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.

 welshhoppo wrote:
With May as Prime Minister and Hammond as Chancellor, I was really hoping Clarkson would get Foreign Secretary

Jeremy?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
With May as Prime Minister and Hammond as Chancellor, I was really hoping Clarkson would get Foreign Secretary

Jeremy?

What's the worse that could happen? He did try and get us a trade deal with India.

 Ketara wrote:

Like Norway? I'm not sure your Joe Bloggs in the street really cares about 'making a difference on the global stage', we leave that sort of thing to posturing politicians.

Yes and like Norway we will have no say on what new EU laws are in place, no veto if goods have to meet a new standard or have to be an approved by an EU certified country. Basically they say jump and we have to say 'how high?' Although the person on the street might not care about such things, we should care because this type of posturing ensures that we aren't railroaded into decisions that we either think are globally or UK bad news. Having 28 countries saying we disagree is much more powerful statement than one squeaky eccentric voice in the corner being awkward. You should care because in the long term it can have significant impacts.

 Ketara wrote:
Industrialisation does not equate to influence in global politics. And even if it did, so what? You don't see people in Switzerland right saying, 'Oh Golly Gosh, I belong to an insignificant nation, I'd better bind my country to ever closer union with Germany so that my people can have more influence!' Quite the opposite, by contemporary events.

You only have to look at the current steelworks crisis to know that's not true. China dumped so much steel on the market that it deflated prices to point where it had an effect on other steel manufacturers in simple move to try and dominate the steel market for years to come. Industrialisation means more money and that means a greater share of the markets which means ultimately more influence as their political decisions can then have ramifications across the globe. Realistically Switzerland has the closest ties all EEA nations than anyone (it's Switzerland-heavy to coin a new term). They have something like 250,000 people just commuting on a daily basis and on the order of 1 million EU citizens living there. It doesn't want to join the EU completely because of historical financial reasons and the EU are happy for it that way because of the employment it brings. In some ways Switzerland has just as much influence as other member states but there are specific fundamental reasons for this. It won't be the same for the UK because direct daily ties are less, it's just not comparable.

 Ketara wrote:
We're projected to have the biggest economy in Europe within fifty years, and our population to overtake both Germany and Russia. I'm not quite feeling the narrative of decline you're feeding me here. Sure, we might not be a superpower, but we aren't exactly going to be Madagascar in twenty years, no matter how you spin it.

Yes it was and you know why it was considered that this was a possibility - simply because of our high net immigration keeping a young youthful workforce. The reason Germany was predicted to slide was because it had low immigration and an aging population. Effectively in 50 years it was predicted that as most people would have been retired there would simply not be enough people to keep all the factory's running. It's one reason why Germany are quite happy to take a lot of Syrian immigrants because they see it as an opportunity. With the current migration movements you may find these predictions are turned on it's head (with the UK having now the same issue that Germany was predicted to have). Russia is a different issue; their economy is based largely on oil - with a world predicted to need to get itself off carbon fuels (unless we want to make a real environmental mess) then it means Russia's oil fields will effectively be worthless. Our economy is not based on oil (more banking, service, high tech industrial) so are not exposed to this shock.

 Ketara wrote:
Firstly, people who aren't bigoted voted out, myself among them. Secondly, I'd agree that whilst less people were educated in the 1950's, the overall general quality of education since has not gone up, if anything, it's been the opposite. Finally, the Labour party had something to do with it.

I didn't say you were, but many are even at a background uninformed level are (especially in the older age bracket). I have many debates where the older people I know state "These people are taking our jobs..." or "Have you seen what it's like in the city centre there's hardly any English..." and despite everything these are bigoted views because it's blanket uninformed views of a group of people without any attempt to get to know them. As I don't know what you mean by "the general quality of education" but I presume you have evidence for this? Also what is the Labour party responsible for, because for a large proportion of the last 50 years Tories have also been in charge?

 Ketara wrote:
This is all pure speculation, and frankly, I would postulate, imaginary.

Actually after coming from a working class background but now working at a University where I get to speak to these people on a daily basis I would highlight that I am basing my assessment on actual information from talking to people. I'd hence question why you thought what I was saying was imaginary?

 Ketara wrote:
So yep, like I said, Visa free travel.

There's a massive difference between visa free travel and visa free work. Visa free travel is likely to continue because the EU will not want to lose the tourists to southern spain etc. Long term living and working is an entirely different issue as it severely restricts what you can do and for how long. It means that you are less likely to be employed in the Country in question if it does not meet their requirements (say lack of skills) or where they are trying to protect their own EU workforce. That graduate with a degree in biotechnology might be ideally suited for a job in Germany, but can't get it because of visa restrictions is a terrible waste of skill and talent if there is no equivalent job in the UK (and then are forced to work as a service manager in a job they don't really want or are interested in). Visa free work is about freedom of choice and the liberty of the person to make the best of their life which is not something we should try and restrict.

 Ketara wrote:
Those are commercial loans guaranteed by the British Government, nothing to do with the EU if you're talking about t he standard start-up loans.

Incorrect the EU provide similar schemes see here :- http://ec.europa.eu/small-business/finance/index_en.htm
And the same goes for youth schemes and training, they are directly funded EU schemes that are supported by the UK but the money still comes from the UK.. It allows younger people from more deprived backgrounds to be given the chance to further their own aspirations and not be hamstrung and not being able to achieve their potential (or are you saying once working class should always be working class???)

 Ketara wrote:
I specified hard obvious visible benefits. Your average bloke walking down a street in Hull doesn't tend to clock that the local hall got repainted or a new art gallery opened and think 'What a great organisation the EU, funding all this for us!'.

Hmm well maybe you should visit Hull then and visit it before making such generalisations. The £0.5billion didn't just go to repainting a building; it's used to redevelop whole areas so rather than being run down and looking like it's just got out of WWII into pleasant airy spaces that people want to come to and work. That's encourages people to come to the area, for employers to move into the area because people like living in the area, which brings new business opportunities for accommodation, restaurants, retail outlets, outdoor activities etc etc. These things have a massive boost to the area because it doesn't just employ people directly but in all the associated businesses that crop up out of it as well even when these aren't directly funded by the EU. To think that this money is just painting a Town Hall is incredibly blinkered. Go and check out these places and compare to what they did look like and then try and say the same thing.

 Ketara wrote:
You're conflating a lot of things there. Firstly the development of scientific method has nothing whatsoever to do with forms of government.

Wrong it has everything to do with forms of government. There are plenty of examples where Authoritarian governments have repressed scientific method (even the point of shooting Teachers etc) because it introduces a chain of free thinking they wish to avoid. Even in modern day Tory politics the issue of shooting badgers works completely against scientific evidence where it might benefit the immediate surrounding area but in fact spreads TB wider across the countryside as the few badgers that survive migrate outwards and spread it to other previously uninfected dens. This is a perfect example where scientific method is ignored in favour of pleasing the masses (another example is dredging rivers to prevent flooding where in fact it can make things worse). Truly liberal governments would listen to evidence based advice and act according (and explain to the populace) whereas more authoritarian are more likely to ignore this unless it is convenient.

 Ketara wrote:
Secondly, saying that 'we are in a better society than we were 200 hundred, even 30 years ago' is inherently incorrect, because there is no objective measurement for a society, it varies by culture and moral standards of the day. You may well find in two hundred years that they view your 'better' society as having been a retrogressive step.

I think I'd be quite happy to say that we have progressed, after all having a child is now fairly risk free, whereas a hundred years ago it could be fatal. A cut a hundred years ago could become infected and kill you. You can now call someone on the otherside of the globe in an instant. We can reach the bottom of the seas and the outermost planets. People are assumed innocent until proven guilty by their peers instead of stereotyping someone. If you are convicted society tries it's best to provide development to allow them to become a contributor to society rather than just chopping a hand off or hanging them. Anyone can be educated and become a world leader in whatever business they are in whereas before you had to be born into the right place etc etc. These were all driven by a progressive society to make the world they live in a better place.

 Ketara wrote:
Finally, you still haven't shown why merging nation-states into superstates is 'progressive' and maintaining the existing model of nation state is 'regressive'. You're simply throwing out a massively loaded deterministic, whiggish, and western view of the world and history.

OK, how about this...In the beginning there was just a person with a rock and he needed to eat. Occasionally he was lucky and grabbed a rabbit, but many times he missed or a hyena or other human took it off him as he was not as strong as them; so
This person met another person with the same issues and they agreed to work together. Now they could trap that rabbit much more easily and scare off the hyenas, but that pack of lions could still threaten them; so
These two people met up with other groups and formed a tribe. They were much stronger, they could defend from lions and hunt much bigger prey. With many minds new ideas started so that rock became a spear, then a bow, but there were many tribes and they fought often; so
Several tribes agreed to group together and they formed a town. And it was strong with walls and allowed them to protect each other and they learnt and grew; but little did they realise that across the river was a much bigger town, that one day came 'asking for a tithe' and the smaller town had no choice but to comply; so
all the towns on this side of the river decided to group together and it made them much stronger. Now whenever the big city on the other side of the river came calling they all came to each others aide and things were good, because all the towns benefited from this arrangement over time.

This would be progressive (I hope you can see the analogy) a regressive step would of course be going back to the individual townships

Ketara, I suggest you read: 'The Man, the state and war' by Kenneth Waltz. Its a very quick read but will allow you to see the logic behind why there is a great mistrust towards nation-states.

Whirlwind wrote:


That's possible but probably unlikely. The current referendum was won because of an aging population with many having mild to significant bigoted views from a period when education was much poorer than it was today combined with a general dissatisfaction of the political process due to the pain/gain inequalities that the Tory party has wrought through society during a massive economical upheaval. These factors are unlikely to all combine in the future. A significant majority are now educated to a much better standard (a significant fraction to University level) where they daily come into contact with a wide variety of cultures from across the globe. This leads to understanding and empathy as well as friends that means they don't fall victim to the fear of 'aliens' invading the country and ruining it 'for the Brits' which is then inflamed by demagogues with just plainly false and misleading slogans. If anything young people in general are more open to sharing in a wider community than older people because they have lived as part of a global community and they live in hope for the future not fear it. [End quote]


So you just called everyone who voted out an old, ignorant, uneducated, bigoted xenophobe. Thats really the problem with the aftermath of this vote, it has happened the result is in, dont like tough but insulting a large preportion of the populus really isnt going to help.

Skullhammer wrote:

So you just called everyone who voted out an old, ignorant, uneducated, bigoted xenophobe. Thats really the problem with the aftermath of this vote, it has happened the result is in, dont like tough but insulting a large preportion of the populus really isnt going to help.

No I did not, hence the word "many" and "in general" which last time I looked in the dictionary doesn't mean "everyone". It means a significant fraction but there are plenty that are not just they are not the majority. Please read the context of the statement.

There are plenty of polls and surveys that show that the older generation vote in higher numbers. There are also plenty of surveys that show older people are more 'scared' of immigration (and in essence slightly bigoted because you are tarnishing a group of people with one brush) than younger people and there are plenty of video/interview examples. The simple case is that if the older people had voted in the same proportion of the population as the younger population then we would have voted to remain. But regardless all proportions of society have mild to severe cases of bigotry, it's just that for the younger population it's much less severe proportion wise for a variety of reasons.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
With May as Prime Minister and Hammond as Chancellor, I was really hoping Clarkson would get Foreign Secretary

Jeremy?

What's the worse that could happen? He did try and get us a trade deal with India.

Jeremy Clarkson is making nough money doing what he is doing. But if he wanted to stand for a seat in the Tory party he would be parachuted in very swiftly. People would vote for him.

Whirlwind wrote:

Yes and like Norway we will have no say on what new EU laws are in place, no veto...

And? The assertion you made was that your average joe schmoe (aka the majority of the population) will want to rejoin the EU to, in your words 'make a difference on the world stage'. I countered that your average joe schmoe in Norway, a country that has had several votes on the matter has no such desire. Talking about what influence Norway does or does not have within the EU is utterly irrelevant to both the point you made and my counter.

 Ketara wrote:

You only have to look at the current steelworks crisis to know that's not true. China dumped so much steel on the market that it deflated prices to point where it had an effect on other steel manufacturers in simple move to try and dominate the steel market for years to come. Industrialisation means more money and that means a greater share of the markets which means ultimately more influence as their political decisions can then have ramifications across the globe. Realistically Switzerland has the closest ties all EEA nations than anyone (it's Switzerland-heavy to coin a new term). They have something like 250,000 people just commuting on a daily basis and on the order of 1 million EU citizens living there. It doesn't want to join the EU completely because of historical financial reasons and the EU are happy for it that way because of the employment it brings. In some ways Switzerland has just as much influence as other member states but there are specific fundamental reasons for this. It won't be the same for the UK because direct daily ties are less, it's just not comparable.

I don't know if you've paid much attention to Switzerland recently, but they're actually about to be removed from the Erasmus scheme and various other things because they have democratically voted against ever closer union in the form of restricting immigration. So...no, they're demonstrably, verifiably, factually not keen on the EU because of current political circumstance within the EU, and the EU is not happy about their decision.

In other words, I stand by my assertion that Switzerland is not being forced by it's comparative lack of 'industrialisation' to integrate into the EU. And again, I maintain that industrialisation and international muscle are not the same thing, as any economist will tell you. They sometimes go hand in hand, but they're not inherently linked, any more than the banking sector is, or military might is. International influence comes down to an extremely wide range of factors.

 Ketara wrote:

Yes it was and you know why it was considered that this was a possibility - simply because of our high net immigration keeping a young youthful workforce. The reason Germany was predicted to slide was because it had low immigration and an aging population. Effectively in 50 years it was predicted that as most people would have been retired there would simply not be enough people to keep all the factory's running. It's one reason why Germany are quite happy to take a lot of Syrian immigrants because they see it as an opportunity. With the current migration movements you may find these predictions are turned on it's head (with the UK having now the same issue that Germany was predicted to have).

Why? You seem to be mixing up the removal of freedom of movement from the EU with the elimination of immigration altogether. There is nothing stopping a Britain from outside the EU taking as many immigrants from around the world as they feel is necessary for economic aims. There is no shortage of people in third world hellholes who will jump at a ticket to the land of the NHS where the police don't take you away in the night.

 Ketara wrote:

I didn't say you were, but many are even at a background uninformed level are (especially in the older age bracket). I have many debates where the older people I know state "These people are taking our jobs..." or "Have you seen what it's like in the city centre there's hardly any English..." and despite everything these are bigoted views because it's blanket uninformed views of a group of people without any attempt to get to know them.

In all fairness, for every stupid uninformed old person I've seen or met who voted leave, I've met just as many young people who voted 'In' that didn't have a clue about anything either. Ignorance is not limited to those who voted 'leave'.

As I don't know what you mean by "the general quality of education" but I presume you have evidence for this? Also what is the Labour party responsible for, because for a large proportion of the last 50 years Tories have also been in charge?

I mentioned Labour because you fingered the Tories specifically. You didn't mention the other party that's been in charge for a good chunk of the last thirty years. When it comes to things like grade inflation and syllabus changes, they're just as responsible.

With regards to the general quality of education, there are several standards by which to measure. A fun one which gets frequently performed is to stick a current GCSE student in front of a 'O' level science paper from the 1960's, most of it doesn't appear now until second year A level. There's also been an increase in the amount of class time dedicated to things like 'Food Technology' and 'Media Studies'.

I'm not saying, mind you, that kids are thicker, or that the things they learnt on those papers back then were necessary. Christ, they're still teaching simultaneous equations today at GCSE, when they'd probably be better off teaching them how to do their taxes.

Actually after coming from a working class background but now working at a University where I get to speak to these people on a daily basis I would highlight that I am basing my assessment on actual information from talking to people. I'd hence question why you thought what I was saying was imaginary?

I'm in the exact same position. Working class background, work at a University. Which one are you located at? I flit between King's College and London Business School at the moment.

The reason I said it was imaginary, is firstly because you associate University attendance with a better education, when a number of the Universities that exist are sub-par degree factories in many regards. Many others used to not have the label of 'University', but specialised in the same areas and qualifications as they do now. Take Canterbury Christchurch University for example. Excellent teacher training. If I followed your critieria that more people are at University, and thus, better educated, I'd be ignoring the fact that the exact same people were doing the exact same training at the exact same place before, simply because it wasn't labelled 'University'.

You're also assuming that going to University automatically opens up dialogues with foreign students when many lower tier universities have low foreign student attendance.You're also assuming that because someone has drinks with another student from a different country, that they'll develop a specific stance on a foreign policy issue. People are rarely that simple.

In short, I found everything in that paragraph to be a vast assumption. That's why I called it imaginary. Which was rude of me, and you know? I apologise for that, I was out of line. But I still don't believe any of it to be founded on anything other than vague anecdotal evidence generalised to the extreme.

 Ketara wrote:

There's a massive difference between visa free travel and visa free work. Visa free travel is likely to continue because the EU will not want to lose the tourists to southern spain etc. Long term living and working is an entirely different issue as it severely restricts what you can do and for how long. It means that you are less likely to be employed in the Country in question if it does not meet their requirements (say lack of skills) or where they are trying to protect their own EU workforce. That graduate with a degree in biotechnology might be ideally suited for a job in Germany, but can't get it because of visa restrictions is a terrible waste of skill and talent if there is no equivalent job in the UK (and then are forced to work as a service manager in a job they don't really want or are interested in). Visa free work is about freedom of choice and the liberty of the person to make the best of their life which is not something we should try and restrict.

How many people in the UK do you think work abroad for a significant period of time as compared to the number of British citizens? The answer is, surprisingly few. As a material benefit, it doesn't affect too many people.

I specify significant, because students getting a bar job whilst they travel the world for a year or two is pretty standard, and ones from outside the EU do it all the time.

 Ketara wrote:
T
Incorrect the EU provide similar schemes see here :- http://ec.europa.eu/small-business/finance/index_en.htm
And the same goes for youth schemes and training, they are directly funded EU schemes that are supported by the UK but the money still comes from the UK.. It allows younger people from more deprived backgrounds to be given the chance to further their own aspirations and not be hamstrung and not being able to achieve their potential (or are you saying once working class should always be working class???)

The start-up loans that young people actually utilise in this country are these.
https://www.startuploans.co.uk/
Trust me on this, I tried setting up a business once. The EU has particular criteria, and most people don't meet them. The start up loan company is the normal method of financing young entrepreneurs. Many of the links on the EU site you specified actually take you through to start up loan company partners.

 Ketara wrote:

Hmm well maybe you should visit Hull then and visit it before making such generalisations. The £0.5billion didn't just go to repainting a building; it's used to redevelop whole areas so rather than being run down and looking like it's just got out of WWII into pleasant airy spaces that people want to come to and work. That's encourages people to come to the area, for employers to move into the area because people like living in the area, which brings new business opportunities for accommodation, restaurants, retail outlets, outdoor activities etc etc. These things have a massive boost to the area because it doesn't just employ people directly but in all the associated businesses that crop up out of it as well even when these aren't directly funded by the EU. To think that this money is just painting a Town Hall is incredibly blinkered. Go and check out these places and compare to what they did look like and then try and say the same thing.

I'll be honest, I just picked Hull as a random town name. I could have said Swansea or Broadstairs, it was just the easiest one that fell to mind. My original point though, to apologetically drag back to it, was that your average joe schmoe doesn't see that sort of development and link it to the EU. The EU doesn't tend to advertise it's involvement particularly. Perhaps that's their mistake, but your waxing lyrical about the benefits of that EU support is somewhat moot.

The discussion was based around the fact that your average bloke doesn't actually link, in his mind, many hard benefits to his having access to Europe, because there aren't many. Most of them are on a more general level with regards to trade and diplomacy. Sure, there are plenty of benefits to being within the EU, I'm not denying that. But the point being discussed is how much benefit does an individual receive, or indeed, perceive himself as receiving? And how badly will he miss them when they're gone? My argument is that people won't be longing to rejoin the EU in twenty years, because even those who lived under it only benefited (for the most part) from it in abstract national level ways.

 Ketara wrote:

Wrong it has everything to do with forms of government. There are plenty of examples where Authoritarian governments have repressed scientific method (even the point of shooting Teachers etc) because it introduces a chain of free thinking they wish to avoid. Even in modern day Tory politics the issue of shooting badgers works completely against scientific evidence where it might benefit the immediate surrounding area but in fact spreads TB wider across the countryside as the few badgers that survive migrate outwards and spread it to other previously uninfected dens. This is a perfect example where scientific method is ignored in favour of pleasing the masses (another example is dredging rivers to prevent flooding where in fact it can make things worse). Truly liberal governments would listen to evidence based advice and act according (and explain to the populace) whereas more authoritarian are more likely to ignore this unless it is convenient.

Mate, I hate to be the one to tell you, but liberal governments lie, spin figures, and ignore scientific evidence just as much as authoritarian ones. They're less likely to stand you against the wall for disagreeing, but there's no intrinsic link between the development of modern medicine and government form. When penicillin was discovered in 1928, it wasn't because Stanley Baldwin was in power. When the Nazi's were in power meanwhile, Heisenberg did some wonderful research into atomics. I could belabour the point, but I'll actually have to start dragging in academic citations (this is related to my speciality) and I don't feel like doing work on Dakka!

 Ketara wrote:

I think I'd be quite happy to say that we have progressed, after all having a child is now fairly risk free, whereas a hundred years ago it could be fatal. A cut a hundred years ago could become infected and kill you.

And in fifty years, we may find bacteria are resistant to anti-biotics, and future generations lament our regressive approach to medicine. 'They prescribed drugs to everyone freely? Were they mad?'

You can now call someone on the otherside of the globe in an instant. We can reach the bottom of the seas and the outermost planets. People are assumed innocent until proven guilty by their peers instead of stereotyping someone. If you are convicted society tries it's best to provide development to allow them to become a contributor to society rather than just chopping a hand off or hanging them. Anyone can be educated and become a world leader in whatever business they are in whereas before you had to be born into the right place etc etc. These were all driven by a progressive society to make the world they live in a better place.

You're conflating the more efficient performing of a function with 'progression in society', not to mention several things that other 'advanced' societies right now would argue are necessary (like the death sentence). In other words, you're looking at the world and assuming that your opinion is the most naturally 'progressive' one.

In reality, it may not be.

 Ketara wrote:

OK, how about this...In the beginning there was just a person with a rock and he needed to eat. Occasionally he was lucky and grabbed a rabbit, but many times he missed or a hyena or other human took it off him as he was not as strong as them; so
This person met another person with the same issues and they agreed to work together. Now they could trap that rabbit much more easily and scare off the hyenas, but that pack of lions could still threaten them; so
These two people met up with other groups and formed a tribe. They were much stronger, they could defend from lions and hunt much bigger prey. With many minds new ideas started so that rock became a spear, then a bow, but there were many tribes and they fought often; so
Several tribes agreed to group together and they formed a town. And it was strong with walls and allowed them to protect each other and they learnt and grew; but little did they realise that across the river was a much bigger town, that one day came 'asking for a tithe' and the smaller town had no choice but to comply; so
all the towns on this side of the river decided to group together and it made them much stronger. Now whenever the big city on the other side of the river came calling they all came to each others aide and things were good, because all the towns benefited from this arrangement over time.

This would be progressive (I hope you can see the analogy) a regressive step would of course be going back to the individual townships

Why was it not more progressive to butcher all the other tribes' men and steal their women, possessions, and children to become the strongest tribe around? Why was it progressive to object to the tithe? Why was it not more progressive to make an alliance with the other towns, but then use that alliance as a cover to kill their leaders and take over several towns and rule them all? Why would it not be more progressive to integrate entirely with the tithe demanding power?

The point I am trying to make, is that you see life as you do that narrative above. You look at starting event A, and then the multiple subsequent possibilities B,C, D, E, and so on. You then make a judgement based on your own morals and beliefs that Possibility C would be the best outcome from Event A, and call it progressive if C occurs, and either regressive or less progressive if anything else occurs.

But what makes C objectively progressive? The answer is, nothing but your own mind. And your mind is conditioned to prioritise certain morals and outcomes by the society and circumstance of your upbringing. To come full circle here, what you have experienced in your life makes you believe that European integration/membership is the 'progressive' thing. But in reality, there are a myriad number of other potentials, and none of them are inherently 'better' than any others or more 'civilised'. Those words are nothing more than value based judgements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Optio wrote:
Ketara, I suggest you read: 'The Man, the state and war' by Kenneth Waltz. Its a very quick read but will allow you to see the logic behind why there is a great mistrust towards nation-states.

There's plenty of reasons for nation-states to be considered bad, I accept that. There's just as many for them to be considered good, as well as pros and cons for the alternative forms of governance. And depending on your perspective the good points could be the bad ones, and vice versa.

I hadn't encountered the book, but I just digested the wiki entry and read the introduction to the book, and I can't say I'm massively impressed, he doesn't seem to have a patch on Quincy Wright, who would have been his contemporary if he published in 1960.

Yeah, there's other things to consider. For example, in Scotland, well, in my home town anyway, the vast majority of immigration has come from Indian families. Potentially, brexit may be better for their long distance relatives than being in the EU.

Brexit if done the way the Brexiteers want will put everyone, Indian or Irish or Italian, on the same basis. Everyone will need a visa under conditions decided by the UK government, which presumably will involve the points system we already have had for some years for non-EU people.

There's no reason to suppose that Indians will have easier access to these visas than Irish or Italian people.

Whirlwind wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:

So you just called everyone who voted out an old, ignorant, uneducated, bigoted xenophobe. Thats really the problem with the aftermath of this vote, it has happened the result is in, dont like tough but insulting a large preportion of the populus really isnt going to help.

No I did not, hence the word "many" and "in general" which last time I looked in the dictionary doesn't mean "everyone". It means a significant fraction but there are plenty that are not just they are not the majority. Please read the context of the statement.

There are plenty of polls and surveys that show that the older generation vote in higher numbers. There are also plenty of surveys that show older people are more 'scared' of immigration (and in essence slightly bigoted because you are tarnishing a group of people with one brush) than younger people and there are plenty of video/interview examples. The simple case is that if the older people had voted in the same proportion of the population as the younger population then we would have voted to remain. But regardless all proportions of society have mild to severe cases of bigotry, it's just that for the younger population it's much less severe proportion wise for a variety of reasons.

The question then becomes how many is many 10%\50%\90% so say 49% not the majority but still in this vote thats about 8.3 million people you just insulted. For my part being in the eu was bad for my job prospects i'm not university educated or highly trained at all never travelled there as money is tight all the time due to bosses having access to a vertualy unlimited work pool who will work for the minimum wage and be quit well off due to economy of scale 6+ can live on min wage in one house better than a family with the 3 kids can, and as ketra said above for you it looks bad for me it looks good it all comes down to point of view. Hence a large amount of labour voters also voted out who you maybe suprised to learn also dont have a paper education. (Degrees etc) but do have other skills which are seen as useless as there undercut all the time in the hunt for jobs, and outside of the major citys it is a hunt.
As to polls showing voting trends if the younger generation actually voted and realised that a vote is important regardless of how much diffrence it would make and appriceated it more things could of been diffrent BUT THEY DIDN'T VOTE (not all) and so they (not all) seem not to care, and as i was told when i was younger if you dont vote you cant complain about the result.

I understand your situation. I am working a minimum wage job myself.

The sad thing about voting Leave is that the crappy situation many of us find ourselves in is not due to the EU but the UK government's policies over several decades. The EU actually has put a lot of money into deprived areas to help raise them up; that will be lost.

In other words, as a protest vote it might or might not have had some effect on the general ideas of the power elite, but more practically it is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Cornwall will lose over £400 million of EU funding for example, and wants the UK government to make it up. How is that going to happen with a 25% cut in corporation tax?

There is no doubt the economy is suffering. That cannot translate into more and better jobs for working people. Hopefully it will improve eventually. We'll have lost several years of progress though.

On a wider note, it's a fact of statistics that factors such as older age, lower educational attainment, and anti-immigration attitudes, correlated more strongly with voting Leave than voting Remain.

It seems pointless to deny that reducing immigration was the key plank of the Leave platform. That doesn't automatically translate into racism, of course.

But the National Front has been out harassing Poles and leafletting Camden with "Proud to be white and British" posters. They aren't on the Remain side, even though they do not represent all of the Leavers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

There's no reason to suppose that Indians will have easier access to these visas than Irish or Italian people.

Indeed, but right now, it's significantly harder, no?

Irish and Italian people don't need visas to visit or immigrate to the UK at the moment.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


On a wider note, it's a fact of statistics that factors such as older age, lower educational attainment, and anti-immigration attitudes, correlated more strongly with voting Leave than voting Remain.

It seems pointless to deny that reducing immigration was the key plank of the Leave platform. That doesn't automatically translate into racism, of course..

Naturally. The problem has been the number of people who voted remain that have and still are, equating old with being racist, and a low level of education/employment with being stupid. Having a different vision of the future for Britain does not necessarily mean either of those things. But the attempt to dismiss a good third of the country as being them, is a real intellectual blind spot for the liberal middle classes at the moment. I've seen far more chillingly anti-democratic and vicious things written by people who identify themselves to be liberal of late than I have the actual racists/facists, and that's worrying.

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


On a wider note, it's a fact of statistics that factors such as older age, lower educational attainment, and anti-immigration attitudes, correlated more strongly with voting Leave than voting Remain.

It seems pointless to deny that reducing immigration was the key plank of the Leave platform. That doesn't automatically translate into racism, of course..

Naturally. The problem has been the number of people who voted remain that have and still are, equating old with being racist, and a low level of education/employment with being stupid. Having a different vision of the future for Britain does not necessarily mean either of those things. But the attempt to dismiss a good third of the country as being them, is a real intellectual blind spot for the liberal middle classes at the moment. I've seen far more chillingly anti-democratic and vicious things written by people who identify themselves to be liberal of late than I have the actual racists/facists, and that's worrying.

This anti racist witch hunt is actually counter productive and only serves to help fuel racism. Its a self fulfilling prophecy.

You don't counter genuine racism by ignoring peoples' concerns and labelling swathes of them racist. All that achieves is to drive ordinary, reasonable people into the arms of the real racists and bigots.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Irish and Italian people don't need visas to visit or immigrate to the UK at the moment.

Exactly. Therefore, one could surmise a hypothetical family with a heritage from outside the EU could theoretically see EU freedom of movement as unfair. And so, potentially vote for leaving the EU, if that was the primary thing they cared about.

Wanting more control of managing immigration shouldn't be seen as wanting to close immigration.

With David Davis at the head of the Brexit department, I was interested to hear what his tactics are likely to be (source: Reuters).

Speech in May wrote:"The first calling point of the UK’s negotiator in the time immediately after Brexit will not be Brussels, it will be Berlin, to strike the deal: absolute access for German cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a sensible deal on everything else.

"Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect the 3 billion pounds of food and wine it exports to the UK. We have seen the sort of political pressure French farmers are willing to bring to bear when their livelihoods are threatened, and France will also be holding a general election in 2017.

"So there is almost certainly going to be a deal, one that maintains a free market between the EU and the UK. The reality is that the hard-headed, pragmatic businessmen on the continent will do everything to ensure that trade with Britain continues uninterrupted."

Daily Telegraph article pre-referendum wrote:"The UK, once we vote to leave, will negotiate a new relationship with the EU. And like all negotiations, the outcome will be dictated by what is in the best interest of both sides. To those people who insist that the EU would erect tariffs should we vote to leave, ask why would those countries damage their own trade with the UK. Out of spite? If that is the case, then, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t want to be a member of any club which threatened to ruin me if I left it."

"Everyone will gather round the negotiating table and hammer out a deal that benefits everyone. The core of that deal will be our trade with the EU. Our European neighbors know only too well that the tariff option will hurt key European industries. The negotiations will overlap with general elections in Germany and France. Not even the French will hurt themselves just to hurt us. So does anyone seriously think that the Continent will put up barriers to trade for no conceivable gain? I think not.

"So what would the UK look like outside the EU? Free trade with the EU, freer trade with the rest of the world. We would be free of EU government and bureaucracy, but would opt in, as others do, to those programs that are in our best interest. In short, it would be something new, something better, something in the interests of the UK and of the EU."

I'll be interested to see how this fares with Juncker's 'No pre-talks' edict. Speaking of Juncker, Davis' stated opinion of him was that:

"He is a protagonist of a European Superstate at a time when the electorates of Europe have risen up against precisely that mad idea.

"He is a lifetime politician from a country that seems to have a season ticket on the European gravy train – he would be the third European Commission president to come from that tiny country.

"He was a fanatical supporter of the Euro. He was one of its architects, and still thinks it is a good idea, despite the devastation it has wrought on the Mediterranean countries.

Sad to see that white supremacists and fascists have become so powerful in the UK. I'd get out of there while I still could if I were you. May will be ten times worse than Thatcher and is likely to lead England (and just England) into a war with France. The US will have to come sort everything out in the end, just as we solved the Nazi problem with bombs and battalions of soldiers. The problem as I see it is that you have no left wing. You have Labour, the party of George W. Bush's personal manservant/whipping boy/fluffer Tony Blair. And you have the usual Tory fascists who offer nothing but blundering incompetence. Just being a tory is a political death sentence right now, but there are enough white supremacists in Labour to keep England as a closed-border fascist police state for decades to come. You really need to overhaul your system and start having general elections every four years so your governments don't just stay in power until they make a mistake and collapse.

Edited for Rule 1, motyak

I think we can have this discussion in a more polite manner than that moving forwards. While you may disagree with the stances of some political parties in the UK, there's no need to be that insulting about it. Thanks

Skullhammer wrote:
....
As to polls showing voting trends if the younger generation actually voted and realised that a vote is important regardless of how much diffrence it would make and appriceated it more things could of been diffrent BUT THEY DIDN'T VOTE (not all) and so they (not all) seem not to care, and as i was told when i was younger if you dont vote you cant complain about the result.

Just for the record, according to Opinion, 64% of registered young voters, actually voted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-turnout-young-voters-youth-vote-double-a7129181.html

In this case it seems that low turnout is a truism routinely turned out to attempt to vilify and delegitimise young voters, as if they haven't got enough gak to put up with.

They think its all over.....It's not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36791782

Labour leadership: Donor to challenge Corbyn ballot ruling

A Labour donor is launching a legal challenge to the party's ruling that Jeremy Corbyn can be automatically included in the leadership ballot.
Michael Foster, whose family gave £400,000 to the party, said he was worried about "apparent manipulation" of the rules by Labour's ruling body, the National Executive Committee (NEC).
On Tuesday, the NEC voted 18-14 to allow the Labour leader on the ballot.
His rivals Angela Eagle and Owen Smith need the backing of 51 MPs or MEPs.
The Labour leadership contest was sparked when Ms Eagle, who resigned from Mr Corbyn's cabinet, announced she was challenging her leader and secured the necessary nominations.
There was a dispute over the interpretation of Labour's rules, and whether they allowed Mr Corbyn to automatically defend his leadership, or whether he would also be required to secure 51 nominations.
Live updates on Labour leadership and May's new cabinet
Labour leadership election rules
After a reportedly highly-charged meeting, at which Labour's governing body considered legal advice, the NEC ruled in Mr Corbyn's favour.
But Mr Foster, who stood as a parliamentary candidate in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle in Cornwall, said he was concerned that "everyone in the room had a different political agenda".
He insisted his legal challenge was "not about politics", saying: "I'm simply concerned that this is an important issue. It's about the rule of law.
"The advice given was certainly not given the expert consideration given by a high court judge."
'Determined to win'
Mr Foster said three contrasting pieces of advice had been given by three different lawyers, and the matter must be considered by a neutral court of law.
"When you conduct a membership association and it has a set of rules, you cannot, in Britain, a democracy that stands or falls by application of law, bend the rules to suit a particular circumstance or particular position," he added.
He expected a court to hear the case within days, he said.
Who can vote in Labour leadership contest?
Labour Party members, affiliated trade union supporters and so-called registered supporters are able to vote although there are some key differences from the 2015 contest, which Jeremy Corbyn won:
Labour Party members need to have signed up on or before 12 January to be eligible to vote. Nearly 130,000 people have become members alone since the EU referendum. As it stands, they won't automatically be able to take part
Anyone can become registered supporters - giving them a one-off vote - if they pay £25 and "share" Labour's aims and values. There is a two-day window for people to sign up, expected to be 18 to 20 July although this has not been confirmed
Registered supporters who paid £3 to vote in last year's leadership election will have to reapply
Affiliated trade union or socialist society supporters can sign up for less then £25, with rates depending on the organisation they belong to
Speaking after Tuesday's decision, Mr Corbyn said he was "delighted" and would fight to keep his position.
"The inequality and poverty that exists in this country, the need to end the privatisation of our National Health Service, the need to give real hope and opportunity to young people all across this country," he said.
Ms Eagle said she welcomed the contest and was "determined" to win.
She said she had eventually decided to launch a formal challenge because he was unwilling to stand down and she could provide the real leadership he could not.
On Wednesday, Owen Smith, also a former shadow minister in Mr Corbyn's cabinet, announced he would also run.
The Pontypridd MP, who quit as shadow work and pensions secretary last month, said he could "heal" the party and "turn the page" on its internal strife.

It is truly laughable that this is dragging on.

I believe that JC should go, but since he isn't moving of his own accord his inclusion on a ballot of contenders should be a no brainer.

Have the contest then maybe look at rewriting the regulations eh?

The thing about the Labour Party's rules is that they are the Labour Party's rules. If they are ambiguous and unclear, it is the Labour Party's responsibility and right to clear them up. It isn't something a judge can reasonably decide, because there is no obvious violation of law involved.

I mean, the Party can make a rule that you must wear a stick of celery in your pocket while voting. If someone turns up to vote with a plastic stick of celery, the party can decide if that counts or not. A judge can't.

The Party can't make a rule that only white people are allowed to vote, and if they did it would be capable of being prosecuted.

 Real News wrote:
Sad to see that white supremacists and fascists have become so powerful in the UK. I'd get out of there while I still could if I were you. May will be ten times worse than Thatcher and is likely to lead England (and just England) into a war with France. The US will have to come sort everything out in the end, just as we solved the Nazi problem with bombs and battalions of soldiers. The problem as I see it is that you have no left wing. You have Labour, the party of George W. Bush's personal manservant/whipping boy/fluffer Tony Blair. And you have the usual Tory fascists who offer nothing but blundering incompetence. Just being a tory is a political death sentence right now, but there are enough white supremacists in Labour to keep England as a closed-border fascist police state for decades to come. You really need to overhaul your system and start having general elections every four years so your governments don't just stay in power until they make a mistake and collapse.

Edited for Rule 1, motyak

The Conservatives are hardly fascists. They're not perfect (who is?) but they're performing an awful lot better than the opposition lol. As for your comment about Tory= political death sentences you should maybe look at Labour right now lol. A party at risk of splitting due to in-fighting between the main Parliamentary Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn's small group of followers/activists. Despite their rep for being Bush jr.'s mate, they're still socialists so very much left wing.
We do have elections every 4yrs, I'm not sure what made you think otherwise.

https://twitter.com/manuscript/status/753336475165593600

little interview with Bojo from earlier today.

fair play to the cameraman who manages to get a shot of the sign hanging on the next door neighbours fence

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Real News wrote:
Sad to see that white supremacists and fascists have become so powerful in the UK. I'd get out of there while I still could if I were you. May will be ten times worse than Thatcher and is likely to lead England (and just England) into a war with France. The US will have to come sort everything out in the end, just as we solved the Nazi problem with bombs and battalions of soldiers. The problem as I see it is that you have no left wing. You have Labour, the party of George W. Bush's personal manservant/whipping boy/fluffer Tony Blair. And you have the usual Tory fascists who offer nothing but blundering incompetence. Just being a tory is a political death sentence right now, but there are enough white supremacists in Labour to keep England as a closed-border fascist police state for decades to come. You really need to overhaul your system and start having general elections every four years so your governments don't just stay in power until they make a mistake and collapse.

Edited for Rule 1, motyak

The Conservatives are hardly fascists. They're not perfect (who is?) but they're performing an awful lot better than the opposition lol. As for your comment about Tory= political death sentences you should maybe look at Labour right now lol. A party at risk of splitting due to in-fighting between the main Parliamentary Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn's small group of followers/activists. Despite their rep for being Bush jr.'s mate, they're still socialists so very much left wing.
We do have elections every 4yrs, I'm not sure what made you think otherwise.

Why are you bothering to respond to an obvious troll post ?

So, Morgan and Gove are out. Grayling seems static. Hammond is chancellor. And surprisingly, Fox is back in!

I was discussing it with my father last night, and we both agreed there was something distinctly fishy about Bojo's new appointment; namely that we thought it was a done deal before the leadership contest was over. Johnson never ran, and stayed so very quiet and well-behaved throughout the entire thing it was quite unusual.

Some of you may recall me predicting a few weeks back that I thought May was the obvious successor, and Bojo would lose any contest due to a lack of serious party support? It would be interesting if Bojo thought the same, and came to an agreement with May then; namely a nice fat ministerial portfolio, and the prospect of a solid shot at leader when May departs in exchange for keeping things simple now. Gives him a chance to show he can be taken seriously, a chance to build up the Parliamentary support base he's currently lacking, and a right hand position in the cabinet.

With Davis running the Brexit department, Johnson will be kept well away from the serious business going on in Europe. Him and Fox will be packed off to the rest of the globe, China, America and so on to drum up business and shake hands in photographs. Which frankly, I think Johnson may actually do quite well. He's partially American too, which could come in handy in Washington in the days ahead. Assuming he doesn't turn into Prince Phillip (which I don't think he'll do, he still has his eye on the leadership after May), he may actually make a rather good Foreign Secretary in the end.

Edit:- Liz Truss is Justice Secretary and Justine Greening Education Secretary now. The women are certainly moving up the cabinet under May.

For once, Ketara, I'm inclined to agree with you - it all seems a bit fishy. I'm happy that DD is heading up the BREXIT department, as it means it's getting taken seriously....

As for the rest of them, non-entities, and Conservative ministers that aren't even Conservatives!

None the less, I am bitterly disappointed in this. Why? Because as I've said before, BREXIT presents us with a unique opportunity to re-order and remake this country for the better, a UK fir for the 21st century.

What is needed is a bold plan...

But all we've got is grey, dull, safe...

I switched on the news and what did I see - more building projects announced for London, and I thought, same old same old...

I think we're looking at decades of managed decline, much as it was in the 1980s...a few people getting richer, and the rest of us struggling to keep our heads above water...

Ah, but wait and see. But in all honestly, I don't have to wait and see - I can judge these people by their track records as MPs and Ministers, and there is nothing that fills me with the slightest confidence...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


But all we've got is grey, dull, safe...

I'd disagree with you there on two fronts at least. Of what are considered to be the six major ministerial posts (Foreign, Home & Justice Secretaries, & Ministers for Health & Education and the Chancellor of the Exchequer), three are held by women. Two ministers are gay. And the Prime Minister is a woman. An amazing signal for equality within politics within this country.

Meanwhile, when it comes to the old rich boys/blue blood image of the Tories? Boris, Hunt, Rudd and Hammond still tick it. But Davis? Working class, University of Warwick. May? Clergyman's daughter. Justine Greening? Comprehensive education and University of Southampton. Truss? Middle class family, comprehensive education. Fallon is middle class (father was a surgeon, University of St Andrews). Liam Fox? State school and University of Glasgow.

This is possibly the most equal cabinet in history in terms of gender, and the least rich old boy toff dominated Tory cabinet to occur. I think that's fabulous, personally. And it's worth pointing that out and celebrating.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


But all we've got is grey, dull, safe...

I'd disagree with you there on two fronts at least. Of what are considered to be the six major ministerial posts (Foreign, Home & Justice Secretaries, & Ministers for Health & Education and the Chancellor of the Exchequer), three are held by women. Two ministers are openly gay. And the Prime Minister is a woman. An amazing signal for equality within politics within this country.

Meanwhile, when it comes to the old rich boys/blue blood image of the Tories? Boris, Hunt, Rudd and Hammond still tick it. But Davis? Working class, University of Warwick. May? Clergyman's daughter. Justine Greening? Comprehensive education and University of Southampton. Truss? Middle class family, comprehensive education. Fallon is middle class (father was a surgeon, University of St Andrews). Liam Fox? State school and University of Glasgow.

This is possibly the most equal cabinet in history in terms of gender, and the least rich old boy toff dominated Tory cabinet to occur. I think that's fabulous, personally. And it's worth pointing that out and celebrating.

Don't get me wrong - it's a welcome victory for equality, and the presence of people with working-class roots in the cabinet, is also to be welcomed.

None the less there comes a time when you have to look beyond a person's gender or background and ask:

What are your policies, what is your vision for Britain...and I see nothing that inspires me...

The Tories are very good at gaining power, but is often the case, they have no idea what to do when they're in office...