight, explore, do stuff. Back in '39 an unprepared little Britain came to the aid of many against a well prepared war machine attacking little countries. It is in our genes to try....

The EU thing is just Brits showing when enough is enough....

I think you do a great disservice to conveniently forget the large number of Poles, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Free French, and many other nationalities who not only helped defend GB during the Battle of Britain but who "came to the aid of many . . ." until the US joined in.

I started reading from bottom to the top. The first sentence (from the bottom) has always been enough for me. the rest is just icing on the cake so to speak.

To the OP stop winging. The UK people do not see themselves as European but from the UK. Its called patriotism. They are proud of their identity and have seen this dwindled away since joining the EU. This was an opportunity to get our identity back. Now deal with it.

Please do not include Scotland in your UK generalisation.

We are just as patriotic, perhaps even more so, about our country as the English are about theirs but, unlike the English, most of us also consider ourselves European and have been so for hundreds of years.

It is possible to be patriotic without being xenophobic!

Rubbish -- look at the demographic analysis of the vote in Scotland -- only the young and recent incomers want to stay in EU....

Your assertion seems very dubious since the split in Scotland was 62-28 and young people had a much lower turnout rate. Or are there so many "recent incomers" in Scotland? Can you provide a link to some actual data to prove your point?

[ilostmypassword]

Though I was a Remainer here is a well argued piece for the opposite case by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/brexit-britain-property-bubble

Actually, I read the Simon Jenkins piece and I thought it was remarkably muddle-headed. In effect, he's blaming the EU for the UK's bad governance at home.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion since there is nothing to support it in the article.He is arguing that Brexit provides an opportunity to invigorate but isn't suggesting that the EU is resposible for Britain's present travails.Incidentally Simon Jenkins is sometimes wrong headed (I think he is here) but he is never muddle headed.There's a big difference.

I can tell you exactly why I thought it was muddle-headed. The right wing conservatives who promoted Brexit are the same people who support most of the domestic laws and programs that Jenkins detests. And now, thanks to Brexit, the lot of working class and middle class people will be even worse. Which is exactly what those right wing conservatives want.

[jpinx]

I think you do a great disservice to conveniently forget the large number of Poles, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Free French, and many other nationalities who not only helped defend GB during the Battle of Britain but who "came to the aid of many . . ." until the US joined in.

I started reading from bottom to the top. The first sentence (from the bottom) has always been enough for me. the rest is just icing on the cake so to speak.

To the OP stop winging. The UK people do not see themselves as European but from the UK. Its called patriotism. They are proud of their identity and have seen this dwindled away since joining the EU. This was an opportunity to get our identity back. Now deal with it.

Please do not include Scotland in your UK generalisation.

We are just as patriotic, perhaps even more so, about our country as the English are about theirs but, unlike the English, most of us also consider ourselves European and have been so for hundreds of years.

It is possible to be patriotic without being xenophobic!

Rubbish -- look at the demographic analysis of the vote in Scotland -- only the young and recent incomers want to stay in EU....

Your assertion seems very dubious since the split in Scotland was 62-28 and young people had a much lower turnout rate. Or are there so many "recent incomers" in Scotland? Can you provide a link to some actual data to prove your point?

Here's an in-depth analysis for you to peruse --

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

If you don't live in Scotland, you can have no idea how it has changed since the "free movement of labour" came into effect. Initially the only people who came actually did work, but now the streets of Edinburgh have more than a sprinkling of down-and-out drunken incomers.

[jpinx]

@saulbundy,

I rarely go to a pub, if I do and folk are pissed I bugger off....

Please lets have real conversation here and not tripe that thebladder would post..

With the pound going the way it is you'll be going even less.

Butat least you have your health insurance for this year, you can worry about the cost of renewing that when it comes around.

The pound is still higher against the euro than after the 2008 crash - and it recovered from that quite well. The euro - otoh - is down against the US$ for 2 years now....

[ilostmypassword]

Please do not include Scotland in your UK generalisation.

We are just as patriotic, perhaps even more so, about our country as the English are about theirs but, unlike the English, most of us also consider ourselves European and have been so for hundreds of years.

It is possible to be patriotic without being xenophobic!

Rubbish -- look at the demographic analysis of the vote in Scotland -- only the young and recent incomers want to stay in EU....

Your assertion seems very dubious since the split in Scotland was 62-28 and young people had a much lower turnout rate. Or are there so many "recent incomers" in Scotland? Can you provide a link to some actual data to prove your point?

Here's an in-depth analysis for you to peruse --

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

If you don't live in Scotland, you can have no idea how it has changed since the "free movement of labour" came into effect. Initially the only people who came actually did work, but now the streets of Edinburgh have more than a sprinkling of down-and-out drunken incomers.

The site you linked to offered no demographic analysis of the Scottish vote that I could find. Am I missing something?

[jpinx]

Rubbish -- look at the demographic analysis of the vote in Scotland -- only the young and recent incomers want to stay in EU....

Your assertion seems very dubious since the split in Scotland was 62-28 and young people had a much lower turnout rate. Or are there so many "recent incomers" in Scotland? Can you provide a link to some actual data to prove your point?

Here's an in-depth analysis for you to peruse --

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

If you don't live in Scotland, you can have no idea how it has changed since the "free movement of labour" came into effect. Initially the only people who came actually did work, but now the streets of Edinburgh have more than a sprinkling of down-and-out drunken incomers.

The site you linked to offered no demographic analysis of the Scottish vote that I could find. Am I missing something?

Sorry I don't have time to go back and find the specific scottish analysis -- giyf

[Jip99]

EU is a bad deal for UK. But the way we have left is the dumb option.

Unfortunately, a hard right UK government will be needed for the next decade.

Only working age people educated to 'A' level (or anyone willing to take competence test) should be able to vote to avoid collective dumb decisions.

How do you think that might work in Thailand ??

[GuestHouse]

The pound is still higher against the euro than after the 2008 crash - and it recovered from that quite well. The euro - otoh - is down against the US$ for 2 years now....

.

I don't know anybody who exchanges pounds into euros to spend in Thailand.

[jpinx]

The pound is still higher against the euro than after the 2008 crash - and it recovered from that quite well. The euro - otoh - is down against the US$ for 2 years now....

.

I don't know anybody who exchanges pounds into euros to spend in Thailand.

This topic is about UK and EU -- nothing to do with Thailand. Besides -- do you consider the Thai Bhat to be a solid currency for comparison?

[ilostmypassword]

Your assertion seems very dubious since the split in Scotland was 62-28 and young people had a much lower turnout rate. Or are there so many "recent incomers" in Scotland? Can you provide a link to some actual data to prove your point?

Here's an in-depth analysis for you to peruse --

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

If you don't live in Scotland, you can have no idea how it has changed since the "free movement of labour" came into effect. Initially the only people who came actually did work, but now the streets of Edinburgh have more than a sprinkling of down-and-out drunken incomers.

The site you linked to offered no demographic analysis of the Scottish vote that I could find. Am I missing something?

Sorry I don't have time to go back and find the specific scottish analysis -- giyf

As far as I can tell there is none. Which makes your assertion somewhat suspect.

[jpinx]

Your assertion seems very dubious since the split in Scotland was 62-28 and young people had a much lower turnout rate. Or are there so many "recent incomers" in Scotland? Can you provide a link to some actual data to prove your point?

Here's an in-depth analysis for you to peruse --

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

If you don't live in Scotland, you can have no idea how it has changed since the "free movement of labour" came into effect. Initially the only people who came actually did work, but now the streets of Edinburgh have more than a sprinkling of down-and-out drunken incomers.

The site you linked to offered no demographic analysis of the Scottish vote that I could find. Am I missing something?

Sorry I don't have time to go back and find the specific scottish analysis -- giyf

As far as I can tell there is none. Which makes your assertion somewhat suspect.

There were lots of analysis going around just after the vote. As usual they are biased according to their paymaster, but the incomers and youth in Scotland stood out in their remain status. Scotland is now in a very difficult position and needs to grasp the opportunity of UK's uncertainty.

[billd766]

The Brexit was the dumbest vote I have ever known, and what compounded it was that it was swung by people who had the most to lose- white unemployed working class, the old vote, and generation snowflake who couldn't quite manage the polling station. Luckily, I think EU is teetering anyway.

There has to be some minimum standards as to who can vote. As the road sweeper has considerable work experience then that would be a qualification in my books.

Maybe just a case of saying 25- 65 to keep things simple.

Presumably because I am 72 you would not let me vote even though I have 50 years of work experience including 25 in the RAF and I am still paying taxes.

Do you truly believe that at 64 + 11 months you are competent to vote but at 65 + 1 month you are not?

If so, why?

I can still drive a car and ride a motorbike, all my mental bits still work. Granted that physically I can't do as much as I could do 10 or 20 years ago but so what?

[mommysboy]

Notionally, there is no reason for the City of London to fear anything at all. I suppose passporting is a bit like a seal of honour, but in reality it means very little at all. I doubt the EU will take it away anyway.

All explained here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/03/londons-city-financial-markets-eu-passports-and-brexit-threats/#1b0286a86bcd

In essence if required, all a company or institution needs to do is open a little office in Dublin say, and trade under an Irish licence. The bulk of the work will still be done in London interface where all the best people are.

Edited July 8, 2016 by mommysboy

[jayboy]

Though I was a Remainer here is a well argued piece for the opposite case by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/brexit-britain-property-bubble

Actually, I read the Simon Jenkins piece and I thought it was remarkably muddle-headed. In effect, he's blaming the EU for the UK's bad governance at home.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion since there is nothing to support it in the article.He is arguing that Brexit provides an opportunity to invigorate but isn't suggesting that the EU is resposible for Britain's present travails.Incidentally Simon Jenkins is sometimes wrong headed (I think he is here) but he is never muddle headed.There's a big difference.

I can tell you exactly why I thought it was muddle-headed. The right wing conservatives who promoted Brexit are the same people who support most of the domestic laws and programs that Jenkins detests. And now, thanks to Brexit, the lot of working class and middle class people will be even worse. Which is exactly what those right wing conservatives want.

It takes a peculiar cast of mind to truly believe (as opposed to mindless Dave Spart agitprop) that right wing conservatives "want" the lot of working class and middle class people to be worse.

[Guest]

Logan's Run

I'm sure you would find it fun, until your turn came around.

I don't find it fun, I'm just acting without the silly PC talk, which was so much wanted by the elderly and the Wingers.

I personally hope my turn will come before I become a person, who fights against the youth and what they want to accomplish in their own future.

That is unacceptable.

[MJP]

Logan's Run

I'm sure you would find it fun, until your turn came around.

I don't find it fun, I'm just acting without the silly PC talk, which was so much wanted by the elderly and the Wingers.

I personally hope my turn will come before I become a person, who fights against the youth and what they want to accomplish in their own future.

That is unacceptable.

[jpinx]

Why don't we just ignore the wishes of these old geezers. After all they don't contribute to our societies and are simply a burden to all of us as long as they live.

Maybe there is a way to push them away from our productive societies?

I heard that these elderly folks used to escape to the places like Spain or Thailand. They indeed used to live with their fat pensions, paid by us, which we should cut off immediately. After all, they don't even pay real taxes to our countries, where they get their money from. If they do, they don't work anymore. The burden of the old and obsolete folks, which we used to carry and take care of.

Ah, it feels so good to be freed of the all the silly PC talks and policies, we had to follow previously. Thank to you old geezers, we no longer have to think in that stupid way.

Logan's Run

I'm sure you would find it fun, until your turn came around.

You're missing the point -- he *is* on his run...

"billd766, on 08 Jul 2016 - 17:07, said:

Presumably because I am 72 you........."

Many of us older folks actually want to leave the place in better condition for our grandkids than it has been for quite a while. Shaving off layers of government, especially non-elected law-makers, is the first step back into the fresh air of freedom of choice. Watching grandchildren being overly cared-for in the "Health and Safety" world now is another example that makes us "oldies" cringe. So many of the things the older generation have become are because of a reasonably robust life based on freedom of choice - not wrapped in the cotton-wool of regulations all day but relying on handed-down common-sense personal responsibility. It's not only the EU and it's heavy hand we need to get rid of, but leaving the EU is the first step in the right direction.

This has little to do with immigration -- UK has been accepting people from the Empire and then the Commonwealth long before the EU was thought of. The proviso is that they contribute, and are not a burden on society.

Edited July 8, 2016 by jpinx

[Thaiwine]

Logan's Run

I'm sure you would find it fun, until your turn came around.

I don't find it fun, I'm just acting without the silly PC talk, which was so much wanted by the elderly and the Wingers.

I personally hope my turn will come before I become a person, who fights against the youth and what they want to accomplish in their own future.

That is unacceptable.

What was it 36% who could be bothered to vote (youngsters)

They need to vote to decide on their future, disenfranchising one section of society so another can be indifferent, seems to me to be wrong.

[Thaiwine]

Why don't we just ignore the wishes of these old geezers. After all they don't contribute to our societies and are simply a burden to all of us as long as they live.

Maybe there is a way to push them away from our productive societies?

I heard that these elderly folks used to escape to the places like Spain or Thailand. They indeed used to live with their fat pensions, paid by us, which we should cut off immediately. After all, they don't even pay real taxes to our countries, where they get their money from. If they do, they don't work anymore. The burden of the old and obsolete folks, which we used to carry and take care of.

Ah, it feels so good to be freed of the all the silly PC talks and policies, we had to follow previously. Thank to you old geezers, we no longer have to think in that stupid way.

Logan's Run

I'm sure you would find it fun, until your turn came around.

You're missing the point -- he *is* on his run...

"billd766, on 08 Jul 2016 - 17:07, said:

Presumably because I am 72 you........."

Many of us older folks actually want to leave the place in better condition for our grandkids than it has been for quite a while. Shaving off layers of government, especially non-elected law-makers, is the first step back into the fresh air of freedom of choice. Watching grandchildren being overly cared-for in the "Health and Safety" world now is another example that makes us "oldies" cringe. So many of the things the older generation have become are because of a reasonably robust life based on freedom of choice - not wrapped in the cotton-wool of regulations all day but relying on handed-down common-sense personal responsibility. It's not only the EU and it's heavy hand we need to get rid of, but leaving the EU is the first step in the right direction.

This has little to do with immigration -- UK has been accepting people from the Empire and then the Commonwealth long before the EU was thought of. The proviso is that they contribute, and are not a burden on society.

And you missed my point, I was quoting an example of where some posters logic would take them.

I'm sure you don't need it explaining.

[ilostmypassword]

Why don't we just ignore the wishes of these old geezers. After all they don't contribute to our societies and are simply a burden to all of us as long as they live.

Maybe there is a way to push them away from our productive societies?

I heard that these elderly folks used to escape to the places like Spain or Thailand. They indeed used to live with their fat pensions, paid by us, which we should cut off immediately. After all, they don't even pay real taxes to our countries, where they get their money from. If they do, they don't work anymore. The burden of the old and obsolete folks, which we used to carry and take care of.

Ah, it feels so good to be freed of the all the silly PC talks and policies, we had to follow previously. Thank to you old geezers, we no longer have to think in that stupid way.

Logan's Run

I'm sure you would find it fun, until your turn came around.

You're missing the point -- he *is* on his run...

"billd766, on 08 Jul 2016 - 17:07, said:

Presumably because I am 72 you........."

Many of us older folks actually want to leave the place in better condition for our grandkids than it has been for quite a while. Shaving off layers of government, especially non-elected law-makers, is the first step back into the fresh air of freedom of choice. Watching grandchildren being overly cared-for in the "Health and Safety" world now is another example that makes us "oldies" cringe. So many of the things the older generation have become are because of a reasonably robust life based on freedom of choice - not wrapped in the cotton-wool of regulations all day but relying on handed-down common-sense personal responsibility. It's not only the EU and it's heavy hand we need to get rid of, but leaving the EU is the first step in the right direction.

This has little to do with immigration -- UK has been accepting people from the Empire and then the Commonwealth long before the EU was thought of. The proviso is that they contribute, and are not a burden on society.

What "non-elected lawmakers" are you referring to?

[Celer et Audax]

Great Britain has always been little, but we are Great because we can fight, explore, do stuff. Back in '39 an unprepared little Britain came to the aid of many against a well prepared war machine attacking little countries. It is in our genes to try....

The EU thing is just Brits showing when enough is enough....

I think you do a great disservice to conveniently forget the large number of Poles, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Free French, and many other nationalities who not only helped defend GB during the Battle of Britain but who "came to the aid of many . . ." until the US joined in.

I started reading from bottom to the top. The first sentence (from the bottom) has always been enough for me. the rest is just icing on the cake so to speak.

To the OP stop winging. The UK people do not see themselves as European but from the UK. Its called patriotism. They are proud of their identity and have seen this dwindled away since joining the EU. This was an opportunity to get our identity back. Now deal with it.

Please do not include Scotland in your UK generalisation.

We are just as patriotic, perhaps even more so, about our country as the English are about theirs but, unlike the English, most of us also consider ourselves European and have been so for hundreds of years.

It is possible to be patriotic without being xenophobic!

Sure, but folk dislike being controlled by Germans, you Scots folk want that then do it and remain under their control...Scots bleat about Westminster and the English but WANT a German master..

Well YOU get on with it, if Germans are in your opinion better than the UK union, do your stuff......

silly statement, the EU is not German it consists of 27 countries all with voting rights, Junker is president of the EU commission and he comes from the little country of Luxembourg.

Luxembourg is a principality

[ilostmypassword]

Sure, but folk dislike being controlled by Germans, you Scots folk want that then do it and remain under their control...Scots bleat about Westminster and the English but WANT a German master..

Well YOU get on with it, if Germans are in your opinion better than the UK union, do your stuff......

silly statement, the EU is not German it consists of 27 countries all with voting rights, Junker is president of the EU commission and he comes from the little country of Luxembourg.

Luxembourg is a principality

Why can't it be both? definition of country: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.

[ilostmypassword]

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion since there is nothing to support it in the article.He is arguing that Brexit provides an opportunity to invigorate but isn't suggesting that the EU is resposible for Britain's present travails.Incidentally Simon Jenkins is sometimes wrong headed (I think he is here) but he is never muddle headed.There's a big difference.

I can tell you exactly why I thought it was muddle-headed. The right wing conservatives who promoted Brexit are the same people who support most of the domestic laws and programs that Jenkins detests. And now, thanks to Brexit, the lot of working class and middle class people will be even worse. Which is exactly what those right wing conservatives want.

It takes a peculiar cast of mind to truly believe (as opposed to mindless Dave Spart agitprop) that right wing conservatives "want" the lot of working class and middle class people to be worse.

Things like the bedroom tax and cutting back on the NHS and lowering taxes on the wealthy while imposing austerity are certainly not things that most working class people think are in their favor.

And the point was, and is, that Jenkins argues that this will shake up the political class. It looks to me like it's shaking up the political class in favor of the people who support the programs he detests. I call this Trumpthink. We have lots of people in the USA who say Trump will shake things up while ignoring that the changes he's calling for mostly hugely favor the wealthy and powerful.

Edited July 9, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[jayboy]

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion since there is nothing to support it in the article.He is arguing that Brexit provides an opportunity to invigorate but isn't suggesting that the EU is resposible for Britain's present travails.Incidentally Simon Jenkins is sometimes wrong headed (I think he is here) but he is never muddle headed.There's a big difference.

I can tell you exactly why I thought it was muddle-headed. The right wing conservatives who promoted Brexit are the same people who support most of the domestic laws and programs that Jenkins detests. And now, thanks to Brexit, the lot of working class and middle class people will be even worse. Which is exactly what those right wing conservatives want.

It takes a peculiar cast of mind to truly believe (as opposed to mindless Dave Spart agitprop) that right wing conservatives "want" the lot of working class and middle class people to be worse.

Things like the bedroom tax and cutting back on the NHS and lowering taxes on the wealthy while imposing austerity are certainly not things that most working class people think are in their favor.

And the point was, and is, that Jenkins argues that this will shake up the political class. It looks to me like it's shaking up the political class in favor of the people who support the programs he detests. I call this Trumpthink. We have lots of people in the USA who say Trump will shake things up while ignoring that the changes he's calling for mostly hugely favor the wealthy and powerful.

Some dubious assumptions here (Tory NHS cuts don't stand up to scrutiny: no British political party would dare!) but I think I grasp your point.In summary why do lower income groups vote for politicians who espouse policies that work against the interests of their less well off supporters? This is an old question and has been debated since the universal franchise.Just a couple of points.Firstly the 'working class' in its traditional sense is relatively small in modern democracies.The critical group is the large lower middle class, many of which are quite keen on 'getting on' in life - and sympathetic to conservative values.Trump is a figure not easily understood in Europe but students of American history will recognise the populist/nativist type.He flip flops on policies so it's difficult to understand exactly what he stands for.Both he and Brexit reflect the widespread disaffection with establishment politicians.If you are suggesting that rage will end up harming (through poor electoral choices) those who express it, you may be right.

[ilostmypassword]

It takes a peculiar cast of mind to truly believe (as opposed to mindless Dave Spart agitprop) that right wing conservatives "want" the lot of working class and middle class people to be worse.

Things like the bedroom tax and cutting back on the NHS and lowering taxes on the wealthy while imposing austerity are certainly not things that most working class people think are in their favor.

And the point was, and is, that Jenkins argues that this will shake up the political class. It looks to me like it's shaking up the political class in favor of the people who support the programs he detests. I call this Trumpthink. We have lots of people in the USA who say Trump will shake things up while ignoring that the changes he's calling for mostly hugely favor the wealthy and powerful.

Some dubious assumptions here (Tory NHS cuts don't stand up to scrutiny: no British political party would dare!) but I think I grasp your point.In summary why do lower income groups vote for politicians who espouse policies that work against the interests of their less well off supporters? This is an old question and has been debated since the universal franchise.Just a couple of points.Firstly the 'working class' in its traditional sense is relatively small in modern democracies.The critical group is the large lower middle class, many of which are quite keen on 'getting on' in life - and sympathetic to conservative values.Trump is a figure not easily understood in Europe but students of American history will recognise the populist/nativist type.He flip flops on policies so it's difficult to understand exactly what he stands for.Both he and Brexit reflect the widespread disaffection with establishment politicians.If you are suggesting that rage will end up harming (through poor electoral choices) those who express it, you may be right.

Tory NHS cuts:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-spending-has-been-cut-tories-forced-to-admit-8395976.html

[jayboy]

It takes a peculiar cast of mind to truly believe (as opposed to mindless Dave Spart agitprop) that right wing conservatives "want" the lot of working class and middle class people to be worse.

Things like the bedroom tax and cutting back on the NHS and lowering taxes on the wealthy while imposing austerity are certainly not things that most working class people think are in their favor.

And the point was, and is, that Jenkins argues that this will shake up the political class. It looks to me like it's shaking up the political class in favor of the people who support the programs he detests. I call this Trumpthink. We have lots of people in the USA who say Trump will shake things up while ignoring that the changes he's calling for mostly hugely favor the wealthy and powerful.

Some dubious assumptions here (Tory NHS cuts don't stand up to scrutiny: no British political party would dare!) but I think I grasp your point.In summary why do lower income groups vote for politicians who espouse policies that work against the interests of their less well off supporters? This is an old question and has been debated since the universal franchise.Just a couple of points.Firstly the 'working class' in its traditional sense is relatively small in modern democracies.The critical group is the large lower middle class, many of which are quite keen on 'getting on' in life - and sympathetic to conservative values.Trump is a figure not easily understood in Europe but students of American history will recognise the populist/nativist type.He flip flops on policies so it's difficult to understand exactly what he stands for.Both he and Brexit reflect the widespread disaffection with establishment politicians.If you are suggesting that rage will end up harming (through poor electoral choices) those who express it, you may be right.

Tory NHS cuts:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-spending-has-been-cut-tories-forced-to-admit-8395976.html

A non story you have referred to from several years back.In any case as the article makes clear spending on the NHS was in real terms to increase from 2010/11.It has.

It's a mantra for some (see Dave Spart reference above) that the NHS is under attack by the Tories - even that it's to be privatised.It's a lie though it's true the Tories botched the reform programme - which was and remains very necessary.

But the Tories are well aware they would never win an election if they jeopardised the NHS.The NHS is the nearest thing the Brits have for a religion - though actually it isn't all that good compared to many Western European health systems.

[ilostmypassword]

And the point was, and is, that Jenkins argues that this will shake up the political class. It looks to me like it's shaking up the political class in favor of the people who support the programs he detests. I call this Trumpthink. We have lots of people in the USA who say Trump will shake things up while ignoring that the changes he's calling for mostly hugely favor the wealthy and powerful.

Some dubious assumptions here (Tory NHS cuts don't stand up to scrutiny: no British political party would dare!) but I think I grasp your point.In summary why do lower income groups vote for politicians who espouse policies that work against the interests of their less well off supporters? This is an old question and has been debated since the universal franchise.Just a couple of points.Firstly the 'working class' in its traditional sense is relatively small in modern democracies.The critical group is the large lower middle class, many of which are quite keen on 'getting on' in life - and sympathetic to conservative values.Trump is a figure not easily understood in Europe but students of American history will recognise the populist/nativist type.He flip flops on policies so it's difficult to understand exactly what he stands for.Both he and Brexit reflect the widespread disaffection with establishment politicians.If you are suggesting that rage will end up harming (through poor electoral choices) those who express it, you may be right.

Tory NHS cuts:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-spending-has-been-cut-tories-forced-to-admit-8395976.html

A non story you have referred to from several years back.In any case as the article makes clear spending on the NHS was in real terms to increase from 2010/11.It has.

It's a mantra for some (see Dave Spart reference above) that the NHS is under attack by the Tories - even that it's to be privatised.It's a lie though it's true the Tories botched the reform programme - which was and remains very necessary.

But the Tories are well aware they would never win an election if they jeopardised the NHS.The NHS is the nearest thing the Brits have for a religion - though actually it isn't all that good compared to many Western European health systems.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2016-george-osborne-cuts-11bn-from-nhs-repairs-fund-a6942301.html

[billd766]

The Brexit was the dumbest vote I have ever known, and what compounded it was that it was swung by people who had the most to lose- white unemployed working class, the old vote, and generation snowflake who couldn't quite manage the polling station. Luckily, I think EU is teetering anyway.

There has to be some minimum standards as to who can vote. As the road sweeper has considerable work experience then that would be a qualification in my books.

Maybe just a case of saying 25- 65 to keep things simple.

Presumably because I am 72 you would not let me vote even though I have 50 years of work experience including 25 in the RAF and I am still paying taxes.

Do you truly believe that at 64 + 11 months you are competent to vote but at 65 + 1 month you are not?

If so, why?

I can still drive a car and ride a motorbike, all my mental bits still work. Granted that physically I can't do as much as I could do 10 or 20 years ago but so what?

Certainly only 32% of youngsters turned out to vote and they are equally responsible for the exit vote. Generation snowflake!

I don't see you as the typical pensioner. But, I wonder did you take the young in to consideration when you made the vote (assuming you did vote for Brexit)? You see it's they that have to live with the consequences.

Thank you anyway for being in the services so long. Admirable. I do mean that.

I did think long and hard about my son, his wife and my grandchildren before I voted for Brexit.

I also thought back to when I voted to join the EEC back in 1973 when I was 29.

The UK, Ireland and Denmark joined on the same day.

Back the it was the European Economic Community and when those 3 countries joined it made a total of 9 countries and the EU as it is today with its 28 members is nothing like the EEC. In those days the countries that were in the EEC and were trade partners with none interfering or trying to control any other countries policies.

Now it has morphed into something completely different and virtually unworkable. Only about 5 countries pay into the EU but the other 23 suck the EU dry and have equal or more rights that the main payers.

If the EEC were to represent/replace the EU now I would happy to stay but not under the current EU "leadership".

[shunter]

Concerning the dubious delights of the E.U. which I like billd766 voted to join in 1973 when I was 28 years old. In those days it was a viable economic efficient non bureaucratic dominated set up.

The begging bowls of the fourth rate European economies were not in the E.U. and leeching funds away at others expenses.There was no open border policy nor was there a policy of open movement for all residents in the E.U.

There were warnings of things to come though due to inane policies as plainly demonstrated by, butter mountains, milk lakes beef, lamb piles etc and much of the created surplus products were actually sold off cheaply to Russia, whatever was left over was destroyed. Proposals that those products could have been or should have been donated as charitable offerings were refused due to the fact that quote, ''It would upset the balance of the C.A.P. as well as the market for those products.''

​Remember who paid for that waste? We did ''The taxpaying public.''That same public is now saying or has said''enough is enough.'' Lots of behind the scenes talk going on to mend bridges so the U.K. may yet remain in the E.U. on more favourable terms as will other members. The E.U.dog is now starting to wag its own tail as opposed to the E.U. tail wagging the dog!!!!l.

Well read the item below in the link and that may open the eyes of many as to the dubious delights of the E.U.

Might even be said, That Little England pulls Europe out of the mire yet again!!!

Before the Brexit vote. Why does the EU not simply kick the UK out of the union?

The UK has demanded for special treatment at numerous occasions and is threatening with leaving the EU. Wouldn't the EU be better off without the UK rather than giving it special discounts and privileges?

Because the EU doesn't want the UK out, as simple as that.

The EU needs the UK (as much as the UK needs the EU, I would say).

The UK is questioning European values due to its own internal crisis (lack of acceptance and integration of immigrants in the British society, rate of unemployment, terror threats...), but it cannot guarantee that it would be better on its own.

If one reviews the history of European integration, it is visible how complicated was for the EU founding fathers and later leaders to get the UK on board. And yet, many more efforts are being made these years to try to keep the Union together.

However, it is clear that some member states are not comfortable with how things are made in Brussels and thus they ask for a revision of statuses. The UK is not the only one: others like Greece or Hungary are also lobbying for change, the first one on the financial level and the second one on the immigration level.

Donald Tusk is currently leading the negotiations with the UK and has recently stated that, yes, many things can be modified in terms of giving more autonomy to national governments, but without giving up on the European values, on "what bind Europeans together", as Habermas and Derrida wrote back in 2003.

The following countries are net contributors to the EU (ie - they pay in more than they get out). The exact numbers depend on various different accountancy standards, but a reasonable summary is:

• Germany (about 6 bn)
• UK (about 3.5 bn)
• Netherlands (about 2.5 bn)
• France (about 2 bn)
• Italy (about 1.5 bn)
• Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg (sub 1bn)

The following country is pretty neutral:

• Cyprus

The following countries are net recipients from the EU (ie - they take out more than they put in)

• Malta, Slovenia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia, Romania, Czech Republic, Republic of Ireland, Lithuania (sub 1bn)
• Hungary (about 1.5 bn)
• Portugal (about 2.5bn)
• Spain (about 4bn)
• Poland (about 5bn)
• Greece (about 5bn)

The countries in the top group are concerned that, if Britain pulled out, they'd have to pay even more.

https://www.quora.com/Before-the-Brexit-vote-Why-does-the-EU-not-simply-kick-the-UK-out-of-the-union

Edited July 9, 2016 by shunter

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed as well as the replies:

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.