Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, penguin said:

Additionally could the politicians be trusted to vote for whats best for the country as a whole over personal interests and agendas, I know where I lean on this particular point. 

Probably not. Nonetheless, it's their job, it's what we pay them for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jon_c said:

I didn't really think it would actually be Corbyn but I was trying not to be partisan about it.

And on Corbyn, is he just hiding somewhere right now, so he doesn't have to commit a decision on this nasty Europe business? I haven't seen him on a single media outlet make comment about it.

You may well have missed it, but Corbyn has announced his position:

Cameron’s deal is the wrong one: but Britain must stay in Europe

For all the fanfare and last-minute theatrics, the deal that David Cameron has made on Britain’s relationship with the EU is a sideshow. The changes he has negotiated are largely irrelevant to the problems most people in Britain face – and to the decision we now have to make.

Labour will campaign for Britain to stay in Europe in the referendum that the prime minister has called for June, regardless of Cameron’s overblown tinkering. That’s not because we don’t think the EU needs reform – far from it.

It’s because being part of Europe has brought Britain investment, jobs and protection for workers, consumers and the environment. We are convinced that the EU is a vital framework for European trade and international cooperation in the 21st century, and that a vote to remain in Europe is in the best interests of our people.

It’s easy to lose sight of those fundamental issues in the choreographed drama of the prime minister’s months of shuttle diplomacy, which were followed byFriday’s breakthrough-to-order. Cameron’s EU negotiations have essentially been about trying to appease his opponents in the Conservative party, rather than delivering the reforms that would make the EU work better for working people.

That’s why the Brussels deal is incidental to the real issues facing people in the referendum in June. The prime minister has been negotiating for the wrong goals in the wrong way for the wrong reasons.

He should have been talking to other European leaders about action to save our steel industry; about how to stop the spread of low pay and insecure jobs, and end the undercutting of wage rates and industry-wide agreements through the exploitation of migrant workers. He should have been focused on the scandal of the refugee camps in Calais and Dunkirk and how to deal with Europe’s migration crisis in an equitable way.

He could have been using Britain’s leverage to stop the threat to our services and rights in the secretive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations; to build human rights and environmental protection into future trade treaties; and halt the pressure from Brussels to deregulate and privatise public services. He could have been arguing for an end to self-defeating austerity and for the strengthening of workers’ rights across Europe.

But of course he did none of these things. Instead his main concern in the talks over the rights of non-eurozone states has been to protect his friends in the City of London from financial regulation, including of bankers’ bonuses. Cameron’s Tories want a free-market corporate Europe. We want a social Europe of decent jobs and equality for all.

The evidence suggests that Cameron’s much-heralded “emergency brake” on in-work migrants’ benefits will do nothing to cut inward migration to Britain. Nor will it put a penny in the pockets of British workers. But there are dangers it could drive down pay rates still further as migrant workers take second jobs to make up for lower incomes – and that it could be extended to young workers in Britain on the grounds that they haven’t contributed enough to qualify.

David Cameron’s negotiations have been a missed opportunity to make the case for the real reforms the EU needs: democratic accountability, stronger workers’ rights, an end to austerity and a halt to the enforced privatisation of public services.

But it’s not Cameron’s deal that will be on the ballot paper in the referendum on Britain’s EU membership. In fact, it may not have even been finalised by June. People will be voting on far more important issues: jobs, investment, employment rights, environmental protection, peace, security and international cooperation.

Labour and the unions played a key role in making sure that employment rights – like guaranteed paid holiday, paid maternity and paternity leave, and agency workers’ protection – were kept out of Cameron’s negotiations. But there is a serious risk that the Tories would use a vote to leave as the chance for a bonfire of rights in its aftermath.

So Labour will be running a positive campaign for the real change we need: to unite opposition to austerity and build a Europe of sustainable growth, jobs and social justice. That can only be achieved by working with allies who share our aims across the continent.

We are already cementing those relationships with progressive leaders across Europe, as at the Party of European Socialists meeting I attended in Brussels on Thursday. It’s a long way from Cameron’s ideal of a continental corporate free-for-all. But it’s the Europe we will be campaigning and working for, in the referendum and beyond.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/20/jeremy-corbyn-comment-britain-eu-reform

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy really.

Just look at the lists of which powerful figures want which one, then try and work out why. then if you like the idea of them getting what they want, go for it !

More seriously I think it is genuinely an impossible question, because the thing it asks about is no longer one thing with a linear logic.

As a socialist, you can be For because of the huge impact it has had on Regulations in respect of Consumer issues, health and safety, justice and so on, but be dead against because it is one vast capitalists nirvana.

As a capitalist, you can be For because of its overpowering financial muscle, its regimentation of the banking and finance industries, its free trade and free movement of goods ideals, yet thoroughly despise the way it gets in the way of a complete free market, its power to sanction industry, its distant semi -elected powers.

And so on.  I always wanted IN as I grew up thinking nation states were a cause of so much trouble, were so needless....that we 'are all one'.  And then I liked it because of the huge impact it had on much of the law which goes unnoticed by many such as Consumers rights.  Yet I hated London being dominant in British politics, it harmed the regions, it skewed housing and industrial policy - so how could I support a shift in power even more distant, to somewhere where the needs of a Brummie were irrelevant.

But I loved the Party List Proportional system - but I hated it because so few people voted it meant people I didn't like getting power !

So, to me, it isn't one thing, so voting on it is really an impossibility.  One would assume many will have the same dilemmas.

So back to my easy test instead.

Murdoch wants Out.

So I'm In.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Easy really.

Just look at the lists of which powerful figures want which one, then try and work out why. then if you like the idea of them getting what they want, go for it !

More seriously I think it is genuinely an impossible question, because the thing it asks about is no longer one thing with a linear logic.

As a socialist, you can be For because of the huge impact it has had on Regulations in respect of Consumer issues, health and safety, justice and so on, but be dead against because it is one vast capitalists nirvana.

As a capitalist, you can be For because of its overpowering financial muscle, its regimentation of the banking and finance industries, its free trade and free movement of goods ideals, yet thoroughly despise the way it gets in the way of a complete free market, its power to sanction industry, its distant semi -elected powers.

And so on.  I always wanted IN as I grew up thinking nation states were a cause of so much trouble, were so needless....that we 'are all one'.  And then I liked it because of the huge impact it had on much of the law which goes unnoticed by many such as Consumers rights.  Yet I hated London being dominant in British politics, it harmed the regions, it skewed housing and industrial policy - so how could I support a shift in power even more distant, to somewhere where the needs of a Brummie were irrelevant.

But I loved the Party List Proportional system - but I hated it because so few people voted it meant people I didn't like getting power !

So, to me, it isn't one thing, so voting on it is really an impossibility.  One would assume many will have the same dilemmas.

So back to my easy test instead.

Murdoch wants Out.

So I'm In.

This is me, word for word. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence but anyone who wants in / out based on the in / out opinion of a figure that they dislike should probably be denied a vote in the first  place  and which takes us back to Mikes post earlier today about some decisions shouldn't be in the hands of Jo public..... That the Future of the UK and by definition the future of the EU could be decided  by the personalities is quite frightening when you think about it 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

No offence but anyone who wants in / out based on the in / out opinion of a figure that they dislike should probably be denied a vote in the first  place  and which takes us back to Mikes post earlier today about some decisions shouldn't be in the hands of Jo public..... That the Future of the UK and by definition the future of the EU could be decided  by the personalities is quite frightening when you think about it

I think you might be misreading the intent, Tony. Where there's an issue that has many pros and cons to each side, and where those are broadly equal, then looking at who is on each side is quite a good thing to do, wise even. As an example if having looked at it all you were a bit undecided, still, but you see people like Farage, Galloway, Boris, and so on as free thinking, independent, wise types then them being on the out side might help you decide for "out". Alternatively if you view them as self promoting, twist with the wind, charlatans then you might go for "in". 

It's not wrong to consider the views of politicians and others you like or dislike in making up your mind. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you are all saying , But all the examples people keeping giving  are for the out campaign none of you are objectively " looking " at the morons that are backing the  In campaign when stating your personality list ... And that's why I think it's a cause for concern

If I said I'm out because Corbyn is in you'd think I was a blinkered moron surely  ? ( rather than just a moron that you usually think I am :) )

 

for the record whatever you think of him ( and I'm assuming the dislike is 99.9% based on him being a Tory ) I think Gove is a very intelligent person  so if he wants out the least people should do is at least have a listen to his reasons ... Though I'm taking a huge leap of faith here and assuming his reasons are good rather than political or Farage like

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Nigel Lawson

Murdoch

John Redwood

Rees Mogg

Farage

George Galloway

Michael Gove 

Chris Grayling

I know what you mean but:

Cameron

Osborne

Stuart Rose

Will Straw

Diane Abbott

The CBI

Alex Salmond

T Blair

 

It's like asking which testicle I'd prefer to have removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I can see your point, and that's why it's not 'easy', but I've got no problem with Salmond and I haven't heard of Will Straw. Stuart Rose and the CBI well I can't say I have a strong opinion there either.

It is two poor teams, and I'd actually say, in 'fairness' to Blair, he was asked on the radio yesterday morning why he wouldn't step up to the plate for the remain campaign and he said that he brought too much baggage and would probably be counter productive. Which I thought was quite self aware.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

in 'fairness' to Blair, he was asked on the radio yesterday morning why he wouldn't step up to the plate for the remain campaign and he said that he brought too much baggage and would probably be counter productive

Didn't he also say:

Quote

I would like to see the pro-European side to get out there with a bit of passion and vigour and determination, and stand up for what we believe … not just as a matter of economic realism but as a matter of political idealism.

Grauniad

In a typical Blair way, he wants to distance himself from the campaign whilst also doing his own little bit of campaigning.

Will Straw? Jack Straw's son.

There are probably many,many others but perhaps they're being a little less gobby than the chief outters at the moment.

 

p.s. By omission, I'm glad to see we're in agreement on Cameron, Osborne and Abbott. :D

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

only thing is that Corbyns words aren't on the table as part of the deal are they so its just rhetoric from him , a man that can't even control his own party telling us how he would have got Europe doing everything he wanted

But that aside , the dealing the table  is out or in based on Cameron's renegotiating isn't it ? Corbyn might win in 2020 ( ha ha ha ) but even if he did and we were still in the EU another referendum isn't on the cards and all Corbyn could do is join the ranks of other British PM's getting whatever crumbs Merkel is prepared to let them have 

so really beyond the scaremongering about us all losing our jobs and bmw putting the cost of cars up out of spite the only true vote that will benefit Corbyn and Cameron etc is an out vote as then we truly have something to negotiate with 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Yep, I can see your point, and that's why it's not 'easy', but I've got no problem with Salmond

Salmond is a prick, he doesn't want to be part of a united kingdom, but has no problems wanting to be a part of a united states of europe.

someone wants to ask him about "FREEDOM" for the jocks now that the price of oil has gone through the floor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

only thing is that Corbyns words aren't on the table as part of the deal are they so its just rhetoric from him , a man that can't even control his own party telling us how he would have got Europe doing everything he wanted

But that aside , the dealing the table  is out or in based on Cameron's renegotiating isn't it ? Corbyn might win in 2020 ( ha ha ha ) but even if he did and we were still in the EU another referendum isn't on the cards and all Corbyn could do is join the ranks of other British PM's getting whatever crumbs Merkel is prepared to let them have 

so really beyond the scaremongering about us all losing our jobs and bmw putting the cost of cars up out of spite the only true vote that will benefit Corbyn and Cameron etc is an out vote as then we truly have something to negotiate with 

Its not rhetoric, its his opinion, which as leader of the opposition he should make public.As for not controlling his party, I think he has far more control of mainstream Labour opinion on the EU, than Cameron has of the Tory troops. Merkel " controlling" the EU, is just bullshit. Most economic experts, consider that leaving the EU will carry a cost with regards to long term investment in our economy, that will inevitably cost jobs. Just because you don't agree with that, doesn't make it scaremongering. If you disagree, then give your reasons, it's too easy to label things as scaremongering. It simply avoids giving a detailed response. Its becoming Brexits standard response to difficult questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You  present "most experts" as your case whilst demanding evidence  :)

Some experts have suggested we could be in for some short term pain followed by prosperity and growth .. Truth is nobody really knows what will happen....Of course project fear counter that by saying Europe will teach us a lesson to spite us , if that isn't part of the scaremongering I don't know what is ....both sides have been guilty of spreading lies to suit agendas , I think it's been a gripe of many of us in this thread from both camps 

 

the topic is a few pages long ,I'm sure you've read most of it and seen the attempts from people , myself included , to give detailed reasons within our limited understanding .... whilst it's safe to say I veer towards out  , ive also said I'm open to be convinced , but I want to be convinced by more than just "most experts " or politican  x has a dodgy hair cut and wants to stay therefore I'm out 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â