Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Milo]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I certainly don't see how the convergence criteria are eroding anyone's individual identity

You certainly don't see how applying a central banking system for members might contribute to eroding a country's individual identity? 

 

Really? 

 

 

Alf, I've said all along that there are benefits of being in the EU. But seriously, you don't think it's a fundamentally flawed system?

 

A group of like minded countries that share similar cultural, economic and social values decide to get together, throw some money in a pot and then share resources between them, including the right to work/live in each others country and having a greater trading alliance than they would otherwise have as individual countries. It's a great, progressive model and a really good idea.

 

But we have lurched from that model to a weirdly unbalanced and unfair system that seems to be beyond criticism (Racist/Gammon/Little Englander), that is a million miles from the shared values, mutual benefits and reciprocity of the original ideology.

 

To me, there are massive parallels between the EU and and organisation such as FIFA, which peddles in soundbites about being one harmonious happy family where everyone is equal...when equality can be bought and traded pretty cheaply via backdoor politics.

 

If there was an option to keep the good bits and leave the bad bits, I would have happily voted for it. But there wasn't. Few remainers would be happy with any divorce deal (soft Brexit/Customs Union, etc - "whats the point in leaving"/hard Brexit "You're all mad"). 

 

I don't know why so many UK politicians are so barmy - but we are where we are in a time of surreal flux. 

   

  

 

      

[Buce]

32 minutes ago, bovril said:

I'm impressed that Heathrow has managed to go this long without mentioning Soros. 

 

I reckon he's a runway short of an airport.

[Carl the Llama]

21 minutes ago, Milo said:

You certainly don't see how applying a central banking system for members might contribute to eroding a country's individual identity? 

 

Really? 

It's well documented that the lack of control over monetary policy through the global crash has been a source of great difficulty for Greece, Portugal et al.  How exactly does that argument apply to Brexit though, or the affected nations' cultural identities?

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Milo said:

You certainly don't see how applying a central banking system for members might contribute to eroding a country's individual identity? 

 

Really? 

 

 

Alf, I've said all along that there are benefits of being in the EU. But seriously, you don't think it's a fundamentally flawed system?

 

A group of like minded countries that share similar cultural, economic and social values decide to get together, throw some money in a pot and then share resources between them, including the right to work/live in each others country and having a greater trading alliance than they would otherwise have as individual countries. It's a great, progressive model and a really good idea.

 

But we have lurched from that model to a weirdly unbalanced and unfair system that seems to be beyond criticism (Racist/Gammon/Little Englander), that is a million miles from the shared values, mutual benefits and reciprocity of the original ideology.

 

To me, there are massive parallels between the EU and and organisation such as FIFA, which peddles in soundbites about being one harmonious happy family where everyone is equal...when equality can be bought and traded pretty cheaply via backdoor politics.

 

If there was an option to keep the good bits and leave the bad bits, I would have happily voted for it. But there wasn't. Few remainers would be happy with any divorce deal (soft Brexit/Customs Union, etc - "whats the point in leaving"/hard Brexit "You're all mad"). 

 

I don't know why so many UK politicians are so barmy - but we are where we are in a time of surreal flux. 

   

  

 

      

I think this is a good post. You make some good points. For me the biggest issue at this stage is the complete lack of any sort of plan. I've always been about the economics of it for ordinary people.

 

There are valid arguments about immigration so I don't have a problem with that being a vote winner for leave.

 

Sovereignty loss means nothing and has no discernable negative impact (and several positive impacts where our government has been forced to do things in the people's interest like clean our beaches - and deal with air pollution if we were staying in) on everyday people's lives so I can't take it seriously.

 

Economics though is a big one. Many leavers come from areas that are not exactly hugely affluent to begin with. The expectation is that it is those areas that will fare worst from Brexit. They can't afford to be worse off. But it seems very likely they will be (I'm not buying the project fear argument - it's just words from leave campaigners that didn't have any idea how to put their project into action). 

 

Brexiteers were too paranoid and in too much of a rush. Two huge mistakes have been made which threaten the whole thing:

1- using article 50 BEFORE the government had even decided on a realistic plan of attack (they still haven't really)

2- parliament voting away it's rights to hold the government to account

 

In their rush for the exit they've mistakenly put us in a hugely disadvantageous position of having no realistic plan and running out of time. It might come down to no deal or a bad deal because of this haste. If they'd just been a little less paranoid and been willing for it to be properly planned a 'good' Brexit might have been achievable.

Edited 22 July 2018 by Guest

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, Milo said:

You certainly don't see how applying a central banking system for members might contribute to eroding a country's individual identity? 

 

Really? 

 

 

Alf, I've said all along that there are benefits of being in the EU. But seriously, you don't think it's a fundamentally flawed system?

 

A group of like minded countries that share similar cultural, economic and social values decide to get together, throw some money in a pot and then share resources between them, including the right to work/live in each others country and having a greater trading alliance than they would otherwise have as individual countries. It's a great, progressive model and a really good idea.

 

But we have lurched from that model to a weirdly unbalanced and unfair system that seems to be beyond criticism (Racist/Gammon/Little Englander), that is a million miles from the shared values, mutual benefits and reciprocity of the original ideology.

 

To me, there are massive parallels between the EU and and organisation such as FIFA, which peddles in soundbites about being one harmonious happy family where everyone is equal...when equality can be bought and traded pretty cheaply via backdoor politics.

 

If there was an option to keep the good bits and leave the bad bits, I would have happily voted for it. But there wasn't. Few remainers would be happy with any divorce deal (soft Brexit/Customs Union, etc - "whats the point in leaving"/hard Brexit "You're all mad"). 

 

I don't know why so many UK politicians are so barmy - but we are where we are in a time of surreal flux. 

 

 

I can see how a multinational central banking system would limit a nation's ability to conduct an independent economic policy.

I can see how a flawed system, such as EMU/Eurozone/Growth & Stability Pact, could - and did - do serious economic/social damage to individual nations. That's why I considered voting Leave.

 

I cannot see how a central banking system would erode a nation's individual identity. Identity is based on a shared culture, language, values etc, not a banking system.

London, Cornwall, Leicester, Yorkshire, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland all have the same central banking system (Bank of England). Has that caused them to become homogenized and eroded their individual identity?

 

I agree that EMU is a seriously flawed system, but my hope (and it may prove a vain hope) is that it can be reformed in the future.

Hoping to use the power base of a medium-sized nation to exert influence over the immense power of global capital, global finance and global corporations is a much more flawed strategy.

Hoping to do that under a govt that is happy to shaft its people in order to serve the interests of big global capital seems madness - and hoping that a radical socialist govt can take power in the UK and take on global capital is almost as mad.

 

I don't see the EU as beyond criticism. I've frequently criticised it myself. I just think that, despite its flaws, it is a much better hope in a globalised world than restoring power to the weaker national level - and particularly getting incompetent Tory laissez-faire extremists to set the rules for the new national system. I don't see all Brexiteers as racists, gammons or Little Englanders - some are, but many are not. I don't recall using those terms against anyone with any seriousness. I actually agree with a fair proportion of your analysis - just not the final conclusion. There is too much abuse (though comparatively little on here), but that abuse flies in both directions: e.g. accusations of Remain/Soft Brexit supporters being "Remoaners", "traitors" for wanting parliament to have a say, "opposing the people's will" by arguing for a different form of Brexit etc.

 

I don't think the EU is quite in FIFA's league. There's certainly plenty of cynical realpolitik and bartering and influencing over power, policy and money - but I'd say the same applies to our national govt (and not just under the Tories). As for soundbites, I agree, but that applies to every bloody institution these days - from the EU to the Govt to businesses and political parties. We live in the era of PR bullshit - and, yes, Blair was probably the worst example of it, though we've had plenty of bullshit from Cameron, May and the Brexiteers, too.

 

Ideally, of course I'd like to see a massive shift in public mood that allowed us to remain in the EU in the hope that it will reform itself in future. I see that as the best possible outcome. But I'm not expecting the public mood to shift like that. For that reason and given the alternatives, I WOULD be happy enough with a Soft Brexit deal that included a Customs Union, no hard border in Ireland and a close future relationship on trade, single market, security, health, education/research, citizens' rights and other issues.

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

The EMU is Nazism without the gas chambers.

[bovril]

Just now, Sharpe's Fox said:

The EMU is Nazism without the gas chambers.

?

[Milo]

19 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I cannot see how a central banking system would erode a nation's individual identity. Identity is based on a shared culture, language, values etc, not a banking system.

 

52 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It's well documented that the lack of control over monetary policy through the global crash has been a source of great difficulty for Greece, Portugal et al.  How exactly does that argument apply to Brexit though, or the affected nations' cultural identities?

And if member countries were forced to adopt the Euro as their currency? That in no way erodes the country's identity? 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I agree that EMU is a seriously flawed system, but my hope (and it may prove a vain hope) is that it can be reformed in the future.

Hoping to use the power base of a medium-sized nation to exert influence over the immense power of global capital, global finance and global corporations is a much more flawed strategy.

Hoping to do that under a govt that is happy to shaft its people in order to serve the interests of big global capital seems madness - and hoping that a radical socialist govt can take power in the UK and take on global capital is almost as mad.

 

I don't see the EU as beyond criticism. I've frequently criticised it myself. I just think that, despite its flaws, it is a much better hope in a globalised world than restoring power to the weaker national level - and particularly getting incompetent Tory laissez-faire extremists to set the rules for the new national system. I don't see all Brexiteers as racists, gammons or Little Englanders - some are, but many are not. I don't recall using those terms against anyone with any seriousness. I actually agree with a fair proportion of your analysis - just not the final conclusion. There is too much abuse (though comparatively little on here), but that abuse flies in both directions: e.g. accusations of Remain/Soft Brexit supporters being "Remoaners", "traitors" for wanting parliament to have a say, "opposing the people's will" by arguing for a different form of Brexit etc.

But surely this is what Brexiteers are being accused of now...Hoping that the future will be better.

 

I don't enjoy being called a racist, and anyone who knows me would laugh at that accusation, but FT is the only place that this has been levelled at me.

 

As for the Government of the day...May will be here until 2019, JRM is definitely on some kind of spectrum, BoJo and Gove are spitting image puppets come to life. But the alternative? Could you hand on heart see Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott leading us into a brave new world?  Holy fvck that's scary.

 

Turkey is likely to be the next EU member, imo - then what, Russia? It's a busted flush and just not something I want to be part of.

[Milo]

59 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think this is a good post. You make some good points. For me the biggest issue at this stage is the complete lack of any sort of plan. I've always been about the economics of it for ordinary people.

 

There are valid arguments about immigration so I don't have a problem with that being a vote winner for leave.

 

Sovereignty loss means nothing and has no discernable negative impact (and several positive impacts where our government has been forced to do things in the people's interest like clean our beaches - and deal with air pollution if we were staying in) on everyday people's lives so I can't take it seriously.

 

Economics though is a big one. Many leavers come from areas that are not exactly hugely affluent to begin with. The expectation is that it is those areas that will fare worst from Brexit. They can't afford to be worse off. But it seems very likely they will be (I'm not buying the project fear argument - it's just words from leave campaigners that didn't have any idea how to put their project into action). 

 

Brexiteers were too paranoid and in too much of a rush. Two huge mistakes have been made which threaten the whole thing:

1- using article 50 BEFORE the government had even decided on a realistic plan of attack (they still haven't really)

2- parliament voting away it's rights to hold the government to account

 

In their rush for the exit they've mistakenly put us in a hugely disadvantageous position of having no realistic plan and running out of time. It might come down to no deal or a bad deal because of this haste. If they'd just been a little less paranoid and been willing for it to be properly planned a 'good' Brexit might have been achievable.

 

Don't disagree at all - was way too hasty.

 

I still can't work out whether Tories having a negligible majority at this time is a good or a bad thing. On the plus side, they can't get much done...but the downside is that they can't get much done.

 

Might be some kind of cosmic karma type thing that is meant to bring people together   

[Carl the Llama]

7 minutes ago, Milo said:

 

And if member countries were forced to adopt the Euro as their currency? That in no way erodes the country's identity? 

What does this have to do with Brexit?  I've noticed every time somebody pulls you up on your theories and asks questions you just ignore them and move onto a new subject.  Why should anyone answer your questions if you're going to move the goalposts every time?

 

7 minutes ago, Milo said:

Turkey is likely to be the next EU member, imo - then what, Russia? It's a busted flush and just not something I want to be part of.

 Just   Morocco will be in the EU before Turkey is  

Edited 22 July 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Milo]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

What does this have to do with Brexit?  I've noticed every time somebody pulls you up on your theories and asks questions you just ignore them and move onto a new subject.  Why should anyone answer your questions if you're going to move the goalposts every time?

 

Not aware I ignore anything, bud. I'm happy to chat - what did I miss?

 

My initial comment was about the EU being some kind of United States of Europe  - which by its very nature erodes individual country's identity...the Euro as a requirement of membership is a clear example of this. I didn't mention it in the same breath as Brexit.  

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

The EMU is Nazism without the gas chambers.

Those were a pretty big part of it tbf.

[Milo]

14 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 Just   Morocco will be in the EU before Turkey is  

Fab, either way we'll be on the outside looking in by then 

[bovril]

Just now, Milo said:

 

Not aware I ignore anything, bud. I'm happy to chat - what did I miss?

 

My initial comment was about the EU being some kind of United States of Europe  - which by its very nature erodes individual country's identity...the Euro as a requirement of membership is a clear example of this. I didn't mention it in the same breath as Brexit.  

By its very nature, national identity is different to different people and constantly changes. 

[lifted*fox]

I cant agree that a universal currency has taken away from any European country's identity; well certainly not any of the many I've visited. 

 

The coin and the paper in people's pockets hasn't made any changes to the architecture, tradition, food or scenery that I've ever seen.

 

In fact, it's never even occurred to me to think about the euro as a currency when I've been travelling. I pay with my debit card; I see a price, I pay it.

 

 Every country in Europe I've been to has had it's own clear identity in terms of it's history and it's 'feel'.

 

Am I missing something, are you talking about some sort of invisible financial 'identity'? You must be.

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, Milo said:

 

Not aware I ignore anything, bud. I'm happy to chat - what did I miss?

 

My initial comment was about the EU being some kind of United States of Europe  - which by its very nature erodes individual country's identity...the Euro as a requirement of membership is a clear example of this. I didn't mention it in the same breath as Brexit.  

For one thing you seem to be completely ignoring the points about identity not being the result of a country's fiscal policies or currency.  If that were in any way true the USA would be 50 identical states, but when you look at Texas, Miami, California, Hawaii, Colorado, Alaska, Michigan etc.  When I mention these places do you picture the same people, foods, attitudes?  Of course not, they're all different places with different defining characteristics... And all this despite the fact that unlike in Europe they all speak the same language.

 

Now look at the countries of the EU: England (for now), France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Romania... again all very different places which conjure up very different mental images when you mention them.  If you just look around you it's painfully obvious that arguing how the EU erodes identity is bonkers, I'm sorry, especially if you're using the USA as your case study.

[Buce]

40 minutes ago, Milo said:

 

And if member countries were forced to adopt the Euro as their currency? That in no way erodes the country's identity? 

 

 

But surely this is what Brexiteers are being accused of now...Hoping that the future will be better.

 

I don't enjoy being called a racist, and anyone who knows me would laugh at that accusation, but FT is the only place that this has been levelled at me.

 

As for the Government of the day...May will be here until 2019, JRM is definitely on some kind of spectrum, BoJo and Gove are spitting image puppets come to life. But the alternative? Could you hand on heart see Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott leading us into a brave new world?  Holy fvck that's scary.

 

Turkey is likely to be the next EU member, imo - then what, Russia? It's a busted flush and just not something I want to be part of.

 

Absolutely zero chance of that happening at all, never mind them being the next member. 

[Milo]

23 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

For one thing you seem to be completely ignoring the points about identity not being the result of a country's fiscal policies or currency.  If that were in any way true the USA would be 50 identical states, but when you look at Texas, Miami, California, Hawaii, Colorado, Alaska, Michigan etc.  When I mention these places do you picture the same people, foods, attitudes?  Of course not, they're all different places with different defining characteristics... And all this despite the fact that unlike in Europe they all speak the same language.

 

Now look at the countries of the EU: England (for now), France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Romania... again all very different places which conjure up very different mental images when you mention them.  If you just look around you it's painfully obvious that arguing how the EU erodes identity is bonkers, I'm sorry, especially if you're using the USA as your case study.

Where did I use the USA as a case study?

 

The fiscal element that you have picked up on was in response to @Alf Bentley asking for an example of how the EU homogenises cultures. 

 

I responded that the Euro Convergence Criteria was an example of exactly this. 

 

It wasn’t the main thrust of any debate that was going on, but you seem to think that it was something that was raised and then sidestepped (?).

 

If Scotland, for example, leaves the UK and joins the EU they will very likely have to drop the pound and adopt the Euro...and you don’t think that’s eroding the identity of the country a bit?

 

I’m not entirely sure what you want to achieve by picking up on this point. Happy to discuss it over a beer at the next home match. Good to put names to faces as I think it helps remove some of the nastiness. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

 

And if member countries were forced to adopt the Euro as their currency? That in no way erodes the country's identity? 

 

 

But surely this is what Brexiteers are being accused of now...Hoping that the future will be better.

 

I don't enjoy being called a racist, and anyone who knows me would laugh at that accusation, but FT is the only place that this has been levelled at me.

 

As for the Government of the day...May will be here until 2019, JRM is definitely on some kind of spectrum, BoJo and Gove are spitting image puppets come to life. But the alternative? Could you hand on heart see Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott leading us into a brave new world?  Holy fvck that's scary.

 

Turkey is likely to be the next EU member, imo - then what, Russia? It's a busted flush and just not something I want to be part of.

 

If the UK were forced to adopt the Euro that would be an anti-democratic move that I'd oppose. I'm not aware of any such plan, though - encourage, persuade, maybe, but not force.

It would erode the country's democracy, but not its identity. My identity as a British person is determined by things like humour, tolerance, music, countryside, books, football, beer, food....not coins or banknotes.

I'm of Irish family. The Irish element of my identity is determined by family, music, countryside, a particular use of language, humour, political debate. That identity didn't change when Ireland moved from the Irish pound tied to sterling to the floating punt and then on to the Euro.

 

We all have to hope for future events, as we do not control and cannot predict the future.

There are degrees of probability, though. Hoping that the EU will reform itself is like hoping that LCFC will have a good manager in 5 years time: might prove a vain hope, but you have a reasonable chance of getting lucky.

Hoping that you can be successful by ruining your trade with your main partners, relying on generous treatment from the likes of Trump, the Chinese Communist Party & small/developing nations on the other side of the globe, picking a fight with 27 nations, several of them as big as you, jettisoning all sorts of beneficial joint schemes and embracing isolation in the face of globalised capital and a dangerous foreign policy environment, while putting the scrapping, ranting, navel-gazing Tories in charge of the venture is the equivalent of LCFC sacking its 1st team, playing its youth team, appointing Gazza as manager.....and hoping to be successful. 

 

I don't know why you're telling me that someone called you a racist unless it was me - and I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

 

I don't think Corbyn or Abbott are up to the job, but I could see a govt led by McDonnell, Starmer, Thornberry, Watson & Long-Bailey doing a good (though imperfect) job. I could see Corbyn being a bit of a puppet leader. Hopefully a few of the more flexible "moderates" could also be brought back on board. I'm a lot more scared at what the current Tory Govt will do to the country with fudging, can-kicking Theresa trying to satisfy her rabid, irresponsible, ideology-obsessed Hard Brexit wing and possibly destroying any chance of a decent deal with the EU, leading to a No Deal scenario that could cause utter chaos, major hardship lasting years, social conflict, further decimation of public services, toxic public resentment, the rise of the Far Right etc.

Maybe it won't be as bad as I expect, and maybe this "Global Britain" experiment will be a great success in 20 years time....but in 20 years time I'll be in my 70s if still alive, my 14-year-old daughter will be 34 and my country might be a hellhole.

 

Carl and Buce have already spoken for me re. your claim about Turkey.

 

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

For one thing you seem to be completely ignoring the points about identity not being the result of a country's fiscal policies or currency.  If that were in any way true the USA would be 50 identical states, but when you look at Texas, Miami, California, Hawaii, Colorado, Alaska, Michigan etc.  When I mention these places do you picture the same people, foods, attitudes?  Of course not, they're all different places with different defining characteristics... And all this despite the fact that unlike in Europe they all speak the same language.

 

Now look at the countries of the EU: England (for now), France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Romania... again all very different places which conjure up very different mental images when you mention them.  If you just look around you it's painfully obvious that arguing how the EU erodes identity is bonkers, I'm sorry, especially if you're using the USA as your case study.

 

Wait a minute. how has him saying the convergence criteria is an erosion of national identity anywhere close to the USA would have 50 identical states if currency was identity? That is one heck of leap. I don't wish to speak for anyone but I don't think he ever meant the Euro has forced every country to have the exact same identity. 

 

And I think for some people, currency can easily be a small part of their national identity. And I can't see how it's necessarily wrong for someone to feel the EU can erode national identity. Erode not being completely take over.

[Carl the Llama]

59 minutes ago, Milo said:

Where did I use the USA as a case study?

Referring to the EU as a United States of Europe in defence of your claim about eroding national identity wasn't meant to be using the USA as an example of federal governments eroding national identity?    Give it up you're just arguing on instinct now. 

 

29 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Wait a minute. how has him saying the convergence criteria is an erosion of national identity anywhere close to the USA would have 50 identical states if currency was identity? That is one heck of leap. I don't wish to speak for anyone but I don't think he ever meant the Euro has forced every country to have the exact same identity. 

 

And I think for some people, currency can easily be a small part of their national identity. And I can't see how it's necessarily wrong for someone to feel the EU can erode national identity. Erode not being completely take over.

He's saying the EU is like having a US of E and therefore it's eroding national identity.  I'm pointing out that those fears don't appear to have been realised in the place he's using as an example.  Not a big leap at all there, just applying his analogy to the real world.  If monetary union is the only example he can come up with concerning this then he has a very weak argument.   As a further counterargument, being someone who lived for a long time in the heart of the EU, it always felt the opposite to what he seems afeared of: Sure there's always the push for collective standards and legal practices but when it comes to culture and identity the EU's always been big on celebrating individual nations, be it regional protections for product names, yearly festivals showcasing each member state, the European city of culture initiative, the rotation of Parliamentary presidency which the presiding state always uses to showcase unique aspects of their nation.  In short I find it hard to take this identity erosion argument seriously as someone who's lived at the centre of it all and witnessed the celebration of identities.  There's a reason this argument isn't being made by people who actually have a clue about how the EU actually works.

Edited 22 July 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Milo]

5 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Referring to the EU as a United States of Europe in defence of your claim about eroding national identity wasn't meant to be using the USA as an example of federal governments eroding national identity?

Nope

 

5 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Give it up you're just arguing on instinct now. 

 

Huh? 

 

Suggest you read back the posts - I'll use simpler language in future if it helps

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

Nope

 

Huh? 

 

Suggest you read back the posts - I'll use simpler language in future if it helps

 

I think what might help is giving some other examples of why you think being in the EU erodes cultural identity because monetary union seems to be your only argument in support of that assertion.

[Voll Blau]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/22/jacob-rees-mogg-second-irish-fund-scm

 

Arf.

[leicsmac]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/22/uk-drops-death-penalty-guantanamo-opposition-opens-door-execution/

 

Apparently the UK is now ok with the extradition of UK nationals to (probable) death in very certain circumstances, then.