Revealed: EU's attempt to control Britain's tax policies after Brexit - Polidicks

Honestly people, we should stop feeding the child attention. Spoils them rotten. Boilrig got himself banned from the Polidicks discord ( a feat of it's own) for having constant inconsistent opinions he kept changing in order to keep arguing and maintain his contrarian status with people and post /pol/ and Facebook quality memes when he got bored with it. You're not getting anything out of him.

Funny since most of you are afraid of a second vote because you know people will vote stay It's the will of the people until it's something you don't like

Or because that's idiotic. Imagine if every 6 months we had a new vote and it kept flip flopping. You should have voted last time instead of complaining when you didn't.

Brexit was built of lies and misinformation, now that the Brits have seen two years of Tories fail to not only prevent a hard Brexit, but really to me it looks like they failed to negotiate with the EU much if at all. You can't negotiate if you aren't willing to compromise, that's true of both parties in this deal, the EU and UK, the EU was probably willing, but was the UK?

Duh, but that doesn't mean they can't be good in the long run. On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[6] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. Immigration Ashcroft's election day poll of 12,369 voters also discovered that 'One third (33%) [of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own border" I'm sorry to tell you but you can be mad all you want but these were the two biggest reasons people wanted to leave and this stays true. It's hilarious how much people hate democracy when it's no longer in their favor.

Oh boy it's more of this stupidity, alright. Both of those reasons are indomitably vague by design; what "decisions about the UK" exactly entails is completely up to the reader and as such constitutes a complete and utter non-answer, or a non-reason. What those decisions are, how many of them are made as opposed to "decisions about the UK" being already taken in the UK, or whether these decisions were even made IN FAVOR of the UK or to its demise are not matters which are addressed by such an overly simplistic question, and I would wager that most people who answered this question in a poll probably could not give you valid answers because they would not have this information at all. Immigration is, as a whole, an inherently manipulative subject that is easy to spin into virtually anything you need so long as what you aim to instill is fear. The climate in Europe when it comes to immigration was certainly not the kindest at the time of the Brexit referendum and as such it can safely be assumed that the motivation some people expressed regarding voting in favor of leaving due to worries of immigration getting out of hand was, for the most part, a completely instinctive and unprocessed motion that once again lacked any form of data or actual understanding of the situation. If the Brexit vote had occurred without the refugee crisis and if those who took part in that poll knew that most immigration regarding the UK is done from other member nations of the commonwealth who are not refugees, the results would have likely come out very differently. The fact that the UK is not part of the Schengen area and that they're an island means that being a member of the EU is completely irrelevant to how well immigrants can move in. Generally speaking when someone lacks the distinct ability to make an educated decision because of lack of sufficient information the correct and acceptable choice for them would be to withdraw from making the decision at all until they are either educated enough or until someone more qualified comes along to make a decision for them; that is why most democracies do not directly rely on the will of the people but rather on elected individuals who filter and germinate these ideas into something tangible and feasible. If the British government wanted to leave such an important and complex matter in the hands of its people, unfiltered and untranslated by politicians, then the government should have put up sufficient effort to educate the masses so that they may have an educated decision and not just express a gut feeling.

Not really. It clearly means they don't want the EU to directly determine UK Law and immigration policy.

Learn to actually fucking read other people's posts or don't bother posting at all.

I did. Those questions were clear.

If it's clear that a second vote needs to be done then why not? You and Boilrig KNOW that people will vote to stay because they realized that they got lied to by the leave campaign. So now you're all trying to run away with it. Cowards, the whole lot of you

No, unlike you I am not pathetically crying. If for example they voted to stay I wouldn't be crying about how "N-No We need a second vote!". What's the point of having a vote if you could instantly redo it? Do you realize how horrible that would be. There is a very obvious reason voting doesn't work like that. Imagine how presidential elections would go if one party got to decide "Nope we get a revote because we didn't like the results!". Sorry, people who wanted to stay should have voted to do so.

I don't think it is clear a second vote is needed, even with this protest, and it is not clear at all whether people would come out in some sort of landslide victory for Remain, remember you would've just told the population they voted wrong and are basically asking them to vote again, that only results in a protest vote, which who knows, maybe Remain wins, but by how much will of course determine whether a 3rd referendum should take place. So basically there shouldn't be a 2nd referendum, as you would be unable to tell whether you have sufficiently educated the masses or not.

The good ol' "if you don't agree with me you're a crybaby hahahahaha" gag. Is that the best you can do? https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/110048/a2df39b1-89ac-4aee-8dcb-6e84437e7d54/image.png The vote is non binding, there's no rules to bend. Wow we're really grasping for straws now aren't we

There should be a second referendum since the logic of polling people regardless of whether they were educated or not has already been established and the push was already made, so there is little point in digging heels in now and attempt a complete paradigm shift. If the goal was to prod at people in the raw and see what they had to say then the same goal can still be achieved now. The point that only a coward would be afraid of a second vote still stands, and you have failed on numerous occasions to ever acknowledge it. You're piss scared people won't fall for the meme a second time.

You literally want to re-do a vote because you don't agree with the results. No, i'm explaining how doing revotes just because some people don't agree with it is dumb. If you did do a revote then you would have to do another revote depending on how people felt about the first revote. Have fun with the UK rejoining and leaving the EU every 6 months. Again, act like an adult and live with the actions your country took. Wanting to cancel the voice of the people is anti democratic.

what, you mean like calling an early election? you mean like, exactly what the tories did? :y

Not really, my concern is that there will be attempts at a 3rd referendum, thus why I'd prefer not to have a 2nd referendum. The vote was non-binding, but basically binded thanks to how Cameron and others presented it, A "once in a generation decision" and that the government will "implement what you decide".

Tough shit, I guess. The UK is deliberately putting itself in a negotiating position from which it has no real power. Because of Brexit, the UK has doomed itself to being dominated economically by the EU instead of being a member with its own say. It's the single most retarded act a country could have taken on the international stage (Possibly even worse than Trump's antics)and the UK seems determined to go through with it. Actions have consequences.

Next they'll be interfering with the elections, if they haven't already.

In regards to misinformation from both remain and leave: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/how-brexit-campaign-lied-us-and-got-away-it https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-brexit-referendum-lies-boris-johnson-leave-campaign-remain-a8466751.html https://www.independent.co.uk/infact/brexit-second-referendum-false-claims-eu-referendum-campaign-lies-fake-news-a8113381.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/eu-referendum-claims-won-brexit-fact-checked/ https://fullfact.org/europe/governments-eu-leaflet-introduction/ http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-9-million-anti-brexit-leaflet-2016-4 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-heads-of-unilever-airbus-and-ge-accuse-leave-campaign-of-using-their-names-for-a7084126.html Vote Leave Accused Of Deception For Hiding Name From EU 'Facts' .. There's a lot more that could be dug up but to insinuate there was no misinformation on either side is wrong.

Under the Chequer plan yes, the UK has no real power, as May appears to not understand the EU at all. If it is under the Chequer's plan, yes the EU would be able to apply pressure, however with just a free trade deal, little to none. I prefered just a free trade deal from the start.

I don't want free trade deals with someone outside of EU. UK's future actions could hurt OUR economy when they leave and don't have to follow the same laws and regulations. This is why I was angry when I found out Ireland wasn't charging Apple taxes. I want an equal playing-field with countries who can import/export at no charge. I want equitable trade. Taxes that offset a countries difference in trade, wages and regulations.

Like you guys have with the other countries and currently negotiating with even more. As could any other countries. If the EU wants to stop the UK from going down that path, it isn't by denying a free trade deal but by accepting Chequers. Chequers effectively locks the UK into similar laws, standards, etc. Whether or not the UK gets a free trade agreement, they could hurt everyone else by lowering their wages, standards, regulations etc. We well know from news last week about the UK aiming at becoming a Singapore style economy. Basically, the better the deal the EU offers to the UK, the less reason it has to diverge from the EU rules.

50 +2% is the barest definition of 'most' typically one defines most as being nearly all of not just a majority.

I got my vote, but I don't run my country. If you think every citizen in a country agrees on the same thing you're delusional at best. Not to bust your mind with complex ideas. But EU got regulations that every member have to follow. When UK leaves they're not bound by the same rules. Imagine playing chess with someone who move two times pr round. You might go ahead and say "Oh, you just have to lower your standard and move twice as many times as well". This will lead to race to the bottom. Hurting the middle and lower class. I see Chequers and other agreements as temporary solution. Law and standards are evolving with the society over time. UK have also shown time and time again, not to be the best uphold/update laws. EU have kept them in-check a few times. If it wasn't for EU, they would have kept the mass-surveillance program they where running, passed anti-encryption laws (NZ have passed that in 2013 and Australia is about to pass it) and as late as June 26 they where in the court again. For forcing people to nullifying their marriage when changing gender. And don't bother saying "but Denmark was in court 21June" or naming other EU-country. The point I'm making is; Its a good thing to have a court keeping a few laws in check, even my own Country.

The EU is doing it on your behalf, doesn't really matter if you like it or not. You understand there is an entire world out there right?, that aren't EU member countries. The EU has regulations on its products that we who export to the EU follow, as would the UK, which it already does. Once the UK has left the EU, there will be no need for the EU to 'keep the UK in check', or any enforcement unless through a trade deal which disputes are traditionally handled through a 3rd country. I won't deny theres advantages to the EU, I just have my reservations whether an ever closer union is the answer, fiscal union etc.

You're as consistent as a changing wind. Stop trying to bring up some random criticism of EU, as an argument and extra layer. You're muddying the waters. If you want a shit storm, I can clearly bring up as much criticism of New Zealand, as you can of EU and/or Denmark. After all we're both switching between first- and second-place in the corruption perceptions index. I clearly stated that free trade deals will hurt the middle and lower class by forcing a race to the bottom, if the other country doesn't play by the same rules. When UK leaves EU they're no longer bound by the same rules and regulations. UK have time and time again broken the law in EU and I don't trust any agreement with the UK government that could hurt us, as they're consistent as you. For what I gathered from your post, you acknowledge this but you never challenge it, besides setting up Chequers and other agreements as temporary solutions. To witch I said wouldn't be as close as it was before. EU have introduced strong data protection and privacy to all its individuals within the European Union. Forcing UK to stop its spying. What did New Zealand do in 2013? Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act that allows New Zealand's gov to force the provider to decrypt any data. Limiting freedom, privacy and civil rights. You're also a part of the Five Eyes. Fucking everyone over. So no, it helps having a few extra heads to look the documents over.

I really have no idea what your point is, my criticism is on topic. But if you want to discuss my country as some sort of comparison to the UK and the EU, you can try. You are saying that free trade deals will cause a race to the bottom as if it is a fact or will always happen, I have no reason to believe that. For countries that don't play by the rules, we have 3rd countries oversee bi-lateral trade deals disputes, or we take countries to the WTO as NZ and US took Canada to the WTO for its closed off dairy market. What is your point exactly? The UK is leaving and yes, won't be bound by the same rules and regulations like the rest of us. I don't have any comment on the UK's track record inside the EU, after all it is every country for itself, even inside the EU, Irish tax as an example off the top of my head. The EU was warned by Cameron about this entire situation and failed to hand him an emergency handbrake on the free movement, and with an ever growing UKIP, forcing a referendum. I would not call Brexit a rapid decision on a whim, the result was just not expected by the governments own position. That is great and all, but not enough reason to stay inside the EU. If you are at all in belief that the UK did indeed stop its spying, which I would say no, it probably started collecting more. To which EU countries contribute data with Nine Eyes and Fourteen Eyes, thank you for your cooperation.

Just ignore him, there's no point in discussing anything with him.

To play Devil's advocate for a second, the UK isn't a manufacturing economy, is it? I imagine it's mostly service based. So why would a free trade agreement not be what the EU wants? Were there other provisions in May's proposals that would be less than beneficial?