Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Labour executive gives backing to new measures on antisemitism

Labour Party conference will now be asked to adopt tougher line on dealing with antisemitism

Labour’s national executive committee has unanimously passed a proposal for tougher action against antisemitism at a meeting this afternoon.

A motion from the Jewish Labour Movement called for the implementation of a robust solution to tackle the problem of antisemitic harassment of party members.

At the meeting of the party’s NEC, at which Jeremy Corbyn spoke to senior party officials for more than an hour, the constitutional amendment submitted by the JLM received unanimous backing.

A spokesman for Mr Corbyn said: "Jeremy welcomes the decision of the NEC to expand democracy and participation in the party.

"Labour's membership has nearly tripled in the last two years - and the enormous benefits of that were felt at the general election. Our members have the talent, energy and skills to win elections so that we can transform our country for the many not the few.

"Jeremy is delighted that the NEC backed plans to tackle discrimination in the party. As the party of equality, there can be no place in Labour for prejudice.

"Jeremy thanks all those involved with drafting this motion, including the Jewish Labour Movement and Shami Chakrabarti."

Jeremy Newmark, the JLM chair, said: “We are heartened that the NEC has adopted our rule change proposals and will be taking them forward to party conference next week.

“This is another step forward, however our campaign will not end until these proposals are adopted in full by conference itself - this is not a given and will require the firm support of the leadership.

“These constitutional amendments, if passed, will simply bring Labour’s rules to the place that should have been expected from a political party rooted in values of equality and anti-racism.

“The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

“That means that if passed at conference the new rules will need to be firmly implemented to create a zero-tolerance environment for antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. The party will then need to take steps to rebuild its relationship with the Jewish community.”

Currently, party members cannot be disciplined for “the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions”.

The JLM says passing the motion would win back support from many former Jewish supporters of Labour – and would have led to a different punishment for former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, who is currently suspended from the party for his comments on Hitler and Zionism.

The Labour Party's ongoing spat over the Jews and Israel continues. It seems the lead want to have both the anti-Zionists and the JLM on their side with the current motion. So much for one group ranting about how they want the pro-Israeli elements kicked out of their party leading up to this (and you know, all the Nazi comments).

The proposal to return PFIs on expiration is to be welcomed, they are a hugely expensive con. I would also suggest that whilst they are still running, a look at taxation on these specific business structures would be an idea so that the tax payer can scoop back a greater percentage of the outrageous costs these companies have been charging us.

https://www.ft.com/content/0161cc52-a1e9-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2

I also whole heartedly welcome proposals to renationalise key industries. It's long overdue. Our infrastructure should be in our hands, not the hands of foreign governments.

makes you proud eh ?

 r_squared wrote:
The proposal to return PFIs on expiration is to be welcomed, they are a hugely expensive con. I would also suggest that whilst they are still running, a look at taxation on these specific business structures would be an idea so that the tax payer can scoop back a greater percentage of the outrageous costs these companies have been charging us.

We should definitely learn from the PFI mistakes and ditch them as soon as we can, though I'm not sure we want to try and screw over the people who agreed to the contracts because it just makes us look petty. We should be making sure they pay all the appropriate taxes though.

I also whole heartedly welcome proposals to renationalise key industries. It's long overdue. Our infrastructure should be in our hands, not the hands of foreign governments.

Absolutely, there are so many things that really shouldn't have been privatised in the first place, so we should learn there too and do our best to undo it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:


makes you proud eh ?

Those people voted, too.

 Ketara wrote:


I'd like to step in there actually, and specify that saying immigration hasn't depressed wages is actually as inaccurate as saying it has.

But that was never the point or the issue, more that the issue was exaggerated out of all proportion and has been seen to be the reason people are not being paid more when compared to all the other issues the country faces. It is used as a 'scapegoat' because it provided an easy 'myth' as to why people are struggling. However that is simply not the case, there are multiple push factors for keeping wages low (competitiveness in a global market, business greed etc etc). Immigration is a tiny issue relatively to people's wages and has negligible impact or perhaps none depending on the statistical significance of the results. I used the BoE results as they are accepted but I still state the caution that unless figures include their significance then it really means nothing because we don't know how large the variance could be.

The OUP summary says that for every 1% rise in immigrants of working age, there's roughly a 0.5% decrease in the wage of the lowest 5% paid workers. Not that overall there's been a 0.5% decrease, but 0.5% decrease per 1% increase. It also leads to a boost in the earnings of the highest paid, meaning that there's no net overall depression in pay, but the lowest 5% get shafted.

Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%. When you're struggling by on the bare minimum wage, being told you're taking a 2.5% pay hit so that people richer than you can earn more is something of a depressing thing, don't you think?

As I pointed out before these are the same figures. Assuming a minimum wage of £8 (for ease) then 2.5% is £0.2 over the 20 years - effectively a 1 pence per hour decrease in wages per year over that period. And even this is exaggerated as I have used the 2.5% on the current figure whereas I should be applying the 0.125% on the average wage for each of the years (but I'm not that bored ). Effectively it's about £20 per year. On the other hand inflation at the moment is equivalent a 23p per year drop (assuming fixed wages); and a cautious approach of 1% is still 8p per year. Relatively the upper decrease in wages due to immigration is negligible and is simply 'lost' in any variance in inflation.

Additionally if we then consider actual wage increases over a similar period then wages have increased significantly during that same period (mainly because of the minimum wage). Therefore disentangling all these issues is a nightmare. In effect what studies then have to do is compare different regions with different immigration levels and see if they can tease out one particular factor when many are applying all at once. There is no method for creating a true baseline to determine what the variation would be without immigration. Effectively you'd want to rerun the scenario with no immigration so you could determine what the non-immigration variance would be between different areas. It could quite possibly be that such variance would be still present even without immigration, that some areas will be poorer than others and have depressed wages simply because of natural statistical variability. In the case of Thanet for example is that more of the people with the better jobs have moved out because there is nothing there; hence the area generate less GDP. That leaves only low paid jobs remaining, meaning that the low skilled jobs (coffee shops etc) need to employ people at lower wages to be able to survive. On the other hand, areas in London might be able to afford higher wages because there are both more people with more money, however this leads to more competition leading to having to lower prices and wages and so (and this is extremely basic)

On top of that, as stated before, that's nation wide. If you break it down further and look at areas with higher than usual immigration (the South essentially), that wage depression only gets worse. It's no secret that Farage's power base was Thanet, and this is a good part of the reason why. If you look at the population of London alone, the immigrant population has roughly doubled from 1.4 million in 1991 to 3 million in 2011. They have, in effect, made up virtually the entire population increase of London from 6.8 to 8.2 million people in those 20 years. In terms of percentages, that's an increase (in rough, without reaching for a calculator) from about 20% of the makeup of London through to around 35%. That's around a 7.5% depression in wages for those on the bottom rung of life, who also inconveniently live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

And yet this is the problem with looking at things locally. Leicester for example has not seen a depression in wages. It's not a rich city, but not poor either. Yet it is has the most diverse population per head than anywhere else in the Country, indeed there are more non-UK people living in Leicester than UK citizens. Yet they do not have a Nigel Farage running around and never have had. Indeed it was also one of the areas outside the SE and Scotland that voted to Remain. Yet if immigration was the major factor in peoples voting choices then you would have expected a NF in Leicester a long time ago. There are almost certainly larger issues in Thanet being that it is poor for other reasons due to lack of development, infrastructure and the draw of London leaving poorer older people in the area perhaps (a quick look shows that the wages in Leicester are about £3k on average higher than in Thanet). It also depresses house prices making it easier for people on lower wages to live there. There is no question that immigrants do a lot of the low skilled jobs when they come to this country, that might mean they find Thanet a more cost effective place to live, and therefore they move there. The question is then whether it is because Thanet is poor that is increasing the local immigration population who earn lower wages rather than the increasing immigration population is making the area poor and depressing wages? Yet it is easier for people to blame the latter rather than the former (as that is something they could do something about). NF uses the frustration of both being in a deprived area and concerns that 'different' people are living in the area to stoke anti-immigration ideas despite the fact that they are massively, and dangerously, exaggerated.

So rather than focusing on the macro and saying 'well, there's no overall wage depression from immigration', the best way to defang Farage and those like him, is to make appropriate provision for those who suffer the short end of what is (I believe) a forward facing and necessary attitude towards immigration.

You'll have no complaint from me that people on the lowest wages should be paid more and that a better distribution of wealth is needed (and in reality globally as well) and the that the minimum wage is really a joke for people trying to survive (especially in the SE). However UKIP, Tories all use the same wording (and Labour just duck and run for hills as soon as it is asked) because it provides those people that vote for them the impression that they support the immigration wage myth and that it is a major factor in their effective decrease in wages. Rather than having a sensible open conversation they just repeat this same myth over and over, not only making more bigoted against immigration but further ingraining a poor chain of thinking in the populace at large.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:


As I said before, let them rule. The best way to expose a populist is to have them put their policies in practice. Either they won't dare, or they fail. And in the unlikely event that they were right indeed, everyone benefits.

We have been there before though, it didn't end well...

 Whirlwind wrote:


We have been there before though, it didn't end well...

I'd like to think that there are much more robust checks and balances today.

But if it's the will of the people what can we do? I mean in my own Spain we seem to be unable to elect anyone but a bunch of loons whose only loyalty is towards those who put them in power (no, not the voters), their pocket and their comrades-in-theft. On roughly that order.

jouso wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


We have been there before though, it didn't end well...

I'd like to think that there are much more robust checks and balances today.

But if it's the will of the people what can we do? I mean in my own Spain we seem to be unable to elect anyone but a bunch of loons whose only loyalty is towards those who put them in power (no, not the voters), their pocket and their comrades-in-theft. On roughly that order.

The question is though whether there really are more checks or whether our recent history makes us more wary and aware? However the change doesn't happen overnight, a slow slide can not be noticed until it has gone way too far. Of course history won't repeat exactly, but there is a side to less tolerance at the moment of people from different backgrounds across part so the western world. Trump for example is only one or two steps from a really problematic leader.

The problem with the electorate is that as a group they are generally quite stupid and focus on what they think is best for them now (rather then the future overall). Hence the same people funding the parties also have a large visible voice that a standard citizen does not. That's means they can influence policy, and positively reinforce those policies that benefit them (through for example the media that some of them control) and negatively those that they think will cause them harm financially etc. The UK is the same as our parties are heavily influenced by those that fund them, the Tories by wealthy donors (and strangely hence favour low tax, low state policies everything that benefits the wealthy), Labour by the Unions (and hence favour higher tax, high state because that grows their influence) and so on. I would question whether any political party really has the best interest of the country at heart but rather their own best interest. Some of fringe parties (such as the Greens) might be better as they have little to lose and everything to gain by being closer to 'what's best for the country' but if they gained power I'd question how long that would last.

 Whirlwind wrote:

But that was never the point or the issue,

I'm simply establishing that stating these things in absolute generalities rarely encompasses any real complexity. Additionally, when you look at things in large scale abstract statistical form, you can miss that even small statistical variations can be significant in real life. For example, Grenfell tower is a single tower block out of so many thousands that went up in flames, and the people who died are a tiny fraction of the population. Statistically at a national level, the impact of the event was negligible, and we shouldn't make any adjustments to existing safety procedures. Not quite how it works out in real life, eh wot?

As I pointed out before these are the same figures. Assuming a minimum wage of £8 (for ease) then 2.5% is £0.2 over the 20 years - effectively a 1 pence per hour decrease in wages per year over that period.

I'm aware that you're better with the finer points of statistics than me, so I'm going to have to ask you to explain the discrepancy between a quick calculation of mine and what you've just posted. Assuming an £8 wage is depressed by 2.5% to £7.80, that's £0.20 lost per hour, £1.60 in an eight hour day, £8 in a five day week, and £416 over the course of the year (52 weeks). That's not quite pence? If there's some statistical quirk I'm not noticing here, please do point it out, but assuming the above is accurate, that's hardly pennies for somebody on a low income. That's a significant chunk of change. Losing £32 plus per month is a lot of money when you're at subsistence level and the kids need new shoes.

Additionally if we then consider actual wage increases over a similar period...... Yet it is easier for people to blame the latter rather than the former (as that is something they could do something about). NF uses the frustration of both being in a deprived area and concerns that 'different' people are living in the area to stoke anti-immigration ideas despite the fact that they are massively, and dangerously, exaggerated.

As said, statistics are as good as the person gathering them.

Since most of us don't have the time or energy to gather them though, we have to rely on the efforts of people who do it, and assume that they did it right. Ain't nobody got the time to read in depth analysis from more than one field and have the expertise to judge it by!

To nobody's surprise, Donald Tusk claims not enough progress has been made in Brexit talks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41389498

So the Prime Minister of Great Britain humiliated herself in the eyes of the world for feth all!

Somebody pull the plug on this sham of a negotiation. Instead, throw the billions at Dover for customs infrastructure and new staff, phone the WTO, and let's be done with it, because all we're doing is wastng our valuable time here.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To nobody's surprise, Donald Tusk claims not enough progress has been made in Brexit talks.

I wonder how much this is relevant to the slow pace of negotiation (either as a source or as a consequence of the position of the UK government).

Brexit department: More than 20% of civil servants working for David Davis have left in the last 14 months

High turnover could suggest civil servants don’t enjoy working in the department

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-department-more-than-20-per-cent-civil-servants-david-davis-staff-left-14-months-permanent-a7967156.html

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To nobody's surprise, Donald Tusk claims not enough progress has been made in Brexit talks.

I wonder how much this is relevant to the slow pace of negotiation (either as a source or as a consequence of the position of the UK government).

Brexit department: More than 20% of civil servants working for David Davis have left in the last 14 months

High turnover could suggest civil servants don’t enjoy working in the department

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-department-more-than-20-per-cent-civil-servants-david-davis-staff-left-14-months-permanent-a7967156.html

Most of the civil service never wanted Brexit anyway.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To nobody's surprise, Donald Tusk claims not enough progress has been made in Brexit talks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41389498

So the Prime Minister of Great Britain humiliated herself in the eyes of the world for feth all!

Somebody pull the plug on this sham of a negotiation. Instead, throw the billions at Dover for customs infrastructure and new staff, phone the WTO, and let's be done with it, because all we're doing is wastng our valuable time here.

Yeah it was always going to be pointless taking to the EU. Plans for WTO should have been made from the very beginning.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To nobody's surprise, Donald Tusk claims not enough progress has been made in Brexit talks.

I wonder how much this is relevant to the slow pace of negotiation (either as a source or as a consequence of the position of the UK government).

Brexit department: More than 20% of civil servants working for David Davis have left in the last 14 months

High turnover could suggest civil servants don’t enjoy working in the department

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-department-more-than-20-per-cent-civil-servants-david-davis-staff-left-14-months-permanent-a7967156.html

Most of the civil service never wanted Brexit anyway.

Understaffed (and lacking specific talent, too), demotivated and poorly led.

What could possibly go wrong?

First we had Juncker, now Macron has decided to double down on the EU super state.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/26/profound-transformation-macron-lays-out-vision-for-post-brexit-eu

Macron wants: "giving the 19-member eurozone a finance minister, budget and parliament, as well as creating a Europe-wide “rapid reaction force” to work with national armies."



It's official. It's in the open for all the world to see: United States of Europe is on its way. This is not a drunken ramble from Juncker that can be dismissed out of hand as some EU focus group gone wrong. . This is the President of France now saying it.

God bless the British people for getting us the feth away from it.

I demand a second EU referendum now! Why? Because by playing Juncker's speech on a loop, and now Macron's, Leave would win by 99.9%

Every man, woman, and child in Britain would demand we leave the EU. Freedom is our birth right.

How can anybody defend this crackpot scheme? Are we to surrender 2000 years of British history on the altar of the EU super state?

NEVER!!!!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To nobody's surprise, Donald Tusk claims not enough progress has been made in Brexit talks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41389498

So the Prime Minister of Great Britain humiliated herself in the eyes of the world for feth all!

Somebody pull the plug on this sham of a negotiation. Instead, throw the billions at Dover for customs infrastructure and new staff, phone the WTO, and let's be done with it, because all we're doing is wastng our valuable time here.

Yeah it was always going to be pointless taking to the EU. Plans for WTO should have been made from the very beginning.

I think the no deal scenario is getting some serious traction in Whitehall, and rightly so.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
First we had Juncker, now Macron has decided to double down on the EU super state.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/26/profound-transformation-macron-lays-out-vision-for-post-brexit-eu

Macron wants: "giving the 19-member eurozone a finance minister, budget and parliament, as well as creating a Europe-wide “rapid reaction force” to work with national armies."



It's official. It's in the open for all the world to see: United States of Europe is on its way. This is not a drunken ramble from Juncker that can be dismissed out of hand as some EU focus group gone wrong. . This is the President of France now saying it.

God bless the British people for getting us the feth away from it.

I demand a second EU referendum now! Why? Because by playing Juncker's speech on a loop, and now Macron's, Leave would win by 99.9%

Every man, woman, and child in Britain would demand we leave the EU. Freedom is our birth right.

How can anybody defend this crackpot scheme? Are we to surrender 2000 years of British history on the altar of the EU super state?

NEVER!!!!

What a pile of jingoistic gak.

Jingositic gak?

They want a foreign minister, a military force, a finance minister with the power to intervene in other nation states, even closer political union, and they have a currency, a flag, an anthem, a parliament, and numerous presidents...

If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!

If the rest of Europe want to roll up the white flag to Brussels, then good luck to them. Thank God we got out whilst we could.

Yyyeah. Europe, the continent that has been at constant war for centuries, is finally not fighting anymore for a bit of its history, and some people prefer the idea of working closer together. Of course, that must mean that "freedom" is under attack and somebody is twirling a mustache and stroking a white cat while laughing maniacally, because cooperation MUST be to the detriment. Goddamnit.

Again, this is stuff member countries VOTE on because there's a PROCESS, not a Sith Lord declaring the Galactic Empire tomorrow morning.

Your "white flag" and "freedom" talk still ignores that the other EU members are mostly on board with working together, and right now they are discussing ideas, not incarcerating dissenters while murdering the resistance elite. You make it sound like it's a battle, a war, but it's just international politics trying to get along WITHOUT battles and wars on this continent.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Yyyeah. Europe, the continent that has been at constant war for centuries, is finally not fighting anymore for a bit of its history, and some people prefer the idea of working closer together. Of course, that must mean that "freedom" is under attack and somebody is twirling a mustache and stroking a white cat while laughing maniacally, because cooperation MUST be to the detriment. Goddamnit.

Again, this is stuff member countries VOTE on because there's a PROCESS, not a Sith Lord declaring the Galactic Empire tomorrow morning.

Your "white flag" and "freedom" talk still ignores that the other EU members are mostly on board with working together, and right now they are discussing ideas, not incarcerating dissenters while murdering the resistance elite. You make it sound like it's a battle, a war, but it's just international politics trying to get along WITHOUT battles and wars on this continent.

Nations cooperate with each other all the time. There is nothing that says they need a common currency to do so. Britain joined a common market back in the 1970s, not a United States of Europe.

I feel sorry for you, because the German taxpayer will have to bankroll this crackpot scheme.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Yyyeah. Europe, the continent that has been at constant war for centuries, is finally not fighting anymore for a bit of its history, and some people prefer the idea of working closer together. Of course, that must mean that "freedom" is under attack and somebody is twirling a mustache and stroking a white cat while laughing maniacally, because cooperation MUST be to the detriment. Goddamnit.

Again, this is stuff member countries VOTE on because there's a PROCESS, not a Sith Lord declaring the Galactic Empire tomorrow morning.

Your "white flag" and "freedom" talk still ignores that the other EU members are mostly on board with working together, and right now they are discussing ideas, not incarcerating dissenters while murdering the resistance elite. You make it sound like it's a battle, a war, but it's just international politics trying to get along WITHOUT battles and wars on this continent.

Nations cooperate with each other all the time. There is nothing that says they need a common currency to do so. Britain joined a common market back in the 1970s, not a United States of Europe.

I feel sorry for you, because the German taxpayer will have to bankroll this crackpot scheme.

Yes, Germany pays more than it gets out of it, in pure financial terms. The question is if this is a question where that's the only metric that matters. You are happy to accept some pains and problems along the way while getting out of the EU, what makes you think other people might not be fine with a little bit of hardship here and there in favour of the EU?

The thing is, the EU will always be the perfect target for local politicians to rail against, Britain is just one example, Poland and the other Eastern European nations do the same these days, because people like to hear what you are saying, basically - freedom from the oppressors! Down with tyranny! don't let THOSE guys far away decide our lives!

However.
I believe that there is a way to ensure that Europeans hopefully will never fight Europeans again, and will feel a bond close enough that, on the world stage, they can act as one powerful bloc that can't be bullied by the other super nations, be it Russia, China or even the US (you guys are far more of an ally than the previous ones, of course! ). I believe the EU might be one way to achieve that. I might be wrong and there might be a BETTER way to do it, but so far there's no alternative in sight, and "Let's get out of the EU with any really cohesive plan and then invoke the powers of "vision" and "leadership" until stuff turns out to be fine" doesn't seem to be an alternative that will inspire other countries to follow suit.

And as long as there's not better or more promising alternative in sight, I'll rather throw my hat in with the EU and accept a long, bickering, difficult way with some hardships instead of jumping on the hype train for "freedom", thank you very much.

Watched some of the Labour conference, not my thing usually. But renationalising the railways was a big topic. They kept talking about how it's in 'private' hands, but let's look at it, the thing they didn't mention was that our railways are heavily owned, effectively, by foreign governments. Those soaring ticket prices subsidise deutchesbahn and others. If our railways were owned by private UK firms, money would stay inside the UK economy. But as I see it, profits from tickets go straight to foreign investors and governments. No wonder we hemmorage money on subsidies while they pay out dividends and have no scruple about pushing up the prices as much as allowed. Would be far better in UK government owned our railways, then any profits would come back to us and it could be run as a public service instead of a profit seeking venture.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Watched some of the Labour conference, not my thing usually. But renationalising the railways was a big topic. They kept talking about how it's in 'private' hands, but let's look at it, the thing they didn't mention was that our railways are heavily owned, effectively, by foreign governments. Those soaring ticket prices subsidise deutchesbahn and others. If our railways were owned by private UK firms, money would stay inside the UK economy. But as I see it, profits from tickets go straight to foreign investors and governments. No wonder we hemmorage money on subsidies while they pay out dividends and have no scruple about pushing up the prices as much as allowed. Would be far better in UK government owned our railways, then any profits would come back to us and it could be run as a public service instead of a profit seeking venture.

Maybe but unless they got very deep pockets to buy out. At least a 5 year process to take full ownership of the system.

Short of taking it and not paying out which would cause some major waves. I see it being a long term project and thr first few sections will take a while to show change.

It will not be a instant transformation

It would be slow, but Corbyn has described that leases coming up won't be renewed, so that stuff comes back over time, rather than a hostile takeover.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!

A state made out of nations. Like, you know, Scotland, Wales, England, a slice of Ireland and a bunch of scattered bits all over the place make the UK.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Nations cooperate with each other all the time. There is nothing that says they need a common currency to do so. Britain joined a common market back in the 1970s, not a United States of Europe.

And there's also nothing that forbids a common currency. It makes some stuff much easier like a vacation to explore a different culture inside the EU. The ominous and almighty EU bureaucracy hasn't homogenised that part, it actually invests in the preservation of the cultural heritage of all member states. Of course the monetary union has some problems on its own.

I feel sorry for you, because the German taxpayer will have to bankroll this crackpot scheme.

There's a name for that: Solidaritätsprinzip. It means that when you live in a community you try support each other so that nobody has to fight their problems alone. Germany as one of the bigger economies in the union supports the rest (because we have the means). On the other hand the unified economic landscape means everybody saves a bit financially when it comes to transaction inside the EU and there are less roadblocks so trade is easier. That creates more economic activity (and also taxes) that makes the EU payments less of an issue.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It would be slow, but Corbyn has described that leases coming up won't be renewed, so that stuff comes back over time, rather than a hostile takeover.

I was expecting that. Hostile takeover sounds good to the very far left but it's just not practical or sensible.

The above plan makes far more sense. Is far more coat neuteral and also it gives more time to build the systems needed, and the skills needed to manage a national railway.

Cannot go from zero to everything g. And it's been a while since they ran the entire system.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!

A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

So no, a United States of Europe would not be a nation state

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!

A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

So no, a United States of Europe would not be a nation state

I don't know mind, they are banging the we are Europe drum pretty hard.

It's gotten to the point where quite a few people dont know that there is a difference between Europe and the European Union.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Spoiler:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!

A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

So no, a United States of Europe would not be a nation state

I don't know mind, they are banging the we are Europe drum pretty hard.

It's gotten to the point where quite a few people dont know that there is a difference between Europe and the European Union.

Well sure if they convinced people to seems themselves as ethnic and culturally European rather then their current ethnicity then it could become a nation state, I just think the odds of that happening is slim.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

Well sure if they convinced people to seems themselves as ethnic and culturally European rather then their current ethnicity then it could become a nation state, I just think the odds of that happening is slim.

You can hold more than one ethnicity. An ethnicity is just a social construct. I can feel that I'm Scottish, British, Jewish, with a dash of Zimbabwean all at the same time.

I think you're laying the criteria for a nation state on a spot thick there. People in America get to be Texan and American at the same time. It's quite clear (both in this thread and at a more abstract level) that people are beginning to consider themselves European as well as any individual nationality. The EU has deliberately spent large sums of money to generate such a belief.

I do not say that any of these things are bad necessarily, but they are occurring.

We can argue about semantics til the cows come home, but if the rest of Europe want to press on with USE then good luck to them. I'm just glad we're out of it.

Like I said a few months back, I have always believed that the closer the people are to the democratic institutions that rule them, then the better it is. Governments govern by consent in Europe, that goes without saying.

But a USE with all the extra layers added on? People feel cut off from Brussels as it is. This would only make it worse. Our current situation gave us UKIP, FN, and AFD plus more

More Europe will produce worse than the above, who will be all to ready to cash in on people's grievances about immigration, globalization, the Brussels elite etc etc

Sadly, they cannot see this.