Quote:
Originally Posted by
-:Undertaker:-
Well, it is obvious is it not?
If it benefits us to raise a tariff, then raise it. If it benefits us to lower a tariff, then lower it.
not really
youve voted to cut all of our existing trade deals which will mean tariffs imposed, which means people will be poorer
unless you want to remove any potential bargaining power for a trade deal, lower our standards and potentially cause job losses then feel free to advocate lower tariffs
so its basically a case of finding the magic number, which of course you wouldnt do and is up to the experts you choose to always ignore
Quote:
I have no idea how middle class you are but from where I am from, the average Joe does not even outright own his own house and in many cases has to rent, let alone owns a house abroad in Malaga. It is not normal or average to own a house abroad. This again goes back to the London-centric Remain campaign which was seemingly oblivious to what life is like for most people outside the M25.
And I have no idea where you get it from that landlords are the problem when it is only 1 in 10 houses privately rented. What you should be doing, and our politicians should be doing - is really easy. Grab a pen and a piece of paper. Find out the net influx of immigrants per year into the UK. Write it down. Now, find out the number of houses built every year. Write that down. And there's your problem.
when did i tell them to buy a second home - you misread that completely
i dont really get your argument here, i live in the south but i do not live or work in london, so i pretty much earn the same money i would get up north but if i were to stay here i would have to spend twice as much buying a house - anecdotally speaking ive seen people from the south move up north to buy a house because it really is just cheaper. it seems like youre trying to dismiss my point of view because you think im personally well off
youve kind of proved my point buy saying "has to rent" - there is no immigrant coming in and taking the space if the space is already there
a bit of a correction as well, 1 in 5 houses are privately rented https://assets.publishing.service.go...ey-2016-17.pdf
you've also just made a fatal error in assuming correlation implies causation which makes you look a bit silly - that's not to say immigration doesnt have an impact (I have nothing conclusive either way)
but here's a pretty good analysis of why the housing situation is as bad as it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G965AHsVK8
Quote:
Indeed, but crime is also unpredictable and not linear. Much like our constitutional arrangements are also flexible, which there is a strong case for arguing has helped us avoid the numerous and often violent/bloody revolutions that have occurred on the continent.
the flexibility can be good and bad, and i think you only have to look at the more controversial cases to see that
what is this strong case
Quote:
The House of Commons and House of Lords do not have to contend with vetoes and national considerations. This is why the United Kingdom cannot be a federal model, despite talk of it by moronic politicians like Clegg, because of the sheer size of England. Our system works precisely because it retains its unitary and centralised nature, so is able to function. Imagine Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales all having separate veto powers over legislation - it would fall apart. And the EU is that, but on a larger scale and vastly more culturally/politically different.
easy solution to balance the power is to split england into different constituencies for this hypothetical scenario - a perfectly functional solution
Quote:
I don't see how - follow Australian, Canadian and New Zealander politics and the issues are much more alike than we are with France, Spain or Poland. And they're incredibly easy to follow too, given our their institutions are essentially carbon copies of our own (and in the case of the Crown, exactly the same). I avidly follow politics, and still I do not fully understand French or German politics.
what is it you dont understand exactly
Quote:
Our constitution changes organically, not through violence like on the continent. Indeed, the one major time we did actually have a violent Civil War, the Parliamentarians basically kept the old system anyway and after 11 or so years decided they'd like the rest of it (the Crown) back, and invited Charles II back to become King. That one time we changed, we actually regretted it lol.
you cant just pick and choose which civil wars were actually civil wars
i also just want to say theres more to a stability of a state than civil war, weve had plenty of violence that has shaped the country
Quote:
Because the Acts of Union were not the creation of a completely new state, but the Union of two existing Kingdoms. English law from pre-Union is still in application, and that is why Scots Law continues to exist today as it was preserved through the Acts of Union.
the acts of union were literally the creation of a new state
Quote:
If you look at most of our offices, especially those surrounding the monarchy, they go back to the Kingdom of England and remain the same offices as they were then. There was no great re-organisation, or new institutions created as in the case when Soviet Union or Yugoslavia were created - English institutions were simply renamed (and in some cases they didn't even bother renaming, as in the survival of the name of Bank of England rather than Bank of Britain) as were some Scottish institutions such as the Court of the Lord Lyon or Court of Session which both pre-date even the Union of the Crowns by about 200 years. It wasn't a treaty of annexation, or a blank sheet to create a new state. It was a Union.
Even right down to titles. The Prince of Wales for example isn't called that in Scotland - he's the Duke of Rothesay.
none of this really proves or disproves stability of a nation
Quote:
France has had five republics, and a few revolutions yes.
If you look at the English 'civil wars' other than the one we all know, you'll see they were mostly dynastic/barony battles and not civil wars as in the true sense as the one where King Charles I lost his head. Indeed, even that Civil War was nothing as compared with say the first French Revolution that deposed the Bourbon monarchy or the Russian Revolution and overthrow of the Romanov's and complete Tsarist system.
as said above you dont exactly have the authority to pick and choose what is and isnt a civil war
Quote:
Britain did not almost side with the Nazis. Are you referring to the conspiracies surrounding King-Emperor Edward VIII?
There was never danger of Britain siding with the Nazi regime in terms of an alliance, indeed if you look at the period in question from the 1920s to the 1930s there were great (and ultimately self-harmful) efforts between the British Empire, America and Germany to limit one another as all three feared (and mistrusted) another arms race and eventual war. The stupid but well-intended Washington Naval Treaty is an example of this.
"almost sided with" may have been a bit extreme, but we certainly had nazi sympathisers and appeasers
fascism was pretty big in europe in general at the time to be fair and seems to be taking off a bit again
Quote:
If democracy is denied then you'll find a real fascist will one day come to power.
farage is literally going around saying democracy has been betrayed to try and get into power, so are you saying you support a fascist?