Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Anyways, I could try to do another news round-up tonight if you want. Not now, work break's almost over, but if people are actually reading these/helped by it I wouldn't mind doing it from time to time.

Wouldn't be objected to, methinks. I've been reading over the posts, if only occasionally actually following the links, heh.

[TheBiggerFish]

Anyways, I could try to do another news round-up tonight if you want. Not now, work break's almost over, but if people are actually reading these/helped by it I wouldn't mind doing it from time to time.

Wouldn't be objected to, methinks. I've been reading over the posts, if only occasionally actually following the links, heh.

That would be okay.

[palsch]

How'd that work out? Though I guess screwing your country over by a sixth is better than a third? Again assuming the VAT is/was actually screwing the country over. Not sure I'd agree with that assumption, m'self, but it seems to be the one folks railing about the thing are making.

There have been plenty of tax reforms at the same time, a couple progressive and from the Lib Dem manifesto (eg, £10,000 income tax allowance, increasing over time) and lots less so. Pinning down the impact of VAT changes is hard.

I'm personally not a fan due to the regressive nature of VAT (hits those who spend a higher percentage of their income harder proportionally speaking) and would love to see the EU lower the VAT requirements. I can't imagine leaving would actually lower it in the UK though, and the existence of EU controls only mattered in, well, the one case of tampons.

I might try to summarise the Conservative leadership race later (the Labour challenge looks on hold for the moment) but need an extended break first.

And by break I mean beer.

[mainiac]

The VAT is regressive but it's used to fund progressive social spending.  Seems like a fair bargain to me.  The VAT is hardest on the poor but the NHS is most important for the poor.

[BFEL]

What I don't get is this thing about fewer languages and shit.  I'm already a little wary of the idea of "societal integration" but suggesting languages can go away in pursuit of it just reinforces my belief that globalism also means atomization and consumerist non-culture.

I don't see how having people be able to understand each other reinforces atomization; in fact, it seems to me that it would do the exact opposite of that. As to "consumerist non-culture", I have no idea what you're talking about. Modern America, probably the most consumerist society in the world by any reasonable definition of that word, is not lacking in culture - indeed, it seems to me like it's getting more and more cultural with every passing year, thanks to Internet allowing the small sub-cultures to proliferate..

There's a character in the novel 1984 whos entire job is to shorten and simplify words of the local language. This is done so that the masses who use the new language will have less complex thoughts and thus be more accepting of the dystopian culture forced upon them. Pretty allegorical I'll admit, but the point stands.

[Sergarr]

What I don't get is this thing about fewer languages and shit.  I'm already a little wary of the idea of "societal integration" but suggesting languages can go away in pursuit of it just reinforces my belief that globalism also means atomization and consumerist non-culture.

I don't see how having people be able to understand each other reinforces atomization; in fact, it seems to me that it would do the exact opposite of that. As to "consumerist non-culture", I have no idea what you're talking about. Modern America, probably the most consumerist society in the world by any reasonable definition of that word, is not lacking in culture - indeed, it seems to me like it's getting more and more cultural with every passing year, thanks to Internet allowing the small sub-cultures to proliferate..

There's a character in the novel 1984 whos entire job is to shorten and simplify words of the local language. This is done so that the masses who use the new language will have less complex thoughts and thus be more accepting of the dystopian culture forced upon them. Pretty allegorical I'll admit, but the point stands.

What point, that the evil societies do evil things, including language manipulation? What does that point have anything to do with the cause of social, economical and technological progress being easier to achieve with unified common language (i.e. English)?

I'm not saying that everyone must necessarily use the same variant of English language - indeed, diversification of language is a major part of societal progress - but having the same language as a base would vastly increase the speed and intensity of communication between various nations, and simplify their unification into one global society, capable of achieving better things than they could've achieved separately.

Anyway, I've voiced the language thing as my opinion. It may not be actually true. In fact, given the speed of current technological development in AI, machine translation and voice recognition, we may relatively soon (i.e. within 30 years) have the ability to translate spoken language on-the-fly, making language barriers irrelevant.

[mainiac]

but having the same language as a base would vastly increase the speed and intensity of communication between various nations, and simplify their unification into one global society, capable of achieving better things than they could've achieved separately.

And in reference to what you were saying before.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Sonlirain]

Why is everyone thinking the EU is cultural genocide?
I'm quite sure even if borders were abolished and a superstate was created in their place people would still keep their culture and language. Poles in the "polish" province would speak polish germans would speak german.
At worst people would become mostly bilingual... but isn't it the case even here and now?

Look at the USA. There are chinese districts, polish districts all put in a different culture and yet somehow existing.
Heck the same thing goes for canada. Part of the country speaks french and i didn't see the destruction of french over there as some sort of priority.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Both of those places have an overculture, however. It's not cultural genocide, but it is a loss of cultural sovereignty. How severe that is probably depends on how you look at it.

[scriver]

The words used were not "genocide" but "repressing cultural identities". The difference between the two is huge.

[Sonlirain]

The words used were not "genocide" but "repressing cultural identities". The difference between the two is huge.

Not really since both lead (in theory) to a culture disapearing so cultural repressions are essentially long term planned genocide of a culture.
Not it's people but the culture itself obviously.

Of course those were proven in the past to not work because countries like poland and their culture still exist after intense germanization and russification,
Battered for sure but its people still consider themselves as poles rather than Germans and Russians.

[Radio Controlled]

Wouldn't be objected to, methinks. I've been reading over the posts, if only occasionally actually following the links, heh.

Kay then. I'll try not to do repeats of what was posted here already (some of the major things have been mentioned I think) and give a balanced narrative, but can't guarantee either. And yeah, didn't expect everybody to read the entirety of the articles, which is why I try to add a few paragraphs that give the general idea (when I'm not too lazy or on mobile or feel cheeky and write up something stupid).

What exactly is the correct course of action in this hypothetical?

In a general, 'what are the requirements for a decent new referendum' sense, or a very detailed 'first X does Y, then depending on the results W or Z follows'?

If there's anything I've took away from watching this stuff, it's that the only good candidate for a head of government that the UK seems to have right now appears to be Sturgeon. And there's some obvious problems with that option :V

I'm rapidly developing a platonic crush just due to the fact she seems to be on of the very few competent players in this whole charade.


So yeah, first up there's the whole 'betrayal' of Boris Johnson by Gove. Aka more political games at the most opportune of times.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36677028
Michael Gove: Boris Johnson wasn't up to the job

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Michael Gove has said he chose to run for the Conservative Party leadership after deciding "reluctantly but firmly" that Boris Johnson was not capable of uniting the party or the country.
"It had to fall to someone else... I felt it had to fall to me," he said.
The justice secretary was set to back his fellow Leave campaigner. Mr Johnson pulled out after Mr Gove's switch.
Home Secretary Theresa May, who backed staying in the EU, is favourite to win the contest and become prime minister.
The other contenders are Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb, who backed Remain, former defence secretary Liam Fox, who backed leaving the EU, and energy minister and Leave campaigner Andrea Leadsom.
Nominations for the Conservative Party leadership closed at midday on Thursday.
The winner of the contest - sparked by David Cameron's decision to resign after the UK voted to leave the EU - is set to be announced on 9 September.

[...]

"I'll negotiate with toughness, and with great attention to detail to get the best possible deal for Britain. It's only when we are outside the European Union that we can at last bring those numbers under control in the way that the public want," he said.
Setting out his Brexit plan, Mr Gove said he would not trigger Article 50 - the formal process for leaving the EU - until he was ready to do so.
"The decision to trigger Article 50 is in the hands of the next prime minister. If that is me, I will make a judgement as to when is right for Britain and I won't be hurried or hassled by anyone into pressing that button or triggering that article until I believe it is right for this country," he said.

Note the end of the article. I find it interesting that he's basically saying that he's willing to linger with activating article 50, and that he won't immediately invoke it when becoming PM. One the one hand, could be a smart move, making sure they have their shit at least a little in order before moving on. On the other hand, I don't think he'll be generating any goodwill points with his soon to be negotiation partners by keeping them waiting and exacerbating the economical damage stemming from that. The sooner the world knows which relationship the UK and the EU have (provided it's stable) the better for everyone involved, if I understand things correctly.

A more in-depth look into the 'affair': http://reaction.life/boris-done-cuckoo-nest-plot/

But don't despair! It's not just the Tories and Labour that can play ball:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukips-only-mp-could-be-sacked-by-monday-says-party-leader-nigel-farage-a7114526.html
Ukip's only MP could be sacked by Monday, says party leader Nigel Farage
When asked if Douglass Carswell would be expelled from Ukip following an ongoing row, Mr Farage said: “That will be up to the NEC to decide”

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ukip’s only MP could soon be booted out of the party,  Ukip leader Nigel Farage has suggested.
Speaking about Douglass Carswell on LBC radio, Mr Farage said: “What would he know?”

”We find somebody inside our party who doesn't agree with anything the party stands for, it's a very odd state of affairs.“
The comments came in response to an attack on the party leader launched by Mr Carswell over Ukip’s controversial “Breaking Point” posters, which depicted large queues of refugees attempting to get into Europe.

On to more important news than party politics, it seems one of the biggest issues is (unsurprisingly) the fact that the UK will want to keep access to the common market of the EU when (if?) it leaves the union, but while getting to curtain free movement of people. But the latter is something that's all but written into the DNA of the EU and seems to be a conditio sine qua non.

For example:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-farage-idUSKCN0ZG0GS
Farage says can envisage Britain contribution to EU budget post-Brexit: Le Figaro

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Britain can make compromises to secure continued access to the EU's single market, including possibly a contribution to the bloc's budget, but compromises on immigration are out of the question, Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage told Le Figaro.
Asked by the French daily if Britain would keep benefiting from access to the single market once it has left the European Union, even if it put up obstacles to EU migration, Farage, the head of Britain's anti-EU UK Independence Party, said:

"Absolutely. There can be compromises with the EU, including on a possible British contribution to the EU budget, even if I don’t quite see the logic for it. But there will be no compromises on what Europe calls "freedom of movement".
He added: "Putting the brakes on EU immigration, this is what 17.5 million voters asked us to do."

Asked when Britain should trigger the Article 50 clause to kick off official talks on leaving the bloc, he said: "I'm starting to think that uncertainty is having a cost, and that we need to move forward and activate Article 50 before September or October. Maybe not tomorrow, but without delay."

Then there's this, which wouldn't be doing Britain any favors:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222
EU Trade Commissioner: No trade talks until full Brexit

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The European Union's top trade official says the UK cannot begin negotiating terms for doing business with the bloc until after it has left.
"First you exit then you negotiate," Cecilia Malmstrom told BBC Newsnight.
After Brexit, the UK would become a "third country" in EU terms, she said - meaning trade would be carried out based on World Trade Organisation rules until a new deal was complete.
A recent trade deal with Canada took seven years to negotiate.
The Canadian agreement will also require ratification by all EU countries, adding another one to two years before it takes effect.
WTO rules restrict the circumstances in which countries discriminate in favour of each other in trade. Otherwise, they must apply to each other the tariffs they apply against the rest of the world.
Ms Malmstrom, the EU Trade Commissioner, underlined that detailed talks to shape the UK's new trading relationship with the EU should not start until after the process of leaving politically, under an Article 50 process lasting up to two years.
"There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36684452
Osborne abandons 2020 budget surplus target

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Chancellor George Osborne has abandoned his target to restore government finances to a surplus by 2020.
In a speech he said, given the effects of the referendum vote, the government had to be "realistic about achieving a surplus by the end of the decade".

The target had been the chancellor's most prized goal and had been driving austerity measures in previous budgets.
But he said the economy is showing "clear signs" of shock following the vote to leave the European Union.
Giving a speech in Manchester, Mr Osborne said: "The referendum is expected to produce a significant negative economic shock to our economy. How we respond will determine the impact on jobs and growth.
"We must provide fiscal credibility, continuing to be tough on the deficit while being realistic about achieving a surplus by the end of the decade."

I know this on's been posted before, but I think this basically means that some of the more unpopular measures of the last couple years, such as the austerity, might turn out to have been for nothing, or close to that.

Luckily, it's not all bad news for the Uk! Even if leaving would hurt, it doesn't have to be the end of the world:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/29/new-zealand-offers-uk-its-top-trade-negotiators-for-post-brexit/
New Zealand has offered its top trade negotiators to the United Kingdom, relieving the British civil service as it prepares for the strain of seeking new deals with countries across the globe.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The Telegraph understands that the Commonwealth country has made an offer to loan staff to the British civil service, which has few trade negotiators of its own.
Wellington’s olive branch came alongside an offer to discuss a trade agreement with the UK, which would help Britain get out of the starting blocks and begin replacing the trade access lost as a result of the Brexit vote.
Experts say that drafting negotiators will be crucial for forging new agreements between the UK and Brussels, as well as with more than 50 other markets with which EU members currently enjoy trade agreements.

Then again, not all of the Commonwealth is feeling so magnanimous:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36670075
Singapore bank UOB suspends London property loans

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

One of Singapore's largest lenders, UOB, says it has suspended its loan programme for London properties.
The decision comes in response to uncertainty caused by the UK's decision to leave the EU, the bank said.
The vote on 23 June caused global market turmoil and pushed the pound to 31-year lows. The Singapore dollar has gained about 10% since the referendum.
Singaporeans were the top Asian buyers of UK commercial property in 2015, according to consultancy Knight Frank.
UOB told the BBC in a statement: "We will temporarily stop receiving foreign property loan applications for London properties."
"As the aftermath of the UK referendum is still unfolding and given the uncertainties, we need to ensure our customers are cautious with their London property investments."

Then again again, this is just one bank.

And more bad business news:

http://news.sky.com/story/1720169/easyjet-opens-talks-over-post-brexit-hq-move
EasyJet Opens Talks Over Post-Brexit HQ Move
EasyJet's boss has signalled in private meetings this week that moving its legal HQ is "likely" after Brexit, Sky News can reveal.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

EasyJet has opened talks with EU member states' aviation regulators about relocating its headquarters from the UK, underlining how the decision to leave the European Union is impacting corporate Britain.

Sky News has learnt that easyJet's chief executive Carolyn McCall has signalled in private meetings this week that moving its legal HQ from the UK is almost inevitable in the wake of last week's referendum result.

Details of the move are expected to take months to be ironed out, but sources close to the company said it had already held preliminary talks with a handful of unidentified EU member states about issuing easyJet with an air operator's certificate (AOC) that would enable it to base its HQ there.

Some of those member states are said by City sources to be keen on airlines seeking relocation to move the bulk of their operational HQs, which in easyJet's case Ms McCall and her executives would be unwilling to do.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/news/economy/vodafone-uk-brexit/
Brexit: Vodafone says it might leave the U.K.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Britain's vote to leave the European Union may cost it the world's second-largest telecom company.
British industry giant Vodafone (VOD) says it's considering moving its headquarters out of the U.K. following last week's shock referendum result.
The loss of the company, whose stock helps anchor the benchmark FTSE 100, would be a stinging blow for a country that is struggling to come to terms with the economic consequences of a vote to divorce its European neighbors.
Vodafone said in a statement that Britain's EU membership has "been an important factor" in its growth. It added that bedrock EU principles including freedom of movement of people, capital and goods are all vital for regional companies.
"It is ... not yet possible to draw any firm conclusions regarding the long-term location for the headquarters," the company said. "We will continue to evaluate the situation and will take whatever decisions are appropriate in the interests of our customers, shareholders and employees."

There has been a petition that says that "British public opposes a second referendum by almost 2 to 1"

Less than a week after the public narrowly voted to leave the European Union, many remain supporters have called upon the government to hold a second referendum with stricter conditions. The petition calling for this, which is the most popular ever, has been signed by over four million people.

The latest research from YouGov/Channel 5 shows, however, that most British people (58%) oppose holding a second referendum. This includes not only 91% of Leave voters, but also 29% of Remain voters. 11% don't know.

Even in an extreme situation, such as the break up of the United Kingdom, most people (51%) still oppose holding a second referendum. In the event of Scottish independence, only 30% of people would support holding a second referendum.

By the by, something I forgot to mention earlier but saw someone wondering about: a couple days after the referendum in an interview someone asked former EU president Van Rompuy why the EU didn't have a more active voice during the campaign, to which he said the UK had basically asked them to stay out of it, it's a private affair.

Also, there's a rather interesting article that condemns the cries right now by some that the referendum was wrong and the leave voters were stupid (sorry, 'low information'). Don't agree with all of the points he raises (or at the very least, would like to nuance things) but worth a read/skim at least.


Finally, the funnies:

Boris Johnson's HQ as the EU referendum result comes in.
(Aka one of those 'Downfall (Der Untergang)' Hitler reacts vids, starring our beloved Boris as the mustachiod miracle himself. I laughed, for what it's worth.)

"We’ve gained exclusive access to a leaked plan that was put together by the Vote Leave campaign, the UKIP, and Nigel Farage. It includes detailed solutions for the following political and economic issues expected after the United Kingdom departs the European Union."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/students-claim-they-too-depressed-brexit-to-do-exams-gcse-a-levels-vote-referendum-a7111796.html
Dunno if I should laugh with this one, but hey, It's not like I don't understand them. Any excuse is good not to have to study, exams be damned!

"I do sometimes wonder what Justice Secretary Michael Gove feels about his wife's Daily Mail column..."

Spoiler: This isn't satire, far as I can tell, it's an actual banner on their site. (click to show/hide)

Pounded by the pound: Brexit inspires its first erotic novel

Finally, this little gem from the man who owns some of (or quite a lot of?) the pro-brexit media:

However, an old quote has re-emerged in an Anthony Hilton column for Thursday's Evening Standard, which may give you pause for thought as to how you vote in the EU referendum:

I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'

Wait, shit, that wasn't funny, but infuriating.

[Starver]

The VAT is regressive but it's used to fund progressive social spending.  Seems like a fair bargain to me.  The VAT is hardest on the poor but the NHS is most important for the poor.

Taxes (almost) all go into one pot and spending takes from that pot without regard of what microcosm of taxation funded it. Although the chancellor is saying "and I shall fund the new pet-health service from the funds obtained by implementing pay-and-display at all official permissive dogging sites", its just a "see, we'll have this much more money to spend, but we estimate we'll have a similar amount from this other initiative" type of thing.

The NHS (noting that it's fairly obvious that its being disingenuously forced to 'overspend' and self-imolate, rather than actually be funded to the level it should be, for decades now) needs funding to help the poor, but the poor don't need to be targetted to get that funding.  Now we're (on the way) out of the EU, reduce/remove VAT across a wide swathe of the board and 'match' the funding gap with a revised Income Tax system that also shifts the contribution system further up the bell-curve, perhaps.  Exact details to be left to whoever eventually gets to decide these things. Not that I expect Osbourne ("look what the exit from the EU forced me to do!") his antiEU Tory successor ("Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither can Brussels be demolished") or other party's replacement ("Due to two terms of Tory financial mismanagement, my hands are tied") to do any such thing, but I'm happy to posit it as a vague hypothetical.

[Frumple]

Huh. Saw some interesting figures somewhere else... wondering if someone better acquainted with the UK could confirm. Apparently they have a debt of ~1.5 trillion, with a 3% deficit (I.e. it'll go up by about 45 billion within the next year)... and an estimated impact of tax evasion pegged around 70b. Is this accurate? Could the UK actually completely erase their current deficit (and then some) if they thoroughly enforced their tax laws?

[Starver]

Maybe.

The following URL doesn't need much expanding upon to read the message within, though.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/panama-papers-hmrc-starved-by-austerity-could-not-pursue-tax-evaders-even-if-it-wanted-to-a6971411.html