Australia. , Canada , New Zealand.and to a certain extent the U.S.
All successful countries and all examples of what Europeans can achive if we stop ****ing around having wars and instead work together.
correct I am an internationalist. The EU for me, as I have already posited, is not a benevolent exponent of open borders for the sake of all, it’s limited in it’s benevolence to those that can bring something to it’s raison d’etre, the advancement of globalisation and neoliberalism.
Globalisation and neoliberalism were around before the EU, What the EU are doing in the face of it is setting its own rules, rules in which we once had a say in.
If you are not careful you fall into the internationalism that the likes of free market capitalists want, no trade barriers, no rules, no tariffs.
Unfortunately, those from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and sub Saharan Africa can’t, which is why they’re dying by their thousands in the Mediterranean.
If you let what is perceived to be too many foreigners in, then populists make capital of it, Hungary, Italy, Poland, certain some parts of Germany, Czech republic etc, and then you start to lose everything, and the lesson of the times here is the UK and how Brexit was achieved. My only reservation of the EU is if the populists gain control of it then the chants of "Europeans only" starts.
A small footnote is the countries above that I have mentioned, apart from the UK, all have something in common, in the recent past they have either been under the control of fascism, communism or both. Perhaps they need to be swept out a little like West Germany was after WW2.
Look, I’ve raised a point about an EU policy that is very obviously indefensible
The EU is a group of countries. While the governments of those countries are either running scared of, or actively supported by, anti-immigrant populations, then the EU isn't going to be able to force them to open their borders to non-EU migration… thinking that it can do this is to have bought into the idea that the EU is some how a top down system, rather than a rule based system where the member countries agree and set the rules.
Any EU country can choose to do more, for more, refugees. Just like any non-EU country can.
There are attempts by some EU countries to get agreement between all the EU countries to "spread the load", and that isn't going well… but, once again, the resistance to that is at the national level.
To pick up on the idea that more local decision making ends up with less government take a look at the US or Australia where lots of stuff is done at the state level, it's a mess, whats that the rules for car testing is different across the border, the tax rates in the US!! http://www.salestaxstates.com/
The migrant crisis of the was a massive challenge for the entire EU, now we won't have any say in making that better.
As for the idea that all leave voters are immigrant hating bigots we did deal with that a while back a lot, but we did establish that nearly all the immigrant hating bigots did vote leave.
Globalisation and neoliberalism were around before the EU, What the EU are doing in the face of it is setting its own rules, rules in which we once had a say in.
Not only that, the EU has played a large part in promoting and improving employment rights for the workforce, preventing a race to the bottom in exploitation. Of course its an ongoing struggle vs zero-hours contracts etc. but the idea that it's some neoliberal conspiracy is laughable.
nearly all the immigrant hating bigots did vote leave
And indeed the mainstay of May's red lines is that we have to keep out the immigrants. That's just about the only thing she seems to believe in, the rest of the agreement is just the logical consequences.
Labour MP in actually doing something useful over Brexit shocka!
None of the utterly useless lot that are apparently the shadow cabinet, obviously, but it’s a start
The French would be showing the government what to do I mean it's only a wee petrol problem and they're ****ing shit up and it's relatively pimple on my arse important in comparison.....Viva le I'm alright mate **** you!!!!
In fact **** it it's Saturday night
Id stage some civil unrest but with police cuts in our village it would take an hour and a half for a community support officer to show up
Australia. , Canada , New <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">Zealand.and</span> to a certain extent the U.S.
Is this remark pro leave or remain?
Apart from their geography (or geology), what is there to aspire to socially, politically or economically about these nations?
Australia. , Canada , New <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">Zealand.and</span> to a certain extent the U.S.
All successful countries and all examples of what Europeans can achive if we stop **** around having wars and instead work together
Those countries are so fundamentally different to Europe it's not even worth comparing.
As for complaining that the EU promotes capitalism - it does, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Capitalism is simply basing your society on money, it is entirely neutral as a concept. You can have good capitalism which creates money and distributes it amongst the people, or you can have laissez-faire capitalism which allows some people to hoard all the money and shut the rest of us out.
You can have good capitalism
That is like you can have good socialism, until some greedy people who want more than everyone else come along and ruin it. If the world was full of decent people who didn't want more than others (at any cost) any model would pretty much work.
So you're a communist then kerley?
Capitalism gives people an incentive to create new things and to work hard. So you need elements of socialism and capitalism, which is why that's the approach most countriee take. The question is how much of each.
It's about balance. Society needs elements of socialism and capitalism.
May has vowed to stay on after brexit......
Capitalism gives people an incentive to create new things and to work hard
No it doesn't , it concentrates wealth and doesn't necessarily reward those who work hard at all. Capitalism's aim is to produce profit for the owners.
Unless you're the owner of the business you're unlikely to share in the profits.
We have state sponsored Neo-libralism. That is, only free markets some of the time. When it suits.
When it fails the state picks up the bill.
No it doesn’t , it concentrates wealth and doesn’t necessarily reward those who work hard at all.
Some capitalist systems do, like our current one. But it doesn't have to be this way.
May has vowed to stay on after brexit……
When's she's done delivering it all - she will be ousted.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-promises-reality_uk_5bffb586e4b0864f4f6a511a
They didn't lie.....
Some capitalist systems do, like our current one. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Quite. The neo-liberal acolytes would have us believe it has always been this way and that any state intervention is socialist. They forget recent history where it didn't work this way yet was still a capitalist financial system. Even the labour party are a capitalist party. Yes, even under Corbyn.
capitalism is always a tricky one to square away if you have socialist views i run s business that pays well and has a profit share that is equally divided, even the folks on lower salaries in the business get the same amount of bonus thus boosting their income.
However 15 years ago i invested my money to start this business and had some very rough years making it work, the fact is i took a big personal risk that no one else in the business did. So should i be rewarded more than the others? I also recognise that the sucess is due to the team and not just me.
As i said its tricky.
Capitalism is not the problem, it’s those who abuse it. And you’ll get those whatever economic system you use.
You can hoard wealth and power in more forms that money.
Capitalism is not the problem, it’s those who abuse it. And you’ll get those whatever economic system you use.
Which is exactly what I said, but apparently I am a communist for wanting a world where people are decent and looked after each other as well as themselves.
If all the companies in a capitalist society cared about the society they would share their profits, have much more equal pay, wouldn't need or allow the CEO to earn 20 million a year etc, etc, But that would be socialist people and methods working in a capitalist state so again doesn't really matter what system they are in.
The problem is the free market capitalist model promotes greed and inequality so any socialists living within it are going to have a very hard time bringing about what they feel is right and fair.
However 15 years ago i invested my money to start this business and had some very rough years making it work, the fact is i took a big personal risk that no one else in the business did. So should i be rewarded more than the others? I also recognise that the sucess is due to the team and not just me.
I would say yes you should be rewarded but your approach and attitude is in the minority and I have to say you sound like you have done it right. For every one of you they are 100's who would pay less than minimum wage if they could as long as it meant getting more money for themselves.
Even the labour party are a capitalist parpa. Yes, even under Corbyn.
But they're advocating state ownership.
I am a communist for wanting a world where people are decent and looked after each other as well as themselves.
Good luck with that.
Succesive governments have done nothing to promote responsible capatilism and the Labour idea of shares etc is not very practical.
The only way to motivate business is to provide tax benefits in some shape or form that benefit both business and employee. Perhaps a flat rate profit share like the one we run so lower paid folks benefit "more" that has a 10% flat rate of tax at all levels or like dividends a tax free element.
But they’re advocating state ownership.
Of healthcare and education?
Which is exactly what I said, but apparently I am a communist
I didn't call you a communist, I asked the question as a follow on from your post because if all capitalism is bad, as your post seems to suggest, then communism is the only alternative.
The problem is the free market capitalist model promotes greed and inequality
They do yes. But there are alternatives. There are countries that are capitalist but promote wealth sharing and equality, and they do this because that's what the citizens want. It's social attitudes that are different, and that creates the government that supports it.
Just saw Brandon Lewis on Sky say that No Brexit means “chaos”.
Odd chap.
I didn’t call you a communist, I asked the question as a follow on from your post because if all capitalism is bad, as your post seems to suggest, then communism is the only alternative.
I am a socialist. I don't see the need for capitalism and don't think it steers a society towards a good fair and equal one.
Just saw Brandon Lewis on Sky say that No Brexit means “chaos”.
Odd chap.
Remaoner elitist
There’s a lot to be said for elites. And Capitalism.
Direction by intelligent people operating on a basis of enlightened self-interest that recognises the need for protected environments, is a far better proposition than rule by a club of selfish manipulators voted for by the mostly only periodically interested and usually idiotic short-attention-spanned general populace.
It hasn’t been the various attempts at Socialism that have generated wealth and provision for us, mostly planet-wide. A Capitalist system just needs being kept within reasonable constraints.
Probably by the afformentioned morally-guided elites, I would imagine...
I am a socialist. I don’t see the need for capitalism
A society with no element of capitalism can only be communist.
In your ideal society would you allow people to accumulate any private wealth? Would you allow people to say, start a business and have it prosper?
I consider the famous Quaker industrialists to be something to which we could aspire, and yet they were all capitalists. The money they shared amongst their employees they had to make int he first place.
A society with no element of capitalism can only be communist.
Erm, "socialist" surely? Communism is a subset of socialism. This seems to be a common misunderstanding especially in America post Mccarthy. If you're not right wing you're a Commie. Even liberalism seems considered far left. Anyway since nothing is ever black or white (not even white) then there is no need for a society or economy to be purely capitalist or socialist. Mixed economies are the norm through the world. It's the balance that makes the difference.
In your ideal society would you allow people to accumulate any private wealth? Would you allow people to say, start a business and have it prosper?
In my ideal society the people who have the ability to start a business and have it proper would be doing it for the good of the society they live in. It is difficult to comprehend in a world of selfish greed but you are asking me about an ideal society. IN an ideal society people would have a completely different outlook which only comes from living in that ideal society where worth is not the size of your house or car.
is a far better proposition than rule by a club of selfish manipulators voted for by the mostly only periodically interested and usually idiotic short-attention-spanned general populace.
The variant of capitalism most prominent in the UK and USA still makes this look an enlightened approach. Extremely short term goals with an artifical bias towards short term profit against long term sustainability and growth.
It hasn’t been the various attempts at Socialism that have generated wealth and provision for us, mostly planet-wide
It hasnt been capitalism either. Its been mixed economies. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to rebrand it as capitalist. Normally followed by an attempt to sell everything off.
But they’re advocating state ownership.
And? They're advocating state ownership of some strategic industries, not the entire economy. I hardly think nationalising the railways counts as destroying capitalism.
Gove raising the spectre of a second referendum to scare his minions into line 🙂
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46416591
While most of the minions are thinking "hell yeah I'll have some of that"!
So he can betray them later on
Odds of 2nd ref about 8/5 according to the internet.
Its one of the few options that could command a majority in the house of commons. It also likely gets us out of this mess
I hardly think nationalising the railways counts as destroying capitalism
Nationalisation of Energy, water and transportation while subsidies going to food production and manufacturing may not improve our efficiency or decrease overall public expenditure.
i wouldn’t get concerned as if we do our half remain or crash out no deal neither will happen