 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In, out, in, out; EU Referendum thread.
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I appreciate your idealism but don't you see that the efforts of all governments, even (especially?) in democratically elected Western model ones are hamstrung by business and economic interests.
I absolutely agree with this but I would go further. I think on the whole they no longer serve us and rather than hamstrung I would go so far as to say complicit. The problem is I would say systemic; there is a revolving door between, political administrative, corporate and financial elites. This is very much the case on both the national and European level. I distrust the state and capital in equal measure. The Neo-Liberal economic philosophy holds sway with both our policy makers domestically and in Brussels. However, belonging to an economic trading block which is fundamentally committed to a broken economic system seems to me dangerous. This is especially the case when membership precludes trying to fix some of those basics problems. In practical terms re-nationalisation of industries which are clearly in the national interest is impossible under the terms of our membership. Similarly protectionism favouring local, sustainable production over imports would breach fair competition rules yet is clearly the environmentally sound course of action. This means that the possibility of meaningful change is denied. Not just these but almost any radical systemic solutions which depart from the free-trade capitalists neo-liberal agenda are precluded. Furthermore a lack of effective franchise regarding the legislative arm robs us of the ability to exert a significant form of political pressure in order achieve change in these areas.
From its very inception as the European Coal and Steel Community which rose out of Breton Woods and the Marshal plan, for understandable geopolitical reasons, the EU has been firmly rooted in that U.S. capitalists economic policy and strategic interests. Staying in to hold back the super capitalist corporate tied is like drinking lots of water to stave of drowning.
The narrative of a Union conceived end European wars is a somewhat idealised reading of history to say the least. It was an economic bulwark against the eastern communist threat just like the rise of Japan and the Asian tigers in the Far East. It was about maintaining the USA’s hegemonic sphere of influence. European cooperation was as much as anything a reaction to a mutually shared threat on their boarders. NATO did the strategic work and the EU did the economic work of ensuring capitalisms economic triumph in Europe.
quote:
Our liberties are constantly under attack by these unelected interests. I suppose my point is "Whose law is it anyway?"
In my view it is, increasingly, theirs not ours. The Interesting emergence of the panama papers discussed at length on another thread is I would argue symptomatic of the whole sale co-option of the machinery of power and government. See also the vast corporate influence in US politics through lobbying. The law is increasingly stacked in favour of the Elites and against the people. To divest ourselves through apathy of democratic and legal structures which remain to us would be to surrender the very tool that may help us win the law back. Of course there are other non-violent tools we can employ to seek Change. We are however more powerful than we believe if mass opinion can be awakened. Autocracies are no more immune to corruption but they are much less susceptible to their own peoples influence.
quote:
The really serious problems are way beyond trading blocs
That is true at least in part because we are reaching the point where vast capitalist entities are tacking on quasi-national characteristics. I agree that a nation is now hard pressed to defend its people’s interests in the face of global capital. I, however, think that we cannot even begin to address this challenging task until we have wrested back power form the complicit representative who govern us. It is my firm hope we begin that process with Brussels’s then move on to Westminster.
quote:
…but I'd rather be associated with the mixed bag of countries in Europe, some of whom do put human interests rather more to the fore than Cameron, than rampant corporatism in America or the "kith and kin" dreams of many UKIPpers and old colonials.
Camron is pro which should tell you a great deal in and of its self about where much neo-liberal economic sympathy lies. Corbin’s far less vociferous endorsement in favour may be revealing of the need for party unity rather than personal enthusiasm? Certainly his past record would suggest this interpretation of the facts. Either way there is a very wide spectrum of opinion on both sides of this debate. See Martins post regarding tony Benn
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The only people I have heard advocating a leave vote are people who already had no intellectual credibility, a nil brain rating.
With all due respect Enoch, your subjective view of the intellectual calibre of those we hold differing opinions to you does not amount to an argument ether way. It is the equivalent of saying I prefer green to blue. I find myself in the opposite position. There are thinkers I deeply respect on both sides of the debate. This fact however, does very little to advance the argument one way or the other.
I would rather engage the issue than the man. So here are my reasons. As a Left leaning democratic libertarian the loss of self-determination is for me troubling. In the example of Greece we see Left wing democratic electoral will subverted by autocratic financial power. I believe that there are systemic problems with our society and economy that need addressing. I don’t think that will be possible from within so I want out.
Even if I didn’t believe in the need for change, I believe in the need for democracy so I would still want out. Democracy, as flawed as it is, was not given it was won and it can just as easily be lost. I do not believe this is a stupid principle to hold. If it is stupid by all means demonstrate the flaw in my logic. First and Foremost, I would assert that democratic franchise is the only sensible workable grounds for establishing political liberty. This is of course short of a political system Anarchy which I do not believe is practicable. Technocratic and autocratic government and legislatures diminish the power of our political franchise by virtue of there unaccountability. Thus, it stands to reason, that such systems of government should be avoided by those who seek to protect and increase Liberty.
An extract form Tony Benn’s comments in parliament regarding economic convergence criteria for the Euro, in 1998. which can be verified here... http://tinyurl.com/gsoejae
quote:
Tony Benn said...
…In the 1930s, I remember vividly Hitler coming to power when there were 5 million or 6 million unemployed in Germany. I bought "Mein Kampf' when I was 11. I have it on my shelf at home. Unemployment leads to despair, and despair destroys democracy, just as political impotence destroys democracy. If, when we vote, we cannot change anything, that destroys democracy. There are now 15 million unemployed in the European Union. I am not saying that what happened in the 1930s will return, but we are dealing with big questions.
We are dealing with the question whether it is legitimate in countries that boast of democracy for the electors to elect a Government and a Parliament that can influence the form of their own lives. It applies throughout the EU. This is not a British objection—I would feel just as strongly if I were a Frenchman, a Spaniard, a Greek or from any other country.
Such concerns seem to me, if anything, more pressing today than they where then.
Chill
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Most of the advocates of Brexit hitherto have been right wing Poujardists. In the last 3-4 days, though, I've heard two left wing Brexiters being interviewed. I was intrigued, but not all that surprised, to find that they were as dense and unpersuasive as the more familiar reactionary Brexiters.
The limits of the arguments of one of them seemed to be, 'that way we can pull up the draw-bridge and go back to the dreary world view of a trade unionist in the 1950s'. The other was saying that only the EU came between Britain today and the prospect of achieving socialism in one country, his version of juche, a sort of British version of Enver Hoxha's Albania. He seemed to be oblivious to the thought that this would also be dependent on a degree of democratic illegitimacy against which his objections to the EU's undemocratic constitution would be as nothing.
So, for me, this confirms what I said on this thread on the 6th of April.
quote:
So far, I have not heard any sensible argument from anyone that would persuade any rational person, yet alone me, to vote leave. Nor, as yet, have I heard anyone I know whose opinions I respect, say that they intend to vote leave. The only people I have heard advocating a leave vote are people who already had no intellectual credibility, a nil brain rating.
That's an interesting point about left-wing criticisms of the EU. I think the old one was that it was a capitalist club, which you don't hear today. I suppose you could argue that the EU produces low-paid non-unionized jobs, promotes privatization, and helps big business.
However, looking at the Leave campaign, they seem to offer the same, or worse.
I was looking at one of the BBC websites, and under an article on the EU were the usual comments, and I must admit to feelings of fear when reading the Leave comments. They were a mixture of half-witted, racist, and utopian comments, which sound to me completely unhinged. I expect there are saner Leave supporters, but at the moment, they come off as a mixture of UKIP and right-wing Tories fulminating about too many brown people, not speaking English as they should. And we kept out Napoleon, why can't we keep Merkel out?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Crikey.
He thinks that the collapse of the EU will bring a new democratic dawn to Europe.
I really don't think so.
I think the collapse of the EU will bring chaos and war to Europe.
I will give it 20 years.
There is war in Europe now, not in the EU. Geopolitically speaking the EU and NATO's inexorable march east from Germany has been a major factor in the savage on-going conflict in Ukraine. Also previously Georgia and the break up of Yugoslavia where not unconnected to east-west tensions in Europe. Thus far the dead are not our people but this notion the EU has forestalled war seems some what overstated. Global stale mate forestalled war in our little corner of the world for a while. Only or corner mind you, many died elsewhere. This was not the triumph of the 'European project', but US military power holding in check the USSR. War goes on unabated as it ever did just not here, though it is coming increasingly close. Ukraine, Syria and turkey which is again prosecuting a bloody civil war against the Kurds. It may return to the west as an import not just an export who can say. I'm far from convinced that our staying in will stop such an eventuality however.
Chilll
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I realised this for the first time perhaps 25 years ago when I put it to a Brit that to the British, "Europeans" comprised everybody in the EU - apart from themselves.
In many contexts, "European" would refer to the continent rather than the political entity. IME, it would be normal to refer to Switzerland or Norway as being "European" even though they're not in the EU, and it wouldn't normally include the Irish even though they're in the EU and the Euro.
But I agree - "European" is used most often in contrast to "British" rather than as a superset of it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
"Europe" and "European" have several meanings.
Geographically, they refer to a continent, part of the (somewhat arbitarily divided) Eurasian land mass. And, the UK and Ireland are part of that geographical entity, sitting firmly on the European continental shelf. It is only in the very recent past that a narrow stretch of sea has separated the UK and Ireland from the rest of the continent.
"European" could also describe the people who live in Europe, often more specifically those directly descended from the modern humans who settled Europe in pre-history. Which is quite tricky to disentangle, with what appear to be multiple waves of people moving across the continent (though some of those movements may have been of ideas rather than actual people). How far back do you go? If we just stick for the moment (because of the relevance to the referendum in the UK) to the "English", then we are very strongly related to the various Germanic tribes that moved across Europe at the end of the Roman Empire - the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Franks etc. That makes the people of England closer to Germany and France than to Scotland and Wales.
Or, we could think of cultural definitions of European. Again, a very complex mix. But, there are some core elements - a cultural heritage derived from Greco-Roman antiquity, with a strong Christian heritage, a commonality in being the cradle of Modernity, of considering colonisation important, an individualism with respect for individual liberty and human rights. Those broad themes are common to both sides of the Channel.
All of which make "British" a very clear subset of "European".
But, finally, political identity. Which is probably the trickiest, and of course the subject of the referendum - a vote to leave the EU will not in any way alter the identity of Britain and the British people as geographically, ethnically and culturally European. But, it can change the political identification. Which is because political identification, the concept of and identity of nation states, is an extremely arbitary thing which rarely (if ever) corresponds to any real differences (though can, and often does, emphasise and reinforce secondary points of difference in order to perpetuate the arbitrary political lines). The tragedy of human history has been when these arbitrary lines have been important enough to fight over.
The tragedy of many people in Britain is that they still emphasise an arbitrary and recent political divide over and above the real and ancient geographical, ethnic and cultural ties.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The tragedy of human history has been when these arbitrary lines have been important enough to fight over.
The tragedy of many people in Britain is that they still emphasise an arbitrary and recent political divide over and above the real and ancient geographical, ethnic and cultural ties.
I'm inclined to think there is some merit in this. However I like to ask how European in the context of people is not just a sub-set if human?
My point is this, from within it may look very open and internationalist but from without it is a large economic block of powerful mainly white western nations which are on the whole geopolitically and economically aligned to the hegemonic world power. NATO of course being separate confuses the prima facia strategic picture but lets be honest about the realties.
Nor have its constituent nations been free from war. Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali all being very recent examples. Rather than abolishing lines it is just another line. It's expansion in the face of the collapse of communism is just a redrawing of the line. Don't get me wrong I recognise there has been some positive as well as negative results from the EU. I just don't understand how European is any less or more arbitrary than British. I don't think the idealised view of the European project holds water either historically or ideologically.
Chill
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
Camron is pro which should tell you a great deal in and of its self about where much neo-liberal economic sympathy lies.
Be careful with this line of argument - whilst I realise that it isn't the entirety of your reasoning - aligned in the leave camp we have a bunch of headbangers who seem to want to drive this country over the cliff for a set of narrow ideological reasons and personal ambition.
I suspect that when it dawns on the permanently pissed off that leaving hasn't solved all the countries problems and made us all sit up and behave (damn it), they'll then need to find a different scapegoat.
Take Gove's statement yesterday that we'll be able to replace the our current access to the single market with a set of trade deals (explicitly outside the EFTA). This is true - it will however take time, probably 5-10 years, because apart from a number of small countries, most nations will have more urgent problems to take up their legislative time. So Gove will just blame 'bitter europeans' and move on - after all, he'll have done fairly well for himself, so screw everyone else.
On your question of democratic deficit, I think you'll find that the people who do the best out of an exit don't really have problems with a deficit per-se, as long as it is on their terms - insofar as european powers are concerned, their biggest bugbear seems to be an overly independent judiciary.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, that point about head-bangers resonates with me. The Leave campaign is looking fairly bonkers, what with Gove and Johnson making bizarre statements, and the grass-roots sounding like UKIP to the nth power. The comments sections on various web-sites are truly scary, as if hell had released all the malcontents, racists, and dimwits onto a single campaign.
I was trying to imagine if Leave won, and these people would presumably start to negotiate, and might replace the Cameron government. God help us.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Be careful with this line of argument - whilst I realise that it isn't the entirety of your reasoning -
Yes I know I was making the point that there are deeply untrustworthy folk on both sides, of this debate. As indeed there are people I much respect on both sides too.
Economically there is a strong ideologically neo-liberal free trade agenda. This is specifically for the, perceived, advantage of the financial service industry. An industry which makes up the vast majority of our economic activity. The logic goes financial services are international in nature and scope. So there is a concerted move to free the city form EU regulation. Instead the aim is to place it directly into an international law and arbitration framework. Much of the frame work is already in place in trade agreements such as TTIP. I am aware that there is no current offer from the US to include us in TTIP. Equally the EU is intuitionally committed to that economic out look itself. I disapprove of this either way but at least I have a some meaningful democratic tools at my disposal in the domestic context. I acknowledge that there is need for improvement here as well. But as Tony Benn Put it I would rather have a bad parliament than a good king.
quote:
their biggest bugbear seems to be an overly independent judiciary.
Personally I am fine with an independent judiciary. My problem is that the legislature are also independent of the electorate. This, to me, seems unnervingly like a technocracy.
quote:
On your question of democratic deficit, I think you'll find that the people who do the best out of an exit don't really have problems with a deficit per-se, as long as it is on their terms -
Maybe so but I do. For me regaining economic and democratic self-determination is the pre-requisite for positive meaningful change. No such change can happen under the terms of our membership. It was not allowed when Greece sought to institute a left wing anti-austerity program.
I have no illusions regarding the problems we face domestically in wresting back control from our own self-interested elite. Surrender, of our democratic liberties, in the hope that another powerful and even more unaccountable elite will protect us seems to me ill advised.
Even if they are right about the economy-which lets face it would be a first-democratic self-determination is a principle I am willing to pay for. Many paid in blood for the vote, I will not abandon that principle even if I am better off doing so. Liberty is an expensive and hard won right. Such liberty is only achievable with the power of real self-determination.
Chilll
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
America seems to be urging Britons to vote stay in the EU while themselves paying lip service to a xenophobic nut-job billionaire.
If people are feeling uneasy over a sense, real or imagined, that the World is becoming unstable then anything can happen.
Trump in charge of the States and Europe falling apart?
I still don't know which way to vote but have to say that such an outcome ranks fairly high on my scale of nightmare scenarios.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
I disapprove of this either way but at least I have a some meaningful democratic tools at my disposal in the domestic context. I acknowledge that there is need for improvement here as well.
Alternatively, you could take the view that that attempts to change this on a national level don't have a particularly happy history and that at this given time we stand the best chance of achieving change via some kind of internationalist movement - this speaks to your point about Greece also incidentally. Plus as quetzalcoatl points out above, if the majority is for Leave - the people most likely to come into power for the remainder of a fixed term in government are one who are generally socially regressive and on the outer extremes of neo-liberalism. Furthermore, they will be riding high on the back of their triumph, and they will take that vote as a mandate.
quote:
Even if they are right about the economy-which lets face it would be a first-democratic self-determination is a principle I am willing to pay for.
I do not think that individual arguments made by the Remain folk are necessarily correct. I believe the overall idea that we will be worse off for some time if we left the EU is very probably correct - because it is advanced by thoughtful folk who have been right in the past. Economic hardship whether I fear it or not, has greater consequences for those who are less fortunate than me, and the past few years have been a mere taste of the kind of thing politicians can get away when scapegoating 'undesirable' groups when the country as a whole is feeling the pinch.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
America seems to be urging Britons to vote stay in the EU while themselves paying lip service to a xenophobic nut-job billionaire.
If people are feeling uneasy over a sense, real or imagined, that the World is becoming unstable then anything can happen.
Trump in charge of the States and Europe falling apart?
I still don't know which way to vote but have to say that such an outcome ranks fairly high on my scale of nightmare scenarios.
Here's a real nightmare for you - Trump in charge left of the pond and Boris on the right. Can you still sign up for that one way Mars expedition?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I am in the queue
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you still sign up for that one way Mars expedition?
The Referendum ought to be vote Leave or Stay ....... the Planet that is.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
Even if they are right about the economy-which lets face it would be a first-democratic self-determination is a principle I am willing to pay for. Many paid in blood for the vote, I will not abandon that principle even if I am better off doing so. Liberty is an expensive and hard won right. Such liberty is only achievable with the power of real self-determination.
Chilll
And sometimes all that is left is the liberty to decide which road you sit beside to starve to death.
Liberty has many flavours. Don't treat the concept as a god.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... Take Gove's statement yesterday that we'll be able to replace the our current access to the single market with a set of trade deals (explicitly outside the EFTA). This is true - it will however take time, probably 5-10 years, because apart from a number of small countries, most nations will have more urgent problems to take up their legislative time. ...
Is that true? I don't think it is.
The Gove argument seems to be 'well we may have p*ss*d off the rest of Europe, but they won't mind. We're so wonderful, and we have such bargaining power that they'll be queuing up to give us favourable terms'.
I don't believe that. I think that if 'leave' wins, our p*ss*d off former friends will be determined to get their own back by driving as hard a deal as they can.
The whole Gove etc argument is based on an IF that doesn't stack up.
quote:
On your question of democratic deficit, I think you'll find that the people who do the best out of an exit don't really have problems with a deficit per-se, as long as it is on their terms - insofar as european powers are concerned, their biggest bugbear seems to be an overly independent judiciary.
That is conformed by the fact that most of them are Conservatives, who have been consistently hostile to any sort of electoral reform at Westminster. Have a look and see what they were saying individually at the time of the referendum on that in 2011.
However imperfect the alternative vote might have been, anyone who advocated the present system even to that option clearly isn't bothered by any democratic deficit if it does them the favour of working to their advantage.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is that true? I don't think it is.
The Gove argument seems to be 'well we may have p*ss*d off the rest of Europe, but they won't mind. We're so wonderful, and we have such bargaining power that they'll be queuing up to give us favourable terms'.
Yes, and posed that way, it is clearly rubbish, however Gove tends to be someone whose arguments morph to fit the criticism, so I think it's important to deal with the wider point he could conceivably make.
So, in general the UK should be able to get free trade agreements with most of its major trading partners, however it will take a long time to do so. It will be slightly quicker to join an existing platform like EFTA, but even that won't be instant.
As I said above, I don't think Gove cares, he's just interested in shutting down the argument - and can always attribute later failures to 'jealous Germans trying to sabotage British foreign trade' or whatever.
Gove himself is an interesting example of a kind of collective Dunning-Kruger effect, in that he sounds intelligent to the sort of people who write newspaper columns:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/cartoon/2012/mar/16/1
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Moreover on the trade deal we can cut: the Leave group are under the impression that we can secure terms with the EU that are equal, if not better, than the terms the EU give their own member states, and outside the EU, equal, if not better terms, than the EU can negotiate with other trading blocs.
I beseech them, in the bowels of Christ, to think it possible that they are mistaken.
[ 20. April 2016, 20:39: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... Gove himself is an interesting example of a kind of collective Dunning-Kruger effect, in that he sounds intelligent to the sort of people who write newspaper columns: ...
I'm put in mind of this by Pont . My apologies for the watermark.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
And sometimes all that is left is the liberty to decide which road you sit beside to starve to death.
Liberty has many flavours. Don't treat the concept as a god.
God is God, liberty is the ground of moral action. If my choice is freedom or death I may think if my choice is freedom or cheaper I-pods if you will forgive me I may be inclined to infringe on your liberty to get cheaper I pods. It all about perspective.
Chill
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
[QUOTE]this speaks to your point about Greece
I hardly see how given subversion of the democratic will of the Greek people can be any hope or evidence of reform in the EU. It is systemically pro-big cooperate power and capital. It has shown it is willing to subvert democratic change.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Plus as quetzalcoatl points out above, if the majority is for Leave - the people most likely to come into power for the remainder of a fixed term in government are one who are generally socially regressive and on the outer extremes of neo-liberalism. Furthermore, they will be riding high on the back of their triumph, and they will take that vote as a mandate.
Lets be honest here Panama Dave and Bumbling Boris hardly constitute an iron curtain of ideological difference.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Economic hardship whether I fear it or not, has greater consequences for those who are less fortunate than me, and the past few years have been a mere taste
Please do not misunderstand me I grew up in poverty. That is in part why I am committed to leaving. I believe there is a better way more balanced way of organising our society than the prevailing neo-liberal capitalist economic narrative. The EU is fundamentally committed to that narrative and undemocratic as well. Real hope of real change requires the courage to leave.
I distrust both capital and government. It seems to me that we need strong democracy to ensure the checks and balances to control those forces. They must both be made to work for our good not us for there good. If left unbridled they will soon become our masters rather than useful tools we need them to be. Without democracy there is little or no hope of meaningful change. Capital and Democracy are at best strange bedfellows and now they are on collision course. Greece should tell us all where the EU's allegiances lie. Democracy and Liberty were won with struggle and will only be preserved by struggle and vigilance. I am not ready to surrender that principle.
Chill
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
Greece should tell us all where the EU's allegiances lie.
Greece (in relation to economic concerns - the refugee issue in Greece is different again) is a difficult one to argue. Because, if Greece had been in the same situation (owing substantial amounts of money to European, and other, banks and with an economic downturn that meant it could not pay those debts) but outside the Eurozone, or even outside the EU, things wouldn't have made much difference. Organisations like the IMF and the banks would have still demanded the money they were owed in Euro's, US$ or similar (ie: fiddling around with the value of the drachma wouldn't have made any difference), Greece still wouldn't have been able to pay that and their creditors would still have dictated a programme of austerity on Greece, against the democratic will of the Greek people. The only way that Greece could have avoided that was by not taking out loans from foreign banks in the first place, or at least not such substantial loans that they were unable to repay them when the economy collapsed.
So, I suppose the question is should the EU (and/or nations in the EU) have stepped in 10-20 years ago and prevented banks from making large loans to Greece? Or, should they have stepped in over the last few years and demanded that banks should cancel some of the debt? We can look back all we want and say the banking sector should have had more oversight and regulation to stop banks making so many risky investments. But, we can't lay the blame there at the feet of the EU since the problems in the financial sector were endemic in most countries in the world.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
America seems to be urging Britons to vote stay in the EU while themselves paying lip service to a xenophobic nut-job billionaire.
What makes you think "America" is paying any attention to this referendum at all?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
"America" as in the media and the majority of the people are probably concentrating on domestic politics far more than the Brexit referendum. The same isn't necessarily true of leading politicians and business people.
Indeed the President is expected to comment further when he visits the UK shortly.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The whole Gove etc argument is based on an IF that doesn't stack up.
Not just that - it's based on an IF Mr Gove becomes Prime Minister.
When Mr Salmond promised that an independent Scotland would keep EU membership and the pound, one might have doubted whether such promises were achievable or desirable, but at least post-independence Mr Salmond would have been in a position to ask for them.
Mr Gove can't even ask for trade deals outside of EFTA unless Mr Cameron resigns, the Conservative Party anoint him as leader, and Labour refrains from ganging up with disgruntled backbenchers to force a general election.
[ 21. April 2016, 05:46: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
... I believe there is a better way more balanced way of organising our society than the prevailing neo-liberal capitalist economic narrative. The EU is fundamentally committed to that narrative and undemocratic as well. Real hope of real change requires the courage to leave. ...
That's a really odd statement when most of the prominent Leavers accuse the EU of getting in the way of a more 'neo-liberal capitalist economic narrative'. They want no interference from nasty Brussels telling people they've got to have paid holiday, TUPE protection etc.
quote:
I distrust both capital and government. It seems to me that we need strong democracy to ensure the checks and balances to control those forces. ...
So do lots of us, but what possible basis is there in the real world rather than some other dream one for saying that a UK Parliament unfettered by Brussels interference would give you something better rather than something a lot lot worse.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Organisations like the IMF and the banks would have still demanded the money they were owed in Euro's, US$ or similar (ie: fiddling around with the value of the drachma wouldn't have made any difference)
Devaluing the drachma may not have an effect on the debt itself, but by stimulating investment and economic growth it would have an effect on Greece's ability to repay it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Organisations like the IMF and the banks would have still demanded the money they were owed in Euro's, US$ or similar (ie: fiddling around with the value of the drachma wouldn't have made any difference)
Devaluing the drachma may not have an effect on the debt itself, but by stimulating investment and economic growth it would have an effect on Greece's ability to repay it.
It certainly would have had an effect. Hyperinflation, and making imports impossible to buy. They could probably feed themselves, but they don't have any oil to power their tractors, so they'd need to buy that in.
I don't think you'd want to go down that route.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've recently come across the Electoral Integrity Project run out of Harvard and Sydney universities. This shows a really rather dismal score for the UK (in part reflecting the FPTP system). Interesting to note that they identify "Electoral integrity was ... strengthened by international linkage (e.g. membership of regional organizations)". If they are right then leaving the EU, rescinding our membership of a regional organisation, will weaken electoral integrity and therefore further weaken our democracy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Organisations like the IMF and the banks would have still demanded the money they were owed in Euro's, US$ or similar (ie: fiddling around with the value of the drachma wouldn't have made any difference)
Devaluing the drachma may not have an effect on the debt itself, but by stimulating investment and economic growth it would have an effect on Greece's ability to repay it.
It certainly would have had an effect. Hyperinflation, and making imports impossible to buy. They could probably feed themselves, but they don't have any oil to power their tractors, so they'd need to buy that in.
I don't think you'd want to go down that route.
Monetary policy is always going to have to account for, and therefore to an extent be dictated by, the economy and policies of trading partners. Devaluing currencies, changing interest rates etc all have the effect of making imports more expensive (which if needed inflates the economy) or cheaper (suppressing demand for domestic production), and the same for exports. Cut interest rates and people take their money and invest it in banks elsewhere with higher interest rates, raise them and you get investors but your businesses and home owners pay more to repay their loans. The only way to avoid that is to be entirely self sufficient and completely seal your borders (including the electronic ones).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
I distrust both capital and government. It seems to me that we need strong democracy to ensure the checks and balances to control those forces. ...
So do lots of us, but what possible basis is there in the real world rather than some other dream one for saying that a UK Parliament unfettered by Brussels interference would give you something better rather than something a lot lot worse.
I think Chill's point is rather that a UK Parliament unfettered by Brussels interference could give us something better if we voted for it. Which is pretty much the whole basis of democracy.
A lot of people seem to be assuming that left to its own devices Britain would inevitably become permanently locked into some kind of Tory Neoliberal Capitalist dystopia, and thus we need the EU to prevent that. There are some problems with this argument:
- It assumes that the British people will never vote for a Socialist government.
- It assumes that the EU will never become a Tory Neoliberal Capitalist dystopia.
- It assumes that Tory Neoliberal Capitalist dystopia is so bad that it should never be allowed to happen, even if that's what the people vote for. Once you accept that assumption it's only a small jump to the idea that letting the people choose their government is a dangerous risk that shouldn't be allowed.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Organisations like the IMF and the banks would have still demanded the money they were owed in Euro's, US$ or similar (ie: fiddling around with the value of the drachma wouldn't have made any difference)
Devaluing the drachma may not have an effect on the debt itself, but by stimulating investment and economic growth it would have an effect on Greece's ability to repay it.
It certainly would have had an effect. Hyperinflation, and making imports impossible to buy. They could probably feed themselves, but they don't have any oil to power their tractors, so they'd need to buy that in.
I don't think you'd want to go down that route.
So what's your solution? Endless bailouts? Crippling austerity?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So what's your solution? Endless bailouts? Crippling austerity?
Not borrow so much in the first place? Have a plan to pay back your loans? Structure your economy in such a way that it doesn't rely on cheap money flooding in from abroad?
That's my solution. If only they'd listened when it was still relevant. As it is, debt cancellation from outside, and a total restructuring of government spending from the inside, is their only hope.
As it is, all that the bailouts are doing are bailing out the banks that lent recklessly in the first place. The billions of euros are bypassing ordinary Greeks entirely. That has to stop.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"America" as in the media and the majority of the people are probably concentrating on domestic politics far more than the Brexit referendum. The same isn't necessarily true of leading politicians and business people.
I suspect the number of leading American politicians and business people who aren't concentrating on the US election far more than the Brexit referendum is extremely small. quote:
Indeed the President is expected to comment further when he visits the UK shortly.
It would be awkward if he said nothing when asked at a press conference; "commenting further" is hardly evidence that the two issues are of anything near comparable salience.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's "commenting further" because President Obama has already made several statements on the subject of the UK and Europe - without being in the UK and the press asking the obvious question.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
For example?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Now you made me go and look, and I find that what I've been reading for the last couple of weeks is along the lines of "Obama is expected to repeat his support for the UK remaining in the EU when he visits", without any links to Obama having expressed those views.
The closest that Google gets is in this from Reuters where Ben Rhodes (deputy national security adviser) says "As the president has said, we support a strong United Kingdom in the European Union" without any indication of when, and under what circumstances, Obama had said that.
I also found this report of former Treasury advisors expressing their opinions.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't believe that. I think that if 'leave' wins, our p*ss*d off former friends will be determined to get their own back by driving as hard a deal as they can.
Is that not the (pre going a bit stabby) Helen Archer defence?
We need to stay because if we leave they'll beat us up. Great basis for a relationship that.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Is that not the (pre going a bit stabby) Helen Archer defence?
We need to stay because if we leave they'll beat us up. Great basis for a relationship that.
Conversely one could take the view that even if they were perfectly neutral, such arrangements would take a long period of time as it simply won't be a priority for most larger countries and trade deals take a long time to hammer out (which is part of the reason that trade platforms have such traction)
That is the more reasoned corrective to Gove's idiotic claims that we would magically get a better deal overnight than every other country that has a trade deal with the EU.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Is that not the (pre going a bit stabby) Helen Archer defence?
We need to stay because if we leave they'll beat us up. Great basis for a relationship that.
Conversely one could take the view that even if they were perfectly neutral, such arrangements would take a long period of time as it simply won't be a priority for most larger countries and trade deals take a long time to hammer out (which is part of the reason that trade platforms have such traction)
That is the more reasoned corrective to Gove's idiotic claims that we would magically get a better deal overnight than every other country that has a trade deal with the EU.
sure, but I was more taking issue with them wanting to "get their own back" which is rather different (in both form and motivation) to it just not being a priority. OTOH Germany's export surplus to the UK alone ought to be focusing minds that no matter how much they might be annoyed, deliberately holding things up or seeking some sort of vengeance is not going to help them sell BMWs. Or champagne, in the case of the French (the UK is their largest market)
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Be that as it may, the EU aren't going to offer us the same or better terms than what we have while we're actually in the EU.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
OTOH Germany's export surplus to the UK alone ought to be focusing minds that no matter how much they might be annoyed, deliberately holding things up or seeking some sort of vengeance is not going to help them sell BMWs. Or champagne, in the case of the French (the UK is their largest market)
And a agreement that covers a few items like that - including a few items that Britain currently imports to France and Germany will be fairly quick to draw up. A general agreement covering all trade in goods and services will take years.
And what Doc Tor says above is trivially true anyway.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
As I said, it's surprisingly easy to read the same "Obama is expected to repeat his support for the UK remaining in Europe" for several weeks, and therefore to gain the impression that this was a view Obama had a) expressed relatively recently, b) expressed reasonably often and c) not always in direct response to a question from the press about the UK referendum. It's interesting how that happens, especially when it's quite possible none of those three points is accurate!
However, Obama stepping off the plane and has immediately written a piece for the Telegraph which includes support for the UK remaining in the EU.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The biggest con being trotted out by the REMAIN campaign is that the UK will have a chance to "reform" the EU from within if we vote to stay.
Fact is, we've been trying to "reform" the EU for the last 30 years: result absolutely no reform whatsoever, so why should things be any different after the referendum?
If you read the foreign press you'll find several countries saying the fact of our holding a referendum at all means the UK can never be a wholehearted member of the EU and any attempts by us to "reform" it after the referendum - should the vote go to stay in - should be opposed. There is definitely an atmosphere that the UK should be made to suffer for the referendum.
You still want to stay?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
All three of your links are stories from 2013 about responses to questions from reporters.
I don't have a dog in this particular fight - it was Alan's point, I was just demonstrating how to dig up links from the past - and on the front page those were the first two stories that dated from prior to 2015.
I don't see the particular relevance of whether or not a particular statement is a response to a question though. It is perfectly possible to give a non-committal answer should one wish.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The biggest con being trotted out by the REMAIN campaign is that the UK will have a chance to "reform" the EU from within if we vote to stay.
While the biggest con trotted out by the Exit campaign is that something, anything might get better! If we do get out and things don't get better the exit campaigners and those who voted to leave are going to have something worse than egg on their faces.
Actually, I have thought of a reason to vote to leave: If we do so then the Tory party will split, with IDS, Gove, Johnson plus various euro-sceptics and opportunists going one way while Cameron or Osborne leads a minority rump. I wonder how long that will last?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
