He apparently did use an accountant for the first time and this is his excuse for getting it wrong. I realise getting accountants to do your taxes is a process that is full of pitfalls and that frankly, by the time you've assembled all the information they want you've done 75% of the work of just doing it yourself.
That said I stand by my original statement, if you're the leader of a major political party and you're releasing your tax returns as a PR stunt, you make damn sure they're all in line. Once again his attempt to score an open goal has resulted in him kicking himself in the face.
International trade secretary Dr Liam Fox looks set to build better links with the historic 52-nation organisation when he meets with ministers from the bloc on Thursday and Friday.
One of the few colleagues to vote for Brexit (I'm an Ivory tower academic!) voted on the belief that somehow the EU was preventing the reformation of the British Empire. Obviously, that's just fantasist nonsense but the amount of people who think the empire was sunshine and picnics is quite shocking. I mean, we weren't as bad as some (looking at you Belgium), but to create and maintain the empire we committed acts of genocide, enslaved millions and exploited the wealth of unknown numbers. Amazing that this is what people want.
Boy I bet all those Asian and African nations will be lining up to increase their dependence on a country calling increased trade with them setting up an "empire"
One of the few colleagues to vote for Brexit (I'm an Ivory tower academic!) voted on the belief that somehow the EU was preventing the reformation of the British Empire. Obviously, that's just fantasist nonsense but the amount of people who think the empire was sunshine and picnics is quite shocking. I mean, we weren't as bad as some (looking at you Belgium), but to create and maintain the empire we committed acts of genocide, enslaved millions and exploited the wealth of unknown numbers. Amazing that this is what people want.
Unfortunately this is a popular mindset in various countries, America has it too.
One of the few colleagues to vote for Brexit (I'm an Ivory tower academic!) voted on the belief that somehow the EU was preventing the reformation of the British Empire. Obviously, that's just fantasist nonsense but the amount of people who think the empire was sunshine and picnics is quite shocking. I mean, we weren't as bad as some (looking at you Belgium), but to create and maintain the empire we committed acts of genocide, enslaved millions and exploited the wealth of unknown numbers. Amazing that this is what people want.
For a long time our education system was very much geared towards the "Empire was great" view of history, with very little of the opposing view (ie actual reality). I studied A Level history in 1998-1999, and even then there were parts of colonial history that were very much airbrushed. If that's the history that most people learned, it wouldn't surprise me at all that many people might think a return to Empire is something to strive for.
I mean, we weren't as bad as some (looking at you Belgium)
On a related note, I used to work in marketing in the aviation industry. I once reviewed early proofs of an advertising campaign proposed by a Belgian airline that promoted their African routes by pointing out Belgium's longstanding historical, cultural and commercial connections with many African countries. I was the one who had to point out that this, essentially, meant slavery and exploitation...
One of the few colleagues to vote for Brexit (I'm an Ivory tower academic!) voted on the belief that somehow the EU was preventing the reformation of the British Empire. Obviously, that's just fantasist nonsense but the amount of people who think the empire was sunshine and picnics is quite shocking. I mean, we weren't as bad as some (looking at you Belgium), but to create and maintain the empire we committed acts of genocide, enslaved millions and exploited the wealth of unknown numbers. Amazing that this is what people want.
I'm amused that any ivory tower academic would think Brexit of all things was the way to reboot the British Empire, but since your colleague does you might as well show them this.
I'm slightly dubious of a "whitehall official" dubbing trade Empire 2.0, in an unnamed quote in the Express of all places. But there is definitely a nostalgia for Britain's place in the world being greater than it is now, even though no one alive really would have any memory of it. It's easy to be nostalgic for an era you never lived in.
The problem is the boomers are in power here:
-The generation who lived through the end of the empire knew it was a real fucking mess, and even if they were 'ra-ra-exploitation' they were aware that shit is hard.
-The post 90s education had a pretty grey/lets ignore it/multiculturalism stance that doesn't exalt the empire.
...but these gooses that came of age in the 70s and 80s who don't even think of how Empire 2.0 sounds.
For fucks sake we already rebranded with the Commonwealth!
One of the few colleagues to vote for Brexit (I'm an Ivory tower academic!) voted on the belief that somehow the EU was preventing the reformation of the British Empire. Obviously, that's just fantasist nonsense but the amount of people who think the empire was sunshine and picnics is quite shocking. I mean, we weren't as bad as some (looking at you Belgium), but to create and maintain the empire we committed acts of genocide, enslaved millions and exploited the wealth of unknown numbers. Amazing that this is what people want.
More to the point it wasn't super great for even the British unless you were at least middle class. So for about 12-15% of the country, it was super great. For the other 85%, not so much.
But no one watches Downton bloody Abbey and imagines themselves as the third undergardener.
I don't think it's ominous as much as naive and ignorant. These people, or at least the audience they're addressing, have a vastly romanticised idea of empire, but present-day UK has the ability and power neither to create a romanticised new empire nor its more realistic, dark counterpart. They'll make a farce of either.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I don't think it's ominous as much as naive and ignorant. These people, or at least the audience they're addressing, have a vastly romanticised idea of empire, but present-day UK has the ability and power neither to create a romanticised new empire nor its more realistic, dark counterpart. They'll make a farce of either.
The British Empire as it was in the 1940's was destroyed by American intervention, in favour of what the Americans saw as free trade, something they would benefit greatly from and which basically won them the cold war. http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html
That Theresa May is so incredibly dim that she thinks the right wing establishment sitting in ascendancy at the moment within the American government will allow some sort of retrenchment of countries towards Britain and away from themselves, to say nothing of the massive investments China has made into Africa which they are expecting massive gains from. China at least for example has no great overwhelming colonial legacy to worry about (or human rights concerns from the Chinese government in regards to whatever tinpot dictator or warlord they deal with).
The British government is scrabbling around knowing only one thing currently: They have nothing to fear as Corbyn is their opposition and they have a free hand to make an utter pigs mess of the entire show.
Harking back to a heavily blood-stained past is just lowest common denominator politics.
The economic case for a focus on commonwealth trade agreements was what caused so much hesitation with us entering the European Community in the first place. It was illogical then and it's just absurd for it to reappear 50 years later. Trying to the reanimate the corpse of Empire to tap into that lucrative New Zealand butter market is just pathetic at best, jingoistic at worst.
Here we go again. The empire 2.0 moniker was coined by sceptical mandarins in whitehall - it isn't the aim of the government.
The “empire 2.0” description was coined by sceptical officials worried about the high priority given to trade deals with Commonwealth nations.
It's actually damaging for those against the idea of pushing for trade with Africa to come up with terms like Empire 2.0, as it causes the sort of consternation seen in this thread.
Whatever spin you try to put on it thinking Africa can replace Europe in terms of trade is just incredibly stupid.
Africa does have immense potential as a trading partner, but I see no reason they would want to give more than token favoritism to the UK. A prize for being the least bad colonial power perhaps?
Africa still I'm sure be happy to trade with the UK, but there won't be any special deals to be had there.
Sure, but we've had a page of people thinking the Government is going into talks with African nations with Empire 2.0 in their mind. It's stupid, and it annoys me because there are genuine criticisms to be made.
And really, who is arguing that Africa can replace Europe in terms of trade?
I'm pretty sure the entire continent of Africa is a smaller market than France, Italy and Germany combined, never mind the rest of Europe. You can talk about "potential" and long term gains all you like but the fact remains we need trade now, today, and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Sure, but we've had a page of people thinking the Government is going into talks with African nations with Empire 2.0 in their mind. It's stupid, and it annoys me because there are genuine criticisms to be made.
And really, who is arguing that Africa can replace Europe in terms of trade?
The government that is currently running the country?
No they're not - the entire argument they're making is that trade with Europe can be maintained, while we are now free to arrange trade with other nations. We can argue whether that's feasible (personally I don't), but you're arguing against a case that hasn't been made.
I'm pretty sure the entire continent of Africa is a smaller market than France, Italy and Germany combined, never mind the rest of Europe. You can talk about "potential" and long term gains all you like but the fact remains we need trade now, today, and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Well market size it might be, but its not a market for the things we can provide
-We can't act as processor for African raw materials
-We don't produce the bulk goods that are desirable at the current stage of most african economies.
-We can sell certain high value luxury goods but we were already doing that, those sorts of goods tend not to be especially hindered and there is not that big a market
-We can sell high-end services but we already do that and a lot of the value add of our services are based on access to markets that are uncertain with Brexit. Plus a lot of those services (Educational) are going to see more Africans coming here, to the delight of the Brexiteers no doubt.
-Institutional weakness means a lot of deals you make in Africa are high risk and its good to have the heft of soft/hard power behind you. An isolated and austerity++ Britain will lack that and it will only benefit large companies at the expense of the smaller, a robust institutional framework in the EU makes foreign trade much less of a danger for smaller entities.
No they're not - the entire argument they're making is that trade with Europe can be maintained, while we are now free to arrange trade with other nations. We can argue whether that's feasible (personally I don't), but you're arguing against a case that hasn't been made.
What stopped us doing it before?
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I would fucking love Blair to be an advisor to this administration, are you nuts?
Also continued confirmation that Kushner is the real SecState
Sure, but we've had a page of people thinking the Government is going into talks with African nations with Empire 2.0 in their mind. It's stupid, and it annoys me because there are genuine criticisms to be made.
I admit, I knee-jerk posted without realising the "Empire 2.0" name was coined as a comment on how ridiculous the whole thing was - so apologies for that. But it doesn't change the fact that those inside Whitehall seem to think that this is how the Brexiters are looking at things - or they wouldn't have made the joke in the first place. Kernels of truth, and all that.
No they're not - the entire argument they're making is that trade with Europe can be maintained, while we are now free to arrange trade with other nations. We can argue whether that's feasible (personally I don't), but you're arguing against a case that hasn't been made.
What stopped us doing it before?
That trade deals can't be arranged in the EU, but by the EU? Hence the panic about needing so many trade negotiators, as we haven't needed one. Of course trade can occur, it's the deal that's key. The government's argument is that they are free to make their own deals, favourable for Britain. I'm unconvinced this is possible, as I doubt the EU would allow us to trade unhindered, while we import cheap goods from Africa, for example.
No they're not - the entire argument they're making is that trade with Europe can be maintained, while we are now free to arrange trade with other nations. We can argue whether that's feasible (personally I don't), but you're arguing against a case that hasn't been made.
Actually they're arguing that if we don't get an entirely favourable trade deal, something that the EU has explicitly ruled out since no deal they make can be superior to membership, we'll walk away without a deal and set up trade deals with the rest of the world instead. This is a position that's been put forth by the PM herself, not to mention the Brexit secretary, foreign secretary and chancellor of the exchequer.
So no, it's not hyperbole to say they're planning to replace Europe with Africa and New Zealand since these are the only alternative markets they have raised. Well that and the super fantastic deal Trump is going to give us since he's all about reaching mutually beneficial agreements. :rotate:
But I must be clear. Britain wants to remain a good friend and neighbour to Europe. Yet I know there are some voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path.
That would be an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend.
Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such an approach. And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.
Because we would still be able to trade with Europe. We would be free to strike trade deals across the world. And we would have the freedom to set the competitive tax rates and embrace the policies that would attract the world’s best companies and biggest investors to Britain. And – if we were excluded from accessing the Single Market – we would be free to change the basis of Britain’s economic model.
But for the EU, it would mean new barriers to trade with one of the biggest economies in the world. It would jeopardise investments in Britain by EU companies worth more than half a trillion pounds. It would mean a loss of access for European firms to the financial services of the City of London. It would risk exports from the EU to Britain worth around £290 billion every year. And it would disrupt the sophisticated and integrated supply chains upon which many EU companies rely.
It's entirely fair to say we wouldn't accept a punitive deal, but there's a great deal of room between "an entirely favourable deal" as you state, and "a punitive deal" that is mentioned in the quote above. And even then, there's no talk of replacing trade with Europe with trade with the world. Rather, that the deficit in trade generated by tariffs between the EU and UK would be replaced by the trade deals we create with other countries. Again, I'm not sure that's feasible, but time will tell.
But I must be clear. Britain wants to remain a good friend and neighbour to Europe. Yet I know there are some voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path.
That would be an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend.
Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such an approach. And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.
Because we would still be able to trade with Europe. We would be free to strike trade deals across the world. And we would have the freedom to set the competitive tax rates and embrace the policies that would attract the world’s best companies and biggest investors to Britain. And – if we were excluded from accessing the Single Market – we would be free to change the basis of Britain’s economic model.
But for the EU, it would mean new barriers to trade with one of the biggest economies in the world. It would jeopardise investments in Britain by EU companies worth more than half a trillion pounds. It would mean a loss of access for European firms to the financial services of the City of London. It would risk exports from the EU to Britain worth around £290 billion every year. And it would disrupt the sophisticated and integrated supply chains upon which many EU companies rely.
It's entirely fair to say we wouldn't accept a punitive deal, but there's a great deal of room between "an entirely favourable deal" as you state, and "a punitive deal" that is mentioned in the quote above. And even then, there's no talk of replacing trade with Europe with trade with the world. Rather, that the deficit in trade generated by tariffs between the EU and UK would be replaced by the trade deals we create with other countries. Again, I'm not sure that's feasible, but time will tell.
It depends how you interpret the definitions Brexiteers attach to certain words like "reasonable" and "punative". The swivel eyed lunacy that spews out of their mouths gives me far less confidence than you seem to have that their definitions bear any relation to ours. Indeed if you listen to what muppets like Fox and Boris say "punitive" basically means "anything less than what we have now but with no freedom of movement or budget contributions". Everything they say reveals the cake and eat it delusional mindset behind their approach.
Yeah I mean I probably think it'll go the other way, where the EU being in a much stronger position than us, negotiates a bad deal for the UK. Government spins it as a great deal, and Labour nods it through parliament.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Also, EU acting in its interest is not the act of a friend, but Brexit is totally friendly?
Posts
That said I stand by my original statement, if you're the leader of a major political party and you're releasing your tax returns as a PR stunt, you make damn sure they're all in line. Once again his attempt to score an open goal has resulted in him kicking himself in the face.
Who on earth thought this was a good idea?
Never mind.
Because that's all they'll see. Fucking idiots
The fuck is wrong with these morons
The 1950s look neat
Unfortunately this is a popular mindset in various countries, America has it too.
For a long time our education system was very much geared towards the "Empire was great" view of history, with very little of the opposing view (ie actual reality). I studied A Level history in 1998-1999, and even then there were parts of colonial history that were very much airbrushed. If that's the history that most people learned, it wouldn't surprise me at all that many people might think a return to Empire is something to strive for.
On a related note, I used to work in marketing in the aviation industry. I once reviewed early proofs of an advertising campaign proposed by a Belgian airline that promoted their African routes by pointing out Belgium's longstanding historical, cultural and commercial connections with many African countries. I was the one who had to point out that this, essentially, meant slavery and exploitation...
I'm amused that any ivory tower academic would think Brexit of all things was the way to reboot the British Empire, but since your colleague does you might as well show them this.
-The generation who lived through the end of the empire knew it was a real fucking mess, and even if they were 'ra-ra-exploitation' they were aware that shit is hard.
-The post 90s education had a pretty grey/lets ignore it/multiculturalism stance that doesn't exalt the empire.
...but these gooses that came of age in the 70s and 80s who don't even think of how Empire 2.0 sounds.
For fucks sake we already rebranded with the Commonwealth!
More to the point it wasn't super great for even the British unless you were at least middle class. So for about 12-15% of the country, it was super great. For the other 85%, not so much.
But no one watches Downton bloody Abbey and imagines themselves as the third undergardener.
Why people believe on neocons is beyond me.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The British Empire as it was in the 1940's was destroyed by American intervention, in favour of what the Americans saw as free trade, something they would benefit greatly from and which basically won them the cold war. http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html
That Theresa May is so incredibly dim that she thinks the right wing establishment sitting in ascendancy at the moment within the American government will allow some sort of retrenchment of countries towards Britain and away from themselves, to say nothing of the massive investments China has made into Africa which they are expecting massive gains from. China at least for example has no great overwhelming colonial legacy to worry about (or human rights concerns from the Chinese government in regards to whatever tinpot dictator or warlord they deal with).
The British government is scrabbling around knowing only one thing currently: They have nothing to fear as Corbyn is their opposition and they have a free hand to make an utter pigs mess of the entire show.
The economic case for a focus on commonwealth trade agreements was what caused so much hesitation with us entering the European Community in the first place. It was illogical then and it's just absurd for it to reappear 50 years later. Trying to the reanimate the corpse of Empire to tap into that lucrative New Zealand butter market is just pathetic at best, jingoistic at worst.
It's actually damaging for those against the idea of pushing for trade with Africa to come up with terms like Empire 2.0, as it causes the sort of consternation seen in this thread.
Africa does have immense potential as a trading partner, but I see no reason they would want to give more than token favoritism to the UK. A prize for being the least bad colonial power perhaps?
Africa still I'm sure be happy to trade with the UK, but there won't be any special deals to be had there.
And really, who is arguing that Africa can replace Europe in terms of trade?
The government that is currently running the country?
Well market size it might be, but its not a market for the things we can provide
-We can't act as processor for African raw materials
-We don't produce the bulk goods that are desirable at the current stage of most african economies.
-We can sell certain high value luxury goods but we were already doing that, those sorts of goods tend not to be especially hindered and there is not that big a market
-We can sell high-end services but we already do that and a lot of the value add of our services are based on access to markets that are uncertain with Brexit. Plus a lot of those services (Educational) are going to see more Africans coming here, to the delight of the Brexiteers no doubt.
-Institutional weakness means a lot of deals you make in Africa are high risk and its good to have the heft of soft/hard power behind you. An isolated and austerity++ Britain will lack that and it will only benefit large companies at the expense of the smaller, a robust institutional framework in the EU makes foreign trade much less of a danger for smaller entities.
What stopped us doing it before?
Also continued confirmation that Kushner is the real SecState
I admit, I knee-jerk posted without realising the "Empire 2.0" name was coined as a comment on how ridiculous the whole thing was - so apologies for that. But it doesn't change the fact that those inside Whitehall seem to think that this is how the Brexiters are looking at things - or they wouldn't have made the joke in the first place. Kernels of truth, and all that.
That trade deals can't be arranged in the EU, but by the EU? Hence the panic about needing so many trade negotiators, as we haven't needed one. Of course trade can occur, it's the deal that's key. The government's argument is that they are free to make their own deals, favourable for Britain. I'm unconvinced this is possible, as I doubt the EU would allow us to trade unhindered, while we import cheap goods from Africa, for example.
Actually they're arguing that if we don't get an entirely favourable trade deal, something that the EU has explicitly ruled out since no deal they make can be superior to membership, we'll walk away without a deal and set up trade deals with the rest of the world instead. This is a position that's been put forth by the PM herself, not to mention the Brexit secretary, foreign secretary and chancellor of the exchequer.
So no, it's not hyperbole to say they're planning to replace Europe with Africa and New Zealand since these are the only alternative markets they have raised. Well that and the super fantastic deal Trump is going to give us since he's all about reaching mutually beneficial agreements. :rotate:
It's entirely fair to say we wouldn't accept a punitive deal, but there's a great deal of room between "an entirely favourable deal" as you state, and "a punitive deal" that is mentioned in the quote above. And even then, there's no talk of replacing trade with Europe with trade with the world. Rather, that the deficit in trade generated by tariffs between the EU and UK would be replaced by the trade deals we create with other countries. Again, I'm not sure that's feasible, but time will tell.
It depends how you interpret the definitions Brexiteers attach to certain words like "reasonable" and "punative". The swivel eyed lunacy that spews out of their mouths gives me far less confidence than you seem to have that their definitions bear any relation to ours. Indeed if you listen to what muppets like Fox and Boris say "punitive" basically means "anything less than what we have now but with no freedom of movement or budget contributions". Everything they say reveals the cake and eat it delusional mindset behind their approach.