Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Brexit

If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?


  • Total voters
    1,097


Fungus

Well-known member
NSC Patron
May 21, 2004
7,109
Truro
I am in Cornwall now. Waiting for this rain to bugger off

"It's not normally like this". Lovely as Cornwall is, there's not much to do if the weather's cr@p.

(Except the housework...)
 




boik

Well-known member
While the proportion of business travel to tourism is relatively low, business travel makes up the huge bulk of airline profits from passengers (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...ness-travelers-compared-leisure-travelers.asp). Business travel is all about getting people to face to face meetings or global offices in time and, whilst there is a trend to force staff to use lower cost airlines, in reality simple things like time zones and IT restrictions stop a large number of video conferences. Planes will still fly if there are business people and cheap goods to transport. You can't put the genie of globalisation back in the bottle. And businesses will be able to absorb andy fuel tax rise.

You're trying to blame lads having a bit of fun in Latvia or Poland for a problem caused by global capitalism that won't be going away and sneering at hard working families taking a break somewhere nice.

Thats a bit of a non sequitur. You say that business travel is a low proportion, but then suggest that tourism isn't the problem. The environment doesn't care about how much people pay for their tickets, it's the number of flights and by your reckoning most of them must be for tourism.

Excuse me, I'm not "sneering at anyone". (if anything you'll find me sneering at rich people). Just pointing out the facts of one of the many environmental problems that people continue to ignore because it's uncomfortable.

So you don't argue that people fly more now because it's so cheap. Do we just let people do whatever they want, no matter what the damage? I presume you think that petrol should be untaxed? My original argument was the anomoly of the taxation.
 


cheshunt seagull

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
2,576
However if you are involved in the home based tourist trade its party time as more people from abroad will be able to afford to come here, and spend more money. Plus the fewer people holiday abroad the better for local tourism.

And if you are an exporter of goods it’s Xmas every day at the moment.

TB

If you are an exporter of goods Xmas may end very abruptly on 31 October.
 








SollysLeftFoot

New member
Mar 17, 2019
1,037
Bitchin' in Hitchin
I agree with some of what you say, but cannot understand why petrol is taxed so heavily, and yet aviation fuel is not. Not sure if there's any figures available, but I would hazard a guess that a huge proportion of flying is non-essential. Rich and poor need to be encouraged to stop flying everywhere just because it is cheap. People definitely fly more because it is so cheap. There's no getting around that.

Yeah, let's not do this. Ha! I won't have a job if we start taxing aviation fuel and demand falls :dunce:

But yeah, the idea of an aviation tax has been touted for a while. There are some considerable difficulties in it though, as to whom the tax is paid to.

Petrol tax is easier, because a motorist will pay the tax when he puts the nozzle into his car and pays up front. If my jets are based all over Europe, who do I pay directly to? A similar issue props up with EUETS in terms of carbon emissions for the airline industry, it can be a minefield which I think has been the reason why policy makers have avoided it. Airline/fuel industry has been quick to argue about the complexity of implementing such a tax.

That's not to say the tax is wrong and probably is right. However, I've not seen too much evidence that EUETS is helping fund environmental projects and are nothing more than revenue streams for governments. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-cancel-emission-permits-to-protect-eu-prices Germany is finding a way to ensure prices are as high as they are. Though I'm not convinced these are being used to fund green projects.
 


wellquickwoody

Many More Voting Years
NSC Patron
Aug 10, 2007
13,807
Melbourne
Travelling abroad is far too cheap anyway. Flying to the Baltic for a stag weekend for example is a ridiculous abuse of the environment. Aviation fuel needs taxing asap.

Best you go back to living in a cave, you might be more suited to life there maybe?
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
19,972
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Every few weeks I go on this thread to see if it's improved and come out of it disappointed that people actually BELIEVE that that the whole LEAVE campaign can be brought down to a lunchtime argument over McDonald's or KFC.

What about when you go for the bargain bucket and suddenly realise that you have not only agreed to have lunch there today, tomorrow, next week, next year next century ad infinitum. You have no choice, thats it, you have to have it every day NO MATTER WHAT.

And when the bargain bucket cost doubles, triples, quadruples and increases exponentially by 100x and you are still contracted to get your daily bargain bucket.

The quantity of the chicken content gets less and less and the quality goes downhill but there's nothing you can do about it.

You find out that are subsidising feeding every indigent in the city who work less and less because you're paying for their own bargain bucket every day

Suddenly the freedom of choice at McDs today seems great because if you don't like it, well there's always Burger King, Domino's, Subway and thousands of others you can eat in afterwards because you have a choice of what and where you eat.

I like how you complain about the quality of posts on this thread then come out with a load of made up drivel.
 




Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
36,621
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
Thats a bit of a non sequitur. You say that business travel is a low proportion, but then suggest that tourism isn't the problem. The environment doesn't care about how much people pay for their tickets, it's the number of flights and by your reckoning most of them must be for tourism.

Excuse me, I'm not "sneering at anyone". (if anything you'll find me sneering at rich people). Just pointing out the facts of one of the many environmental problems that people continue to ignore because it's uncomfortable.

So you don't argue that people fly more now because it's so cheap. Do we just let people do whatever they want, no matter what the damage? I presume you think that petrol should be untaxed? My original argument was the anomoly of the taxation.

It's not a non sequitor. Profitability comes from the business sector who will absorb costs to a greater extent. Therefore airlines will continue to subsidise cheap tourist flights out of their business profits and the majoirty of any tax rise would be absorbed right there.

No you're definitely no sneering. You picked out stag weekends on low cost airlines to Esatern Europe purely at random :lol:
 




CHAPPERS

DISCO SPENG
Jul 5, 2003
45,012
[tweet]1156133395044454400[/tweet]

[tweet]1156135940525613057[/tweet]


Superb opportunities outside of the EU!
 






boik

Well-known member
It's not a non sequitor. Profitability comes from the business sector who will absorb costs to a greater extent. Therefore airlines will continue to subsidise cheap tourist flights out of their business profits and the majoirty of any tax rise would be absorbed right there.

No you're definitely no sneering. You picked out stag weekends on low cost airlines to Esatern Europe purely at random :lol:

OK. I'll pick on rich toffs flying to Italy for the opera then. Everyone just ignores the bigger picture when it doesn't suit them. Everyone focuses on their rights to trash the planet, rather than their obligations to do something to help.

I'll apologise for using an expression that enable you to play the class card. There is no NEED for most flights, however rich or poor the people and whatever they do when they get there.
 








JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
Apologies for late reply; three days of family business.

Your announcement that the Leave campaign could only be charged with making a we-can-have-our-cake-and-eat-it claim when one of their spokesmen was actually recorded saying "We can have our cake and eat it" insults the intelligence of anyone with more than two brain cells. It's a generic term not just a literal one as everyone apart from you surely knows. Others have dealt your nonsense very well, but the example of a HOCAEI claim I would have quoted was the most famous claim of all. The £350m for the NHS assumed that we could stop paying that sum of money over to the EU and suffer not a single financial consequence as a result. Cummins magicked that the £350m (wrong in itself) was a net figure, not a gross one. No wonder he now lies at the heart of government.

And are you surprised there was a Boris bounce in the polls? The only surprise most people feel is that it wasn't bigger - even May had a better one. As you say though, it will be interesting to see how things progress.

No problem, I find the more time spent away from this thread the better for one's sanity.

What is it with you lot continually misrepresenting other peoples opinions?... I asked you to define what you meant by 'cake and eat it' I also gave my definition in a reply to another poster. Others complained the Leave campaign focused on the positives (shock horror) and didn't focus on the negatives, just like all sides do in all campaigns claiming this was having your cake and eat it. Ridiculous argument. One also partially quoted some Vote leave claims to distort what they were saying. The £350m for the NHS claim could be criticised for using the supposed gross figure but it was fair to say any money sent to the EU (Billions each year) could instead be spent on the NHS.

As usual, we have the hardcore remainers, who never accepted the result of the 'once in a lifetime referendum', thrashing about for excuses to justify their insistence we have a third democratic event before we leave and suggesting the reason we haven't left yet is because of the leave campaign which is also total bollox. The reason we haven't left is to be found inside the HoC.

Boris Johnson's new PM polling boost is second only to Tony Blair's in modern times

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-pm-polling-boost-second-blairs-modern-times/

The only thing that surprised me is how the new supposed bumbling, clown PM has ruthlessly completely changed the government and hit the ground running, instilling some direction and vigour all in under a week. Tough times ahead of course but the amount of vitriol coming his way from the usual suspects on here and elsewhere suggests he has got off to a good start.

Welcome back btw.
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
25,608
West is BEST
The U.K. is finished. Apart from calling Brexit off, there’s nothing can be done to save us. It’s over. Some people just haven’t realised it yet .

And mark my words, this country will erupt into violence, protest and disorder within hours. No sane person wants No deal.
 
Last edited:


lawros left foot

Glory hunting since 1969
NSC Patron
Jun 11, 2011
13,925
Worthing
Well, with the Pound tanking again, when is Sterling going to stop being soooo negative, and start believing in Great Britain.
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here