Boris

Mazzer2:
if the poll tax was still in place then local authorities would be a lot better off due the massive increase in multi occupancy properties, when I lived in Rugby for a year the council tax was the same regardless of how many lived in the property, so 2 adults in my house, 4 in the house to one side if me and 6 in the other side the poll tax would have levied far more than the current system, or lowered the tax for all and still brought in the same amount

The problem being that in the real world that,as in our case,even for 3 people living in one low rate band house,the combined cost of the poll tax created a massive tax increase.Which took no account of income.

The reality of the poll tax,to a lesser extent like the ridiculous council tax today with its ever reducing central government funding,was all about reducing the tax burden on the highest earners at the expense of the lower earners.Just as expected of a Tory policy.

Carryfast:

Mazzer2:

Darkside:

Franglais:
Telegraph, Metro, Sun.
Biggest Gov campaign since WW2!

And seeing as they are all pro Brexit papers it could be more…

Sorry to pick you up on this, but I am interested… With regard to being a whinging get…

What you are saying is we have to accept something we didn’t want because it got most votes.

Every government, every policy, every law you didn’t like you just accepted because it was voted for by a majority.

And what would your answer to that statement be if the result had gone the other way?

There is no possible vote or any possible view which could ever make it ok to hand over the country to a foreign power IE justify treason.

Oh Lord, and if have handed ourselves over how come they don’t make our laws?

How come Scotland and NI have different laws to England?

Carryfast:

Mazzer2:
if the poll tax was still in place then local authorities would be a lot better off due the massive increase in multi occupancy properties, when I lived in Rugby for a year the council tax was the same regardless of how many lived in the property, so 2 adults in my house, 4 in the house to one side if me and 6 in the other side the poll tax would have levied far more than the current system, or lowered the tax for all and still brought in the same amount

The problem being that in the real world that,as in our case,even for 3 people living in one low rate band house,the combined cost of the poll tax created a massive tax increase.Which took no account of income.

The reality of the poll tax,to a lesser extent like the ridiculous council tax today with its ever reducing central government funding,was all about reducing the tax burden on the highest earners at the expense of the lower earners.Just as expected of a Tory policy.

wouldn’t have taken to much effort to tweak the poll tax to a local income tax done as a percentage of earnings that way it would been fair across the board

Darkside:

"Carryfast’':
There is no possible vote or any possible view which could ever make it ok to hand over the country to a foreign power IE justify treason.

Oh Lord, and if have handed ourselves over how come they don’t make our laws?

How come Scotland and NI have different laws to England?

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
Are you really trying to suggest that the EU parliament and all the MEP’s and the EU Commission and the ECJ are all just there for show and don’t pass laws and regulations which apply across the EU.Yet another EU Federalist pedalling the lie that the EU is just a Confederation of Sovereign States.When the treaties of Rome to Lisbon and FCO 30/1042 tell us all we need to know in that regard.

As for ‘different’ laws in Scotland.Yes whatever local laws the EU doesn’t want to deal with because there’s nothing in it for them ( unlike the common fisheries policy ) and usually a case of robbing England to subsidise Scotland to keep UK Federalists happy.Just as they throw our money at the EU to keep their Federal European dreams alive.

Mazzer2:

Carryfast:
The reality of the poll tax,to a lesser extent like the ridiculous council tax today with its ever reducing central government funding,was all about reducing the tax burden on the highest earners at the expense of the lower earners.Just as expected of a Tory policy.

wouldn’t have taken to much effort to tweak the poll tax to a local income tax done as a percentage of earnings that way it would been fair across the board

Which even at best would have created the situation of areas with a higher proportion of low earners being disadvantaged for funding.

From what I saw growing up the old rates based on rateable values combined with realistic central government funding levels provided the best compromise.While the following rip off arbitrary council tax banding system,let alone poll tax,combined with the slashing of central government funding,has created anarchy in local services provision and taxation.The fact is we can’t go from the type of taxation,which was rightly applied to the highest earners during the 1960’s,to what we’ve got now without that causing havoc to both tax revenues and the ability to pay.

Carryfast:

Darkside:

"Carryfast’':
There is no possible vote or any possible view which could ever make it ok to hand over the country to a foreign power IE justify treason.

Oh Lord, and if have handed ourselves over how come they don’t make our laws?

How come Scotland and NI have different laws to England?

[/quote]

[/quote]
Are you really trying to suggest that the EU parliament and all the MEP’s and the EU Commission and the ECJ are all just there for show and don’t pass laws and regulations which apply across the EU.Yet another EU Federalist pedalling the lie that the EU is just a Confederation of Sovereign States.When the treaties of Rome to Lisbon and FCO 30/1042 tell us all we need to know in that regard.

As for ‘different’ laws in Scotland.Yes whatever local laws the EU doesn’t want to deal with because there’s nothing in it for them ( unlike the common fisheries policy ) and usually a case of robbing England to subsidise Scotland to keep UK Federalists happy.Just as they throw our money at the EU to keep their Federal European dreams alive.
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
Oh yes the common fisheries policy… where the UK companies sold much of their quota to EU fisherman, then moan when the EU fisherman fish it…

Anyway the fishing industry is worth less than Harrods in turnover. The fishing industry turns over less than the pet insurance business, why does it always get mentioned?

Darkside:

Carryfast:

Darkside:

"Carryfast’':
There is no possible vote or any possible view which could ever make it ok to hand over the country to a foreign power IE justify treason.

Oh Lord, and if have handed ourselves over how come they don’t make our laws?

How come Scotland and NI have different laws to England?

[/quote]
Are you really trying to suggest that the EU parliament and all the MEP’s and the EU Commission and the ECJ are all just there for show and don’t pass laws and regulations which apply across the EU.Yet another EU Federalist pedalling the lie that the EU is just a Confederation of Sovereign States.When the treaties of Rome to Lisbon and FCO 30/1042 tell us all we need to know in that regard.

As for ‘different’ laws in Scotland.Yes whatever local laws the EU doesn’t want to deal with because there’s nothing in it for them ( unlike the common fisheries policy ) and usually a case of robbing England to subsidise Scotland to keep UK Federalists happy.Just as they throw our money at the EU to keep their Federal European dreams alive.
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
Oh yes the common fisheries policy… where the UK companies sold much of their quota to EU fisherman, then moan when the EU fisherman fish it…

Anyway the fishing industry is worth less than Harrods in turnover. The fishing industry turns over less than the pet insurance business, why does it always get mentioned?
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
Yes the Common Fisheries Policy.You know EU law,the type of law which you say doesn’t exist,which tells our Fishing fleet what it is allowed to take ( zb all ).Which is the reason why our fishing industry is shadow of its pre EEC status and might as well flog the pathetic quota to the Euros to add to the rip off share that the EU predictably gives them.

You also seemed to have conveniently forgotten all about the question what is the purpose of the the EU parliament and EU commission and the ECJ ‘if’,as you say,the EU supposedly doesn’t make and impose its laws on the member states.Which everyone knows is typical Remainer Federalist lies in them trying to pretend that the EU Federation is a supposed Confederation of Nation States.Which of course all started with Heath burying FCO 30/1048.

Carryfast:

Darkside:

Carryfast:

Darkside:

"Carryfast’':
There is no possible vote or any possible view which could ever make it ok to hand over the country to a foreign power IE justify treason.

Oh Lord, and if have handed ourselves over how come they don’t make our laws?

How come Scotland and NI have different laws to England?

Are you really trying to suggest that the EU parliament and all the MEP’s and the EU Commission and the ECJ are all just there for show and don’t pass laws and regulations which apply across the EU.Yet another EU Federalist pedalling the lie that the EU is just a Confederation of Sovereign States.When the treaties of Rome to Lisbon and FCO 30/1042 tell us all we need to know in that regard.

As for ‘different’ laws in Scotland.Yes whatever local laws the EU doesn’t want to deal with because there’s nothing in it for them ( unlike the common fisheries policy ) and usually a case of robbing England to subsidise Scotland to keep UK Federalists happy.Just as they throw our money at the EU to keep their Federal European dreams alive.
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
Oh yes the common fisheries policy… where the UK companies sold much of their quota to EU fisherman, then moan when the EU fisherman fish it…

Anyway the fishing industry is worth less than Harrods in turnover. The fishing industry turns over less than the pet insurance business, why does it always get mentioned?
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
Yes the Common Fisheries Policy.You know EU law,the type of law which you say doesn’t exist,which tells our Fishing fleet what it is allowed to take ( zb all ).Which is the reason why our fishing industry is shadow of its pre EEC status and might as well flog the pathetic quota to the Euros to add to the rip off share that the EU predictably gives them.

You also seemed to have conveniently forgotten all about the question what is the purpose of the the EU parliament and EU commission and the ECJ ‘if’,as you say,the EU supposedly doesn’t make and impose its laws on the member states.Which everyone knows is typical Remainer Federalist lies in them trying to pretend that the EU Federation is a supposed Confederation of Nation States.Which of course all started with Heath burying FCO 30/1048.
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
Not quite correct regarding the fisheries. The quota was allocated, and private companies sold their allocation or part of it to European fisherman. However as I said the fishing industry is worth such a small amount I am not sure why it is always held up as an example.

Just a quick one, you have called me a ‘federalist’ a few times. What is a federalist?

They should rename this topic to carryfast

Darkside:

Carryfast:
Yes the Common Fisheries Policy.You know EU law,the type of law which you say doesn’t exist,which tells our Fishing fleet what it is allowed to take ( zb all ).Which is the reason why our fishing industry is shadow of its pre EEC status and might as well flog the pathetic quota to the Euros to add to the rip off share that the EU predictably gives them.

You also seemed to have conveniently forgotten all about the question what is the purpose of the the EU parliament and EU commission and the ECJ ‘if’,as you say,the EU supposedly doesn’t make and impose its laws on the member states.Which everyone knows is typical Remainer Federalist lies in them trying to pretend that the EU Federation is a supposed Confederation of Nation States.Which of course all started with Heath burying FCO 30/1048.

Not quite correct regarding the fisheries. The quota was allocated, and private companies sold their allocation or part of it to European fisherman. However as I said the fishing industry is worth such a small amount I am not sure why it is always held up as an example.

Just a quick one, you have called me a ‘federalist’ a few times. What is a federalist?

'The ‘quota’ was ‘allocated’ by the EU on the basis that they are considered as European Union fishing grounds not British and therefore shared out on that basis.In which the Brit fishing industry is then a minority allowed a minority share.

Assuming that you support the idea of an ‘EU’,made up of vassal puppet subservient states,subject to central government politburo directives and majority European parliamentary vote,with no individual national right of opt out or substitution,by definition that’s a Federalist.Bearing in mind that Federation just means Union you know just like the Soviet Union,Jugoslav Federation and the ‘United’ States of America for 3 examples.

‘If’ however you supported the idea of individual state sovereignty over all decisions,including the right of opt out and substitution,that would obviously make you a Confederate supporting a Confederate Sates of Europe ( or by implication a Confederal UK ).Which of course the US government ( nor Conservative ‘Unionists’ ) can’t/won’t accept for obvious reasons.

As for BoJo,being on record as supporting our ‘EU’ membership,as part of an ideologically Federalist ( Unionist ) Party,is a bit more than just being ‘wrong footed’.

Which leaves the question assuming you’re not a Federalist why would you support us remaining a member of the European ‘Union’ and all its structures.Including us not having the right to opt out of the Common Fisheries Policy and ECJ juristiction among other laws and directives including trade policy ?.

Well boris went to Wales to day,according to ITV they voted leave, but not a no deal leave.when they voted did they know something the rest of us didnt,

malcolmgbell:
Well boris went to Wales to day,according to ITV they voted leave, but not a no deal leave.when they voted did they know something the rest of us didnt,

Maybe they read the official and unofficial Leave Campaign and Vote Leave leaflets? Maybe they listened to the Brexit politicians speeches?
Do you remember some?
Easiest negotiation ever.
Deals ready before we leave.
They need us, more than we need them.
How about this classic? There are no downsides to Brexit.
Or the unforgetable £350m? Everyone remembers that, although many sought to disassociate themselves after the vote…
.
Maybe that is why they voted the way they did? Maybe they’d vote the same way tomorrow? Maybe not?

All I remember is do you want to leave or remoan, yes or no, I remember a lot of promises and lies being sprouted by both sides.if you are , not you personally so niev to beleave any of it what can I say, I voted to leave so the next generation has a much brighter future .Build it and they will come

malcolmgbell:
All I remember is do you want to leave or remoan, yes or no, I remember a lot of promises and lies being sprouted by both sides.

Firstly the fact that we pay into the EU ( a lot ) more than we get out wasn’t a lie.Nor was the fact that if we stop paying it then we can spend it at home instead.

While the definition of ‘Leave’ is self explanatory.No further juristiction of the EU parliament,or Commission,or the ECJ here.While assuming that none of that is compatible with the EU single market,then it’s obvious that by definition we also voted for no deal.Although the ‘single market’ has proved to be nothing but a foreign aid exercise,in favour of Germany and the EU,at our expense,in the form of a massive trade deficit,anyway.

Nor was it ever legal to vote a sovereign nation state out of existence and into EU vassalage anyway whether referendum or parliament.See FCO 30/1048.

As for BoJo being on the side of Leave.Doubtful.

Franglais:
Deals ready before we leave.

Here’s a clue no one voted for any deal which didn’t deliver Leave.IE We couldn’t possibly have made any deals anywhere without first leaving the EU and every Leave voter knew that.That’s when Cameron walked away and crowned remainers May and Hammond to keep us in which was obviously always plan B if they failed to rig the referendum sufficiently.No surprise BoJo hasn’t just withdrawn government opposition to the Tillbrook case in that regard.Nor has Farage called for it either having told the Leave vote to trust May and then trashed Batten. :unamused:

Not mine
The Homer’s Odyssey tells us of the devious stratagem of Odysseus in creating a wooden horse which tempted the Trojan’s to drag it into their city, without checking whether it had got any Greek soldiers inside, who after dark, were able to creep out and open the gates to the city and let in the Greek Army to ■■■■, pillage and kill or enslave the unwary Trojans and to destroy Troy.

Similarly the Withdrawal Agreement is superficially not so bad an Agreement. Theresa May and her supporters were attempting to drag in her Withdrawal Agreement, ignoring the hidden provisions of the backstop. It is these which, which basically mean that the UK would automatically fall permanently into the power of the EU in the near certain event that we cannot satisfy the EU on various tricky provisions, including notably what happens to the Irish border.

I think very little reflection should have told anybody involved and thinking about it, that it was obvious that we would be falling into the backstop provisions and then, as one of Guy Verhofstadt’s staff described it, have the status of the EU’s First “Colony”.

One of the reasons why it should be obvious to such people is because the EU is also trying to get Switzerland into almost exactly the same set of provisions as appear in the backstop. It is clearly a game plan of the EU.

Anyone who has any patriotic pride in our country should never have been willing to accept such an outrageous arrangement. The revealing thing is that leading “Conservatives” were so unpatriotic that they were willing to agree it.

Here is an interesting article about the EU’s bullying of Switzerland by Professor David Blake:-

EU bullying of Switzerland – the shape of things to come and how we can fight back

The EU is using bullying tactics to bring Switzerland to heel. This should be a warning to the UK as we fight off the Withdrawal Agreement which seeks to put us in a similar position of inferiority. We should seize the opportunity to join forces with the Swiss.

Switzerland is a free independent country in the heart of Europe and its citizens like it that way. They have made it very clear in referenda that they do not want to join the European Union.

But the EU does not like this at all and it is using all sorts of bullying tactics to bring Switzerland to heel. In 2014, it threatened Switzerland with losing access to EU markets when it voted in a referendum to limit ‘mass migration’ to stop the undercutting of local wages. Switzerland is a signatory to the Schengen Agreement on free movement, but is not a member of either the Single Market or the Customs Union. It eventually backed down.

This just emboldened the EU. Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator, and the rest of the EU elite want to turn the EU into an empire and they clearly now see Switzerland as a potential colony.

Switzerland and the EU have around 120 bilateral agreements governing their trading relationships – the so-called Swiss model. This leaves Switzerland with far too much flexibility for the EU’s liking. In short, the Swiss have been allowed too much ‘cherry picking’. This is despite the fact that the EU had a trade surplus with Switzerland of €48bn in 2018 (with exports worth €157bn and imports worth €109bn).

The EU wants to put a stop to the cherry picking. It is currently trying to bring Switzerland under its legal and regulatory control by forcing it to accept ‘dynamic alignment’ with EU rules on migration, social security, and key areas of economic policy in perpetuity – plus final arbitration by the European Court of Justice. Because of Swiss resistance, as these bilateral agreements comes to an end, the EU is refusing to renew them. It has just suspended the trading of Swiss shares on EU stock exchanges and is threatening to withdraw mutual recognition for exports of medical equipment. Switzerland is being systematically closed out of the EU’s economic, transport and energy system until it again backs down. For example, it has been excluded from EU legislation on power grids and network codes. This is despite the fact that around 10% of the EU’s electricity flow between member states passes through Switzerland. The EU is clearly supremely confident that Switzerland would not dream of retaliating. But given the size of the trade surplus and with a lot of intra-EU trade passing through Switzerland, slowing down EU lorries at the border – as the EU is threatening to do with us – must be quite tempting.

All this should be a lesson for us in the UK as we fight off the Withdrawal Agreement with its similar requirement for ‘dynamic alignment’ with EU rules and the final jurisdiction of the ECJ. And, of course, the WA quite deliberately has no termination date, so it gives us no opportunity to renegotiate its terms in the future. It holds in perpetuity. We know from the BBC4 fly-on-the-wall documentary Brexit: Behind Closed Doors broadcast in May 2019 that a member of Verhofstadt’s private office views us as the EU’s ‘first colony’, so Switzerland’s experience should be a warning for us about the shape of things to come when it comes to our future relationship with EU.

It is therefore time not only for us, like the Swiss, to resist any further EU bullying, but to fight back, particularly when it comes to the City of London. The EU is fully aware of the importance of our global financial centre to EU financial stability. This gives London too much power in the EU’s view. This is why it wanted to clip the City’s wings in the WA, by having a relationship based on ‘equivalence’ which the EU can withdraw at short notice without any right of appeal. The City is six times bigger than all the other EU financial centres combined. So the EU’s stance is totally unacceptable and needs to be replaced with either a form of ‘enhanced equivalence’ or ‘mutual recognition’ which cannot be withdrawn unilaterally.

But we should go further, as Matthew Lynn has recently suggested, and form an alliance between the UK and Swiss financial centres: ‘By far the two strongest financial centres in Europe are the City and Zurich. If the two of them teamed up, they could create a network of expertise that would provide a real alternative to the EU – and one to which many European companies, fund managers and investors would flock. … [The EU row with Switzerland offers] the City of London the perfect opportunity to create a rival regulatory regime that covers more than one finance centre’. As the current disastrous plight of Deutsche Bank and the even bigger fiasco of the euro show, the EU is not actually very good at finance and we should not allow ourselves to dragged down by their incompetence.

The EU bullying of Switzerland is too good an opportunity to miss. It’s time for us and the Swiss to fight back. In July 2019, the UK and Switzerland signed an agreement allowing their citizens to work in each other’s country in the event of a no-deal Brexit. There need to be many more deals like this.

Here is a link to where the article originally appears>>>

briefingsforbrexit.com/eu-bully … ight-back/

malcolmgbell:
It is these which, which basically mean that the UK would automatically fall permanently into the power of the EU in the near certain event that we cannot satisfy the EU on various tricky provisions, including notably what happens to the Irish border.
codes.

The Irish border is only an issue if we recognise the illegal status of the EU as a de Jure Federal state with the right to declare its own borders.Without that recognition the Irish border remains just as it was post 1920-pre 1973.

The fact is the Brit government obviously intends and wants to recognise the EU as such a state and has done so from the point of burying FCO 30/1048 to the Head of State signing up to the European Communities Act and failing to oppose the EU’s claiming of its own borders in its own right.Make no mistake Conservative Unionist also means EU Federalist.

Franglais:

Mazzer2:

Franglais:
DON’T PANIC!
Johnson to launch £100,000,000 advertising campaign to convince us No Deal is OK.
.
Using rational argument, and logical reasoning, seems to not be working I guess. Time for the Gov to pay for some propaganda.

But it’s a bit less than the 9million of taxpayers money that Cameron spent to convince the UK to remain, governments always have and always will use propaganda, it would appear people only have a problem with it when the propaganda isn’t pushing their message

For what it’s worth I think it was wrong of the Cameron Gov to fund those leaflets. I think it’s equally wrong of the Johnson Gov to fund this.

The amount of cash is considerable, and I daresay there is a good dig possible here when one remembers the funding issues surrounding the referendum.
Since this isn’t an election there is no limit on possible spending, is there? … (insert cynical emojie here)

If this 100m involves us all “getting a propaganda leaflet through the door” - then I’m inclined to agree that it is a gross waste of taxpayer’s money.

If it is 100m spent actually preparing people for a no deal brexit that are convinced the sky is going to fall on their heads though - in THAT case it is a NET waste of taxpayer’s money! :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

Carryfast:

malcolmgbell:
It is these which, which basically mean that the UK would automatically fall permanently into the power of the EU in the near certain event that we cannot satisfy the EU on various tricky provisions, including notably what happens to the Irish border.
codes.

The Irish border is only an issue if we recognise the illegal status of the EU as a de Jure Federal state with the right to declare its own borders.Without that recognition the Irish border remains just as it was post 1920-pre 1973.

The fact is the Brit government obviously intends and wants to recognise the EU as such a state and has done so from the point of burying FCO 30/1048 to the Head of State signing up to the European Communities Act and failing to oppose the EU’s claiming of its own borders in its own right.Make no mistake Conservative Unionist also means EU Federalist.

No Deal puts any “Backstop” issue straight in the shredder. The EU nor Ireland are NOT going to be building any physical barrier between the two Irelands - Ever.

That means if the UK merely states “The British Government has no plans for a hard border” on October 31st whilst announcing No Deal DONE - then the EU have WHAT arguments left exactly?

How is all this bolloxspeak from the ■■■■■■■■■■■ going to come to pass as well? We’ll carry on as we were before. The EU won’t like it that Eire and NI are trading freely with each other “absolutely free of UK contributions” - but what are they going to do about it at the end of the day? - Let alone STOP that free trade? “Free” being the operative word by that point, of course… :smiling_imp:

Winseer:
No Deal puts any “Backstop” issue straight in the shredder. The EU nor Ireland are NOT going to be building any physical barrier between the two Irelands - Ever.

That means if the UK merely states “The British Government has no plans for a hard border” on October 31st whilst announcing No Deal DONE - then the EU have WHAT arguments left exactly?

How is all this bolloxspeak from the ■■■■■■■■■■■ going to come to pass as well? We’ll carry on as we were before. The EU won’t like it that Eire and NI are trading freely with each other “absolutely free of UK contributions” - but what are they going to do about it at the end of the day? - Let alone STOP that free trade? “Free” being the operative word by that point, of course… :smiling_imp:

Assuming the Brit government is prepared/wants to go on recognising the EU as a wannabee ersatz De Jure Federal state,with the right to declare its own borders and border regulations,then by definition the border between Eire and UK has to be a so called EU/UK ‘hard’ border.Nothing short of opposing that in international law can stop it and BoJo or the Head of State ain’t going to do that anytime soon.