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.
AndrewC wrote: As I understood it the application of ECJ applies to any EU citizen working or living in the UK in perpertuity. However quite willing to be shown otherwise.
II. Personal scope:
The Withdrawal Agreement should apply to the following persons as covered by the Treaty and
secondary Union law:
(a) EU27 citizens who reside or have resided in the UK at the date of entry into force of the
Withdrawal Agreement;
(b) UK nationals who reside or have resided in EU27 at the date of entry into force of the
Withdrawal Agreement;
(c) The family members of the persons referred to in points (a) and (b), regardless of their
nationality, as covered by Directive 2004/38, who have joined or will join the holder of
the right at any point in time after the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal
Agreement [i.e. current and future family members];
(d) EU27 citizens who work or have worked in the UK at the date of entry into force of the
Withdrawal Agreement, whilst residing in EU 27, and UK nationals who work or have
3
worked in EU27 at that date, whilst residing in the UK or in another EU27 Member State
than that of employment, and their family members regardless of place of residence [e.g.
frontier workers];
(e) EU27 citizens and UK nationals and their family members covered by Regulation
883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems who, at the date of entry into
force of the Withdrawal Agreement, are or have been subject to the legislation of an
EU27 Member State for UK nationals, or UK legislation for EU27 citizens [i.e. who have (i)
left the UK or EU27 at the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement, but have
aggregated periods for the calculation of future income replacing benefits (old age
benefits, cash sickness benefits, invalidity benefits, survivor benefits and benefits in
respect of accidents and work and occupational diseases), or (ii) who have left the UK or
EU27 at the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement and currently already
enjoy export of income replacing benefits (for example pensioners)]
It's clear that ECJ jurisdiction (the last part on the position paper) refers solely to people who had acquired rights during UKEU membership, and their families.
But sovereignty apparently trumps common sense, and some people are keen to make a mountain of this particular molehill.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/04 20:17:42
Wishing I was back at the South Atlantic, closer to ice than the sun
And you completely missed the point.
(d) EU27 citizens who work or have worked in the UK at the date of entry into force of the
Withdrawal Agreement, whilst residing in EU 27, and UK nationals who work or have
3
worked in EU27 at that date, whilst residing in the UK or in another EU27 Member State
than that of employment, and their family members regardless of place of residence [e.g.
frontier workers];
So if at any time in the past if you worked in the UK you will be subject to the laws of the ECJ, and please note that it includes family members with a large loophole which means that you can include unborn children.
(2) The rights of the right holders set out in paragraph 1, and the derived rights of their family members, should be protected for life, provided that conditions of Union law are met [for example, where the right holder dies, in the event of divorce or if the right holder leaves the host State before the divorce, the family member will continue to have derived rights under the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38].
So there we have the EU insisting that the ECJ has primacy for the natural lives which obviously will extend beyond the brexit date.
(1) The Commission should have full powers for the monitoring and the Court of Justice of the European Union should have full jurisdiction corresponding to the duration of the protection of citizen's rights in the Withdrawal agreement.
And here we have the EU stating plainly that they have jurisdiction over the relevant people, extending beyond brexit.
Thank you for the horses mouth, it seems that I did understand it right.
I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!
Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
And here we have the EU stating plainly that they have jurisdiction over the relevant people, extending beyond brexit.
Thank you for the horses mouth, it seems that I did understand it right.
It was me who misread you then
But then again how can you claim that it is not ex post facto. An act of government (Brexit) removes a right (appeal to a higher court) from a group of citizens. Again, it's just a simple grandfathering clause.
As to hate and bile, have a real look through the last 5 or so pages and you'll see that the insults and haranguing have been coming from one direction to the other,
Soo....
steve steveson wrote:Leave campaigners are still screaming "nasty EU!" over anyone who questions them or asks for workable ideas...
wasn't even vaguely insulting at all? And when I attempted to point that out in a somewhat droll nerd-culture related fashion(you know being on a site about toy soldiers and all), your only thoughts were:-
r_squared wrote:But its nice to see the leave side reduced to weak "hivemind/gollum" memes and insults as their arguments, and reality are stripped away.
I mean, come on guv. 'One direction' indeed...
Really? That's "hate and bile"? If thats the case, then I think sensitivity to criticism is really far too high.
However, I share your tired resignation about the partisanship over this subject. It's completely distracting everyone from the horrendous job Davis and the Govt are making of negotiations. I absolutely do not share their belief that this is the best for the country and our trading partners, but if we do have to commit to this bloody stupid idea, then at least start by having a coherent and realistic idea of what we want. Coherent and realistic does not include expecting our opponent to accept a position which is in absolute opposition to the core constructs of their beurocracy.
Unfortunately for the Govt, because one part of the population wants to tear us away from the EU as quickly and completely as possible, and the other half want to salvage as much as possible, and because it may cost them votes, they're in full on pander mode.
If this continues, everyone loses.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
From the Guardian live politics feed, so forgive the fragmented nature.
Iceland would welcome the UK in EFTA, says Icelandic foreign minister:
Efta would benefit from having UK as a member, says Icelandic foreign minister
In the UK one of the many arguments about Brexit is about whether we should seek to remain in the single market after we leave through membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) or the European Free Trade Association (Efta). But what do Efta members think? On the Today programme this morning the Icelandic foreign minister, Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson, said Iceland would like Britain to join. That was because it would give Efta more clout in trade negotiations, he said. He told the programme:
They [the UK] could definitely join Efta, and I think it would strengthen Efta at least to have a cooperation with Britain. It is quite clear that when Britain starts to negotiate their own free trade deal, then everyone wants to make a free trade deal with Britain. You are the fifth largest economy in the world. Everyone wants to sell you goods and services. It’s as simple as that.
"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
That is great, but it would still require us to be in the single market and thus swallow the ECJ's rulings. Plus I read that Norway is reluctant to have us on board due to the possible baggage.
That is great, but it would still require us to be in the single market and thus swallow the ECJ's rulings. Plus I read that Norway is reluctant to have us on board due to the possible baggage.
Yeah, I know what you're saying, but as a possible short term transition solution, it's not bad.
It makes a change to have a foreign politician who doesn't think the 7 plagues of Egypt will hit the UK because of Brexit.
"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
That is great, but it would still require us to be in the single market and thus swallow the ECJ's rulings. Plus I read that Norway is reluctant to have us on board due to the possible baggage.
Yeah, I know what you're saying, but as a possible short term transition solution, it's not bad.
It makes a change to have a foreign politician who doesn't think the 7 plagues of Egypt will hit the UK because of Brexit.
That is true.
As a transitional solution though, it could work for the first few years.
That is great, but it would still require us to be in the single market and thus swallow the ECJ's rulings. Plus I read that Norway is reluctant to have us on board due to the possible baggage.
Not just ECJ. Full freedom of movement and paying into the EU budget too.
Blue skies thinking is not to rubbish something. It's to say it's a very imaginative way forward
ahhh bless.
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,
AndrewC wrote: I get the feeling here Whirlwind that you should be mad at the world governments rather than aiming solely at the UK.
Not really mad, just wry amusement that many people look at events in isolation and not as a wider whole. In the end we as the populace (in the democratic world at least) vote in the parties and to some extent is ours to change (although Governments do try and manipulate circumstances). As I noted before there are many people opposed to 'large scale migration' but also have nationalistic and protectionist ideological thinking. However by having the latter effectively you encourage the former because the latter protects and enriches the existing wealthy countries relative to poorer countries. That therefore generates a greater driver for the poorest to migrate. If you have a less protectionist ideology then the country may be poorer relatively but then the poorest countries are also more wealthy which then discourages migration. if there is one thing nature always works against is a gradient.
I get disillusioned at the amount of spite directed at the UK Govt for failing at this entire process when tbh its a cockup of gigantic proportions orchestrated by both parties.
That's not really the point of the conversation. The EU is 'blamed' for the fishing crisis which implemented quotas based on what scientifically is sustainable. The UK made a choice how to implement these limits. The UK government chose how to implement this (and whether to issue subsidies for example). That it didn't was a UK government choice and by extension what the populace chose in their governments. That in this issue was never the responsibility of the EU, yet there was plenty of 'blame' that is was there fault. If anything it was us as a populace that are at fault for choosing the government that we did. However it is always easier to blame a 'faceless' organisation rather than look inwards and as whether it was our actions. The reality is if you want to blame anyone for the collapse of fishing in the UK you need to blame the electorate as they were the ones that chose the governments that implemented it. I can point to plenty of other examples, even from my own family. Family members hate what is happening to the NHS (noting the Tories are letting another target quietly slip before the winter... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-government-has-quietly-shelved-nhs-18-week-waiting-time-target_uk_59ae82eee4b0dfaafcf2668b?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics, the increased waiting times, undertstaffed over worked nurses etc, yet when you ask how they voted they voted Tory because "it makes us better off". Highlighting this discrepancy in that if we as a populace paid a bit more (especially those on higher incomes) generally gets a grunt and a quick change in conversation as they don't want to look introspectively at the choices they made.
The EU is a monolithic organisation where it often working at cross purpose. Afaicr there has not been a set of audited accounts for the last 15 to 20 years, and asking for an unspecified sum based on cigarette packet calculations was never going to fly.
As for the back of cigarette packet calculations it is amusing that this keeps getting bandied about. The four page document was almost certainly a summary. However to quote D. Davis he is going through the figures "line by line" (his own words). Now either he is very slow at numeracy as most people could look at 4 pages in a few hours or that there is more information but that it is easier to trot out the "4 page garbage" as a political tool (to get lapped up by some in the media).
Globalisation (if that's the word) will never work until such time an external force threatens us all. To much nationalism exists, and you will never get rid of it, so deriding someone for that trait...well you may as well spit in the rain for all the good it will do.
Who's the fool though if the problem is recognised but the person then refuses to challenge it? However I'm also pessimistic about coming together as one species. It will either need some major disaster that forces the few humans left to work together regardless of background (think 2012 despite being a rubbish film) or we will continue down the same line. That means individual countries will horde and stockpile resources as they get rarer and more expensive and as the populace grows. Eventually however nature will even things out, lack of resources either results in plague, famine or fighting (which happens in all animals) that don't know better. That in the end in the inevitable outcome from our current direction whether that be in 10 or 1000 years.
(d) EU27 citizens who work or have worked in the UK at the date of entry into force of the
Withdrawal Agreement, whilst residing in EU 27, and UK nationals who work or have
3
worked in EU27 at that date, whilst residing in the UK or in another EU27 Member State
than that of employment, and their family members regardless of place of residence [e.g.
frontier workers];
So if at any time in the past if you worked in the UK you will be subject to the laws of the ECJ, and please note that it includes family members with a large loophole which means that you can include unborn children.
Not quite the "domino theory" that was being pushed as what would happen.
You are looking at this from the wrong perspective and Brexit is good for the world. It's a positive aspect of Brexit, showing the rest how not to shoot yourself in the foot, hand and head all at the same time...
I think the idea that we should hand wash our clothes was missing from the referendum literature
So the UK post Brexit...
I can see why people are moving out. I'm not sure I want to spend my weekends scrubbing my undies like this though. However I do know some people wanted to return to better times....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/05 19:15:05
"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
My views on Conservative MPs are well known on this forum. They are a bunch of and another for the weekend!
None the less, Rees Mogg is that rare breed - a Conservative MP who is actually a Conservative.
It was pointed out to me the other day, that a hypothetical General election contest between Corbyn and Rees Mogg as Tory leader, would be the first time since 1983 that a Conservative and a Socialist went head to head. i.e the British people would have a genuine choice of ideology to govern them, rather than this middle ground, New Labour bullgak that has infected British politics for the last 20 years.
Like I said earlier, he's a Conservative MP that acts like a Conservative.
I don't agree with most of his politics, but you know where you stand with him. He has convictions, unlike weasels such as Blair, Clegg, Farron, Cameron, May et al.
"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
As for backing a politician, I weigh up their pros and cons like anything else. And if the pros outweigh the cons so be it. Right now, Mogg's cons outweigh his pros. If you bothered to read my post I said I'd like to back Mogg but I can't, because of his opinions and voting records.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/06 14:14:26
As for backing a politician, I weigh up their pros and cons like anything else. And if the pros outweigh the cons so be it. Right now, Mogg's cons outweigh his pros. If you bothered to read my post I said I'd like to back Mogg but I can't, because of his opinions and voting records.
You can like it or lump it as far as I care. Why would you LIKE to back someone whose opinions and voting record you don't agree with? That doesnt make any sense at all.
For me he talks a lot of sense on Brexit, and he actually seems to like this country. That's why I'd like to back him. Then he goes and spoils it all by opposing gay rights and abortion. I can't have that, as I get enough of that gak from the DUP. So I can't back him.
Anyway, onto my ignore list you go.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/06 14:22:42
Downing Street is asking Britain’s biggest companies to give public support to the Government’s approach to its Brexit negotiations, a move which has provoked fury in a string of blue-chip boardrooms.
Sky News has obtained a letter being circulated in FTSE 100 and other company boardrooms which praises ministers' commitment to securing a transition period after the UK leaves the European Union (EU).
It also expresses confidence in the future of "a global Britain" and says that the Government's Repeal Bill will "make Britain ready for life outside the EU".
Executives in sectors including financial services, manufacturing and technology are among those approached about signing the letter, which is expected to be published as early as Thursday
Sources at some of the UK's biggest businesses expressed incredulity at the request from No 10, which comes at a time when Theresa May's relationship with the private sector is already under strain.
That tension was reinforced on Wednesday when leaked details of the Government's future immigration policy proposals were criticised by an array of business groups.
One source who has seen the draft said it was reminiscent of the 'Project Fear' campaign that pro-remain supporters were accused of conducting before the EU referendum.
The identity of the officials responsible for circulating the draft letter was unclear on Wednesday, or whether Mrs May was aware of the plan to release it.
Sources said the approach from officials had been accompanied by a request to sign it before the end of the week.
It is possible that a final version of the letter could differ from the draft seen by Sky News, said one source.
The letter reads: "We write as leaders of some of the UK's most dynamic businesses operating in sectors as diverse as technology, financial services and advanced manufacturing.
"Some of us personally supported the remain or leave campaigns at last year's referendum on EU membership, others did not make their positions public.
"But fifteen months later, we all share an understanding that Brexit is happening, a commitment to ensure that we make a success of the outcome for the whole country, and a confidence that a global Britain has the potential to become one of the most productive economies of the 21st century.
"This month the Government's Repeal Bill will initiate a programme of legislation that will make Britain ready for life outside the EU.
"We believe this is a good time for employers to work with Government and Parliament to make a success of Brexit and secure a bright future for our country.
"We welcome the Government's commitment to negotiating an interim period so that firms can ensure they are ready to adapt to the changing relationships and thrive under the new partnership being created with the EU.
"And as the UK makes progress towards establishing stronger trading links with markets like the US, India, Japan and Mexico, British businesses who know these markets well should stand ready to use their expertise and networks to cement future relationships.
"As business leaders, we have a duty to our shareholders and employees to continue to grow our businesses and ensure that they remain strong.
"As part of this we are also determined to see the UK continue to be a prosperous and united force for good in the world and are ready to play our full part to achieve this as Britain leaves the European Union."
Several FTSE 100 executives expressed incredulity at the approach from Downing Street, with one saying: "There is no way we could sign this given the current state of chaos surrounding the (Brexit) talks."
Contact between ministers and the private sector has been intensified since June's general election, with regular meetings now scheduled between various groups involving Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, and Greg Clark, Business Secretary.
Mrs May has also reintroduced a version of the business advisory group which met frequently under David Cameron.
During Mr Cameron's premiership, letters from company bosses were often used during election and referendum campaigns to back the Conservatives or the Government's position.
However, no such letter appeared from Tory-supporting bosses during this year's general election campaign, reflecting Mrs May's perceived disdain for enlisting the support of company bosses.
None of the companies contacted by Sky News would comment, while a Downing Street spokesman declined to comment.
..uh hmmm ..
do you remember .....
is this the control we're taking back then is it ?
-- sections 4.13-4.18 are especially heart warming/makes you wonder what the feth we're doing, mainly as in a Govt commissioned report on Economic Impact of EU Migration in a report on on reducing migration, it can find nothing negative to say about it.
but then again who hasn't accidentally given an after dinner speech to a bunch of far-right wing white nationalists, despite being warned about them ?
Clearly the sort of top brain you want running the country.
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,
Like I said earlier, he's a Conservative MP that acts like a Conservative.
I don't agree with most of his politics, but you know where you stand with him. He has convictions, unlike weasels such as Blair, Clegg, Farron, Cameron, May et al.
Perhaps a conservative stuck in the 1700s perhaps...still 18 months ago we didn't think Trump had a chance and yet a bigoted, homophobic idiot got voted in. Nothing to say it can't happen here. I'm not sure convictions are very useful if they out of touch with reality and the way the world is.
In other news apparently May has been deliberately suppressing government reports that shows that the immigration has negligible to no impact on peoples wages in the UK, whilst stating the benefits. However she has been deliberately sat on them whilst in the Home Office as it was against her own personal desires to reduce immigration. Always good to the see the PM likes to listen to the scientific evidence if true. It is questionable why Cable sat on this information for so long however as it would have definitely helped in the referendum. I would hypothesise that it might have been deliberately done for political gain unfortunately.
and perhaps most worrying this has been reported coming from Tory MPs
But most wounding of all would be to quote Graham Brady, the chairman of the backbench Tory 1922 Committee, from yesterday’s Daily Politics. Brady effectively put May on probation by saying a PM’s authority is “always subject to the support of colleagues”, adding she had such support “at the moment”. Damian Green told Politico yesterday that May was likely to lead the party into the 2022 election. But asked if he was happy for her to do so, Brady said: “Absolutely - if my colleagues are then I am.” ‘At the moment’, ‘if’, it’s all very conditional, lukewarm, tepid support.
The FT quotes one former cabinet minister: “The Conservative parliamentary party has made two decisions. The first is that we don’t want another election, preferably ever.
Good to see the Tories value and understand what democracy is all about and would prefer a dictatorship where they run everything always...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/06 18:29:01
"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
Future War Cultist wrote: For me he talks a lot of sense on Brexit, and he actually seems to like this country. That's why I'd like to back him. Then he goes and spoils it all by opposing gay rights and abortion. I can't have that, as I get enough of that gak from the DUP. So I can't back him.
Anyway, onto my ignore list you go.
He seems like like this country, in that he makes a huge amount of money out of it. He doesn't seem to like or respect the bulk of the people in it.
He's probably more dangerous that May, in that he's completely honest and consistent about his position.
-- sections 4.13-4.18 are especially heart warming/makes you wonder what the feth we're doing, mainly as in a Govt commissioned report on Economic Impact of EU Migration in a report on on reducing migration, it can find nothing negative to say about it.
and yet here we are .
because we forget that the Tory party are currently led by and pandering to bigots to ensure they keep UKIP supporters on their side whilst hoping that those that believe anything but Tories would be a disaster will keep voting for them (and perhaps the elderly won't eventually pass away).
"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
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Something about Corbyn being stuck in the 70's, Mogg's stuck in the 19th century at the earliest.
This is a response to you and Whirlwind.
For 20 years, we've had this wishy-washy, centre ground, New Labour horsegak, where both parties have morphed into one party, and the so called policy of Blue Blairites and Red Blairites is almost indentical from everything to EU support, to supporting intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.
David Cameron and Tony Blair are almost the same person from a politics viewpoint.
And people are fed up with it - there is no clear water between the parties. As a result, none of the above has been the fastest growing party for 20 years.
This lack of engagement and the creation of the Westminster bubble probably contributed to Brexit.
When I was a lad growing up in the 1980s
I remember 1983 and the ideological battle between Foot and Thatcher. That was the last time we had it.
I don't like Corbyn, and I certainly don't like Mogg, but like I said, if such a contest ever happened, the British public would have a clear ideological choice for the first time in 30 years, instead of this New Labour horsegak, which has poisoned politics in this country.
"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
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Something about Corbyn being stuck in the 70's, Mogg's stuck in the 19th century at the earliest.
This is a response to you and Whirlwind.
For 20 years, we've had this wishy-washy, centre ground, New Labour horsegak, where both parties have morphed into one party, and the so called policy of Blue Blairites and Red Blairites is almost indentical from everything to EU support, to supporting intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.
David Cameron and Tony Blair are almost the same person from a politics viewpoint.
You realise that centre-left and centre-right are just as valid political approaches to world right? Not everything has to be black and white, angels and devils etc etc. The reason you have had a lot of central ground politics is because people wanted a more moderate, reasoned approach to the world. DC started centre right and then moved right. Blair started centre-left and moved right. But that is the choice people made. There were subtleties in the choices though, that people can't or won't see those subtleties doesn't mean there weren't decisions. Hard left means you get a hard socialist agenda (likely at the cost of a viable economy) and the Tories are heading hard right with a protectionist but neo-liberal approach for businesses where we will lose all rights as a populace whilst business is embraced at all costs. Things like the environment however disappear into the background despite being a critical element to our well being. If you want the ultimate difference why don't you just promote a communist vs a fascist and be done with it?
"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
