Forum menu
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
Odds of 2nd ref about 8/5 according to the internet.
Is reading stuff on the internet how we got here?
Probably listening to the BBC was just as bad...
Is reading stuff on the internet how we got here?
No problem reading stuff if you can determine if it's a good source or not, in fact how we got here was down to a lot of carefully calculated tricks and interference but people don't like to hear about that too much....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46419790
And some battle lines being drawn here, publish the legal advice or else.
Something tells me I can see this whole mess ending up in court. Irony will be if it's the next leader of the tories appealing to the European Courts to let brexit happen
Javid has just said that rumours of the vote on May's deal being postponed are untrue......
So looks like it will be then squeezed in just b4 Xmas then , with threat of no holidays for MPs until it's agreed ?
with threat of no holidays for MPs until it’s agreed ?
or the threat of no Christmas pudding?
Will the government last long enough for the brexit vote ?
<div class="bbp-reply-author">rone
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
But they’re advocating state ownership.
We already have state ownership. They're jut suggesting it should be this state. It's weird how having your railways owned by the french, dutch and germans is capitalist but having them owned by the british government is Hard Left Madness.
</div>
The rail infrastructure is uk state owned, its the train companies that own the trains that are put out to tender to put trains on the tracks, arriva, virgin (was) etc.
I think that's maybe the problem, there's no overall oversight..
I think that’s maybe the problem, there’s no overall oversight..
British rail was not a bastion of reliability and wonder.... I do not remember them any more fondly than the current operators
It’s weird how having your railways owned by the french, dutch and germans is capitalist but having them owned by the british government is Hard Left Madness.
Not really - presumably the foreign governments are treated like private paying investors, and have paid money for their share just like anyone else.
the argument can be made however that we can use the 'best practices*' of modern day network operations - we don't have to go back to the BR ways. Just have the profitability benefiting the country, not shareholders.
* yeah, I know......
Is there the smell of a GE being called in the next week?
I've been half expecting the govt to duck out of the vote in some way, but it seems pretty difficult now they've actually starting debating it...
molgrips, not sure you understand this share ownership thing....the people who own the shares actually own the company, that's what the shares are.
Is there the smell of a GE being called in the next week?
Well, May must have done that weak This Morning appearance for some reason… she may well be testing the waters for, and getting a head start in, a General Election campaign. If she does call the firing pistol… she is very likely the find her Party wanting her out of the way… fast. No time for a full leadership election, but they could for a coronation by MPs (which is how she got the job), but that would require someone the MPs can get behind…
Anyway, the legal advice "summary" is out… on Leaving the EU, which as a member state we have the unilateral right to do, we are looking to lock ourselves into a new arrangement with the EU that we can not leave unilaterally, and in which the EU has complete control over our trade policy for the whole of the UK, and all Single Market regulations for NI.
TAKE BACK CONTROL
Who does May think will back this?
Don't forget 40% of the population voted for this shower last time round...
Is there the smell of a GE being called in the next week?
Would that not be a betrayal of democracy? We only voted last year.
I expect that the next 5 days grandstanding - please let’s not demean ourselves by calling it a debate - will plumb new depths of petty, jingoistic nationalism, toxic xenophobia and truly staggering levels of ignorance, disinformation and lies
It would be confusing, I'm sure back in '97 we had an election, was that not the will of the people
the argument can be made however that we can use the ‘best practices*’ of modern day network operations
Indeed... I assume all government waste has already been eliminated and we are demonstrating this in Whitehall and in all council offices around the country. This is why our waste management and roads are the envy to the western world
What binners said. The 'debate' will be meaningless.
Also a GE isn't a betrayal of democracy, its a sign of a government that's no longer functional (in this context). It's a stalemate, a bit like the referendum..
The county needs a functional government and the current government is paralysed by the political situation.
Labour would be paralysed too if they get in, so it will be interesting to see what they do as they seem keen to get in but not so keen in being transparent.
That said we are in uncharted waters, hopefully May's deal won't make it through the commons and whoever comes in next will have to be a bit more realistic..
Indeed… I assume all business waste has already been eliminated and we are demonstrating this in
I see plenty of waste in any big organisation, one today had a poster in the lift persuading staff to avoid unnecessary travel and wasting cash on that sort of stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42666275
Another fine example from Carillion as to how private business is infallible....
It's a complete BS position to demand perfection from one side while ignoring incompetence on the other
It’s a complete BS position to demand perfection from one side while ignoring incompetence on the other
Both Labour and Conservative only seem to be offering incompetence though.
If Labour get in they will face exactly the same stalemate in parliament and in public, neither seem to be capable of presenting a real alternative.
At least not one they are being open and honest about!
I have to say context is key there isn't it, you picked a statement I posted talking about something very different and claimed it was addressing something else... Well done have a gold star
, which is important as it creates an incentive for both parties to come to an agreement, which has been lacking under the Article 50.
The EU have made their offer, the UK needs to work that out and accept the shit position or let the government implode. What we have here is a brexit that is unpalatable to the brexiters!! Oh the ****ing irony
But the UK would not have to contribute to the budget
No need. The EU can sell access to the UK market to third countries in future, or revised, trade agreements, without having to insist on the UK getting reciprocal access to the third countries' markets. Plenty of opportunities for the EU to take advantage. We have no say in future trade deals as regards the whole of the UK, or Single Market rules as regards NI. We are giving them control.
I have to say context is key there isn’t it, you picked a statement I posted talking about something very different and claimed it was addressing something else… Well done have a gold star
I wasn't targeting anyone with my post, it was just a handy example.
I'm completely in awe of how messed up things have become, and I don't doubt you are too. No offence indended.
I think the point I was badly making is we have a choice between..
A) Economic and social suicide
B) remain as we are
C) unobtainuim
Every one seems to think C) is an option even though it doesn't exist.
The EU can sell access to the UK market to third countries in future, or revised, trade agreements, without having to insisting on the UK getting reciprocal access to the third countries’ markets.
I don't think that is correct, see para 49 of the Attorney General's document published today.
Contempt of Parliament proceeding will be first item of business tomorrow morning.
This is getting interesting.
It also looks like the Article 50 case in the European courts will be announced tomorrow.
I don’t think that is correct, see para 49 of the Attorney General’s document published today.
Para 49 is irrelevant to my point. That is about EU member status obligations expiring after we leave transition… not about our NEW obligations to follow external tariff and trade rules set by the EU on our behalf for the shared customs area that they will control, but we will be in, as part of the backstop, after transition has ended.
<p>The rail infrastructure is uk state owned, its the train companies that own the trains that are put out to tender to put trains on the tracks, arriva, virgin (was) etc.</p>
<p><p>Nope, they don't own the trains either, someone else owns the rolling stock and it is leased. The companies whose names you see (Albellio, Arriva etc.) provide back of house support and the finance for the actual companies (Scotrail, Greater Anglia, Great Western etc) to operate and hope to make money back in a share of the profits. They also get the lucky job of taking the flak for everything despite the fact that whilst the financiers change the people running things the public see don't. That's why some compaines just never get better despite franchises changing hands multiple times.</p></p><p></p><p>Then theres the other layer that sets the timetabling at a national level (up here that's Transport Scotland) and has their own things they want done. </p><p></p><p>If it looks like a sorry mess at this stage then you have no idea how much more complicated it is.</p>
Indeed… I assume all government waste has already been eliminated and we are demonstrating this in Whitehall and in all council offices around the country. This is why our waste management and roads are the envy to the western world
Ah, but we never privatised them to allow them to learn from the private sector and develop the best practices... they're still running as if it was still BR days.
(So the theory goes, at least. I'm not sure I believe it either. Just presenting an alternate case, not necessarily my case)
The rail networks were more "privatised" than they currently are, but due to a catastrophic failure of the privatised rail the government had to bring back increased state ownership/intervention. But of course they didn't want to totally reject the policy of state subsidised private profit, so we now have a total hodge podge.
And it should be noted that a rail network that has failed and does fail to provide the required level of service we have in the UK could be privatised within EU rules.
Meanwhile...
Just read this about the Parliament vote on The Maybots’ deal...
“But I'm told, if the vote is lost by less than 50, there have been informal discussions about seeking some kind of additional clarifications from the EU then holding another vote relatively soon.”
The sauce that’s good for the goose, it seems, is now completely inappropriate for the gander.
Fortunately, talk of a 50 vote loss is complete fantasy.
Are all these legal wranglings the ones that the Zombie Maygot didn’t want parliament to have?
Shame, cos we could have really cracked on with this splendid deal that the whole country is behind.
I think the point I was badly making is we have a choice between..
A) Economic and social suicide
B) remain as we are
C) unobtainuim
That is exactly how it has been since before the referendum even took place. Remain as we are was always going to be the best option. It is just becoming more obvious now to those that couldn't work it out beforehand. If it wasn't for politics, loss of face, ulterior motives we would scrap the whole thing at this point.
ECJ judgement in: we can cancel A50