English Chess Forum

John McKenna wrote:However, it is not only the super rich who will move for tax purposes. That is shown by the number of medium and small French businesses and business persons who have crossed the Channel to work and live in London and its environs.

My point is the the super-rich are the only one that might move (for real or fictitiously) mainly because of the tax advantages. Normal people do it either for desperate reasons (migrants from Syria and Africa) or because they actually enjoy living abroad for a while (your French business people I guess and I'd put myself in that category). Free movement of people in the EU is actually a very good thing!

John McKenna wrote:As for benefits, some unemployed Eastern Europeans jump at the chance to move legally to a country where they get better help for themselves and their families.

I dont know which statistics you can trust on the subject, but I'd guess the large majority of those people actually want to work and claiming benefits is the last of their thoughts when leaving their country. You can probably find few counter-example in the Daily Mail of course.

John McKenna wrote:I'd like to suggest a book

I might have a look. You should instead read about Berlusconi political engagement few decades ago in Italy. The first chapter is not so different from the last few months of Trump... I do not want to spoil the ending for you...

Alan Walton wrote:The Legislative in the UK and EU are both elected that is true; but the executive in the EU is unelected whereas the executive in the UK is made up of elected members within the legislative unit

The executive in the UK is appointed by someone who is invited to do so by a (non-elected) sovereign. I don’t believe there is any requirement for any member of this executive to be elected or even to be a member of the legislature (although they almost invariably are members of one or other House of Parliament).

Surely most institutions contain a mix of those elected or appointed, with restrictions on who can be elected or appointed and on who can do the electing or appointing?

Paolo Casaschi wrote:

John McKenna wrote:I'd like to suggest a book

I might have a look. You should instead read about Berlusconi political engagement few decades ago in Italy. The first chapter is not so different from the last few months of Trump... I do not want to spoil the ending for you...

Thanks again, Paolo.

Even if you aren't able to read Attali's book there are reviews that will give you the gist. E.g. -

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/ ... tali-books

I read the book very quickly and don't agree with all of his analysis or conclusions, but he does present some frightening facts and impelling ideas.)

I will follow your link about Berlusconi, but I must say I never really understood how he managed to win power and what possible reasons a sufficient number of people could have had for voting him in. Perhaps, I am on my way to discovering what went on and why.

Theresa May calls for the nation to unite. She can unite with my arse by kissing it.

Stephen Dorrell, Chair of European Movement UK, has written an eloquent letter to supporters:

"Today the Prime Minister has formally begun our withdrawal from the European Union in triggering Article 50.

Theresa May says that the referendum result means we should all come together and collude in a pretence that Brexit is good for Britain.

I profoundly disagree.

Too often I hear an argument which begins “The referendum result must be accepted; I regret the outcome, but we have to make the best of it”.

That is not a sound basis for policy in a representative democracy. It is what we normally call “trimming”. “Telling the voters what they want to hear”. “Putting convenience before principle”.

It is obviously right that those who lose elections lose power. That is what happened last year.

But it doesn’t follow that those who lose power must change their minds.

I was a member of the Cabinet which lost power to Labour in 1997. Our parties disagreed on a number of issues, but after the result nobody expected me to declare that everything I’d fought for was a mistake, and I didn’t.

That is how representative democracy works. Those involved in public life seek support for their point of view and when they win, they have a mandate to follow through their policy for as long as they can sustain that support.

But those who disagree with them have not merely the right, but the obligation, to argue their case, not out of a misplaced commitment to consistency, but because our society benefits from noisy debate between those with different points of view.

So it is with the European issue.

When Churchill spoke at our inaugural meeting in 1948 he did not make it sound like a contract negotiation; he supported European integration because he believed that all countries in post war Europe depended on the success of their neighbours.

Success in one country was an implausible basis for policy. If that was true in 1948, how much more true is it in the age of globalization?

The European Movement is opposed to Brexit because we believe it represents an attempt to insulate Britain from the modern world. The case has been built on a series of undeliverable promises which threaten not merely our living standards but the system of values, friendships and alliances which Britain has built in the post-colonial era.

In a healthy democracy those who take this view not only have the right to make our case; we have an inescapable obligation to do so."

I'm not convinced by equating a GE with a single issue referendum in this context (and I voted remain myself btw)

Matt Mackenzie wrote:I'm not convinced by equating a GE with a single issue referendum in this context (and I voted remain myself btw)

Serendipity has it that the last comment in this thread mentioned a General Election.

Well, if the vote goes through, we will have one on 8 June 2017. Interesting times.

(France's Presidential election: 23 April 2017; if no majority, run-off on 7 May 2017. Germany's federal elections on 24 September 2017.)

New thread required when confirmed, I would have thought?

Matt Mackenzie wrote:New thread required when confirmed, I would have thought?

Yes. Maybe nearer the time?

Meanwhile, in shocking news (*/sarcasm*), BBC journalist gets date of German elections wrong:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39632041

BBC wrote:Germany goes to the polls in October.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_fe ... tion,_2017

Wikipedia wrote:In January 2017, the election was scheduled for 24 September 2017

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 33226.html

Independent wrote:Germany election date set for 24 September as Angela Merkel battles for fourth term amid far-right rise

French National Assembly elections in June as well.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Meanwhile, in shocking news (*/sarcasm*), BBC journalist gets date of German elections wrong:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39632041

BBC wrote:Germany goes to the polls in October.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_fe ... tion,_2017

Wikipedia wrote:In January 2017, the election was scheduled for 24 September 2017

The Germans have been getting the date of Oktoberfest wrong for how long?

Alex Holowczak wrote: The Germans have been getting the date of Oktoberfest wrong for how long?

To be fair to the BBC, the article now says "September", so that got corrected at some point.

6 weeks of campaigning. Will there be election fatigue? Will the turnout be low? Will the country be galavnised? Will people bother to stay up all night (again) for a third year running to see the results come in (if you include the US elections, that is quite a lot of all-nighters for those who do that)?

The way things are going it looks as if the new French Napoleon (in wating) will demand that all the face-to-face Brexit negotiations take place in the village of Waterloo. In the hope that - with the Prussians on side this time - a crushing Franco-Prussian victory can be achieved in the end.

Then current Prussian leader of the Teutonic Alliance (aka Germany) will demand the return of the Royal Family, to their ancestral home of Hanover, to be held as hostages until Mrs. May agrees to surrender unconditionally and pay huge reparations from the national purse for damages - done to the EU by the Tories.

Before that all transpires I hope a Wellington can be found - I'd like it to be tasked to my local MP Colonel Bob - of Bosnian Campaign fame - but it may need someone of even greater strategic stature and diplomatic dexterity, and he has the drawback of being a Tory.

Any suggestions? (If not I'd like to suggest we elect a Rainbow Coalition led by Jeremy the Peacemaker and Tim the Timid as our main men and consign the Tories to the dustbin of history for as long as humanely possible.)

Hide under a blanket for the next ten or so years?

MartinCarpenter wrote:Hide under a blanket for the next ten or so years?

Personally, I'm a lot more encouraged about the coming decade than I was ten years ago. The multinational / banking / climate change mob are still in charge, but there are far more signs of organised resistance.

So, it's got to be blanket resistance, then, in the style of Geronimo!?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo

(Apologies for the coat in the link but I couldn't find one with him wearing his blanket.)