[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Kallisto]

Those countries outside the EU in Europe haven't spend the last 46 years growing their economy to work within the structure of the EU.

Plus of those European countries not in the EU you have

3 in the EU in all but name anyway with very minor differences (Switzerland/Norway/Iceland. Though with Switzerland you still can be stopped at the border for hours which is damaging for Just in time delivery necessities)
Russia
Russian Puppet of Belarus
Everyone else being desperate to join.

[JohnBrown1917]

Seems the tories already started finding bidders for parts of the NHS, having with the tories, Brits?

[Xarkan]

I would have to look upthe details, but they are part of one or more various EU constructs: from judicial to trade zone and custom office borders.

The UK rejected all those alternatives and thus existing situations with pre-existing regulations because it still felt too much like being part of the EU... which is basically what that is if you are in one of those 3 countries. They dont get a voice at the table but have to follow the rules decided by the EU whether that is on judicial or economic matters...

Chances are almost 200% likely that the UK will eventually end up in such a situation too. The gravity of the EU trade bloc and it's capital is too strong to escape....

Iceland decided to stop their application to the EU i think but should still be in EFTA
Norway and Switzerland are in Efta
As is Liechtenstein

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...de_Association

[Gorsameth]

Christmas recess from Dec 20 to Jan 7th

[JohnBrown1917]

Just wait until Murdoch is done with him.

He won't touch him if he is a blairite.

[ranzino]

Yes, he wouldn't have any reason to. Starmer and most of the parliamentary Labour party are more right-wing than the Tories on most issues.

- - - Updated - - -



Interesting to note most of his high-profile legal cases were either losses or at best resulted in inconclusive judgements. So he must have got the Knighthood for currying favor with the powerful.

he was awarded a knighthood in 2014 for "services to law and criminal justice" by way of appointment to Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) in the 2014 New Year Honours (says Wikipedia)

[Kallisto]

Here we go, the whole "Anyone to the right of Trotsky is a Blairite therefore evil." comments are back again during the labour leadership, proving the far left would rather cry and stomp their feet than actually be able to win elections.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Here we go, the whole "Anyone to the right of Trotsky is a Blairite therefore evil." comments are back again during the labour leadership, proving the far left would rather cry and stomp their feet than actually be able to win elections.

Blair can easily be traced back to one of the primary reasons that the red wall crumbled in the north. The voters there don't believe they can trust Labour to look out for them precisely because Labour didn't do very much for them in the 13 years they were in power. Blair and his crew were too busy being "intensely relaxed about people getting filthly rich" to worry too much about the ordinary working class people they should be primarily representing as a Labour government. Too worried about the city of London to concern themselves with the decline and decay of the north.

It's very easy to forget that the share of the vote fell every election that Blair ran. The party didn't suddenly decline once Blair left, it was declining the entire time he was there. What we are seeing today is part of the fallout of that.

[jonnysensible]

Who cares about labour they have no power, they could make a donkey the leading candidate (the angry burner would then call the donkey a blairite), they cant even mobilise the street.

[Kronik85]

Who cares about labour they have no power, they could make a donkey the leading candidate (the angry burner would then call the donkey a blairite), they cant even mobilise the street.

Is ctd back?

[Kallisto]

Blair can easily be traced back to one of the primary reasons that the red wall crumbled in the north. The voters there don't believe they can trust Labour to look out for them precisely because Labour didn't do very much for them in the 13 years they were in power. Blair and his crew were too busy being "intensely relaxed about people getting filthly rich" to worry too much about the ordinary working class people they should be primarily representing as a Labour government. Too worried about the city of London to concern themselves with the decline and decay of the north.

It's very easy to forget that the share of the vote fell every election that Blair ran. The party didn't suddenly decline once Blair left, it was declining the entire time he was there. What we are seeing today is part of the fallout of that.

It was also in a position it couldn't dream of winning before Blair.

The issue with the North is what they want and what is feasible might not be in the same reality anymore and that's beyond anything any government can do.

Mines must not be reopened. Coal needs to die as a source within a decade. Any industry needs to be able to keep prices low or they'd never be able to compete. Plus it would need to be low polluting.

Plus it's not like these areas are losing out cause immigrants when they generally don't go there so the whole "the damn Pole took muh jerb." outlook holds no water either.

[ranzino]

holidays are over for PM Johnson: EU commission president Ursula vdL is coming to town some 3 weeks before Brexit hits first time.

[jonnysensible]

are you only able to express a view of the world, banking institutions and politics via shallow caricatures and buzzwords?

' but the issue is this: if you are a start-up company with an ingenious payment solution system or other ingenious super-efficient way of doing business your primary problem is competition with existing banks because they have a de facto monopoly.'

'No one is incentivized to disrupt the tech.'

lmao what is this nonsense. a babys guide to the world.

[Mayhem]

are you only able to express a view of the world, banking institutions and politics via shallow caricatures and buzzwords?

' but the issue is this: if you are a start-up company with an ingenious payment solution system or other ingenious super-efficient way of doing business your primary problem is competition with existing banks because they have a de facto monopoly.'

'No one is incentivized to disrupt the tech.'

lmao what is this nonsense. a babys guide to the world.

Be fair, at least he's trying to act knowingly. He is just that little bit ignorant of how stuff actually works. Should the current system be overhauled, oh sure as hell, but letting banks go bust without something in place to save everyone relying on said banks from also going tits-up is too complicated. Let's just imagine that there is something somewhere figured out by someone that can't garner enough support because the big banks are meanies.

[jonnysensible]

Of the words I used only the truncation of the word "technology" could conceivably be classified as buzzword. The rest are just words and phrases you don't understand because you have a low level of education. I was talking to directly to Rochana and I don't see the need to dumb down the conversation to the level where people like you would actually understand it.

.

I would be impressd if you could have dumbed that down anymore. Honestly almost a childlike view of the world and complexity.

'Few things to do with finance are simple, but the issue is this: if you are a start-up company with an ingenious payment solution system or other ingenious super-efficient way of doing business your primary problem is competition with existing banks because they have a de facto monopoly. It is hard enough to compete as it is. Now the banks go bust and you think "great! all those customers will embrace my new product!", and then the government steps in, your investors pull out and society suffers as a whole by having to route their payments through a fetid oligarchical system in perpetual stasis..' this is not only massively wrong, but comically stupid.

[Calfredd]

Hours later...

I'm just imagining ctd dribbling all over his keyboard as he attempts to type words, then hitting the keyboard like a sexually frustrated chimpanzee when he can't do it, then throwing up and starting to cry. Eventually he posts a meme...

As opposed to you who is so obsessed with this forum and UK politics that you waste your time and everyone else's with spamming accounts of which you say very little of note.

[Calfredd]

Fucking masterpieces obviously, it is like Oscar Wilde, Shakespeare and Dickens all came back from the grave to enlighten us with their lucid, intelligent insights. It isn't like you post every fucking thought you ever have, however tedious, despite no one caring.

I know what I am and don't deny it unlike you. You managed to get permabanned from this website so you can either shove off or finally make one last account you can be proud of and stop getting yourself banned.

[Jessicka]

Be fair, at least he's trying to act knowingly. He is just that little bit ignorant of how stuff actually works. Should the current system be overhauled, oh sure as hell, but letting banks go bust without something in place to save everyone relying on said banks from also going tits-up is too complicated. Let's just imagine that there is something somewhere figured out by someone that can't garner enough support because the big banks are meanies.

Iceland managed it. Banks are businesses, and in a capitalist system, businesses fail. The failure was letting them get so big, through lack of a legislation, monitoring and accreditation or accountability in the first place. And yet here we are with a new government who wants to roll back legislation so it's even weaker than it was pre-2008 because they think the market can manage itself.

Yet it's an industry that's proven, time and time again, that it needs legislation to protect itself from its own suicidal tendencies. It literally behaves like a gambling addict, because that is frankly what it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Slightly diverting the topic here, but...

There isn't a single government in the world that didn't do this.

In some countries it was the conservative parties, in others it were the socialist parties. The reality behind this is that... whenever the banks are in crisis the rest of the world is -forced- to bail them out. Our entire model of economy is build upon them being the foundation and the pillars. If the banks go down the entire world goes down, not only do the banks go bankrupt, but all the money -you personally own- will also disappear or lose it's value.

This should be a lesson to try and reshape the economy away from everyone's worth and wealth depending entirely on how well the banks are doing or not.

Also to clarify further, the contagion started in the USA with a very right wing idea of deregulation of banking and investment sectors. The idea such as it was, that after the bailout, there would be new regulations, both in the USA and abroad, that would prevent a need for sovereign bailouts of independent businesses, such as banking.

What followed however, was that the banks didn't do with the money what they were supposed to do. They didn't lend it to small businesses or the working classes to buy houses, or otherwise invest in the economy at the base level. They lent it to each other to save themselves and rebuild their portfolios.

The low interest rates only served the already wealthy, since the banks made it harder for the working classes to borrow, while they still needed to lend money (because the creation of wealth is contingent of the extension of loans), so they just lent to the already wealthy where the could reduce costs on existing agreements. There was no investment in businesses, and where corporations did take on new staff, it was because they were able to use the crisis as an excuse to cut wages.

I know what I am and don't deny it unlike you. You managed to get permabanned from this website so you can either shove off or finally make one last account you can be proud of and stop getting yourself banned.

To go back to those "intelligent insights". The only people Jesus actually hated were money lenders. Charging or paying interest is Haram in Islam. Banking, historically, has never been seen as a particularly positive practice.

[Mayhem]

Iceland managed it. Banks are businesses, and in a capitalist system, businesses fail. The failure was letting them get so big, through lack of a legislation, monitoring and accreditation or accountability in the first place. And yet here we are with a new government who wants to roll back legislation so it's even weaker than it was pre-2008 because they think the market can manage itself.

Yet it's an industry that's proven, time and time again, that it needs legislation to protect itself from its own suicidal tendencies. It literally behaves like a gambling addict, because that is frankly what it is.

Sure, do what Iceland did, just don't cry about hardship or job losses or the required costs to the public. I don't argue against better regulatory measures, but letting them go bust like in Iceland was not an option because the impact would've been devastating.

Guess the country that was against better regulations of banks within the EU.

[Xarkan]

Sure, do what Iceland did, just don't cry about hardship or job losses or the required costs to the public. I don't argue against better regulatory measures, but letting them go bust like in Iceland was not an option because the impact would've been devastating.

Guess the country that was against better regulations of banks within the EU.

Iceland was (and is) not in the EU though so ...