Politics, politics, politics

[Gutter Boy]

Now I'm bored. You can do better than that!

I'd happily have the EU look after dull bureaucratic trade laws and save the UK having a massive Customs Department, yes. The EU has had a positive effect on my life. The UK prospered within it. As for your other point, how much tax revenue do we generate from the city of London? What will be cut first, schools or hospitals, if we lose x million or billion from the exchequer?

Democracy is precious. Be very wary about bargaining it away for perceived convenience.

Financial services are 9% of the UK economy, but they works in direct opposition to an industrial strategy. Financial services profit from uncertainty, disruption and speculation. Society benefits from a planned stable economy that makes useful things well.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I studied in Communist Cuba. It is a truly amazing country, partly because of its alternative economy. But there was lots of frustration as well. What you're suggesting is not a million miles away from the communist ideal. I just don't think it could be imposed onto our society. That said, Marx believed communism would evolve out of advanced capitalism, so maybe humanity can evolve capitalism into something more collective.

Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

I'm not really into socialism or communism because I believe in social liberalism, whereas the left always wants to be socially interventionist.

Degrowth is my particular bag, for the sake of society and the planet, and caplitalism is finished now that automatisation makes it possible for a post-work and post-consumerist world to exist.

You also don't need to impose degrowth - you just give people money for not having to go to work and doing the social things that they are passionate about instead. It's not a hard sell once people grasp the concept.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'm not really into socialism or communism because I believe in social liberalism, whereas the left always wants to be socially interventionist.

Degrowth is my particular bag, for the sake of society and the planet, and caplitalism is finished now that automatisation makes it possible for a post-work and post-consumerist world to exist.

You also don't need to impose degrowth - you just give people money for not having to go to work and doing the social things that they are passionate about instead. It's not a hard sell once people grasp the concept.

It sounds awfully like communism to me. Marx's vision was for workers to have shared ownership of factories etc. so they could work part time and go fishing [emoji476] !

It would be interesting to see what communism would have been like if it integrated a free market economy rather than the state running the economy - the greatest failing of communism.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[DTA]

There's definitely a third way

A socially liberal but economically managed economy. A post-neo-liberal/neo-Keynesian approach that renationalises energy and transport, tells damaging the financial services sector to jog on, and structurally rebalances its economy so it an compete in the world because it does useful things well. An economy that serves its society, rather than a society that serves its economy.

Sounds great, where has that worked then?

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

In that case, I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. To have been 'mis-sold' something implies that you 'bought' it in the first place. Therefore, a Leave voter who has since changed their position could properly make your argument. You on the other hand weren't mis-sold anything. You were simply out-voted.

I was perhaps using the royal 'we' rather than going for an us vs them positioning. Trying to look at it from the other side maybe.

Perhaps a better analogy would have been to talk about diesel car emissions: being told one thing when another was happening and all that.

 

[DTA]

That's exactly the type of concern I would have - it buys them time to carry on trying everything to overturn the referendum result.

In my opinion, one of the effects of this threat is to push more moderate Leave supporters toward a 'hard' brexit, and away from the more reasonable approach that you and I agree on...

If the country had now changed their mind and 60% wanted to remain. Would you deny them that right?

This is what I don't get about leavers, its a huge, huge decision that will have an impact on this country for literally generations. It's actually more important than any general election in history.... and by far.

So considering this and the fact that at the end of negotiations we will be more enlightened as to what we will really be getting... why not have a referendum where we can vote on with a clearer vision of what we are actually voting for, rather than the ludicrous promises of either side. Surely a decision of this magnitude deserves that process?

 

[DeleHarry]

If the country had now changed their mind and 60% wanted to remain. Would you deny them that right?

This is what I don't get about leavers, its a huge, huge decision that will have an impact on this country for literally generations. It's actually more important than any general election in history.... and by far.

So considering this and the fact that at the end of negotiations we will be more enlightened as to what we will really be getting... why not have a referendum where we can vote on with a clearer vision of what we are actually voting for, rather than the ludicrous promises of either side. Surely a decision of this magnitude deserves that process?

I think we all have to accept that we are leaving the EU and just get on with whatever the final deal is. No need for any more referendums. We simply have be positive and make the best of it.

 

[Parklaner81]

If the country had now changed their mind and 60% wanted to remain. Would you deny them that right?

This is what I don't get about leavers, its a huge, huge decision that will have an impact on this country for literally generations. It's actually more important than any general election in history.... and by far.

So considering this and the fact that at the end of negotiations we will be more enlightened as to what we will really be getting... why not have a referendum where we can vote on with a clearer vision of what we are actually voting for, rather than the ludicrous promises of either side. Surely a decision of this magnitude deserves that process?

And what if everything proceeds as you suggest and then, two years later, there's another financial crisis, another migrant crisis, a military skirmish of some sort, and suddenly polls are showing that 60% of the country want to leave again?

There has to come a point where it's settled. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems from your post that you think that point arrives as soon as the country agrees on your viewpoint. That's when we put it to bed.

 

[glorygloryeze]

No you don't.
You get to vote for a local representative to act and vote on your behalf in Parliament.
In a similar, albeit not identical, way you get (got) to vote for a MEP to represent you in the EU political system.

Haha; nice try.
If i don't like Theresa May or her Tory party i get to vote against her representative in my local constituency.
If i don't like Juncker and i (somehow) prefer another European Commission presidential candidate, how do i (attempt) to vote him out and vote the other candidate in?
In fact, can you tell me when it was that Juncker got voted into his role in the first place (whether by me, my MEP or other voters in mine or other UK constituencies)?

 

[glorygloryeze]

You know what he means.
You get to vote against a conservative MP, who is led by a conservative leader, who is there to represent, as leader, the conservative party who all (in the main) sign up to the manifesto of that party.

Thank you

 

[Parklaner81]

I was perhaps using the royal 'we' rather than going for an us vs them positioning. Trying to look at it from the other side maybe.

Perhaps a better analogy would have been to talk about diesel car emissions: being told one thing when another was happening and all that.

I understand what you're saying, but in order to be valid your point would still require a significant number of Leave voters, net, to have changed their opinion.

I honestly believe that certain hardcore remain voters are making the same mistake that some Labour supporters are making since the general election - working under the assumption that the number they achieved last time was an absolute floor, that can only go up...

 

[SpurMeUp]

And what if everything proceeds as you suggest and then, two years later, there's another financial crisis, another migrant crisis, a military skirmish of some point, and suddenly polls are showing that 60% of the country want to leave again?

There has to come a point where it's settled. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems from your post that you think that point arrives as soon as the country agrees on your viewpoint. That's when we put it to bed.

I think the original point is fair, because Brexit is still to be defined. How can you have a fair informed vote when you don't know what you are voting for? We would not be re-running the same poll.

 

[glorygloryeze]

I think the original point is fair, because Brexit is still to be defined. How can you have a fair informed vote when you don't know what you are voting for? We would not be re-running the same poll.

Couldn't that be said for just about EVERY general election? I mean, do we know what we voted for in this year's general election? What about in 2015? Is any election ever 'defined'?

Be honest, if the EU vote had come down on the Remain side, would YOU be saying we should re-do the vote because staying in 'was still to be defined' given the comments since the vote by the likes of Juncker (ever closer Union etc)?

 

[SpurMeUp]

Couldn't that be said for just about EVERY general election? I mean, do we know what we voted for in this year's general election? What about in 2015? Is any election ever 'defined'?

Be honest, if the EU vote had come down on the Remain side, would YOU be saying we should re-do the vote because staying in 'was still to be defined' given the comments since the vote by the likes of Juncker (ever closer Union etc)?

The difference is with general elections you do get another vote always. 5 years later you can vote again. Its completely accountable. If the vote had come down on the remain side, there would be nothing to vote on as there would be no change.


But as an example, I voted to Leave, i wanted free movement stopped because my job working in a car factory is being undercut by Polish immigrants. My wages haven't gone up for 5 years and I face competition from them. A fair position, and totally makes sense to vote Leave if you were promised an end to EU free movement. But if the government announces a Brexit where we are like Norway - in the single market with free movement - then will I have been represented? Alternatively I may have voted Remain because I was worried the car manufacturer would have to move into the EU and I would lose my job. But the government announce that Brexit will result in us having a trade agreement for car manufacturing to continue with no tarrifs on exports into the EU. My concerns would be soothed, and I might change my vote to Leave.

 

[glorygloryeze]

The difference is with general elections you do get another vote always. 5 years later you can vote again. Its completely accountable. If the vote had come down on the remain side, there would be nothing to vote on as there would be no change.

Well this EU was the first in 40 years. It was a once in a lifetime vote that had bigger turnout than most if not all general elections. one could say the fact that it was known to not be a vote "you can change again after a few years" that whatever the vote was has even more validity to stand given the larger than usual turnout: it was known that it was a once-in-a-lifetime vote.
And btw, the documents and quotes coming out of the EU since the vote shows that a vote to remain was not in itself a vote to 'keep things as they are', e.g. Juncker and co have talked about 'ever closer union' plans ever since.

But as an example, I voted to Leave, i wanted free movement stopped because my job working in a car factory is being undercut by Polish immigrants. My wages haven't gone up for 5 years and I face competition from them. A fair position, and totally makes sense to vote Leave if you were promised an end to EU free movement. But if the government announces a Brexit where we are like Norway - in the single market with free movement - then will I have been represented? Alternatively I may have voted Remain because I was worried the car manufacturer would have to move into the EU and I would lose my job. But the government announce that Brexit will result in us having a trade agreement for car manufacturing. My concerns would be soothed, and I might change to Leave.

The vote to leave was known to be one that wouldn't be implemented overnight but would in the long-term lead to some big fundamental changes. I think any leave voter knew this. The scenario you are painting is applicable in a general election whether you get to reverse your view every few years; it is not so much in terms of the referendum: as i say it was known that it was a one-in-a-lifetime vote. I suspect if it was a vote to remain, you would be talking about 'having another vote.'

 

[SpurMeUp]

@glorygloryeze your approach seems light on policy and real life effects. You voted for something that could threaten/ secure your job, and the government could not deliver it. Well screw you, suck it up and get on with being on the doll? People should be represented. Wasn't Leave about increasing UK spvrignity and decision making? So why not let people decide with the facts and Brexit as it is agreed, in front of them? I don't get why we should hide from that.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[glorygloryeze]

@glorygloryeze your approach seems light on policy and real life effects. You voted for something that could threaten/ secure your job, and the government could not deliver it. Well screw you, suck it up and get on with being on the doll? People should be represented. Wasn't Leave about increasing UK spvrignity and decision making? So why not let people decide with the facts and Brexit as it is agreed, in front of them? I don't get why we should hide from that.

Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

What if i voted for something that i believed actually mad me richer?* How do you know how it effects me?
Indeed people should be represented; it's why i voted leave actually.
For reference, i didn't vote for Brexit because it makes me richer, just wanted to point out that you've made a big assumption on my situation etc.

Personally, i voted leave because of the way the EU is much less accountable than our own government and i am absolutely against the Superstate that the EU is working towards. I know they will be economic negative effects (at least in the immediate short-term) but i also don't think that the EU economic area is immune to economic downturns itself. On balance, for me, the economic effects of leaving do not outweigh the chance to leave the burgoening superstate.
I'm personally happy for a vote on how we leave, as long as we actually leave.
I do, however, suspect that those pushing for such a vote are in reality trying to stop the UK leaving at all; sadly i think this lobby will get their way in the end, but one can only hope they don't.

 

[DTA]

I understand what you're saying, but in order to be valid your point would still require a significant number of Leave voters, net, to have changed their opinion. I honestly believe that certain hardcore remain voters are making the same mistake that some Labour supporters are making since the general election - working under the assumption that the number they achieved last time was an absolute floor, that can only go up...

Then what's the problem? Let's have a final referendum once we actually know what we are voting for?

 

[DTA]

Couldn't that be said for just about EVERY general election? I mean, do we know what we voted for in this year's general election? What about in 2015? Is any election ever 'defined'?

Be honest, if the EU vote had come down on the Remain side, would YOU be saying we should re-do the vote because staying in 'was still to be defined' given the comments since the vote by the likes of Juncker (ever closer Union etc)?

But staying is already defined.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I'm not really into socialism or communism because I believe in social liberalism, whereas the left always wants to be socially interventionist.

Degrowth is my particular bag, for the sake of society and the planet, and caplitalism is finished now that automatisation makes it possible for a post-work and post-consumerist world to exist.

You also don't need to impose degrowth - you just give people money for not having to go to work and doing the social things that they are passionate about instead. It's not a hard sell once people grasp the concept.

You are contradicting yourself. How can you say that you're not into socialism" when you just said that you want energy and transport nationalised. That is socialism. Also how is democratic socialism mutually exclusive to social liberalism?