Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Isle of Man is not in the UK

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 211 posts

Re: The Isle of Man is not in the UK

#181

Post by GordonS »

thisone wrote: post #53
baddox wrote: post #31

I’m relatively familiar with the geography, but why oh why, in an article with this headline and subject, is there not, before anything else, a map indicating the UK and the Isle of Man?

it's on the bbc website? the British public do generally have a good idea where IOM is. plus the subheader: >Despite being ringed on all sides by the UK – Northern Ireland to west, Scotland to the north, England to the east and Wales to the south – the Isle of Man is not actually part of it. does tell you quite well where IOM is. feels like complaining that an article on the NYTimes about Connecticut vs Pennsylvania…

Brit here. I must confess, I don't know where the Isle of Man is!

Re: The Isle of Man is not in the UK

#182

Post by cgiles »

pytester wrote: post #166
cgiles wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their position is to negotiate another deal (if possible) and put it to a public vote, and put the existing deal to a vote if not. Yes, but even this very unclear proposition is a recent invention (last 3 months IIRC). Before that they had nothing. For 2+ years. > Unfortunately it isn't possible to make promises about what will be possible to negotiate with the EU. True enough -- to a point. But he could say what t…

>Before that they had nothing. For 2+ years. This is simply not true. They made it perfectly clear that they wanted a deal with the customs union and single market. >True enough -- to a point. But he could say what the general outline of the UK's goals in the negotiations will be and how the strategy/objectives/redlines will differ from TM's and Boris's. Could and did. The media has done a grand job of obfuscation ab…

> They made it perfectly clear that they wanted a deal with the customs union and single market.

I see. How does this square with whipping against the SM and CU in 2017? How is declaring an intention to "keep the benefits" of SM and CU without being in them anything but unicorns in light of Barnier's very clear explanations on the matter?

I am trying to find a clear timeline of Labour's ever-changing positions on these matters. [1] is the best I've found so far. What I can say is that after watching PMQs almost every week I found his position anything but clear.

But possibly I can agree with you so far as to say that it is not so much that Labour has had NO position whatsoever, as that their position has changed every 3-6 months and none of those positions were ever very fleshed out with detail.

> What Barnier has been less clear about is whether they are prepared to negotiate a new deal at all after May's deal. The EU actually has flip flopped on that issue and its mind probably still isn't made up even now.

I agree with this. In my reading, Barnier wants the WA to be accepted as is if possible, but would probably reopen negotiations if Labour took power. But it is indeed unclear.

> I suppose you have seen an indication that he doesn't?

Yes, for the longest time he was talking about a CU (THE CU? or something else, unclear...) and not mentioning the SM. Numerous public statements which I can find if requested. As in, for example, Clarke's proposal during indicative votes. This is nonsensical because a CU without the SM does virtually nothing.

[1] https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyns-ch...

Re: The Isle of Man is not in the UK

#183

Post by markkanof »

benj111 wrote: post #157
marcus_holmes wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wealthy great aunt paid an accountant to minimise her tax bill. She said it worked out around even, the costs of the accountant were about what she saved on the taxes, but she preferred paying the accountant than the government.

"but she preferred paying the accountant" Why? At the extreme, would she have preferred to pay 100% to accountants rather than the government? If everyone took that view, who would pay for the schools and roads etc? I suppose that wouldn't happen, the tax rate would be increased, so everyone's paying tax and a massive accountants bill, so really the rational move is to pay the tax.

There are a lot of things that government spends taxes on that many of us don't agree with. Better to spend that money employing someone providing a useful service than contributing to fund things that you find immoral, such as fighting unjust wars.

Re: The Isle of Man is not in the UK

#184

Post by NeedMoreTea »

cgiles wrote: post #175
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See this is where it gets truly silly. You may not be wrong about some form of soft-Brexit, or EEA status, but whichever level of closeness you consider that is not "hard Brexit" would have required dropping one of the UK's "red line" issues. Anything else that was not Theresa May's deal needed the EU offering cake and cookies for free. It wasn't so much she couldn't sell it as the hardliners of the Tory party wouldn…

Yes, I've seen that slide. In fact, it was exactly what I had in mind when I said to pytester below that "Barnier has been crystal clear about what is required of the UK and what the options are". Certainly you are right about what has been the Tory negotiating strategy. I meant, however, that she could have attempted to sell it to the hardliners in her party or, more likely, cross-party as described below. None of t…

You're right. You're entirely right with every word. But politics.

Cameron originally offered and called the referendum expecting a win for remain, to put the Tory lunatic fringe back in the box for a generation. They campaigned terribly, remain lost. So much for putting the hardliners back in line, they were brought front and centre, fed and given a spotlight. Michael Heseltine wrote a good piece about this a year or three back, I forget where. Guardian or FT probably.

The DUP are seriously unpleasant, so it's only necessity that brought them in to prop up a majority-free Tory government. Even then it was a surprise.

Selling a soft-exit deal to those hardliners probably needed not losing the campaign. TM being charisma free and terrible at presentation didn't help. The Tories haven't been good with leaders lately. Yet I don't think anyone could have sold the soft-Brexit deal to the ERG. It would interfere with shorting UK plc with their overseas funds. :)

Labour? Bizarre. They have been unable to take a stand, or we wouldn't be in this mess. Most of the party are remain. They could have voted through any deal at any time. Yet their official stance is "it depends, maybe". They were told to vote against TM's deal. So throwing the ERG under the bus still wouldn't have got enough votes to win.

At heart Corbyn wants Brexit, but some sort of undefined and unexplained lBrexit - leftwing-Brexit - that recreates his view of former 1960s politics. Or something. He avoids explaining. Schrodinger's lBrexit: It's unknowable. :)

Bizarre because on the rest of their policies they damn near got elected, and found much sympathy with voters. A remain Labour could have been running the country by now.

As for losing Churchill's grandson, Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine (now publicly a LibDem voter), and the rest: The acceptable face of the Tory party is gone. For doing what Johnson and the ERG did under May dozens of times. They have kept and become the hardline fringe. Perhaps not yet, but I think they will come to bitterly regret that.

Idiocy everywhere.

Re: The Isle of Man is not in the UK

#185

Post by pytester »

cgiles wrote: post #177
pytester wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The conventional wisdom is that the party is split between Remainers and Leavers, and that Corbyn himself is a closet Leaver who wants to leave so he can get out from under EU rules on state aid and bring about a glorious socialist revolution. More of an absurd conspiracy theory than conventional wisdom, that. >If this is remotely true, then Corbyn's personal aim is to help the Tories to a no-deal Brexit Which I sup…

OK, I confess that no one really knows what is going on in the mind of Jeremy Corbyn, possibly not even the man himself. What is unquestioned fact is that the party is split on Brexit. Known facts about Corbyn are: - He has opposed expansion of the EU throughout his political career - After the referendum, he urged rules on state aid to be jettisoned on the grounds they would no longer be valid after Brexit anyway -…

>OK, I confess that no one really knows what is going on in the mind of Jeremy Corbyn, possibly not even the man himself.

It's fairly plain from the people who listen to his words and watch his actions but I can imagine it would be fairly confusing understanding him through the UK media filter. That is entirely deliberate.

>What is unquestioned fact is that the party is split on Brexit.

Depends what you mean by "split". If you mean they actually split - no (bar the tinge lot) - the tory party DID split themselves on brexit though, and they will do again very soon.

If you mean that there are differences of opinion, yes. Like every party they have that. Yet they still have an agreed policy.

>He has opposed expansion of the EU throughout his political career

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/isling...

Note the part that says "Jeremy Corbyn generally voted for more EU integration". If you're wondering who gave you the impression that the exact opposite of the truth was true, the answer is likely "tax avoiders".

Note that the Lisbon treaty was about tax avoidance... not integration.

>He is a self-identified socialist and is far left, even by Labour standards

By European or UK historic standards he is pretty mild. The fact that the overton window has shifted in this country does not make him extreme.

If you divorce personality and ask people about policies... most people agree with Labour's. You'll find that the country is actually "far left". It's why a lot of media tries to avoid talking about his policies and focus on scandal, personality and lies.

>My take is that overall, he is anti-EU

Of course, that's the take that most people who listen to the media and don't look at the voting records take.

>Thus I read his whipping against no-deal and his new stance on a referendum as more of a forced concession to his party, and as a tool to beat the Tories over the head with, than as something arising out of his personal convictions. Especially because of how long it took him to arrive at those positions

He changed this positions largely because circumstances changed. Our relationship with the EU has changed and our negotiating position has changed and sensible parties react to that.

I do wonder why only Labour gets criticized this when every other party has also changed their positions - multiple times.

Re: The Isle of Man is not in the UK

#186

Post by jermaustin1 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #180
jermaustin1 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FEIE phases out at just over $100k for singles, $200k for marrieds, and then you are taxed at the typical bracket for earnings in excess of. Keeping things in USD for simplicity then converting at the end. So say you live in the UK, and you + spouse earn $350k USD, UK will tax just under 40%, but lets go ahead and round it to 40%, then the US will tax the $150k at 24% to $315k and 32% to $350k. So back of napkin calc…

Wouldn't the $40k that you owe the US get wiped out by the foreign tax credit?

It depends on how you are taxed, and in which country you were taxed.

The FTC only applies to taxes that are applied to YOU. So if you are set up through some Limited Company that pays out dividends or other non-PAYE scheme, YMMV.

I tried to keep it simple (overly simplistic, obviously) and specifically to the FEIE that GGP mentioned.

I'm not an international tax law expert, and I'm sure for less than the $40k in my example above you can have someone set up the proper shelters you need to limit your taxation, but the FTC

Re: The Isle of Man is not in the UK

#187

Post by toasterlovin »

ceejayoz wrote: post #170
toasterlovin wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single thing you just wrote applies to both sides of any political issue. That's politics: you get out there and advocate for a position and then people turn up and vote (or not). People being convinced to vote for something is not a sign that their vote is somehow invalid. It's literally how the political process works.

> People being convinced to vote for something is not a sign that their vote is somehow invalid. Not inherently, but being convinced of falsehoods by a propaganda campaign should be of concern. If you voted for McCain because you believe Republicans have better tax policies than Democrats, I'm fine with that. If you did it because you believe Obama's a secret Muslim infiltrator from Kenya, I'm not.

Both sides have a contingent of voters who aren't voting from a place of cool-headed informed rationality. Thinking that your own side is somehow immune from this is blinkered partisan thinking.

Re: The Isle of Man is not in the UK

#188

Post by cgiles »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #184
cgiles wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I've seen that slide. In fact, it was exactly what I had in mind when I said to pytester below that "Barnier has been crystal clear about what is required of the UK and what the options are". Certainly you are right about what has been the Tory negotiating strategy. I meant, however, that she could have attempted to sell it to the hardliners in her party or, more likely, cross-party as described below. None of t…

You're right. You're entirely right with every word. But politics. Cameron originally offered and called the referendum expecting a win for remain, to put the Tory lunatic fringe back in the box for a generation. They campaigned terribly, remain lost. So much for putting the hardliners back in line, they were brought front and centre, fed and given a spotlight. Michael Heseltine wrote a good piece about this a year o…

> Cameron originally offered and called the referendum expecting a win for remain, to put the Tory lunatic fringe back in the box for a generation. They campaigned terribly, remain lost...

All true, but even then there was the opportunity for spin, especially because Cameron resigned. TM could have said, "I respect the need to leave the EU, but we can't just ignore the needs of Scotland and NI (not to mention business, in the days before fuck business). So we'll do a compromise soft Brexit reflecting the 52/48 vote. It was made clear that Leave didn't mean leaving the SM. Also, David Cameron is an idiot." She didn't.

> Labour? Bizarre. They have been unable to take a stand, or we wouldn't be in this mess. Most of the party are remain. They could have voted through any deal at any time. Yet their official stance is "it depends, maybe".

Tell that to pytester below. I have no idea how anyone could be watching Labour and think that they have ever taken a clear stand this entire time, but apparently, some people do buy into this "kinda-sorta SM and CU but not the actual thing" and "second referendum? uh, no, maybe, yes but we'll be neutral" stuff of Corbyn's.

Labour may well have some good policies, and my wife and her far left American friends think Corbyn walks on water, but they have been punished severely in the polls for this lack of clarity. How could anyone think Corbyn is a good leader when his party is doing so horribly in the polls despite ongoing Tory fuckups is also beyond me.

If the thought process in the UK is anything like the US, presumably staunch Labour supporters simply chalk it up to the 40+% of Tory voters being ignorant, bigoted rednecks. Just as an honest person has to ask some hard questions of Hillary Clinton for losing to Donald Trump, anyone who can lose to BORIS JOHNSON needs to find another job.

Re: The Isle of Man is not in the UK

#189

Post by toasterlovin »

pavlov wrote: post #176
toasterlovin wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the support for Brexit came from tabloid newspapers owned by the ultra-rich. Aren't most newspapers owned by the ultra-rich? Couldn't you just make the exact same arguments you leveled against your political opponents (that they were hoodwinked by "the media") against your own position? At the end of the day, people showed up and voted for something. Twice (basically). That means something.

"At the end of the day, people showed up and voted for something. Twice (basically). That means something." "Voted for something and it means something" is the portrait of Brexit. A question was posed to the public but it was never explained properly, and so nobody knows what it means. Did people want a border in Ireland? A third-party status for UK products imported to EU? A separation from European scientific colla…

You're changing the topic. The post I responded to was attempting to make the case that consent was manufactured and, thus (presumably), invalid. Do you accept my argument that this is not a reasonable approach to arguing about the validity of the Brexit vote?

Re: The Isle of Man is not in the UK

#190

Post by cgiles »

pytester wrote: post #185
cgiles wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I confess that no one really knows what is going on in the mind of Jeremy Corbyn, possibly not even the man himself. What is unquestioned fact is that the party is split on Brexit. Known facts about Corbyn are: - He has opposed expansion of the EU throughout his political career - After the referendum, he urged rules on state aid to be jettisoned on the grounds they would no longer be valid after Brexit anyway -…

>OK, I confess that no one really knows what is going on in the mind of Jeremy Corbyn, possibly not even the man himself. It's fairly plain from the people who listen to his words and watch his actions but I can imagine it would be fairly confusing understanding him through the UK media filter. That is entirely deliberate. >What is unquestioned fact is that the party is split on Brexit. Depends what you mean by "spli…

> "Jeremy Corbyn generally voted for more EU integration". If you're wondering who gave you the impression that the exact opposite of the truth was true

To get a neutral source on this before I posted my last post, I went to Wikipedia, where it says JC voted against:

- The 1975 EC referendum

- Maastrict treaty

- Lisbon treaty

In addition to these very important votes, there are an awful lot of absences and no votes on the link you sent. I am really not sure how that site drew the conclusion it did. If it was simply by tallying votes without weighing their importance, that is a bad way to do it.

I am well aware British media is awful, possibly even worse than US media, so I don't really get most of my information from there. When I do read it, I take it with a huge grain of salt. Most of my opinions about Corbyn himself come from watching him in PMQs and in Parliament debates.

> If you divorce personality and ask people about policies... most people agree with Labour's

Entirely possible and I take no issue with any of Labour's positions except on Brexit. If Brexit weren't happening and I were a UK citizen, I could easily see myself voting Labour. As it is, I would probably vote LD.

As for Corbyn, I was merely saying he was on the left side even within his own party in the current day. You are not wrong about the Overton window but it does not change this reality.

Post reply on HN