Current Affairs

[Jack Staff]

"It looks like Renzi is going to lose his referendum by a pretty big margin. The vote has been wrongly portrayed by some as a plebiscite on Europe. While in fact it was nothing more than an ordinary, political coup of the two big old parties on Italy's political system.

Italian voters were craving for the opposite: fresh blood and new ideas in Italian politics. No wonder Renzi lost.

What people are fed up with is the static division of power between the two big old parties who have mismanaged both Italy and Europe for decades. People want to see results. They want a convincing European investment package to end the economic crisis. The want a sizeable border and coast guard that actively manages the refugee crisis and they want a defense Union that enables Europe to back its soft power with hard one. As long as these proposals are not on the ballot and politicians continue to play party political games with referenda, people will continue to vote 'no'."

[Stephen]

Our Prime Minister has been banned from the next EU one day meeting and dinner, if we are not getting the benefits of the club we should cancel our direct debit.

No big deal, they were only serving sour Kraut

[towny44]

"It looks like Renzi is going to lose his referendum by a pretty big margin. The vote has been wrongly portrayed by some as a plebiscite on Europe. While in fact it was nothing more than an ordinary, political coup of the two big old parties on Italy's political system.

Italian voters were craving for the opposite: fresh blood and new ideas in Italian politics. No wonder Renzi lost.

What people are fed up with is the static division of power between the two big old parties who have mismanaged both Italy and Europe for decades. People want to see results. They want a convincing European investment package to end the economic crisis. The want a sizeable border and coast guard that actively manages the refugee crisis and they want a defense Union that enables Europe to back its soft power with hard one. As long as these proposals are not on the ballot and politicians continue to play party political games with referenda, people will continue to vote 'no'."

Jack I guess that most Europeans want all those items you list, but as long as they keep the Euro and the politicians want a more integrated EU, none of that is going to happen.
Time you woke up and realised that life outside the EU has to better than in it.

[Silver_Shiney]

Seems to me that Renzi wanted, among other things, closer integration with the gravy train, so of course it was a vote against the EU - it was likely the only chance the Italians had to make their views known

[Jack Staff]

"It looks like Renzi is going to lose his referendum by a pretty big margin. The vote has been wrongly portrayed by some as a plebiscite on Europe. While in fact it was nothing more than an ordinary, political coup of the two big old parties on Italy's political system.

Italian voters were craving for the opposite: fresh blood and new ideas in Italian politics. No wonder Renzi lost.

What people are fed up with is the static division of power between the two big old parties who have mismanaged both Italy and Europe for decades. People want to see results. They want a convincing European investment package to end the economic crisis. The want a sizeable border and coast guard that actively manages the refugee crisis and they want a defense Union that enables Europe to back its soft power with hard one. As long as these proposals are not on the ballot and politicians continue to play party political games with referenda, people will continue to vote 'no'."

Jack I guess that most Europeans want all those items you list, but as long as they keep the Euro and the politicians want a more integrated EU, none of that is going to happen.
Time you woke up and realised that life outside the EU has to better than in it.

Not my list. It is a quote from Guy Verhofstadt, and he certainly has a say in what is going to happen, especially to us.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Interesting debate on the radio today about the Supreme Court hearing of the Govt appeal on the High Court judgement over Article 50.

Some are critical of the judges suggesting personal interests influence them. Others defending the judges said they are above that and their decision is based entirely on the law.

Okay then. In that case what is the point of an appeal on this or indeed any case ever? If it is entirely the law then surely the High Court and the Supreme Court must reach the same decision? And indeed surely that decision will be unanimous? If not any judge out of step should surely be sacked for not knowing or understanding the law?

Well of course that doesn't happen. Because their decision will be based on their interpretation of the law. And that is a personal and not an absolute thing. So their preconceptions and/or prejudices will play a part. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

[Mervyn and Trish]

So how does this work then? Apparently the elderly care system is bust.

The government wants to increase Council Tax to pay for it.

Someone else wants to scrap the triple lock on pensions and bus passes to pay for it.

Either way I get to pay for it.

But because I'm a silly sod who saved rather than boozing or smoking all my earnings away I have more than the £20,000(ish) in the bank that means I can't get free elderly care. So I pay again.

And in fact if I need care will end up having to sell my house to pay for it because those paying their own way get charged more to subsidise those who get free places. So I pay again.

It's a great incentive for thrift isn't it?

[barney]

The most common question I get asked Merv, is why should I have to pay for my care?

One thing that having a bit of money gives you is choice. Choice to spend it on what you see fit.
Those without money, for whatever reason get what they are given, with no choice.

If you look at care as a commodity, like a cruise or a car, you generally get what you pay for.

On the surface, it does seem unfair, but at the end of the day, it's not free and someone has to pay.

I agree that there is little incentive when you reflect how much you've paid in over the years but, it's not a savings plan and those earning now are paying for those in need now.

At the end of the day, we have the choice to sell our homes, move in to rented, and blow the bloomin lot of long holidays.

The real big political question is why the UK spends about 12 billion on foreign aid when we have severe social issues ourselves.
The money is clearly there.

When we stop subsidising half of Eastern Europe, maybe, just maybe, things will change a bit.

[Mervyn and Trish]

What annoys me Barney is cases like my mother-in-law. She had saved so had to pay for her own care and sell her house to do so. At the same time she had a private widow's pension her late husband had paid into so she was paying tax to support the others who got their care paid for. At the end she couldn't wash, dress or feed herself, but an assessment judged she wasn't ill enough to receive free NHS care in the home. The next week this lady who was judged not ill enough died.

And to respond to your point about it not being a savings scheme I know it's not. But it was intended to be. It's called National Insurance. You pay a premium in order to be covered when you need it. But instead of keeping it on one side successive governments have squandered it. If a private pension scheme did that the directors would be jailed. The same applies to public pension funds. Again what was paid in has been stolen so the next generation has to foot the bill.

[Silver_Shiney]

I've been saying this for years, Barney, we should cancel routine foreign aid, especially to countries like India who have a nuclear and space programme. As they have money for those things, they should first spend it on their own needy population, as we should do with ours. Once we've sorted out our domestic social problems, we'd be better placed to start giving routine foreign aid.

Emergency foreign aid, of course, must be ringfenced.

[Kendhni]

The real big political question is why the UK spends about 12 billion on foreign aid when we have severe social issues ourselves.
The money is clearly there.

Compared to the social issues and the genuine poverty that it is meant to resolve I don't think spending 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid is excessive. It pales into insignificance when you consider that we spend about 20% of GDP on benefits (or 33% if you include pensions) - so we spend plenty on aid internally in this country, letting a fraction of a percentage point be spent on the less fortunate element of the other 99% of the worlds population doesn't seem excessive.

Is it being targeted correctly? Obviously some will not reach the intended people as it gets spent on bribery and funding growing first-world administrative overheads of these big charity organizations but I am happy that this country does spend at least some money helping those in genuine poverty, even accepting that media spin likes to fuel objectionists.

When we stop subsidising half of Eastern Europe, maybe, just maybe, things will change a bit.

Hyperbole is always funny but usually demeans the point being made.

[Kendhni]

What annoys me Barney is cases like my mother-in-law. She had saved so had to pay for her own care and sell her house to do so. At the same time she had a private widow's pension her late husband had paid into so she was paying tax to support the others who got their care paid for. At the end she couldn't wash, dress or feed herself, but an assessment judged she wasn't ill enough to receive free NHS care in the home. The next week this lady who was judged not ill enough died.

And to respond to your point about it not being a savings scheme I know it's not. But it was intended to be. It's called National Insurance. You pay a premium in order to be covered when you need it. But instead of keeping it on one side successive governments have squandered it. If a private pension scheme did that the directors would be jailed. The same applies to public pension funds. Again what was paid in has been stolen so the next generation has to foot the bill.

While I can see your point and, in the past, have agreed with it, I now think that is purely a misunderstanding of the National Insurance scheme. Much as I would love the National Insurance scheme to cater for my future, the reality is that it is there to pay for todays needs, not future needs, that is why the current model is totally unsustainable. I believe that within a few decades the NHS model will change to a subsidised model were individuals will be expected to pick up a proportion of costs.

While it may stick in the craw it has to be accepted that if someone has the resource, including assets, then these should be used to cover the care they need. I find it very sad that some elderly folk feel that they cannot, or will not, use those assets to give them the best possible lifestyle in their old age because they feel duty bound to leave an inheritance for the next generation.

[Silver_Shiney]

A great many people were angered about the Brexit vote and a few took to the streets in protest. I don't recall any protesters on the streets in other countries complaining that we are leaving the EU.

So why is it, then, that there are people in this country (and others) taking to the streets to protest and Donald Trump's inauguration to the presidency? It's got "lump of turf" all to do with anyone outside America - and those protesting need to respect the democratic vote.

[towny44]

A great many people were angered about the Brexit vote and a few took to the streets in protest. I don't recall any protesters on the streets in other countries complaining that we are leaving the EU.

So why is it, then, that there are people in this country (and others) taking to the streets to protest and Donald Trump's inauguration to the presidency? It's got "lump of turf" all to do with anyone outside America - and those protesting need to respect the democratic vote.

When left wingers protest and riot they are righteous democrats expressing their opposing views, when right wingers protest they are fascist thugs, or so the BBC would have us believe.

[Silver_Shiney]

John, while I agree with you, I suspect these people are all from the same branch of Rent-a-Mob.

But why the heck are they protesting here about Trump?

[towny44]

John, while I agree with you, I suspect these people are all from the same branch of Rent-a-Mob.

But why the heck are they protesting here about Trump?

Keeps them away from creating problems at footy matches.

[barney]

Well, what a funny old world it's turned out to be.

We were told that Brexit would NEVER happen. It did.
We were told that Trump would NEVER be POTUS. Err! he is.
Now there are massive anti-democracy rallies in the Land of the Free. Would would have thought that?

We now have some EU official telling us that May cannot enter into negotiations with Trump until after we officially leave the EU.
What are they going to do, kick us out?
These EU officials have an almost childlike quality about them.
Plus £60 billion as a leaving present? I don't think so somehow. Do you?

As I said, strange times.

[Stephen]

The EU is like French wine......sour grapes

[gilly88]

Well, what a funny old world it's turned out to be.

We were told that Brexit would NEVER happen. It did.
We were told that Trump would NEVER be POTUS. Err! he is.
Now there are massive anti-democracy rallies in the Land of the Free. Would would have thought that?

We now have some EU official telling us that May cannot enter into negotiations with Trump until after we officially leave the EU.
What are they going to do, kick us out?
These EU officials have an almost childlike quality about them.
Plus £60 billion as a leaving present? I don't think so somehow. Do you?

As I said, strange times.

unfortunately I think they will get their so called divorce package as our politicians have no back bone and will squirm about, and claim out rage , then they will pay it. like David Cameron did a year or so back. makes me spit blood

[barney]

HMMMM! Not so sure Gilly.

Cameron laid it all out before he started and told the that no matter what, he wanted the UK to stay.
They, in return, offered nothing because they couldn't believe that a country would have the audacity to reject their political experiment.

Now the die has been cast, it's very different circumstances.

Eventually, Juncker and pals will be side lined and the money men will get involved.
It's always about the money.

[gilly88]

yes, I agree the money will talk ,but I hope they will think about the people who have to pay the bill and not themselves for a change. a difficult time ahead. but no regrets as far as I'm concerned.

[Silver_Shiney]

yes, I agree the money will talk ,but I hope they will think about the people who have to pay the bill and not themselves for a change. a difficult time ahead. but no regrets as far as I'm concerned.

The chances of that are lower than aerial porcine activity....

[oldbluefox]

Does anybody else suspect a softening of their stance? Originally Juncker and Tusk foretold of severe sanctions on UK as a consequence of the Brexit vote. The pair of them now appear to be adopting a more conciliatory note saying that negotiations need to take place between UK and the EU (which to me seems quite obvious) so since Mrs May's speech they have gone from being rather spiteful and vindictive to a much more rational stance.

Of course UK will enter into trade negotiations with other partners in the world and deals will be signed prior to our official departure from the EU. I also expect there will be trade deals with individual companies in the EU. I cannot see that France will want to lose a great part of their wine and motor car trade with UK or Germany will want workers laid off in their VW, Mercedes and BMW factories just to spite us.

Merkel herself admits that the EU has a problem. Considering important elections coming up in some of the major EU countries and the possible outcomes of those elections I think that is what may be called an understatement. Of course she has her own election battle to fight.

The EU could look very different by the time UK leaves ......................

[towny44]

I think what might be happening is that the good burghers of Stuttgart, Munich and Wolfsburg might just have something to do with any softening of the EU position, coupled with Theresa'a threat that "no deal will be better for the UK than a bad deal".

[david63]

One other interesting point that the EU will have to resolve is where our £350m a week is going to come from when we have left - not that it will affect us (hopefully)