Poll: French leave EU

Really. How knowledgeable of you.

Then why couldn't we get rid of the tampon tax?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ry-products-in-house-of-commons-a6944371.html

 

That small margin by which the vote was carried to a victory for the idiot "outers" was more than likely highly affected by the refugee-crisis that has infected EU politics in general. Cameron opted for the referendum by making the wrong choice (between having and not-having it) at exactly the wrong time.

No wonder he quit and is working on book explaining how "the fault wasn't his" ....

 

Because it doesn't fit in your mouth? ;^)

I really don't know the answer to that one - besides who-in-hell cares except dorks looking for any means to justify their blindness to the economic havoc the no-vote will cause to Britain.

You have a market-economy that is in decline since the mid-seventies and the only reason your economy kept putt-putting along was trade with the EU.

But, no, you were collectively blind to that key advantage of EU-partnership ...

 

Please, enough of the pathos.

The EU is wending its way to a United States of Europe, which it is already mostly in form if not in functional fact. Which means the separation of state and national powers - just like in the US - will always be a bugbear of a contention. There is no really evident dividing line between the two except (perhaps) in case of war and/or the commitment of troops.

One must just believe the overall good is worth the nitpicking of "local" matters that take on a proportion wayyyyyy beyond their real significance. When you come down to its core-ideal, Europe has been formed as a huge market-economy of 743 million consumers (including the Brits) the intent of which is to provide "wellness/contentment/security to all and sundry".

If the Brits want out, that's their own stoopid business. But nobody is going to cry over their spilt-milk when what's left of "GB" tries to get back in ...

 

Everybody looks after their own little bit. And if everybody does... we've got it right there. The whole world.
I don't need the EU to take care of me, to make me rich. I don't need your good intentions. I have my own.

Your way is not my way. Find someone else to play with.

 

And you defend yourself when someone comes in to take it all away from you.

Like it or not, you live in collective of people that we happen to call a "democracy". What you want is important only to you. What you get is what most people obtain collectively when sharing both the good and band fortunes that arrive.

We should strive to assure that the "collective sharing" is not so abysmally unfair as it is in the US:

 

Yes I defend myself when people come to take it away from me.
What I'm not so able to do is also defend you. So let's not pretend.

Like it or not the collective of people known as a democracy here, democratically voted to be free of an EU they had previously democratically elected representatives never to join.


Nothing I own is for collective sharing. I can and will defend myself and my property.
Other people will too.

 

I'm not sure if you missed the fact that I'm a remainer, I have balanced the loss of sovereignty with what I think is the economic benefit and political stability which comes with a future in a united Europe.
I also think the UK is stronger as a whole rather than as a divided entity therefore it is a double whammy for me which may explain my pathos.
I try to substitute uneducated for stupid when discussing other people unless I know them well enough to be able to state that for certain.

There are several reasons I think the idea of a United States of Europe is doomed to fail. The main ones are that Europe is far less homogeneous than the USA with many different languages, cultures and ideas about how to go forward. It also only really has two self sufficient and effective Armies so the idea of a common foreign policy backed by force is unworkable. Most of all though, I think that the USE will fail because almost no one wants it. In not wanting a USE I think the best way forward is to stay in the EU and oppose it rather than run away and let others decide to carry on with it.
I also think that any one who thinks that Brexit means Europe will no longer have any influence over the UK has not been paying attention......

 

48% not 45% try to be better informed.

That is close enough to assume a better informed public could have made the difference and voted to stay. I'm absolutely positive it is close enough to know that Farage and his like would be demanding a second referendum if they had lost by such a small margin.

 

It was your assertion that fiscal laws were made in the UK.

I don't agree with that assessment. I think domestic oil revenues were a substantial boon as well as the "big bang" deregulation of the banking market. Continuing access through historical links of the Commonwealth meant that London carried exposure to the commodities boom that was feeding China's growth. All of this meant that London was the easiest place for EU capital to be raised. But mostly we import from the EU.

Oil revenue is falling off, and the de-regulation of the banking sector has lost a lot of sheen in retrospect, whilst Chinese growth prospects means the commodities markets are listing, but the demographic growth markets of the Commonwealth still provide avenues for growth.

 

Perfectly understandable and logical but a folly in my view. Our influence had shrunk to 1/28th. The EU was progressing towards a USE and all we could do was exempt ourselves from it.
Hence the awfully complex stratification between EU, EEC, Euro and Shengen, not to mention the countless other opt ins and outs. The EU lasagne will only continue adding layers with the UK inside the tent trying to slow down a bureaucracy that feeds on scale and duplication. With the UK outside, the EU is more able to unify and we'll have a better counterpart with whom to trade.

Tru dat

 

Unfortunately the status of London as the banking capital of Europe is already losing credibility and many banks and financial institutions are making plans to move to Frankfurt so you probably shouldn't put too much faith in that continuing to be the driving force behind our economy. Unless you have a plan to somehow make our manufacturing industry able to compete with the low pay low regulated Chinese market.
Commonwealth countries replacing European ones as a source of revitalisation is a pipe dream as the two main ones of Canada and Australia have already got very strong links with their neighbours in America and Asia respectively. They also resented our abandonment of them when we chose to concentrate on trading with Europe so justifiably owe us no loyalty in future trading with them.

 

I think that with the second largest economy in Europe (5th in the world) and our military being only one of two capable of deploying with an up to date air, naval and land forces co-ordinated power with added independent nuclear capability our influence in Europe is far greater than 1 in 28. 1 in 3 is much closer to the truth as only Germany can match our wealth and only France can come close to matching our military capability. Notions of a European Army are fanciful at best and down right misleading in reality.

 

Well it has and before any negotiations have started. I read the other day that recruitment had gone down from 797 EU nurses a month to 194.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/27/eu-nurses-britain-brexit-poisoning-nhs

Hmm. This is a strange one. What makes you believe that only white people come in from the EU? You are wrong in that.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/28/british-dream-europe-african-citizens

I know that many of the Brexiteers fancied becoming aligned to the Comonwealth again and the way you put it reminds me of what I also read - that our immigrants from such countries were voting for Brexit so that they could change where our immigrants come from. However what I heard and have heard for a very long time that the interest of Brexiteers was to stop immigration. The Mail has been at this for years. I seriously doubt that immigration of more 'commonwealth' countries would go down well for hard Brexiteers and the idea that we can go back to an age when we were an Empire is beyond ridiculous and that was our link as being Great Britian dominating others and yes though I do agree with you that that is what some people hope to get back, it is an illusion - and not one which inspires me at all.

Your position that you have a stronger relationship to the countries which we exploited may be true of England. Scotland has though always had a strong relationship with Europe - possibly one of the reasons why we did not vote for Brexit.

Oh no that is without question the sort of thing that wins votes which is why they did it. The immigration photo showing Syrian, (I think they were Syrian) refugees pretending they were immigrants being another.

what???

The big problem the Brexiteers have here is that they compare Britains details to the whole of Europe. How they got away with doing that I do not know.Britain may export a certain amount to the EU and import a certain amount but there are 27 countries in the EU this is shared with and only one UK state. Yes, Britain was a net contributor . However the parts of Britain which the British Government decided to let go into managed decline particularly Wales and the North of England got Grants from the EU, farmers got grants from the EU and are wondering if they will be able to continue working and on and on. However you look at it England will be far poorer out of the EU - most people are suggesting people's money will decrease by 10% and remember the losses there will also be without free exchange of academics, doctors and so on. So yes, there was a cost but the EU brought Britain out of being the Sick Man of Europe to at one time being the fourth richest. The Brexit vote came at a time when fascism is rising again and lets be honest the far right are the ones wanting the disintegration of the EU. The EU is most certainly in need of change but at the moment we seem to be at a time of making a decision - stay in the EU work for that change and keep the peace we have had since WW2 or work for the disintegration of the EU and allow the rise of the far right in Europe.

 

Wow this is an interesting one. Oil revenues were wasted as Britain went into managed decline under Thatcher. The oil revenues were wasted by being used to feed the long term unemployed rather than being invested back into the UK or even into some fund for the future as Norway has. How come Norway with about the same amount of oil as Scotland made £17,694 billion in 2015 while the UK Government only generated £43 million in its last published tax year?

May have had something to do with those tax rebates we gave them instead of demanding from them. In neo liberal economics and monetary democracy of course, we must look after the rich.

http://www.businessforscotland.com/norway-still-getting-much-tax-oil/

De regulation has obviously brought us to where we are now. Removal of so many rights which had been worked so hard for, so many people now working on zero hours being made to declare themselves as self employed so that their employer does not need to pay for their pension or give them sick leave, regular work or holidays. Rather than have rules on fair wages Brexiteers complain that EU workers are stealing their jobs as they are willing to work for less - not understanding it is their elected governments who are allowing this by not setting standard pay, nothing to do with Europe. This will almost certainly get considerable worse when our obligation from the EU to provide workers with some rights disappears.

Thatcher relied on financial institutions instead of investigating in renewing our industries in order to make good working opportunities for the people of the future. All to help neo liberalism and Corporate Power who our democracy is now subservient to.

 

Yes, and fiscal law is still the preserve of national governments.

So ... ?

 

I agree, but mostly be cause London is "English-speaking" and with tighter ties to the US than the continental banks. The US is still one of the largest providers of financial liquidity.

That will not change. The English-speaking bankers will simply move onto the continent.

So what? Life goes on. But with UK bankers working out of Paris or Brussels or Amsterdam ...

 

I am not familiar with your figures. Norway always has had far fewer people than the UK, and were far less indebted at the end of WWII. If they were not better off with the same amount of oil I would be astonished.

The demand curve is shifted. You cannot bargain for better wages or conditions when there is someone behind you willing to do the same job for less.
As an historic macro example, it was the labour shortage following the black plague that wrought rights for peasants from the aristocracy.

Employers may (depending on the outcome of the negotiations) be forced to bargain with the employees they have now, rather than just seeking new employees from Eastern Europe if the current ones don't accept the terms they offer. Workers rights have always be founded in their comparative bargaining power, not in legislation. Legislation is relatively new and will only ever set the minimum conditions for the lowest minority based on welfare needs.

 

Not just English speaking but English law and jurisdiction. And not just the US but the Commonwealth and the Middle East..

The big swinging d*cks won't move, because they don't trust the tax authorities on the continent and there is no singular nexus to move to (you have just named three possible destinations, but excluded Frankfurt, Zurich and Geneva - see the problem?). The minimum number of lower-grade minions will be moved across to carry out the back office functions required by legislation.

 

That is the argument given. However Norway and Scotland's oil is of much the same quantity. The other interesting thing to note is that yes, oil slumped by 55% but why is it that this resulted in the UK reporting that it now had lost 99% of it's revenues when oil production had even risen by 16%. Norway saw a decrease in oil revenues of 40% but the UK saw a decrease of 99%. Makes no difference the size of the UK.

You can when you put in protections for workers. I can remember after 2008 that it was Nigel Farage who I saw on my tv saying they had to take away workers rights in order to get people employing people again. No you do not, though of course the biggest problem is the monopoly the 0.1%. I understand that McDonald has an idea for Labour to make it compulsory for firms which are going to sell, to allow their workers the first opportunity to buy on Government loans. We need to bring capital back to the country and to more people. This would mean that when for instance new technological developments meant that less work, instead of firing half of them and the Corporate boss putting the extra money in his pocket, they could keep everyone on working less and having much more of their life to spend on other issues than making a living. It is also believed that due to them living in the area we would find them far less likely to engage in environmental damage than these Corporate Powers who are living somewhere else just wanting to make another billion.

You are being far too simplistic. At the same time you are correct in that despite the work done by our parents, grandparents and great grand parents, we in the UK have moved back to the sort of social mobility we had in Victorian times. We are an unequal society just like we were then. That however is due to neo liberalism and Corporate Power we work under which has with stealth taken away our democracy and made us into a plutocracy not to the EU.

This can be changed by workers getting rights. Even the Labour party have been saying this, though they kept quiet about doing it when in power. This situation comes from the destruction of our Unions.

Workers rights have been decimated since Thatcherism and this will become much worse after Brexit. That is what the deregulation both Trump and UKIP spoke about is all about and of course the Tories have been quite upfront that they want to be free of the need to employ EU human and workers rights. You are right to some extent. Our plutocracy is much the same social structure as the old aristocracy. Is that really what Brexit supporters are after?

Meanwhile MPs 'walk out' in protest at 'too gloomy' Brexit report

and Lincolnshire farmers are already having trouble getting their produce in with EU workers leaving.

 

Blah, blah, blah, blather ...

 

That is voluntary choice of the immigrant not an imposition of Brexit.
If we want more nurses we will have to pay nurses more and /or train more British nurses, instead of importing cheap alternatives (who are, incidentally, exempt from the English language requirements we have of non EU nurses).
That is the whole point of Brexit for many people- changing the labour market dynamics in favour of the indigenous population.

Seriously, if an oil company tried importing cheap labour into Africa to displace local workers, there would (rightly) be uproar from liberals.

Could you please tell me the EU country that is not overwhelmingly white? The notorious "White Australia" policy was enacted precisely through the mechanism of favouring immigrants from European countries.

Could you provide a source, please? I believe the message has been consistent for quite some time: control immigration, rather than stopping it. It was the attempt to erect straw men like this that cost Remain the referendum.

That rings true.

No, what sank it was the 2015 net migration figures. That photo of the Syrians was only preaching to the choir. It was even condemned by the official leave campaign.

We are paying a large amount to be a part of a free market for whom we are a net importer. Yeah, sounds crazy doesn't it?

How did they do that, exactly?
We have always been a net importer from the EU and always been a net contributor to the EU budget . What have the EU done for us that we could not do for ourselves?
The EU gave us some of our own money back? That doesn't wash.

I think you are reading too much into it.

We cannot change the EU by our 1/28 say except to opt out of things (Euro, Shengen). What is happening is the EU train is leaving the station regardless and we have our arm caught in the closed door.

 

I'm afraid this is not a cogent argument.
Are you capable of forming one, or should we be contacting some medical assistance for you?

 

Whilst I might agree, I would really like to see what you mean. After all, Labor has some pretty stoopid people running the party. And if they think they can obtain control of the government in the next election, they are sadly mistaken (IMHO).

Milliband is so embedded in the "Belief Concrete" of socialism that he has not understood the principles of a "social democracy" as defined here:

Imperative is the recognition that we live in a market-economy driven by capital. But not "capitalism" per se, and instead we need not a "whatever the market will bear mentality" but a rightful recognition of the necessity for a just return to capital investment but not at the expense of drastic Income Disparity. (Which plagues America today.)

Iow, we must learn to balance the two, and the only way to do that is assure that taxation benefits not just the upper-class but all classes equitably. No, not equally but equitably.

(Having said that, the more detailed definition is a quite complex matter) ...

 

Give me something "cogent" at which to respond.

I habitually do not respond to sarcastic one-liners in an exchange ...