UK Politics Thread VIII—Can't Let EU Go

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ireland got an amended version of the treaty for their constitution with concessions on issues the Irish had.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Jeremy Corbyn says Labour will back another EU referendum after his alternative Brexit plan was again defeated in the Commons.

But the Labour leader said he will also continue to push for "other available options" including a general election.

John McDonnell said the party would table an amendment for a referendum when the "meaningful vote" on Theresa May's deal returns to Parliament.

The shadow chancellor also told ITV's Peston show he would vote for remain.

It came as MPs voted to endorse Theresa May's Brexit strategy - but only after she made a series of concessions.

The PM also faced a Brexiteer rebellion, after 20 Tory MPs voted against proposals, backed by the government, to delay the UK's 29 March departure date if there is a no-deal scenario.

But Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was not among the 20 Tory rebels, offered an olive branch to Mrs May, as she continues to seek concessions from the EU on the controversial Irish backstop clause.

Brexit: Contract for shipping NHS supplies given to firm behind KFC chicken shortage

Ministers have handed a contract for shipping critical NHS supplies in the event of a no deal Brexit to the firm behind the KFC chicken shortage fiasco.

The Mirror has learned that a Government logistics hub in Belgium will rely on delivery firm DHL to transport some key goods across the Channel.

The fast food chain was forced to temporarily close hundreds of outlets last year following the botched handover of its logistics contract to DHL.

MPs criticised the decision to rely on the firm to provide potentially life-saving drugs and equipment if the UK leaves without a deal.

Whitehall insiders said the hub was just one way that medical products would be brought into the country in a no deal scenario.

[Thermodolia]

Jeremy Corbyn says Labour will back another EU referendum after his alternative Brexit plan was again defeated in the Commons.

But the Labour leader said he will also continue to push for "other available options" including a general election.

John McDonnell said the party would table an amendment for a referendum when the "meaningful vote" on Theresa May's deal returns to Parliament.

The shadow chancellor also told ITV's Peston show he would vote for remain.

It came as MPs voted to endorse Theresa May's Brexit strategy - but only after she made a series of concessions.

The PM also faced a Brexiteer rebellion, after 20 Tory MPs voted against proposals, backed by the government, to delay the UK's 29 March departure date if there is a no-deal scenario.

But Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was not among the 20 Tory rebels, offered an olive branch to Mrs May, as she continues to seek concessions from the EU on the controversial Irish backstop clause.

Brexit: Contract for shipping NHS supplies given to firm behind KFC chicken shortage

Ministers have handed a contract for shipping critical NHS supplies in the event of a no deal Brexit to the firm behind the KFC chicken shortage fiasco.

The Mirror has learned that a Government logistics hub in Belgium will rely on delivery firm DHL to transport some key goods across the Channel.

The fast food chain was forced to temporarily close hundreds of outlets last year following the botched handover of its logistics contract to DHL.

MPs criticised the decision to rely on the firm to provide potentially life-saving drugs and equipment if the UK leaves without a deal.

Whitehall insiders said the hub was just one way that medical products would be brought into the country in a no deal scenario.

Well that’s comforting. I didn’t know that Europe was gonna have its very own third world nation

[The Huskar Social Union]

I mean no offence to them, but Moldova exists and im near certain its pretty fucking heavily poor.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Jeremy Corbyn says Labour will back another EU referendum after his alternative Brexit plan was again defeated in the Commons.

Brexit: Contract for shipping NHS supplies given to firm behind KFC chicken shortage

Well that’s comforting. I didn’t know that Europe was gonna have its very own third world nation

*mutters about Ireland*

I mean no offence to them, but Moldova exists and im near certain its pretty fucking heavily poor.

Maybe we could get a trade deal with them?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Well that’s comforting. I didn’t know that Europe was gonna have its very own third world nation

*mutters about Ireland*

You want hit son

[Thermodolia]

I mean no offence to them, but Moldova exists and im near certain its pretty fucking heavily poor.

Oh ya I forgot that place existed

[Thermodolia]

*mutters about Ireland*

You want hit son

Let’s be honest here the DUP are trying their hardest to turn NI into one

[The Blaatschapen]

I mean no offence to them, but Moldova exists and im near certain its pretty fucking heavily poor.

Is Moldova going to have abrupt food and medicine shortages?

[The Huskar Social Union]

You want hit son

Let’s be honest here the DUP are trying their hardest to turn NI into one

the DUP want to turn NI in their own little ethic and religious statelet where no one else is allowed and they can walk over everyone else.

I mean for fucks sake one of them said a UVF plan to ethnically cleanse the Irish population at the end of the troubles had merit.


They dont give a damn about how prosperous this place is as long as they get to lord overyone, they cost us half a billion fucking pounds over the RHI scheme and have always been involved in financially dodgy schemes and bollocks.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

*mutters about Ireland*

You want hit son

Well, technically (yes, I know) a third-world nation is one that wasn't aligned with either side in the Cold War. So by that definition, Britain can never be third world, and Ireland always will be.

[The Huskar Social Union]

You want hit son

Well, technically (yes, I know) a third-world nation is one that wasn't aligned with either side in the Cold War. So by that definition, Britain can never be third world, and Ireland always will be.

....


You win this time.

[Alvecia]

You want hit son

Well, technically (yes, I know) a third-world nation is one that wasn't aligned with either side in the Cold War. So by that definition, Britain can never be third world, and Ireland always will be.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

[The Blaatschapen]

Well, technically (yes, I know) a third-world nation is one that wasn't aligned with either side in the Cold War. So by that definition, Britain can never be third world, and Ireland always will be.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Technically correct is the kind of correct that gets people wedgied

[Salandriagado]

Then please write in your own words about examples of countries being "forced to vote against until they get it right"

Ireland, 2008, treaty of Lisbon. Rejected the first time in referendum in 2008, and made to have another go at it in 2009.

By Ireland's democratically elected government, not by the EU. You can argue about how democratic Ireland's government is all you like, but it isn't relevant to the discussion.

Of course, 2008 wouldn't have happened if the French and Dutch hadn't rejected a previous attempt in 2005 and the treaty in 2008 wasn't that different from 2005 - curious they didn't put it to the people the second time round - Ireland only put it to the people in 2008 because they were constitutionally obligated to do so.

Again, you're talking about actions of national governments.

And of course the Irish rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001 only to vote for it at the second time of asking. It might have been a purely advisory vote, but ignoring the rejection the first time would have proven harmful.

More national governments behaving undemocratically.

Lets add Greece 2015 rejecting the harsh austerity policies imposed on them by the EU and Banks in exchange for a bailout. The Greek government ignored it and went ahead with the deal.

This one at least involves the EU, which is better than the above, but is still primarily the action of a national government.

Could also include Italy last year with the European Commission forcing Italy to redo their budget twice. First time Italy’s lower house of parliament approved the government’s 2019 budget plan to run a deficit of 2.4 per cent of GDP - This deficit is within the Stability and Growth Pacts limit of three per cent. The EC rejected it as the growth forecasts were too optimistic and threatened fines. Italy tried again, with a deficit of 2.04, and had been rejected again by the EC.

An economic regulator regulating economic affairs is not undemocratic.

It's worth noting that France broken the deficit rule every year since 2008 until 2017 without sanction. Germany and France both broke the rule in 2003 without sanction. It's also worth noting that whilst Italy were being threatened by the EC, France's budget running at a deficit of 2.4 percent of GDP 2.8 went through without a problem (and that's likely to break 3.5 percentwith the changes Euro darling Macron is implementing to deal with his unpopularity back home - I've not seen any hint that the EC will be taking a dim view at the French breaking the Pact for the umpteenth time).

Funny, that: France and Germany have functioning economies that could deal with it. Italy didn't.


I also notice that you entirely ignored being called out on your claims about unelected officials.

[Vassenor]

Ireland, 2008, treaty of Lisbon. Rejected the first time in referendum in 2008, and made to have another go at it in 2009.

By Ireland's democratically elected government, not by the EU. You can argue about how democratic Ireland's government is all you like, but it isn't relevant to the discussion.

Of course, 2008 wouldn't have happened if the French and Dutch hadn't rejected a previous attempt in 2005 and the treaty in 2008 wasn't that different from 2005 - curious they didn't put it to the people the second time round - Ireland only put it to the people in 2008 because they were constitutionally obligated to do so.

Again, you're talking about actions of national governments.

And of course the Irish rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001 only to vote for it at the second time of asking. It might have been a purely advisory vote, but ignoring the rejection the first time would have proven harmful.

More national governments behaving undemocratically.

Lets add Greece 2015 rejecting the harsh austerity policies imposed on them by the EU and Banks in exchange for a bailout. The Greek government ignored it and went ahead with the deal.

This one at least involves the EU, which is better than the above, but is still primarily the action of a national government.

Could also include Italy last year with the European Commission forcing Italy to redo their budget twice. First time Italy’s lower house of parliament approved the government’s 2019 budget plan to run a deficit of 2.4 per cent of GDP - This deficit is within the Stability and Growth Pacts limit of three per cent. The EC rejected it as the growth forecasts were too optimistic and threatened fines. Italy tried again, with a deficit of 2.04, and had been rejected again by the EC.

An economic regulator regulating economic affairs is not undemocratic.

It's worth noting that France broken the deficit rule every year since 2008 until 2017 without sanction. Germany and France both broke the rule in 2003 without sanction. It's also worth noting that whilst Italy were being threatened by the EC, France's budget running at a deficit of 2.4 percent of GDP 2.8 went through without a problem (and that's likely to break 3.5 percentwith the changes Euro darling Macron is implementing to deal with his unpopularity back home - I've not seen any hint that the EC will be taking a dim view at the French breaking the Pact for the umpteenth time).

Funny, that: France and Germany have functioning economies that could deal with it. Italy didn't.


I also notice that you entirely ignored being called out on your claims about unelected officials.

Considering they've just straight to just copypastaing the usual talking points about how evil the EU is, I'm not surprised they ignored the question that can't be filled in from that google doc.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Technically correct is the kind of correct that gets people wedgied

Or suspended from the party in pursuit of those ever-elusive "good optics".

[Ifreann]

Then please write in your own words about examples of countries being "forced to vote against until they get it right"

Ireland, 2008, treaty of Lisbon. Rejected the first time in referendum in 2008, and made to have another go at it in 2009.

No we weren't. When the treaty was rejected the government and the EU spent a year figuring out what people's problem with it was and reaching agreements to address the biggest concerns. People were worried that the EU would force us to legalise abortion and go to war, so the government got the EU to promise not to do that.

---

Ireland got an amended version of the treaty for their constitution with concessions on issues the Irish had.

The treaty stayed the same. It had to, otherwise every other EU state would have had to ratify it again. We got separate agreements with the EU confirming that the Lisbon Treaty wouldn't be used to force us to legalise abortion or change our policy of neutrality.

[Hirota]

I also notice that you entirely ignored being called out on your claims about unelected officials.

It would be better if you noticed that I never made neither of these claims originally. I don't see any obligation upon me to defend a claim I didn't make.

As for this one that I chose to answer, even though I presented some answers, that doesn't mean I agree with them. I was curious what examples I could think of because it was fairly obvious that Little Tin Hat probably wasn't making it up out of thin air. I went through the effort to entertain the thought, without accepting it as true.

Ireland, 2008, treaty of Lisbon. Rejected the first time in referendum in 2008, and made to have another go at it in 2009.

By Ireland's democratically elected government, not by the EU. You can argue about how democratic Ireland's government is all you like, but it isn't relevant to the discussion.

Of course, 2008 wouldn't have happened if the French and Dutch hadn't rejected a previous attempt in 2005 and the treaty in 2008 wasn't that different from 2005 - curious they didn't put it to the people the second time round - Ireland only put it to the people in 2008 because they were constitutionally obligated to do so.

Again, you're talking about actions of national governments.

And of course the Irish rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001 only to vote for it at the second time of asking. It might have been a purely advisory vote, but ignoring the rejection the first time would have proven harmful.

More national governments behaving undemocratically.

Lets add Greece 2015 rejecting the harsh austerity policies imposed on them by the EU and Banks in exchange for a bailout. The Greek government ignored it and went ahead with the deal.

This one at least involves the EU, which is better than the above, but is still primarily the action of a national government.

The whole "The government did it not the EU" is a fair argument (which really didn't need you repeating yourself 4 times to make it). To which I'd offer as rebuttal:
A) It's not hard to imagine that when the Irish government went back to the other EU parties cap in hand they were told to go back and try again.

B) In a democratic nation, the people, the electorate are the country. They were forced to vote again, ergo an example of a country being forced to vote again until they get it right. Just because it was the Irish, or French, or Dutch government acting at behest of Brussels rather than Brussels directly. It was to ratify European legislation.

Could also include Italy last year with the European Commission forcing Italy to redo their budget twice. First time Italy’s lower house of parliament approved the government’s 2019 budget plan to run a deficit of 2.4 per cent of GDP - This deficit is within the Stability and Growth Pacts limit of three per cent. The EC rejected it as the growth forecasts were too optimistic and threatened fines. Italy tried again, with a deficit of 2.04, and had been rejected again by the EC.

An economic regulator regulating economic affairs is not undemocratic.

I don't see that as a requirement to answering the question. The challenge was to provide "examples of countries being "forced to vote against (sic) until they get it right"." Since the lower house had to pass each budget they had to vote on each budget. A European regulator forcing repeated votes to get it right satisfies the requirements of the challenge, IMO.

It's worth noting that France broken the deficit rule every year since 2008 until 2017 without sanction. Germany and France both broke the rule in 2003 without sanction. It's also worth noting that whilst Italy were being threatened by the EC, France's budget running at a deficit of 2.4 percent of GDP 2.8 went through without a problem (and that's likely to break 3.5 percentwith the changes Euro darling Macron is implementing to deal with his unpopularity back home - I've not seen any hint that the EC will be taking a dim view at the French breaking the Pact for the umpteenth time).

Funny, that: France and Germany have functioning economies that could deal with it. Italy didn't.

Perhaps you can explain why the rule is acceptable to enforce only when convenient. Perhaps you can explain why 3 percent is the established agreed level, and when Italy operates within that level they apparently get slapped for it. If it's flexible then why have 3% as the acceptable margin? Why not 2% and then discretion from the EC for higher levels?

Actually on hindsight, that probably is going too far off topic. Italian squabbles with the EU are interesting, but not threadjack interesting.

Considering they've just straight to just copypastaing the usual talking points about how evil the EU is, I'm not surprised they ignored the question that can't be filled in from that google doc.

Just like Salandriagado, you apparently can't read. Unlike Salandriagado, you can't make a coherent point of your own beyond your standard pathetic, off-the mark, idiotic sniping. The hypocrisy of someone calling out shitposting whilst simultaneously being the single biggest contributor to incoherent nonsenical shitposting in NSG is hilarious.

And for the record, for the umpteenth time, I'm generally pro-europe, I voted to remain. But I do think the EU has issues and I think they directly contributed to why the UK, the Irish, the Dutch and the French have all expressed discontent in the past.

If you really must know, my starting point for examples when I went looking was on the left wing tabloid, the independent.

No we weren't. When the treaty was rejected the government and the EU spent a year figuring out what people's problem with it was and reaching agreements to address the biggest concerns. People were worried that the EU would force us to legalise abortion and go to war, so the government got the EU to promise not to do that.

---

Ireland got an amended version of the treaty for their constitution with concessions on issues the Irish had.

The treaty stayed the same. It had to, otherwise every other EU state would have had to ratify it again. We got separate agreements with the EU confirming that the Lisbon Treaty wouldn't be used to force us to legalise abortion or change our policy of neutrality.

Okay, fair point thank you for the clarification. Given that we know the French would probably vote to leave if given the democratic choice, and given we voted to leave the once, I would have thought that surely the EU could have spent a couple of years figuring out what people's problems with it is and reached agreements to address those concerns.

[Ifreann]

No we weren't. When the treaty was rejected the government and the EU spent a year figuring out what people's problem with it was and reaching agreements to address the biggest concerns. People were worried that the EU would force us to legalise abortion and go to war, so the government got the EU to promise not to do that.

---

The treaty stayed the same. It had to, otherwise every other EU state would have had to ratify it again. We got separate agreements with the EU confirming that the Lisbon Treaty wouldn't be used to force us to legalise abortion or change our policy of neutrality.

Okay, fair point thank you for the clarification.

It's also worth noting that there was barely any Yes campaign to speak of for Lisbon 1, compared to a No campaign from Declan Ganley's Libertas promising war, abortion, and a €1.80 minimum wage if Lisbon passed. And while I wasn't paying attention at the time, I think that Nice 1 also failed because the government assumed that people would just vote Yes and didn't bother to campaign for it.

Given that we know the French would probably vote to leave if given the democratic choice, and given we voted to leave the once, I would have thought that surely the EU could have spent a couple of years figuring out what people's problems with it is and reached agreements to address those concerns.

The problem there is that I don't think that Britain knows what their problem with the EU is.

[Salandriagado]

I also notice that you entirely ignored being called out on your claims about unelected officials.

It would be better if you noticed that I never made neither of these claims originally. I don't see any obligation upon me to defend a claim I didn't make.

As for this one that I chose to answer, even though I presented some answers, that doesn't mean I agree with them. I was curious what examples I could think of because it was fairly obvious that Little Tin Hat probably wasn't making it up out of thin air. I went through the effort to entertain the thought, without accepting it as true.

By Ireland's democratically elected government, not by the EU. You can argue about how democratic Ireland's government is all you like, but it isn't relevant to the discussion.



Again, you're talking about actions of national governments.



More national governments behaving undemocratically.



This one at least involves the EU, which is better than the above, but is still primarily the action of a national government.

The whole "The government did it not the EU" is a fair argument (which really didn't need you repeating yourself 4 times to make it). To which I'd offer as rebuttal:
A) It's not hard to imagine that when the Irish government went back to the other EU parties cap in hand they were told to go back and try again.

Except that, as has already been repeatedly explained to you, that isn't what happened at all. You're just lying at this point.

B) In a democratic nation, the people, the electorate are the country. They were forced to vote again, ergo an example of a country being forced to vote again until they get it right. Just because it was the Irish, or French, or Dutch government acting at behest of Brussels rather than Brussels directly. It was to ratify European legislation.

No. The electorate, through their electoral officials, decided to vote again.

An economic regulator regulating economic affairs is not undemocratic.

I don't see that as a requirement to answering the question. The challenge was to provide "examples of countries being "forced to vote against (sic) until they get it right"." Since the lower house had to pass each budget they had to vote on each budget. A European regulator forcing repeated votes to get it right satisfies the requirements of the challenge, IMO.

The democratically elected government democratically voted to obey the provisions of a treaty, then repeatedly submitted budgets that didn't do so, and so were, quite rightly, told to fix it. There's no "repeated vote" here: there are two votes, on two different budgets.

Funny, that: France and Germany have functioning economies that could deal with it. Italy didn't.

Perhaps you can explain why the rule is acceptable to enforce only when convenient. Perhaps you can explain why 3 percent is the established agreed level, and when Italy operates within that level they apparently get slapped for it. If it's flexible then why have 3% as the acceptable margin? Why not 2% and then discretion from the EC for higher levels?

Because it isn't. The agreed level is "don't be a fucking idiot: here are some guidelines, but if your budget isn't going to screw everything up, we'll let it slide, and if it is, we'll tell you to fix it" (written in more diplomatic language).

[Hirota]

[Except that, as has already been repeatedly explained to you, that isn't what happened at all. You're just lying at this point.

A) You've "explained" it. In one post. B) I didn't say it did happen, I said "It's not hard to imagine." Like I already said - I'm entertaining the thought, not accepting it as true.

And you, with your basic inability to read - demonstrated quite clearly twice in a row now - think it is now somehow acceptable to hurl baseless and utterly unfounded accusations of lying? Learn some basic manners.

Because it isn't. The agreed level is "don't be a fucking idiot: here are some guidelines, but if your budget isn't going to screw everything up, we'll let it slide, and if it is, we'll tell you to fix it" (written in more diplomatic language).

I've already said I don't see the point in threadjacking the UK politics thread any further into the squabbles between Italy and the EU. It's fair to say there is disagreement, I'm not the only one, and I'd go into greater detail (and why I actually agree with the examples I put forward myself) in a more appropriate thread. Now, If only you knew how to write in more diplomatic language eh?

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

What.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

A double Chris Grayling fuck up day - one with probation and one with transport. Why does the useless sack of shit still have a job as a minister?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Lord Ahmed charged with attempted rape of girl

A member of the House of Lords has been charged with two counts of attempting to rape a girl.

Former Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, 61, is also charged with indecent assault of a boy under 13.

Prosecutors allege the offences took place between 1971 and 1974, when Lord Ahmed would have been aged between 14 and 17.

Two other men, Mohammed Farouq, 68, and Mohammed Tariq, 63, both from Rotherham, have also been charged.

All three men are due to appear at Sheffield Magistrates' Court on 19 March.

Mr Farouq of Worrygoose Lane, Rotherham, is charged with four counts of indecently assaulting a boy under 13 between 1968 and 1972.

Mr Tariq of Gerard Road, Rotherham is charged with two counts of indecently assaulting a boy under 13 between 1970 and 1972.

More news and stories from across Yorkshire

Nazir Ahmed was born in Pakistan and moved to the UK in 1969 with his family to join his father who was working in steel factories in Rotherham.

He joined the Labour Party in 1975 aged 18 and became a councillor in Rotherham in 1990.

In 1998 he became one of the first Muslim peers when he was appointed to the House of Lords by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.