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.
nfe wrote: Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - and no they don't all rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
I was responding to a statement that the economy was not even a priority at all, that economic arguments are no factor whatsoever. Not that it's the lowest priority, which would indicate at least an understanding that the world needs an economy, and trade, to even function at all. You can't even have a working culture without a form of trade and economy, even if it is just bartering with pelts.
Someone who completely disregards such a fundemental part of society is akin to someone saying that justice, security, health care, schooling or any other of the essential parts of society are completely irrelevant in how the country should be run.
The economy is not a dirty word, like I stated earlier, even the most Left wing understand that a functioning economy is essential, it's just that they don't believe in neo-liberalism in order to construct that economy, but would rather run an economy based on socialism.
Ignoring it completely is utterly bemusing because it means that whoever is espousing an economy free society has probably spent a little bit too much time watching the Good Life, and getting toasted.
I think you're really extrapolating a bit much from what people have said. Do you genuinely think anyone meant that they think the economy is totally and utterly irrelevant to life rather than just below other issues in their list of priorities?
I was just responding to that particular statement that it wasn't even a consideration. I've got no problem with people prioritising social justice, democracy and anything else they want over a healthy economy, but to disregard it as even relevant at all? I imagine such statements are just reactionary, and allow people who say such things to believe that they hold a higher moral authority, unconcerned with filthy lucre. Which, frankly, is bollocks.
Whilst I don't want to speak for anyone, I'm pretty confident what was meant was that it wasn't a consideration compared to all the other issues they were concerned with. Essentially a RAI vs RAW problem, I think
nfe wrote: I'm making no arguments (currently) about the viability of instituting or pursuing other systems. I'm only noting that if you find someone putting other things before the economy so incomprehensible it may well be you that's ignorant, not them.
I understand prioritising stuff about the economy. I don't understand "I don't care about the economy ".
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care, I have different priorities to you. And as such, economic arguments do not sway me.
Why don't you care about the economy? Do you feel that you'll be unaffected by it? Somehow?
I very much care about the economy. It being healthy generates tax and jobs. We all rely on tax funded services and I want my kids to grow up in a country with jobs. If that has to be Germany then so be it.
I genuinely don't understand how someone can be so keen to get out of the eu they'll happily trash the economy.
Because I have other priorities. Democracy, national self determination, small(er) Government. I'd rather be poor but free; than rich but not free living under the yoke of a foreign government that I have no democratic power to depose.
Can I vote directly against the likes of Jean Claude Juncker if I dislike his policies and decisions in office? Against Donald Tusk?
Thanks. However I don't see any of that changing for the better. We're still going yo be beholden to the eu as our largest customer.
On the rather be poor and free; how poor? 10% reduced economy? 20? 30?
Worse case predictions for Hard brexit are the economy dropping by about 20%. That's savage cuts for services that are already struggling. Is Brexit worth losing hospitals for?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/15 16:46:46
"Once [PSA] has enough visibility on the future trading relationship with the EU, and the plant competitiveness has been addressed, the company will be in a position to consider future investments."
(...)
"The depreciation of sterling since the Brexit vote has meant that the cost of importing components has gone up, so it's a more costly plant."
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of Brexit is to improve the economy by:
1. Enabling the UK to make trade deals outside the EU. 2. Freeing the UK from EU regulations. 3. Preventing EU citizens from easily coming to work in the UK and use up UK national resources. 4. Reducing the payment of fees for membership and CAP, etc. 5. Restoring the UK fishing industry by freeing it from the EU quota system.
Not for me its not.
What is it for you?
The Sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. The only Government and political entity I want my country to be a member of is that of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Westminster should be the highest authority, not subject to any foreign power (the EU).
I'd much prefer if the EU was purely an economic Union (i.e. single market) and not a Political Union with a European Parliament, Commission, Departments, etc...But its not. The economic union is irrevocably entwined with the political union and so the only option for me is to take it or leave it.
I chose Leave it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/15 19:29:32
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of Brexit is to improve the economy by:
1. Enabling the UK to make trade deals outside the EU.
2. Freeing the UK from EU regulations.
3. Preventing EU citizens from easily coming to work in the UK and use up UK national resources.
4. Reducing the payment of fees for membership and CAP, etc.
5. Restoring the UK fishing industry by freeing it from the EU quota system.
Not for me its not.
What is it for you?
The Sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. The only Government and political entity I want my country to be a member of is that of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Westminster should be the highest authority, not subject to any foreign power (the EU).
I'd much prefer if the EU was purely an economic Union (i.e. single market) and not a Political Union with a European Parliament, Commission, Departments, etc...But its not. The economic union is irrevocably entwined with the political union and so the only option for me is to take it or leave it.
I chose Leave it.
We should be free to have descison made in UK. Not EU.
Love or hate our parliament. It I UK citizens voting on UK matters. Not French, Spanish, Polish or anyone else.
Europe should have stuck to trade and kept out nations affairs. A trade partnership, not a army, not a parliamentary body. A trade body only.
But they want to forge a federal state.. Nope.
If be happy as trade member only. No freedom of movement.
We have good trade terms and sovereignty over own lands.
We trade. They trade. None of the political crap that goes with the EU and its labyrinthine of institutions and layers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/15 20:22:48
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Because I have other priorities. Democracy, national self determination, small(er) Government. I'd rather be poor but free; than rich but not free living under the yoke of a foreign government that I have no democratic power to depose.
Are you implying that we are not free? That we are enslaved to another government? When did this happen. I'd point out that our own government in their own white paper after Brexit stated "[Parliament has] remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU". It's a complete misconception and fabrication by some politicians to make us believe otherwise. We have just as much say as any of the other nations (and more so in reality). We will be less free after Brexit even from the simple fact that our ability to move where we want in the EU without paperwork is going to be severely curtailed.
What is missed though is that as most of our trade is with the EU (and that's not likely to change purely from logistical purposes) in effect we will have to comply with the EU rules anyway. So by leaving you are providing less freedom again simply because we will have no voice at the table but still have to comply.
Pretty sure our GDP is "alright" compared to the rest of the EU.
It's not as simple as this. There is a distance issue to consider which boosts costs anyway for some items. The US also has looser controls on a lot of products. For example chlorinated chicken is a high profile one or genetically modified crops. This is used in the US to extend the shelf life/increase profitability but is rejected in this country and the EU. However it does make things cheaper and there are concerns that our own industries will have to lower standards just to compete. It will then become a race to the bottom which in the end just exploits the environment until it is pretty much trashed (our environmental standards in the 60/70s was appalling for example, if you even looked at a river incorrectly you might come away with gills). Standardising environmental controls across the EU has improved the environment for everyone but people just see it as political *insert expletive*.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/15 21:38:36
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Question, why does the "freedom" bexiteers want always stop at Westminster? Shouldn't they all be in favour of Scottish independence? What about independence for all those parts of England that didn't vote for the Torys?
I think we can find a better way to phrase this please.
Ta.
Reds8n
hrrmm Okay then.
I listed all the descriptions of brexiteers put forth by remainders as a summary of what we've learned in this thread. It was sardonic and, I hope, made clear how irrationally remainers have been lashing out at brexiteers as a uniform group.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Question, why does the "freedom" bexiteers want always stop at Westminster? Shouldn't they all be in favour of Scottish independence? What about independence for all those parts of England that didn't vote for the Torys?
Because a lot of us view that Westminister is about "the right size" for a government to be operating at.
Some of us, like DINLT think that the ideal government should be over a smaller scale, hence why he's pro Scottish Independence.
One Government for about 70 millions people suits me quite fine, it's a fine good balance between a too local but weak government (like the old city states.) or a larger government when the Citizen is so far removed that there is no power in the citizen (like the EU size.) A larger government only works when it's built that way from the off, like how the US has developed over the years with the balance between Federal Government and the State Governments. I don't like the EU because it's trying to do it backwards, and it's bloody corrupt as hell.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Pretty sure our GDP is "alright" compared to the rest of the EU.
While Trump liked to congratulate the UK for its independence and "show his support" there were already statements from US politicians/bureaucrats that trade deals with the UK would be "low on the list of priorities" or something like that (alone, the UK is not as important as other, bigger entities). The reality of the situation is that the USA, like any other country, are limited in what they can achieve and must prioritise like everybody else. Some things can't be rushed just by increasing the number of workers [1]. And of course at a later point Trump made some statement along the lines of "the USA looking into exploiting the UKs weakened position when it comes to trade" (just in his own special wording).
Some tasks are less divisible; Brooks points out that while it takes one woman nine months to make one baby, "nine women can't make a baby in one month".
I don't like the EU because it's trying to do it backwards, and it's bloody corrupt as hell.
Is it any more corrupt than Westminster?
I like the EU because it results in a lot of cost saving (that we can't take advantage of now) and harmonisation across the union (that we're going yo have to adhere to anyway).
I don't feel it's any less connected or democratic than Westminster, and in fact produces the kind of policies that suit me as a lefty. Workers rights, environmental standards etc.
I think from a running government point of view supporting 500m isn't that different from supporting 70m. It's not even an order of magnitude and still a big number. It's very different from supporting 10k which is 2 orders of magnitude smaller.
It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but a lot better than leaving our government run without adult supervision.
One Government for about 70 millions people suits me quite fine, it's a fine good balance between a too local but weak government (like the old city states.) or a larger government when the Citizen is so far removed that there is no power in the citizen (like the EU size.)
I'm pretty sure that an Irish person (a hair under 5 million) consider their government size to suit them fine. Probably the Chinese and Indians feel the same, too with a central government with several orders of magnitude more discretional powers than the EU will ever have, ruling over many more people.
People (middle-aged and older especially) love grumbling about change and will find a way to do it even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Statu quo, "the good times", "don't fix it if it ain't broken", etc. people are conditioned to think that way. Add the foreigner angle and that's when it gets messy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 06:51:56
I don't feel it's any less connected or democratic than Westminster, and in fact produces the kind of policies that suit me as a lefty. Workers rights, environmental standards etc.
Cant be a very good lefty if you cheer on the neo-liberal machine that is the EU
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 08:33:36
One Government for about 70 millions people suits me quite fine, it's a fine good balance between a too local but weak government (like the old city states.) or a larger government when the Citizen is so far removed that there is no power in the citizen (like the EU size.)
I'm pretty sure that an Irish person (a hair under 5 million) consider their government size to suit them fine. Probably the Chinese and Indians feel the same, too with a central government with several orders of magnitude more discretional powers than the EU will ever have, ruling over many more people.
People (middle-aged and older especially) love grumbling about change and will find a way to do it even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Statu quo, "the good times", "don't fix it if it ain't broken", etc. people are conditioned to think that way. Add the foreigner angle and that's when it gets messy.
Well maybe you should have read the second half of my post.
I said a larger one can work when it starts off that way. In terms of area, China and India haven't really changed in hundreds of years. So you have the culture aspect.
Again, my issue with the EU is that is works backwards. It would only work if you removed the nation states entirely and eeforged them into smaller units of more equal size.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
You can prove anything with history, but history is not an iron rule that controls the future.
Before the EU was built up out of many nation states, there was the Hapsburg Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Carolingian Empire and the Roman Empire, all spanning much of the same regions that split into different formations, coalesced again, split and re-coalesced.
The states that currently constitute the EU have populations between less than 500,000 and over 80 million. In all of these countries there are people who think the EU is a terrible disaster, and people who think it is best thing ever, whatever the size of the nation they happen to have been born in.
Despite this, all the countries in the EU are basically liberal democracies with the rule of law, etc. and I truly believe it would be hard to find an EU country to point at and seriously worry about their constitutional development. (That's why Turkey has not yet managed to get in, and won't the way it is going.)
One plus of membership is that if you think your own particular country is too large or small, or doesn't have a government that suits you, you can simply move somewhere else.
All signs and indications suggest the PM will roll up the white flag again.
Compromise suggests you get something back in return. we have had ZERO in return from the EU.
And now Remain MPs are trying to cobble something together in the Commons that will prevent a no deal scenario, and tus undercut our negotiating team x 1 million
what a bunch of stupid pieces of
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've said it until I'm blue in the face, but we're wasting our time with these people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 11:56:59
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Kilkrazy wrote: You don't get something in return until you have promised a concession or compromise. That's how things work.
So despite Britain saying it would honour its financial commitments to the EU until 2019, we're still expected to bankroll Eastern Europe? Even after we've left?
I'm happy to strike a good deal with the EU, but not at any price
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 12:04:36
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
One Government for about 70 millions people suits me quite fine, it's a fine good balance between a too local but weak government (like the old city states.) or a larger government when the Citizen is so far removed that there is no power in the citizen (like the EU size.)
I'm pretty sure that an Irish person (a hair under 5 million) consider their government size to suit them fine. Probably the Chinese and Indians feel the same, too with a central government with several orders of magnitude more discretional powers than the EU will ever have, ruling over many more people.
People (middle-aged and older especially) love grumbling about change and will find a way to do it even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Statu quo, "the good times", "don't fix it if it ain't broken", etc. people are conditioned to think that way. Add the foreigner angle and that's when it gets messy.
Well maybe you should have read the second half of my post.
I said a larger one can work when it starts off that way. In terms of area, China and India haven't really changed in hundreds of years. So you have the culture aspect.
Again, my issue with the EU is that is works backwards. It would only work if you removed the nation states entirely and eeforged them into smaller units of more equal size.
China and India have changed several times and in many ways, at different points in history they were bigger, smaller, a number of smaller subdivisions, some other country colony and, in the case of India, even a larger state which had to be partitioned through a bloody war (India - Pakistan, and then again the two Pakistans into Pakistan and Bangladesh).
Plus integration into a larger form of government has worked in the past. That's how the modern Germany, Italy and Switzerland came into being.
Some American poster also took exception to someone using the USA as an example of a larger country working like that from the beginning. Power has shifted to and from the states (and smaller subdivisions) to the Federal government several times, it was not definitely by design that the modern USA is what it is today, and there was a bloody Civil war in the middle of the whole thing to align some of the different visions in the same direction.
If history tells you something is that there are no hard and fast rules to what form of government works best. Everything is a compromise, and history is always a work in progress.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 12:20:48
Kilkrazy wrote: You don't get something in return until you have promised a concession or compromise. That's how things work.
No, its not. It only becomes a compromise when both sides make concessions.
What has the EU conceded so far? Are they going to reciprocate in any way, or just continue complaining that we're "not making progress" and demand even more concessions?
How many concessions do we have to make until the EU is satisfied and decides to meet us halfway?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/16 12:55:12
Kilkrazy wrote: You don't get something in return until you have promised a concession or compromise. That's how things work.
No, its not. It only becomes a compromise when both sides make concessions.
What has the EU conceded so far? Are they going to reciprocate in any way, or just continue complaining that we're "not making progress" and demand even more concessions?
How many concessions do we have to make until the EU is satisfied and decides to meet us halfway?
Exactly what has the UK conceded on? A lot of buzzwords on striving and being creative and open-minded and let's all be friends together.
The situation needs focus and getting your hands dirty. The clock is ticking.
Regarding the money situation, the EU should know exactly what we owe them, and present the bill, instead of fething around.
If the EU turn around and say, Britain, you owe us 5 billion for UK/MEP pensions, 10 billion for budget contributions until 2019 and 3 billion for some wildlife park in Estonia you agreed to fund etc etc
then as I say, I have ZERO problem with honouring our financial commitments. I wouldn't like it, but national honour demands of us a payment.
Are the EU seriously saying they have no idea how much money goes in and out, and who owes what?
I don't believe that for a minute and the EU ain't fooling nobody.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
.. quite how "we've" managed to ...misplace ..?? ... spend ..??/ or whatever this sum is something I'd like to see explained.
The half a trillion pounds that has gone missing is equivalent to 25 per cent of GDP.
.. how drunk did we all get ?!
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Regarding the money situation, the EU should know exactly what we owe them, and present the bill, instead of fething around.
The EU has presented an itemised list.
That's as close to a bill as you'll get in international relations and they're still waiting a reply along the lines of "we'll pay for this but not for this", the numbers being freely available to the UK as a full member of the EU.
