Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Strokes said:

See, things like this although I’m woefully informed. I’m happy for UK to pay and contribute too to remain part of but the trouble is the debate becomes so divisive that this either gets swept under the carpet or either side won’t budge based on a worry of weakness. 

Obviously I don’t care as much or consider it as important as yourself but I’m not so besotted with brexit that I don’t think we can’t/shouldn’t ever cooperate with the EU and it’s members in the future.

It's things like scientific cooperation that are vital to our chances after Brexit.one of the big ideas of Brexit appears to be that we can do our own thing and define our own destiny. We're going to have to invest hugely in R&D and the sciences to gain an advantage in innovation. It's not a small thing imo. You can't have a successful Brexit if you don't think about science.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

The very definition of pig-headed stubbornness, mate (no offence).

Why? Why do all Remainers assume that people should change a vote due to economic circumstance?

 

For many people lots of things are more important than how wealthy the nation is, by this logic you should be voting Conservative because of what the forecasters and fiscal bodies say about Corbyn but I know for fact you wouldn't, there are many people out there that aren't that bothered about the GDP of the country and their vote is just as valid as though who do care about it.

 

People vote for things for a variety of reasons.

 

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Just trying to get my head around some of the raw power politics of where Brexit goes from here. Particularly regarding the Irish border and the negotiation of trade agreements after March 2019.

The whole situation seems a lot more unpredictable than most people seem to reckon.

 

Irish border:

This could cause a massive crisis this autumn, couldn't it? Bearing in mind numbers of MPs: Con 317, Opposition (Lab/LD/SNP etc.) 315, DUP 10, Sinn Fein 7, Speaker 1

- If the UK signs N. Ireland alone up to the "backstop" option (customs alignment with EU/RoI to avoid hard border; different customs regime in GB), the DUP surely jump ship, possibly a few ultra-unionist Tories, too...

- If the UK signs the whole UK up to the "backstop" option (whole UK customs aligned with EU), that risks a Tory Brexiteer backlash...though they might accept it if they believe divergence will be possible post-Brexit

- If the UK reneges on its "backstop" promise and insists on customs divergence, that surely collapses the negotiations, leaving us 6 months from a cliff-edge Brexit with no transition period or trade deals, and probably an unpredictable general election as Tory Remainers/Soft Brexiteers would surely rebel in large numbers

- That leaves the chance that (a) the UK produces a miracle solution allowing customs divergence but no border controls; (b) the EU backtracks and accepts border controls; (c) there's a fudge, so that the issue is settled alongside subsequent UK/EU trade talks. Everything suggests that there's now zero chance of (a) or (b), and only a small chance of (c).

 

The most likely scenario seems to be that we agree to the whole of the UK keeping its customs closely aligned to EU customs (though probably still leaving the Customs Union) - and that the Tory Brexiteers swallow that. They'd presumably do so out of a hope that we'll be able to negotiate new external trade deals during the transition period and that greater divergence will be possible via EU/UK trade negotiations or post-Brexit....and out of fear of Brexit and/or the Govt collapsing altogether.

 

EU/UK trade talks

This is seen as the big "win" for the UK in the transition deal. But how much of a win is it - and is it also an opportunity for the EU to "see how the UK will play its hand"?

 

What sort of trade deals and how many will the UK be able to negotiate during the 21-month transition period? Worth remembering that we will not only be negotiating a deal with the EU and new deals worldwide but dozens of external EU deals with other countries....and will be seeking to do so over a timespan shorter than usually required to negotiate trade agreements. I suppose some third countries might be happy to offer the UK the same terms as the EU, but not better terms, surely? Indeed, as the UK market is much smaller than the EU market, they might offer poorer terms....or not be interested in negotiating any deal, certainly not a generous one, before it knows what an EU/UK trade deal might bring.

 

Aside from maybe duplicating a few EU trade deals, the other thing that the UK could do is to offer external countries terms much more generous than EU terms (lower import tariffs, fewer regulations, lower product/social/employment standards etc.). Undercutting the EU in external markets in this way might yield a few trade deals from Asia or elsewhere (though it might not - would those countries want to jeopardise their trade relations with a much larger bloc?). But it would surely also "show the EU our hand" and effectively torpedo any chance of a good EU/UK trade deal, making trade with our main market much more difficult. Of course, the EU may not be inclined to offer generous terms on trade, fisheries or anything else anyway. How will Tory Brexiteers react if the transition period is running down with little sign of us getting the freedoms, divergence and deals they want? 

 

If we don't take the "undercutting" route, where do we end up in December 2020? Fully leaving the EU, either with a UK/EU trade deal similar to what we have now or with no deal whatsoever, maybe with a few similar trade deals around the world, on terms similar to EU terms. Will Tory Brexiteer MPs stomach that? Will they be happy to effectively sign off on an Ultra-Soft Brexit in the hope that they'll be able to diverge and do completely new deals to take proper "control" some time after 2020? 

 

Seems to me that this whole process - and govt - could still easily collapse before March 2019, never mind December 2020.

The Irish question is clearly the main problem, there has to be some way to solve it as all sides agree we don't want a border (worth mentioning again as well that even in the event of a no deal Brexit our government will not be doing a thing with regards to a border) and when all sides want something in a negotiation it has to be possible.

 

On the numbers though, I think the Tories are going to be OK, we have the 5-6 Labour MP Brexiteers who will vote with the government and it's starting to look like only Soubry and Clarke will vote against them, the 8 DUP votes might not even matter in that case. Jacob Rees-Mogg said on his podcast this week he sees no way he would delay Brexit in a vote either, I think a combination of pragmatism and the threat of a Corbyn led government (even that is decreasing judging by polls) will be enough to get the withdrawal bill over the line.

 

The transition period has become a pretty handy thing for Theresa May, it's allowed her some leeway in negotiation and it can satisfy the hardliners on both sides of her backbenches (Soubry aside).

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why? Why do all Remainers assume that people should change a vote due to economic circumstance?

 

For many people lots of things are more important than how wealthy the nation is, by this logic you should be voting Conservative because of what the forecasters and fiscal bodies say about Corbyn but I know for fact you wouldn't, there are many people out there that aren't that bothered about the GDP of the country and their vote is just as valid as though who do care about it.

 

People vote for things for a variety of reasons.

 

 

This is very true. I can not fathom why anybody would vote for Corbyn on the basis of economic stability and credibility. 

 

Having a Corbyn Labour run government absolutely will make everyone worse off in this nation. 

 

We might all be equal but we would be equally poor.

Edited 23 March 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

This is very true. I can not fathom why anybody would vote for Corbyn on the basis of economic stability and credibility. 

 

Having a Corbyn Labour run government absolutely will make everyone worse off in this nation. 

 

We might all be equal but we would be equally poor.

I can't fathom it either but it's still a fair viewpoint, Giles Fraser is a Corbyn supporter and Brexiteer and his arguments are very concise and clear, he doesn't mind one bit being a poorer nation if we are a more democratic one, with more sovereignty and that wealth is spread more equally.

 

The idea someone is "pig-headed" because they wouldn't change a vote based on economic results was what I found a little odd, economic arguments often win elections, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing you should base a vote on.

 

All Remain campaigners seem to have forgotten that, during the last General Election all those from my side did as well.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I can't fathom it either but it's still a fair viewpoint, Giles Fraser is a Corbyn supporter and Brexiteer and his arguments are very concise and clear, he doesn't mind one bit being a poorer nation if we are a more democratic one, with more sovereignty and that wealth is spread more equally.

 

The idea someone is "pig-headed" because they wouldn't change a vote based on economic results was what I found a little odd, economic arguments often win elections, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing you should base a vote on.

 

All Remain campaigners seem to have forgotten that, during the last General Election all those from my side did as well.

Some things are indeed much more important than economics.

 

However, there seems to be certain disagreement about what those things are.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

I genuinely could not tell you on the TV channels, I haven’t watched a news bulletin for years.

 

Fair comment. I'd be guessing for ITV and Sky myself, as I rarely see either. I see a fair bit of BBC & C4.

Both try to be even-handed and to probe both sides of the debate, though I imagine more BBC/C4 journalists are Remainers than Brexiteers. If any bias creeps in, it's minor, I'd say. We're well-served compared to TV in other countries.

My guess is that ITV and Sky are the opposite side of the coin: fairly even-handed but maybe a slight Brexiteer bias mirroring the BBC/C4 bias....but that's only a guess.

 

Where do you get your news, out of curiosity? Internet? Papers? Radio?

 

 

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

What good does economy growth mean to you? We haven’t had a recession for nearly 10 years, and wages haven’t grown in that time. The economy doesn’t help me or you, it helps the wealthy make more profits, what do all the rich businessmen and women almost universally want? FOM, Single market membership, Custom Union. Basically EU membership, I’m surprised you give a shit about them.

 

2-stage process: Economic growth determines the size of the pie, Society determines how the pie is divided up.

The pie has grown slightly bigger in the last 10 years, but most people's slice of the pie has stayed the same size or even shrunk, while a few have got a much bigger slice....that's growing inequality for you.

Makes more sense to change how the pie is divided up but keep it growing, than to say "Life is unfair! Fvck everyone! I don't care if the pie gets smaller!"

 

As for rich businessmen wanting EU membership....that doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. If Forest fans campaigned for cheaper football tickets, I wouldn't oppose them just because they were Forest fans.

I support electoral reform (PR) despite voting Lab, not Lib Dem. I support nuclear power (for now, at least), but that doesn't mean that I prefer the Tories to the Greens. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 I support nuclear power (for now, at least),. 

Interesting how everyone views differ and converge. 

 

I absolutely can not see any case for Nuclear power to be honest, especially as we are a nation surrounded by very tidal coasts and lots of wind! We should really be leading the way in Tidal energy.

 

I think that Germany has rid its self of nuclear power and we should absolutely be following that example. My view of the country is a wealthy, modern, green economy. In reality this is probably a bit of what all the parties offer. 

Edited 23 March 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Guest Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Interesting how everyone views differ and converge. 

 

I absolutely can not see any case for Nuclear power to be honest, especially as we are a nation surrounded by very tidal coasts and lots of wind! We should really be leading the way in Tidal energy.

 

I think that Germany has rid its self of nuclear power and we should absolutely be following that example. My view of the country is a wealthy, modern, green economy. In reality this is probably a bit of what all the parties offer. 

 

Germany does show that you can run a big economy on renewable energy despite not being particularly blessed with the most favourable conditions. But the daftest thing they've done is ditch nuclear. They're now building 3 new coal-fired power stations. Nuclear absolutely has to be a significant part of your energy mix.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Kopfkino said:

 

Germany does show that you can run a big economy on renewable energy despite not being particularly blessed with the most favourable conditions. But the daftest thing they've done is ditch nuclear. They're now building 3 new coal-fired power stations. Nuclear absolutely has to be a significant part of your energy mix.

For the time being, I wholeheartedly agree. The Gen III plants are already safe and pretty clean, and the Gen IV plants will only be more so.

 

As much as I'd like to see everything run off renewables, I'd much rather see coal, oil and gas dumped by the wayside first and late-gen nuclear fill the gap in the meantime.

 

And that's to say nothing of the potential of fusion power.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Nuclear doesn't sit well with me. All it takes is some natural disaster or some utterly screwed up employee or terrorist and we are literally toast. I struggle to support it.

 

I would think that especially given the cost of Hinckley Point that we would be better investing in a number of tidal programs around the UK coast line. R&D a product we can sell the world.

 

There is so much natural energy that is unharnessed when you look at the sea. 

[Fox Ulike]

51 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

This is very true. I can not fathom why anybody would vote for Corbyn on the basis of economic stability and credibility. 

 

Having a Corbyn Labour run government absolutely will make everyone worse off in this nation. 

 

We might all be equal but we would be equally poor.

Not necessarily. It depends what % of the electorate would be in a better position if wealth was spread more evenly.

 

Ignoring all the arguments about 'trickle-down' and wealth creation, at the last election Labour reckoned that the tipping point was a salary of around £80k.

 

So even if that's vaguely accurate there's a big proportion of people who will feel they can benefit from Labour policies.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Nuclear doesn't sit well with me. All it takes is some natural disaster or some utterly screwed up employee or terrorist and we are literally toast. I struggle to support it.

 

I would think that especially given the cost of Hinckley Point that we would be better investing in a number of tidal programs around the UK coast line. R&D a product we can sell the world.

 

There is so much natural energy that is unharnessed when you look at the sea. 

I agree that we could probably sort all our energy needs through renewables in the future, but I also think that the current nuclear plants in development are much safer than people think from either natural or manmade disaster, too. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were elderly designs and even then it took practically a perfect storm of circumstance to bring them down.

 

If we could simply drop oil, gas and coal right now in favour of renewables and fill the shortfall immediately that way I'd be all for it - but we can't and for me, the higher priority issue is getting rid of those in short order.

[Alf Bentley]

25 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

The Irish question is clearly the main problem, there has to be some way to solve it as all sides agree we don't want a border (worth mentioning again as well that even in the event of a no deal Brexit our government will not be doing a thing with regards to a border) and when all sides want something in a negotiation it has to be possible.

 

On the numbers though, I think the Tories are going to be OK, we have the 5-6 Labour MP Brexiteers who will vote with the government and it's starting to look like only Soubry and Clarke will vote against them, the 8 DUP votes might not even matter in that case. Jacob Rees-Mogg said on his podcast this week he sees no way he would delay Brexit in a vote either, I think a combination of pragmatism and the threat of a Corbyn led government (even that is decreasing judging by polls) will be enough to get the withdrawal bill over the line.

 

The transition period has become a pretty handy thing for Theresa May, it's allowed her some leeway in negotiation and it can satisfy the hardliners on both sides of her backbenches (Soubry aside).

 

 

There are already several ways of solving the Irish border issue. N. Ireland alone could keep a similar Customs regime to EU/RoI, but the DUP would certainly oppose that. The whole UK could keep a similar Customs regime to the EU, but the Tory Brexiteers want it to diverge. Some border checks could be avoided by use of high-tech, trusted trader status, checks away from the border etc. But that still leaves a serious risk of smuggling, not least as 90% of cross-border traders are small businesses, and there are dozens, if not hundreds of border crossings.

 

It's a peculiar stance on the Brexiteer side: "We want control of our borders......but we're happy to have zero control of our only land border!".

 

I suppose the assumption is that any flows of illicit, unsafe, unapproved smuggled goods would be heading south from NI/UK to RoI/EU, not vice-versa. Might be true, but might not. Would you not mind if livelihoods and lives were being put at risk by South-North smuggling of dodgy goods - or even migrant labour from Eastern Europe heading for illegal jobs in England, in theory? If so, why not eliminate customs controls at Dover, too? If it's good enough to hand one of the UK's borders over to the EU, we should be happy to hand them all over, surely? Or do you see N. Ireland as a less important part of the UK? Even then, smuggling into NI could continue to England/Scotland, unless you had customs/immigration checks between NI and Eng/Scot/Wales.

 

How the vote would go in parliament is anyone's guess - and would depend greatly on what path the Govt chooses over customs/Irish border. The DUP would oppose any divergence between GB and NI (possibly one of the few situations in which they might vote with Corbyn to bring down the govt?). A lot more Tory Wets than Soubry & Clarke would vote down any move to diverge that caused a hard border, even if only imposed by the EU. If the whole UK stays aligned with the EU, some of the Tory Brexiteers will get annoyed, to say the least - though they might suck it up in the short-term. I reckon you're optimistic if you think 5-6 Lab MPs can be relied on to vote with the govt regardless - even if there's the tribal prospect of bringing down the govt. Only 2 did so last time, I think (Hoey & Field? Skinner & his mate followed the Lab whip).

 

Your point about Corbyn's lack of progress in the polls is an interesting one - and could be a double-edged sword for Hard Brexiteers. If it looks as if the Tories could win an election, various factions (Tory Brexiteers, Tory Remainers or DUP) might be more prepared to bring down the govt if they didn't like what was on offer. I wouldn't want to bet who'd win an election just now - but the Tories might not have a better opportunity over the next 2-3 yrs.

 

My best guess is that May will cave in and keep the whole UK aligned with the EU on customs (though outside the Customs Union) so as to avoid a hard border in Ireland. The Tory Brexiteers might well accept that at least until March 2019, when Brexit will be officially secured - but will then make life hell for May if she doesn't get the divergence and Hard Brexit deal they want when the EU and UK negotiate their future relationship. All very unpredictable, though, with so many variables.

[CarbonVirtine]

5 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Could interpret that as 35% of them were thoughtful and honest

It sometimes strikes me that the most genuinely honest thing anyone can say sometimes is "I don't know". 

 

I can only speak for myself here but I feel that's the case for me anyway. Sure, I can know a bit, understand the context in which it exists, factor in to a degree my 'known unknowns'... but I'm forever aware of the chasm that is my 'unknown unknowns' (I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciated what Rumsfeld was saying!) Every one of us has a gaping hole in our knowledge, even when we know loads. I don't think you can ever reach the point where one can say, with 100% certainty, "I know". Not without it being contextualised anyway.

 

For me, all truths exist in their own context. Outside of that context, things get uncertain. Fortunately, most times that's fine because the concerned parties are all operating in the same context (or near enough) but not always. For instance, I can watch 'Grand Designs' and be baffled when architects are talking about a building's 'dialogue with the landscape'. I have a vague notion certainly but I have no actual feel for what's being said. That's a trivial example so scale that up to the general public discussing (trying to understand) climate change say, or Brexit, and hopefully you'll see what I mean. On such matters, few of us are equipped to comprehend the intricacies.

Edited 23 March 2018 by CarbonVirtine

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Fair comment. I'd be guessing for ITV and Sky myself, as I rarely see either. I see a fair bit of BBC & C4.

Both try to be even-handed and to probe both sides of the debate, though I imagine more BBC/C4 journalists are Remainers than Brexiteers. If any bias creeps in, it's minor, I'd say. We're well-served compared to TV in other countries.

My guess is that ITV and Sky are the opposite side of the coin: fairly even-handed but maybe a slight Brexiteer bias mirroring the BBC/C4 bias....but that's only a guess.

 

Where do you get your news, out of curiosity? Internet? Papers? Radio?

I listen to the radio mainly, I don’t have scheduled tv in my house (Sky/freeview/freesat) Just on demand services. So I don’t watch the news (Morrisey would love me ). If a story catches my interest I will look it up on BBC news website and then usually the independent.

 

 

Quote

 

 

2-stage process: Economic growth determines the size of the pie, Society determines how the pie is divided up.

The pie has grown slightly bigger in the last 10 years, but most people's slice of the pie has stayed the same size or even shrunk, while a few have got a much bigger slice....that's growing inequality for you.

Makes more sense to change how the pie is divided up but keep it growing, than to say "Life is unfair! Fvck everyone! I don't care if the pie gets smaller!"

 

As for rich businessmen wanting EU membership....that doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. If Forest fans campaigned for cheaper football tickets, I wouldn't oppose them just because they were Forest fans.

I support electoral reform (PR) despite voting Lab, not Lib Dem. I support nuclear power (for now, at least), but that doesn't mean that I prefer the Tories to the Greens. 

It’s a bit of a cop out to suggest the EUs legislation doesn’t play a part in how the pie is divided up, it sets a precedent when it opens up the different nations/companies to complete for contracts all over Europe at the very lowest price and by implementing FOM ensures that cheap labour is not a problem. The poorest in Europe only really benefit by being removed from one relative poverty to another and how does that benifit me or yourself, apart from the reduced queuing times at airports and cheaper flights?

Its a capitalists wet dream, it feeds the greed.

This isn’t Forest Fans campaigning for cheaper ticket prices, it’s forest fans campaigning for a permanent place in the Premier League.

Edited 23 March 2018 by Strokes

[Alf Bentley]

51 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Interesting how everyone views differ and converge. 

 

I absolutely can not see any case for Nuclear power to be honest, especially as we are a nation surrounded by very tidal coasts and lots of wind! We should really be leading the way in Tidal energy.

 

I think that Germany has rid its self of nuclear power and we should absolutely be following that example. My view of the country is a wealthy, modern, green economy. In reality this is probably a bit of what all the parties offer. 

 

I don't know much about science, but what I've read tallies with what @leicsmac and @Kopfkino said after me.

 

Everything I've read suggests that energy capacity from renewables alone will be insufficient for at least 20-30 years - though we should certainly boost renewables.

In a few decades, renewables alone or with nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission) might suffice, is what I read.

For now, though, eliminating fossil fuels to counteract global warming is the urgent priority....also not a good idea to depend on Russian gas. So renewables + nukes seems best in short-term, experts seem to think (I still trust experts!).

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't know much about science, but what I've read tallies with what @leicsmac and @Kopfkino said after me.

 

Everything I've read suggests that energy capacity from renewables alone will be insufficient for at least 20-30 years - though we should certainly boost renewables.

In a few decades, renewables alone or with nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission) might suffice, is what I read.

For now, though, eliminating fossil fuels to counteract global warming is the urgent priority....also not a good idea to depend on Russian gas. So renewables + nukes seems best in short-term, experts seem to think (I still trust experts!).

1

Yeah, this. With the addition that it not only may well make a positive contribution to climate change but also will cut down on the very visible pollution that has clean and noticeable effects on air and sea.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And all this time you've got the poor science sods who care nothing for the politics wondering if the research they were hoping to do will go up in smoke.

It’s unfortunate but you can’t please everyone.....

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s unfortunate but you can’t please everyone.....

True. However, depending on the research and what comes of it, it has the potential to be far more than merely unfortunate.

 

That's why I consider it a priority issue tbh.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

 

It’s a bit of a cop out to suggest the EUs legislation doesn’t play a part in how the pie is divided up, it sets a precedent when it opens up the different nations/companies to complete for contracts all over Europe at the very lowest price and by implementing FOM ensures that cheap labour is not a problem. The poorest in Europe only really benefit and removed from one relative poverty to another and how does that benifit me or yourself, apart from the reduced queuing times at airports and cheaper flights?

Its a capitalists wet dream, it feeds the greed.

This isn’t Forest Fans campaigning for cheaper ticket prices, it’s forest fans campaigning for a permanent place in the Premier League.

 

I agree with some of your criticism of the EU becoming too much of a "rich man's club" and leaving 20%+ unemployed in Spain, terrible problems in Greece etc. That's why I was unsure which way to vote until a fortnight before the referendum.

 

But, despite its imperfections (mainly generated in recent years under EMU), it has presided over great progress over decades - economic growth, political harmony & cooperation in multiple fields from security to research/education to mobility.

That has benefited us - and other countries have benefited even more: e.g. Ireland and Spain were almost third world countries in the 1970s. Poorer countries getting richer then generates more trade for richer countries (like us).

 

The UK is among the most unequal countries in the EU.....well, it wasn't the EU that insisted on that, was it? Some of the inequality is down to historical factors and to the nature of global capitalism, to which the EU kowtows too much, I agree. But the fact that we have worse inequality than in most other EU countries is due to political decisions taken in the UK, not the EU (US-style "Anglo-Saxon" laissez-faire capitalism with minimal state intervention, compared to other EU nations).

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I agree with some of your criticism of the EU becoming too much of a "rich man's club" and leaving 20%+ unemployed in Spain, terrible problems in Greece etc. That's why I was unsure which way to vote until a fortnight before the referendum.

 

But, despite its imperfections (mainly generated in recent years under EMU), it has presided over great progress over decades - economic growth, political harmony & cooperation in multiple fields from security to research/education to mobility.

That has benefited us - and other countries have benefited even more: e.g. Ireland and Spain were almost third world countries in the 1970s. Poorer countries getting richer then generates more trade for richer countries (like us).

 

The UK is among the most unequal countries in the EU.....well, it wasn't the EU that insisted on that, was it? Some of the inequality is down to historical factors and to the nature of global capitalism, to which the EU kowtows too much, I agree. But the fact that we have worse inequality than in most other EU countries is due to political decisions taken in the UK, not the EU (US-style "Anglo-Saxon" laissez-faire capitalism with minimal state intervention, compared to other EU nations).

I wouldn’t argue any of that to be untrue but change from within can be greater if we are detached. 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I wouldn’t argue any of that to be untrue but change from within can be greater if we are detached. 

 

That's where we disagree, then.

 

Once upon a time (up to 1960s?), change as a detached nation was more of an option. The global, mobile nature of capital, finance and communications has removed that option for all but the largest of states/blocs. That's why I disagree with "socialism in one country" types like Corbyn. Your freedom to "do your own thing" as a detached, medium-sized nation is severely limited by the power and global mobility of capital. If you don't do what it likes, sooner or later it can bugger off to somewhere that will do what it likes. The exception, to some degree, is states with markets big enough that global capital cannot ignore them (USA, China) - or blocs that are big enough: e.g. the EU.

 

Yes, that involves compromises - and, yes, the EU has serious flaws. But a continent of 500m could stand up to big capital and insist on change from within much better than a nation of 65m.

There are also plenty of things we can change as a single nation within that bloc. It wasn't the EU that insisted we become a particularly unequal nation, which invests too little in infrastructure, innovation, construction or apprenticeships and has exceptionally high housing costs and rail fares.....those were all decisions taken in London, not Brussels.

 

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I wouldn’t argue any of that to be untrue but change from within can be greater if we are detached. 

After we've brexited will you start campaigning for an independent East Midlands for the same reasons? After that an independent Leicester? An independent Glen Parva? What is the basis for one arbritary geographical region being "better off alone" and not another?

[Webbo]

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Stupid social democrats and their “Remain and reform”  bollocks. What continental support is there for a socially just EU? The christian conservatives in power in Germany, the neoliberal ideologue in France, the ultra-nationalists in Italy?