# Should Britain leave the EU?



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

Looks like the Tories are desparate to call for a referendum on Britain's EU membership. Should Britain leave and let Johnny Foreigner sort himself out? Or are there some good reasons for Britain staying in the EU, even as the southern half of it seems to be going down the toilet?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

depends who's asking.

Should Britain leave the EU in order to pursue socialist policies that EU rules would not allow? Yes.

Should Britain leave the EU in order to pursue capitalist policies that EU rules would not allow? No.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Looks like the Tories are desparate to call for a referendum on Britain's EU membership. Should Britain leave and let Johnny Foreigner sort himself out? Or are there some good reasons for Britain staying in the EU, even as the southern half of it seems to be going down the toilet?


The tories are desperate for there _not_ to be one - that's why there's a three line whip (lib-dems too,which is 75% against their May2010 manifesto)

Yes, of course we should leave the EU.


----------



## blossie33 (Oct 21, 2011)

Yes, we should never have joined in the first place imo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, of course we should leave the EU.



I wouldn't want Britain leaving the EU with the Tories in power.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wouldn't want Britain leaving the EU with the Tories in power.


None of the parties are going to leave the EU. There is no need to make demands subordinate to the electoral situation-none whatsoever.


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The tories are desperate for there _not_ to be one - that's why there's a three line whip (lib-dems too,which is 75% against their May2010 manifesto)
> 
> Yes, of course we should leave the EU.



The referendum vote is a result of having got a petition of 100,000 together.  Three line whipping publically raised issues, how cynical can you get


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

Yes.

For all the usual reasons; unelected politicians developing EU legislation which supercedes national legislation, massive drain on the UK economy (CAP only benefits France), trade with EU states needn't be diminished ..... etc, etc,


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 21, 2011)

If the UK ever left the EU I would seriously consider changing my nationality. The UK's problem IMO is that it joined the EU half-heartedly and has carried on in this way since.


----------



## elfman (Oct 21, 2011)

Fuchs66 said:


> If the UK ever left the EU I would seriously consider changing my nationality. The UK's problem IMO is that it joined the EU half-heartedly and has carried on in this way since.



Yeh, doesn't it opt out of some regulations? I know it doesn't adopt all the immigration policies anyway...


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wouldn't want Britain leaving the EU with the Tories in power.



I wouldn't exactly want the UK to leave the EU with Labour in power frankly.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 21, 2011)

Yes 'we' should but not out of some nationalist/save the pound guff so beloved of the Tories. That said, (puts on remarkably, wildly over-optimistic hat), if the working class here took power i'm not surer there would be any need for legal niceties such as 'leaving' to be honest.


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2011)

poll should really have the renogtiate/reform option that fence sitters always seem to think is available


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Yes 'we' should but not out of some nationalist/save the pound guff so beloved of the Tories. That said, (puts on remarkably, wildly over-optimistic hat), if the working class here took power i'm not surer there would be any need for legal niceties such as 'leaving' to be honest.


At some stage it will be noted that the pro EU mob, percieve the EU as a nation and have within them views as repugnent as the worst strains of UK nationalism


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 21, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Yes.
> 
> For all the usual reasons; unelected politicians developing EU legislation which supercedes national legislation, massive drain on the UK economy (CAP only benefits France), trade with EU states needn't be diminished ..... etc, etc,


For all it's problems I would rather have the unelected Europeans than the "elected" UK governments of my lifetime. the CAP is a distraction and will eventually be changed, but I think you will find that where the UK might not have a net benefit from it there are significant numbers of people working in the agricultural sector who would suffer. Do you really believe that trade with the EU wont be negatively affected? Speaking of which is the UK a net exporter or importer as far as the EU is concerned?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Let's make lots of arguments as to why leaving/staying in the EU would help the 1% (that's what we call the ruling/capitalist class now)


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 21, 2011)

gosub said:


> At some stage it will be noted that the pro EU mob, percieve the EU as a nation and have within them views as repugnent as the worst strains of UK nationalism


Well if you have some kind of proof of this feel free to share, otherwise I may get the impression you're talking out of your arse.


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2011)

I don't want to turn this into a bun fight mr anti democrat. My experience over the last twelve years or so, they will say anything to advance their cause and they only have to win once coz there is fuck all examples of repatriation of powers.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

gosub said:


> I don't want to turn this into a bun fight mr anti democrat. My experience over the last twelve years or so, they will say anything to advance their cause and they only have to win once coz there is fuck all examples of repatriation of powers.


It's all in the structures already - they made it an 'non-politica'l technocratic thing. And not by accident.

So,if you want to sell your kids down the river so you can slap yourself on he back for drinking outside a cafe and being all free and liberated then by all means vote no.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2011)

I would like to see the EU abolished, and then the UK can be abolished as well.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

Fuchs66 said:


> Do you really believe that trade with the EU wont be negatively affected?



I said "needn't", not "wouldn't". 

It depends on how it's done. Trade relations with EU states could still be maintained via membership of EFTA/EEA. Norway and Switzerland's primary trading partners are EU member states; and the majority of the UK's income is from services such as banking and insurance which wouldn't be affected unless other states took punitive measures. In which case NAFTA beckons!

Edit> And with respect I think it's a little bit mealy-mouthed to dismiss the biggest single waste of money (amounting to some 40% of the total EU budget), the CAP, as a "distraction".


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 21, 2011)

Ah well at least I can vote with my feet, I lived in Germany long enough to get German nationality my kids would like it.


----------



## Zabo (Oct 21, 2011)

For years I was a staunch advocate of the E.U. mainly for the social issues such as the interchange of people, cultural events etc. Now when I see all the eurocats and all their expenses they can stuff it. It's one thing for this parliament not to represent the people but adding a cake with double icing is too much.

And then there's that thing about the cancelled direct vehicle carrying train service from the North West to Paris. If they can't organise that then wtf?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 21, 2011)

Fuchs66 said:


> Ah well at least I can vote with my feet, I lived in Germany long enough to get German nationality my kids would like it.



I could have become a German citizen at 16 (I was born in Germany) but I didn't fancy being conscripted. I think of myself as European. Tbh, I think Germany has more to offer than Britain, which seems to be mired in some post-imperial swamp.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Zabo said:


> For years I was a staunch advocate of the E.U. mainly for the social issues such as the interchange of people, cultural events etc. Now when I see all the eurocats and all their expenses they can stuff it. It's one thing for this parliament not to represent the people but adding a cake with double icing is too much.
> 
> And then there's that thing about the cancelled direct vehicle carrying train service from the North West to Paris. If they can't organise that then wtf?


Does the EU run that train gabo?


----------



## Zabo (Oct 21, 2011)

The funding dumbfuck.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

The EU funded it did they?


----------



## Zabo (Oct 21, 2011)

No they didn't dumbfuck but they did fund:

"The European Investment Bank, the European Union's long-term lending institution, has agreed to provide GBP 500 million for the expansion of Greater Manchester's Metrolink network. The long-term funding, over 30 years, will be used by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority to fund construction of the third phase of the light rail system."


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

So they agreed to fund something entirely different. That's why you are now against it. Loud and clear


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

Zabo said:


> For years I was a staunch advocate of the E.U. mainly for the social issues such as the interchange of people, cultural events etc.



Same here. All this bollocks about national identity has nothing to do with my opposition now.



> Now when I see all the eurocats and all their expenses they can stuff it. It's one thing for this parliament not to represent the people but adding a cake with double icing is too much.


Well said. But it goes further than that. Whilst these toadying unelected bureaucrats are lining their own pockets they're doling out trillions of Euros on things in which we get nary a say (once again I give you the CAP) and can't veto.

Fuck them.


----------



## magneze (Oct 21, 2011)

Yes, we probably should. It's seems to be even less accountable & democratic than our own parliament and we have enough trouble with that lot. Seems a shame as it's been useful for the human rights act and stuff like that, but there's no reason why that had to happen at an EU level tbh.

In idle moments I think that a common currency would be quite useful, but that's been royally fucked up too, so ... nah ... on balance I'm starting to wonder what the supposed advantages are.

Maybe someone could tell us?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2011)

I think it should, yeah.


----------



## Zabo (Oct 21, 2011)

You really are well and truly fucked up inside that little pituitary gland of yours aren't you? You spout off your questions without ever thinking.

The bid for the North West rail link was rejected. The bid for the trams wasn't.

There is no connection between either except the rail link was promised years before the tram system.

I know a commissioning editor at Channel 4. I'm going to ask him to bring back "Blockbusters" and have you asking the questions. You'd probably fuck it up but at least we'd have a laugh.

Oh yes. Anybody with the slightest understanding of psychology would know the reasoning of those who have a penchant for questions.

Funding:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/ne...builds-on-ten-t-revisions/archiv/2011/10.html


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 21, 2011)

I want an independant Scotland to be a member of the EU.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Zabo said:


> You really are well and truly fucked up inside that little pituitary gland of yours aren't you? You spout off your questions without ever thinking.
> 
> The bid for the North West rail link was rejected. The bid for the trams wasn't.
> 
> ...


So, apart from not doing it,they are doing it


----------



## Santino (Oct 21, 2011)

Zabo said:


> You really are well and truly fucked up inside that little pituitary gland of yours aren't you? You spout off your questions without ever thinking.
> 
> The bid for the North West rail link was rejected. The bid for the trams wasn't.
> 
> ...



That vein in your forehead will burst if you're not careful.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Blockbusters was on itv btw gabo.


----------



## chilango (Oct 21, 2011)

I *like* the EU. On a gut, emotional level. I guess I'm one of those who has adopted a sense of "European" identity - in that I don't feel British (or English or Welsh or whatever) but I do feel "European". Like a few others who've moved around and lived and worked in a number of EU states and whose social circles are (and have been for a while) a mixture of EU nationalities. I can (or soon can) probably claim citizenship in two or three EU states.

BUT much of this of course is constructed. Like any sense of national identity, it's a top down agenda hoist upon a set (or sets) of vague emotional stimuli. I willingly embraced the EU agenda way back as a p/t student on the dole, the EU funded me to go on exchanges and study progammes alongside other EU students. I guess there the seeds were sown for going along with this EU nation building project. So, yes, I'm a dupe of it.

However, away from fluffy emotional attachments, it's obvious that the EU machinery is largely a bad thing, and in political terms I don't give a damn for it's survival. I just hope the UK goes the same way.


----------



## Zabo (Oct 21, 2011)

Yes but C4 takes the rejects that's why I thought of you dumbfuck.


----------



## Santino (Oct 21, 2011)

He's probably thinking of 15-to-1.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

magneze said:


> I'm starting to wonder what the supposed advantages are.
> 
> Maybe someone could tell us?



The most commonly cited are security, i.e. to prevent war between member states (now redundant); free market (we can get round that); freedom of movement (the benefits of which are debated); and greater weight in international negotiations, i.e. the combined power of 27 member states (great if all the states agree, which they usually don't).


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Yes but C4 takes the rejects that's why I thought of you dumbfuck.


What sort of itv rejects did C4 take?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Can i have a c please bob?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Yes but C4 takes the rejects that's why I thought of you dumbfuck.



Why are you being so rude. I'm starting to regret agreeing with you up there ^^^.


----------



## spacemonkey (Oct 21, 2011)

What would immediately change if we left the EU?


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> He's probably thinking of 15-to-1.


It's a metaphor for the integration of the European nations!


----------



## Zabo (Oct 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> That vein in your forehead will burst if you're not careful.



Don't be silly. You have to reach the same amount of posts as dumbfuck for that to happen. Can't you tell from his posts that he's suffering from a multitude of cerebral haemorrhages?

tut.


----------



## chilango (Oct 21, 2011)

In true European spirit I'll see your _15 to 1_ and _Blockbusters_ and raise you this:


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

spacemonkey said:


> What would immediately change if we left the EU?


The immediate effects would be on the EU itself  - a eon-liberal monstrosity would be holed below the waterline.


----------



## Zabo (Oct 21, 2011)




----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> The most commonly cited are security, i.e. to prevent war between member states (now redundant); free market (we can get round that); freedom of movement (the benefits of which are debated); and greater weight in international negotiations, i.e. the combined power of 27 member states (great if all the states agree, which they usually don't).



Oh, and .... errr... monetary union!  

This was always a pig-fuckingly stupid idea.


----------



## Zabo (Oct 21, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Why are you being so rude. I'm starting to regret agreeing with you up there ^^^.



Render unto Caesar.....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Zabo said:


>



Thank you for the vid of blockbusters.


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's all in the structures already - they made it an 'non-politica'l technocratic thing. And not by accident.
> 
> So,if you want to sell your kids down the river so you can slap yourself on he back for drinking outside a cafe and being all free and liberated then by all means vote no.


 
I would have liked to reply WTF?????????? but Zabo has me worried about the psycholgy  of asking questions

Bob Holness has had a few strokes so you'd need a new presenter, which if countdown is anything to go by wouldn't be worth it


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Render unto Caesar.....


Misuse of biblical allusion/quote. And one of the top boys too.


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2011)

I'm for leaving too, as has been said, serves the interests of capital more than the rest of us.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

gosub said:


> I would have liked to reply WTF?????????? but Zabo has me worried about the psycholgy of asking questions
> 
> Bob Holness has had a few strokes so you'd need a new presenter, which if countdown is anything to go by wouldn't be worth it


The last line wasn't directed at you gosub, just people voting.The first line was - they knew they'd face revolt at some point so wrote neo-liberalism into the foundations.


----------



## Santino (Oct 21, 2011)

Did he mean 'when in Rome'?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Is that what you meant gabo?


----------



## Santino (Oct 21, 2011)

When I'm in Rome, I always do as the Romans do. So I go to work during the day, and then in the evening I let myself into someone's house.


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2011)

The whole farce of the vote on Lisbon treaty told you all about the democracy. Wrong answer Ireland, keep going until you get in right.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 21, 2011)

chilango said:


> In true European spirit I'll see your _15 to 1_ and _Blockbusters_ and raise you this:


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

JimW said:


> The whole farce of the vote on Lisbon treaty told you all about the democracy. Wrong answer Ireland, keep going until you get in right.


And that's only the public face of the structure.


----------



## spacemonkey (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The immediate effects would be on the EU itself - a eon-liberal monstrosity would be holed below the waterline.



What would those immediate effects be?


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And that's only the public face of the structure.


I'd read a bit about what you were saying earlier about how it was all written into the founding documents, but must admit not very clear on it all.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The immediate effects would be on the EU itself - a eon-liberal monstrosity would be holed below the waterline.


Reason enough for leaving - you're right also.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 21, 2011)

spacemonkey said:


> What would immediately change if we left the EU?



The UK wouldn't be spending 11m quid a day in being a member. All that could be "invested" in loads of lovely front line services.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

spacemonkey said:


> What would those immediate effects be?


The break up of the EU - the rollback of the transnational neo-liberal schemes (regionalised flexible labour by law), germany having to actually fund investment in eastern europe and the balkans


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 21, 2011)

DownwardDog said:


> The UK wouldn't be spending 11m quid a day in being a member. *All that could be "invested" in loads of lovely front line services.*



yeah right


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

Why would the EU break up if the UK left? A relative latecomer to the EU, which many in Europe didn't want to join at all (de Gaulle), and which has not joined in with monetary union. Surely the EU could carry on without the UK.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why would the EU break up if the UK left? A relative latecomer to the EU, which many in Europe didn't want to join at all (de Gaulle), and which has not joined in with monetary union. Surely the EU could carry on without the UK.


Because there would be non confidence left - it's breaking apart now with Germany acting the neo-mercantile master and half the other members having to keep it shut. If the UK goes,it goes. .


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2011)

I can't see it lasting another 20 years tbh.


----------



## agricola (Oct 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why would the EU break up if the UK left? A relative latecomer to the EU, which many in Europe didn't want to join at all (de Gaulle), and which has not joined in with monetary union. Surely the EU could carry on without the UK.



What butchers said - once one nation jumps, others will (or will threaten to do so in order to gain concessions).  Nor would it necessarily be a bad thing if it did die, tbh.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2011)

Which country do you think will be the first to go butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Which country do you think will be the first to go butchers?


Right now,i gen do not know. There are still benefits to be in there now- south europe cannot keep giving Germany money though,so i'm looking that way...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

agricola said:


> What butchers said - once one nation jumps, others will (or will threaten to do so in order to gain concessions). Nor would it necessarily be a bad thing if it did die, tbh.



Depends how the eurozone goes in the next few years. If it goes in the direction of fiscal union, I would say that the UK jumping or not would become increasingly irrelevant.

I can't see how the euro can survive, personally, without some kind of fiscal union. Then the question becomes: who sets the taxes? At the moment we have an effective situation of 'one euro, one vote': the richer the country is, the more say it has over fiscal matters. Clearly that's profoundly undemocratic. How you fix that, I'm not too sure. The Germans would be loathe to move towards a 'one person, one vote' EU, I would have thought, but perhaps they would have little choice.

This also goes back to my original point - it depends why the UK is leaving. If the UK leaves because a batshit right-wing tory party advocated it, I could see that being spun as 'good riddance' by the rest of the EU.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

> without some kind of fiscal union


 - before imagining this is happening, ask what needs to happen for it to be possible. Not a sinlgle thing of the required boxes is ticked. It's a political impossibility - and it's not wanted by germany or france. They love ripping off the w/c of other countries in a protected manner.


----------



## agricola (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> - before imagining this is happening, ask what needs to happen for it to be possible. Not a sinlgle thing of the required boxes is ticked. It's a political impossibilityp - and it's not wanted by germany or france.



Which is the problem the Euro faces - noone wants to do the very thing that is required for the Euro to actually work.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Destroy gemany


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> - before imagining this is happening, ask what needs to happen for it to be possible. Not a sinlgle thing of the required boxes is ticked. It's a political impossibility - and it's not wanted by germany or france. They love ripping off the w/c of other countries in a protected manner.


No, but what you get is fiscal union by default with the big boys and girls telling the rest what to do - what's happening now but more so.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, but what you get is fiscal union by default with the big boys and girls telling the rest what to do - what's happening now but more so.


So,what is your point then?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's a political impossibility - and it's not wanted by germany or france. They love ripping off the w/c of other countries in a protected manner.


Which 1st world country doesn't do this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So,what is your point then?


That the way this is happening at the moment is nakedly undemocratic. I would think that as measures of this kind of 'de facto' union increase, a point would be reached where the governments of places like Greece, Spain or Ireland would be asked the question: who governs? At some point, if you're going to have a United States of Europe, you'd need to have a discussion of how such a thing will be constituted.

The end of the EU could be very different from complete disintegration. It could be the creation of a USE with a fully renegotiated constitution, with anyone like the UK who is not involved left with little more than a trade agreement.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That the way this is happening at the moment is nakedly undemocratic. I would think that as measures of this kind of 'de facto' union increase, a point would be reached where the governments of places like Greece, Spain or Ireland would be asked the question: who governs? At some point, if you're going to have a United States of Europe, you'd need to have a discussion of how such a thing will be constituted.


So again,wtf has that to do with my posts? Whats your 'no' for?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Actually this is democracy in action.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Fuchs66 said:


> Which 1st world country doesn't do this?


Again so what? The EU is structured to do this -it formalises and  helps this along.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So again,wtf has that to do with my posts? Whats your 'no' for?


Stop getting shirty, please. It has a great deal to do with your contention that fiscal union is a political impossibility. I could see it quickly becoming seen as a political _necessity_. If I were pushing for a USE in places like Greece, I'd be stressing the fact that they need to get to a situation where they have a political say on the basis of their population not their bank balance. There's a strong case, I think, for pushing for far greater union on the basis that this would stop Germany and France from dominating.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Right now,i gen do not know. There are still benefits to be in there now- south europe cannot keep giving Germany money though,so i'm looking that way...



Fair enough, this may sound really stupid but by giving Germany money do you mean paying the debt yeah? Or something else?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

{btw,wtf is wrong with people who say that because something does something it's fine. _Of course a giant worm released from a concrete hell is going to eat the world - what would you expect a giant worm released from a concrete hell to do?_ It's what it does}


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Stop getting shirty, please. It has a great deal to do with your contention that fiscal union is a political impossibility. I could see it quickly becoming seen as a political _necessity_. If I were pushing for a USE in places like Greece, I'd be stressing the fact that they need to get to a situation where they have a political say on the basis of their population not their bank balance. There's a strong case, I think, for pushing for far greater union on the basis that this would stop Germany and France from dominating.


So, something entirely different that doesn't involve the EU. France and germay-itself an utter impossibility


----------



## girasol (Oct 21, 2011)

what happens to all the Europeans living here if Britain leaves the EU?  And to all the Brits living in Costa del Sol?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2011)

A fiscal union would stop France and Germany (and Britain for that matter) playing the "central" role they have in driving more EU integration for that matter. I don't see France etc giving up that power that easily.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

girasol said:


> what happens to all the Europeans living here if Britain leaves the EU? And to all the Brits living in Costa del Sol?


Nothing


----------



## weltweit (Oct 21, 2011)

Many of the CE standards that Europe have driven through have helped bring our product manufacturing up to date and made them more marketable within the European Union. We need to be fighting our corner in the next rounds of harmonisation if we are not to lose out by having regulations designed by our competitors for their own benefit.

We are in Europe, we are a European Nation, no getting away from it and our primary trading partners are continental european partners. That said I am not in favour of us joining the Euro. I just don't see the point.


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2011)

Giving money to Germany is largely the way its capital flooded into Greece and Spain and turned a profit while fucking the locals isn't it?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2011)

Ah OK. Gotcha


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2011)

Best ask someone who actually knows.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

Interesting results so far. If there were a referendum I think the votes cast here would be similar to ones across the country and Britain would be out. Why is Cameron holding out, I thought the tories were an anti-European party at heart?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Interesting results so far. If there were a referendum I think the votes cast here would be similar to ones across the country and Britain would be out. Why is Cameron holding out, I thought the tories were an anti-European party at heart?


Are you fucking kidding?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Interesting results so far. If there were a referendum I think the votes cast here would be similar to ones across the country and Britain would be out. Why is Cameron holding out, I thought the tories were an anti-European party at heart?



I think the stay in Europe campaign would be much the stronger argument.

The leave the EU campaign is like a "little england" policy and we would be a little england without the EU.  In fact it would be hilarious, Ireland in the EU, Scotland and Wales would also be but little England they think they know better..... ha


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Are you fucking kidding?



No, I'm not. That's why they need a three line whip to stop them voting for a referendum.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Yes. Tye UK would not be in the EU but wales and scotland would be. It would be a nonsense wouldn't it?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 21, 2011)

I'm all for more union within Europe, something along the lines of a Federation of States with a central, democratically elected government. I doubt whether it would happen any time soon but I can dream.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> No, I'm not. That's why they need a three line whip to stop them voting for a referendum.


A three line whip by who? The anti-tories ?Why would business people like a model that helps business people? I just don't know.


----------



## Lea (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nothing



Would the European law of freedom of movement of people within the EU still apply to the UK if the UK left the EU?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Lea said:


> Would the European law of freedom of movement of people within the EU still apply to the UK if the UK left the EU?


Of course not.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A three line whip by who? The anti-tories ?Why would business people like a model that helps business people? I just don't know.



Because some of them think Britain would do better business if it wasn't in the EU.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Because some of them think Britain would do better business if it wasn't in the EU.


Yes, how many more think different. Add them up. What's the answer? "

'the tories' ffs.


----------



## Lea (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Of course not.



But didn't you just say that nothing happens to Europeans living in Britain and Britains living in the Costa del Sol if UK were to leave the EU? Would they not have to apply for visa to remain in the foreign country?


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 21, 2011)

It's just occurred to me I have never voted in a euro election and don't ever recall being sent polling cards for one, despite being (till recently) on the electoral role.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Lea said:


> But didn't you just say that nothing happens to Europeans living in Britain and Britains living in the Costa del Sol if UK were to leave the EU? Would they not have to apply for visa to remain in the foreign country?


Nothing will happen because it's not going to happen.I don't know the rules they got there under will still apply. legal bollocks aside there will be no mass explusion.No one is leaving the EU


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, how many more think different. Add them up. What's the answer? "
> 
> 'the tories' ffs.



We'll see on Monday if they've managed to kill off all their eurosceptics, or at least keep them quiet to please the Lib Dems and not risk splitting up the coalition.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

Fuchs66 said:


> I'm all for more union within Europe, something along the lines of a Federation of States with a central, democratically elected government.



Why?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> We'll see on Monday if they've managed to kill off all their eurosceptics, or at least keep them quiet to please the Lib Dems and not risk splitting up the coalition.


Yeah,this is what the tories want.You have this so upside down it's mental.You don't even know what monday is.

They want it so bad that they'ee using every trick they can to fight it.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Many of the CE standards that Europe have driven through have helped bring our product manufacturing up to date and made them more marketable within the European Union. We need to be fighting our corner in the next rounds of harmonisation if we are not to lose out by having regulations designed by our competitors for their own benefit.



That seems to be part of the problem with where we are now - the UK government always seems to be whingeing on the sidelines rather than actually participating in the whole damn thing.

Good things about the EU - it has led to some human rights / equalities / workers rights laws getting into UK law that the tories would probably like to do away with and at the moment they can't.

In theory, the whole freedom of movement thing is good as well, although in general there's the difficulty in squaring the (broadly left) view that working people ought to be allowed to cross national boundaries freely without it leading to the newest arrivals being exploited the most by the bosses and landlords while at the same time getting scapegoated for the bosses' actions of lowering wages and raising rents.

Bad things - the vast amount of money that disappears into the bureaucracy / to the politicians

Questionable things - some of the laws generated, although I do treat reports like "Europe forces farmers to grow square green strawberries" with a certain degree of caution.

In answer to the original question, I'm damned if I know.  I'm sufficiently old, old labour enough in general politics to be slightly euro-sceptic in the first place.

I don't go along with the "save the pound, stop johnny foreigner telling us what to do" style of euro-scepticism.

I don't think the current set-up is right, but far from convinced that the isolationist little england approach would do us a lot of good.


----------



## Lea (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nothing will happen because it's not going to happen.I don't know the rules they got there under will still apply. legal bollocks aside there will be no mass explusion.No one is leaving the EU



Yeah, I doubt that any country will leave the EU but if they did they can't enjoy the benefits such as freedom of movement and trade without being a member.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

The people voting down this bill (pointless non binding backbench bill) are the tories.They must fucking love it it really.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Lea said:


> Yeah, I doubt that any country will leave the EU but if they did they can't enjoy the benefits such as freedom of movement and trade without being a member.


I don't know.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah,this is what the tories want.You have this so upside down it's mental.You don't even know what monday is.
> 
> They want it so bad that they'ee using every trick they can to fight it.



Well, the leadership are certainly worried that there might be a yes vote for a referendum if all their eurosceptics decide to piss off Cameron for letting Fox go.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Well, the leadership are certainly worried that there might be a yes vote if all their eurosceptics decide to piss off Cameron for letting Fox go.


Got them numbers yet jones?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Got them numbers yet jones?



I thought the vote was on Monday, Mr. Mannering.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

It is.How many tory MPs are there?How many potential rebels? Get it?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It is.How many tory MPs are there?How many potential rebels? Get it?



Tell us then, Mystic Meg.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Numbers citrone -nu,m-ber-s


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Tell us then, Mystic Meg.


You started this thread and you've done the most basic research?Well,it's lot more than the rebels. By about 600%.But the tiny people who vote yes are 'the tories'.


----------



## past caring (Oct 21, 2011)

It's all hypotheticals (leaving the EU) but just to clarify - whilst future freedom of movement and other Community rights would doubtless/inevitably end if the UK left, it would be unlikely to affect anyone already here - EU nationals did not have a right to move to the UK under EU law alone, the UK govet also had to amend and introduce domestic legislation to give effect to those rights, so those who have come here to live and work have done so under both EU and domestic law. Under domestic law any changes to legislation that the UK govt introduced on leaving the EU would be difficult (if not impossible) to apply retrospectively.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 21, 2011)

past caring said:


> It's all hypotheticals (leaving the EU) but just to clarify - whilst future freedom of movement and other Community rights would doubtless/inevitably end if the UK left, it would be unlikely to affect anyone already here - EU nationals did not have a right to move to the UK under EU law alone, the UK govet also had to amend and introduce domestic legislation to give effect to those rights, so those who have come here to live and work have done so under both EU and domestic law. Under domestic law any changes to legislation that the UK govt introduced on leaving the EU would be difficult (if not impossible) to apply retrospectively.



While you are getting so excited about the free movement of people, don't forget "products and services", we rely on our products and services being able to get to our customers in Continental Europe.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

'we'?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Tell us then, Mystic Meg.


You're a total fucking ill-informed idiot.I hate you, you laugh at the mail readers for doing exactly what you do. Put your clown helmet on and fuck off.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You started this thread and you've done the most basic research?Well,it's lot more than the rebels. By about 600%.But the tiny people who vote yes are 'the tories'.



Sorry, didn't realise I was expected to do any research before asking if people wanted Britain to stay in the EU. I'll conduct some market research before I post any more threads here. Anyway, 19 people have voted yes, so that means there are only three tory rebels if that's 600% more. I think there are a few more than that. Possibly two thirds of the party.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're a total fucking ill-informed idiot.I hate you, you laugh at the mail readers for doing exactly what you do. Put your clown helmet on and fuck off.



Have you suffered some kind of brain injury?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So, something entirely different that doesn't involve the EU. France and germay-itself an utter impossibility



No. Something that does involve France and Germany. Something that involves turning the eurozone into a united states of Europe, with France and Germany still in it.

Is that an utter impossibility? At the moment, France and particularly Germany are served really very well by being in the euro in that it keeps their exports flying out. How far would they be prepared to cede power to new democratic structures in order to keep that happening? I don't know, but I can at least see the possibility. The USA and elsewhere show that a federal structure can easily maintain rich and poor areas within it.

I'm really speculating here, but I can see the potential for the relevant self-interests to be served by the creation of a federal European state.


----------



## Lea (Oct 21, 2011)

past caring said:


> It's all hypotheticals (leaving the EU) but just to clarify - whilst future freedom of movement and other Community rights would doubtless/inevitably end if the UK left, it would be unlikely to affect anyone already here - EU nationals did not have a right to move to the UK under EU law alone, the UK govet also had to amend and introduce domestic legislation to give effect to those rights, so those who have come here to live and work have done so under both EU and domestic law. Under domestic law any changes to legislation that the UK govt introduced on leaving the EU would be difficult (if not impossible) to apply retrospectively.



What about Brits living in EU countries? Would it be reciprocal? Would they have the right to continue living there? Would they have to regularise their stay? It would be a mess. In any case it would make it difficult to move to an EU country to work and live if you wanted to in the future.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Oct 21, 2011)

No - a connection with EU is necessary. Maybe not in the entirity of the present form, but breaking off from it is a very bad idea.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Sorry, didn't realise I was expected to do any research before asking if people wanted Britain to stay in the EU. I'll conduct some market research before I post any more threads here. Anyway, 19 people have voted yes, so that means there are only three tory rebels if that's 600% more. I think there are a few more than that. Possibly two thirds of the party.



You could be expected to get whether the tories supported it right, given that it's the point of your OP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

Lea said:


> What about Brits living in EU countries? Would it be reciprocal? Would they have the right to continue living there? Would they have to regularise their stay? It would be a mess. In any case it would make it difficult to move to an EU country to work and live if you wanted to in the future.


No it wouldn't. You'd just maintain reciprocal agreements much as they are now. The Swiss have no problems moving around Europe.


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2011)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I don't think the current set-up is right, but far from convinced that the isolationist little England approach would do us a lot of good.



I think closest to it would be Henry VIII vs Pope, after which we had a Renaissance while the rest of Europe had the Spanish Inquisition, would be haven whilst the forthcoming argy bargy kicks off. And there will be argy bargy, already is, if you read Demitris posts; there are no solutions on offer that are both politically and market acceptable, so it will get messy.
Quite disgusted our government is boosting for market being the important thing, rather than the people, its so short sighted. If they don't take the people with them then it isn't really a solution. And while it keeps the wolf from the door in the time being, the underpinnings are so bad, the wolf will be back in 6 months or so and EUrope will be dealing with him again this time without principals.

Leaving the EU will have issues for those on Schengen visas and I think leaving would mid term lead to net migration. So be it, its not racism driving me to want out of the EU, its the unaccountable behemoth of the thing that can't stay benign, I want rid of


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> While you are getting so excited about the free movement of people, don't forget "products and services", we rely on our products and services being able to get to our customers in Continental Europe.



Its not a simple question of whether they can get there, its the detail of what barriers stand in their way. Tariffs, regulations, etc. And one mans freedom may be anothers inability to defend themselves. Ooh a paradise of happy consumers and businessmen & work for people to do. Vs unhappy workers in another country who were stripped bare by the forces of competition, left to fend for themselves in the marketplace. A race to the bottom for many, a nice little earner for some.

personally I have mixed feelings about all this stuff. The concept of freedom needs to be separated  into many different things in over to discuss properly, and our entire attitude towards competition needs to be dismantled and rebuild from a perspective that is not twisted by certain interests.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You could be expected to get whether the tories supported it right, given that it's the point of your OP.



No, the point of my OP was to ask people on urban if they thought Britain should leave the EU. I, like you, don't really know what the rank and file of the tory party really think about this, although going by their previous track record we could assume that they are a tad eurosceptic.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> No, the point of my OP was to ask people on urban if they thought Britain should leave the EU. I, like you, don't really know what the rank and file of the tory party really think about this, although going by their previous track record we could assume that they are a tad eurosceptic.


So why open with



> Looks like the Tories are desparate to call for a referendum on Britain's EU membership


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

The EU's a bit of a non-issue for the Tory party now, isn't it? The crisis in the eurozone allows Cameron to point at it and say 'look, we're well out of that, and we're staying out'. It's a bit of a bonus for him to be able to neutralise the eurosceptics in his party like that, I would have thought, certainly very different from the 1990s when the party was split over monetary union.


----------



## Zabo (Oct 21, 2011)

This country will never leave the E.U. unless forced. Look at the mess they made of the Lisbon Treaty. Promises, promises.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The EU's a bit of a non-issue for the Tory party now, isn't it? The crisis in the eurozone allows Cameron to point at it and say 'look, we're well out of that, and we're staying out'. It's a bit of a bonus for him to be able to neutralise the eurosceptics in his party like that, I would have thought, certainly very different from the 1990s when the party was split over monetary union.


 The EU is the party splitter. It's not dead.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Zabo said:


> This country will never leave the E.U. unless forced. Look at the mess they made of the Lisbon Treaty. Promises, promises.



What promises?


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2011)

elbows said:


> <snip>
> 
> personally I have mixed feelings about all this stuff. The concept of freedom needs to be separated into many different things in over to discuss properly, and our entire attitude towards competition needs to be dismantled and rebuild from a perspective that is not twisted by certain interests.


And the whole neoliberal project builds on that association of freedom with the "free market" that Hayek was so keen on - the ground of the debate was shifted under us a long time back.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The EU is the party splitter. It's not dead.


You reckon? When was the last time you heard a senior tory dissenting over the EU?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You reckon? When was the last time you heard a senior tory dissenting over the EU?


Today


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Looks like the Tories are desparate to call for a referendum on Britain's EU membership. Should Britain leave and let Johnny Foreigner sort himself out? Or are there some good reasons for Britain staying in the EU, even as the southern half of it seems to be going down the toilet?



Like the rest of my post, it was slightly tongue in cheek. You know, the Johnny Foreigner bit, and the southern half of Europe going down the toilet. I still think the majority of the tory party probably are eurosceptics, but Cameron has his reasons for not letting them off the leash.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Today


Who?

eta: actually, I've not been following this particular irrelevance (the whipped vote). If anyone's going to sound off it will be now, won't it?

But at other times recently, I've heard very little about Europe, either pro or anti, from the Tories or the Libdems.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who?


More than one-have you not heard the MPs they'll 'defy' the whip? Do you not know the parties history?


----------



## Zabo (Oct 21, 2011)

Tories: "Eurosceptics in his own party have accused him of reneging on a "cast iron" guarantee made in 2007 to hold a referendum on any treaty that emerged from EU talks if he became prime minister."

Labour: "We will put [the EU constitutional Treaty] to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

What a mad world you live in lbj


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Tories: "Eurosceptics in his own party have accused him of reneging on a "cast iron" guarantee made in 2007 to hold a referendum on any treaty that emerged from EU talks if he became prime minister."
> 
> Labour: "We will put [the EU constitutional Treaty] to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."


Year that


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It is.How many tory MPs are there?How many potential rebels? Get it?


so far 65 I think. If Sir Humphrey was right about the number of MP's in Parliament being capable of holding a government role, and 65 is correct, coalition will be hard pressed to do a five year stretch

eta:
Actual list here though party membership not listed


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> More than one-have you not heard the MPs they'll 'defy' the whip? Do you not know the parties history?


Sorry, as I said, not been following the news today. But after this vote has taken place and the various backbenchers have defied the whip, won't the issue go back onto the backburners?

Some mps - Bill Cash and his ilk - are bound to defy the whip. But does Cameron have to worry about them? I'm slightly surprised they're whipping this, tbh. It might have been a chance to give the skeptics their day in the sun before they're pushed back into the shade.


----------



## Red Faction (Oct 21, 2011)

No man is an island, entire of itself; 
Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. 
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What a mad world you live in lbj


You might be right. We'll see.


----------



## past caring (Oct 21, 2011)

Red Faction said:


> No man is an island, entire of itself;
> Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main.
> If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...



There's a few clods round here I'd be glad to see the back of.


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2011)

The EU is much like the system of global capitalism that we have now. Its hard to imagine it being dislodged so long as it still works in the interests of those who have the power to get their way. But if it becomes unfit for purpose then it can die pretty damn quickly.

The eurosceptic wing of the tory party has never been strong enough to take us out of the EU, certainly not since the splitting off into UKIP, and even less so at a time when the tories are in coalition with the lib-dems. What the broader tory party would like to do is remove those pesky non-buiness human rights type things, but even thats a challenge when they need to lib-dems to stay in power.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> No - a connection with EU is necessary. Maybe not in the entirity of the present form, but breaking off from it is a very bad idea.



Why?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2011)

elbows said:


> The EU is much like the system of global capitalism that we have now. Its hard to imagine it being dislodged so long as it still works in the interests of those who have the power to get their way. But if it becomes unfit for purpose then it can die pretty damn quickly.
> 
> The eurosceptic wing of the tory party has never been strong enough to take us out of the EU, certainly not since the splitting off into UKIP, and even less so at a time when the tories are in coalition with the lib-dems. What the broader tory party would like to do is remove those pesky non-buiness human rights type things, but even thats a challenge when they need to lib-dems to stay in power.



I think the EU can already do that tbh and i'd be very surprised if there wasnt some sort of proviso for it in the original bill. I have a bit of trouble taking the EU as some kind of bastion/safeguard of human rights given events across every country in Europe recently ...


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I think the EU can already do that tbh and i'd be very surprised if there wasnt some sort of proviso for it in the original bill.



Already do what?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2011)

Already suspend/ignore human rights regulations.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Oct 21, 2011)

The EU is a smashing idea but its been so badly and corruptly run that its really an institution which needs abolishing. All I see it as being now is just another strata for a European wide political class to further their own ambitions. The pushing of the Euro project is a perfect example of just how daft it all become. I am not against the idea of having a single currency for Europe but the implementation of it should have been the final act of creating a fully federal Europe some decades from now. Instead its going to the issue that tears the continent apart once again with all the possible downsides that this brings with it.


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Already suspend/ignore human rights regulations.



Ahh right, got confused and thought you were responding to the first part of what I said, and I was left wondering whether the EU had a built in 'fail and die' procedure 

As for human rights, it depends which ones we are talking about. Given that a number of european countries appear to have a reputation for police violence that manages to exceed ours, I certainly doubt that everyone saw the EU as natural sponsors of a full set of genuine human rights. Its more a case of harmonising 'what can be gotten away with' and this naturally involves countries such as ours having to give up certain particular forms of injustice that in many cases only survived to this day as a result of historical quirks anyway. The powers that be are not going to tie one hand behind their back, and those tories that squark otherwise have not learnt to use their imagination to form a newer, more modern fist as a replacement. The real power that counts doesn't need to pay lip service to these throwbacks, especially as doing so can get in the way of the wider agenda.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 21, 2011)

It's been a total fuck-up and a total waste of money, the few benefits it brings the UK could be maintained without formal membership and for that reason we should be out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2011)

gosub said:


> At some stage it will be noted that the pro EU mob, percieve the EU as a nation and have within them views as repugnent as the worst strains of UK nationalism



And "euro-nationalist will have a somewhat different meaning to what it has now.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2011)

But not that different.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Oct 21, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> It's been a total fuck-up and a total waste of money, the few benefits it brings the UK could be maintained without formal membership and for that reason we should be out.


There is that, but why can't we have formal membership (part of EU) without the waste of money & needless bureaucracy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Oh, and .... errr... monetary union!
> 
> This was always a pig-fuckingly stupid idea.



Depends in what context, IMO. A "trade currency" could have been a better idea, but it wouldn't (and didn't) fit the political agenda for European union, which (whatever the original intentions of our elected politicians) has always pushed for full union.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> There is that, but why can't we have formal membership (part of EU) without the waste of money & needless bureaucracy?



Eh?


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Depends in what context, IMO. A "trade currency" could have been a better idea, but it wouldn't (and didn't) fit the political agenda for European union, which (whatever the original intentions of our elected politicians) has always pushed for full union.



Well in so much as there has ever been a singular political agenda for the EU, it would tend towards full union because no single european country remained a world superpower, and because it is impossible to separate economics from politics. For the latter reason I have little sympathy with the position that the EU would somehow not infringe on our politics if it were a purely trade/market affair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Destroy gemany



The problem is that destroying Germany is so _passé_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2011)

Lea said:


> Yeah, I doubt that any country will leave the EU but if they did they can't enjoy the benefits such as freedom of movement and trade without being a member.



Freedom of movement is a bit of a farce from a UK perspective anyway, what with not being part of Schengen.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Freedom of movement is a bit of a farce from a UK perspective anyway, what with not being part of Schengen.



References to freedom of movement are more about movement of labour in this context though, no?  Schengen relates to travel.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> References to freedom of movement are more about movement of labour in this context though, no? Schengen relates to travel.



The one has an effect on the other, though.
Of course, in terms of movement of labour, busines (great and small) would not be pleased to in effect lose a ready source of labour/ready source of undermining native labour either.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course, in terms of movement of labour, busines (great and small) would not be pleased to in effect lose a ready source of labour/ready source of undermining native labour either.



Well yes, that's one side of the argument!


----------



## weltweit (Oct 21, 2011)

elbows said:


> Its not a simple question of whether they can get there, its the detail of what barriers stand in their way. Tariffs, regulations, etc. And one mans freedom may be anothers inability to defend themselves. Ooh a paradise of happy consumers and businessmen & work for people to do. Vs unhappy workers in another country who were stripped bare by the forces of competition, left to fend for themselves in the marketplace. A race to the bottom for many, a nice little earner for some.



European standards have had the effect of making us all more competitive in the wider world. CE marking is accepted wide away because it implies safety and fitness for purpose. If we leave that group it will be harder for us to influence what regulations come out in the future and we will have less time to react to them compared to our competitors in the common market.


----------



## doddles (Oct 21, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> It depends on how it's done. Trade relations with EU states could still be maintained via membership of EFTA/EEA. Norway and Switzerland's primary trading partners are EU member states; and the majority of the UK's income is from services such as banking and insurance which wouldn't be affected unless other states took punitive measures. In which case NAFTA beckons!


Problem is, the UK would be bound by all the same EU trade laws, etc. in order to be part of the EFTA/EEA, but would have no say in the making or changing of those rules. What would that buy the UK?

From a personal perspective, I look across the channel and ask myself "would I rather live over there or over here?" The answer for me is over there. If the UK withdrew from the EU, the first thing I'd be doing is trying to get an EU passport.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2011)

Good bye doddles


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2011)

doddles said:


> Problem is, the UK would be bound by all the same EU trade laws, etc. in order to be part of the EFTA/EEA, but would have *no say* in the making or changing of those rules.



Who has a say now, do you?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 21, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Who has a say now, do you?



Now British representatives are on the panels that create standards and legislation and can form it in ways that advantages our businesses - or does not disadvantage us seriously.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Now British representatives are on the panels that create standards and legislation and can form it in ways that advantages our businesses - or does not disadvantage us seriously.


who's this 'us'? what's good for my boss is usually bad for me.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

doddles said:


> Problem is, the UK would be bound by all the same EU trade laws ...



"Trade laws" being the important bit, and that excludes the ones related to agriculture and fishing.

Where's the problem with that?



> What would that buy the UK?



OUT of a *100 BILLION* EUR a year (60 billion Euro net loss - a grand a year for every man, woman, and child in the UK-) drain for one thing, with additional benefits as already mentioned.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 21, 2011)

discokermit said:


> who's this 'us'? what's good for my boss is usually bad for me.



But what is good for your company is usually good for you.

When the CE regulations first started to come into force I was working in a small company that really struggled to implement them. But we did make our products comply and then we had a market of 300,000,000 across Europe which we could sell to more effectively than before. It raised our standards and openned markets to us.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Who has a say now, do you?



I didn't post what you've quoted there. Don't know how that happened.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I didn't post what you've quoted there. Don't know how that happened.



my fault poor editing


----------



## weltweit (Oct 21, 2011)

It has to be said also, that CE marking regulations are also a barrier to trade for non EC businesses, USA and the far east for example were slowed by CE marking. If we are in we have a good market, if we are out we may have trouble accessing those customers.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Now British representatives are on the panels that create standards and legislation and can form it in ways that advantages our businesses - or does not disadvantage us seriously.



Look you're a div, please leave this discussion to those who know what they're talking about.

Or if I'm being nice - explain how these representatives of ~British business represent *US*


----------



## Lea (Oct 21, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> References to freedom of movement are more about movement of labour in this context though, no? Schengen relates to travel.



Agree. Also schengen visa is for people who need visa to get into EU and does not concern people within the EU.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 21, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Look you're a div, please leave this discussion to those who know what they're talking about.
> 
> Or if I'm being nice - explain how these representatives of ~British business represent *US*



Not sure I can be bothered tbh


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But what is good for your company is usually good for you.



Actually fuck it - you're an idiot.


----------



## Lea (Oct 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The one has an effect on the other, though.



As said above, Schengen visa is for people outside the EU. Freedom of movement of people concerns people within the EU who travel between member states to live and work.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Not sure I can be bothered tbh



Good.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It has to be said also, that CE marking regulations are also a barrier to trade for non EC businesses, USA and the far east for example were slowed by CE marking. If we are in we have a good market, if we are out we may have trouble accessing those customers.



I think you may have an errant view of CE marking, Weltweit.

All products sold into the EEA from outside require CE marking, as well as _some_ products (usually safety related) traded internally. All it is is a declaration by the manufacturer of the goods that they comply with EU requirements for those products. A manufacturer is not *required* to be within an EU member state to CE mark their products. Indeed, a perceived benefit of being within a member state is that many products _do not_ require CE marking if traded within the union.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

.


----------



## agricola (Oct 21, 2011)

I see that titan of politics known as Milibean has weighed in to the debate:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/21/ed-miliband-david-cameron-europe


----------



## weltweit (Oct 21, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I think you may have an errant view of CE marking, Weltweit.
> 
> All products sold into the EEA from outside require CE marking, as well as _some_ products (usually safety related) traded internally. All it is is a declaration by the manufacturer of the goods that they comply with EU requirements for those products. A manufacturer is not *required* to be within an EU member state to CE mark their products. Indeed, a perceived benefit of being within a member state is that many products _do not_ require CE marking if traded within the union.



In the sector where I worked no one would buy a product that did not have a CE mark.


----------



## Dhimmi (Oct 21, 2011)

Skewed question to make it appear a Tory plot related to zenophobia. The EU is a corporate fortress state and for the left to support it is ridiculous... gravy train anyone?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

Dhimmi said:


> Skewed question to make it appear a Tory plot related to zenophobia. The EU is a corporate fortress state and for the left to support it is ridiculous... gravy train anyone?



Those tories have always had it in for Buddhism.


----------



## Dhimmi (Oct 21, 2011)

Well Sid Arthur from the East End was always a unionist


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> In the sector where I worked no one would buy a product that did not have a CE mark.



I'm sure that's the case, which is why you've posted as you have. 

Would I be correct in suggesting that your sector involved the supply of kit with a safety aspect?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 21, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I'm sure that's the case, which is why you've posted as you have.
> 
> Would I be correct in suggesting that your sector involved the supply of kit with a safety aspect?



You would be correct.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> You would be correct.





The CE mark is a statement by the supplier that the goods meet a minimum EU acceptable standard. It's only _required_ for Intra-EU transactions involving goods in certain categories, generally safety related; medical equipment, boilers, etc, (stuff that needs to comply with EU health and safety legislation), which are subject to shit-loads of specific national regulation anyway. So CE marking is, arguably, just another artificial layer of EU legislation for the sake of justifying/paying fat cunts salaries in Brussels.

A cynic would say it's a load of bollocks, and an excellent example of corporate crooks, aided and abetted by unelected politicos on kickbacks, generating revenue.

*A**ll* goods imported to the EEA from non-member states are required to be CE certified, but it's basically self certification (read: buy an import licence ) by the importer in conjunction with the manufacturer (as opposed to a genuine, officially regulated process), so is of limited relevance in the context of the UK's withdrawal from the EU.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 22, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Looks like the Tories are desparate to call for a referendum on Britain's EU membership. Should Britain leave and let Johnny Foreigner sort himself out? Or are there some good reasons for Britain staying in the EU, even as the southern half of it seems to be going down the toilet?



Fucked if I know why you hold that view. Cameron the cunt is imposing a three line whip against a referendum.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But what is good for your company is usually good for you.


Amazing.

You wouldn't want to purchase a bridge by any chance? Or send a Nigerian friend  of mine some money?


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 22, 2011)

I have always thought that it will all end in tears.The ecc is unmanageable too many interests working against each other.I voted to stay in but look at the problems the euro is causing


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 22, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> Fucked if I know why you hold that view. *Cameron the cunt* is imposing a three line whip against a referendum.



Cameron the cunt who's also desparate for his own party not to implode in his own face?

'Strategy' may not quite work ...


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 22, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Cameron the cunt who's also desparate for his own party not to implode in his own face?
> 
> 'Strategy' may not quite work ...


This is the very isssue that affected the tories in majors time


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 22, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> This is the very isssue that affected the tories in majors time


 
It's *exactly* that memory that prompted my post ...


----------



## Gmart (Oct 22, 2011)

Seems like a choice between being ruled by our representatives in London, or being represented by the ones in Brussels. Neither are institutionally particularly perfect.

London, our usual rulers are elected every few years but persistently fail to work the UK towards even a reasonable system, perpetuating the age old subjection to authority which has defined our archaic system.

While the EU is also elected every few years and yet the Commision has too much power, and is unable to be overruled by the elected representatives as yet.

Both systems have been caught feeding themselves at the expense of the taxpayer.

The question is whether one accepts that the world has changed and that governments which cooperate across larger areas are more able to have a say in the system which is in existence, rather than being powerless through simple smallness of size.

The great challenges of the current age such as corporate abuse, pollution, gangs, crime etc are easier to address at a large level, and so we need to be involved in the idealistic discussion which is going on without the UK within the EU.

The Euro will survive, and in a few years we will probably be talking about how important being in a strong currency is economically. The rest of the EU sees the need to cooperate as paramount, but the isolationists suggest that we can go it alone but with such a large number of jobs dependent on trade within the EU, no government will rock the boat too much.

I am not even convinced that the British public would vote to get out. Sure we would prefer a world where we have no need to compromise, but I think in the end we would stay in: we are stronger united.

What is interesting is how so many people seem so keen to jump with the right wing of the Conservatives to get out. As if our system was somehow better when the Elite had no lines to adhere to.

The most likely system to work towards a more rational and empirical system which serves the citizen rather than the subject is the EU, which is why I am with it in the end. We need to modernise our system, and I cannot see the current political class (Lab, Con or Lib) doing that.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 22, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Why?


Apart from all the good legislation that's come out of the EU (as has been mentioned already) I still hold to the original "security for Europe" motivation. Take a look at the world around us at the moment!
Guess what?

It isn't going to get better any time soon, and a strong united Europe is better than a group of bickering individual states.

E2A just to clarify; by strong I dont necessarily mean militarily strong, I refer to the strength of the union between the States.

Also as someone has already mentioned I do not consider myself British I am a European, I have lived outside of the UK since 1984 and have certainly broadened my horizons whilst taking advantage of the freedom of movement that has developed within the EU over this period.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 22, 2011)

Absolutely, get the fuck out.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 22, 2011)

How much of the stuff printed about the EU in the press is actually true? I would say that most of it is utter rubbish and a lot of that rubbish drips from the pens of Tory hacks. All one need do is look at the shite that Hannan writes (he writes blogs about it everyday and it's all drivel).

I would be for an EU that isn't run by bankers and greedy opportunistic fuckheads like Hannan (yes, he's quite happy to take his salary and his generous expenses from the EU but lacks the principles to actually refuse to take his seat as the Shinners do at Westminster).

The Tories want out because of the issue of 'sovereignty' but when you unpack their arguments, it becomes clear that they are pining for the Empire and want to see a return to those days...or something like them.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 22, 2011)

I quite like the idea of the Tories tearing themselves apart over this issue.


----------



## magneze (Oct 22, 2011)

TBH, the fact that all the main parties agree that the EU is a good thing is probably a decent indicator that it's a shit thing.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 22, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Cameron the cunt who's also desparate for his own party not to implode in his own face?
> 
> 'Strategy' may not quite work ...



I actually E-mailed Cameron last week. It started ' I am a Conservative, what the fuck are you? '. Disillusioned doesn't quite cover it.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 22, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> I actually E-mailed Cameron last week. It started ' I am a Conservative, what the fuck are you? '. Disillusioned doesn't quite cover it.



(((sass)))) 

BTW - he's a LibDem.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 22, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> I actually E-mailed Cameron last week. It started ' I am a Conservative, what the fuck are you? '. Disillusioned doesn't quite cover it.


He really is on a mission to destroy support from traditional tory areas like police, armed forced. It really is quite staggering.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 22, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> He really is on a mission to destroy support from traditional tory areas like police, armed forced. It really is quite staggering.



I realise that the loss of my vote means nothing, this a constituency where they could weigh the Labour vote, rather than bother counting. Not the point though. If you can piss off someone like me, who has been a staunch supporter for over forty years, you have already pissed off the floating vote that almost gave them the last election.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 22, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> I realise that the loss of my vote means nothing, this a constituency where they could weigh the Labour vote, rather than bother counting. Not the point though. If you can piss off someone like me, who has been a staunch supporter for over forty years, you have already pissed off the floating vote that almost gave them the last election.



How have the Conservatives pissed you off Sas?


----------



## Karac (Oct 22, 2011)

Theyre are main economic trading partners/European law is more liberal than English law so it prob makes more sense to be in than out at the mo
The main reason i support the EU is to piss off small minded Daily Mail reading French hating cretins


----------



## stavros (Oct 22, 2011)

Karac said:


> The main reason i support the EU is to piss off small minded Daily Mail reading French hating cretins



The Daily Fail hate France so much that their majority owner lives there to dodge British tax.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> If you can piss off someone like me, who has been a staunch supporter for over forty years, you have already pissed off the floating vote that almost gave them the last election.


What rubbish. It's the desire to capture the 10,000 or so floating voters (and thus become the government) that has led both Labour and the Tories to neglect their core vote (will still chucking it a few bones now and then).


----------



## Gmart (Oct 23, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> What rubbish. It's the desire to capture the 10,000 or so floating voters (and thus become the government) that has led both Labour and the Tories to neglect their core vote (will still chucking it a few bones now and then).


And the Liberals, who should be making the case for less regulation and trusting the population to make their own decisions. Instead they are trying to be Conservative by talking about law and order etc.

The political opportunists that we have in Westminster are happy to see the current system continue because it lines their pockets. Unfortunately that system should have been updated years ago, and there is a refusal to grasp the nettle of the modern world: globalisation, gang culture, tax-dodging, pollution etc and we should be working the UK system towards a more rational system which reflects the world how it is, rather than how the 'elite' would wish it to be. They seem in denial about how poorly run the country is at times. At the same time though the left, not surprisingly, refuse to engage with a system which is still treating the people as subjects to be controlled. However their refusal to engage in language other than 'Class War' is also not helping. Markets, property and competition are not going away and if the left wish to be in power again they will have to find a way to accept this fact.

One gets the feeling that the Conservatives are just waiting in the hope that the economy will turn around and save them the embarrassing need to embrace change. I would recommend a simple shift to a more European model - maybe Sweden or Norway which are more democratic, and are more open to change.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> I actually E-mailed Cameron last week. It started ' I am a Conservative, what the fuck are you? '. Disillusioned doesn't quite cover it.



Now you know how Labour supporters felt when their party was stolen by Blair, whom Cameron claims to be "heir" to.

Ever get the feeling that you've been had?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> He really is on a mission to destroy support from traditional tory areas like police, armed forced. It really is quite staggering.



It's just that, in the final analysis, those sectors don't matter to him in terms of votes. What matters is those few of thousands of voters in each of the marginals that can tip the balance to a Con or Lab vote, and fuck the rest of us.

It's not like any of them have actually governed *for* us, is it? They've just made the occasional concession so that the plebs don't start questioning why we have an electoral system that is so utterly meaningless for the majority of the electorate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> What rubbish. It's the desire to capture the 10,000 or so floating voters (and thus become the government) that has led both Labour and the Tories to neglect their core vote (will still chucking it a few bones now and then).



Yep, hence the degree of "triangulation" over stuff like Europe, and why neither Blair, Brown nor Cameron have gone "with" their party membership, but rather against them. It's all about getting re-elected, and causing the minimum amount of turbulence between then and now.

Still, to borrow from harold MacMillan, hopefully we can rely on events to trip Cameron up as they did Blair and Brown.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2011)

Gmart said:


> And the Liberals, who should be making the case for less regulation and trusting the population to make their own decisions. Instead they are trying to be Conservative by talking about law and order etc.
> 
> The political opportunists that we have in Westminster are happy to see the current system continue because it lines their pockets. Unfortunately that system should have been updated years ago, and there is a refusal to grasp the nettle of the modern world: globalisation, gang culture, tax-dodging, pollution etc and we should be working the UK system towards a more rational system which reflects the world how it is, rather than how the 'elite' would wish it to be. They seem in denial about how poorly run the country is at times. At the same time though the left, not surprisingly, refuse to engage with a system which is still treating the people as subjects to be controlled. However their refusal to engage in language other than 'Class War' is also not helping. Markets, property and competition are not going away and if the left wish to be in power again they will have to find a way to accept this fact.
> 
> One gets the feeling that the Conservatives are just waiting in the hope that the economy will turn around and save them the embarrassing need to embrace change. I would recommend a simple shift to a more European model - maybe Sweden or Norway which are more democratic, and are more open to change.



You appear to be making the usual error of assuming that the politics of our elected members bear a passing resemblence to the strands of politics they profess, and which their parties represent (generally rather poorly).

As for "class war", it's unavoidable, especially given the damage that 30 years of outright neo-liberalism has doe. We can't attain a "European model", especially not in a "simple shift", simply because we have no foundation on which to do so that *won't* cause the very class war you fear, and I'm not talking about a revolution of the have-nots, I'm talking about capitalism bringing to bear the big guns in order to maintain their current position, to keep their rank and its privileges.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 23, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> The Tories want out because of the issue of 'sovereignty' but when you unpack their arguments, it becomes clear that they are pining for the Empire and want to see a return to those days...or something like them.


It's worse than that. Mostly, like Liam Fox, they are 'Atlanticists'. They want Britain to follow the US model of capitalism rather than the EU one. That's why I don't want Britain out of the EU with the tories in power. It would mean an even more nasty form of capitalism than the one we have now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> As for "class war", it's unavoidable, especially given the damage that 30 years of outright neo-liberalism has doe. *We can't attain a "European model"*, especially not in a "simple shift", simply because we have no foundation on which to do so that *won't* cause the very class war you fear, and I'm not talking about a revolution of the have-nots, I'm talking about capitalism bringing to bear the big guns in order to maintain their current position, to keep their rank and its privileges.



Oh, I don't know about that at all. We'll see what we can or can't attain after a year or two more of economic stagnation. If it is anything, capitalism is a results-based business. If there is no economic growth from which to hoover up returns, the capitalists themselves will be reaching for other models. Many already are.

I don't know if you ever read Anthony Hilton in the business pages of the Standard. No left-winger, he, yet he now advocates more borrowing, public building works, etc.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's worse than that. Mostly, like Liam Fox, they are 'Atlanticists'. They want Britain to follow the US model of capitalism rather than the EU one. That's why I don't want Britain out of the EU with the tories in power. It would mean an even more nasty form of capitalism than the one we have now.



When I said "something like them", I had in mind the so-called "special relationship". It isn't in the US's interests to have a strong united Europe. I do find that most Tory Europhobes are pining for the Empire though.

You're correct that if we're out of Europe with the Tories in power that this country will have a nastier form of capitalism - perhaps along the Chinese/Indonesian model.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You appear to be making the usual error of assuming that the politics of our elected members bear a passing resemblence to the strands of politics they profess, and which their parties represent (generally rather poorly).
> 
> As for "class war", it's unavoidable, especially given the damage that 30 years of outright neo-liberalism has doe. We can't attain a "European model", especially not in a "simple shift", simply because we have no foundation on which to do so that *won't* cause the very class war you fear, and I'm not talking about a revolution of the have-nots, I'm talking about capitalism bringing to bear the big guns in order to maintain their current position, to keep their rank and its privileges.


One of the redeeming features of our system is that as sovereign, parliament can simply declare a popular sovereignty along whichever system it wishes to choose. All it would take is for the bill to go through parliament.
'Capitalism' certainly will not allow markets or property to be messed around with too much, but that is because the vast majority don't see that as the problem - maybe they are unhappy with the lack of jobs, inability to pay the mortgage, feed the kids etc, but the obvious scapegoats are the bankers or politicians not the property/market laws - they are generally accepted across the globe, and thus it is the language of the left which must change towards the statistical realities of the world, rather than the other way round.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh, I don't know about that at all. We'll see what we can or can't attain after a year or two more of economic stagnation. If it is anything, capitalism is a results-based business. If there is no economic growth from which to hoover up returns, the capitalists themselves will be reaching for other models. Many already are.
> 
> I don't know if you ever read Anthony Hilton in the business pages of the Standard. No left-winger, he, yet he now advocates more borrowing, public building works, etc.



You mention adherence to the US model of capitalism in a previous post. That's a form which has had a long time to bed in, and it will be difficult to "convince" those who benefit most that paying, in effect, a tax to ameliorate social ills, is a price worth paying. That's why I see class war on the horizon. Not, as I said, because I see a war starting "from below", but because I can see that a cost/benefit analysis on the part of capitalism as to whether they can continue to milk us if they knock us down and then kick us in the bollocks will show short-term advantages.
And these guys are the masters of short-term thinking.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mention adherence to the US model of capitalism in a previous post. That's a form which has had a long time to bed in, and it will be difficult to "convince" those who benefit most that paying, in effect, a tax to ameliorate social ills, is a price worth paying.



You're right about the short-termism, but such people have been convinced of that in the past. In the end it's us that have to do the convincing, of course, ultimately by increasingly withdrawing our consent to be governed in this way.

We'll see. I'm watching Chile with interest at the moment. The original and most thoroughgoing neoliberal experiment of them all, and it is unravelling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2011)

Gmart said:


> One of the redeeming features of our system is that as sovereign, parliament can simply declare a popular sovereignty along whichever system it wishes to choose. All it would take is for the bill to go through parliament.



Yes, that's all it takes. "All" is a small word that in this case encompasses a mass of implications, most of which militate *against* such a declaration. Do turkeys vote for Christmas?



> 'Capitalism' certainly will not allow markets or property to be messed around with too much, but that is because the vast majority don't see that as the problem - maybe they are unhappy with the lack of jobs, inability to pay the mortgage, feed the kids etc, but the obvious scapegoats are the bankers or politicians not the property/market laws - they are generally accepted across the globe, and thus it is the language of the left which must change towards the statistical realities of the world, rather than the other way round.



Yes, because the modification of language by a fraction of the politically-aware will bring about the activation of the mechanisim by which your Utopia will come to pass.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're right about the short-termism, but such people have been convinced of that in the past. In the end it's us that have to do the convincing, of course, ultimately by increasingly withdrawing our consent to be governed in this way.



Historically, though, capitalism's "short-termism" was counted in decades, in terms of the economy at the time anyway (industrially-based). With the shift to a service economy came a shortening of those decades to years and less.

As for withdrawal of consent, I'm with you there, but isn't it fair to say that to some degree (w/r/t voter numbers etc) we've already somewhat withdrawn our consent, and yet no attention has been given except rhetoric about making voting simpler?



> We'll see. I'm watching Chile with interest at the moment. The original and most thoroughgoing neoliberal experiment of them all, and it is unravelling.



South America as a whole is interesting, in that respect.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, that's all it takes. "All" is a small word that in this case encompasses a mass of implications, most of which militate *against* such a declaration. Do turkeys vote for Christmas?
> 
> Yes, because the modification of language by a fraction of the politically-aware will bring about the activation of the mechanisim by which your Utopia will come to pass.



I don't envisage a 'Utopia', I am merely pointing out that whatever you or I might have in mind, markets will still exist, and people will be owning physical objects. If you consider this to be facepalm-worthy then fine. I make no excuse for thinking that eventually the UK will work it out and start putting effort into working out what exactly they are fighting for rather than against.

The lack of idealism in UK discussion is bizarre - the occasional old socialists or marxists still pretending that their book might have an answer if only they could force them into using their terminology.

Those in power know full well that the UK needs to slip neatly into a constitutional system which is rights based - and that the EU is already forcing the powers that be to adopt limits on their powers (ie the human rights act) which is why the judges are desperately trying to persuade everyone that we don't need it. They could rule sensibly on European Law issues but they choose not to.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> I actually E-mailed Cameron last week. It started ' I am a Conservative, what the fuck are you? '. Disillusioned doesn't quite cover it.



Did you get a reply?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I don't envisage a 'Utopia', I am merely pointing out that whatever you or I might have in mind, *markets will still exist, and people will be owning physical objects*. If you consider this to be facepalm-worthy then fine. I make no excuse for thinking that eventually the UK will work it out and start putting effort into working out what exactly they are fighting for rather than against.
> 
> The lack of idealism in UK discussion is bizarre - the occasional old socialists or marxists still pretending that their book might have an answer if only they could force them into using their terminology.
> 
> Those in power know full well that the UK needs to slip neatly into a constitutional system which is rights based - and that the EU is already forcing the powers that be to adopt limits on their powers (ie the human rights act) which is why the judges are desperately trying to persuade everyone that we don't need it. They could rule sensibly on European Law issues but they choose not to.



It is little bits like this amongst the dross that show you actually have no idea. You sparknotes chancer.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 23, 2011)

We need to be in the EU. Regardless of what you think about the EU's policies, they will affect us whether we are in or out. If we're in the EU we have a say over what EU policy is, outside we have no say, but still have to live with them.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2011)

We may not get a choice though.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 23, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> We need to be in the EU. Regardless of what you think about the EU's policies, they will affect us whether we are in or out. If we're in the EU we have a say over what EU policy is, outside we have no say, but still have to live with them.



That is my view, better to be inside working to make it better than outside wondering what happenned.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2011)

weltweit said:


> That is my view, better to be inside working to make it better than outside wondering what happenned.


do you honestly think the british government's activity is working to make the eu better?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> do you honestly think the british government's activity is working to make the eu better?



Clever question, at the moment quite possibly not, but it is something we could aspire to. Unfortunately it looks as if France and Germany want to push for more integration which could put Britain's position even more out of kilter with EU thinking. I am not a historian but is there not history behind big trading blocks like this? (don't know).


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Clever question, at the moment quite possibly not, but it is something we could aspire to.


we the british government or we the british people? either way it doesn't really work.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> do you honestly think the british government's activity is working to make the eu better?


What if the government was socialist? And if all governments in the EU were socialist?

Is it the principle of European integration you disagree with or do you simply disagree with the ruling/dominant ideology that make up governments?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> What if the government was socialist? And if all governments in the EU were socialist?
> 
> Is it the principle of European integration you disagree with or do you simply disagree with the ruling/dominant ideology that make up governments?


do you mean proper socialist or the sort of socialist we've seen in government in europe in the past?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 23, 2011)

I disagree with the fact that the EU is supposedly a bunch of equals, yet in some countries that joined the same time we did, the donkey is considered a viable option when it comes to haulage.

The countries of the EU are not equal and no amount of legislation can make it so.

UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden & Finland. Together we can be something special. Fuck all the dross.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> do you mean proper socialist or the sort of socialist we've seen in government in europe in the past?


Whatever you want it to mean! I mean if the government was one you were happy with (ie your chosen ideology if you have one, I assumed socialist...)


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Whatever you want it to mean! I mean if the government was one you were happy with (ie your chosen ideology if you have one, I assumed socialist...)


in the extremely unlikely event that the governments of all the member states of the european union were socialist, i would still be very surprised if they actually acted in the interests of their populations.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 23, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Did you get a reply?



Not as yet.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> in the extremely unlikely event that the governments of all the member states of the european union were socialist, i would still be very surprised if they actually acted in the interests of their populations.


But then isn't your argument against the EU more of an argument against governments in general?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> But then isn't your argument against the EU more of an argument against governments in general?


yes: but i wanted to find out if weltweit really thought the british government acted in the interests of the british people.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> Not as yet.


Let me know when you do. thats fantastic


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2011)

You'll probably get a standard form-letter one "We recognise your concerns" etc.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 24, 2011)

So, the vote in parliament is today..


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's worse than that. Mostly, like Liam Fox, they are 'Atlanticists'. They want Britain to follow the US model of capitalism rather than the EU one. That's why I don't want Britain out of the EU with the tories in power. It would mean an even more nasty form of capitalism than the one we have now.


This is madness - the EU is the biggest most aggressive neo-liberal project on the planet right now, it is actively undermining what you seem to think of as the social model of european capitalism (something which died many many years ago) it's the one imposing vicious austerity rather than protecting its population,whilst the US is actually acting in lines with the sort of state spending you'd like to see. Lot of people seem to have very dangerous illusions in the EU that appear to be based on self-serving waffle about a social-market that the politicians and businessmen who rung the thing used to come out with a few decades ago to legitimise their long term project  - but which have not only been abandoned for the last decade at least but been under consistent attack. Things have changed since the early 90s.That EU is dead.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 24, 2011)

Certainly dangerous to rely on the EU for any kind of protection.  But at the same time Tories like Bernard Jenkin are explicit that the reason they want to opt out is to scrap "red tape and regulation" - effectively ripping up even the minimal social directives that are still left.    I'm not arguing this is a reason to argue for staying in the EU.  But it's certainly a reason to fear the effects of a Tory-right led pull out.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

There isn't going to a pullout under the tories or labour so there's absolutely no need to pull our punches in criticising the EU neo-liberal project for fear of the nasty tories. And who has more power potential and inclination to attack the (European) w/c - a handful of crusty tories largely isolated from their party leadership and the capital fraction they represent or the EU?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's worse than that. Mostly, like Liam Fox, they are 'Atlanticists'. They want Britain to follow the US model of capitalism rather than the EU one. That's why I don't want Britain out of the EU with the tories in power. It would mean an even more nasty form of capitalism than the one we have now.



To be scrupulously fair, Labour and the current crop of Lib-Dems (the oldies not so much) are just as deeply mired in Atlanticism as the Tories. Remember the whole "British-American Project for a Successor Generation" fiasco in the '90s?


----------



## gosub (Oct 24, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So, the vote in parliament is today..


Most likely a pyrrhic victory for the the small c forces of conservatism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

There are people who are genuine in their belief in the 'social market' especially in Germany, and Germany's version of capitalism is kinder than the UK's now, post-Thatcher. I don't disagree that the EU is a capitalist project through and through, but the recent disgusting antics of Tesco are an example of what might be in store for us if the UK left the EU with the current political system still in place.

Take your point about the US currently following a more Keynsian set of policies. All the same, the assumptions and attitudes there about what the state is and what should be provided collectively are very different from most EU countries (oddly, it's places like Spain that are most like the US in that regard, not the UK or other northern states). That's the kind of change I see the Atlanticist tories angling for.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be scrupulously fair, Labour and the current crop of Lib-Dems (the oldies not so much) are just as deeply mired in Atlanticism as the Tories. Remember the whole "British-American Project for a Successor Generation" fiasco in the '90s?


Well, yes, you don't get much more Atlanticist than Blair in many ways.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I don't envisage a 'Utopia'..



What else can the embodiment of your whimsical maunderings about a world or nation where class war isn't a standard by-product of consumer capitalism, and where "the left" make a "refusal to engage in language other than 'Class War' "?



> I am merely pointing out that whatever you or I might have in mind, markets will still exist, and people will be owning physical objects. If you consider this to be facepalm-worthy then fine.



That's not what I facepalmed though, is it? I facepalmed the vapid comment you made about changing "the language of the left".



> I make no excuse for thinking that eventually the UK will work it out and start putting effort into working out what exactly they are fighting for rather than against.



Has anyone here said any different?

Stop tilting at imaginary windmills.



> The lack of idealism in UK discussion is bizarre - the occasional old socialists or marxists still pretending that their book might have an answer if only they could force them into using their terminology.



Yes, because that's what's happening, isn't it? It's the fault of people being doctrinaire, nothing at all to do with the erosion of the social compact, the absence of any electoral mechanism whereby the electorate can enforce the compliance of their elected representative in representing *their* views rather than those of his party.



> Those in power know full well that the UK needs to slip neatly into a constitutional system which is rights based - and that the EU is already forcing the powers that be to adopt limits on their powers (ie the human rights act) which is why the judges are desperately trying to persuade everyone that we don't need it. They could rule sensibly on European Law issues but they choose not to.



Thanks for that slurry of sweeping generalities about what "the UK" needs, and about "the judges". I'm shocked that I hadn't realised just how homogeneous "the Uk" and "the judges" are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I disagree with the fact that the EU is supposedly a bunch of equals, yet in some countries that joined the same time we did, the donkey is considered a viable option when it comes to haulage.
> 
> The countries of the EU are not equal and no amount of legislation can make it so.
> 
> UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden & Finland. Together we can be something special. Fuck all the dross.



The problem with that being that there are political and economic reasons for having "the dross" on-board, not least because of access to materials and (cheap) skilled labour that the easties provide, and the cheap unskilled labour that enables the agricultural sector in the southern members to function in a reasonable economical manner.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

And Belgium is not dross?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2011)

Stella Artois


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Stella Artois



That's about the worst Belgian beer out there.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That's about the worst Belgian beer out there.


Exactly. Gotta love a country where most of its people think Stella is piss.

Belgium consistently has the highest productivity ratings in Europe. Miserable fuckers don't talk to each other at work at all, basically.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2011)

Say that after I've had six and I will fight you


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Say that after I've had six and I will fight you



My point exactly.


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 24, 2011)

i'd prefer it if all xenophobic british people left britain


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> i'd prefer it if all xenophobic british people left britain



What about the non-Brit xenophobes?


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 24, 2011)

they can stay!  

plus be given 6month all inclusive caribbean winter getaway packages with their welfare cheques.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> i'd prefer it if all xenophobic british people left britain


Stop posting shit.Look at the Yes votes. Look at the names.


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 24, 2011)

yeah so what?? they're a bunch of cunts tbf.

i'd rather be in with the no's but i don't really care one way or the other.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

Stick to your racist shit will. You're better at that.


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 24, 2011)

oki dokey


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

Interesting split of names. Not a simple left/right division at all.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Interesting split of names. Not a simple left/right division at all.



Now you've done it.


----------



## gosub (Oct 24, 2011)

Quite interesting watching the debate, which is on the question of having public consultation (a referendum) on the issue of the EU, those arguing against, aren't actually arguing against at all, they are argueing  they think the UK's membership of the EU is a good thing. A different question, (in fact the one I'd like to asked). That politicians think it more important to point out why they favour membership, just shows how little EU membership stands up on its own.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 24, 2011)

I oppose a referendum because everyone else is considerably more stupid than I, and they will vote for some kind of hare-brained idiocy that gets us all killed. Fuck that kind of democracy in the eye with a bent banana.


----------



## Pinette (Oct 24, 2011)

girasol said:


> what happens to all the Europeans living here if Britain leaves the EU? And to all the Brits living in Costa del Sol?


The Brits living in the Costa del Sol don't concern me. I'm not here to throw insults around.  I don't want to leave the EU for a number of reasons, all of which are not measurable by any intelligent politically aware member of Urban. (I'm not, I know, such a person.)  I just want Europe to be united and I want Europe to be strong and I would love this country to adopt the Euro as well. I have hated the overwhelming need on the part of our successive governments - ever since Thatch, for this country to become a mere satellite of the US.  It's been happening for years this adoption of all the American mores;  no health care,  no job security, privitisation etc., It's shit! I really feel that the people of this country are being strung out to dry.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

You are for sure.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 24, 2011)

What the UK needs is a bill of rights/constitution of its own, and were it to leave the EU it would have to be on condition of immediately getting that in. The EU does offer citizens better human rights overall, from what I can tell, and having that apply across the EU is a good thing it seems to me. (Probably been said already on the thread - not had a chance to read it yet.)

What do people make of the claim that the EU has kept Europe in relative peace? If the EU disappeared tomorrow would it increase the chances of war in Europe? I think it probably would.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> i'd prefer it if all xenophobic british people left britain



Oh ffs, how does disliking the EU have anything to do with xenophobia?

why is it unreasonable to want to leave an unaccountable, secretive bureaucracy run at the top by people who are unelected? people who in many cases have more appalling views on human rights, gays, immigrants, workers' rights etc then many "eurosceptics"? Who put these people there - who voted for them, i didn't vote for them, nor did you. That thing about Ireland's referendum - "try again until you get it right", and look at how the EU is screwing Ireland, Greece, Portugal etc now. Is that "xenophobic" to oppose that will?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

ska invita said:


> What the UK needs is a bill of rights/constitution of its own, and were it to leave the EU it would have to be on condition of immediately getting that in. The EU does offer citizens better human rights overall, from what I can tell, and having that apply across the EU is a good thing it seems to me. (Probably been said already on the thread - not had a chance to read it yet.).



How is a bill of rights going to alter the economic foundations of the society we live in? The neo-liberals love all that shit now as well.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Oh ffs, how does disliking the EU have anything to do with xenophobia?
> 
> why is it unreasonable to want to leave an unaccountable, secretive bureaucracy run at the top by people who are unelected? people who in many cases have more appalling views on human rights, gays, immigrants, workers' rights etc then many "eurosceptics"? Who put these people there - who voted for them, i didn't vote for them, nor did you. That thing about Ireland's referendum - "try again until you get it right", and look at how the EU is screwing Ireland, Greece, Portugal etc now. Is that "xenophobic" to oppose that will?



I fully see the sense of almost all of that post, but I don't think that were the Tory Eurosceptic/phobic rebels to win their campaign, with all the freemarketeer/far right delight at such a victory, that would advance more left wing Eurosceptic arguments very much at all -- at least not in the UK anyway. In pragmatic actual practice like.

(I know that's what you're saying. I'm just saying though!)


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> I fully see the sense of almost all of that post, but I don't think that were the Tory Eurosceptic/phobic rebels to win their campaign, with all the freemarketeer/far right delight at such a victory, that would advance more left wing Eurosceptic arguments very much at all -- at least not in the UK anyway. In pragmatic actual practice like.
> 
> (I know that's what you're saying. I'm just saying though!)



What free market/far right delight? Many free-market types love the EU because it makes life easier for large businesses and it's been used for that purpose. You think that sections of the far right and worse don't love the EU as well - that's part of their pisspoor justification for introducing anti-Muslim laws and tighter restrictions on immigration outside the EU, to "defend liberal European culture", to "defend values", etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> I fully see the sense of almost all of that post, but I don't think that were the Tory Eurosceptic/phobic rebels to win their campaign, with all the freemarketeer/far right delight at such a victory, that would advance more left wing Eurosceptic arguments very much at all -- at least not in the UK anyway. In pragmatic actual practice like.
> 
> (I know that's what you're saying. I'm just saying though!)



I don't think there's any danger of them "winning their campaign". If we leave the EU, it won't be because of them, it will be because of it's "internal contradictions" (sorry!) and popular resistance to their policies ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And Belgium is not dross?



Chimay Red and Tin-Tin are more than enough to redeem them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2011)

ska invita said:


> What the UK needs is a bill of rights/constitution


 
Ska. How is the US doing with their piece of paper?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Looks like the Tories are desparate to call for a referendum on Britain's EU membership. Should Britain leave and let Johnny Foreigner sort himself out? Or are there some good reasons for Britain staying in the EU, even as the southern half of it seems to be going down the toilet?


I don't usually jump into threads after ten pages, but since this seems to be one of the topics of the week in the media, I'll chip in my thoughts.

Here are the questions not being asked in the media:

What is this European Union that the UK might* leave?  (The answer is not: "Brussels bureaucrats who want to ban straight bananas").
What are the reasons for leaving it?  (The answer is not: "Because of British sovereignty, innit").

In and of itself, leaving the EU is not a solution to anything.  European union*  would probably be a good thing in a federated workers' Europe.  However, we don't have that.  But neither would we bring it or a workers' UK about by becoming a Little Britain governed by Euro sceptic Tories (or Euro sceptic Labour for that matter).

The fact is that the UK will not be leaving Europe.  So, in whose interests is this "debate"?  It seems to me to be part of the same debate that says "human rights" are a bad thing.  It's part of a narrative that says we "need" to have worse workplace conditions (to "compete"); that "our" interests are best served by "sticking together" (the UK ruling class and the UK population, _that_ "us"); that "we" need to make "our" own economic decisions.

OK, so we oppose that, then, and be ardent Europhiles?  Well, no, because it _is_ an horrendous bureaucracy.  (Like Whitehall, which actually the UK public don't get a chance to change, despite having elections to Westminster every so often).  It _is_ a capitalist club. It _is_ basically the same project Thatcher and then Major signed up to: an attempt to create market conditions across Europe that would benefit the ruling classes in each member state. (How _successfully_ is the debate taking place now).

So this is a turf war between Mafia bosses.  It isn't our struggle. "Should Britain leave the EU?" is not a question I'm interested in in the current conditions.  We don't have in front of us a new treaty we're being asked to accept or reject.  We're just being asked which frying pan we'd like to leap into.  Should we have a referendum question put in front of us (we won't, but for the sake of argument), then there might well be good tactical reasons for voting in it.  But the question "should Britain leave the EU?", in and of itself?  In the current conditions?  Meh.

1.  [*though not really]
2.  [*note lack of capitalisation]


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

William the free-market types want to stay in the EU-the protectionist want to leave.The free-marketeers want to stay because the EU supports their aims and objectives. You have this upside down. As does anyone else who hasn't kept pace with the evolution of the EU over the last 20 years and instead drops things into an out-of-date john major type scenario.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Chimay Red and Tin-Tin are more than enough to redeem them.



Better than Dotsy's suggestion of Stella at least.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Better than Dotsy's suggestion of Stella at least.



TBF, Dottie is a salt-of-the-earth type of bloke who'd object to paying several quid for a small bottle of Belgian rocket-fuel, and therefore he may not have tried a representative sample of Belgium's hooligan soups.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, Dottie is a salt-of-the-earth type of bloke who'd object to paying several quid for a small bottle of Belgian rocket-fuel, and therefore he may not have tried a representative sample of Belgium's hooligan soups.



That's the thing tho, it gets you more pissed than regular wifebeater, and tastes infinitely better for not that much more money.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> why is it unreasonable to want to leave an unaccountable, secretive bureaucracy run at the top by people who are unelected?


Not entirely true. The most powerful body is the Council (who in turn elect the Commission, which presumably is who you're referring to as the "secretive bureaucracy") and we elect the Council (plus the Parliament which has a say on most pieces of legislation)



> people who in many cases have more appalling views on human rights, gays, immigrants, workers' rights etc then many "eurosceptics"? Who put these people there - who voted for them, i didn't vote for them, nor did you.


Who are you referring to here? All our workers' rights come from the EU (counter to what this government would like) and, funnily enough, the laws allowing immigrants from other EU countries to work here come from the EU. Are you referring to individual Commissioners? Or are you referring to some of the fascist/far-right parties represented by some MEPs?



> That thing about Ireland's referendum - "try again until you get it right", and look at how the EU is screwing Ireland, Greece, Portugal etc now. Is that "xenophobic" to oppose that will?


What would be happening to Ireland, Greece and Portugal if they were not in the EU and having to cope with this current world wide recession? That's a genuine question, I don't know the answer. They might be in a better position, insulated from what was happening in other EU countries, but then again, maybe the EU will act like an insurance policy if by grouping together they have a better chance of stabilising these economies?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

Nice one - being both genuinely naive and pretending to be naive in the same post.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nice one - being both genuinely naive and pretending to be naive in the same post.


Did you think that up yourself?


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

The ECJ is notorious for its anti-worker's rights rulings. Was just Googling to confirm I had me facts straight about the Viking/Laval case and see even articles attacking the old No2 EU arguments about this have to concede the larger point.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Did you think that up yourself?


Yes i did.

Great post.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes i did.
> 
> Great post.


Cheers, thought your previous post was pretty good too


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> What would be happening to Ireland, Greece and Portugal if they were not in the EU and having to cope with this current world wide recession? That's a genuine question, I don't know the answer. They might be in a better position, insulated from what was happening in other EU countries, but then again, maybe the EU will act like an insurance policy if by grouping together they have a better chance of stabilising these economies?



I would think that at the moment they are being royally fucked up the arse by the EU. Who needs the IMF when you have the eurozone?

There was a good article about this in the Telegraph the other day, of all places. The IMF generally demands three things for bailouts: default, devaluation and austerity. At the moment the EU is still only demanding austerity of Greece. The EU is actually _worse_ than the IMF.


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 24, 2011)

has this thread reached the conclusion that none of this tedious shit matters til we have got rid of the establishment / elites which we can do by spending our winter sleeping on the streets of london   but feel free to wank on about this irrelevant bollocks to your hearts content.


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes i did.
> 
> Great post.



i have chris eubank handcuffed to a pc in my cellar busily working away writing all my gags.


----------



## elbows (Oct 24, 2011)

Presently having 'fun' reacquainting myself with the blatherings of the tory backbenchers. Been a while since I bothered to watch them. Just in time to catch Rees-Mogg, oh how terribly perfect. He just mentioned bagpuss, what what.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Chimay Red and Tin-Tin are more than enough to redeem them.



And Maigret.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Not entirely true. The most powerful body is the Council (who in turn elect the Commission, which presumably is who you're referring to as the "secretive bureaucracy") and we elect the Council (plus the Parliament which has a say on most pieces of legislation)
> 
> Who are you referring to here? All our workers' rights come from the EU (counter to what this government would like) and, funnily enough, the laws allowing immigrants from other EU countries to work here come from the EU. Are you referring to individual Commissioners? Or are you referring to some of the fascist/far-right parties represented by some MEPs?
> 
> What would be happening to Ireland, Greece and Portugal if they were not in the EU and having to cope with this current world wide recession? That's a genuine question, I don't know the answer. They might be in a better position, insulated from what was happening in other EU countries, but then again, maybe the EU will act like an insurance policy if by grouping together they have a better chance of stabilising these economies?



I think that the EU parliament barely has any say, that's why the main parties know they can send unelectable loons like Daniel Hannan etc there. In parliament they'd be a liability.

"all our workers' rights come from the EU"? No they don't, actually. The NHS? The comprehensive system introduced in 1948 (which is now being rolled back with the help of the EU?) Some degree of welfare protection was introduced in 1914 and earlier before the EU even came into existence, before the conditions for it did in fact. There was minimal protection for workers introduced in the late 19th century, thanks to trade union struggles, riots etc, not due to unelected EU bureaucrats. And the EU originally was set up as an economic zone, nothing to do with a "social Europe" and human rights.

When I'm talking about the far-right I don't mean fascism as such - I'm referring to the views of individual commissioners but I'm also referring to the policies that European states have introduced. And people who support the EU trust these people to defend human rights and democracy? Look at what's going on in Hungary, in Italy etc, even in France. And before the EU came into being people were still able to go to live and work in other countries!

People always go on about how the EU is such a great protector of human rights, but one thing that always surprises me in the discussion about anti-muslim and anti-immigrant legislation in EU countries is how little the role of the EU itself is discussed, the role of the EU in facilitating this, in allowing it, despite the fact that while yes, things such as the Working Time Directive have been important, the EU has also enabled reactionary laws to be passed more effectively, provided a structure for this to take place, and to make it more easier to remove such protections.

I honestly don't know what would happen to Ireland, Greece and Portugal if the EU wasn't around. But the EU has just basically compelled Greece to cut its minimum wage to a starvation level (400 euros a month for a full-time job ffs, with more cuts on that wage to come!) to sell off virtually everything that hasn't alredady been privatised, etc. I think that some people still have an idea that the EU is OK because they haven't seen its nakedly imperialist side, in the UK we haven't been that much exposed to it and we've been exposed to the benefits of the EU and not the drawbacks, and much is made of getting rid of the human rights act etc.

Of course there are power struggles going on in the EU, for a long time (and probably going to intensify now) there was a power struggle going on between the so-called "anglo-saxon model" which was presented as promoted by Britain etc, the idea of free trade and free markets, and the idea of protectionism and deeper integration which was seen as pushed by France and Germany. Quite honestly these social policies were often just rhetoric and hid a different reality (look at the whole thing with the CPE etc, at the same time as France was seen as trying to make europe "more socialist"), or were aimed at protectionism.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 24, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> has this thread reached the conclusion that none of this tedious shit matters til we have got rid of the establishment / elites which we can do by spending our winter sleeping on the streets of london   but feel free to wank on about this irrelevant bollocks to your hearts content.



Our realtionship with the EU is very far from irrelevant.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> has this thread reached the conclusion that none of this tedious shit matters til we have got rid of the establishment / elites which we can do by spending our winter sleeping on the streets of london   but feel free to wank on about this irrelevant bollocks to your hearts content.



How is the EU "irrelevant"?


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 24, 2011)

well our relationship with the EU will completely change if we did what we have to do and get rid of the established elites / robbing bastards.

so it's irrelevant.

priorities people.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> well it will completely change if we did what we have to do and get rid of the established elites / robbing bastards.
> 
> so it's irrelevant.
> 
> priorities people.



You think that the people in charge of the EU aren't the "established elites" and that the EU is completely irrelevant to how big busienss etc is conducted?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> well our relationship with the EU will completely change if we did what we have to do and get rid of the established elites / robbing bastards.
> 
> so it's irrelevant.
> 
> priorities people.


That's why it relevant you fake loon.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I think that the EU parliament barely has any say


Think you've got that one wrong. There are very few policy areas the Parliament doesn't have equal say to the Council (think external taxation, anti-competition are some).



> that's why the main parties know they can send unelectable loons like Daniel Hannan etc there. In parliament they'd be a liability.


Erm Hannan _was_ elected...(and there's plenty of loons in the British parliament anyway!)



> "all our workers' rights come from the EU"? No they don't, actually. The NHS? The comprehensive system introduced in 1948 (which is now being rolled back with the help of the EU?) Some degree of welfare protection was introduced in 1914 and earlier before the EU even came into existence, before the conditions for it did in fact. There was minimal protection for workers introduced in the late 19th century, thanks to trade union struggles, riots etc, not due to unelected EU bureaucrats. And the EU originally was set up as an economic zone, nothing to do with a "social Europe" and human rights.


You seem to have mixed up workers' rights, human rights and social security all into one. Regardless of what laws were passed before the EU, the EU has primacy over all workers' rights (and consumer rights) today.



> When I'm talking about the far-right I don't mean fascism as such - I'm referring to the views of individual commissioners


A few prospective Commissioners have been rejected by the Parliament (they have to agree to Commission appointments, so some more powers there) for having to far-right wing views. Who are these Commissioners you are talking about? Do they represent the majority of Commissioners so that you are justified in claiming many of them hold far-right and other horrible views?



> but I'm also referring to the policies that European states have introduced.


So nothing to do with the EU then?



> And people who support the EU trust these people to defend human rights and democracy? Look at what's going on in Hungary, in Italy etc, even in France.


That's up to Hungary, France and Italy...



> And before the EU came into being people were still able to go to live and work in other countries!


Go try it with Australia, USA or Canada!



> People always go on about how the EU is such a great protector of human rights, but one thing that always surprises me in the discussion about anti-muslim and anti-immigrant legislation in EU countries is how little the role of the EU itself is discussed, the role of the EU in facilitating this, in allowing it, despite the fact that while yes, things such as the Working Time Directive have been important, the EU has also enabled reactionary laws to be passed more effectively, provided a structure for this to take place, and to make it more easier to remove such protections.


You're going to have to expand on what you say here. What anti-Muslim legislation has the EU facilitated and how?



> I honestly don't know what would happen to Ireland, Greece and Portugal if the EU wasn't around. But the EU has just basically compelled Greece to cut its minimum wage to a starvation level (400 euros a month for a full-time job ffs, with more cuts on that wage to come!) to sell off virtually everything that hasn't alredady been privatised, etc. I think that some people still have an idea that the EU is OK because they haven't seen its nakedly imperialist side, in the UK we haven't been that much exposed to it and we've been exposed to the benefits of the EU and not the drawbacks, and much is made of getting rid of the human rights act etc.


Well I'm not saying Greece etc is not being fucked (they clearly are), it was more a question of how hard they were being fucked compared to if they left the EU (or were never members)


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's why it relevant you fake loon.



it's all far too unpredictable. best to just cross bridges when you come to them. otherwise you are just like mystic meg, and by that i mean: shit fortune tellers.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> it's all far too unpredictable. best to just cross bridges when you come to them. otherwise you are just like mystic meg, and by that i mean: shit fortune tellers.


You don't even know where the bridge is.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You don't even know where the bridge is.


The bridge is just a dot to you...


----------



## binka (Oct 24, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> I fully see the sense of almost all of that post, but I don't think that were the Tory Eurosceptic/phobic rebels to win their campaign, with all the freemarketeer/far right delight at such a victory, that would advance more left wing Eurosceptic arguments very much at all -- at least not in the UK anyway. In pragmatic actual practice like.


this is just the 'vote yes to av' argument again isnt it?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Think you've got that one wrong. There are very few policy areas the Parliament doesn't have equal say to the Council (think external taxation, anti-competition are some).



This is not true

from wiki:



> However there are some differences from national legislatures; for example, neither the Parliament nor the Council have the power of legislative initiative (except for the fact that the Council has the power in some intergovernmental matters). In Community matters, this is a power uniquely reserved for the European Commission (the executive). *Therefore, while Parliament can amend and reject legislation, to make a proposal for legislation, it needs the Commission to draft a bill before anything can become law.[42] * However, the value of such a power is questioned, noting that only 15% of such initiatives in national parliaments become law due to the lack of executive support.[43] Yet it has been argued by former Parliament president Hans-Gert Pöttering that as the Parliament does have the right to ask the Commission to draft such legislation, and as the Commission is following Parliament's proposals more and more Parliament does have a _de facto_ right of legislative initiative.[7]



[...]



> Finally, Parliament holds a non-binding vote on new EU treaties *but cannot veto it.* *However when Parliament threatened to vote down the Nice Treaty, the Belgian and Italian Parliaments said they would veto the treaty on the European Parliament's behalf*.[45]



I don't call that legislative equality. Do you?



> Erm Hannan _was_ elected...(and there's plenty of loons in the British parliament anyway!)



Of course, but can you imagine him in the cabinet? the reason he's there and not in government is because he's such a liability, and the turnout for the european elections are ridiculously low. Do you think he would have been given a Cabinet position?



> You seem to have mixed up workers' rights, human rights and social security all into one. Regardless of what laws were passed before the EU, the EU has primacy over all workers' rights (and consumer rights) today.



You said that "all workers' rights come from the EU", so it's no wonder I got confused  They might be decided by the EU now (they're not, largely) but that's not where all laws on workers' rights originally came from, is it?



> A few prospective Commissioners have been rejected by the Parliament (they have to agree to Commission appointments, so some more powers there) for having to far-right wing views. Who are these Commissioners you are talking about? Do they represent the majority of Commissioners so that you are justified in claiming many of them hold far-right and other horrible views?



Who said that they had to represent the majority? In any case who voted for them? Who put them there? Why did we not have any say in this matter, despite the EU being all democratic and that?

my apologies, the guy i was thinking of was a nominee for a commissioner rather than actually being a commissioner himself - but the fact is that part of the justification for the EU's existence is how it helps to protect human rights etc. These people may not be causing any active damage but they're not exactly helping are they?



> So nothing to do with the EU then?



In 1999 the EU imposed punitive measures on Austria after Jorg Haider gained the largest share of the vote in the parliament after an election. Yet here we are 20+ years later when growing numbers of European countries have imposed measures banning, for example, the building of minarets on mosques, banning burkhas, and the like, as well as deporting other EU citizens to other EU countries, something which supposedly could never happen. The same people who are in charge of human rights etc are also in parties or even in governments which are imposing these measures. My argument is that far from being somehow independent the people involved are often heavily involved in the EU's bureaucratic institutions as well.



> That's up to Hungary, France and Italy...



Why? In Italy you've got local armed squads assisting the police and in some areas having been given the same/almost the same powers as the police. isn't this the thing that european "human rights" legislation was aimed to prevent? It's either powerless to prevent it or it's actively harmful, and how is it supposed to be objective when ministers of these governments which are supposedly nothing to do with the EU are playing a leading role in the EU bureaucracy.



> Go try it with Australia, USA or Canada!



You think that nobody immigrated anywhere before the EU was set up, or if not, it was impossibly difficult? It wasn't.



> You're going to have to expand on what you say here. What anti-Muslim legislation has the EU facilitated and how?



see above



> Well I'm not saying Greece etc is not being fucked (they clearly are), it was more a question of how hard they were being fucked compared to if they left the EU (or were never members)



It's hard to say. But the EU's behaviour on this matter (and towards countries wishing to join, such as the privatisation and other conditions it's imposed on Moldova, Serbia, etc) doesn't exactly cover it in glory does it?


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You don't even know where the bridge is.



here?


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> This is not true
> 
> from wiki:
> 
> ...


First of all, you're comparing the function of the EU Parliament with national parliaments and secondly you're confusing legislative power with executive power (when you compare the Parliament to the Commission). Legislative equality in the EU sense means the balance of powers between the Council and the Parliament (not the Commission or national legislatures). With very few exceptions now (after the Lisbon Treaty) the Parliament has virtually equal powers to the Council.



> Of course, but can you imagine him in the cabinet? the reason he's there and not in government is because he's such a liability, and the turnout for the european elections are ridiculously low. Do you think he would have been given a Cabinet position?


Actually I can see him being quite amenable to Tory MPs and their voters! But don't see whether him being offered a cabinet position means anything, there are plenty of Tory MPs who don't get offered cabinet positions (a lot more in 10 minutes!!)



> You said that "all workers' rights come from the EU", so it's no wonder I got confused  They might be decided by the EU now (they're not, largely) but that's not where all laws on workers' rights originally came from, is it?


AFAIAA, all workers' rights (plus consumer rights) are now replaced with EU legislation. The Tories want to opt out of the social chapter of the EU (that contains workers' rights) because, I think, unless they do opt out they cannot legally reduce workers' rights from the minimum set by the EU



> Who said that they had to represent the majority? In any case who voted for them? Who put them there? Why did we not have any say in this matter, despite the EU being all democratic and that?


The Council nominates one Commissioner for their country, then the Parliament says yes or no to the Commission - that's how they get there. Throughout the Commission's term they are answerable to the Parliament who can dissolve the Commission should they disagree with what they've done.



> my apologies, the guy i was thinking of was a nominee for a commissioner rather than actually being a commissioner himself - but the fact is that part of the justification for the EU's existence is how it helps to protect human rights etc. These people may not be causing any active damage but they're not exactly helping are they?


Well imo I don't think we'd have many of the rights we have today without the EU. I think countries would be reluctant to introduce them individually because they'd be putting themselves at a disadvantage to attract investment if they had the highest workers' rights and other countries just undercut them. Same with the environment - no good introducing environmental policies if your neighbour keeps on polluting. And that is basically why I support the concept of the EU - some policy areas are just better placed to be shared between countries, rather than relying on the good nature and trust of other countries (look at the UN for example, how many pro-Palestine resolutions get ignored? at least with EU laws countries are _compelled _to follow them once agreed).



> In 1999 the EU imposed punitive measures on Austria after Jorg Haider gained the largest share of the vote in the parliament after an election. Yet here we are 20+ years later when growing numbers of European countries have imposed measures banning, for example, the building of minarets on mosques, banning burkhas, and the like, as well as deporting other EU citizens to other EU countries, something which supposedly could never happen. The same people who are in charge of human rights etc are also in parties or even in governments which are imposing these measures. My argument is that far from being somehow independent the people involved are often heavily involved in the EU's bureaucratic institutions as well.


Don't confuse the actions of national governments with EU approval. The EU only has power over certain areas. They can't stop governments from banning burkas or mosques.



> Why? In Italy you've got local armed squads assisting the police and in some areas having been given the same/almost the same powers as the police. isn't this the thing that european "human rights" legislation was aimed to prevent? It's either powerless to prevent it or it's actively harmful, and how is it supposed to be objective when ministers of these governments which are supposedly nothing to do with the EU are playing a leading role in the EU bureaucracy.


Again, the EU doesn't have control over everything national governments do, and I think you're just scouring for negative things that are happening in Europe and assuming the EU is behind everything that goes on.



> You think that nobody immigrated anywhere before the EU was set up, or if not, it was impossibly difficult? It wasn't.


How many Poles lived in the UK before 2004?



> It's hard to say. But the EU's behaviour on this matter (and towards countries wishing to join, such as the privatisation and other conditions it's imposed on Moldova, Serbia, etc) doesn't exactly cover it in glory does it?


Well I'm no fan of liberal economic policy but the whole world operates under that system. The EU is no different right now and goes along with that trend. We and the rest of the world would be subjected to those ideological policies with the EU or without the EU. If things change ideologically, then so will the EU. I see the EU as simply a good mechanism for countries to come together to work on common issues...


----------



## magneze (Oct 24, 2011)

It got defeated, but 80 Tories voted for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

86.

Didn't matter anyway


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 86.
> 
> Didn't matter anyway


Well the last thing you want is leaving the EU under the Tories!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Well the last thing you want is leaving the EU under the Tories!


Close reading as ever Bolshevik.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Close reading as ever Bolshevik.


Hey I was just trying to be friendly, no need to be like that


----------



## magneze (Oct 24, 2011)

The motion was thrashed. Defeated by loads. Pathetic really, even some pro-EU MPs want a referendum.

Why set up a petitions website enabling a commons debate on an issue and then ensuring that when this happens it can only be defeated?

I didn't even sign the petition, but why would anyone bother to use that site after this?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

magneze said:


> The motion was thrashed. Defeated by loads. Pathetic really, even some pro-EU MPs want a referendum.
> 
> Why set up a petitions website enabling a commons debate on an issue and then ensuring that when this happens it can only be defeated?
> 
> I didn't even sign the petition, but why would anyone bother to use that site after this?


Because it's a PR joke. That's why.

What sort of vote are you suggesting anyway?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 24, 2011)

Best possible result. No referendum for the little Englanders, but almost a third of tory MPs telling Cameron to fuck off. Good stuff.


----------



## magneze (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Because it's a PR joke. That's why.


Of course. But it backfired a bit today though eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Best possible result. No referendum for the little Englanders, but almost a third of tory MPs telling Cameron to fuck off. Good stuff.


And all the people you hate get no say in anything again. Result. For the 1% you don't hate.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

magneze said:


> Of course. But it backfired a bit today though eh?


What backfired?The idea of popular petitions or this one in particular? They both worked fine.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And all the people you hate get no say in anything again. Result. For the 1% you don't hate.



I don't hate the little Englanders. I feel sorry for them and their insular, little ways.


----------



## magneze (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What backfired?The idea of popular petitions or this one in particular? They both worked fine.


This doesn't seem like working to anyone who has signed any petitions on that website. It may have worked precisely how Cameron wanted though. Is that what you mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> I don't hate the little Englanders. I feel sorry for them and their insular, little ways.


and what do you think of greater englanders?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

magneze said:


> This doesn't seem like working to anyone who has signed any petitions on that website. It may have worked precisely how Cameron wanted though. Is that what you mean?


No it's not.Cameron has been shown that 70% of his MPs hate him and that there is a gulf between the centre and the old cunts.Not really what he wanted. Yet,it shows how him to fix it -talk hard waffle on europe 'repatriate rights' etc


----------



## magneze (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not.Cameron has been shown that 70% of his MPs hate him and that there is a gulf between the centre and the old cunts.Not really what he wanted.


True. Still not quite sure what worked.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not.Cameron has been shown that 70% of his MPs hate him and that there is a gulf between the centre and the old cunts.Not really what he wanted. Yet,it shows how him to fix it -talk hard waffle on europe 'repatriate rights' etc


Depends. How many Labour mps didn't hate Blair? Or Wilson back in the day? Or Heath? A leader can lead long-term with most of the mps privately despising them.

And this wasn't even a vote on Europe. it was a vote on a vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

Sorry,what depends? What did i say?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Depends. How many Labour mps didn't hate Blair? Or Wilson back in the day? Or Heath?


eh? eh? you do know heath was a conservative and not a labour pm don't you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

Well he's already talking that 'hard waffle', has been for a while. I'm not sure how this changes anythign, that's all.

tbh, I'm kind of surprised he didn't make this an entirely free vote. Whipping it seems very counterproductive.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry,what depends? What did i say?



And stop editing things in after your posts.

like this


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well he's already talking that 'hard waffle', has been for a while. I'm not sure how this changes anythign, that's all.
> 
> tbh, I'm kind of surprised he didn't make this an entirely free vote. Whipping it seems very counterproductive.


What depends?What did i say that you were replying to?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> eh? eh? you do know heath was a conservative and not a labour pm don't you?


Yes, sorry, but he was a leader who held far from unanymous support among his mps. I'm just not sure that Cameron should necessarily be too bothered by the right of his party disliking him. Was Blair bothered by the fact that the left of his party despised him?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, sorry, but he was a leader who held far from unanymous support among his mps. I'm just not sure that Cameron should necessarily be too bothered by the right of his party disliking him. Was Blair bothered by the fact that the left of his party despised him?


i would be interested if you could show me a prime minister - or, for that matter, leader of the opposition - who had unan*i*mous support from their mps.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, sorry, but he was a leader who held far from unanymous support among his mps. I'm just not sure that Cameron should necessarily be too bothered by the right of his party disliking him. Was Blair bothered by the fact that the left of his party despised him?


Hmm, let me think about the differing majorities.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

I'm not trying to pretend that Cameron doesn't care about this, but I don't see it as the challenge to his authority that the rebellion against Major represented. It's more of an impotent roar.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not trying to pretend that Cameron doesn't care about this, but I don't see it as the challenge to his authority that the rebellion against Major represented. It's more of an impotent roar.


frankly major was in retrospect in a rather more secure position than cameron is now.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not trying to pretend that Cameron doesn't care about this, but I don't see it as the challenge to his authority that the rebellion against Major represented. It's more of an impotent roar.


You just made up some position that you're now waffling in reply to. What depends - you said it to me so please tell me,what depends?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> frankly major was in retrospect in a rather more secure position than cameron is now.


I don't agree with that. Cameron is rock-solid safe until the next election, and I see no reason for him to call that election for another 4 years, sad to say. Potentially he has more to fear from the libdems than from his disaffected backbenchers. he has little to fear from the libdems at the moment, though, although that could change. But if this govt is brought down prematurely, it will not be by tory backbenchers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You just made up some position that you're now waffling in reply to. What depends - you said it to me so please tell me,what depends?


 'it shows him how to fix it'.

Fix what, exactly?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'it shows him how to fix it'.
> 
> Fix what, exactly?


An internal problem -sort of like what i said.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

ok, fair enough. The internal problem, yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree with that. Cameron is rock-solid safe until the next election, and I see no reason for him to call that election for another 4 years, sad to say.


He doesn't get to choose now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He doesn't get to choose now.


Well, no, he's decided that, though, hasn't he? Fuck me he can do a hell of a lot of damage in the next four years. 

parliament can still choose, theoretically. It won't, though. Or at least, a lot will have to change for that to be possible.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

...yeah,and it's the pro-EU fraction that he represents that are going to be doing it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

yes. I would never dispute that! I don't take any comfort from any of this.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

So oppose the Eu and stop supporting it until we get rid of the tories. Your persoanl discomfit is neither here nor there.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

I don't support the EU. Danny la rouge's post earlier pretty much summed up what I think.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

You said you want to stay in until there's a labour govt then try and get us out-that would be the only acceptable time. That's supporting it for .That's the opposite of danny's (wrong) view.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 24, 2011)

Well ive just spent the night reading this whole thread. Seems the thing is that there are different aspects of the EU that rub up against each other, so Ive had a go at breaking them down and going through them. This post has got too long, but Ive written it now so might as well post it.

*EU HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS*
I was saying that if we pulled out of the EU we should have a constitution to replace lost human rights laws:



DotCommunist said:


> Ska. How is the US doing with their piece of paper?


I dont know, how do you think? 
Im no expert,  but you cant dismiss the US constitution, or any other bill of human rights outright - in the US its still a bedrock of the law, even if lawyers try their best to piss around no? <legal systems are never perfect and open to all kinds of abuse and corruption. Constitutional law is complicated, but I do know that as a principle i want more human rights in place, not less. The EU human rights act does seem to be stronger and more weighted to people than what the UK had before, and if that's the case then i'm for it. the fact it pisses off theresa may and her ilk is another bonus and a good sign.

*FEDERALISM + DEVOLUTION*



Lock&Light said:


> I want an independant Scotland to be a member of the EU.





Fuchs66 said:


> I'm all for more union within Europe, something along the lines of a Federation of States with a central, democratically elected government. I doubt whether it would happen any time soon but I can dream.


Me too I think. In theory i'm pro democratic european federalism, in the respect that it allows for greater devolution and allows smaller local independent 'states' to be self-determinant. In the UK i'd like to see further devolution (disappointed that the North East voted against having a regional assembly a few years back), and the EU does aid that process a lot. But the lack of real democracy in the structure as it stands is a big problem

*DEMOCRATIC/UNDEMOCRATIC *



JimW said:


> The whole farce of the vote on Lisbon treaty told you all about the democracy. Wrong answer Ireland, keep going until you get in right.


yes.



littlebabyjesus said:


> That the way this is happening at the moment is nakedly undemocratic. I would think that as measures of this kind of 'de facto' union increase, a point would be reached where the governments of places like Greece, Spain or Ireland would be asked the question: who governs? At some point, if you're going to have a United States of Europe, you'd need to have a discussion of how such a thing will be constituted.


agree, and theres no reason why in theory at least the EU couldn’t be improved along those lines.

*NO BORDERS*


littlebabyjesus said:


> No it wouldn't. You'd just maintain reciprocal agreements much as they are now. The Swiss have no problems moving around Europe.


It has been said (butchersapron IIRC) that if UK left the EU, the EU would collapse – Im not sure about that – but if it did collapse then before too long borders would come back, along with native currencies (and the threat of international conflict). Swiss have no problem moving now but they would if the EU collapsed.
Of course the free movement across borders + freedom to work internationally has a big economic effect (see below) but theres a big but here, No Borders is a wonderful thing outside of the economic reality, and I value it (even though I barely ever leave london). Which leads directly on to...

*ECONOMICS*

CyberRose asked



CyberRose said:


> What if the government was socialist? And if all governments in the EU were socialist?





CyberRose said:


> Is it the principle of European integration you disagree with or do you simply disagree with the ruling/dominant ideology that make up governments?


I think a democratically accountable federal structure could in theory take on any political shade.  


butchersapron said:


> The break up of the EU - the rollback of the transnational neo-liberal schemes (regionalised flexible labour by law), germany having to actually fund investment in eastern europe and the balkans


I dont like talking about my private life on here, so no details, but I can promise you my family are on the sharpest of ends of the pain of EU-wide integration, in terms of work/living standards: I know exactly what it means. If living/working standards could be equalised across the EU and brought up that would be great for those particularly in the poorer nations, and I'm not convinced that a collapse of the EU would be helpful in that process. Then there's the economic mayhem thats still got so far to run. Ive heard Tories argue that Greece should leave the Euro, devalue, and rebuild through competing by being cheap. I dont know enough about this to really comment, but my gut worry is that a collapse of the EU in the middle (start) of this crisis may mean the worst outcome for european workers. I dont know, but its scary.

I think for a generation of people who lived through WW2, or close enough out of the other side there is still a strong feeling that the EU is the safest way to go, and a real fear of what might happen without it. Thats not me personally, but I can empathise with that.


BTW, just for little balance, not all EU laws are bad for workers: employment law, working time directives etc. Thats a big part of what the Torys want to 'renegotiate' or repatriate - aka undo.



magneze said:


> TBH, the fact that all the main parties agree that the EU is a good thing is probably a decent indicator that it's a shit thing.


 That is the kind of pure logic argument its impossible to ague with


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree with that. Cameron is rock-solid safe until the next election, and I see no reason for him to call that election for another 4 years, sad to say. Potentially he has more to fear from the libdems than from his disaffected backbenchers. he has little to fear from the libdems at the moment, though, although that could change. But if this govt is brought down prematurely, it will not be by tory backbenchers.


so mounting anger across the country, mounting anger from his own party, scandals all over the fucking shop and your prognostication is that 'cameron is rock-solid until the next election'


----------



## eoin_k (Oct 24, 2011)

Is this really such a blow for Cameron?  The Tories come across as the most staunchly anti-EU party which will play well to many of their voters.  Personally, he also comes across as the most anti-EU, mainstream, party leader, while britain will remain in the EU which is the only project in town.  He might even manage to squeezes some concessions in future  EU negotiations or at least find the opportunity to have some more spats with Sarko.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Jesus ska, that font is burning the back of my brain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You said you want to stay in until there's a labour govt then try and get us out-that would be the only acceptable time. That's supporting it for .That's the opposite of danny's (wrong) view.


My very first post indicated that I think that it depends who's asking. I didn't say we should stay in the eu until there's a labout govt. I simply did not say that.

But you don't move closer to what you want by first moving further away from it, which is what we would be doign if the UK left the EU at the behest of the tories.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Jesus ska, that font is burning the back of my brain.


haha


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so mounting anger across the country, mounting anger from his own party, scandals all over the fucking shop and your prognostication is that 'cameron is rock-solid until the next election'


Yep. Absolutely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Absolutely.


you'll regret this little thread in years, if not months, to come.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My very first post indicated that I think that it depends who's asking. I didn't say we should stay in the eu until there's a labout govt. I simply did not say that.
> 
> But you don't move closer to what you want by first moving further away from it, which is what we would be doign if the UK left the EU at the behest of the tories.


And the answer was the same regardless of who was asking.No,if the tories are in govt.

_What_ do you want and _why_ is leaving the EU moving away from it (7 pages fucking later)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

What different answers have you given depending on whose asking then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2011)

They're doing shit by it ska. Fucking shit. Vast inequality of income, ever declining living standards, have a lots vs have fuck alls on the rise- they had their piece of paper back in the 30's too. It means nothing- as worthwhile as a social contract written while capital holds sway. IE sweet fanny adams.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll regret this little thread in years, if not months, to come.


If you mean that I'll be proved wrong, wow, I really would not regret that at all!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And the answer was the same regardless of who was asking.No,if the tories are in govt.
> 
> _What_ do you want and _why_ is leaving the EU moving away from it (7 pages fucking later)


Come off it. The question is incomplete.

Question: Do you want to leave the EU?

Answer: Leave the EU in order to do what instead?

Unless you present me with the alternative that is being proposed, it is a meaningless question.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

Who cares if it is?You said that you give different answers to diff people-you don't,you put the same bullshit answer whoever asks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

Nothing bullshit about my answer. I don't give different answers at all. Ask me what policies I want to see pursued, and I'll give you a concrete set of answers. Very concrete.

Membership or not of the EU is not a question of policies. Not on its own.#

A hypothetical referendum on the eu called by the tories would see me stepping out to vote 'stay in the eu' with a clothes peg on my nose. That is not an unprincipled position.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

So,when you said that you give diff answers to diff people you were what - lying? Talking shit?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

Total sco-dembullshit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

What part of 'it's an incomplete question' do you not undestand?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

So you'd vote to stay in the EU if labour or the lib-dems were in power but not if the tories were in power?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What part of 'it's an incomplete question' do you not undestand?


 Oh none of it. None of it all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

you get closer to what you want by first moving further away from what you want.

Yeah right. History really shows that this is correct.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> So you'd vote to stay in the EU if labour or the lib-dems were in power but not if the tories were in power?


I would vote to leave the eu if what was being offered as the alternative was better.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What part of 'it's an incomplete question' do you not undestand?



Do you understand your answers? It's been a few days, i've asked you to clarify them - you seem unable to.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you get closer to what you want by first moving further away from what you want.
> 
> Yeah right. History really shows that this is correct.


Yes to AV.

What is is that you want and how is leaving the EU putting you further away?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2011)

I refer you to my very first post on this thread. my opinion has not changed.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would vote to leave the eu if what was being offered as the alternative was better.


You don't care about the possible consequences of destroying eu wide austerity for starters?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You don't care about the possible consequences of destroying eu wide austerity for starters?


I don't agree with you that the UK leaving the eu would destroy the eu, for starters.

Of course I bloody care about the austerity. ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I refer you to my very first post on this thread. my opinion has not changed.


Yeah the one where you say that you'd say diff things to diff people. Why? Why not work out what the EU means (even in diff contexts)and argue that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree with you that the UK leaving the eu would destroy the eu, for starters.
> 
> Of course I bloody care about the austerity. ffs.


So take it seriously and stop whinging about nasty tories.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

I don't think you've understood my position on this at all.

Vote for me or him, the boot or the shoe. How you do want to be kicked?

No, I won't. You (as in anyone) want to ask me whether or not the UK should leave the eu, and I'll ask you before I answer 'what are 'we' leaving the eu for'. Until you answer my question, I will not answer yours.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think you've understood my position on this at all.
> 
> Vote for me or him, the boot or the shoe. How you do want to be kicked?
> 
> No, I won't.


No,that wasn't your position at all. It's the exact opposite of what you said earlier.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No,that wasn't your position at all. It's the exact opposite of what you said earlier.


No it's not.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Yes it is and to deny it is fundamentally dishonest.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Danny - won't take a position
lbj -will take a position

Anyone spot any differences?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

That's unworthy of you. It really is. You suggested that me saying that I wouldn't want Britain leaving the EU under the tories implied that I would want it leaving under Labour. That's a _sassaferrato_ level of debate.

Really bad of you in this case, butchers. I advise you to reread the thread and then take that back.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> First of all, you're comparing the function of the EU Parliament with national parliaments and secondly you're confusing legislative power with executive power (when you compare the Parliament to the Commission). Legislative equality in the EU sense means the balance of powers between the Council and the Parliament (not the Commission or national legislatures). With very few exceptions now (after the Lisbon Treaty) the Parliament has virtually equal powers to the Council.



But how is it equal when they cannot draft legislation, they can't veto legislation (except if another country does it for them), they can't introduce bills, etc etc. I would see all of these as being a pretty essential part of what a parliament does no, yet they can't do any of them.



> Actually I can see him being quite amenable to Tory MPs and their voters! But don't see whether him being offered a cabinet position means anything, there are plenty of Tory MPs who don't get offered cabinet positions (a lot more in 10 minutes!!)



right yeah, but could you see him being elected as an MP and being given a position of responsibility - real responsibility, other than writing his blog in the telegraph. I may be wrong but I couldn't.



> AFAIAA, all workers' rights (plus consumer rights) are now replaced with EU legislation. The Tories want to opt out of the social chapter of the EU (that contains workers' rights) because, I think, unless they do opt out they cannot legally reduce workers' rights from the minimum set by the EU



But you're confusing whether a thing happens with whether that thing is good or not. And so in other words you have to obey the EU laws, unless you opt out of the EU laws (which britain already has on many things!). What use is that then?

And what's happening in greece nad ireland is pretty much setting workers' rights down to some kind of minimum ...



> The Council nominates one Commissioner for their country, then the Parliament says yes or no to the Commission - that's how they get there. Throughout the Commission's term they are answerable to the Parliament who can dissolve the Commission should they disagree with what they've done.



yeah i know how they're chosen, i'm just arguing that the whole idea of this makes a mockery of democracy doesn't it? The EU over the years has assumed huge powers, why don't we have a say over it? Yeah I know voting doesn't change very much, but we can't even do that!



> Well imo I don't think we'd have many of the rights we have today without the EU.



Why not?  We abolished the death penalty (iirc) within a few years of joining, before it had assumed the powers etc that it has today. We developed the NHS before we joined the EU. Do you think these things would have been reversed within a few years if we weren't in the EU?



> I think countries would be reluctant to introduce them individually because they'd be putting themselves at a disadvantage to attract investment if they had the highest workers' rights and other countries just undercut them. Same with the environment - no good introducing environmental policies if your neighbour keeps on polluting. And that is basically why I support the concept of the EU - some policy areas are just better placed to be shared between countries, rather than relying on the good nature and trust of other countries (look at the UN for example, how many pro-Palestine resolutions get ignored? at least with EU laws countries are _compelled _to follow them once agreed).



Right yeah, but you're missing the point I'm making which is that the laws that are passed are themselves biased because of the people who are making them. Do you think that the people at the highest levels of the EU bureaucracy appeared out of nowhere? They are members of governments, they are members of parties that control governments or have a majority of the seats, they are members of bodies that get the majority of their funding from those parties, they are on corporate boards, etc. People like Angela Merkel etc have to make many of the decisions made on belhaf of the EU, and come to a consensus with the heads of other EU states, as does David Cameron etc. It's not really that independent from national government. They are frequently taking a role _within_ the national governments that you seem to be claiming are "independent" from the EU. You're argueing on one hand that the EU gives us a lot of our rights and that we wouldn't have the rights we do without the EU, but then when I point out areas in which the human rights policies of the EU have obviously been ineffective, you're claiming that's not the EU's responsibility!



> Don't confuse the actions of national governments with EU approval. The EU only has power over certain areas. They can't stop governments from banning burkas or mosques.



But it can set workers' rights to a legal minimum but can't stop countries opting out of that minimum. What's the point then, in defending all the things that the EU has done?



> Again, the EU doesn't have control over everything national governments do, and I think you're just scouring for negative things that are happening in Europe and assuming the EU is behind everything that goes on.



I'm not saying these things comes from EU directives. It has control over a lot of things. It has control over the things that the heads and bureaucratic structures of national governments and other interests want it to, because that's who's bhehind it. And yes that can change and there can be competing interests between elites etc. But it's not somehow independent and above all that.



> How many Poles lived in the UK before 2004?



that's not the point I'm making, you're confusing a time after the EU existed with what happened before it existed. And there was huge amounts of immigration in the early 20th century before the EU was set up, and some of that included Polish people coming to England. Some of the restrictions on migration have actually been introduced by the EU itself (romania and bulgaria?)



> Well I'm no fan of liberal economic policy but the whole world operates under that system. The EU is no different right now and goes along with that trend. We and the rest of the world would be subjected to those ideological policies with the EU or without the EU. If things change ideologically, then so will the EU. I see the EU as simply a good mechanism for countries to come together to work on common issues...



Does, say, the UN ask countries to fulfil criteria of having privatised certain utilities etc in order to become members? Im not saying the UN is a good thing by the way, im just saying


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Danny - won't take a position
> lbj -will take a position
> 
> Anyone spot any differences?



I sometimes change my position on threads - I'm persuaded that I'm wrong. But on this thread my position remains unchanged. I stand by what I said at the beginning of the thread and I also stand by the statement that as far as I'm concerned that is the same position as that of danny la rouge.

Reread the thread. you're wrong on this.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would vote to leave the eu if what was being offered as the alternative was better.



so thats a yes to all three, then


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's unworthy of you. It really is. You suggested that me saying that I wouldn't want Britain leaving the EU under the tories implied that I would want it leaving under Labour. That's a _sassaferrato_ level of debate.
> 
> Really bad of you in this case, butchers. I advise you to reread the thread and then take that back.


Fuck off - you argued it at length you silly cunt. Do yourself a favour because you're going to lose this one,take your own advice right now. I've done the re-reading,i did it before coming back on. You pompous fucking up your own arse,love the smell of your own farts prick. Do it, do it and you'll have to apolgise to me (yet again) for getting /giving the wrong impression et fucking cetera.Speak later


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I sometimes change my position on threads - I'm persuaded that I'm wrong. But on this thread my position remains unchanged. I stand by what I said at the beginning of the thread and I also stand by the statement that as far as I'm concerned that is the same position as that of danny la rouge.
> 
> Reread the thread. you're wrong on this.


You haven't read your own posts past the first couple. Lazy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

Unworthy on several levels, that post.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's unworthy of you. It really is. You suggested that me saying that I wouldn't want Britain leaving the EU under the tories implied that I would want it leaving under Labour. That's a _sassaferrato_ level of debate.
> 
> Really bad of you in this case, butchers. I advise you to reread the thread and then take that back.


Now you don't want to leave the EU at all. Despite pages of you arguing different i thought you had no view?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

I don't have no view. You just appear not to understand my view.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

You accuse others of naivety on here a lot, but I see a lot of naivety in your posts on this thread. Yes, it bloody matters who's asking. How the hell do you not see that?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

you said:
			
		

> I wouldn't want Britain leaving the EU with the Tories in power.



Not danny's view. You think it's the same-it's not. It's the opposite.Stop fucking typing your shit for once,your smug mung bean cunt liberal shit and get it that you got it wrong (you even fucking clap yourself on the back for being so great that you are op;en to doing that above).You did. Read the thread- do what you advised me to do and then tell the truth.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You accuse others of naivety on here a lot, but I see a lot of naivety in your posts on this thread. Yes, it bloody matters who's asking. How the hell do you not see that?


Your answer changes?You just spent posts denying it,now you're defending it?You're a genuine poltroon. An real life idiot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

As I said, you haven't understood me. Sleep on it. good night.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

No,you've offered two views that are diametrically opposed. You've defended both and said both were your real views all along. (one after prodding by people who actually have real views)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

You've got this one entirely wrong, you know. I'm not trying to be pompous or superiour or any of the other things you're accusing me of in a very fucking unpleasant manner, including bringing up a time when I misunderstood you and apologised, which is, frankly, contemptible. Badly wrong. Very badly fucking wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Nah, you've lost track of how many times you've got it wrong and had to say sorry.Not my fault if you can only recall last week and the last time it happened.Re-read the thread- you haven't got a chicken leg to stand on.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> depends who's asking.
> 
> Should Britain leave the EU in order to pursue socialist policies that EU rules would not allow? Yes.
> 
> Should Britain leave the EU in order to pursue capitalist policies that EU rules would not allow? No.


What assumptions do these questions carry?What incompleteness?

What if the EU was pursuing capitalist policies that US rules would not allow?

It wouldn't matter right - your new position that it ain't your business.It was earlier eh?


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> [sarcasm]It's the fault of people being doctrinaire, nothing at all to do with the erosion of the social compact, the absence of any electoral mechanism whereby the electorate can enforce the compliance of their elected representative in representing their views rather than those of his party.


And yet when asked to add to a discussion about exacly what such a compact should entail, you and the vast majority of others refuse to offer anything.

You seem to be keen to refer to the idea of a social contract, but refuse to engage in the idealism that such an agreement would entail - which is hypocritical.

The UK is in urgent need for change, the old consensus of the Empire has broken down and the government cannot buy off an oppressed population anymore. Sooner or later the discussion has to take place and it will not be about replacing those underfoot with the current elites.

Class war

Your attempt to argue that capitalism leads to class war is simplistic - certainly it leads to a more unequal society and thus more duties on the government to mitigate such effects, but there is no choice - property is accepted - people are happy with owning physical stuff. To refuse to engage unless people split the world into your catagories (proletariat, bourgeoisie, class etc) is the same as the christian going on about sin all the time.

The left needs to grab the rational/empirical argument from the right - it needs to point out where their logic is wrong and to go from there.


ViolentPanda said:


> I facepalmed the vapid comment you made about changing "the language of the left".


Well consider yourself facepalmed right back if you think that the left will get anywhere with its refusal to accept the idea of 'markets', 'property rights' and 'competition' - the left will not get anywhere until they stop refusing to engage with anyone other than those who share such class war nonsense. Moreover it is exactly what those in power want us to do, engage in a fruitless and divisive war of words which changes nothing, instead of uniting and producing a viable alternative.


ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks for that slurry of sweeping generalities about what "the UK" needs, and about "the judges". I'm shocked that I hadn't realised just how homogeneous "the Uk" and "the judges" are.


Now who is being vapid? I am simply pointing out that:

The judges are desperately trying to persuade everyone that we don't need it. They could rule sensibly on European Law issues but they choose not to.

Are you suggesting that they don't know what they are doing? I find that hard to believe - it is their job to judge well and yet they are not criticised for failing to do this because the press seems to be united against the EU.

Why would suggesting that the judges know exactly what they are doing be 'vapid' in your book?

I think they are well-aware that they know what their job is and are taking advantage of their position. They are also manipulating the press and the public into being against the only power that parliament has to adhere to, which gives me pause for thought even if it doesn't pause you.


gosub said:


> Quite interesting watching the debate, which is on the question of having public consultation (a referendum) on the issue of the EU, those arguing against, aren't actually arguing against at all, they are argueing they think the UK's membership of the EU is a good thing. A different question, (in fact the one I'd like to asked). That politicians think it more important to point out why they favour membership, just shows how little EU membership stands up on its own.


Arguing against the EU is like arguing against international law - it irritates parliament that they have to accede to a greater authority and so they argue for isolationism without giving any details about how the UK would survive out of the EU.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail is screeching to get out, or to have a referendum on it, but I am not convinced that a straight in/out would result in an 'out' vote - and neither are they because the debate allowed a third option of 'Renegotiation', which is denying reality - why would they negotiate, it is bad enough that we are not in the Euro. When that crisis sorts itself out then it won't be the euro in trouble, it will be small currencies like ours.


Will2403 said:


> well our relationship with the EU will completely change if we did what we have to do and get rid of the established elites / robbing bastards.
> 
> so it's irrelevant.
> 
> priorities people.


This is true in that we still have a technically oppressive regime, and until parliament relinquishes its sovereignty and moves to a more modern system we will not get anywhere.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Danny - won't take a position
> lbj -will take a position
> 
> Anyone spot any differences?


To be more specific, I don't think the conditions exist in which I need to take a position; for now, I'm quite happy to watch our Overlords weaken each other.  Delighted, in fact.

There will not any time soon be a referendum on _EU membership_. I don't even expect one on EU membership if the Euro fails and the Eurozone states revert to their former currencies (an unlikely scenario).  There _might_ be a referendum on some aspect or other of the EU project.  A new treaty, for example.  In that case, I'll look at the question and the conditions, and make my decision based on that.

Oh, and I'm not wrong; I'm differently-opinioned.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Your attempt to argue that capitalism leads to class war is simplistic - certainly it leads to a more unequal society and thus more duties on the government to mitigate such effects, but there is no choice - property is accepted - people are happy with owning physical stuff. To refuse to engage unless people split the world into your catagories (proletariat, bourgeoisie, class etc) is the same as the christian going on about sin all the time.



Capitalism does not _lead_ to class war.

It _is_ class war.

That's inescapable.

As are the class distinctions you list above.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 25, 2011)

Despite all the heat and noise there doesn't seem to be all that much disagreement here. No-one (serious) is arguing that "we" should stay as a member of the EU in perpetuity - the question is not whether the power of the EU should be broken but how, and to what end, and what would come after.

LBJ's early post was asking this - but in a clumsy way which implied support for the EU whilst the Tories were in power (with the implicit assumption that it would be "safe(r)" to leave under a Lab (or Lib Lab) government - as though it would be possible under those conditions anyway).


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

I dunno. I think one thing that is potentially hinted at here is how we'd react if EU membership (or similar) was ever pushed as a live issue via a referendum etc. Would people be dragged into the sideshow and into damaging alliances and illusions?


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not danny's view. You think it's the same-it's not. It's the opposite.Stop fucking typing your shit for once,your smug mung bean cunt liberal shit and get it that you got it wrong (you even fucking clap yourself on the back for being so great that you are op;en to doing that above).You did. Read the thread- do what you advised me to do and then tell the truth.


This is the third post of yours I've had reported on this thread (by people other than those you've been targeting I might add). You're being deeply unpleasant and overstepping the boundaries of 'robust debate' by a country mile. Wind it in please.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

What's Mystic Meg's Apron got against mung beans anyway?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Despite all the heat and noise there doesn't seem to be all that much disagreement here. No-one (serious) is arguing that "we" should stay as a member of the EU in perpetuity -



Then I would suggest you haven't read all the posts on this thread.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What's Mystic Meg's Apron got against mung beans anyway?


(((beans)))


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> Capitalism does not _lead_ to class war.
> 
> It _is_ class war.
> 
> ...


It used to be so maybe a few hundred years ago, but the world is globalised now and is too complicated to put into such simplistic boxes. Property, markets and competition are accepted by the whole world now, but don't let reality impose on your persecution complex - you will still find stacks of people here who will waste countless hours and cups of tea talking about how so and so is a middle class sell out etc, first up against the wall etc - but all that just ends up with everyone refusing to cooperate with each other, which is exactly what those in power want.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> To be more specific, I don't think the conditions exist in which I need to take a position; for now, I'm quite happy to watch our Overlords weaken each other.  Delighted, in fact.
> 
> There will not any time soon be a referendum on _EU membership_. I don't even expect one on EU membership if the Euro fails and the Eurozone states revert to their former currencies (an unlikely scenario).  There _might_ be a referendum on some aspect or other of the EU project.  A new treaty, for example.  In that case, I'll look at the question and the conditions, and make my decision based on that.
> 
> Oh, and I'm not wrong; I'm differently-opinioned.


I agree that we shouldn't take part in our bosses battles to legitimise themselves, the eu is about how they organize ands structure themselves to attack us though. And on that we have to take a position.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> It used to be so maybe a few hundred years ago, but the world is globalised now and is too complicated to put into such simplistic boxes. Property, markets and competition are accepted by the whole world now, but don't let reality impose on your persecution complex - you will still find stacks of people here who will waste countless hours and cups of tea talking about how so and so is a middle class sell out etc, first up against the wall etc - but all that just ends up with everyone refusing to cooperate with each other, which is exactly what those in power want.


Globalism is a result of an and expansion of class war you dolt


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Crispy said:


> This is the third post of yours I've had reported on this thread (by people other than those you've been targeting I might add). You're being deeply unpleasant and overstepping the boundaries of 'robust debate' by a country mile. Wind it in please.


I haven't been 'targeting' people, I've had a falling out with one person because they've decided to change their argument halfway through our debate, whilst both denying it and patting himself on the back for being able to do it. Ok, abuse has stopped, anger at that behavior hasn't.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> It used to be so maybe a few hundred years ago, but the world is globalised now and is too complicated to put into such simplistic boxes. Property, markets and competition are accepted by the whole world now, but don't let reality impose on your persecution complex - you will still find stacks of people here who will waste countless hours and cups of tea talking about how so and so is a middle class sell out etc, first up against the wall etc - but all that just ends up with everyone refusing to cooperate with each other, which is exactly what those in power want.



Now more than ever.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, abuse has stopped.


Good. That's all I care about here.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I agree that we shouldn't take part in our bosses battles to legitimise themselves, the eu is about how they organize ands structure themselves to attack us though. And on that we have to take a position.


I don't disagree.  I don't think there's going to be a referendum on EU membership, though.  And what I'm taking no position on currently is whether the British State should be a member of the EU.  Do I approve of the EU?  No, I don't, but that isn't what's asked by the OP, nor is it going to be asked in a referendum.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> It used to be so maybe a few hundred years ago, but the world is globalised now and is too complicated to put into such simplistic boxes. Property, markets and competition are accepted by the whole world now, but don't let reality impose on your persecution complex - you will still find stacks of people here who will waste countless hours and cups of tea talking about how so and so is a middle class sell out etc, first up against the wall etc - but all that just ends up with everyone refusing to cooperate with each other, which is exactly what those in power want.



Those "simplistic boxes" are the mechanics of how capitalism works. Without them there would be no capitalism. Whether people accept them (or enjoy some of the trappings of capitalism) is neither here nor there. Their existence is inarguable.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't disagree. I don't think there's going to be a referendum on EU membership, though. And what I'm taking no position on currently is whether the British State should be a member of the EU. Do I approve of the EU? No, I don't, but that isn't what's asked by the OP, nor is it going to be asked in a referendum.


You don't get a referendum on how companies organise themselves but you still take a position when that's seen to be detrimental to the workforce and wider community.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

A simple question that I don't know the answer to.

If a referendum on leaving EU was held tommorow would a "Yes" vote or a "No" vote be better for workers in the UK?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I haven't been 'targeting' people, I've had a falling out with one person because they've decided to change their argument halfway through our debate, whilst both denying it and patting himself on the back for being able to do it. Ok, abuse has stopped, anger at that behavior hasn't.


Fuck you, you complete cunt. And do not talk to me on here from now on. I will not be responding to you. You're beneath contempt.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Probably neither but it would be better for EU workers as a whole and set a precedent for fucking up neo-liberal projects (not that any real lasting  change would come out of a referendum)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck you, you complete cunt. And do not talk to me on here from now on. I will not be responding to you. You're beneath contempt.


Didn't bother re-reading it then?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> A simple question that I don't know the answer to.
> 
> If a referendum on leaving EU was held tommorow would a "Yes" vote or a "No" vote be better for workers in the UK?


Meaning people who work, or class warriors?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Meaning people who work, or class warriors?



That you say this sort of shit makes me wonder how you ever see yourself as a socialist.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Meaning people who work, or class warriors?


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Probably neither but it would be better for EU workers as a whole and set a precedent for fucking up neo-liberal projects (not that any real lasting change would come out of a referendum)



The "fucking up" thing I can see. And like.

But I wonder if would be encouragement for nationalist projects across the EU?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2011)

Who's this 'Slater' poster btw who just likes posts (even contradictory ones) and nothing else? *waves* Why not join-in?!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> The "fucking up" thing I can see. And like.
> 
> But I wonder if would be encouragement for nationalist projects across the EU?


I think that's what the EU is doing right now - the way it allows the rich European countries to use the south and east as cheap labour whilst attacking their living conditions and is provoking a reaction is some countries. I can't see nationalisms growing as a result of removing some of the  things that are currently driving it. (Again without thinkiing that real lasting chnage will come out of the EU being fucked)


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck you, you complete cunt. And do not talk to me on here from now on. I will not be responding to you. You're beneath contempt.


You watch your mouth too. I know he started it, but still.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2011)

stephj said:


> Who's this 'Slater' poster btw who just likes posts (even contradictory ones) and nothing else? *waves* Why not join-in?!


Ah. It's ern.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I think that's what the EU is doing right now - the way it allows the rich European countries to use the south and east as cheap labour whilst attacking their living conditions and is provoking a reaction is some countries. I can't see nationalisms growing as a result of removing some of the things that are currently driving it. (Again without thinkiing that real lasting chnage will come out of the EU being fucked)



Yes.

However, to leave following such machinations could create the impression that nationalism can deliver results, perhaps.

Incidentally, I don't think that these concerns should create our position re the EU, but I'm just thinking out loud about the various potential facets of any referendum campaign. Especially as, at the moment, any challenge to EU membership is going to come from nationalist origins not from "us".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

Crispy said:


> You watch your mouth too. I know he started it, but still.


no. Fuck off with that, crispy. He acted like a total cunt and I will say so.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> Yes.
> 
> However, to leave following such machinations could create the impression that nationalism can deliver results, perhaps.
> 
> Incidentally, I don't think that these concerns should create our position re the EU, but I'm just thinking out loud about the various potential facets of any referendum campaign. Especially as, at the moment, any challenge to EU membership is going to come from nationalist origins not from "us".


There was some interesting debates around this from our side in the two irish referendums.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Ah. It's ern.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> no. Fuck off with that, crispy. He acted like a total cunt and I will say so.


Please, step away from the boards and calm down - that goes for anyone who wants to start a post with gratuitous abuse. Disagree all you like, but keep it reasonably civil. This is as much for everyone else's benefit as yours.


----------



## Yu_Gi_Oh (Oct 25, 2011)

.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> Those "simplistic boxes" are the mechanics of how capitalism works. Without them there would be no capitalism. Whether people accept them (or enjoy some of the trappings of capitalism) is neither here nor there. Their existence is inarguable.


Indeed, people want and accept the concept of owning physical objects - get over it! This leads to some people being owners and others being too poor. Sure it's 'unfair', but it is a mile away from the simplistic world of Marx/Jesus/Mohammed/Thatcher/Cameron et al.

The capital markets, religion, technology, freedom everything is just way more complicated than facile answers. How much time do we need to waste trying to work out who is in which class?


stephj said:


> That you say this sort of shit makes me wonder how you ever see yourself as a socialist.


Both (all?) sides seem able to indulge in simplistic stereotypes which bear little relation to the complicated world we have around us.


Andrew Hertford said:


> Meaning people who work, or class warriors?


There is a part of this where those who decide to compromise and work because they recognise the need to just get on with life rather than be defined by fear/government/them etc - going on about how unfair life is. It gets boring after a while, and a lot of people don't really want change - try suggesting building new homes to provide needed housing, and the NIMBY crowd comes out against change.

The 'yes' vote here are just reacting against authority - it is the default position of any oppressive regime - they know that globalisation has happened but they refuse to recognise that it is through compromise and cooperation, not war, that we can get on in life.

I think it was Lord Hailsham who described the UK as an elected dictatorship, and so it is no surprise that more and more people are reaching for the language of war - which is why the status quo persists - both sides are trapped and are unable to see an exit strategy.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 25, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Please, step away from the boards and calm down - that goes for anyone who wants to start a post with gratuitous abuse. Disagree all you like, but keep it reasonably civil. This is as much for everyone else's benefit as yours.


What's the difference between abuse and gratuitous abuse then??


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Please, step away from the boards and calm down - that goes for anyone who wants to start a post with gratuitous abuse. Disagree all you like, but keep it reasonably civil. This is as much for everyone else's benefit as yours.


There was nothing gratuitous about anything I said. I did not report this thread. And I won't stand by and let him repeat his accusations of dishonesty.

Don't penalise me because someone else reported someone else for abusing me!


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You don't get a referendum on how companies organise themselves but you still take a position when that's seen to be detrimental to the workforce and wider community.


And if we're offered a referendum similar to the one offered in Ireland, I'd vote no.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> And if we're offered a referendum similar to the one offered in Ireland, I'd vote no.


And the people who would we generally agree with called that taking part in the bosses battles...


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> A simple question that I don't know the answer to.
> 
> If a referendum on leaving EU was held tommorow would a "Yes" vote or a "No" vote be better for workers in the UK?



I personally think it is better for jobs in Britain if we are in the EU and the single market, even though I understand we are running a trade deficeit at the moment with the rest of the EU. In most of the companies I have worked for, a significant proportion of their business was duty free exports to EU countries. That might be jeapardised should we leave the single market.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And the people who would we generally agree with called that taking part in the bosses battles...


I know, but in that case it was a specific question being asked, and there were good reasons for answering it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I know, but in that case it was a specific question being asked, and there were good reasons for answering it.


I would have voted no too - just pointing out that the argument we don't take part in their battles doesn't leave us much room.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2011)

so you say 'jobs' when asked about 'workers' thereby actually answering a different question,


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> What's the difference between abuse and gratuitous abuse then??


A little bit of to-and-fro is accepted as part of the culture here. More than that is unwarranted and unpleasant.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2011)

Crispy said:


> A little bit of to-and-fro is accepted as part of the culture here. More than that is unwarranted and unpleasant.


So my abuse was gratuitous, then?

Get a fucking grip.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2011)

No, his was, yours just didn't help defuse the situation. I can tell you're still angry, so I'm respectfully suggesting that you take a step back and take some deep breaths. Not as a telling off, but as sincere advice. It's what I try and do if I feel my emotions getting the better of me on here. I'd prefer to continue this via conversation if you want to discuss it - the thread can get back on topic.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I would have voted no too - just pointing out that the argument we don't take part in their battles doesn't leave us much room.


Aye, except I did say conditions were important, and that I'd look at the tactical issues.  If asked "Do you want us [the bosses] to have some new rules we can hit you over the head with", I'm going to say no thanks, basically.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

Crispy said:


> A little bit of to-and-fro is accepted as part of the culture here. More than that is unwarranted and unpleasant.


Surely name-calling is anathema to discussion? Many on here seem to have no limit on themselves at all.

LBJ has never abused on the level of BA, who has a long history of just that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Aye, except I did say conditions were important, and that I'd look at the tactical issues. If asked "Do you want us [the bosses] to have some new rules we can hit you over the head with", I'm going to say no thanks, basically.


Conditions are always important Danny - which is why i think your first post overstated the none of our business aspect. You...um...cunt.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Indeed, people want and accept the concept of owning physical objects - get over it! This leads to some people being owners and others being too poor. Sure it's 'unfair', but it is a mile away from the simplistic world of Marx/Jesus/Mohammed/Thatcher/Cameron et al.
> 
> The capital markets, religion, technology, freedom everything is just way more complicated than facile answers. How much time do we need to waste trying to work out who is in which class?



You miss my point.

"Class war" exists whether you like it or not. There's no element of choice. It's fundamental. Capitalists are happy to acknowledge it (albeit often in code). It is merely a simple fact. How you respond to this fact is where choice and complications come in.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2011)

> people want and accept the concept of owning physical objects


 
Second time you've done this- that revealing 'I haven't got a fucking scooby' comment like a massive red flag inamongst 10 paragraphs of hand wavery.

you are anathema to discussion


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Second time you've done this- that revealing 'I haven't got a fucking scooby' comment like a massive red flag inamongst 10 paragraphs of hand wavery.
> 
> you are anathema to discussion


Little does he realise that the market he loves is the negation of private property.


----------



## Random (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> It used to be so maybe a few hundred years ago, but the world is globalised now and is too complicated to put into such simplistic boxes.


 Globalisation has led to less diversity in the world, not more. The drive to increase capital is now a bigger force than ever, and the class divisions that this causes are also more widespread than ever.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> You miss my point.
> 
> "Class war" exists whether you like it or not. There's no element of choice. It's fundamental. Capitalists are happy to acknowledge it (albeit often in code). It is merely a simple fact. How you respond to this fact is where choice and complications come in.


So, very similar to the Muslims who consider everyone to be muslim? You would claim not a suppose but the similarities are all there - the believers who can always find that dubious passage - the gathering together to talk about how wrong everyone else is if only they thought 'properly'... interesting bedfellows you have there.

So, au contraire - you miss my point - it is just a simplistic religion like all the others - you can waste your time on it or jump into the complicated world as it is empirically rather than based on the dubious stories of yesteryear.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Yeah chilango you bloody muslim.


----------



## Random (Oct 25, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Second time you've done this- that revealing 'I haven't got a fucking scooby' comment like a massive red flag inamongst 10 paragraphs of hand wavery.
> 
> you are anathema to discussion


 We know all this already, yet we still respond. Myself I'm typing for the sake of bystanders, not Gmart himself, who may as well be a bot for all the signs he shows of understanding others' arguments.


----------



## Random (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> So, very similar to the Muslims who consider everyone to be muslim? You would claim not a suppose but the similarities are all there - the believers who can always find that dubious passage - the gathering together to talk about how wrong everyone else is if only they thought 'properly'... interesting bedfellows you have there.


 Beautiful example of internet argument gibberish; should be archived in the British Library.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

Random said:


> Globalisation has led to less diversity in the world, not more. The drive to increase capital is now a bigger force than ever, and the class divisions that this causes are also more widespread than ever.


Less diversity because we all face the same common problems of life - we ARE all the same in what we want, and the limits therein.
The 'class divisions' are not just more widespread - they have multiplied geometrically with the opening up of the world market - that's exactly why such simplistic stories are being seen for what they are - simple answers for those who want to stop taking in the complexity of the world.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

Random said:


> Beautiful example of internet argument gibberish; should be archived in the British Library.


It is somewhat inevitable that you would not be able to see the similarities.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The 'class divisions' are not just more widespread - they have multiplied geometrically with the opening up of the world market - that's exactly why such simplistic stories are being seen for what they are - simple answers for those who want to stop taking in the complexity of the world.


He just topped it. Look at this sentence. I mean,just look at it - it's..._magnificent._


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 25, 2011)

Crispy said:


> A little bit of to-and-fro is accepted as part of the culture here. More than that is unwarranted and unpleasant.


OK I just wondered why here and why now, cos it's more or less the norm on here.


----------



## Random (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The 'class divisions' are not just more widespread - they have multiplied geometrically with the opening up of the world market.


 Give an example or two. Myself it seems that a modern Chinese industrial worker now has a lot more in common with a modern Chilian industrial worker than a Shang tribesman had with an Inca slave, say.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 25, 2011)

multiplied geometrically?  how does that work?


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> So, very similar to the Muslims who consider everyone to be muslim? You would claim not a suppose but the similarities are all there - the believers who can always find that dubious passage - the gathering together to talk about how wrong everyone else is if only they thought 'properly'... interesting bedfellows you have there.
> 
> So, au contraire - you miss my point - it is just a simplistic religion like all the others - you can waste your time on it or jump into the complicated world as it is empirically rather than based on the dubious stories of yesteryear.



There's no element of "belief" in what I've typed. I've not ascribed any moral values to the situation. I've not mentioned "fairness" (you did that) or "good" or "evil". Or "right" and "wrong".


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> OK I just wondered why here and why now, cos it's more or less the norm on here.


Cos it was reported and was so very blatant. I don't like the fact that it's the norm.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> multiplied geometrically? how does that work?


Remember, they're also not real.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

Random said:


> Give an example or two. Myself it seems that a modern Chinese industrial worker now has a lot more in common with a modern Chilian industrial worker than a Shang tribesman had with an Inca slave, say.


In each language you will have a multitude of divisions ranging from the general have's and havenots to the more precise genetic differences at the individual level.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> There's no element of "belief" in what I've typed. I've not ascribed any moral values to the situation. I've not mentioned "fairness" (you did that) or "good" or "evil". Or "right" and "wrong".


How open are you to the solution not being about class war?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 25, 2011)

If your argument doesn't follow Butchers' preconceptions he gets frustrated, angry and abusive.  That's just how he is.  The cunt.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If your argument doesn't follow Butchers' preconceptions he gets frustrated, angry and abusive. That's just how he is. The cunt.


He is, but to be fair he doesn't hide it, and doesn't even bother to read what he posts often, he cares so little about what other people think.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> How open are you to the solution not being about class war?



What solution? Solution to what?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If your argument doesn't follow Butchers' preconceptions he gets frustrated, angry and abusive. That's just how he is. The cunt.


Watch the likes on this one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Conditions are always important Danny - which is why i think your first post overstated the none of our business aspect. You...um...cunt.


Well, OK, except there's two different questions being discussed.  The vague, general one:  "Should the British State remain part of the EU?" To which my answer (generally) is "Please yourselves".  And a specific one, like: "Would you like our capitalist club to have these suggested additional means for hitting you on the head?" To which my answer is "No thanks".


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Second time you've done this- that revealing 'I haven't got a fucking scooby' comment like a massive red flag inamongst 10 paragraphs of hand wavery.
> 
> you are anathema to discussion


Yes, I was going to pick up on that, but didn't bother.  "people want and accept the concept of owning physical objects".  I wonder what he imagines that is a reply to?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, I was going to pick up on that, but didn't bother. "people want and accept the concept of owning physical objects". I wonder what he imagines that is a reply to?


Clearly  people do not want and do not accept the concept of owning physical objects.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> What solution? Solution to what?


Any answer you give - how open are you to it _not _being phrased in the language of class war?
It is the same in a discussion with the religious - they will always try and frame it in the language _they_ prefer. It is not surprising - they are true believers - and there are many true believers for all manner of different religions.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Clearly people do not want and do not accept the concept of owning physical objects.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Any answer you give - how open are you to it _not _being phrased in the language of class war?
> It is the same in a discussion with the religious - they will always try and frame it in the language _they_ prefer. It is not surprising - they are true believers - and there are many true believers for all manner of different religions.



I haven't given any answers. What's the question?

All I've done is describe.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


>


 
So what's it actually in reply to then?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

Maybe Gmart thinks socialists and commies can only own non-physical objects?


----------



## krink (Oct 25, 2011)

no I think he thinks all muslims are socialists?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2011)

Who knows, as DC pointed out earlier, Gmart really does not have a fucking clue.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

krink said:


> no I think he thinks all muslims are socialists?



And none of them can own anything? And they're not in a class, because despite the geometric proliferation of such, they don't exist. Got it.


----------



## krink (Oct 25, 2011)

right, what can gmart crack next?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Who are you referring to here? All our workers' rights come from the EU (counter to what this government would like) and, funnily enough, the laws allowing immigrants from other EU countries to work here come from the EU. Are you referring to individual Commissioners? Or are you referring to some of the fascist/far-right parties represented by some MEPs?



Inaccurate. Workers' rights don't originate from the EU, they are supposedly *reinforced* by EU legislation. Most of the rights workers "enjoy" are the remnants of rights we won for ourselves.



> What would be happening to Ireland, Greece and Portugal if they were not in the EU and having to cope with this current world wide recession? That's a genuine question, I don't know the answer. They might be in a better position, insulated from what was happening in other EU countries, but then again, maybe the EU will act like an insurance policy if by grouping together they have a better chance of stabilising these economies?



Grouping together also multiplies the possibility of sharks attacking the outliers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> And Maigret.



But not Plastic Bertrand.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> well our relationship with the EU will completely change if we did what we have to do and get rid of the established elites / robbing bastards.
> 
> so it's irrelevant.
> 
> priorities people.



You're not a strategic thinker, are you, not even a tactical thinker, on the strength of this _dreck_.

It's not merely a case of "overthrow the elites". You have to dismantle the structures that allow elites to function, and you have to do it in such a way that you *don't* encourage neighbouring states to intervene when the workers decide to "clean house". This would be easier outside the EU than in it.

Now go grow a brain, you dire twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's why it relevant you fake loon.



Don't you find the cluelessness of plastic revolutionaries sort of cute, in a "defenceless kitten" kind of way?

Nah, me neither.


----------



## Random (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> In each language you will have a multitude of divisions ranging from the general have's and havenots to the more precise genetic differences at the individual level.


I asked you for an example of the kinds of divisions that globalisation has brought. This ain't it, is it? Btw raised eyebrows at the genetic differences bit. Are you a social darwinist?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> here?



That's the captain's ready room, not the bridge.


----------



## Random (Oct 25, 2011)

Oh, and answering the OP, yes, Britain should leave the EU.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Inaccurate. Workers' rights don't originate from the EU, they are supposedly *reinforced* by EU legislation. Most of the rights workers "enjoy" are the remnants of rights we won for ourselves.


Good for them but sadly our residual rights model has broken now. There is no harm in it, but there is an evident need for something more to protect the 'average joe'. We need to define ourselves, the rights we believe in.

The British Empire was created on the back of a parliamentary sovereignty which meant that the Brits could move faster and with more purpose than others. Now though all the other countries have copied our system, and improved it.

Popular sovereignty and a document of rights with an associated duty of the courts to give it importance is a basic safety net of all other systems to try and foster a 'working together' attitude which is alien to the British knee jerk reaction against all authority - we have had an oppressive regime for a long time - even got close to getting a republic during the Cromwell era, but he just didn't know what he was doing - religious too, so probably got bogged down in doing 'God' work. Banning xmas tho - what was he thinking!!??

Sooner or later someone who you all can believe in will call it, and change will finally come to the first industrial nation.



> Grouping together also multiplies the possibility of sharks attacking the outliers.


Are you arguing against cooperation with this bit of fear?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Good for them but sadly our residual rights model has broken now. There is no harm in it, but there is an evident need for something more to protect the 'average joe'. We need to define ourselves, the rights we believe in.



Wut? There is no harm in the fact that our residual rights are broken, but there is an evident need for something more? Even to a generous reader you're not making any sense at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Good for them but sadly our residual rights model has broken now. There is no harm in it, but there is an evident need for something more to protect the 'average joe'. We need to define ourselves, the rights we believe in.
> 
> The British Empire was created on the back of a parliamentary sovereignty which meant that the Brits could move faster and with more purpose than others. Now though all the other countries have copied our system, and improved it.
> 
> ...



Er,the britsh empire happened after these classic liberal rights were won elsewhere. Fucking ridiculous. You are a severely ill-informed man.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Wut? There is no harm in the fact that our residual rights are broken, but there is an evident need for something more? Even to a generous reader you're not making any sense at all.


Because they're harmed. Which they're not.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Because they're harmed. Which they're not.



Quite. At least you've stopped calling people cunts for a while eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Quite. At least you've stopped calling people cunts for a while eh?


The day is early yet.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

Stick to the mung beans.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Maybe Gmart thinks socialists and commies can only own non-physical objects?


 
he's read the prodhoun quote, misunderstood it and extrapolated his misunderstanding as some central tenet of all socialism


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> And yet when asked to add to a discussion about exacly what such a compact should entail, you and the vast majority of others refuse to offer anything.
> 
> You seem to be keen to refer to the idea of a social contract, but refuse to engage in the idealism that such an agreement would entail - which is hypocritical.



As usual, you're incorrect. I've engaged with your thread. Minimally, yes, but that would be because whatever gets said, you take and twist to fit *your* agenda/ideas/fantasies. I prefer discussion to actually be discussion.



> The UK is in urgent need for change, the old consensus of the Empire has broken down and the government cannot buy off an oppressed population anymore. Sooner or later the discussion has to take place and it will not be about replacing those underfoot with the current elites.



The old "Empire consensus" you refer to broke down between the wars. It was replaced *after* the wars with a more approximately "social democratic" consensus that had very little to do with Empire.

I don't want to replace any putative "underclass" with the members of current elites. I want to dismantle the system that allows elites to proliferate.



> Class war
> 
> Your attempt to argue that capitalism leads to class war is simplistic - certainly it leads to a more unequal society and thus more duties on the government to mitigate such effects, but there is no choice - property is accepted - people are happy with owning physical stuff. To refuse to engage unless people split the world into your catagories (proletariat, bourgeoisie, class etc) is the same as the christian going on about sin all the time.



More GMartian balls.
Inequalities in society are the effect of class war. Capitalism inheres class war. It can't do anything *but* inhere class war, because it is predicated on exploitation, whether that exploitation is quantified as the asymmetric power-relations between employer and employee, or quantified as the asymmetric power-relations between landowner and peon.
You simplistically equate "owning stuff" and holding property as an *acceptance* of capitalism. It isn't, it's an acceptance that *currently* the economic system is such that it is necessary, in order to live, to function within the parameters of that system.



> The left needs to grab the rational/empirical argument from the right - it needs to point out where their logic is wrong and to go from there.
> 
> Well consider yourself facepalmed right back if you think that the left will get anywhere with its refusal to accept the idea of 'markets', 'property rights' and 'competition' - the left will not get anywhere until they stop refusing to engage with anyone other than those who share such class war nonsense. Moreover it is exactly what those in power want us to do, engage in a fruitless and divisive war of words which changes nothing, instead of uniting and producing a viable alternative.



Are you an idiot?
Please, produce proof that "the left" (whoever that is!) refuse to accept the idea of markets, property rights and competition. I can't actually think of *any* practical "left" doctrine that does so.

Still, I suspect that what you actually mean, but fail to articulate, is the idea of *individual* property rights, "free" markets and competition defined by who has the biggest purse, not the best product.



> Now who is being vapid?



You, as usual.



> I am simply pointing out that:
> 
> The judges are desperately trying to persuade everyone that we don't need it. They could rule sensibly on European Law issues but they choose not to.



"Sensibly"? According to *you* they're not doing so, but according to their mandate to objectively assess what they judge?



> Are you suggesting that they don't know what they are doing? I find that hard to believe - it is their job to judge well and yet they are not criticised for failing to do this because the press seems to be united against the EU.



What is this nonsense you're spouting? It's not a judge's job to "judge well", it is a judge's job to review, to summarise, and to make as independent and objective a judgement as possible.



> Why would suggesting that the judges know exactly what they are doing be 'vapid' in your book?



Oh please.



> I think they are well-aware that they know what their job is and are taking advantage of their position. They are also manipulating the press and the public into being against the only power that parliament has to adhere to, which gives me pause for thought even if it doesn't pause you.



If you believe that judges are indeed acting corruptly, then it's your duty as a citizen to take action. Do so.



> Arguing against the EU is like arguing against international law - it irritates parliament that they have to accede to a greater authority and so they argue for isolationism without giving any details about how the UK would survive out of the EU.



Arguments for isolation are shadowplay, designed to give idiots who don't see beyond the surface something to fulminate with/about. There won't be any withdrawal from the EU because it's more advantageous for global capitalism for an EU to exist.



> Meanwhile, the Daily Mail is screeching to get out, or to have a referendum on it, but I am not convinced that a straight in/out would result in an 'out' vote - and neither are they because the debate allowed a third option of 'Renegotiation', which is denying reality - why would they negotiate, it is bad enough that we are not in the Euro. When that crisis sorts itself out then it won't be the euro in trouble, it will be small currencies like ours.
> 
> This is true in that we still have a technically oppressive regime, and until parliament relinquishes its sovereignty and moves to a more modern system we will not get anywhere.



The turkeys, however, will not vote for Christmas, so how will this "modern system" of yours, which seems to embrace the _status quo_ a lot more than it promotes change, change the situation, outwith resistance based primarily on matters of class?

It won't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> Capitalism does not _lead_ to class war.
> 
> It _is_ class war.
> 
> ...



Amen to that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> It used to be so maybe a few hundred years ago, but the world is globalised now and is too complicated to put into such simplistic boxes.



Rubbish. Complexities are all reducible to component parts. Among those component parts is class conflict, just on a more massive and ubiquitous scale than was extant "a few hundred years ago".



> Property, markets and competition are accepted by the whole world now...



Your point being...?



> ...but don't let reality impose on your persecution complex - you will still find stacks of people here who will waste countless hours and cups of tea talking about how so and so is a middle class sell out etc, first up against the wall etc - but all that just ends up with everyone refusing to cooperate with each other, which is exactly what those in power want.



You really do miss the point.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> he's read the prodhoun quote, misunderstood it and extrapolated his misunderstanding as some central tenet of all socialism



Which one, property is theft?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2011)

that one yes.


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're not a strategic thinker, are you, not even a tactical thinker, on the strength of this _dreck_.
> 
> It's not merely a case of "overthrow the elites". You have to dismantle the structures that allow elites to function, and you have to do it in such a way that you *don't* encourage neighbouring states to intervene when the workers decide to "clean house". This would be easier outside the EU than in it.
> 
> Now go grow a brain, you dire twat.



fair points


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 25, 2011)

i guess i'm more of a do-er than a thinker, and don't often think so much about consequences.

in the new republic don't give me a brainy job, i'll be a PE teacher or summat!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Or eating soil


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or eating soil



Mung beans.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Meaning people who work, or class warriors?



Fucking idiot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Mung beans.



No, they just *taste* like you're eating soil.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, they just *taste* like you're eating soil.



I think you might have had some that were well off their best by date.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Less diversity because we all face the same common problems of life - we ARE all the same in what we want, and the limits therein.



Except fulfillment of our *basic* needs, we're *not* all the same in what we want. Are the wants of a Peruvian peasant farmer "the same" as those of an interior designer who lives in Hoxton? Generally not. Those of the Peruvian farmer will tend to the practical, those of the Hoxton twat, immersed in consumer culture, will be less so.



> The 'class divisions' are not just more widespread - they have multiplied geometrically with the opening up of the world market - that's exactly why such simplistic stories are being seen for what they are - simple answers for those who want to stop taking in the complexity of the world.



Wow. You really *don't* know what you're talking about, do you? "Class divisions" are much the same as they were a hundred years ago, they're merely more stratified. Go read some Weber, for fuck's sake.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I think you might have had some that were well off their best by date.



They're still less soil-tasting than Puy lentils, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Cos it was reported and was so very blatant. I don't like the fact that it's the norm.



If you don't like it, you can &^)££* right off, you #*^|@!!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Eu swearing.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're still less soil-tasting than Puy lentils, though.



See your doctor, mate, your tongue's seriously faulty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, I was going to pick up on that, but didn't bother. "people want and accept the concept of owning physical objects". I wonder what he imagines that is a reply to?



It's an enunciation of GMart's belief that "the left" are dead set against the owning of physical objects, the cunts!!!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's an enunciation of GMart's belief that "the left" are dead set against the owning of physical objects, the cunts!!!



Especially placards, posters, banners and flags. The left hates owning all of those things.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Maybe Gmart thinks socialists and commies can only own non-physical objects?



I'm typing this reply on my ghost-keyboard, dude.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

krink said:


> right, what can gmart crack next?



One off?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's an enunciation of GMart's belief that "the left" are dead set against the owning of physical objects, the cunts!!!


if lefty cunts try to abolish my jag, they can fuck right off.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

discokermit said:


> if lefty cunts try to abolish my jag, they can fuck right off.



No abolishment will take place, merely an expropriation for the good of the working classes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Are you arguing against cooperation with this bit of fear?



No, I'm making the point that grouping together makes outliers more vulnerable to attack.

In the context of the EU, we've seen this repeatedly throughout the life of the EU, most forcefully in the post-2008 market-inspired attempts to cause runs on the economies of EU outliers to the benefit of capitalism.

Sometimes a spade is just a spade.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's an enunciation of GMart's belief that "the left" are dead set against the owning of physical objects, the cunts!!!


He and Louise Mensch should write a pamphlet together.  I humbly submit the title, _The Road to Starbucks_.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> No abolishment will take place, merely an expropriation for the good of the working classes.


it's best for the working class that it stays where it is. they'd never all fit in it anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2011)

remember jagstadt


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Especially placards, posters, banners and flags. The left hates owning all of those things.



Most of all, though, "the left" hate owning books.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

discokermit said:


> if lefty cunts try to abolish my jag, they can fuck right off.



Why would anyone want to abolish a car, comrade?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most of all, though, "the left" hate owning books.


DotCom doesn't bother.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2011)

you got it back! eventually


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why would anyone want to abolish a car, comrade?


jealousy i expect. or a chip on their shoulder. summat like that.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> As usual, you're incorrect. I've engaged with your thread. Minimally, yes, but that would be because whatever gets said, you take and twist to fit your agenda/ideas/fantasies. I prefer discussion to actually be discussion.



Talking about a social contract sounds great but then refusing to go into details on what exactly you envisage is just going through the motions.



ViolentPanda said:


> The old "Empire consensus" you refer to broke down between the wars. It was replaced after the wars with a more approximately "social democratic" consensus that had very little to do with Empire.



But it was and remains an oppressive regime, with parliament refusing to relinquish sovereignty and the people being caught in the trap with them. Liberation!



ViolentPanda said:


> I don't want to replace any putative "underclass" with the members of current elites. I want to dismantle the system that allows elites to proliferate.



But I could quite easily use your own argument against you saying that why would they let that happen - may as well just give up on such idealism.

And anyway you refuse to put forward the details on how you would do this and so once again the class war is not going to do anything - there has been sporadic rebellions frequently over hundreds of years with absolutely nothing changing - and nothing will change again until we put aside the weapons of class war and discuss the principles we agree on in an open way.



ViolentPanda said:


> Inequalities in society are the effect of class war. Capitalism inheres class war. It can't do anything but inhere class war, because it is predicated on exploitation, whether that exploitation is quantified as the asymmetric power-relations between employer and employee, or quantified as the asymmetric power-relations between landowner and peon.



There will always be different people with different possessions, that just isn't going to change. If you have freely entered contracts then I don't see your problem - everyone is free to choose how they wish to live - sure everyone wants to just live it up on a beach, but that just isn't possible. You are simplistically tarring all economic transactions as 'exploitation', when the vast majority of transactions have both parties going away with a smile on their faces.



ViolentPanda said:


> You simplistically equate "owning stuff" and holding property as an acceptance of capitalism. It isn't, it's an acceptance that currently the economic system is such that it is necessary, in order to live, to function within the parameters of that system.



Yep, we all need food/drink and shelter (in cold climates) - that ain't gonna change much in the foreseeable. Owning a property to live in is thus fine. Owning one as an asset is different of course (I am not against government as a cooperating force), but that is why we need to have these discussions about what is reasonable rather than talking about class (whatever that is).



ViolentPanda said:


> Are you an idiot?



I'll go 'no' on that one, but I don't expect you will take my word on it. 



ViolentPanda said:


> Please, produce proof that "the left" (whoever that is!) refuse to accept the idea of markets, property rights and competition. I can't actually think of any practical "left" doctrine that does so.



A practical one? No, we agree! The left will never get anywhere if they take this line - and I stand by my statement that the left needs to drop this kind of language. But don't play dumb - you know that this language of class war is the first simplistic line of defence against thinking, even if you don't believe it.



ViolentPanda said:


> Still, I suspect that what you actually mean, but fail to articulate, is the idea of individual property rights, "free" markets and competition defined by who has the biggest purse, not the best product.



Competition has to be supported by government policy of course.

Judges



ViolentPanda said:


> "Sensibly"? According to you they're not doing so, but according to their mandate to objectively assess what they judge?
> 
> What is this nonsense you're spouting? It's not a judge's job to "judge well", it is a judge's job to review, to summarise, and to make as independent and objective a judgement as possible.
> 
> If you believe that judges are indeed acting corruptly, then it's your duty as a citizen to take action. Do so.



I would, but I am a subject, not a citizen - and the population won't be acting in just exactly that way until the need to shift systems is accepted. I like how you accept the sovereignty principle and yet then try to use the more progressive language of citizenry seemingly instinctively. You are not alone I have seen MP's try and 'claim the fifth' in debates - amazing hypocrisy.



ViolentPanda said:


> Arguments for isolation are shadowplay, designed to give idiots who don't see beyond the surface something to fulminate with/about. There won't be any withdrawal from the EU because it's more advantageous for global capitalism for an EU to exist.



On that at least we agree.



ViolentPanda said:


> The turkeys, however, will not vote for Christmas, so how will this "modern system" of yours, which seems to embrace the status quo a lot more than it promotes change, change the situation, outwith resistance based primarily on matters of class?
> 
> It won't.



It will because of your previous comment - the EU will march towards a rights based model and the political class will try to maintain the status quo for as long as possible, but sooner or later the Brits will have to choose. Then maybe they will start agreeing on the ideals they agree on. That is why I started the thread on the Social Contract. I thought there might be ome here who recognised the need to pool ideas. We could have something that we can agree on, but as you said on that thread:



> Now, I'm all for codification - it would help prevent some of the more egregious political manouvres that take place, but I'm at a loss to see how you can formulate either a written constitution or an explicit social contract that won't require the input of, and legislating by, parliament, and they're not going to go for something that constrains their own actions. We know that they're not bothered by large-scale protest or by public disgust and contempt, so what leverage do we have on them to commit them to ratifying a written constitution or social contract?
> 
> Or are you proposing an informal written constitution and/or social contract, in which case: Why bother?


 
Your conclusion being that 'they' have got us, and so there is nothing to be gained by talking about the ideals we may or may not share. I find that defeatist - I appreciate that you and I seem to disagree on many things, but we can still discuss without abuse or perhaps you have been beaten into a submission where you cannot even discuss the merest possibility of freedom breaking out for the British people, and the model we would have to come up with then?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Is he still going about his shit thread?


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is he still going about this shit thread?


Who is worse? The fool, or the fool who follows the fool?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Who is worse? The fool, or the fool who follows the fool?


The fool.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Who is worse? The fool, or the fool who follows the fool?


Who do you think -and place fools to names.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is he still going about his shit thread?



Mung beans, old chap.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2011)

> the vast majority of transactions have both parties going away with a smile on their faces.



You should see the grins of glee in my house when the british gas bill arrives. Walking on air.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> You should see the grins of glee in my house when the british gas bill arrives. Walking on air.



What about when the gas arrives?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2011)

I begrudge it


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> You should see the grins of glee in my house when the british gas bill arrives. Walking on air.


As I said, it should be a duty of a government to ensure that the building code is adequate to ensure that prices are not too high, as well as keeping the energy market as well supplied as possible.

However there is no doubt that there is a large demand for energy and only a small supply, so the costs are going to be high - that is just the way it is - you may as well wish upon a star for all the good it will do you whinging about how unfair it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Every post delivers. Like eric and ernie.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

The UK is an oppressive regime - but it ain't going to get any better if people argue over who is in which class all the time. United we stand, divided we fall surely?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I begrudge it



I meant when it arrives, not when you discharge it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The UK is an oppressive regime - but it ain't going to get any better if people argue over who is in which class all the time. United we stand, divided we fall surely?


Yes it is and because of that.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it is and because of that.


You've had class war for centuries - and you reckon that it might be coming to 'THE' day?
You are closer to a religious nut than I thought


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 25, 2011)

stephj said:


> Who's this 'Slater' poster btw who just likes posts (even contradictory ones) and nothing else? *waves* Why not join-in?!



Funny enough I was just thinking the same, I even clicked on his profile just about 3 posts before you made this one to see as I've seen him liking posts all over the place the last few days.

*also waves*

EDIT:



Crispy said:


> Ah. It's ern.



Oh.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> You've had class war for centuries - and you reckon that it might be coming to 'THE' day?
> You are closer to a religious nut than I thought


Anyone?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> As I said, it should be a duty of a government to ensure that the building code is adequate to ensure that prices are not too high, as well as keeping the energy market as well supplied as possible.
> 
> *However there is no doubt that there is a large demand for energy and only a small supply, so the costs are going to be high - that is just the way it is* - you may as well wish upon a star for all the good it will do you whinging about how unfair it is.


 
so, seeing as energy costs have skyrocketed over the previous 3 years, nationwide, and energy expenditure accounts for a fair chunk of every single persons monthly overheads it would seem that it is an example where 'the vast majority' are not grinning like loons at what a bonza deal they've got.

The energy companies are still declaring fat fat profits as well.

It seems that you are saying the vast majority of transactions leave both parties satisfied yet when I point out ONE example where this isn't the case you say 'suck it up'

this is an example (of which there are many) of you saying one thing and then volte-facing when called on it. There is no exploitation cos everyone is happy, but when reality buts in on your fancy then that is just the way things are and nothing can be done. Which is it? the care bears version or the pragmatic reality version?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The UK is an oppressive regime - but it ain't going to get any better if people argue over who is in which class all the time. United we stand, divided we fall surely?



Good grief.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 25, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> so, seeing as energy costs have skyrocketed over the previous 3 years, nationwide, and energy expenditure accounts for a fair chunk of every single persons monthly overheads it would seem that it is an example where 'the vast majority' are not grinning like loons at what a bonza deal they've got.
> 
> The energy companies are still declaring fat fat profits as well.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying that there isn't monopoly abuse of the market - did you read my support for legislation against such abuse?
But yet you jump on that one, and I could easily give many examples of when I go to shops and buy goods that both I want to buy, and the supermarket wants to sell me. You can point to the privatised, natural monopolies and I will agree - but you fail to jump so quickly when some on here argue that all capitalism is exploitative when it obviously isn't.


----------



## gosub (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Who is worse? The fool, or the fool who follows the fool?


See, you in your head now probably think you are as profound as an old Alec Guiness in a cluncky George Lucas film we all thought was great when we were 7, but that quote actually reminds me of dream warriors:

Who is more fool, who is more fool
The fool or the fool who follows the fool?
Who is more fool, who is more fool
The fool or the fool who follows the fool?

Follow me not, a me not, a me not
Follow me not, a me not, a me not
Follow me not, a me not, a me not
Follow me not, a me not, a me not

Follow me not, you'll get caught
In a hot spot
Cause I'm more hotter than the burning sun
A pink cerebellumental
Raised from the funk
Only I can beat the magic into the junk
Words are spilled across universe echoes (echoes, echoes, echoes)
I've got the Cato

The style that I spring, that I bring to your earring
Is piercing
So they crown me the king
Of myself, because I am what I am
You chose to graze on the pig and the ham

Who is more fool, who is more fool
The fool or the fool who follows the fool?

When I was a young boy, found in the lost
Sea of Orinoco, flow to the light
Looking for a parasite to eat up
So I could get stronger and beat up
The negativity, the positivity
Freedom, freedom
I cry to be free

So I grew up fast and lived a fast life
Speakers and sneakers, this music, my life, my wife
May nothing pierce her immortal shell
The arrows turn now, the swords repel
Pen to the paper, ink to the scroll
Primed to the limit, food for the soul
Dare not jump into the pot if the pot appears hot
Who?
The fool, you forgot

Who is more fool, who is more fool
The fool or the fool who follows the fool?
Who is more fool, who is more fool
The fool or the fool who follows the fool?

(Is the fool, the fool, the fool)

Follow me not, a me not, a me not
Follow me not, a me not, a me not
Follow me not, a me not, a me not
Follow me not, a me not, a me not

Follow me not

Who is more fool, who is more fool
Who is more fool, who is more fool
When I was a young boy, found in the lost
When I was a young boy, I've got the Cato
Who is more fool, who is more fool
The fool or the fool who follows the fool?
When I was a young boy, found in the lost
When I was a young boy, I've got the Cato

Follow me not
Follow me not
Follow me not
Follow me not
Follow me not ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

stephj said:


> Good grief.


Check the guys thread record.Beware-no work will get done.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Who is worse? The fool, or the fool who follows the fool?


It's you. You knobhead


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I'm not saying that there isn't monopoly abuse of the market - did you read my support for legislation against such abuse?
> But yet you jump on that one, and I could easily give many examples of when I go to shops and buy goods that both I want to buy, and the supermarket wants to sell me. You can point to the privatised, natural monopolies and I will agree - but you fail to jump so quickly when some on here argue that all capitalism is exploitative when it obviously isn't.


 
damn my inconsistency- truly I am hoist by my own petard.

Here is a though for you. I'm happy to bu product x at a cheap price and mr sainsbury is happy to sell it to me. Where could the exploitation possibly be here? After all, only I exist- only mr sainsbury exists. There is no other context to my purchase except me happy to buy and he happy to sell.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I'm not saying that there isn't monopoly abuse of the market - did you read my support for legislation against such abuse?
> But yet you jump on that one, and I could easily give many examples of when I go to shops and buy goods that both I want to buy, and the supermarket wants to sell me. You can point to the privatised, natural monopolies and I will agree - but you fail to jump so quickly when some on here argue that all capitalism is exploitative when it obviously isn't.



You're confusing market exchanges with capitalism. Market exchanges can be "free" of exploitation, capitalism cannot.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Inaccurate. Workers' rights don't originate from the EU, they are supposedly *reinforced* by EU legislation. Most of the rights workers "enjoy" are the remnants of rights we won for ourselves.


Maybe we're arguing over semantics or are talking about different things? Yes the history of workers' rights were won by labour movements decades before European integration was even thought about. The EU enshrined those rights into common pan-European laws (well, set the minimum standards). What I'm saying is that our current laws are set by the EU (albeit some may have already been in existence). I'm not saying we would not have workers' rights were it not for the EU (altho with this current government, we wouldn't have the rights we have today if _they _pulled us out of the EU or opted out of certain aspects)



> Grouping together also multiplies the possibility of sharks attacking the outliers.


True


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Maybe we're arguing over semantics or are talking about different things? Yes the history of workers' rights were won by labour movements decades before European integration was even thought about. The EU enshrined those rights into common pan-European laws (well, set the minimum standards). What I'm saying is that our current laws are set by the EU (albeit some may have already been in existence). I'm not saying we would not have workers' rights were it not for the EU (altho with this current government, we wouldn't have the rights we have today if _they _pulled us out of the EU or opted out of certain aspects)



But what you're saying is not true.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> But how is it equal when they cannot draft legislation, they can't veto legislation (except if another country does it for them), they can't introduce bills, etc etc. I would see all of these as being a pretty essential part of what a parliament does no, yet they can't do any of them.


Well we have a parliament that combines the executive with the legislature. I think in most cases (not ours as we have private members bills) the government (or executive) proposes laws and the legislature votes to accept them or not. This is no different to the EU set up. In fact, executives are often not elected - who here votes for the PM or any cabinet positions? We only vote for individual MPs...



> right yeah, but could you see him being elected as an MP and being given a position of responsibility - real responsibility, other than writing his blog in the telegraph. I may be wrong but I couldn't.


I can see him being elected quite easily, but no he wouldn't get a cabinet position (not sure what difference that makes?)



> But you're confusing whether a thing happens with whether that thing is good or not. And so in other words you have to obey the EU laws, unless you opt out of the EU laws (which britain already has on many things!). What use is that then?


Well opt outs are agreed before hand when a Treaty is signed. Like we don't join the Euro. Some opt outs like Workers Time gave us a temporary opt out (so now we're in). But opt outs aren't very common and yes, you have to obey EU law.



> yeah i know how they're chosen, i'm just arguing that the whole idea of this makes a mockery of democracy doesn't it? The EU over the years has assumed huge powers, why don't we have a say over it? Yeah I know voting doesn't change very much, but we can't even do that!


Like I said above, we don't vote for our PM or cabinet. Most people here would see that also as being undemocratic so it's not exactly an argument (altho I'm not an ardent supporter of democracy, unless democracy supports my position, which is about as democratic as everyone else - I just have the balls to admit it).



> Why not?  We abolished the death penalty (iirc) within a few years of joining, before it had assumed the powers etc that it has today. We developed the NHS before we joined the EU. Do you think these things would have been reversed within a few years if we weren't in the EU?


Considering the current government, yes, I do think many of our rights would be getting scaled back (you yourself mentioned the NHS - what do you think the Tories would like to do to that?! ps health isn't an EU policy area!)



> Right yeah, but you're missing the point I'm making which is that the laws that are passed are themselves biased because of the people who are making them. Do you think that the people at the highest levels of the EU bureaucracy appeared out of nowhere? They are members of governments, they are members of parties that control governments or have a majority of the seats, they are members of bodies that get the majority of their funding from those parties, they are on corporate boards, etc. People like Angela Merkel etc have to make many of the decisions made on belhaf of the EU, and come to a consensus with the heads of other EU states, as does David Cameron etc. It's not really that independent from national government. They are frequently taking a role _within_ the national governments that you seem to be claiming are "independent" from the EU. You're argueing on one hand that the EU gives us a lot of our rights and that we wouldn't have the rights we do without the EU, but then when I point out areas in which the human rights policies of the EU have obviously been ineffective, you're claiming that's not the EU's responsibility!


I'm not making an argument that the EU's "ideology" is one way or another, of course it will be shaped by the dominant ideology (liberalism). But I don't see the EU as ideological (the actors within it are) I simply see it as a way countries can come together to tackle common problems. And you do still need to draw a distinction between what the EU has a say over, and what is the responsibility of national governments.



> But it can set workers' rights to a legal minimum but can't stop countries opting out of that minimum. What's the point then, in defending all the things that the EU has done?


There's no automatic opt out of policies, it must be agreed before hand and with good reason. Can you give me a list of all the policies you say can be opted out of so I can maybe have a better idea?



> I'm not saying these things comes from EU directives. It has control over a lot of things. It has control over the things that the heads and bureaucratic structures of national governments and other interests want it to, because that's who's bhehind it. And yes that can change and there can be competing interests between elites etc. But it's not somehow independent and above all that.


Sorry you need to be more specific than "things"!!



> that's not the point I'm making, you're confusing a time after the EU existed with what happened before it existed. And there was huge amounts of immigration in the early 20th century before the EU was set up, and some of that included Polish people coming to England. Some of the restrictions on migration have actually been introduced by the EU itself (romania and bulgaria?)


Well you need to keep your head in today. If immigration policies were more lax 100 years ago that's not particularly relevant to what immigration laws are like today in countries out of the EU (or within the EU for people coming from outside) - that's what you need to compare it to. As for Bulgaria and Romania, they need a workers permit but they can still come here to work whereas before they couldn't (these are the same restrictions that just ended for the original 2004 East European countries)

Does, say, the UN ask countries to fulfil criteria of having privatised certain utilities etc in order to become members? Im not saying the UN is a good thing by the way, im just saying[/quote]
Not sure what you mean?


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> But what you're saying is not true.


If you say it's not true then I can't argue with that!


----------



## magneze (Oct 25, 2011)

Pointing at the good pieces of EU legislation isn't really a good argument for it. There's no reason why the legislation could not be done at a national level.

The best argument I've heard is that we do most of our trade with the EU and that if we leave then we'd have no say over legislation pertaining to selling to the EU but still have to comply with it.

That one does make me pause - but I wonder if it would really work like that.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 25, 2011)

which cockwits voted yes... what are you planning to put fucking outboard motors on the isle of wight and hope the cascade collsion pushes into the artic circle... muppets...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> which cockwits voted yes... what are you planning to put fucking outboard motors on the isle of wight and hope the cascade collsion pushes into the artic circle... muppets...


I am better than you. I can at least click on a link.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

magneze said:


> Pointing at the good pieces of EU legislation isn't really a good argument for it. There's no reason why the legislation could not be done at a national level.
> 
> The best argument I've heard is that we do most of our trade with the EU and that if we leave then we'd have no say over legislation pertaining to selling to the EU but still have to comply with it.
> 
> That one does make me pause - but I wonder if it would really work like that.


Ask Norway...(I think they even contribute to the budget!)


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Ask Norway...(I think they even contribute to the budget!)



Ask them (me) what?


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

magneze said:


> Pointing at the good pieces of EU legislation isn't really a good argument for it. There's no reason why the legislation could not be done at a national level.


Environmental policies cannot be done at national levels. Other areas of law like workers/consumer rights need to be done in unison to prevent a rush to the bottom (less rights = more attractive for investors).

It's not the laws per se that I'm using as an argument, but how they are enforced in multiple countries which doesn't really happen outside of the EU


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 25, 2011)

Class war is just polite racism

Slater is my mate Ben slater. He's doing the virgin Mary scene from full metal jacket down in some barracks in London at the mo so he shouldn't really be skiving off on the internets, so it might not be him


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> Class war is just polite racism



Wut?


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Ask them (me) what?





> The non EU members of the EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. These are some of the areas covered by the European Community (the "first pillar" of the European Union).
> The non-EU members of the EEA have no representation in Institutions of the European Union such as the European Parliament or European Commission. This situation has been described as a “fax democracy”, with Norway waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission.[9][10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area#cite_note-9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 25, 2011)

Having different classes. It just racism with different words


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> Having different classes. It just racism with different words



Oh ffs


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2011)

Oh. My. Fucking. God.


----------



## magneze (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Ask Norway...(I think they even contribute to the budget!)


Well exactly. It would be made to work.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area



That's not even a question. What was the question you'd like to ask Norwegians?


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

I like it when genuine idiots post on here, takes the heat off me!

<edit - refers to class war racist comments>


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> Having different classes. It just racism with different words



This. This is doubleplusgood.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Ask them (me) what?


Ask who?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ask who?



Ask Cyberrose.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> Having different classes. It just racism with different words



erm ... do you want to explain your reasoning here?

actually, just dont


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I am fatter than you. I can't exercise.



Uh-huh...

answering rhetorical questions... sign of gross stupidity...


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That's not even a question. What was the question you'd like to ask Norwegians?


As sorry, you're Norwegian? Get it now!

The question was asked by magneze: If we left the EU would we still have to comply with EU laws having lost our say.

I answered ask Norway as they have to comply with many EU laws without having a say on them being implemented (and the wiki quote related to that, saying Norwegians call it "fax democracy" - waiting for Brussels to fax their laws to them!)


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> As sorry, you're Norwegian? Get it now!
> 
> The question was asked by magneze: If we left the EU would we still have to comply with EU laws having lost our say.
> 
> I answered ask Norway as they have to comply with many EU laws without having a say on them being implemented (and the wiki quote related to that, saying Norwegians call it "fax democracy" - waiting for Brussels to fax their laws to them!)



That's because they're in the EFTA. If the UK left EU and joined EFTA then they might have similar agreements in place. Then again they might very well not.


----------



## gosub (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Ask Cyberrose.


I'd say thats a mistake,he  spent ages talking shite on a thread about the traety of lisbon, even said its was democratic cos of subsidiarity. The only other major institution that bangs on about subsidiarity is that great bastion of democratic accountability -the Roman Caltholc Church.

Cyberrose-the only person I ever put on my ignorelit when we had them


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That's because they're in the EFTA. If the UK left EU and joined EFTA then they might have similar agreements in place. Then again they might very well not.


The right wing economic argument for leaving says we can still enjoy free trade agreements with the EU (using EFTA members as an example, plus Switzerland who iirc still has to comply with trade laws) but that would subject us to the majority of EU law whilst removing our say


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Uh-huh...
> 
> answering rhetorical questions... sign of gross stupidity...


These are rhetorical questions designed not to make you look sort of like a massive fucking cock?



> which cockwits voted yes... what are you planning to put fucking outboard motors on the isle of wight and hope the cascade collsion pushes into the artic circle... muppets...


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

gosub said:


> I'd say thats a mistake,he spent ages talking shite on a thread about the traety of lisbon, even said its was democratic cos of subsidiarity. The only other major institution that bangs on about subsidiarity is that great bastion of democratic accountability -the Roman Caltholc Church.
> 
> Cyberrose-the only person I ever put on my ignorelit when we had them


Don't you vote UKIP?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 25, 2011)

Will, perhaps you should re-organise that demo you were going to do, and invite all the conspiraloons to it so we don't have to put up with them at anti-capitalist protests.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> The right wing economic argument for leaving says we can still enjoy free trade agreements with the EU (using EFTA members as an example, plus Switzerland who iirc still has to comply with trade laws) but that would subject us to the majority of EU law whilst removing our say



That doesn't take into account the fact that the UK is massively more important to Europe than the EFTA countries combined - Norway partially excepted by way of petro-power and fisheries (the two areas where the EU has pretty much zero say).


----------



## gosub (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Don't you vote UKIP?


Never have. Did work with Referendum Party, which is not the same. Farage wants a toy for his ego, is a block on that party's development


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That doesn't take into account the fact that the UK is massively more important to Europe than the EFTA countries combined - Norway partially excepted by way of petro-power and fisheries (the two areas where the EU has pretty much zero say).


We might be able to take more liberties, sure, but to agree something completely in our favour is fantasy (imo of course!).


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

gosub said:


> Never have. Did work with Referendum Party, which is not the same. Farage wants a toy for his ego, is a block on that party's development


You're mistaking me with someone who doesn't know how to use the search function:



gosub said:


> I voted UKIP for the first time ever. Treaty of Lisbon is to me as important as the rest of the stuff going on, and in the South East region were the most credible in further piling on the pressure to rid us of the utterly discredited Parliament, pressure that needs to be maintained in order to have any chance of redressing the shameful way the latest bout of European integration- if we don't get an election by October its game over.


You also refer to UKIP as "we" several times...

Your choice, of course, but don't tell me I'm talking shit when you're UKIP!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

You're talking shit regardless of him being ukip.


----------



## gosub (Oct 25, 2011)

like I said cyberrose talks shite. At best confusing me with goneforlunch, a UKIP voting board member wh used to take him to task


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> We might be able to take more liberties, sure, but to agree something completely in our favour is fantasy (imo of course!).


You refer to 'the UK' as we a number of times Your choice, of course, but don't tell me I'm talking shit when you're 'UK'.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> We might be able to take more liberties, sure, but to agree something completely in our favour is fantasy (imo of course!).



I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Even China and USA have to make deals.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

Make a deal with him truxta


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're talking shit regardless of him being ukip.


You don't even talk at all! How many arguments have you actually put forward on U75 lately? It's just little arrogant snipes at other posters. I have a lot of time for you, but no idea where you get your ego from?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Make a deal with him truxta



I'm all out of mung beans.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> You don't even talk at all! How many arguments have you actually put forward on U75 lately? It's just little arrogant snipes at other posters. I have a lot of time for you, but no idea where you get your ego from?


Loads.On this thread. Find them or not.Don't care. Makes no diff to what i've said.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> These are rhetorical questions designed not to make you look sort of like a massive fucking cock?


no butchers as per they are design to be funny, a comic aside to the dullard lickspittles and po faced political soapboxers such as yourself and the other cock waving posers on here...

which I hope each time that you and your fellow tub thumpers will get rattled by and respond to cos it's funny to watch you try and put together coherent arguments against nonsense...

and you're all to po-faced and serious (yet inert, impotent and useless) to realise that you're wasting your time talking about polidicks on line and arguing the toss any more than there's a point to xtain baiting in chat rooms...

off you trot anarkid... you're righteous indignation awaits ---------------------------------------------------> that a way...


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2011)

If they are designed to be funny then they fail far more obviously than the online political discussions which you proceed to diss.

I don't think talking about politics is pointless. And although it is seldom obvious, I reckon people do actually learn stuff as part of such discussions here. OK there are plenty of times where I know that Id have been better off reading a book than spending so much time here, but debate offers something that a book cannot, even when the debate descends to squabbling.

More often than not I find debates here to be more enlightening than debates in the house of commons. That the implications of debates here is of no consequence compared to debates in parliament does not make the activity pointless.

As for righteous indignation, you are full of that too, you just choose to express it in a more pointless manner than most.


----------



## gosub (Oct 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You refer to 'the UK' as we a number of times Your choice, of course, but don't tell me I'm talking shit when you're 'UK'.


i can tell you you are talking shite when you are lying, as you are, My dad has been involved with UKIP, wasn't in favour of withdrawl when he was, and his exprience put me off now I am. Or are you saying now I'm UK what as in resident (UKIP is so much harder to type) I am a UK resident. There is no point in me lying over this, asthe boards have staggered leftwards admitting I was tied in with corperate raider and asset stripper Jimmy Goldsmith does me few favours (here at least) but I was so I admit it. Never voted UKIP never claimed to, you might whilst digging find admittance of spoiled ballots, and one vote for a tory in a very bitter council election, but again that is because that is true, tis in my nature, as spouting bollocks is in yours


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

gosub said:


> i can tell you you are talking shite when you are lying, as you are, My dad has been involved with UKIP, wasn't in favour of withdrawl when he was, and his exprience put me off now I am. Or are you saying now I'm UK what as in resident (UKIP is so much harder to type) I am a UK resident. There is no point in me lying over this, asthe boards have staggered leftwards admitting I was tied in with corperate raider and asset stripper Jimmy Goldsmith does me few favours (here at least) but I was so I admit it. Never voted UKIP never claimed to, you might whilst digging find admittance of spoiled ballots, and one vote for a tory in a very bitter council election, but again that is because that is true, tis in my nature, as spouting bollocks is in yours



 I thought butchers was addressing CyberRose?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Well we have a parliament that combines the executive with the legislature. I think in most cases (not ours as we have private members bills) the government (or executive) proposes laws and the legislature votes to accept them or not. This is no different to the EU set up. In fact, executives are often not elected - who here votes for the PM or any cabinet positions? We only vote for individual MPs...



But they can't veto the bills, so how can they be voting "whether to accept them or not" because "not" doesn't come into it.



> I can see him being elected quite easily, but no he wouldn't get a cabinet position (not sure what difference that makes?)



Why wouldn't he get a cabinet position? imo it's the same reason why he is a european MP rather than an MP here. Saying that the tories are all loons isnt an argument. He's not only a loon ideologue and a PR disaster, he also has views on some matters which are substantially different than the rest of the cabinet.



> Well opt outs are agreed before hand when a Treaty is signed. Like we don't join the Euro. Some opt outs like Workers Time gave us a temporary opt out (so now we're in). But opt outs aren't very common and yes, you have to obey EU law.



What are the "minimum workers' rights" that EU states have got to obey? The problem with people who support the european union's record on human rights is that it's so easy to find flaws in it. What is the European minimum wage that workers are entitled to in the EU by law? 400 euros per month? 200 euros? One pound every few weeks? What basic minimum rights are guaranteed by the EU because I genuinely don't know, especially when you've things like Mode 4 Access (which has been agreed upon by most EU states?)



> Like I said above, we don't vote for our PM or cabinet. Most people here would see that also as being undemocratic so it's not exactly an argument (altho I'm not an ardent supporter of democracy, unless democracy supports my position, which is about as democratic as everyone else - I just have the balls to admit it).



What's that got to do with anything? Where did I say that the UK government structure was any better? I'm arguing that the EU is somehow not inherently more progressive?



> Considering the current government, yes, I do think many of our rights would be getting scaled back (you yourself mentioned the NHS - what do you think the Tories would like to do to that?! ps health isn't an EU policy area!)



that's not what I said. The things I am talking about were developed when the EU did not even exist yet ffs. I worded my original statement badly, I meant to say that if we had not entered the EEC at all, or entered it a few years later than we did, I don't think that these rights would have been removed by then.



> I'm not making an argument that the EU's "ideology" is one way or another, of course it will be shaped by the dominant ideology (liberalism). But I don't see the EU as ideological (the actors within it are) I simply see it as a way countries can come together to tackle common problems. And you do still need to draw a distinction between what the EU has a say over, and what is the responsibility of national governments.



My point is that the individuals and groups involved in the decision-making structure of the EU are frequently the same individuals involved in national governments, corporations, banks etc. Yet when they're taking part in the EU bureaucracy they're somehow independent?



> There's no automatic opt out of policies, it must be agreed before hand and with good reason. Can you give me a list of all the policies you say can be opted out of so I can maybe have a better idea?



There's the common agricultural policy which IIRC Britain has never agreed to, and the British rebate which has been contended since time immemorial. There's all these supposed legal protections on workers' rights, trade unions, etc, which as we're seeing in Greece are being fucking smashed. I could go on.

I've given you examples, you have yourself. How come France is now performing expulsions of other EU countries' citizens within the EU? I thought that this was this great thing that was never supposed to happen? I have to say that I do see the EU partially as a vehicle for French and German imperialism, these countries (as well as Britain) tend to dictate the course of events in the EU in a way which will basically benefit them only (or to be more precise the ruling classes of those countries) by the use of economic soft power, rather than military means etc. I'll get some examples of this in a bit, don't really have much time but will come back to this later.



> Well you need to keep your head in today. If immigration policies were more lax 100 years ago that's not particularly relevant to what immigration laws are like today in countries out of the EU (or within the EU for people coming from outside) - that's what you need to compare it to. As for Bulgaria and Romania, they need a workers permit but they can still come here to work whereas before they couldn't (these are the same restrictions that just ended for the original 2004 East European countries)



You're assuming these immigration laws would have developed in the fashion they have despite the EU, if the EU had never existed, whereas one of the reasons why they developed in the first place is probably because of the EU, because of the need to provide a free market of labour within an economic zone whereas at the same time controlling the movement of goods and labour outside it, and enacting protectionist policies designed to benefit (mostly) French and German capital. We have nothing to compare it to because we don't know what would have happened if the EU had not existed, but I'd say you're making a pretty huge assumption to assume that immigration laws in European countries would be as severe as they are now without the EU.



> Does, say, the UN ask countries to fulfil criteria of having privatised certain utilities etc in order to become members? Im not saying the UN is a good thing by the way, im just saying



I'm talking about the stabilisation and association agreements and the conditions on new member states to become members of the EU. The UN doesn't at present lay on certain economic and financial demands to countries wishing to become members and demand that they privatise utilities etc with the vague promise of UN membership


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 25, 2011)

elbows said:


> If they are designed to be funny then they fail far more obviously than the online political discussions which you proceed to diss.
> 
> I don't think talking about politics is pointless. And although it is seldom obvious, I reckon people do actually learn stuff as part of such discussions here. OK there are plenty of times where I know that Id have been better off reading a book than spending so much time here, but debate offers something that a book cannot, even when the debate descends to squabbling.
> 
> ...


Intresting the conceit of the reader though isn't it...

who says they have to amuse you?

or that you have the prerequisite humour required to find them funny, I assure you if you did you'd be pissing yourself...

internet debate is pointless egotistical primal scream therapy... nothing more...

occasionally you learn something, occasionally monkeys turn out a sonnet...  thing is it'd probably be as quick to go and do something and learn that thing in life than by being a passive non-entity who does fuck all...

to paraphrase the xtians and you'll know them by their fruits...

in this case what fruit is being borne by posting on a message board... other than a futile waste of time...


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2011)

gosub said:


> like I said cyberrose talks shite. At best confusing me with goneforlunch, a UKIP voting board member wh used to take him to task



The problem is that you really did make a post in June 2009 where you said you had voted UKIP for the first time.

Here it is:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/who-will-you-vote-for-in-the-euros.215007/page-7#post-7710838


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Intresting the conceit of the reader though isn't it...
> 
> who says they have to amuse you?
> 
> ...



Well, fuck off then and stop wasting your own and our time.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

gosub said:


> i can tell you you are talking shite when you are lying, as you are, My dad has been involved with UKIP, wasn't in favour of withdrawl when he was, and his exprience put me off now I am. Or are you saying now I'm UK what as in resident (UKIP is so much harder to type) I am a UK resident. There is no point in me lying over this, asthe boards have staggered leftwards admitting I was tied in with corperate raider and asset stripper Jimmy Goldsmith does me few favours (here at least) but I was so I admit it. Never voted UKIP never claimed to, you might whilst digging find admittance of spoiled ballots, and one vote for a tory in a very bitter council election, but again that is because that is true, tis in my nature, as spouting bollocks is in yours


I was replying to the person that i quoted.


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Intresting the conceit of the reader though isn't it...
> 
> who says they have to amuse you?
> 
> or that you have the prerequisite humour required to find them funny, I assure you if you did you'd be pissing yourself...



They don't have to amuse me. If they don't even amuse anyone other than yourself then thats fine too, as perhaps you are busy elsewhere producing useful fruit.



> In this case what fruit is being borne by posting on a message board... other than a futile waste of time...



Well who knows. At the very lest it exercises certain parts of the mind, and Its plausible that some people may make better decisions one day when it really matters as a result.

Hey, even if it achieves nothing in itself, it may be reducing the number of hours people spend watching tv, and I suspect thats no bad thing.


----------



## gosub (Oct 25, 2011)

elbows said:


> The problem is that you really did make a post in June 2009 where you said you had voted UKIP for the first time.
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/who-will-you-vote-for-in-the-euros.215007/page-7#post-7710838


at me, I genuinely don't remember doing that, voting that is, which is odd coz it was a 60mile round trip for me to vote in those days, caertainly a one off. I wasn't even on medication at the time.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2011)

on the list of things you dont remember doing thats pretty embarassing


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> on the list of things you dont remember doing thats pretty embarassing



If I'd voted I'd wanna forget about it asap too.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2011)

just another mad night, getting drunk, falling in a river, being chased by a cow, voting ukip - the less you remember the better


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 25, 2011)

stephj said:


> Will, perhaps you should re-organise that demo you were going to do, and invite all the conspiraloons to it so we don't have to put up with them at anti-capitalist protests.


the funny thing is 9/11 was actually an inside job. But you can't prove it so it's irrelevant. So bloody obvious though. Only brainwashed numpties think there's nothing to it.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> the funny thing is 9/11 was actually an inside job. But you can't prove it so it's irrelevant. So bloody obvious though. Only brainwashed numpties think there's nothing to it.



Oh good, I was waiting for something like this.


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 25, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> erm ... do you want to explain your reasoning here?
> 
> actually, just dont


we're all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.

Now here's Tom with the weather


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 25, 2011)

You can be anything you want to be and do anything you want to do. You just have to want it enough.

For example I'm an egomaniac and I want to be the second spunking of Jesus h Christ and I want to help these crusty homeless occupier geeks save the world from capitolizm and all that otter bad shizz man.

So that's wot I'm gonna do and noone and noffink can stop me. Not even bad spelling punctuation and grammar SPAG!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2011)

You're so lonely


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 25, 2011)

That can change. Light up the darkness.


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2011)

When I was just a bit younger I found it easier to appreciate the full Bill Hicks experience, and to buy into certain conspiracy theories quite a bit more than I can these days.

So with my past self in mind, I will try for a moment to explore your 9/11 comments without going on my usual conspiracy theory rant, partly because I am beyond bored with my own rants on the subject.

It is easy for quite a number of people to conclude that its a no brainer that 9/11 was an inside job for a number of reasons. They are used to the state lying, to the extent that they struggle to take it in when the state is not being entirely dishonest. The scale and implications of the attacks made it hard for them to believe that anything other than a hugely powerful force was involved. And there is certainly no doubt that the powers that be shamelessly milked the consequences of the attacks in order to further a number of different objectives.

But none of that actually guides me to any sort of safe conclusion about the attacks themselves, it does not in any way reduce the need for evidence before daring to make concrete conclusions. It doesn't make anyone who doesn't buy the conspiracy possibilities a 'brainless numpty'. And it certainly does not excuse those who want to push these scenarios from the requirement that their evidence not be idiotic distortions that are often based on complete over-analysis of single sentences of quotes, and misinterpretation of history, the way power works, the nature of competition vs co-operation between various elites, and extremely suspect interpretation of photographic & video evidence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Talking about a social contract sounds great but then refusing to go into details on what exactly you envisage is just going through the motions.



Not going into details is rational. It's not for me to impose *my* vision, it's for people to collectively decide what they want, without people telling them that they can't use certain language, and that they [b[must[/b] maintain property rights.



> But it was and remains an oppressive regime, with parliament refusing to relinquish sovereignty and the people being caught in the trap with them. Liberation!



Hoo-fucking-rah. Slogan-spouting.
It *was* a repressive and oppressive regime. It no longer exists. It has been superceded by something far less hidebound and far more insidious.

How do people get out of such a parliametarily-reinforced trap? certainly not by abjuring class struggle.



> But I could quite easily use your own argument against you saying that why would they let that happen - may as well just give up on such idealism.



You're a dolt.

*You* put forward a solution that derives from parliamentary democracy, i.e. getting the parliamentary turkeys to vote themselves out of their jobs.

I say something completely different. I say the solution has to be extra-parliamentary. They don't get to let it happen or not - they're either for or against.



> And anyway you refuse to put forward the details on how you would do this and so once again the class war is not going to do anything - there has been sporadic rebellions frequently over hundreds of years with absolutely nothing changing - and nothing will change again until we put aside the weapons of class war and discuss the principles we agree on in an open way.



Do you know any military types? If so ask them what the hardest war to fight is. Any soldier with a brain bigger than his bollocks will give the same answer. The hardest war to fight is the war where you don't know or understand the objectives of your enemy. It makes it hard to discern strategy, and even harder to predict tactics. Why would I "put forward details" when the best way by far for any movement to gain ground is by setting the agenda on the basis of events current to the time and place, rather than working to pre-determined strategies that may or may not work?

I'm not interested in your discussions about principles, or any of the rest of your masturbatory liberalism. I'm interested in success.

As for your association of "sporadic rebellions" with class war, rebellions may or may not be manifestations of class war (modern warfare most definitely is), but they're not the be-all and end-all of it. The sooner you educate yourself to what "class war" actually means, rather than sticking to your own narrow interpretation, the sooner you'll stop showing yourself up as a dolt.



> There will always be different people with different possessions, that just isn't going to change. If you have freely entered contracts then I don't see your problem - everyone is free to choose how they wish to live - sure everyone wants to just live it up on a beach, but that just isn't possible. You are simplistically tarring all economic transactions as 'exploitation', when the vast majority of transactions have both parties going away with a smile on their faces.



I haven't "simplistically tarred all economic transactions as 'exploitation' ", you fantasist. I said that the asymmetry of power-relations between parties in capitalism shows that capitalism is exploitative.



> Yep, we all need food/drink and shelter (in cold climates) - that ain't gonna change much in the foreseeable. Owning a property to live in is thus fine. Owning one as an asset is different of course (I am not against government as a cooperating force), but that is why we need to have these discussions about what is reasonable rather than talking about class (whatever that is).



Sorry, but "you" (as an individual) do not get to define what "we" may or may not find a reasonable topic for discussion. Your position is no better than that of the government - defining the boundaries of what may be "officially discussed".



> I'll go 'no' on that one, but I don't expect you will take my word on it.
> 
> A practical one? No, we agree! The left will never get anywhere if they take this line - and I stand by my statement that the left needs to drop this kind of language. But don't play dumb - you know that this language of class war is the first simplistic line of defence against thinking, even if you don't believe it.



Don't tell me what I do or don't know, there's a good chap.
Practical as in extant/in use. "The left" that you rail against don't do what you claim to do, but rather than admit you lied/were in error, you "stand by your statement", a statement that was false/erroneous in the first place; a statement you're unable to substntiate through reference to a single example.



> Competition has to be supported by government policy of course.



Although capitalists disagree vocally about that, it's generally the case that government competition policy is supportive of capitalism, so I can see why you might want to maintain that grip.



> Judges



Do not formulate legislation on competition policy or any other form of policy, they render decisions based on legislation.



> I would, but I am a subject, not a citizen - and the population won't be acting in just exactly that way until the need to shift systems is accepted. I like how you accept the sovereignty principle and yet then try to use the more progressive language of citizenry seemingly instinctively. You are not alone I have seen MP's try and 'claim the fifth' in debates - amazing hypocrisy.



The distinction between subject and citizen is mostly semantic. Immigrants don't have "subjectship" tests before being given British nationality, they have citizenship classes.
Interesting how you can construct an accusation of hypocrisy from your own inability to/refusal to grasp my point.

Oh, and I don't accept the sovereignty principle, I accept that at the moment it has to be operated within. Big difference.



> On that at least we agree.
> 
> It will because of your previous comment - the EU will march towards a rights based model and the political class will try to maintain the status quo for as long as possible, but sooner or later the Brits will have to choose. Then maybe they will start agreeing on the ideals they agree on. That is why I started the thread on the Social Contract. I thought there might be ome here who recognised the need to pool ideas. We could have something that we can agree on, but as you said on that thread:
> 
> Your conclusion being that 'they' have got us, and so there is nothing to be gained by talking about the ideals we may or may not share. I find that defeatist - I appreciate that you and I seem to disagree on many things, but we can still discuss without abuse or perhaps you have been beaten into a submission where you cannot even discuss the merest possibility of freedom breaking out for the British people, and the model we would have to come up with then?



No, my conclusion was an is that it's a waste of time talking about ideals if all you're going to do after you've talked is formulate an *informal* social contract which is unable to provide for some kind _quid pro quo_ between the governed and those who govern. It's all there in the quote. What isn't in the quote is any material on which you've based your assumptions about me and my politics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Who is worse? The fool, or the fool who follows the fool?



The fool. His is the original error.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> You can be anything you want to be and do anything you want to do. You just have to want it enough.
> 
> For example I'm an egomaniac and I want to be the second spunking of Jesus h Christ and I want to help these crusty homeless occupier geeks save the world from capitolizm and all that otter bad shizz man.
> 
> So that's wot I'm gonna do and noone and noffink can stop me. Not even bad spelling punctuation and grammar SPAG!!!


isn't it time for your medication?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> As I said, it should be a duty of a government to ensure that the building code is adequate to ensure that prices are not too high, as well as keeping the energy market as well supplied as possible.
> 
> However there is no doubt that there is a large demand for energy and only a small supply, so the costs are going to be high - that is just the way it is - you may as well wish upon a star for all the good it will do you whinging about how unfair it is.



You wish to make an awful lot of things the duty of government. Are you willing to pay for that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> You've had class war for centuries - and you reckon that it might be coming to 'THE' day?
> You are closer to a religious nut than I thought



Quoted for posterity, so posterity can see that you have absolutely no idea what the concept of class war entails.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Maybe we're arguing over semantics or are talking about different things? Yes the history of workers' rights were won by labour movements decades before European integration was even thought about. The EU enshrined those rights into common pan-European laws (well, set the minimum standards). What I'm saying is that our current laws are set by the EU (albeit some may have already been in existence). I'm not saying we would not have workers' rights were it not for the EU (altho with this current government, we wouldn't have the rights we have today if _they _pulled us out of the EU or opted out of certain aspects)



I'm not going to get involved in the whole subsidiarity _schtick_, because frankly I have the will to live and I don't want to lose it, but it's not *really* a case that our current laws are "set" by the EU, so much as the common framework defines the parameters within which the laws of the individual member states function.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> Class war is just polite racism
> 
> Slater is my mate Ben slater. He's doing the virgin Mary scene from full metal jacket down in some barracks in London at the mo so he shouldn't really be skiving off on the internets, so it might not be him



Fucking hell, another ignorant dolt who thinks class war means someone from one class being rude to another! 

Personally, I blame the neo-libs politicians. They did too good a job expunging the concept of class from political debate, and now we have cunts who think that "class war is just polite racism".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2011)

stephj said:


> Oh. My. Fucking. God.



It's like watching a tramp piss himself.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 26, 2011)

stephj said:


> That you say this sort of shit makes me wonder how you ever see yourself as a socialist.



Oh do fuck off, it was an honest question in the light of chilango's previous posts.

This may come as news to you, but not everyone on the left goes around bandying archaic, simplistic and clichéd phrases such as "class war" anymore. At least not if they want to be taken seriously outside of their own little group of friends.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Oh do fuck off, it was an honest question in the light of chilango's previous posts.
> 
> This may come as news to you, but not everyone on the left goes around bandying archaic, simplistic and clichéd phrases such as "class war" anymore. At least not if they want to be taken seriously outside of their own little group of friends.



Honest lol, you made a divisive remark about workers and class warriors.

Which bit of capitalism and class are you struggling with?


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Oh do fuck off, it was an honest question in the light of chilango's previous posts.
> 
> This may come as news to you, but not everyone on the left goes around bandying archaic, simplistic and clichéd phrases such as "class war" anymore. At least not if they want to be taken seriously outside of their own little group of friends.


 
There's an awful lot of assumptions in this post, no?

Perhaps read what I _actually posted_, rather than extrapolating and diving into your own bank of cliches.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> This may come as news to you, but not everyone on the left goes around bandying archaic, simplistic and clichéd phrases such as "class war" anymore. At least not if they want to be taken seriously outside of their own little group of friends.


It's funny, isn't it, how this has come about?  It is the people who notice that class war is going on who are "archaic", "cliched" and "simplistic".  Any analysis which mentions the process can now be dismissed as old fashioned.  It doesn't need to be considered; one can just tut, roll ones eyes, and remark "dinosaur!" That's useful for the people who are waging the class war, who have always waged class war, and who continue to look for new ways to wage it.

If there are people calling themselves socialists who have accepted _common sense_ (in the Gramsican sense) in that way, then their politics are fundamentally flawed, and I would deny them the term socialist, if it is to have any meaning.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Oh do fuck off, it was an honest question in the light of chilango's previous posts.
> 
> This may come as news to you, but not everyone on the left goes around bandying archaic, simplistic and clichéd phrases such as "class war" anymore. At least not if they want to be taken seriously outside of their own little group of friends.



Wow, another post quoted for posterity because the poster obviously has no clue what the concept of "class war" actually means. 

Not that I'm surprised that Herr _Kristallnacht_ misses the point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

stephj said:


> Honest lol, you made a divisive remark about workers and class warriors.
> 
> Which bit of capitalism and class are you struggling with?



The answer appears to be "all of it". Hertford's "socialism" is of the same brand as that of soft-left Labour before Blair - liberalistic Fabianism.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2011)

To be honest plenty of people in my family are a bit like that. I'm working on them tho.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> It's funny, isn't it, how this has come about? It is the people who notice that class war is going on who are "archaic", "cliched" and "simplistic". Any analysis which mentions the process can now be dismissed as old fashioned. It doesn't need to be considered; one can just tut, roll ones eyes, and remark "dinosaur!" That's useful for the people who are waging the class war, who have always waged class war, and who continue to look for new ways to wage it.



Quite, class war and the implications of it, have been shifted outside the bounds of common political discourse, and by those who benefit most from class being deleted from the political agenda. The fact that they have unwitting dupes happy to echo the dismissal of class struggle from the agenda, dupes who don't bother to engage critically with the subject, who actively elide any engagement, is both predictable and depressing. 



> If there are people calling themselves socialists who have accepted _common sense_ (in the Gramsican sense) in that way, then their politics are fundamentally flawed, and I would deny them the term socialist, if it is to have any meaning.



Indeed. How can one be a socialist and *not* acknowledge "class war" as a major factor preventing any real socialism taking place?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 26, 2011)

Oh, and Heaven forfend that you should actually fight back! Fighting back is so unreasonable. In fact, you’ll be painted as the aggressor, because the class war doesn’t exist and therefore the current state of affairs must be equitable. Your fighting back must be unprovoked. It’s the politics of envy!

The defenders of the ruling class won’t like that. If you get anywhere at all, they’ll say you’re a trouble maker out to spoil it all for everyone. They’ll say the interests of the masses are actually contiguous with those of the ruling classes. It is “our” interests these dinosaurs are out to attack. Oh, there may be the odd occasion when actual information gets too widely known, and that line is too hard to maintain without looking ridiculous – like when the bankers are seen to cause economic hardship for everyone else - _then_ it’ll be OK to say that the bankers are in the wrong. That something must be done about the bankers. Nothing, of course, must be done. That isn’t the deal. But we can say it for a time.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 26, 2011)

Anyway, looks like the No vote has prevailed on urban. Good to see there are more europhiles than europhobes on here.


----------



## gosub (Oct 26, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> It's funny, isn't it, how this has come about? It is the people who notice that class war is going on who are "archaic", "cliched" and "simplistic". Any analysis which mentions the process can now be dismissed as old fashioned. It doesn't need to be considered; one can just tut, roll ones eyes, and remark "dinosaur!" That's useful for the people who are waging the class war, who have always waged class war, and who continue to look for new ways to wage it.
> 
> If there are people calling themselves socialists who have accepted _common sense_ (in the Gramsican sense) in that way, then their politics are fundamentally flawed, and I would deny them the term socialist, if it is to have any meaning.



It is outdated though, you are currently being robbed more blind by new money, some coked up trader living in a shoe box in Docklands possibly state educated, than you are by the Furqerson Furqerson's quitely managing the estate in Berkshire handed down to them through generations. And the Furqerson Furqerson's thousand year bond with the ancsetral pile and  repeated battles over inheritence tax, makes them less likely to fuck off as a tax exile to the Cayman Islands, than Trevor the trader whose made his money dishing out bad advice for people to spend their pensions on.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Anyway, looks like the No vote has prevailed on urban. Good to see there are more europhiles than europhobes on here.



I don't think europhilia vs phobia is what was uppermost in people's minds when they voted.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

gosub said:


> It is outdated though, you are currently being robbed more blind by new money, some coked up trader living in a shoe box in Docklands possibly state educated, than you are by the Furqerson Furqerson's quitely managing the estate in Berkshire handed down to them through generations. And the Furqerson Furqerson's thousand year bond with the ancsetral pile and repeated battles over inheritence tax, makes them less likely to fuck off as a tax exile to the Cayman Islands, than Trevor the trader whose made his money dishing out bad advice for people to spend their pensions on.



Meet the new boss, same as old boss.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 26, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I don't think europhilia vs phobia is what was uppermost in people's minds when they voted.



Quite.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2011)

gosub said:


> It is outdated though, you are currently being robbed more blind by new money, some coked up trader living in a shoe box in Docklands possibly state educated, than you are by the Furqerson Furqerson's quitely managing the estate in Berkshire handed down to them through generations. And the Furqerson Furqerson's thousand year bond with the ancsetral pile and repeated battles over inheritence tax, makes them less likely to fuck off as a tax exile to the Cayman Islands, than Trevor the trader whose made his money dishing out bad advice for people to spend their pensions on.


 
new money or old money- it's still them at the top of the capitalist pile.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> You can be anything you want to be and do anything you want to do. You just have to want it enough.
> 
> For example I'm an egomaniac and I want to be the second spunking of Jesus h Christ and I want to help these crusty homeless occupier geeks save the world from capitolizm and all that otter bad shizz man.
> 
> So that's wot I'm gonna do and noone and noffink can stop me. Not even bad spelling punctuation and grammar SPAG!!!



Did you get to st pauls yet?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, and Heaven forfend that you should actually fight back! Fighting back is so unreasonable. In fact, you’ll be painted as the aggressor, because the class war doesn’t exist and therefore the current state of affairs must be equitable. Your fighting back must be unprovoked. It’s the politics of envy!





It's *always* the politics of envy when it's the "lower orders" trying to get a fair crack of the whip, though!



> The defenders of the ruling class won’t like that. If you get anywhere at all, they’ll say you’re a trouble maker out to spoil it all for everyone. They’ll say the interests of the masses are actually contiguous with those of the ruling classes. It is “our” interests these dinosaurs are out to attack. Oh, there may be the odd occasion when actual information gets too widely known, and that line is too hard to maintain without looking ridiculous – like when the bankers are seen to cause economic hardship for everyone else - _then_ it’ll be OK to say that the bankers are in the wrong. That something must be done about the bankers. Nothing, of course, must be done. That isn’t the deal. But we can say it for a time.



We can say it for a time, and really we should also be grateful that we're allowed to say it. After all, we have freedom of speech!!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> We can say it for a time, and really we should also be grateful that we're allowed to say it. After all, we have freedom of speech!!



That one doesn't ring true to me. If we're talking about Europe, I don't think there's been a time when you've not been "allowed" to be a socialist and talk about the class war. Whether that meant being taken seriously outside of academia and marginal political bods is a different matter.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 26, 2011)

gosub said:


> It is outdated though, you are currently being robbed more blind by new money, some coked up trader living in a shoe box in Docklands possibly state educated, than you are by the Furqerson Furqerson's quitely managing the estate in Berkshire handed down to them through generations. And the Furqerson Furqerson's thousand year bond with the ancsetral pile and repeated battles over inheritence tax, makes them less likely to fuck off as a tax exile to the Cayman Islands, than Trevor the trader whose made his money dishing out bad advice for people to spend their pensions on.



So then we're still ruled by class and capital, whether that's moved from one of 'aristocracy' to bankers/a financial elite.


----------



## gosub (Oct 26, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Meet the new boss, same as old boss.


But it isn't the Ferqerson Ferqerson's working 50 hour weeks on their mortguaged estate have been stiffed 3 ways by son of electrician Fred Godwin,  you call it class war and it sounds like you have more of a problem with the Ferqerson Ferqerson's than Mr Goodwin


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

gosub said:


> It is outdated though, you are currently being robbed more blind by new money, some coked up trader living in a shoe box in Docklands possibly state educated, than you are by the Furqerson Furqerson's quitely managing the estate in Berkshire handed down to them through generations. And the Furqerson Furqerson's thousand year bond with the ancsetral pile and repeated battles over inheritence tax, makes them less likely to fuck off as a tax exile to the Cayman Islands, than Trevor the trader whose made his money dishing out bad advice for people to spend their pensions on.



So you don't think that responses to the actions of the elites against those who are not members of those elites haven't evolved to match the way capitalism has evolved, albeit more slowly than capitalism in most cases (given that we seem to have spent most of the last 35 years viewing neo-liberalism as an abberation that can be brushed aside, rather than a mutation of capitalism)?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Meet the new boss, same as old boss.



Same shit, different arseholes.


----------



## love detective (Oct 26, 2011)

gosub said:


> But it isn't the Ferqerson Ferqerson's working 50 hour weeks on their mortguaged estate have been stiffed 3 ways by son of electrician Fred Godwin, you call it class war and it sounds like you have more of a problem with the Ferqerson Ferqerson's than Mr Goodwin



a class analysis isn't about analysing people as individuals or about their particular origins - it's about understanding how society is organised, how resources are used & distributed, what things human labour power is expanded on and what it isn't, the way in which needs & desires are met (or not met) and ultimately which elements of society, collectively, benefit as a result of that mode of social organisation

And more importantly recognising that this state of affairs is not something given to us by nature, but instead is fundamentally & utterly man made, and (in relation to this particular instance - capitalism) has been in existence but a few hundred years. And with this in mind recognising that as it is a historically specific form of organising society, which is in no way natural, and has a definite 'start' at some point in the past, it's perfectly possible for it to have an end as well. This doesn't mean anything that replaces it will be any more progressive, but it doesn't mean it won't be either - the important thing is it's not fixed and it's not natural


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That one doesn't ring true to me. If we're talking about Europe, I don't think there's been a time when you've not been "allowed" to be a socialist and talk about the class war. Whether that meant being taken seriously outside of academia and marginal political bods is a different matter.



We're in a situation where the mainstream of political thought, even in the more open democracies in the member states of the EU, includes barely a whisper about "class war", and where the socialism practiced at best approximates late social-democratic reformism prior to the neo-liberal takeover. That's not to say that member states don't have individual socialistic programmes as part of their mode of governance, but it is to say that socialism as it might be understood from a cursory reading of a dictionary, while not "disallowed", is an impossibility due to economic and ideological constraints. If that dictionary definition of socialism lies outside the bounds of current political discourse, then as a matter of *fact* it cannot function. It's absence from mainstream political discourse doesn't allow it to, and also validates the ignorant assumptions of posters like Andrew Hertford.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> We're in a situation where the mainstream of political thought, even in the more open democracies in the member states of the EU, includes barely a whisper about "class war", and where the socialism practiced at best approximates late social-democratic reformism prior to the neo-liberal takeover. That's not to say that member states don't have individual socialistic programmes as part of their mode of governance, but it is to say that socialism as it might be understood from a cursory reading of a dictionary, while not "disallowed", is an impossibility due to economic and ideological constraints. If that dictionary definition of socialism lies outside the bounds of current political discourse, then as a matter of *fact* it cannot function. It's absence from mainstream political discourse doesn't allow it to, and also validates the ignorant assumptions of posters like Andrew Hertford.



Fair enough, I guess maybe I was reading you differently, as talking about open, legally vested sanctioning and censorship. Begs the questio tho, how did we go from a situation where various types of socialist thought was intelligible to the masses (let' say roughly from the 40s to 70s), whereas now, as you say, the very mention of class war simply merits a dismissal as a dinosaur? It can't be entirely a situation of an encroaching neo-liberal capitalist discourse colonising common sense, there's gotta be a failure on the part of the socialist movements in adapting to shifting economic and cultural landscapes and so staying part of common sense. That's probably been done to death here and elsewhere anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2011)

the r/c never liked social democracy anyways- the post war neccesity was like a sop to stave off worse social upheaval. And they've been chipping away at the gains made ever since.


----------



## love detective (Oct 26, 2011)

TruXta said:


> there's gotta be a failure on the part of the socialist movements in adapting to shifting economic and cultural landscapes and so staying part of common sense.



bingo!


----------



## gosub (Oct 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Same shit, different arseholes.


that I'd agree with, so defining the enemy in the same manner as of yore, is outdated


----------



## chilango (Oct 26, 2011)

gosub said:


> that I'd agree with, so defining the enemy in the same manner as of yore, is outdated



I wasn't defining the "enemy" I was describing a social relationship /economic mechanism.

The way that capitalism functions is through "class war" - waged labour, ownership of the means of production, surplus value, profit etc. etc. etc.

Love Detective put it better above. Class war is not a chosen political idealogy, it's how capitalism is organised, it's the inevitable and unavoidable (by either side) antagonism between labour and capital.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2011)

Yep, class war ain't a choice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Fair enough, I guess maybe I was reading you differently, as talking about open, legally vested sanctioning and censorship. Begs the questio tho, how did we go from a situation where various types of socialist thought was intelligible to the masses (let' say roughly from the 40s to 70s), whereas now, as you say, the very mention of class war simply merits a dismissal as a dinosaur? It can't be entirely a situation of an encroaching neo-liberal capitalist discourse colonising common sense, there's gotta be a failure on the part of the socialist movements in adapting to shifting economic and cultural landscapes and so staying part of common sense. That's probably been done to death here and elsewhere anyway.



You mention "socialist movements", but wouldn't it be more accurate to say (outwith small groups of die-hards in each member state) that these movements were at best *socialistic*, in that they incorporated some facets of socialism(s) but discarded others?
This is an issue that in ideological terms the "new right" didn't have to address in anywhere near as much detail, because neo-liberalism was shaped for a specific set of purposes, one of them being to dislodge and then dismantle social-democratic norms that were already strained by economic circumstance. Any "socialism" has an uphill struggle because those former norms have been set aside, and need either replacing or re-thinking (depending on how far the individual member state might have looked into the neo-liberal abyss).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

gosub said:


> that I'd agree with, so defining the enemy in the same manner as of yore, is outdated



It's not the individual identity of the enemy that matters, it's the fact that the power-relations between "them and us" *then*, and "them and us" *now* is much the same. That the enemy now is seen as bankers, and the enemy then was seen as kings/generals/guilds is irrelevant. The enemy is the enemy nonetheless, and occupies the same position the enemy always has.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mention "socialist movements", but wouldn't it be more accurate to say (outwith small groups of die-hards in each member state) that these movements were at best *socialistic*, in that they incorporated some facets of socialism(s) but discarded others?
> This is an issue that in ideological terms the "new right" didn't have to address in anywhere near as much detail, because neo-liberalism was shaped for a specific set of purposes, one of them being to dislodge and then dismantle social-democratic norms that were already strained by economic circumstance. Any "socialism" has an uphill struggle because those former norms have been set aside, and need either replacing or re-thinking (depending on how far the individual member state might have looked into the neo-liberal abyss).



I really don't want to get into the whole debate on what socialism really is and isn't. I don't think we disagree overall.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> the r/c never liked social democracy anyways- the post war neccesity was like a sop to stave off worse social upheaval. And they've been chipping away at the gains made ever since.



As is always the way. Gains are always followed by either resiling or erosion. That some posters expect the other side to "play fair", when history provides so very many examples that they don't, amuses me in a very bleak kind of way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I really don't want to get into the whole debate on what socialism really is and isn't. I don't think we disagree overall.



Oh yes we do!!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh yes we do!!



Ok then.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2011)

I came here for an argument

no you didn't

I certainly DID

I'm sure that you did not

I bloody well did!

don't take that tone with me

What tone?, I came for an argument!

no you didn't

etc


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 26, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I really don't want to get into the whole debate on what socialism really is and isn't.


Why not?  We haven't had that one for a while.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 26, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> ...



OK look we're going off in tangents all over the place! We should know we're going nowhere when our replies get as long as they have! I'll simplify my 'pro' argument and hopefully either get back on track or at least help you to understand where I'm coming from. I do see where you are coming from in a lot of what I say but just before that, I just want to point a few things out:

Parliament veto – the Parliament _does _have a veto on all the areas of policy it is responsible for (which is practically all areas – there are some exceptions, but you haven't listed any so I assume neither have your sources, for what reason I'll leave you to think about)

Hannan – not sure why we're giving that idiot any airplay but to give you the flip side of the argument (I think!) is Nick Clegg – started off his political career as an MEP and is now leader of the Lib Dems and Deputy Prime Minister.

Info on EU workers' rights can be found here. There is no involvement by the EU in national minimum wage policies. As for Greece, they are “urging” them to lower their minimum wage, rather than officially setting it (altho this really amounts to blackmail if they say do it or don't get bailed out)

Opt outs – CAP is not and never has been an opt out. There are currently five opt outs in play: Shengen open borders (UK and Ireland); The Euro (UK, Sweden and Denmark); Defence policy (Denmark, like foreign policy, this isn't actually a legislative area); Charter of fundamental rights (UK and Poland); and Area of freedom, security and justice (UK and Ireland, opt in on a case by case basis). Taken from Wiki.

OK, so back to why I think the EU is a good idea. Yes, I have used various policy areas that I do agree with to back up my argument but I accept what you and others point out by saying individual pieces of law are irrelevant one way or the other (meaning I should refrain from using them as a 'pro', but also the same for those using other pieces as an 'anti' argument). Altho I do agree with a lot of the laws, there are also some that I won't agree with so I was never saying all laws are why I support the EU (eg I disagree with outlawing state bail outs for companies going bust due to competition laws).

My 'pro' argument centres around two broad areas: Advantages of common laws and influence.

*Common laws* – there are two advantages here. The first advantage is that for some policy areas only when countries come together can the problem be tacked. The best example is the environment. If German factories are polluting forests in Poland it's no good for just Poland to introduce environmental laws if Germany thinks they're too costly for businesses. Look at all the problems getting everyone to agree the Kyoto Protocols – useless if you can't get China and America on board. At least in the EU, when we set environmental laws they are enforceable and you have to abide by them. The second advantage for common laws is it prevents a rush to the bottom. The best examples here are workers rights and consumer rights. You are perfectly right in pointing out that these laws can be introduced by an individual country, and I won't comment on the effect of withdrawing from the EU would have for these laws for that reason (and the reason above). But I will argue that common laws make it easier for countries to introduce them without the fear of neighbouring countries 'undercutting' them. EG, Toyota want to build a factory in Czech Rep or Slovakia – do they choose the country with the strictest workers and consumer rights or those with the least? Well common laws make that choice irrelevant (to an extent, of course, there are areas like minimum wage the EU cannot set). Without these common laws, there might be a temptation in one country to reduce rights in order to attract that kind of investment (BTW, the above is not supposed to be an argument saying those specific laws are good, but rather the mechanism by which they are put in placed and enforced).

*Influence* – again two broad areas. The first is influence within the EU and is something I've already commented on. The EU (or without the EU, European countries) are our major trading partners. EU or no EU that will still be true. If we leave and everyone else stays, the terms of us trading with them will be set by the remaining countries and we will have no say, yet have to abide by what they decide. This is what happens more or less to Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein (EFTA). We may be able to negotiate a slightly better deal due to the amount of trade we do, but it certainly won't be on our terms. The second area is the collective influence on the world stage. We have a much bigger say around the world inside the EU. The EU is the biggest trading bloc in the world and there are even cases where the EU has vetoed mergers between two American companies that the US government had agreed to.

I know this is a monster post but hopefully the last two paragraphs help explain my position a little bit better? I'm trying to keep away from individual policy areas (as we can both provide perfectly reasonable arguments for or against so seems little point) and also I've tried to keep away from ideology (as, like laws, there's no reason why any ideology couldn't fit into the EU mechanism and alter existing laws to suit their policies)


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Why not? We haven't had that one for a while.



You go first then.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 26, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You go first then.


What I say is socialist.  What someone else says _may_ be, but only if I agree.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> OK look we're going off in tangents all over the place! We should know we're going nowhere when our replies get as long as they have! I'll simplify my 'pro' argument and hopefully either get back on track or at least help you to understand where I'm coming from. I do see where you are coming from in a lot of what I say but just before that, I just want to point a few things out:
> 
> Parliament veto – the Parliament _does _have a veto on all the areas of policy it is responsible for (which is practically all areas – there are some exceptions, but you haven't listed any so I assume neither have your sources, for what reason I'll leave you to think about)
> 
> ...



cheers - i'll get back to this at some point over the next few days.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 26, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> cheers - i'll get back to this at some point over the next few days.


 Don't worry, that's how long I spent writing it!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> What I say is socialist. What someone else says _may_ be, but only if I agree.



I like you.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> OK look we're going off in tangents all over the place! We should know we're going nowhere when our replies get as long as they have! I'll simplify my 'pro' argument and hopefully either get back on track or at least help you to understand where I'm coming from. I do see where you are coming from in a lot of what I say but just before that, I just want to point a few things out:
> 
> Parliament veto – the Parliament _does _have a veto on all the areas of policy it is responsible for (which is practically all areas – there are some exceptions, but you haven't listed any so I assume neither have your sources, for what reason I'll leave you to think about)
> 
> ...



load of liberal bollocks


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 26, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> load of liberal bollocks


Irrefutable load of liberal bollocks, you mean?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Irrefutable load of liberal bollocks, you mean?



nah, just don't think that pile of shit is worth the effort, have you recycled a sixth form politics essay?


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 26, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> nah, just don't think that pile of shit is worth the effort, have you recycled a sixth form politics essay?


No but there are some Wiki articles that got plagiarised, not sure whether that makes it better or worse?

Saying that, if it were a recycled sixth form politics essay it would still carry more weight than a recycled Morning Star article, wouldn't it?


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 26, 2011)

Actually, seeing as you are not able to come up with any counter argument (yes yes you can't be bothered), doesn't that suggest the standard of sixth form essays is a little bit above your own ability?!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2011)

Ok Damien


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 26, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ok Damien


Well it is nearly Halloween...


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 26, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> What I say is socialist.  What someone else says _may_ be, but only if I agree.






TruXta said:


> I like you.



I like both of you <3 prefer trucks tho obvs cos e's a redman whereas Danny just has red in his name and it's in French so loses points on that and is therefore relegated to second place and cos he doesn't have a face or if he does it aint accessible. He could be the creepy ai robot out of ai for all we know!


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 26, 2011)

Is this thread dead yet?


----------



## love detective (Oct 26, 2011)

are you bob 'lads, all lads' bob?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 26, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> I like both of you <3 prefer trucks tho obvs cos e's a redman whereas Danny just has red in his name and it's in French so loses points on that and is therefore relegated to second place and cos he doesn't have a face or if he does it aint accessible. He could be the creepy ai robot out of ai for all we know!


There's only one way to find out!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2011)

love detective said:


> are you bob 'lads, all lads' bob?


Yes he is.


----------



## love detective (Oct 26, 2011)

silly question really wasn't it


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

I don't even get the question. Please explain as if I was a foreigner who came here to steal your jobs and shag your women.


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 26, 2011)

love detective said:


> are you bob 'lads, all lads' bob?


what does that even mean??


----------



## Will2403 (Oct 26, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> There's only one way to find out!


how???


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2011)

ah!


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 26, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> how???


FIGHT!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 26, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> FIGHT!



My dick's neither that long nor so thin that it would fit down the intertubes.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2011)

Will2403 said:


> how???


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 26, 2011)

Me and my popular culture references.

I don't like that pic, Spanky.


----------



## love detective (Oct 26, 2011)

look at him all


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2011)




----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2011)




----------



## love detective (Oct 26, 2011)

picture of a cute russian national bolshevik paper seller


----------



## HotSummers (Oct 26, 2011)

Didn't read the thread but the answer is no.


----------



## spring-peeper (Oct 26, 2011)

Welcome to U75, HotSummers


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 26, 2011)

Caught up only as far a page 10  so far, but this is slowly continuing ....

Even up to then, I've been picking up a lot of good stuff (principally danny's first post, way back around pages 9 or 10, but also others)

Realising how lazy I've been to carry on (as I have been  ) seeing all this through a simplistic "Tory Europhobes = my enemy therefore Europe/EU = my (sort of) friend" kind of prism.

Tories are still scum mind, and Tory Europhobe kneejerkism about 'bureaucrats' being about to start 'banning' this and that is still lying shite, but Euro/capitalism-related scum comes in a bigger variety of flavours than just that I suppose.

"More later" ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 26, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> "More later" ...




Why change a catch-phrase that works!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 26, 2011)

when does CR's polidicks do anything else...


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 26, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


Is this Violent Panda?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wow, another post quoted for posterity because the poster obviously has no clue what the concept of "class war" actually means.
> 
> Not that I'm surprised that Herr _Kristallnacht_ misses the point.


Sorry VP, I forgot about the rule that says if you disagree with the U75 political establishment then you "obviously have no clue what the concept of" something "actually mean_s."_ After all, what other possible explanation could there be for disagreeing?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2011)

> if you disagree with the U75 political establishment



star


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 27, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry VP, I forgot about the rule that says if you disagree with the U75 political establishment then you "obviously have no clue what the concept of" something "actually mean_s."_ After all, what other possible explanation could there be for disagreeing?


OK, so what do you think class war actually means?  And why do you think it old-fashioned, cliched and simplistic?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry VP, I forgot about the rule that says if you disagree with the U75 political establishment then you "obviously have no clue what the concept of" something "actually mean_s."_ After all, what other possible explanation could there be for disagreeing?


Playing the victim again, I see.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 27, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, so what do you think class war actually means? And why do you think it old-fashioned, cliched and simplistic?


 No, I can think of at least a million other things I could be doing right now than get embroiled in the meaning of 'class war'. It may be important to you but it certainly isn't to me. Interpret that as meaning I don't understand what 'class war' actually is if you like, but I can assure you that I've been around long enough to know what it's _supposed_ to be and that to some it lies at the heart of every argument. Even an argument about Britain's EU membership,


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2011)

What do you think it's supposed to be then?


----------



## chilango (Oct 27, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> but I can assure you that I've been around long enough to know what it's _supposed_ to be



Well, obviously not cos that's what sparked this argument. You made assumptions about what I and others meant by it. Wrong assumptions.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, I can think of at least a million other things I could be doing right now than get embroiled in the meaning of 'class war'. It may be important to you but it certainly isn't to me. Interpret that as meaning I don't understand what 'class war' actually is if you like, but I can assure you that I've been around long enough to know what it's _supposed_ to be and that to some it lies at the heart of every argument. Even an argument about Britain's EU membership,


Astonishing. Do you not read the papers or watch the news? Have you not noticed what's happening across large parts of europe? Tell me,what's the lead item on every news bulletin and in every paper at this very minute?


----------



## love detective (Oct 27, 2011)

_"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning" (November 26th 2006)_


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, I can think of at least a million other things I could be doing right now than get embroiled in the meaning of 'class war'. It may be important to you but it certainly isn't to me. Interpret that as meaning I don't understand what 'class war' actually is if you like, but I can assure you that I've been around long enough to know what it's _supposed_ to be and that to some it lies at the heart of every argument. Even an argument about Britain's EU membership,



Are you telling us that you're, er...classless?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> What I say is socialist. What someone else says _may_ be, but only if I agree.



Fabian reformist gobshite!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> Is this Violent Panda?



If Spanky thinks it is, he's taking a pic of the wrong member of my family. That's PsychoticPanda, my little sister.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2011)

love detective said:


> _"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning" (November 26th 2006)_



He's an odd man. He's fully aware of what he does and appears to be disgusted by it, yet continues to do it. I can only guess that at heart he's deeply misanthropic.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 27, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Are you telling us that you're, er...classless?



This question helps to show just how many various interpretations of the word 'class' there actually are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry VP, I forgot about the rule that says if you disagree with the U75 political establishment then you "obviously have no clue what the concept of" something "actually mean_s."_ After all, what other possible explanation could there be for disagreeing?



A few points, you poor martyred hero:

1) Your own maunderings on the subject (as well as those of GMart and others) are what shows that you have no idea. If you *did* have an idea of what the concept of class war meant, you wouldn't have been stunted enough to deploy the idea in the way you did.

You hoisted yourself by your own petard.

2) There is no "U75 political establishment". That you seem to require recourse to such a concept in order to defend yourself against criticism of what you have written speaks loudly about you.

3) In this case, there is no "other possible explanation". Illustrated in your own posts is *the* reason for my criticising your post: The fact that your post indicates that you have not a fucking clue what class war actually is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> star



Classic, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, I can think of at least a million other things I could be doing right now than get embroiled in the meaning of 'class war'. It may be important to you but it certainly isn't to me. Interpret that as meaning I don't understand what 'class war' actually is if you like, but I can assure you that I've been around long enough to know what it's _supposed_ to be and that to some it lies at the heart of every argument. Even an argument about Britain's EU membership,



Sniff-sniff-sniff.

Is it camel?

Is it horse?

Is it Madagascan vampire bat?

No, as usual it's bull shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Are you telling us that you're, er...classless?


 
He's classless.

I, on the other hand, merely have no class.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's an odd man. He's fully aware of what he does and appears to be disgusted by it, yet continues to do it. I can only guess that at heart he's deeply misanthropic.



Or deeply perverted.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's classless.
> 
> I, on the other hand, merely have no class.



Or he's clueless.


----------



## love detective (Oct 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's an odd man. He's fully aware of what he does and appears to be disgusted by it, yet continues to do it. *I can only guess that at heart he's deeply misanthropic*.



Re bit in bold - not necessarily

It just shows that under capitalist social relations its not only labour that is impacted by the sheer totalising alienation & fetishism of the system - although capitalists (or representatives of capital) obviously experience it in a distinctly different manner to labour - but it's the same underlying forces at work, the same essence that drives it

Therefore even capitalists (or represenatives of capital) act in ways that are conditioned & dictated, not primarily by whatever their own moral compass may be, but by the dull economic compulsion of the system. Whether they are aware of what they are doing and have any moral opinion on it or not is largely irrelevant to their actual activity - as their activity is not dictated by morality but by the social relations of the system we all find ourselves in

Humans, through their social relations, produce their own domination


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2011)

love detective said:


> _"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning" (November 26th 2006)_



I am having to assume that that is Warren Buffett, because I can't see how Elton John would be relevant!


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> [Re Warren Buffet pic]He's an odd man. He's fully aware of what he does and appears to be disgusted by it, yet continues to do it. I can only guess that at heart he's deeply misanthropic.



Manages to come out with the odd truth though though doesn't he?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 27, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Manages to come out with the odd truth though though doesn't he?


Well yes, that was kind of my point.


----------



## grit (Oct 27, 2011)

love detective said:


> Re bit in bold - not necessarily
> 
> It just shows that under capitalist social relations its not only labour that is impacted by the sheer totalising alienation & fetishism of the system - although capitalists (or representatives of capital) obviously experience it in a distinctly different manner to labour - but it's the same underlying forces at work, the same essence that drives it
> 
> ...



What a fucking excellent post, sorry just clicking like didn't seem sufficient.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 28, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, I can think of at least a million other things I could be doing right now than get embroiled in the meaning of 'class war'. It may be important to you but it certainly isn't to me. Interpret that as meaning I don't understand what 'class war' actually is if you like, but I can assure you that I've been around long enough to know what it's _supposed_ to be and that to some it lies at the heart of every argument. Even an argument about Britain's EU membership,


By which you show that you didn't know what the term meant when you deployed it.


----------



## Random (Oct 28, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> By which you show that you didn't know what the term meant when you deployed it.


And folks a gentle ticking off like that from Danny is equivalent to about 58 "you cunts" from The Boss on the p+p abusometer.


----------



## chilango (Oct 28, 2011)

To be fair to AH he got this bit right...



> ...it lies at the heart of every argument. Even an argument about Britain's EU membership,



Okay, he qualifies this by claiming that this only applies "to some". But (probably) unwittingly he shows why discussion about class war is perfectly appropriate in this thread...


----------



## chilango (Oct 28, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, I can think of at least a million other things I could be doing right now than get embroiled in the meaning of 'class war'. It may be important to you but it certainly isn't to me. Interpret that as meaning I don't understand what 'class war' actually is if you like, but I can assure you that I've been around long enough to know what it's _supposed_ to be and that to some it lies at the heart of every argument. Even an argument about Britain's EU membership,





> The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.
> 
> 
> Marx, German Ideology (1845)


----------



## Gmart (Oct 29, 2011)

So you refuse to go into details about the social contract you envisage the UK being run on when the opportunity to change presents itself because you do not wish to give the enemy - them - the elite capitalists the chance to take advantage of your openness.

You are correct when you say that I am insisting that such things as competition, property rights and markets are just too ingrained in our world to abrogate without a far greater consensus. I am not imposing this on you - you are free to wish for what you would like to happen. The problem is that without these concessions the 'left' will just simply be stopped from exactly the 'extra-parliamentary' solution which you are hoping for. Why would the vast majority of the world pay any attention to a small group who refuses to even confirm that they will not have their land taken by force?

My solution is indeed within the system we have, through necessity. Like you I do this not because I support the system, but because I recognise the need for change which works, rather than change which fails.

For example my Land Reform Needed thread would be fought tooth and nail by the landed classes because it penalises those who keep land as an asset while making it cheaper for those who just have land to live in.

You seem in deniel about the oppressive regime which exists in the UK. I will agree with you that it has evolved into something more insidious still - but that doesn't get rid of its oppressive nature.

I am merely pointing out that it is one thing to vote for the need to have a written constitution, but quite another to discuss what exactly should be on it, and you seem to be ducking the hard work of that second bit.



ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not interested in your discussions about principles, or any of the rest of your masturbatory liberalism. I'm interested in success.



Unfortunately success is exactly what is not happening despite the vast evidence that the UK is the sick man of the EU.



ViolentPanda said:


> The sooner you educate yourself to what "class war" actually means, rather than sticking to your own narrow interpretation, the sooner you'll stop showing yourself up as a dolt.



I see this the other way round - the sooner you stop masterbating yourself over class war, and the 'us and them' which is inherrent in that, the sooner we are going to cooperate towards a more achievable end. At the moment it just looks like you wanting to put the 'elite' underfoot to replace 'us', which is just simplistic, and will be fought against by the majority every time.



ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't "simplistically tarred all economic transactions as 'exploitation' ", you fantasist. I said that the asymmetry of power-relations between parties in capitalism shows that capitalism is exploitative.



Well it sounds like you are suggesting that the power relations between the parties within capitalism is predominantly exploitative, whereas I would suggest that every single transaction in shops is one where both parties do not consider themselves to be victims of your 'exploitation'.

Dotcommunist gave the example of his gas bill, and i agree; capitalism, if left unchecked, tends towards monopoly and this is a problem esp in the so-called natural monopolies. I would suggest cooperatives but with the world market we have it would seem reasonable to say that the world market price for gas in this example is a constant, and therefore we need cooperation to guide ourselves towards cheaper alternatives if they exist - otherwise we will have to suck it up.



ViolentPanda said:


> Your position is no better than that of the government - defining the boundaries of what may be "officially discussed".



You don't even know what my position is. The government has stated that it will not relinquish its parliamentary sovereignty and so I suspect that my position is not near theirs either.

I am not interested in talking about the abolition of markets, competition and property rights but that doesn't mean that I am against changing them within those parameters as my Land Reform thread illustrates quite well.



ViolentPanda said:


> [Judges]...Do not formulate legislation on competition policy or any other form of policy, they render decisions based on legislation.



So are you suggesting that they have no power to interpret the law? I beg to differ. They could quite easily rule sensibly on the HRA and yet they seem unable (or unwilling) to do so. If they were so powerless to interpret then there would be no need for appeal courts.



ViolentPanda said:


> The distinction between subject and citizen is mostly semantic.



That's hilarious but I suspect that quite a few conservatives try to persuade themselves that it is true. The facts are that the sovereignty moved from monarch to parliament (1688) and remained there - the subjects have never been formally liberated by a 'we the people' document, which would have led to the necessary personal responsibility for one's actions allied with a meritocracy which is necessary in a modern state. The innate rebellion in the UK against those in authority and the system is a direct result of this.

And if you think that Weber, Marx or anyone else is relevant then feel free to quote them - then if I think their words merit investigation maybe I will read them. I am as likely to take the word of an internet name caller to read his book as he is to read mine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2011)

Gmart said:


> So you refuse to go into details about the social contract you envisage the UK being run on when the opportunity to change presents itself because you do not wish to give the enemy - them - the elite capitalists the chance to take advantage of your openness.



I see you do selective comprehension as well as selective editing.

I don't go into detail because strategising prior to the event locks you into a framework that may not best serve you once events start to roll. You can have a "grand strategy" such as "the goal is (insert goal here)", but to say "the goal is (insert goal here), and we'll achieve it by (insert strategy here)" locks you in as surely as if you're playing a game of chess. The best tactics are always the unexpected tactics, otherwise anyone with a modicum of knowledge of strategy or chess will be able to read you like an open book.



> You are correct when you say that I am insisting that such things as competition, property rights and markets are just too ingrained in our world to abrogate without a far greater consensus. I am not imposing this on you - you are free to wish for what you would like to happen. The problem is that without these concessions the 'left' will just simply be stopped from exactly the 'extra-parliamentary' solution which you are hoping for. Why would the vast majority of the world pay any attention to a small group who refuses to even confirm that they will not have their land taken by force?



More misrepresentation. I haven't argued for the removal or abrogation of "competition, property rights and markets". I've argued that the "competition, property rights and markets" that you argue *for* - the current iteration, if you will - serves to fuel bureaucracy and the encroachment of business into the private sphere.

Oh, and by the way, "the vast majority of the world" doesn't own any land or even housing.



> My solution is indeed within the system we have, through necessity. Like you I do this not because I support the system, but because I recognise the need for change which works, rather than change which fails.



Change that YOU *believe* will work because it amounts to micro-managed reformism.



> For example my Land Reform Needed thread would be fought tooth and nail by the landed classes because it penalises those who keep land as an asset while making it cheaper for those who just have land to live in.



And would never be legislated via parliamentary democracy.

You keep crapping on about your ideas, but refuse to acknowledge that the political system as currently constituted wouldn't touch it. You can't achieve meaningful policy change without fundamentally changing the system first, and even popular anger against that system is not enough to induce change. That much has been obvious for more than a decade now.

You're as arid as the Trots and other "lefties" you moan about.



> You seem in deniel about the oppressive regime which exists in the UK. I will agree with you that it has evolved into something more insidious still - but that doesn't get rid of its oppressive nature.



I'm not in denial. I've worked on both sides of the argument. I was a soldier enforcing that oppression, as well as being someone who's fought against it for almost 30 years



> I am merely pointing out that it is one thing to vote for the need to have a written constitution, but quite another to discuss what exactly should be on it, and you seem to be ducking the hard work of that second bit.



Any written constitution will be shaped by the social realities that surround the time of its' creation. I don't actually *want* a constitution based on the current _status quo_, because that would mean enshrining current practice. Enshrining it in a document that, as I mentioned on your previous thread, would require a layer of constitutional courts to police and/or amend.



> Unfortunately success is exactly what is not happening despite the vast evidence that the UK is the sick man of the EU.



Another sweeping generality.
There are reasons why that label could be applied to *any* member of the EU. What are the specifics of your claim that the UK is?



> I see this the other way round - the sooner you stop masterbating yourself over class war, and the 'us and them' which is inherrent in that, the sooner we are going to cooperate towards a more achievable end. At the moment it just looks like you wanting to put the 'elite' underfoot to replace 'us', which is just simplistic, and will be fought against by the majority every time.



Thanks again for reinforcing the claim that you have not a single clue what "class war" actually means.



> Well it sounds like you are suggesting that the power relations between the parties within capitalism is predominantly exploitative, whereas I would suggest that every single transaction in shops is one where both parties do not consider themselves to be victims of your 'exploitation'.



Not even when the constant complaint at the shop counter when purchasing staples is "what? It's gone up *again*?"
The transactive process itself isn't necessarily exploitative. How it is used *can be*.

As for your shoddy attempt to limit the scope of power-relations under capitalism to "every single transaction in shops", we're both well aware that power-relations between parties under capitalism extend much further than the retail sector.



> Dotcommunist gave the example of his gas bill, and i agree; capitalism, if left unchecked, tends towards monopoly and this is a problem esp in the so-called natural monopolies. I would suggest cooperatives but with the world market we have it would seem reasonable to say that the world market price for gas in this example is a constant, and therefore we need cooperation to guide ourselves towards cheaper alternatives if they exist - otherwise we will have to suck it up.



The very nature of the extraction of resources and the market in those resources means that the "market price" *can't* be a constant, it can't even approximate a constant because it is, whether co-operativised, wholly privately-owned and cartelised, or wholly publicly-owned, subjected to a variety of influences that cannot be factored into and covered by a "constant" price.



> You don't even know what my position is. The government has stated that it will not relinquish its parliamentary sovereignty and so I suspect that my position is not near theirs either.
> 
> I am not interested in talking about the abolition of markets, competition and property rights but that doesn't mean that I am against changing them within those parameters as my Land Reform thread illustrates quite well.



Reformism. Great. A mode of change that is so open to outside influence that in the history of parliament such change has never not been either stymied or diluted.

And that's *if* you can get the change on the legislative calendar in the first place.



> So are you suggesting that they have no power to interpret the law? I beg to differ. They could quite easily rule sensibly on the HRA and yet they seem unable (or unwilling) to do so. If they were so powerless to interpret then there would be no need for appeal courts.



Legal practice, both below and on the bench, is defined by precedent. This means that any interpretation has to be done with reference to the current bounds of legislation on that matter, so a judge can exercise discretion n interpretation, but that interpretive power is limited by what has gone before.
This is a device that serves to stop politically-motivated judges from rendering decisions that might favour their own political "side".

get a clue about the CJS before gobbing off, there's a good chap.



> That's hilarious but I suspect that quite a few conservatives try to persuade themselves that it is true. The facts are that the sovereignty moved from monarch to parliament (1688) and remained there - the subjects have never been formally liberated by a 'we the people' document, which would have led to the necessary personal responsibility for one's actions allied with a meritocracy which is necessary in a modern state. The innate rebellion in the UK against those in authority and the system is a direct result of this.
> 
> And if you think that Weber, Marx or anyone else is relevant then feel free to quote them - then if I think their words merit investigation maybe I will read them. I am as likely to take the word of an internet name caller to read his book as he is to read mine.



Because you're such an excellent judge of what is relevant, aren't you? 

Your threads get picked to pieces because you have no ideal of the detail of the subjects on which you sound off, so excuse me if I choose to believe that you wouldn't have a clue what might or might not be relevant even if it smacked you in the face with a fillet of sole.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 30, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I see you do selective comprehension as well as selective editing.


I see that you seem unable to converse with me as if I am a reasonable person. I appreciate that it is easy to be impolite on the internet, but I am not really discussing unreasonably, and traditionally I would ask that you just hold your horses on such snide comments, as they demean both you and your position.


ViolentPanda said:


> I don't go into detail because strategising prior to the event locks you into a framework that may not best serve you once events start to roll. You can have a "grand strategy" such as "the goal is (insert goal here)", but to say "the goal is (insert goal here), and we'll achieve it by (insert strategy here)" locks you in as surely as if you're playing a game of chess. The best tactics are always the unexpected tactics, otherwise anyone with a modicum of knowledge of strategy or chess will be able to read you like an open book.


So your dubious story for refusing to enter into a detailed debate is because you don't want to give the enemy the chance to scupper your solutions.


ViolentPanda said:


> More misrepresentation. I haven't argued for the removal or abrogation of "competition, property rights and markets". I've argued that the "competition, property rights and markets" that you argue for - the current iteration, if you will - serves to fuel bureaucracy and the encroachment of business into the private sphere.


In what way was I misrepresenting your position? Thank goodness you have decided not to give me details about your solution. I was pointing out that the vast majority of people are not really against these concepts and so the left will not get anywhere if they insist on their abolition.


ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, and by the way, "the vast majority of the world" doesn't own any land or even housing.


Every country I know of has a form of property ownership which the population is usually working towards as a defence against retirement.


ViolentPanda said:


> Change that YOU believe will work because it amounts to micro-managed reformism.


I am interested in change that will work. The 'class war' that you seem to support, though dramatic, sells newspapers but has failed again and again. It would therefore be a better idea to work out the system we would like to replace this one with when the opportunity presents itself.


ViolentPanda said:


> And would never be legislated via parliamentary democracy.


I agree that Land Reform based on square/cubed metrage with a tax free amount of space would not be easily passed, although I consider it to be a better alternative to Cable's Mansion Tax which is currently being considered, or the French version they are considering. I am idealising what a government system might have as a tax system. The factors of production are land, labour and capital, and with land reform we could both free up the supply of land and take some of the burden of labour at the same time.


ViolentPanda said:


> You keep crapping on about your ideas, but refuse to acknowledge that the political system as currently constituted wouldn't touch it. You can't achieve meaningful policy change without fundamentally changing the system first, and even popular anger against that system is not enough to induce change. That much has been obvious for more than a decade now.


At least since WW2 I would say - that was when London centralised the power and thus broke the UK system. The change vote by definition is a recognition that the previous ways had failed. In 1997 Labour had a chance to change the UK for the better, but they dropped the ball mostly because they didn't have a cogent plan to reform the UK.

I am interested that you are keen to rubbish my ideas but refuse to offer any of your own, leaving you at the advantage of being able to criticise mine while I can only guess at yours, (and then be told off for guessing). That's a great position you have taken - maybe you have all the answers and I should just vote for you? Sounds like the elite again.


ViolentPanda said:


> You're as arid as the Trots and other "lefties" you moan about.


You think my solutions are unimaginative? Having a written constitution and land reform may well have been thought of before, I am supporting them - if you feel the need to judge that as a bad thing then fair enough.


ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not in denial. I've worked on both sides of the argument. I was a soldier enforcing that oppression, as well as being someone who's fought against it for almost 30 years


And what successes can you report soldier? How's that class war working out? Victory in sight yet?


ViolentPanda said:


> Any written constitution will be shaped by the social realities that surround the time of its' creation. I don't actually want a constitution based on the current status quo, because that would mean enshrining current practice. Enshrining it in a document that, as I mentioned on your previous thread, would require a layer of constitutional courts to police and/or amend.


The current courts could be constrained by a written document (they already are). I remember Random suggesting that we should not have a written constitution too. It seems that the ruling elite has not only persuaded the population that there is no point in fighting or voting, but that there is no need to limit their powers as a government - they have done a great job.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 30, 2011)

Maybe an example to illustrate why we need a written constitution? In most countries their written constitution ensures financing for all areas of the country based on population. At the moment the lack of such a document in the UK means that the central authority can simply cut financing to wherever it likes when times get bad - they can keep their financing for the opera in London while cutting the finance for single mums in Newcastle. There is nothing to stop them from doing that, and yet when I suggest that we need to discuss what goes in a written constitution, you refuse to discuss because you don't want 'current practice' to be enshrined?


ViolentPanda said:


> Another sweeping generality.
> There are reasons why that label could be applied to any member of the EU. What are the specifics of your claim that the UK is?


Anyone who has travelled around Europe to any degree can see for themselves the advantages of a system which is set up for the population instead of to control them.


ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks again for reinforcing the claim that you have not a single clue what "class war" actually means.


How's that class war going? Identified any middle class posters to abuse for their complicity in a rotten system recently? 

I don't know what you think 'class war' is, but in my experience it is simply divisive, and an opportunity for the UK population to eat itself from within while not addressing the key problems which are evident. It was George Orwell who pointed out that class war just ends up with the middle class fooling the working class into replacing the elite with the middle class, leaving the working class much the same as before.


ViolentPanda said:


> Not even when the constant complaint at the shop counter when purchasing staples is "what? It's gone up again?"
> The transactive process itself isn't necessarily exploitative. How it is used can be.


That's very true. The workers in each company has a vested interest in raising market share, moving towards monopoly where they can sit back and just supply a small number at a high price. This tendency is a problem, and it will take careful alignment of incentives to limit it.


ViolentPanda said:


> As for your shoddy attempt to limit the scope of power-relations under capitalism to "every single transaction in shops", we're both well aware that power-relations between parties under capitalism extend much further than the retail sector.


Don't tell me what I know, there's a good chap. If it irritates you, it will probably irritate me too. 

I was using the retail sector which is responsible for a vast number of transactions every day, to address your simplistic 'all capitalism is exploitative' statements. Sure there are problems with the existing system, further down the chain of supply there are people who are not so happy. So we need to make sure that we have a system which is able to address these issues, rather than just being its victim. That leads to being part of a bigger, more powerful block (the EU probably). However our system is just not able to deal with these modern issues because we are in a constant state of rebellion, the population is not currently prepared to cooperate and many refuse to accept the need to change.


ViolentPanda said:


> The very nature of the extraction of resources and the market in those resources means that the "market price" can't be a constant, it can't even approximate a constant because it is, whether co-operativised, wholly privately-owned and cartelised, or wholly publicly-owned, subjected to a variety of influences that cannot be factored into and covered by a "constant" price.


A world market leads to more stable prices, but it also leads to less competition and the governments need to work together to ensure that this is mitigated.


ViolentPanda said:


> Reformism. Great. A mode of change that is so open to outside influence that in the history of parliament such change has never not been either stymied or diluted.
> 
> And that's if you can get the change on the legislative calendar in the first place.


So you don't think that my discussion is not worth it because change will never get a chance. While I think your (general lack of) ideas won't work mostly because you refuse to talk about them with me - probably due to your class war issues. So we are stuck, and the UK will continue on the same it always has because its population is too stupid to cooperate.


ViolentPanda said:


> Legal practice, both below and on the bench, is defined by precedent. This means that any interpretation has to be done with reference to the current bounds of legislation on that matter, so a judge can exercise discretion in interpretation


Thank you for recognising this fact


ViolentPanda said:


> but that interpretive power is limited by what has gone before. This is a device that serves to stop politically-motivated judges from rendering decisions that might favour their own political "side".
> 
> get a clue about the CJS before gobbing off, there's a good chap.


You recognise that I am right when I claim that judges have the ability to exercise discretion and yet feel the need to be rude. You continue:


ViolentPanda said:


> Because you're such an excellent judge of what is relevant, aren't you?


Not really, but an independent judiciary is a key part of any modern system.


ViolentPanda said:


> Your threads get picked to pieces because you have no ideal of the detail of the subjects on which you sound off, so excuse me if I choose to believe that you wouldn't have a clue what might or might not be relevant even if it smacked you in the face with a fillet of sole.


Well at least that was amusing. I don't consider my previous threads to have been 'picked to pieces' I still support land reform and a written constitution and many of the others. I have always thought very carefully about what I and others have said and have changed when I feel their point has been well-made. I don't think that I have been at all unreasonable, and am at a loss as to why you feel the need to pepper your intelligent replies with snide remarks.

I suppose that as part of your 'class war' issue you see me as a problem rather than as a person to communicate with reasonably. Such is the problem with the 'class war' attitude, intrinsically divisive and so in the end fruitless.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I suppose that as part of your 'class war' issue you see me as a problem rather than as a person to communicate with reasonably. Such is the problem with the 'class war' attitude, intrinsically divisive and so in the end fruitless.



No, it's more because you're an incoherent bluffing idiot, really.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Maybe an example to illustrate why we need a written constitution? In most countries their written constitution ensures financing for all areas of the country based on population. At the moment the lack of such a document in the UK means that the central authority can simply cut financing to wherever it likes when times get bad - they can keep their financing for the opera in London while cutting the finance for single mums in Newcastle. There is nothing to stop them from doing that, and yet when I suggest that we need to discuss what goes in a written constitution, you refuse to discuss because you don't want 'current practice' to be enshrined?



Do a bit of research before resorting to bullshit. Regional financing in the UK is based on head count.



> Anyone who has travelled around Europe to any degree can see for themselves the advantages of a system which is set up for the population instead of to control them.



All systems control the population. The only variable is extent.



> How's that class war going? Identified any middle class posters to abuse for their complicity in a rotten system recently?



Idiot.

Again, why not do a little research into what the concept of class war actually encompasses, rather than showing yourself up as an ignorant fool?



> I don't know what you think 'class war' is, but in my experience it is simply divisive, and an opportunity for the UK population to eat itself from within while not addressing the key problems which are evident. It was George Orwell who pointed out that class war just ends up with the middle class fooling the working class into replacing the elite with the middle class, leaving the working class much the same as before.



Give the actual quotation by Orwell, please.



> That's very true. The workers in each company has a vested interest in raising market share, moving towards monopoly where they can sit back and just supply a small number at a high price. This tendency is a problem, and it will take careful alignment of incentives to limit it.



An awful lot of assumptions there that aren't borne out by many historical examples.



> Don't tell me what I know, there's a good chap. If it irritates you, it will probably irritate me too.



I haven't told you what you know, I've made a statement about your knowledge based on your having actually engaged on the subject previously.
Unlike you, I try to avoid assumptions where possible.



> I was using the retail sector which is responsible for a vast number of transactions every day, to address your simplistic 'all capitalism is exploitative' statements. Sure there are problems with the existing system, further down the chain of supply there are people who are not so happy. So we need to make sure that we have a system which is able to address these issues, rather than just being its victim. That leads to being part of a bigger, more powerful block (the EU probably). However our system is just not able to deal with these modern issues because we are in a constant state of rebellion, the population is not currently prepared to cooperate and many refuse to accept the need to change.



The retail sector accounts for a *minority* of transactions. The majority are accounted for by financial institutions.

Define capitalism and in any definition that actually applies you will be faced with a truth: That all capitalism is exploitative. That exploitation is inherent to all forms of capitalism, and that it is *necessary* to capitalism.



> A world market leads to more stable prices, but it also leads to less competition and the governments need to work together to ensure that this is mitigated.



Stability is not constancy. If you meant "stability", then why use "constant"? Stability merely means that transition between price levels tends to be *less* violent. It doesn't imply a constant.



> So you don't think that my discussion is not worth it because change will never get a chance.



I think your ideas are worthless because they don't posit a feasible pathway to achieving change. You blather on about a written constitution, about land reform etc, but you propose no mechanisms by which the legislature can be convinced to deliver these agenda.



> While I think your (general lack of) ideas won't work mostly because you refuse to talk about them with me - probably due to your class war issues. So we are stuck, and the UK will continue on the same it always has because its population is too stupid to cooperate.



And here your mask slips to show the same contempt for people as always lies under the surface of those who wish to engage in top-down social engineering.

The population aren't "too stupid". They've spent the last 30+ years being indoctrinated with the idea that politics doesn't matter, that it's best to just let "them" get on with it, or they'll just shit on "us" harder. That it's best to keep your head down. This relies on people conducting impromptu "risk analyses" and arriving at the conclusion that they have more to lose than to gain by sticking their heads above the parapet. The flow is currently against the grain of indoctrination.

Of course, you probably wish to harness the current discontent to further your land reform and constitutional ideas, regardless of what the discontented themselves actually wish.



> Thank you for recognising this fact
> 
> You recognise that I am right when I claim that judges have the ability to exercise discretion and yet feel the need to be rude. You continue:
> 
> Not really, but an independent judiciary is a key part of any modern system.



We have an independent judiciary *in spite of* political interference. You appear to be mistaking the institutional preferences of individual members of the judiciary and the judiciary collectively for a lack of independence. Institutional preferences, established as factors of influence, can be subject to review.



> Well at least that was amusing. I don't consider my previous threads to have been 'picked to pieces' I still support land reform and a written constitution and many of the others. I have always thought very carefully about what I and others have said and have changed when I feel their point has been well-made. I don't think that I have been at all unreasonable, and am at a loss as to why you feel the need to pepper your intelligent replies with snide remarks.
> 
> I suppose that as part of your 'class war' issue you see me as a problem rather than as a person to communicate with reasonably. Such is the problem with the 'class war' attitude, intrinsically divisive and so in the end fruitless.



You don't even comprehend what class war is, so please don't bandy the phrase around as though you do. It isn't the resentment-based hate-fest that you appear to believe it is, it's a historically-quantifiable force that acts on social relations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2011)

Random said:


> No, it's more because you're an incoherent bluffing idiot, really.



I disagree. He's coherent. It's just that he *is* a bluffing idiot with very little idea (if any) about what class war actually is. He seems to think it's something akin to the working classes vilifying the middle classes and murdering the ruling classes, when that's merely a tiny facet of the concept, and not even one that's necessarily permanenetly in-play.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I see that you seem unable to converse with me as if I am a reasonable person. I appreciate that it is easy to be impolite on the internet, but I am not really discussing unreasonably, and traditionally I would ask that you just hold your horses on such snide comments, as they demean both you and your position.



You're labouring under the delusion that you come across as a "reasonable person". You don't. YOu come across like every top-down politician that's ever addressed an audience.



> So your dubious story for refusing to enter into a detailed debate is because you don't want to give the enemy the chance to scupper your solutions.



That's the interpretation *you* choose to put on it, because it suits your internal narrative to do so.



> In what way was I misrepresenting your position? Thank goodness you have decided not to give me details about your solution. I was pointing out that the vast majority of people are not really against these concepts and so the left will not get anywhere if they insist on their abolition.



You attributed to me a position whereby I completely abjure competition, property rights etc. I don't do so. Therefore you misrepresented me. Whether through malice or through ignorance, only you know.



> Every country I know of has a form of property ownership which the population is usually working towards as a defence against retirement.



So, far from "the vast majority of the world" that you previously claimed, we're actually talking about "every country" that *you* know.
How about Burma? How about India, Bangladesh and Pakistan? How about Brazil and Argentina? How about Mexico? How about the nations of the Arab peninsula?
None of those states have a propertied sector of the population above 10%.



> I am interested in change that will work. The 'class war' that you seem to support, though dramatic, sells newspapers but has failed again and again. It would therefore be a better idea to work out the system we would like to replace this one with when the opportunity presents itself.



Which newspapers does class war sell?



> I agree that Land Reform based on square/cubed metrage with a tax free amount of space would not be easily passed, although I consider it to be a better alternative to Cable's Mansion Tax which is currently being considered, or the French version they are considering. I am idealising what a government system might have as a tax system. The factors of production are land, labour and capital, and with land reform we could both free up the supply of land and take some of the burden of labour at the same time.
> 
> At least since WW2 I would say - that was when London centralised the power and thus broke the UK system. The change vote by definition is a recognition that the previous ways had failed. In 1997 Labour had a chance to change the UK for the better, but they dropped the ball mostly because they didn't have a cogent plan to reform the UK.



If you had much knowledge of 20th century British political history you'd know that more power flowed from the centre to the periphery between the 1930s and the 1970s than at any comparable time in British history, and that the flow was reversed via Thatcherism, which used centralisation as a mechanism for removing financial independence from regional and local authorities.



> I am interested that you are keen to rubbish my ideas but refuse to offer any of your own, leaving you at the advantage of being able to criticise mine while I can only guess at yours, (and then be told off for guessing). That's a great position you have taken - maybe you have all the answers and I should just vote for you? Sounds like the elite again.



Your ideas are about imposing change from the top downward. Mine are about building change from the grass-roots outward and upward. True democracy as opposed to a system that enshrines most current asymmetries in power-relations.



> You think my solutions are unimaginative? Having a written constitution and land reform may well have been thought of before, I am supporting them - if you feel the need to judge that as a bad thing then fair enough.
> 
> And what successes can you report soldier? How's that class war working out? Victory in sight yet?



Yet again you show that you don't understand the concept of class war.



> The current courts could be constrained by a written document (they already are). I remember Random suggesting that we should not have a written constitution too. It seems that the ruling elite has not only persuaded the population that there is no point in fighting or voting, but that there is no need to limit their powers as a government - they have done a great job.



Which s another fine example of you misrepresenting posters. Perhaps you'd care to actually post what Random said, so that readers and participants in this thread can see what he said *in context*, rather than relying on your selective memories?


----------



## Gmart (Oct 30, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps you'd care to actually post what Random said [etc]



Well I said:



> Or maybe you all don't envisage your various utopias having a written constitution. I wouldn't know...



And then he said:



Random said:


> That's certainly my position.



Orwell quote is from the book within a book in 1984 - here's a link, it's the first chapter.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html



ViolentPanda said:


> we're both well aware that...



Is what you said, which is why I thought you were telling me what I thought... easily done 



ViolentPanda said:


> The retail sector accounts for a minority of transactions. The majority are accounted for by financial institutions.



Which are also victimless. When someone takes out insurance for example, they are getting something for their money, and if they were not ok with the exchange they would choose not to engage in it.



ViolentPanda said:


> You blather on about a written constitution, about land reform etc, but you propose no mechanisms by which the legislature can be convinced to deliver these agenda.



The first step has to be to persuade people that such things are a reasonable way forward - and as the social contract thread shows, people have no interest in such discussions yet. There are existing blueprints which are a fine starting point such as Gordon's Repairing British Politics, who also has some good ideas for increasing the participation of the population, but there is no point arguing for such a change if everyone refuses to communicate rationally and empirically - such cooperation has to be a basic and initial condition.



ViolentPanda said:


> You attributed to me a position whereby I completely abjure competition, property rights etc. I don't do so. Therefore you misrepresented me. Whether through malice or through ignorance, only you know.



I attributed that position to certain members of the 'left', not yourself - you have refused to say what your policies are and so are immune to criticism.

I take it that you still consider the idea of a market to be anathema to any solution you have in mind? I would argue that this also contradicts your 'bottom up' ideals as it would involve explaining to people why the shops/local markets have to close - or if you are alright with shops then how about financial transactions? But then people want insurance, and I don't see why you want to stop them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2011)

Legions of straw men went into that last bit


----------



## Gmart (Oct 30, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Legions of straw men went into that last bit


I deliberately made it a question based on his omission of markets from the list of reasonable compromises for the left to accept. I just don't see how anyone can expect labour to get into power if they are at all against markets and the jobs they create - maybe he has a plan?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

lord


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2011)

Ok VP, instead of 'incoherent', how about 'obtuse and a bit dim tbh'.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

Nah, he's incoherent.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, he's incoherent.


Just trying to buld bridges of consensus


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

Random said:


> Just trying to buld bridges of consensus


75% consensus or 90% consensus? Demands now!


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 75% consensus or 90% consensus? Demands now!


100% overt consensus based on an organised 40% pushing their point of view.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

No wavy hands shit?


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No wavy hands shit?


My time in the movement has scarred me. Sometimes I find myself wanting to do that in meetings at work.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2011)

Random said:


> My time in the movement has scarred me. Sometimes I find myself wanting to do that in meetings at work.





I always think 20% solid can force 100% consensus with maybe one blocker who gets driven out a bit later over an unrelated issue.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I always think 20% solid can force 100% consensus with maybe one blocker who gets driven out a bit later over an unrelated issue.


As long as everyone works hard at staring at their feet and muttering when this lone nutter gets up to speak


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2011)

bribery, blackmail and intimidation if all else fails


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> bribery, blackmail and intimidation if all else fails



Nah hippies and individualist anarchists have always been the most effective at enforcing their views over loose groupings due largely to a mixture of vast self belief and ludicrous anti democratic ideals of those wider groups.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2011)

Btw this kind of enforced 'consensus' I how Russian 19th C peasants communities worked. According to some book I read once.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Nah hippies and individualist anarchists have always been the most effective at enforcing their views over loose groupings due largely to a mixture of vast self belief and ludicrous anti democratic ideals of those wider groups.


All in the name of avoiding conflict


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 30, 2011)

It's a shame to see this thread go downhill.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> It's a shame to see this thread go downhill.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2011)

> Anyone who has travelled around Europe to any degree can see for themselves the advantages of a system which is set up for the population instead of to control them.


Europe, Glorious Europe, ruled the Eastern hemisphere for over a century. The advantages are there if we would only open our eyes to see them. Lithuania: 30% unemployment. Belgium: heading for economic crisis. Greece: one in seven living on church handouts. Male Bulgarians: living in parks in other cities looking for work in the morning.



> That's very true. The workers in each company has a vested interest in raising market share



The children in each family have a vested interest in dumping or poisoning their brothers and sisters raising their share of food spoils.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Legions of straw men went into that last bit



1,000 thatched cottages will go without roofing next year, due to the volume of straw he used for his straw men.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I deliberately made it a question based on his omission of markets from the list of reasonable compromises for the left to accept. I just don't see how anyone can expect labour to get into power if they are at all against markets and the jobs they create - maybe he has a plan?



Notice the word "etc" after "competition, property rights"?

That strongly implies "markets", given that in every single post previously the word "markets" has accompanied "competition" and "property rights".

Yet again, you've manufactured a load of bullshit based on your opinion of what you believe I've written, rather than on what I've actually written.

And what the hell does the Labour party have to do with "the left"? Nothing, that's what.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I always think 20% solid can force 100% consensus with maybe one blocker who gets driven out a bit later over an unrelated issue.



The correct term is "purged". comrade, not "driven out".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> lord



The idiot assumes that Labour is seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2011)

Random said:


> Ok VP, instead of 'incoherent', how about 'obtuse and a bit dim tbh'.



Sounds good to me!


----------



## Gmart (Nov 1, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Notice the word "etc" after "competition, property rights"?
> 
> That strongly implies "markets", given that in every single post previously the word "markets" has accompanied "competition" and "property rights".
> 
> ...



No one seems to know what the 'left' stands for anymore, so you shouldn't feel bad.

My key point was that anyone who argues for change needs to accept that markets, competition and property rights are not going to change because there is a global consensus that these policies are essential for the modern world. I could have added contract law and patents as well as many others. It is fine being against controlling elites (who isn't?) but you don't even agree with me against Random when I state the need to have a written constitution.

And yet the reaction has been one of abuse. Not a surprise here, I am used to U75. And yet now you are backtracking as if you have always been agreeing with me. I mean why whinge that I don't read enough Marx or Weber and then not quote either to argue against my position? Implies that they aren't particularly needed.

I get the feeling that you recognise that my key points are fair enough, but that you are wary of agreeing with me  for some reason separate to the facts. Maybe that 'class war' of yours is getting in the way of cooperation and dialogue again?

The EU could be a great cause for good but the UK has been whipped up against it by a number of forces, primarily parliament which is esp against having any other power impinging on their own sovereignty. The UK will never change until a fairer system based on popular sovereignty is adopted, and it looks like only the EU will give us that. Our own politicians have betrayed us over and over again over the centuries, and yet still the population can be motivated by the privately owned press to be against the EU. A miracle of manipulation, on a par with the 'unwritten constitution' bullshit which has worked so well in the past. We need to wake up and discuss what principles should be on a written constitution and yet the population at large seems unable to stop itself from abusing each other rather than cooperating - such a shame.


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2011)

Gmart said:


> And yet the reaction has been one of abuse. Not a surprise here, I am used to U75.


 Only after people spent hours giving detailed replies, which you then ignored and kept on repeating like a broken record. VP is still replying to you. No idea how he has the patience.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2011)

Me neither. The number of threads that are just left with this gmart talking to himself, having bored everyone else away, is astonishing.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Me neither. The number of threads that are just left with this gmart talking to himself, having bored everyone else away, is astonishing.



More like the same handful of anarchos and their mates talking amongst themselves and boring everyone else away. Interlopers,(those who "obviously don't understand the concepts") are not tolerated.

C'est la vie, it's the U75 political forums, you pays yer money......


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> More like the same handful of anarchos and their mates talking amongst themselves and boring everyone else away. Interlopers,(those who "obviously don't understand the concepts") are not tolerated.
> 
> C'est la vie, it's the U75 political forums, you pays yer money......


Instead of making another glib self-åpitying comment, why don't you reply to Gmart yourself, if you think it's worth it? If you don''t think it is, then you're sort of agreeing with u75 anarchists


----------



## gosub (Nov 2, 2011)

Gmart said:


> No one seems to know what the 'left' stands for anymore, so you shouldn't feel bad.
> 
> My key point was that anyone who argues for change needs to accept that markets, competition and property rights are not going to change because there is a global consensus that these policies are essential for the modern world. I could have added contract law and patents as well as many others. It is fine being against controlling elites (who isn't?) but you don't even agree with me against Random when I state the need to have a written constitution.
> 
> ...



Given that even EUrobarometer has the EU enjoying minority support within the UK and deminishing throughout EUrope, popular sovereignty doesn't lie within the EU's grasp and  If you think it is moving towards fair systems you are on another planet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2011)

Random said:


> Only after people spent hours giving detailed replies, which you then ignored and kept on repeating like a broken record. VP is still replying to you. No idea how he has the patience.



Beta blockers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> More like the same handful of anarchos and their mates talking amongst themselves and boring everyone else away. Interlopers,(those who "obviously don't understand the concepts") are not tolerated.



If you weren't tolerated, no-one would bother replying to you.

Still, we should expect inaccuracy and hyperbole from you, shouldn't we, Mr. _Kristallnacht_?



> C'est la vie, it's the U75 political forums, you pays yer money......



...and get a goon like you. I'm surprised that so few people demand a refund.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2011)

Gmart said:


> No one seems to know what the 'left' stands for anymore, so you shouldn't feel bad.



I see that I don't have to worry about you and "the point" having a head-on collision any time soon.

There's no such thing as "the left". It's a label applied by the lazy and/or stupid.
Leftism is a spectrum of heterogeneous concepts, theories, ideologies and practices, not a homogeneous entity that can be deployed to fall behind a particular idea or be set against the same.
People who talk of "the left" in such terms should, as a matter of common courtesy, at least *try* to define what they mean.

If, of course, they actually *know* what they mean.



> My key point was that anyone who argues for change needs to accept that markets, competition and property rights are not going to change because there is a global consensus that these policies are essential for the modern world.



Please elucidate this "global consensus" that you claim exists. While I'm aware that such a consensus may manifest from some quarters, I've seen nothing that implies a "global" consensus.



> I could have added contract law and patents as well as many others. It is fine being against controlling elites (who isn't?) but you don't even agree with me against Random when I state the need to have a written constitution.



You don't even recall the arguments in previous threads on the subject, do you?
A written constitution whose articles are composed "by the people, for the people", is fine by me. What I don't support is the idea of people who have no legal responsibility to the population to represent the interests of "the people" composing such a document. If an informed population vote to enshrine "markets, competition, property rights, contract law and patents", that's fine. If they don't, then why should such things be imposed on them merely because you claim some nebulous "global consensus"?



> And yet the reaction has been one of abuse. Not a surprise here, I am used to U75. And yet now you are backtracking as if you have always been agreeing with me. I mean why whinge that I don't read enough Marx or Weber and then not quote either to argue against my position? Implies that they aren't particularly needed.



I haven't whinged about your reading. I suggested you read Weber so that you could acquaint yourself with the concept of class stratification, which might, in turn, have given you a better handle on what "class war" actually means (as opposed to your simplistic "bashing the rich" belief).



> I get the feeling that you recognise that my key points are fair enough, but that you are wary of agreeing with me for some reason separate to the facts. Maybe that 'class war' of yours is getting in the way of cooperation and dialogue again?



I don't recognise your points as "fair enough", because your points imply imposition rather than acceptance. I don't agree with you because I don't agree with imposition. You imply that your various ideas would bring about a better world, but you consistently fail to acknowledge the point that without an attempt at real democracy, none of your ideas matter - Brought about within a system akin to or identical to the current one, any good intentions will merely "pave the road to hell"< because the current system allows the law to be subverted at whim by those with power.



> The EU could be a great cause for good but the UK has been whipped up against it by a number of forces, primarily parliament which is esp against having any other power impinging on their own sovereignty. The UK will never change until a fairer system based on popular sovereignty is adopted, and it looks like only the EU will give us that. Our own politicians have betrayed us over and over again over the centuries, and yet still the population can be motivated by the privately owned press to be against the EU. A miracle of manipulation, on a par with the 'unwritten constitution' bullshit which has worked so well in the past. We need to wake up and discuss what principles should be on a written constitution and yet the population at large seems unable to stop itself from abusing each other rather than cooperating - such a shame.



The EU could have been a cause for good 30 years ago, perhaps, but the course it subsequently mapped for itself has precluded it acting in that way except in a passing manner. Saying that it could be a cause for good for the UK is like saying that the WTO could be the same - the possibility of it being so is there, but the probability of it being so, given the way both bodies govern and regulate themselves, is not there. The bureaucracy of the EU has long since become instrumental. It serves itself first, the member-states second, the peoples of the member-states last of all.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's no such thing as "the left". It's a label applied by the lazy and/or stupid.


No, it's a label applied _to _the lazy and/or stupid  

(I'll get me coat...taxi!)


----------



## Gmart (Nov 3, 2011)

The Left

A simplification just like 'right wing'. We are all guilty of using simplistic groupings for people we disagree with, it is when we legislate against their rights there is a problem, but it has to be rights for all, not just your favourite.

Global consensus

Markets, property rights and competition will continue to exist worldwide, and they are accepted by the people partially because they recognise that it gives security in old age when we will be at our most vulnerable.

Weber & Marx seem to be names which are just thrown into the conversation without a corresponding quotation, as a reason not to deal with the words directly.

Imposition rather than acceptance

What do you think I should accept?

Am I imposing authoritarian structures by insisting that markets, property rights and competition need to be accepted and regulated?

'Real' democracy...

So you have an idea of a system you would prefer too? Some people will see it as imposition - how would you ensure that people who you don't agree with are also protected/included? It helps that you don't give any details there...

EU

You are correct to highlight the key issue: how it governs and regulates. The bureaucracy may well be too big, much like in the UK, but it has key principles which is one up on the parliamentary sovereignty we have in the UK. We need to work towards a rational system within the EU, recognising that globalisation has happened and that corporate entities can only be dealt with on a broader level.

EU serves itself first

They have expenses indeed - all the more reason to open a debate on financing politics. Is it better to have state funding which is untainted but at the expense of the taxpayer or have the current system of funding which is tainted but which doesn't cost so much? If you feel that is a false dichotomy, then describe the middle ground.

All power structures finance themselves which is why we need a system of checks and balances which are effective. Those in power show no hint of being prepared to embrace change and so we need to make sure that when that democratic opportunity comes up, it can be taken rather than replacing the group underfoot.

Whatever the case, it serves no one to engage in name calling; it is the first level of cooperation - recognising that even those who you disagree with have freedom of speech and that that is something you can agree on. Refusing to talk about the ideal you envisage in a written constitution is a strange decision. It just means that nothing will change while implying that I might be the problem because I haven't read the correct books implies that you refuse to talk about certain topics with free and open language.

I am not in favour of the current oppressive regime, and a democratic opportunity comes around every now and then. Last time it was 1997 and Labour didn't have an alternative system which got rid of the existing framework - they didn't have that because they just talk with each other.

Structure

Some people seem in favour of just getting rid of all structures, as if that would mean that a society based on 'local rules' would evolve - a 'roots up' system to replace the imposed system we have. It is more likely that such a situation would lead to those with resources taking advantage of those without - more even than happens now. We won't solve this by taking away the resources for 'Us',  the people, without having a system ready to replace it with - one based on the 'real democracy' you vaguely alluded to - meaning closer to Scandinavia, France, Germany or Korea - one of the countries who are 'succeeding' better than we are. Whatever the case, it is definite that any system will be seen as imposed by the young, which is why we need to cooperate and have that discussion about ideals too, as opposed to the usual discussion about what we cannot do only.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The Left
> 
> A simplification just like 'right wing'. We are all guilty of using simplistic groupings for people we disagree with, it is when we legislate against their rights there is a problem, but it has to be rights for all, not just your favourite.



Most people on the P & P forums elucidate which part of the left spectrum they're talking about, because most of us understand that the left isn't homogeneous, and therefore is only simplified by people who're either ignorant, lazy or Treelover.



> Global consensus
> 
> Markets, property rights and competition will continue to exist worldwide, and they are accepted by the people partially because they recognise that it gives security in old age when we will be at our most vulnerable.



Yes, so you've sweepingly generalised before. What you haven't done (despite being asked to) is elucidate the mechanism by which this might occur on such a scale as to be globally applicable rather than merely western-centric.



> Weber & Marx seem to be names which are just thrown into the conversation without a corresponding quotation, as a reason not to deal with the words directly.



Obfuscation.
I twice specifically mentioned Weber in reference to a particular subject that he arguably elucidated best, which is social stratification. If you understand Weber's stratification theory (a theory still widely accepted across the social sciences a century after being formulated, having been "road-tested into the ground and found to be robust), then grasping that capitalism inheres exploitation is less difficult than if one remains wilfully ignorant on the subject of class.



> Imposition rather than acceptance
> 
> What do you think I should accept?



That's up to you.



> Am I imposing authoritarian structures by insisting that markets, property rights and competition need to be accepted and regulated?



Yes, of course you are, because you're attempting to naturalise phenomena and practices that are entirely artificially constructed, to place those structures as the only acceptable basis for social and economic relations.



> 'Real' democracy...
> 
> So you have an idea of a system you would prefer too? Some people will see it as imposition - how would you ensure that people who you don't agree with are also protected/included? It helps that you don't give any details there...



You're a dolt who enjoys putting words in peoples' mouths.
I haven't proposed a system, I've stated that in my opinion only true democracy, where each voice carries equal weight, could be considered representative, only a political system agreed upon under conditions of true democracy would have the required legitimacy and freedom from the old system to put in a place a politics that offered such ideas as you're talking about. Note that I say "offered", because decisions on meta-policy should, in a real democracy, be subject to plebiscite, or at the very least to vote by representatives who have a legal duty to represent the views of their constituents, as opposed to a party line.



> EU
> 
> You are correct to highlight the key issue: how it governs and regulates. The bureaucracy may well be too big, much like in the UK, but it has key principles which is one up on the parliamentary sovereignty we have in the UK. We need to work towards a rational system within the EU, recognising that globalisation has happened and that corporate entities can only be dealt with on a broader level.
> 
> ...



So many assumptions, so many errors.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 5, 2011)

So you refuse to offer any details yourself, and then complain that I do not answer your inquiries? I ask you not to engage in name calling, but seem also unable to prevent yourself from doing that either.

With Weber you did not give any information about his 'social stratification', you just seem keen to tell people to read him while refusing to give any details on your own solutions. This is just another example of curtailing needed dialogue - refusing to engage unless it is your language used.

You vaguely talk about 'true' democracy, (sometimes you call it 'real') - but such a democracy would have most people working towards owning property the same as now; there would still be markets for retail and financial products and there would continue to be competition specifically between people working in similar markets. If you feel that my insistance that any solution has these in it is unreasonable, then I would suggest that it is you who is preventing discussion not me.

Even when we agree on the importance of how the EU governs and regulates, you immediately refuse to discuss it - on a thread about the EU.

Is this an effective map towards change? Refusing to engage with everyone who sees things even slightly differently? How do you think this will help to solve the problems in our system?

This seems to be the opposition in the UK at the moment: refusing to engage with others who might have a slightly different take on the solutions needed and then simply engaging in namecalling. Until we learn to cooperate, the status quo will continue, the UK will remain in its current oppressive form and we will have no one to blame but our own failure to engage with each other as human beings.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

You teach english


----------



## Gmart (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You teach english


Actually I teach maths, though I have taught English before - relevance?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 5, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Actually I teach maths, though I have taught English before - relevance?



Basically he's saying you're a twat.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 5, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Basically he's saying you're a twat.



That's what butchers usually says.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2011)

can't even be arsed anymore


----------



## Random (Nov 5, 2011)

Gmart said:


> This seems to be the opposition in the UK at the moment: refusing to engage with others who might have a slightly different take on the solutions needed and then simply engaging in namecalling.


 People are trying to explain to you why your 'solutions' are no use, or would lead to a situation that we don't want. Maybe this is what's known as a principled political disagreement?

If you're so good at 'engaging', then tell me on what points you have so far compromised or changed your mind? You keep on saying that market domination of society is non-negotiatable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2011)

He doesn't know what he's talking about because he thinks that CTR people will be issued with a Peoples Comb every morning and then have to return it to the Peoples Comb Storage Facility every night.


----------



## Random (Nov 5, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> He doesn't know what he's talking about because he thinks that CTR people will be issued with a Peoples Comb every morning and then have to return it to the Peoples Comb Storage Facility every night.


Despite talking about how we need to "engage" he doesn't even seem to take the time to actually understand other people's political terms and concepts. Or even seem to understand many of his own political concepts, tbh.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 5, 2011)

Will there even be an EU left for the UK to leave? It could just end up with France and Germany at this rate, and France doesn't look that promising anymore.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 5, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Will there even be an EU left for the UK to leave? It could just end up with France and Germany at this rate, and France doesn't look that promising anymore.



I don't think Nederland will be leaving the EU any time soon. (Or a number of other countries)


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

Random said:


> People are trying to explain to you why your 'solutions' are no use, or would lead to a situation that we don't want. Maybe this is what's known as a principled political disagreement?
> 
> If you're so good at 'engaging', then tell me on what points you have so far compromised or changed your mind? You keep on saying that market domination of society is non-negotiatable.


I am stating that people want to be assured that their house, which they have paid a mortgage on will not be suddenly worthless because all property is declared theft. People will continue to go to work and compete with their competition in the market their business is in - their jobs depend on that, and people want to continue to buy goods in shops and financial goods such as insurance from financial institutions - these transactions are win-win and so clearly show that 'capitalism' is not all 'exploitative'.

These positions are not ones that I can 'compromise' on because they are like this worldwide - I am simply stating the start point which seems unavoidable. We haven't even got to a compromise discussion yet because you seem reluctant to accept that this position of mine is reasonable. Other posters haven't even got a position to compromise with yet because they refuse to engage in any discussion at all (with or without namecalling).

Which position would you like me to compromise on anyway? All I have done is continue to ask how you can argue for a 'bottom up' solution if you are going to fail to confirm that these basics are accepted. Markets, competition and property have to be regulated based on certain agreed principles but they cannot be abolished.

The same goes for you stating that you are against a written constitution - many of the problems IMHO in the UK are down to its archaic system which lacks the mechanism to evolve, and your position against such a document plays straight into the hands of those who wish to maintain the status quo. To be against even a discussion about what should be on such a document, shows exactly the lack of engagement which i am arguing against and which prevents real change.

The EU is painted as the bad guy in all this by the press - but to my mind they are trying to push our political class towards the acceptance of some basic human rights and is trying to harmonise laws so that people can more effectively cooperate. This is not a bad thing, I like the basic subsidiarity principle even if I have doubts about its current (pre-parliament act) structure. But we should be in it so that we can reform it rather than being isolationist - and there is no point viewing it the same as our politicians who are based on parliamentary sovereignty - they are different systems and so cannot be compared through the oppressive lens we have in the UK.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2011)

told you he'd only read the prodhoun quote and misunderstood it.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> told you he'd only read the prodhoun quote and misunderstood it.


I am indeed offering you the opportunity to state that property rights will not be affected by the change vote. That is not to say that tax and regulation cannot be discussed - I have suggested a Land Reform tax too, feel free to engage.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2011)

Where's every one gone gmart?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2011)

I'm content to carp at your idiocy from the sidelines without engaging thanks. Everytime I bother you either don't get it or twist what was said to put words in my mouth. I told you that you'd had your quota on the Phonetic English thread back when you had a few more letters in your username. And here you are again doing the same shit with a different drum to bang.

You don't even get why you are hilarious.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm content to carp at your idiocy from the sidelines without engaging thanks. Everytime I bother you either don't get it or twist what was said to put words in my mouth. I told you that you'd had your quota on the Phonetic English thread back when you had a few more letters in your username. And here you are again doing the same shit with a different drum to bang.
> 
> You don't even get why you are hilarious.


Ah! the phonetic English thread - that was fun, watching how posters tried to get around the basic principle that helping dyslexics has to be more important than maintaining the history in our spelling system. Again and again posters tried to find a way to get round that fact to no avail - great fun


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2011)

see?


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> see?


So are you going to vote on whether to stay in or not DC? Finally step into the debate rather than refusing to engage and sniping from the sidelines?
So much easier to refuse to engage in debate isn't it? No chance of being abused then eh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2011)

I fear the abuse- you Savile.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I fear the abuse- you Savile.


Whatever your dubious story for your lack of engagement is, the result is the same - the status quo continues.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2011)

Gmart said:


> <blah>
> 
> These positions are not ones that I can 'compromise' on because they are like this worldwide - I am simply stating the start point which seems unavoidable. We haven't even got to a compromise discussion yet because you seem reluctant to accept that this position of mine is reasonable. Other posters haven't even got a position to compromise with yet because they refuse to engage in any discussion at all (with or without namecalling).
> 
> ...



No they're not. Land in rural China is still owned and allocated by the village collective; you get secure (as secure as ownership in the UK, at any rate) residential rights to your home for life, but there's no inheritance by right. Farm land is allocated by the collective too, you get a fixed-term contract but in many places they readjust allocations after a shorter period to reflect changes in family size and so on. There was a move led by academic a few years back to push for privatising land, some even well-intentioned thinking it would stop land grabs leaving farmers with no compensation, but it was broadly resisted by rural people as they knew it was the beginning of a return to landlessness for the many.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2011)

Bourgeois led liberal democracy A interacts, or doesn't interact, with bourgeois liberal democracies x,y and z.

It is only my inaction that allows it to continue unmolested by the mighty chains of: WRITTEN CONSTITUTION MAN and his sidekick SOCIAL CONTRACT BOY


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

JimW said:


> No they're not. Land in rural China is still owned and allocated by the village collective; you get secure (as secure as ownership in the UK, at any rate) residential rights to your home for life, but there's no inheritance by right. Farm land is allocated by the collective too, you get a fixed-term contract but in many places they readjust allocations after a shorter period to reflect changes in family size and so on. There was a move led by academic a few years back to push for privatising land, some even well-intentioned thinking it would stop land grabs leaving farmers with no compensation, but it was broadly resisted by rural people as they knew it was the beginning of a return to landlessness for the many.


China is indeed a different story at the moment, but on the ground level it still remains the same - people 'own' property, have mortgages and rent it the same as anywhere, and their written constitution is evolving slowly. No inheritance is not a problem either - I would argue for higher inheritance tax myself though I recognise that many are against that. How's it going up there - it's still quite hot here in Nanjing...?


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2011)

Gmart said:


> China is indeed a different story at the moment, but on the ground level it still remains the same - people 'own' property, have mortgages and rent it the same as anywhere, and their written constitution is evolving slowly. No inheritance is not a problem either - I would argue for higher inheritance tax myself though I recognise that many are against that. How's it going up there - it's still quite hot here in Nanjing...?


It's not though is it? I've just set out that several hundred million don't do that in the countryside, at the ground level. I worked in the countryside for a couple of years and saw it in action. Even where the whole bundle of capitalist and market ideas are being brought in, the overwhelming majority of rural people I've spoken to and what I've see of the literature says people prefer things this way - it's a securer tenure for most, as what they'd get instead is landlessness and homelessness.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

JimW said:


> It's not though is it? I've just set out that several hundred million don't do that in the countryside, at the ground level. I worked in the countryside for a couple of years and saw it in action. Even where the whole bundle of capitalist and market ideas are being brought in, the overwhelming majority of rural people I've spoken to and what I've see of the literature says people prefer things this way - it's a securer tenure for most, as what they'd get instead is landlessness and homelessness.


In the cities it is all the same as usual - the countryside is different in the way that you describe but the idea of property is still inherently accepted in the cities. I am all for cooperatives of the sort you describe and if that is what the people prefer then why would I argue against it? But my experience here is of people taking out mortgages and renting the same as ever and I see no point in discussing anything which stops them from doing that either.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 6, 2011)

Leaving the eec is the unknown ,i feel a lot of people will reluctanly vote to stay in because like myself we can't be certain of the outcome


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2011)

Gmart said:


> In the cities it is all the same as usual - the countryside is different in the way that you describe but the idea of property is still inherently accepted in the cities. I am all for cooperatives of the sort you describe and if that is what the people prefer then why would I argue against it? But my experience here is of people taking out mortgages and renting the same as ever and I see no point in discussing anything which stops them from doing that either.



But the point is, you're making claims that certain things are givens when they're not. And it turns out that in one situation, where for historical reasons there aren't the property rights you think are universal, most prefer the collective approach even though its a bit ropey. And if you get out and talk to your neighbours, you'll find there's not a lot of love for property rights as they stand in the cities among the working class, as they're not getting a look-in. You frame it in terms of stopping people doing something, when you could frame it in terms of giving people something - secure tenure of a home by allocation, and I'll bet you pounds to peanuts it'd be preferred by the vast majority. You're having a failure of the imagination. I could bang on about the history of the introduction of urban private housing too, if you want. It resembles the council house sell-off back home by looking like a freebie at first then the slow realisation you've fucked all succeeding generations.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

JimW said:


> But the point is, you're making claims that certain things are givens when they're not. And it turns out that in one situation, where for historical reasons there aren't the property rights you think are universal, most prefer the collective approach even though its a bit ropey. And if you get out and talk to your neighbours, you'll find there's not a lot of love for property rights as they stand in the cities among the working class, as they're not getting a look-in. You frame it in terms of stopping people doing something, when you could frame it in terms of giving people something - secure tenure of a home by allocation, and I'll bet you pounds to peanuts it'd be preferred by the vast majority. You're having a failure of the imagination. I could bang on about the history of the introduction of urban private housing too, if you want. It resembles the council house sell-off back home by looking like a freebie at first then the slow realisation you've fucked all succeeding generations.


My experience here is different to your own - I think it is fair to say that they would prefer to have a system which was fairer of course, but the investment in housing around me is astonishing - highrises are everywhere and these buildings are owned by people with mortgages in the usual way. I cannot speak for the countryside and am glad that they have tweaked the system over there. I have had many conversations with people who are excited by owning their own house here through a mortgage - they would prefer it to be freehold in the way it is in the rest of the world - but that is part of my point: people tend towards wanting to own a place which cannot be taken away from them by the vagaries of politics.
It was the same in Korea - building up all the time, and why not? - it is a good investment everywhere.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2011)

Gmart said:


> My experience here is different to your own - I think it is fair to say that they would prefer to have a system which was fairer of course, but the investment in housing around me is astonishing - highrises are everywhere and these buildings are owned by people with mortgages in the usual way. I cannot speak for the countryside and am glad that they have tweaked the system over there. I have had many conversations with people who are excited by owning their own house here through a mortgage - they would prefer it to be freehold in the way it is in the rest of the world - but that is part of my point: people tend towards wanting to own a place which cannot be taken away from them by the vagaries of politics.
> It was the same in Korea - building up all the time, and why not? - it is a good investment everywhere.


So you've seen the effects of property development and met white-collar workers with a mortgage? You have no experience and should stop making pronouncements about what is or isn't possible. What about all the working class people living in rented basements or crumbling old shacks on the outskirts? The system in the countryside is the relic from the dismantling of the collective era; it's the cities that have been 'tweaked'.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

JimW said:


> So you've seen the effects of property development and met white-collar workers with a mortgage? You have no experience and should stop making pronouncements about what is or isn't possible. What about all the working class people living in rented basements or crumbling old shacks on the outskirts? The system in the countryside is the relic from the dismantling of the collective era; it's the cities that have been 'tweaked'.


There are many people living in poor accommodation in China and in the UK. I am just describing the situation in the cities - there is a lot of building and vast numbers of people who are investing in a property of a sort. I would be remiss to fail to mention these people and to point out that there are numbers too. I am not supporting the Chinese solution for their towns, though I note it is better than India but worse than Korea. there is no democracy but property as a concept is accepted and the opportunity to invest as such is seen as a constructive investment.
With the supply of property being so restrictive in the UK i would say that the adoption of the principle of building up to alleviate the problem is worthy of consideration, but the wholescale abolition of property rights has to be let go because too many people are invested in it.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2011)

Gmart said:


> There are many people living in poor accommodation in China and in the UK. I am just describing the situation in the cities - there is a lot of building and vast numbers of people who are investing in a property of a sort. I would be remiss to fail to mention these people and to point out that there are numbers too. I am not supporting the Chinese solution for their towns, though I note it is better than India but worse than Korea. there is no democracy but property as a concept is accepted and the opportunity to invest as such is seen as a constructive investment.
> With the supply of property being so restrictive in the UK i would say that the adoption of the principle of building up to alleviate the problem is worthy of consideration, but the wholescale abolition of property rights has to be let go because too many people are invested in it.


You're not describing the situation in the cities. You're describing how you've arrived with your assumptions and have failed to see that they don't fit the reality around you. I don't see a turning back from the push for private property in the cities either, but not for the reasons you maintain. It's because the process is being driven from the top down.
The reforms are less than 15 years old and exclude all but a minority. You can see high rates of home ownership cited for China, but that's actively distorting what is the case in the countryside (as set out above) and ignoring the fact that in the towns it's largely people having been allocated the home they once occupied under the old rules, no mortgage involved. The property bubble is notorious, even white collar workers can't get a look-in and it's been one of the hot social issues of recent years. Even a fairly mawkish TV drama that described the travails of a middle class family (representative of a small proportion of the population) was cancelled and can't be re-shown because it touched on the issue. There's not even mention of the building workers who have been in the cities sometimes 30 years but are still living in barracks on the job site, young service workers living in basements with no windows and all the rest. The history and social forces are a million miles from your blithe and bland certainties.
Which gets back to the point, and why I mentioned it, this undermines your broad claims about how the world is.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

JimW said:


> You're not describing the situation in the cities. You're describing how you've arrived with your assumptions and have failed to see that they don't fit the reality around you. I don't see a turning back from the push for private property in the cities either, but not for the reasons you maintain. It's because the process is being driven from the top down.
> The reforms are less than 15 years old and exclude all but a minority. You can see high rates of home ownership cited for China, but that's actively distorting what is the case in the countryside (as set out above) and ignoring the fact that in the towns it's largely people having been allocated the home they once occupied under the old rules, no mortgage involved. The property bubble is notorious, even white collar workers can't get a look-in and it's been one of the hot social issues of recent years. Even a fairly mawkish TV drama that described the travails of a middle class family (representative of a small proportion of the population) was cancelled and can't be re-shown because it touched on the issue. There's not even mention of the building workers who have been in the cities sometimes 30 years but are still living in barracks on the job site, young service workers living in basements with no windows and all the rest. The history and social forces are a million miles from your blithe and bland certainties.
> Which gets back to the point, and why I mentioned it, this undermines your broad claims about how the world is.


Everything you say is true, but it doesn't negate that private ownership, even in one of the last nominally socialist states in the world, is expanding dramatically. Private ownership is certainly a minority in China at the moment, but it is rising for exactly the reason that it will continue to be a fact of life: it is an investment in quality of life both in the present and in one's pension - nothing you have said, or anyone else has addressed that point which is why private ownership is here to stay, and arguing against it is useless - any bottom up system will have the people demanding the right to own property so if you believe in a democratic system then private property is here to stay - the only way to stop it would be to become authoritarian and to impose a top-down edict against it - which is why I am for it and I argue that anyone who argues for bottom up solutions should accept it to.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2011)

It was a top-down edict under an authoritarian regime that re-introduced private property in China. That came as part of a package of market reforms that dramatically reduced material security for the majority. It is rising because it is being enforced by that authoritarian regime. The state owns the land and chooses which developers to allocate it to; at the higher levels of a complex system of sub-contracting, the developer will be a state agency or closely connected to the new government official/entrepreneur ruling class. Even given that, they've had to bolster it by building subsidised housing or all but a still smaller minority of even urban residents would be excluded.
You seem unable to spot the difference between security in your home and owning it in a capitalist property market, or have the imagination to think of any other way of improving quality of life or guaranteeing a decent old age other than one model. You are also ignoring me telling you that the bottom-up consensus in the last part of the housing sector to remain collective is for it to stay that way. From all I can tell, if you offered a policy of collective housing in the cities with a good flexible democratic exchange mechanism and gave all urban residents a vote on it, it would be adopted by a landslide. You're not looking at what's around you, you're just repeating your prejudgements.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

JimW said:


> It was a top-down edict under an authoritarian regime that re-introduced private property in China. That came as part of a package of market reforms that dramatically reduced material security for the majority. It is rising because it is being enforced by that authoritarian regime. The state owns the land and chooses which developers to allocate it to; at the higher levels of a complex system of sub-contracting, the developer will be a state agency or closely connected to the new government official/entrepreneur ruling class. Even given that, they've had to bolster it by building subsidised housing or all but a still smaller minority of even urban residents would be excluded.
> You seem unable to spot the difference between security in your home and owning it in a capitalist property market, or have the imagination to think of any other way of improving quality of life or guaranteeing a decent old age other than one model. You are also ignoring me telling you that the bottom-up consensus in the last part of the housing sector to remain collective is for it to stay that way. From all I can tell, if you offered a policy of collective housing in the cities with a good flexible democratic exchange mechanism and gave all urban residents a vote on it, it would be adopted by a landslide. You're not looking at what's around you, you're just repeating your prejudgements.


It is indeed an authoritarian regime which has imposed it, but that doesn't mean that ownership is rejected in the simple way you describe - no doubt a collective scheme might be adopted if the revolution were to occur tomorrow - but you and I will probably agree that revolution is far from likely at the moment, and even if it did there is no certainty that your autonomous collective ideal would remain - more likely is that a mixed economy would emerge again with both private property and schemes of the type you describe as well.
The bottom up consensus in the countryside is happy with the status quo there you claim - ok, i have no knowledge of such a vast area of expertise, but you are arguing that private property will not necessarily continue in China along the lines of the rest of the world - I would argue that that is unlikely - the rising middle class in China is acquiring property in the same way as it has always historically done - building up assets, and nothing you have said negates that trend.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2011)

I didn't mention a revolution, and I said I thought the push for privatisation will most likely continue. What I'm disputing is your unsupported claim that this is some force of nature. I did claim existing popular feeling would likely make a different choice if the democracy you advocate were in place. You're the one being simplistic, repeating a mantra that because it's happening, it's what has to happen.
You're not even getting the argument - no-one disputes the deepening encroachment of capitalist relations into Chinese life. My point is, you have absolutely no clue how and why its happening, so you shouldn't be making big claims about how the world works or what's possible.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

JimW said:


> I didn't mention a revolution, and I said I thought the push for privatisation will most likely continue. What I'm disputing is your unsupported claim that this is some force of nature. I did claim existing popular feeling would likely make a different choice if the democracy you advocate were in place. You're the one being simplistic, repeating a mantra that because it's happening, it's what has to happen.
> You're not even getting the argument - no-one disputes the deepening encroachment of capitalist relations into Chinese life. My point is, you have absolutely no clue how and why its happening, so you shouldn't be making big claims about how the world works or what's possible.


It is not a 'big claim' to point out that private property is here to stay - the markets are driven by the demand of the population and those in power are not against private property because they allow it. There is no point arguing over what might happen if the authoritarian structure were not there - I suspect that democracy will eventually come and that then private property will be allowed, even extended, but that is beside the point - I am asking that people accept as a base line that property, markets and competition are intrinsic parts of our system - you can indulge yourself in idealising about how you might persuade people not to be that way but until that 'enlightened' moment comes along I will stick with the world as is - and at the moment there are few regimes who do not have a mixture of private property and renters of some sort. There are just as few who are idealistically against the markets and competition is a natural result of human nature. Any system which is against this will be an exercise in authoritarianism at the moment.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2011)

Aye, and you're wrong, they're parts of a system. There's actually been a widespread private property in land in China far longer than nearly anywhere else in the world, but it turns out thirty years of collective experience under a shitty authoritarian regime still endeared a large chunk of the population to the concept as better than a neoliberal hollowing out.
You are making a big claim, you just haven't thought hard enough about it to realise that; same goes with this idea about markets and spurious claims about human nature. The birth and expansion of the particular sort of social relationships you think are natural are recent in world historical terms and very much more recent in most of the world.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

JimW said:


> Aye, and you're wrong, they're parts of a system. There's actually been a widespread private property in land in China far longer than nearly anywhere else in the world, [...snip]


There you go: private property developed in China independently as well. If you wish to restrict your discussion to include going against such evidence then that is up to you, but any vote for change will not be based on getting rid of it, and the sooner those of us who wish to discuss change accept that, the more likely we will be to effect actual change rather than just continuing the status quo.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2011)

You still don't get the point of the discussion, do you? A form of private title to land under an entirely different set of social relations existed, fell into crisis ironically enough under the assault of capitalism from the West, and was done away with in the revolution that eventually led to. It's not evidence for your fact-free claims at all. Have you ever opened a history book?


----------



## Random (Nov 6, 2011)

Good posts Jim, interesting to hear about the situation. As for Gmart, yet more evidence that when reality doesn't fit with his demands, he just ignores it. You'll never get anywhere with this ideology-heavy top-down approach, Gmart.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

Random said:


> Good posts Jim, interesting to hear about the situation. As for Gmart, yet more evidence that when reality doesn't fit with his demands, he just ignores it. You'll never get anywhere with this ideology-heavy top-down approach, Gmart.


It is precisely because I feel that the majority of people believe that property is ok to own to live in and as an investment that I feel that it is your line which is the more authoritarian. So many put their money into such assets as a form of pension at least and I am requiring an acceptance that such property will not be seized - that the line has to be tax and regulation.


JimW said:


> You still don't get the point of the discussion, do you? A form of private title to land under an entirely different set of social relations existed, fell into crisis ironically enough under the assault of capitalism from the West, and was done away with in the revolution that eventually led to. It's not evidence for your fact-free claims at all. Have you ever opened a history book?


The system existed in the past, and if we can learn from it when discussing the rights and wrongs inherent in a society then it will be of use to look at, but not if it is used beside a system which takes property away from certain people without a better reason than punishment for the oppressive regime they were complicit in. Having different sets of rules for different groups of people is exactly what we should be working against. That is the current system, the one based on privilege which I was hoping that we could agree to being against.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> see?



He still doesn't understand the distinction between his own subjective opinion and objective fact, or between making a claim and proving it. In both cases he does the former but not the latter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2011)

Gmart said:


> There you go: private property developed in China independently as well. If you wish to restrict your discussion to include going against such evidence then that is up to you, but any vote for change will not be based on getting rid of it, and the sooner those of us who wish to discuss change accept that, the more likely we will be to effect actual change rather than just continuing the status quo.



Private property didn't "develop independently" *anywhere*. It was, in all historically-verifiable cases, an imposition by the strong on the weak, a violent iteration of "might is right".

For someone who whines about oppression, you don't appear to actually ponder the subject too deeply.


----------



## Random (Nov 6, 2011)

Gmart said:


> It is precisely because I feel that the majority of people believe that property is ok to own to live in and as an investment that I feel that it is your line which is the more authoritarian.


 As Jim points out, very many people would rather not own. Here in Sweden state-owned rental property is very very popular. It's not as clear cut as your 'feeling' has led you to assert. In any case, simply because private ownership is attractive to many people doesn't mean that it's their preferred solution. I've got a mortgage myself; doesn't mean that I like it, just that it's the least worst option.

Stop going on your feelings of others beliefs and start actually engaging and listening to what others are saying.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 7, 2011)

For the both of you, if you feel oppressed then that is your freedom, but it doesn't mean that there is any point to actively preventing people from engaging in buying property. I understand the utopian ideals which might lead to a discussion about how the world would be without any property, but it is still a reasonable starting point to stop the authoritarian instinct to seize it. There are a number of options which include taxing and regulation which can be explored.
Just stating that many would rather not own is ignoring those who would prefer to own - any inclusive policy has to cover both rather than ignoring one.


----------



## Kippa (Nov 7, 2011)

Leaving the EU might not be too bad with our country being the United Kingdom, although I doubt the United Kingdom will last in its present state. I can see Scotland getting independance, then Ireland, then possibly Wales in our lifetime. If that happend and we were out of the EU, England as a very little country on its own would be well and truly fucked.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2011)

England is not a very little country in any terms, population, economy etc


----------



## sihhi (Nov 13, 2011)

Gmart said:


> It is not a 'big claim' to point out that private property is here to stay - the markets are driven by the demand of the population and those in power are not against private property because they allow it. There is no point arguing over what might happen if the authoritarian structure were not there - I suspect that democracy will eventually come and that then private property will be allowed, even extended, but that is beside the point - I am asking that people accept as a base line that property, markets and competition are intrinsic parts of our system - you can indulge yourself in idealising about how you might persuade people not to be that way but until that 'enlightened' moment comes along I will stick with the world as is - and at the moment there are few regimes who do not have a mixture of private property and renters of some sort. There are just as few who are idealistically against the markets and *competition is a natural result of human nature. Any system which is against this will be an exercise in authoritarianism at the moment*.



It's like this because you say it is.
That's not authoritarianism, folks.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

anyone changed their mind since 2011?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> anyone changed their mind since 2011?


Nope  .. Britain should remain in the EU, most specially because of the single market.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2014)

Are we actually having a referendum to leave it then?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Are we actually having a referendum to leave it then?


Hopefully not!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Are we actually having a referendum to leave it then?




cameron said if he gets re-elected he'll timetable a reff for 2017

trying to fend of the UKIP vote bleed?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> cameron said if he gets re-elected he'll timetable a reff for 2017
> 
> trying to fend of the UKIP vote bleed?


And unfortunately with Milliband being such a wet fish there is actually an outside chance Cameron could be re-elected which means a referendum just might be in our future.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> And unfortunately with Milliband being such a wet fish there is actually an outside chance Cameron could be re-elected which means a referendum just might be in our future.



I will be betting on Cameron not being re-elected. If ever a government deserved to fall, it is this one. 

A friend has been up for the weekend, we've been friends since 1978. He was remarking last night that I have become politically non-aligned, for the first time since he has known me. I won't be voting in the next general election, again a first, there is no one to vote for.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> anyone changed their mind since 2011?



Yes. In the event of a referendum, I will be voting to stay in.


----------



## gosub (Sep 21, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes. In the event of a referendum, I will be voting to stay in.



won't get the choice it will be out or associate membership (same as UKraine)


----------



## Libertad (Sep 21, 2014)

UKIP are pushing the line that the Lisbon Treaty includes a clause, which comes into effect on 1st November this year, that precludes any member state from holding a referendum on EU membership without the agreement of the other 27 states.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

Libertad said:


> UKIP are pushing the line that the Lisbon Treaty includes a clause, which comes into effect on 1st November this year, that precludes any member state from holding a referendum on EU membership without the agreement of the other 27 states.


the word 'referendum' does not appear in the lisbon treaty

e2a: nor does plebiscite

e2a2: lisbon treaty can be downloaded from here http://bookshop.europa.eu/is-bin/IN...iewPublication-Start?PublicationKey=FXAC07306


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the word 'referendum' does not appear in the lisbon treaty
> 
> e2a: nor does plebiscite



Damn you edited just before i could catch you out on plebiscite!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Damn you edited just before i could catch you out on plebiscite!


haha


----------



## Libertad (Sep 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the word 'referendum' does not appear in the lisbon treaty



Then I'm really not sure at which straw the Kippers are attempting to grasp. Any idea what they're alluding to Pickman's model ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

Libertad said:


> Then I'm really not sure at which straw the Kippers are attempting to grasp. Any idea what they're alluding to Pickman's model ?


i haven't seen the specific bit: but since no fucker knows the lisbon treaty anyway they can broadly say what they like and any refutation is likely to be lost in the hissy fit people would be having.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 21, 2014)




----------



## Libertad (Sep 21, 2014)

I've just found the claim that they're making on a UKIP Arsebook page:







This expostulation outlines UKIP's claim:

http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2014-046-uk-to-lose-power-to-veto-eu/



> Under the NICE treaty, any initiative/prospective laws or directives instigated by the European commission in all the
> areas listed below, could only be passed by “Unanimity”.
> Put another way we could VETO any prospective EU legislation if it was not in our National interests. In other words our Parliament at Westminster retained effective National Sovereignty over these areas.
> However, the LibLabCons and, Cameron in particular, have not made this clear to the Nation, WHY??
> Because as of the 1st November 2014 under the LISBON TREATY, the right of parliament to >legislate in these listed areas will be removed and the EU can pass its own legislation by “qualified majority voting” (QMV). We will no longer be able to veto anything deemed not to be in our National interests… Sovereignty gone!



The author of the above, Clive Easton, is unfortunately not a European constitutional lawyer but a committed UKIP cheerleader.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

I shall be pissed off if there is a referendum.
I shall be pissed off if Cameron is re-elected and can enact his referendum.
With all the Ukipping going on I don't trust the British people to do what is right!
Opening trading links with New Zealand will not replace business lost in the EU!


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 21, 2014)

Those damn sheeple not doing what is right!!!!


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Those damn sheeple not doing what is right!!!!


Indeed! Can we trust the people to do what is right.
As treasurer of what is right I think I have the right to know!


----------



## tbtommyb (Sep 21, 2014)

Libertad said:


> UKIP are pushing the line that the Lisbon Treaty includes a clause, which comes into effect on 1st November this year, that precludes any member state from holding a referendum on EU membership without the agreement of the other 27 states.


It seems they're talking about Article 16 of TFEU, which is about QMV.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 21, 2014)

Quasi Messianic Voting?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> It seems they're talking about Article 16 of TFEU, which is about QMV.


Come on tbtommyb, fill in all us ignoramuses, what is QMV? (is it Qualified Majority Voting?)


----------



## tbtommyb (Sep 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Come on tbtommyb, fill in all us ignoramuses, what is QMV? (is it Qualified Majority Voting?)


soz, am a bit pissed so don't want to have to type too much. 

yeah qualified majority voting. i don't know whether they're arguing that other member states would stop the UK having a referendum but tbh it seems to me that if you're considering leaving a group you're not going to be too worried about the group's rules for leaving.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

> *British people favour leaving the European Union, according to poll*
> Nearly half would vote to leave while only 37% would vote to stay, though the picture changes if membership is renegotiated


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/21/eu-referendum-majority-leave-opinium-observer-poll

Doesn't make comfortable reading for someone who wants to stay in.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 22, 2014)

To be honest I don't see why there shouldn't be a referendum. I would vote to leave as I really don't like the EU but I reckon most people would vote to stay in.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 22, 2014)

I'd rather be inside the tent pissing out than the other way around.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 22, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Quasi Messianic Voting?


I would like more Quasi Messianic Voting in all areas of politics and life.  Only quasi, mind.


----------



## xenon (Sep 22, 2014)

We should just let the experts decide you know politicians, International business men. It always works so well though doesn't it. They only have our best interests at heart.


----------



## Batboy (Sep 22, 2014)

I am beginning to think that a referendum might be a good idea. I certainly want us to stay in, but there needs to be changes in how the EU is run. 

UKIP need shutting up and a yes vote to stay in Europe would help do that. 

The thorny issue of migration needs to be addressed, one of the failures of the EU is in tackling human movement and supporting infrastructures within our societies to cope with the large movement of people. This is the main reason UKIP has gained popularity as they have exploied people's fears of immigration.


----------



## youngian (Sep 22, 2014)

Batboy said:


> I am beginning to think that a referendum might be a good idea. I certainly want us to stay in, but there needs to be changes in how the EU is run.
> 
> UKIP need shutting up and a yes vote to stay in Europe would help do that.



Following some of the late interventions by the likes of Brown in the Scottish referendum I'm wondering if pro-EU politicians let Farage run with his back of an envelope proposals in order to ambush him at a later stage if a referendum is run. Like Salmond's ranting about threatening to shake down Westminster by threatening to default, UKIP's plans to annul treaties and negotiate a new one with what they see as all the advantages and making no contributions is pure back firing car red nose clownery.

Interesting watching Salmond sunday morning who hinted that an EU referendum maybe an opportunity for the Nats to have a second bite of the cherry. And faced with a choice of the SNP's pragmatic nationalism and UKIP/Tory Tea Party isolationism (if they won an EU referendum) sounds like the Yes camp could walk it.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 22, 2014)

xenon said:


> We should just let the experts decide you know politicians, International business men. It always works so well though doesn't it. They only have our best interests at heart.



Well yeah and the conservative government and business elite for all their populist rhetoric would shit them selves if Britain left the EU.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Sep 22, 2014)

I have been fed so much bullshit on the subject that I am incapable of making an informed decision about the EU.  We have UKIP telling us how much money it is costing us, but the real question is...  who is us?  

An Australian once asked me, as a UK citizen do I think of myself as a European.  And I do.  I think we'd be better off without Westminster altogether, and just run everything from Brussels like a central federal hub.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 22, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I have been fed so much bullshit on the subject that I am incapable of making an informed decision about the EU.  We have UKIP telling us how much money it is costing us, but the real question is...  who is us?
> 
> An Australian once asked me, as a UK citizen do I think of myself as a European.  And I do.  I think we'd be better off without Westminster altogether, and just run everything from Brussels like a central federal hub.



Why stop there? Have a world government.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 22, 2014)

The EU is far from being a well run democratic unit that delivers only unqualified good to its member states.

Arguably, it is more elitist, more clubby and certainly a lot more corrupt than Westminster. Eurocrats can and do get away with a massive amount more dodgy shit pro rata than MPs, often simply by virtue of having a College of Europe education. And if you think HMG's democratic mandate is a bit iffy, the Juncker Commission's is far thinner.

But the price of exit would be massively high and would more than outstrip any possible benefit.

What is more concerning is the real prospect that the UK stays in the EU either by default or through a referendum but becomes steadily more marginalised and less and less powerful/influential. In a way this is already happening to our detriment.

If we stay in, we need to do so as a central EU player, which is well within our capabilities and which many other member states would be keen on.


----------



## youngian (Sep 22, 2014)

Batboy said:


> I am beginning to think that a referendum might be a good idea. I certainly want us to stay in, but there needs to be changes in how the EU is run.
> 
> UKIP need shutting up and a yes vote to stay in Europe would help do that.


Yes if much of Salmond's plans were revealed as back of a fag packet wish fulfilment it would be a relief to actually see Farage's drivel questioned.

The problem is Cameron is not offering an In or Out referendum but a) leave or b) support his absurd renegotiation plans in which he asks 27 states to sign off the UK for special priviledges such as the freedom for British workers to do an 80 hour week and swim in turd infested waters. Cameron has already showed he has all the strategic brains of a drunken ludo player and when Farage asks people if they should really take Cameron seriously in a negotiation even if you support his neo-liberal aganda he would for once have a point.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2014)

Thing is that I don't think that leaving the EU necessarily has anything to do with farage and I also don't think farage wants out of the EU, it's given him a guaranteed career.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Thing is that I don't think that leaving the EU necessarily has anything to do with farage and I also don't think farage wants out of the EU, it's given him a guaranteed career.



yes - his reaction (if we did leave the EU) might be along the lines of "oh fuck, now what do i say / do?"...


----------



## gosub (Sep 24, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> yes - his reaction (if we did leave the EU) might be along the lines of "oh fuck, now what do i say / do?"...


sit in pub and drink £68,000 per year pension.

eta no, has to twiddle thumbs for 13 years before that kicks in


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> sit in pub and drink £68,000 per year pension.





It's rather like the 'Boston By-Pass Party' who managed to win control of Boston (Lincs) Borough Council a few years back, having campaigned on a single issue.  From what I gather there was a sudden moment of "oh shit, what the heck are our other policies?"


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> It's rather like the 'Boston By-Pass Party' who managed to win control of Boston (Lincs) Borough Council a few years back, having campaigned on a single issue.  From what I gather there was a sudden moment of "oh shit, what the heck are our other policies?"


UKIP takeover.


----------



## youngian (Sep 25, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Thing is that I don't think that leaving the EU necessarily has anything to do with farage and I also don't think farage wants out of the EU, it's given him a guaranteed career.


Gordon Brown pointed out last week that Ireland shows that nationalist parties have a habit of sticking around. You could see Farage as some nasty grim English Eamon Devalera.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 11, 2014)

This sounds like a very probable outcome to me:

"At the very least, I suggest to him, a British exit would create no end of economic turbulence. After all, when it looked as if Scotland was thinking seriously about leaving the UK, billions of pounds were wiped off the stock market. So imagine what would happen if Britain leaving the EU actually came to pass: an economic catastrophe, some people reckon.

Among them is Roland Rudd, the City insider who is the chairman of the communications firm Finsbury (which represents such clients as BSkyB, Marks and Spencer and the mining giant Glencore), and the founder of a pro-EU group called Business for New Europe. He reminds me that such US-owned financial institutions as Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley are said to be considering leaving London if Britain quits Europe. Should it happen, he thinks this would only be the start. “Our financial centre would get hollowed out,” he says. “There are around 500 banks that have their headquarters here, and without a passport to operate throughout Europe in the form of the single market, they simply can’t be here. Financial services represents about 10% of GDP; if that was threatened, it would be deeply, deeply damaging.”


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2014)

so we'd be deliberately tanked by a capital strike if we democratically opted out. Good-o


----------



## youngian (Oct 11, 2014)

Diamond said:


> The EU is far from being a well run democratic unit that delivers only unqualified good to its member states.
> 
> Arguably, it is more elitist, more clubby and certainly a lot more corrupt than Westminster. Eurocrats can and do get away with a massive amount more dodgy shit pro rata than MPs, often simply by virtue of having a College of Europe education. And if you think HMG's democratic mandate is a bit iffy, the Juncker Commission's is far thinner.



Would you like the Commission to have a popular democratic mandate rather than a present arrangement (answerable to the EU council legislature) ? I ask because you are then moving from a federation of nation states to unitary political state if you have an elected executive like Washington and Paris.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> so we'd be deliberately tanked by a capital strike if we democratically opted out. Good-o


Save the EU! Save Our Bankers!


----------



## NoXion (Oct 11, 2014)

What difference would being in or out of the EU make to me? Aside from certain elements of capital throwing their toys out of the pram, obviously.

Because I honestly don't care if the suits are in Brussels or Westminster. Their class interests align a whole lot more with each other than they do with me or the people I actually know.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 11, 2014)

For me it is important to remain in the single market, Britain gets easy access to sell her goods without restriction which brings employment, and we can take jobs in the wider EU also without restriction.

I doubt Cameron will be able to negotiate any meaningful new position for Britain within the EU, at least not one that will be meaningful to Joe Public which leaves him calling a referendum on weak grounds and having to defend largely the status quo for staying in. He was a mug to offer the referendum, pandering to his own right wingers it will only harm relations whatever the outcome.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 12, 2014)

Interesting to hear Nicola Sturgeon being interviewed on R5 earlier today saying that "she  had no plans _*at present *_for another indyref". Obviously slightly nuanced from the 'now or never' meme heard throughout the campaign.

I'm presuming that any SNP Scots government would immediately institute another ref. upon any UK-wide ref voting for Brexit?

e2a : from yesterday's John Harris, Guardian piece "The only way is out"...


> The Edinburgh minister in charge of the Europe brief is the SNP’s Fiona Hyslop. “I think there’s a real danger for the UK and the Westminster parties if they present a referendum that would lead to exit from the EU,” she tells me. “That’s something that I think would be unacceptable to the people of Scotland and the Scottish government.” She will not be drawn on exactly what she means, but she says this, with a hint of menace: “I have a warning that there will be very serious consequences indeed, and I’m not sure they have been properly thought through.”


----------



## brogdale (Oct 12, 2014)

Harris' article also starts to explore the implication for NI from any Brexit...



> f Brexit happened, the prospect of Northern Ireland sharing an open border with the Republic of Ireland would obviously represent a considerable headache. What with that issue, and the prospect of cross-border smuggling to avoid EU tariffs on some UK exports, something diplomats call a “hard border” would suddenly be on the agenda. “That could destabilise the peace in Northern Ireland,” says Leonard. “When I speak to Irish people, they’re very worried about the Troubles being kind of re-ignited.


----------

