Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Brexit      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 caballerosiempre
Joined: 12/5/2015
Msg: 101
BrexitPage 5 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Depends on your definition of a socialist country, one could say, Sweden, UK, Germany, Holland, Canada. ? And more. ?
 trasplantado
Joined: 4/20/2016
Msg: 102
Brexit
Posted: 4/25/2016 5:15:06 PM
^^^^^ Let's say that I agree with those. Do you know if any of those governments have been violently overthrown by the military in a coup orchestrated by a powerful foreign government?
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 103
Fuxit
Posted: 4/25/2016 6:10:46 PM
Hobbs 101--the Sovereign is designed to help the individual. The Supreme Court says that corporations are individuals. So its OK for a socialist Sovereign to help out the individual in the form of a corporation. Bailouts happened b/c there were profits? what would they need the money for? More like AIG couldn't cover its policies, setting off a domino fall:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122156561931242905

more taxs and regs cuts competition? Hmm, doesn't explain monopolies and 1929. or what about the Savings and Loan Crisis under the first Bush? That was some deregulation right there. and some companies really, really love government interference:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/15/remember-the-182-billion-aig-bailout-it-just-wasn-t-generous-enough.html

"Under socialism, government becomes more involved in the private sphere, and therefore has a greater say over who wins and who loses."

>>>yes, b/c if the Space Race hadn't forced the invention of microchips, the computer world would have raced to create them their own selves, instead of profiting off the status quo. Just like Detriot would have stopped claiming a 300 hp car that got 30mpg was impossible....and with vacuum tubes, likely right, though they had fuel injection back in 1957. why invent what the consumer isn't asking for and the government isn't pushing? sometimes necessity is the mother of invention.

Sweden, UK, Germany, Holland, Canada are socialist countries? and how is their standards of living? not too bad at all, is it? but let's be fair, how many of those countries are blowing 50% of their budget on invading countries? maybe capitalism would work better if it wasn't trying to choose winners and losers in the Mid East?
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 104
Brexit
Posted: 4/26/2016 4:06:59 AM
Thanks Yule, very much appreciated, I value your opinion.
Jim

Yes!! While there are few things I will agree with in you're post, you're first sentence is correct. On the backs of many(the public), a few will be lifted up out of the mess they helped create.

Had the Govts allowed the banks to collapse, the damage to "the many" would have been huge.
The govt here has "guaranteed" the deposits of individuals, up to about £40K each (I think) anyway. SO would have had to reimburse millions, at a cost of many billions.
Wages wouldn't have been paid, nor bills, and all mortgages would have had to have been 'called-in'.
Economies everywhere would have collapsed completely, overnight.

Despite all of the scandals and exposés; LIBOR, "PIPS", money laundering and tax evasion on a massive scale, (Eg HSBC) and the recent "leak" from Panama, AFAIK there have been no prosecutions in this country.
(cameron's father had wealth stashed in Panama, and other places)
Our Tory Govt has actually opposed EU regulations, which would have curtailed the dodgy dealings of the financial sector.
Most of the world's "tax havens" are actually "British Protectorates", but nothing has been done about that.
Eg British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Jersey, Guensey, Isle of Man, etc etc.
Now it's all in the press, because of the recent revelations, they're having to make noises about doing something, again.
The tories have been in govt for 6 years now.
Over 50% of the tories' political funding comes from the financial sector.


But public funds have their origin in the private sector. And so we have funds from the private sector at large helping to bail out a specific area of the private sector, with government essentially deciding the outcome.

I don't believe the govts had any real choice, but to keep the banks in business. Banking and EFT has become an essential part of modern life.

Banks know this, and now use bank charges as effectively, just another form of "private tax".
As I previously mentioned, there are far too many people taking a 'cut', either by land ownership and the rents in almost everything you buy, or the shareholders of our water, electricity and other utilities, which it's almost impossible to function without.

All our utilities here, (UK) were built with public money. Gas, water, electricity, telephones, the railway networks, etc etc., and then sold (cheap) to the private sector, by the tories under Margaret Thatcher.
All based on the same sorts of tired, ideological mantras which you've used. Incidentally, contrary to such claims, ALL were hugely profitable, but the profits back then, went straight to the public purse.
They were sold for purely ideological reasons.
And it was her who removed the distinction between banks and building societies, allowing banks to provide mortgages, AND to "play the markets".
We all saw how that went.


The only alternative is for government to print more money, which of course comes at a cost. This isn't a Monopoly game.

In lieu of Billy pointing it out to you, I feel I should point out that both yours and my govts have been doing exactly that.
Unfortunately, they gave it all to the banks!
I'm not kidding!

In a way, democracy itself is a 'socialist' achievement.
Votes for non-landowners, votes for women, etc etc., - all hard-won, by collective action, in previous generations.

You seem to view "government" as something separate, it's not. These are our elected representatives, they're just other people.

In this country, post-WWII, when they kicked-out Churchill and his class, (despite the victory), The NHS was established, by public consent.
We, the public, agreed to the establishment of a National Insurance scheme, separate from tax, to pay for it.

Our infrastructure had been almost destroyed, but we rebuilt it, better than before.
We built schools, hospitals, roads, and rail, electricity distribution networks, and all while running a debt of about 200% of GDP.

The conservative mantra is that 'socialists spend too much money', and one of their election-winning 'memes' is that "we can't leave our children and grandchildren to inherit and pay for, our debts!"
When I was born, the debt was almost 3X as high as now, (as a proportion of GDP)
I "inherited" the debt, from the previous generation.
Under this govt, it has grown from about 60%, to 80%, despite their massive cuts, and all their claims to 'prudence'.

Socialism really isn't the 'bogeyman' that those with a vested interest in opposing it, claim.
Mr Cameron, and his right-wing cronies have shamelessly 'demonised' "the other", by using "hot-buttons" like patriotism, culture, traditions, respect, and other carefully chosen words.

He won an election, by promising a referendum, and now he's beginning to realise just what a catastrophe such manufactured xenophobia will cause.

I don't think there's much difference between the working people of Britain, and the working people of Europe.
They all deserve the fruits of their labours.

Incidentally, to illustrate this last point; yesterday the store-chain, BHS was put into administration.
The biggest concern, (apart from the loss of the jobs of thousands), is what's been described as a £500million (Half a Billion) "Black Hole" in the Pension Fund, meaning that thousands of people, who worked for the company for many years, might lose their pensions, despite having paid the money in themselves.

The company was formerly owned by "Sir" Philip Green, and a few years ago, there was uproar, because he'd paid his wife (the shareholder) £1.2 billion as a "dividend", in a single year, and because she resides in MOnaco, didn't pay the £350 odd Million in TAX, which would have been due, had he owned the shares himself, in this country.

SO one woman, lounging on a sunbed in Monaco, gets £1.2 BILLION, for herself, TAX_FREE!
and thousands of previously hard-working pensioner, s will be left destitute.

I just think there has to be a better, fairer way, of doing things.
JMO
 trasplantado
Joined: 4/20/2016
Msg: 105
Fuxit
Posted: 4/26/2016 4:38:10 AM

Were consumers and government clamoring for airplanes when Orville and Wilbur tinkered with their models?...were the uses of electricity fully appreciated when Edison and Tesla were conducting their experiments....or was the government pushing for refined oil before oil was even discovered in Pennsylvania? Inventors invent because they have the curiosity and intellect to do so. The citizens and government benefit as eventual end-users. The market is created and the consumers come in.

Government did play an important role in the Space Race you mentioned, but that role was in managing the colossal undertaking that it was. The bedrock of scientific and technological know-how had been laid down in the years leading up to it and was the result of various talented individuals and strong entrepreneurship. Sure, there was more to be done, but let's not credit government for those areas in which it deserves little to none.


I think that you are overstating the role of the individual in the advancement of modern society. Without the government assistance in terms of funding (grants, scholarships,etc.) for the research and experiments, and the protection provided by the patents and copyrights, the individual would not be able to accomplish much of anything.
 2beetoo
Joined: 4/20/2016
Msg: 106
Fuxit
Posted: 4/26/2016 8:09:16 AM
Government privileged the Rule of Law, the capitalistic system provides the motivation. The individual provides the ingenuity and inventiveness. They were all necessary for the American advancement of Western civilization
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 107
Fuxit
Posted: 4/26/2016 8:10:28 AM
Jim, that was a good counterargument about the plane. So, here's mine:

http://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/wright-brothers/online/age/1910/military.cfm

I'll likely run out of my 15 minutes of edit before I can research all your points,but I suspect that while, yes, inventors tinker, if the government can use it for war, they'll push to make it a better product

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_industry

my point is, I don't see government as an automatic drag on the process. i'm sure it can be at times, but hey, we're on the internet now thanks to Darpa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

the purpose of government is to help the individuals under it. and amazingly, it tends to do it. of course, lately we have lost our belief in that, due to, oh, Nixon and Vietnam and Iran Contra and a few other things. those moments Churchill mentioned as the bad parts of democracy. or maybe he was only complaining about going to war while running a democracy.

"fairness and a level playing field" is great, but who defines it? too much fairness, and some will think that's government interference (Affirmative Action, EPA guaranteeing property values by restricting effuvient dumping, etc). indeed, some of those early inventions you mentioned, during the Robber Baron era, may have been pushed or blocked by wealthy men using their influence inside government. Were they creating a level playing field for themselves, or did they need to be regulated by government to stop interfering with government?
 caballerosiempre
Joined: 12/5/2015
Msg: 108
Fuxit
Posted: 4/27/2016 6:10:58 PM
Socialism is not a bogeyman? The over 20 million victims of socialist Soviet Union would likely disagree., had they been allowed to remain alive.
How did the "Sir" guy gain ownership of the store chain? Magic? Hocus pocus? Saying "alle-kazam" in front of the flagship store?
Yes, I've heard Britrail is simply a "wonderful" government created operation. British Telecom as a government granted monopoly in years past always wonderfully responsive to customers..like AT&T in USA in the bad old days..these days there's competition. ! Seems to have sharpened the focus quite a bit

Also, why doesn't UK have withholding taxes withheld on dividends paid offshore. ? Could be easily done by a government protecting its people.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 109
Fuxit
Posted: 4/28/2016 4:44:57 AM

Socialism is not a bogeyman?

Paying taxes, and having the 'state' build roads, or sanitation, or any other necessary, modern elements of our social structure, is "socialism".
Having laws, and the police to enforce them, to protect individuals from harm, is socialism.
Living in social groups is socialism.
If you don't like socialism, find an island, and live alone, as a 'hermit'.
Socialism is just another word, you're here, socialising, via the written word, with other people.
Societies have to have some form of socialism, to function.

The over 20 million victims of socialist Soviet Union would likely disagree., had they been allowed to remain alive.

And how many victims of capitalism have there been?
-Did all wars end, under capitalism?
Was slavery a capitalist, or a socialist policy.?
How about apartheid?
Did wealthy people ever starve during famines?
Do wealthy people live in precarious, flood or landslide areas?
Do those people die as a result of socialism, or capitalism?

Capitalism kills thousands of children, every day, through lack of clean water.
-Though the world could easily afford to supply them with adequate food, water and shelter, but it doesn't,
because it's far more important that some fragile-egoed "celebrity" buys another Bugatti, or another super-yacht, or another Van Gogh, or another football team, to prove how "special" he must be.

I haven't counted them all, but I feel sure that capitalism has killed far more than 20 million, just in slavery alone.

How did the "Sir" guy gain ownership of the store chain? Magic? Hocus pocus? Saying "alle-kazam" in front of the flagship store?

By importing cheap clothes, from far-eastern sweatshops, with no unions or 'human rights', where people work 14 hour days for $2, and children live, and then selling them in this country, using people who stand for 8 hours a day, for minimum wage.
Still, I'm sure he's a very special chap, and well-deserves the £1.2 BILLION which he paid his wife that year, - far more than the people who actually did the work.


Yes, I've heard Britrail is simply a "wonderful" government created operation. British Telecom as a government granted monopoly in years past always wonderfully responsive to customers..like AT&T in USA in the bad old days..these days there's competition. ! Seems to have sharpened the focus quite a bit

Ask the British consumers if they feel that privatisation has worked to their benefit, or not.
It's clear you know nothing about this.
There is still only one telephone network, and all providers use it, and still pay BT.
There is still only one rail network.
Built with public money, but then sold into private hands.
The same with the water pipes which run to each house, or the sewage-farms, or the gas, or the electricity, or the roads, or the railways.
Infrastructure, on that sort of scale, can only be built by the state, because of the distances between cities, and the "compulsory" purchases needed, to implement it, and also the need for services in "non-profitable" smaller communities or geographically isolated areas. (This is now becoming a problem, since they sold the Royal Mail)
All are/were examples of a form of 'socialism'
I find it amusing that the mere mention of the word, invokes such a hostile and hysterical reaction, especially from Americans, when it's just a word.
Socialism!
Boo!!!


Also, why doesn't UK have withholding taxes withheld on dividends paid offshore. ?

I've re-read this sentence about 11 times, and I still can't make head nor tail of it.


Could be easily done by a government protecting its people.

That's easy for YOU to say!
First, they would have to understand exactly what it is, that you're suggesting.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 110
view profile
History
Fuxit
Posted: 4/28/2016 5:55:10 AM
Sorry oor jo but I am going to have to agree with you.
Socialism need not be seen as an evil.
Workers should share the fruits of their toil.

I have no problem with small to medium sized businesses either where the man in charge gets decent money for HIS toil either.

Nothing has improved at all with our once public owned companies now run for greed.

Any of yous heard of New Lanark? Worth a visit if ever in my homeland.
Give working folk a half decent life and they will respond.........

New Lanark
"In Owen's time some 2,500 people lived at New Lanark, many from the poorhouses of Glasgow and Edinburgh.[6]

Although not the grimmest of mills by far, Owen found the conditions unsatisfactory and resolved to improve the workers' lot.

He paid particular attention to the needs of the 500 or so children living in the village (one of the tenement blocks is named Nursery Buildings) and working at the mills, and opened the first infants' school in Britain in 1817, although the previous year he had completed the Institute for the Formation of Character.[7]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Lanark

Have yous ever heard of a department store called John Lewis?

They do not employ workers. They take on 'partners'. The partners have every reason to boost John Lewis' profits. Why?

Because every year they share in the profits.

"The company is owned by a trust on behalf of all its employees — known as Partners – who have a say in the running of the business and receive a share of annual profits, which is usually a significant addition to their salary.

Finally, every Partner receives an annual bonus, which is a share of the profit. It is calculated as a percentage of salary, with the same percentage for everyone, from top management down to the shop floor and storage rooms.

The bonus is dependent on the profitability of the Partnership each year, varying between 9% and 20% of the Partners' annual salaries since 2000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership

So why cannot our utility companies, rail services not be re nationalised and let workers share in any profit? Make them partners.

Couldnae last oor jo. Public Private Partnership. New labour adored it. Schools, hospitals were built by private companies and leased back to the tax payers.
At exorbitant rates of course.
The new Royal Infirmary down where I live at little france being a good example.

"Consort – which is said to earn £60m a year for running, cleaning and maintaining the hospital, under a contract estimated to be worth £1.26bn by 2028 – said disciplinary action was under way following the power cut.

Under the terms of the PFI deal, agreed 15 years ago, Consort will still own the building when that contract ends, forcing the NHS either to buy the building, sign a new lease or leave."
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/20/nhs-pfi-contract-surgery-blackout

Aye the taxpayers really scored there. And the capitalist greed train rolls on..........

"Pupils from six of the 17 Edinburgh schools closed over building safety fears are returning to the classroom.
The city council made the decision to shut 10 primaries, five secondaries and two additional support needs schools last week over structural concerns.

Around 7,600 children spent a second day out of lessons on Tuesday as inspections continued following the Easter break.

The schools were all built or refurbished under the same public private partnership (PPP) schemes about 10 years ago."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/13/edinburgh-schools-closures-pupils-return-to-lessons

Of course the companies involved in the schools scandal paid workers peanuts and used shoddy second rate materials. Decent tradesmen would not work for the money offered. Hence the jobs that were left.

Mind How You Go
 2beetoo
Joined: 4/20/2016
Msg: 111
Fuxit
Posted: 4/28/2016 6:03:27 AM
Jovian, if you would like to see successful socialism at work, the Israeli kibbutz is the perfect example. Most Israeli war heroes come out of that system. But socialism in Europe? That's why you are all failing countries. But for the largess of the US, you all would have gone under long ago.
 caballerosiempre
Joined: 12/5/2015
Msg: 112
Fuxit
Posted: 4/28/2016 6:52:18 AM
So vlad..the examples you cite take place under socialism, thus more of the same is the answer?
Seems to give too much power to a concentrated group of people..we should trust government bureaucrats to do the right thing? Most people look at self interest, government types want a bigger, bloated fat cat bureaucracy. Build that empire bigger, while spouting claims of "caring about people".
Just read a story about an NHS hospital in UK (Stafford Hospital), because of the targets they were given, based on wait times in the ER, they'd send people home without proper tests..so they'd not be admitted to ER and impact their "numbers", stats..or make patients wait outside in an ambulance so the 4 hour time limit imposed would not start as soon. Seems at least 400 people died as a result of bureaucrat decisions in that 1 hospital over 4 years..could be as high as 1, 200..a but difficult to get an exact number in these situations.

A socialist government in Venezuela turned a country with perhaps the highest crude oil reserves in the world and many other natural resources, into one of the poorest and most violent, crime-ridden countries in South America..even while crude was selling at over US $ 100
Per barrel..way before the price slide..
Thanks Hugo Chavez! And Nicolas Maduro..your former experience as a Caracas city bus driver has served the proletariat well.!
Over 500% annual inflation, forecast to rise to about 1600% next year. Currency, the bolivar devalued from about 6 to the US $, to over 700 per dollar in real market rates, not fake "official" rates.
Great job..best thing, no need to fix anything, just blame the US for all problems.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 113
Fuxit
Posted: 4/28/2016 5:38:56 PM
#128


Seems to give too much power to a concentrated group of people..we should trust government bureaucrats to do the right thing?


You mean like we have in the US (and in the banana republics in So America), where 10% of the elite control 90% of the wealth; so then should we trust our elected (more like "selected") officials who are largely controlled by the "elite" to do "the right thing" for all the pple?


Just read a story about an NHS hospital in UK (Stafford Hospital), because of the targets they were given, based on wait times in the ER, they'd send people home without proper tests..so they'd not be admitted to ER and impact their "numbers", stats..or make patients wait outside in an ambulance so the 4 hour time limit imposed would not start as soon. Seems at least 400 people died as a result of bureaucrat decisions in that 1 hospital over 4 years..could be as high as 1, 200..a but difficult to get an exact number in these situations.


Then how many pple have died needlessly in the US of advancing illnesses over the past 30-50 years (at the hands of the Capitalistic system) who were either under insured, couldn't get proper insurance because of pre-existing conditions; couldn't afford the cost of treatments. Many of these pple had to be dead broke before they could end up on public assistence and then end up in the ER, where they were finally admitted, but whose prognosis was piss poor because they went way past the window of opportunity.

The reason why the NHS is deteriorating in the UK, because it has to make do with LESS, because Gov't is funding it less and less (and prioritizing other ventures, such as military expenditures)


A socialist government in Venezuela turned a country with perhaps the highest crude oil reserves in the world and many other natural resources, into one of the poorest and most violent, crime-ridden countries in South America..even while crude was selling at over US $ 100


Do not under-estimate the effects that internal or systemic corrupting forces have on ANY form of gov't.
Absolute power held either in a Socialist, Communist, Fascist or capitalistic gov't will corrupt absolutely!
If what your saying was the rule for any Socialist form of Gov't then all the GOv'ts of Scandinavia, much of central & So Europe would have gone down in flames long ago.

IMO, the key is to have a "blend" of socialism and capitalism where one offsets the ills of the other, and that both pre-establish a means of transparency that can be used to assess the political "health" and efficiency of such a system.
 Chipsss
Joined: 5/21/2008
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Brexit
Posted: 5/13/2016 1:27:57 PM
Video. Please watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 115
Brexit
Posted: 5/23/2016 9:46:22 AM
Read an article today about claims that Remain is winning. Interesting comments from people who say that they know no one who is voting to remain.

Amazing what we accept. And in the other thread they are arguing that they would have defied orders during the WW

We (people) can't even opposed something not good for the joes that does not involve death.
 ChaoticSphere
Joined: 4/25/2016
Msg: 116
Brexit
Posted: 5/23/2016 10:27:55 AM
I’m sure this is old information for several but I’m providing a link that describes the U.S. governments European agenda. Declassified documents from 15 years ago explain the history of the EU project.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html
 villabolos
Joined: 7/24/2015
Msg: 117
Brexit
Posted: 5/31/2016 10:55:22 AM
Somewhere in Florida there is a guy with a shaved head reading this column. He's nodding his head in agreement and saying "yes, yes". :)

THere is a guy in Texas doing the same thing....

IF I was ever President, Buchanan would be in a small office next to the oval office. All his door would say would be "special advisor".
In Major League Baseball they call them bench coaches.
********************************************************************************



Will There Always Be an England?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Will There Always Be an England?



In his op-ed in The Washington Post, Chris Grayling, leader of the House of Commons, made the case for British withdrawal from the European Union — in terms Americans can understand.

Would you accept, Grayling asks, an American Union of North and South America, its parliament sitting in Panama, with power to impose laws on the United States, and a high court whose decisions overruled those of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Would you accept an American Union that granted all the peoples of Central and South America and Mexico the right to move to, work in, and live in any U.S. state or city, and receive all the taxpayer-provided benefits that U.S. citizens receive?

This is what we are subjected to under the EU, said Grayling.

And as you Americans would never cede your sovereignty or independence to such an overlord regime, why should we?

Downing Street's reply: Prime Minister David Cameron says leaving the EU could cost Britain a lot of money and a loss of influence in Brussels.

The heart versus the wallet. Freedom versus security.

While Barack Obama, Cameron and Angela Merkel are pulling for Britain to vote to remain in the EU, across Europe, transnationalism is in retreat, and tribalism is rising.

Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments....

As Britain's Independence Party and half the Tory Party seek to secede from the EU, the Scottish National Party is preparing a new referendum to bring about Scotland's secession.

The strongest party in France is the National Front of Marine Le Pen. In Austria's presidential election, Norbert Hofer of Jorg Haider's Freedom Party came within an eyelash of becoming the first European nationalist head of state since World War II.

The Euroskeptic Law and Justice Party is in power in Warsaw, as is the Fidesz Party of Viktor Orban in Budapest, and the Swiss People's Party in Bern. The right-wing Sweden Democrats and Danish People's Party are growing stronger.

In 2015, Merkel, Time's Person of the Year, admitted a million Middle East refugees. This year, Merkel flipped and paid a huge bribe to Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan to keep Syrian refugees from crossing the Aegean to the Greek islands and thence into Europe.

In Germany, too, nationalism is resurgent as opposition grows to any new bailouts of the La Dolce Vita nations of Club Med. The populist AfD party has made major strides in German state elections.

While the rightist parties in power and reaching for power are anti-EU, anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant, the secessionist movements roiling Scotland, Spain, Belgium and Italy seek rather the breakup of the old nations of Europe along ethnonational lines.

By enlisting in these parties of the right, what are the peoples of Europe recoiling from and rebelling against? Answer: The beau ideal of progressives — societies and nations that are multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual.

Across Europe, the tribalists are rejecting, in a word, diversity.

And what are they seeking?

God-and-country, blood-and-soil people, they want to live with their own kinfolk, their own kind. They do not believe in economics uber alles. And if democracy will not deliver the kind of country and society they wish to live in, then democracy must be trumped by direct action, by secession.

This is the spirit behind Brexit.

The is the spirit that drove the Irish patriots of 1919, who rose against British rule, though they were departing the greatest empire on earth in its moment of supreme glory after the Great War, to begin life among the smallest and poorest countries in all of Europe.

What is happening in Europe today was predictable and predicted.

At the turn of the century, in "The Death of the West," I wrote,

"Europe has begun to die. The prognosis is grim. Between 2000 and 2050, world population will grow by more than three billion to over nine billion people, but this 50 percent increase in population will come entirely in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as one hundred million people of European stock vanish from the earth."

Europeans are vanishing, as the peoples of the Maghreb and Middle East, South Asia and the sub-Sahara come to fill the empty spaces left by aging and dying Europeans whose nations once ruled them.

Absent the restoration of border controls across Europe, and warships on permanent station in the Med, can the inexorable invasion be stopped? Or is "The Camp of the Saints" the future of Europe?

An open question. But if the West is to survive as the unique civilization it has been, its nations must reassume control of their destinies and control of their borders.

Britain ought not to go gentle into that good night the EU has prepared for her. And a great leap to freedom can be taken June 23.

Trooping to the polls, the cousins might recall the words of Vera Lynn, 76 years ago, as the Battle of Britain was engaged:

"There'll always be an England,

"And England shall be free,

"If England means as much to you

"As England means to me."
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Brexit
Posted: 5/31/2016 11:44:55 PM
Brexit now in the lead according to most media. The boat found the other night with 14 albanians aboard just of the coast of kent has swung things around.

A talking head on sky news made a good point this morning. Dymchurch in kent where the dingy was found is where she lives. Gangs of young immigrant geezers just hanging around on the street. She says she feels threatened. She also pointed out she went to call me dave camerons constituency recently. No migrants hanging around in rich boys town.

Was it seven former treasury folk from shermanland threatening all kinds of doom if brexit happens. But as pointed out those seven have all contibuted to shermanland being trillions in debt. They are obviously good at their jobs.

All the big businesses and financial institutions predicting famine, pestilence and Venezuelan type queues for toilet rolls.

Threats from obama and clinton (who if she becomes president will backtrack AGAIN and support ttip) that shermanland will go in the huff if we brexit.

Call me dave even said we will be at war soon after we leave the eu. The remain campaign get more extreme in their project fear shenanigans.

Time to give the wealthy liberal elites a bloody nose.
 chinook1111
Joined: 4/1/2016
Msg: 119
Brexit
Posted: 6/1/2016 5:51:56 AM
I am convinced that Cameron is nothing but a lying crook whose only real interests are his hidden offshore accounts.

The debt pyramid needs to be disassembled and fully examined.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 120
Brexit
Posted: 6/1/2016 6:20:54 AM
A mafia "expert" just called London the most corrupt city in the world. Private, not government. But the government allows it, doesn't it?

Time for Western nations to clean house.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Brexit
Posted: 6/19/2016 2:53:54 AM
My my as the referendum fast approaches and the elites and their allies, the multi nationals and global finance giants get into full panic because these islands may vote to take democracy back from the corrupt eu i was gobsmacked to see this in the elitist media outlet the grauniad...........



" 'I like the eu but I'm voting out.'

Why? I know a painter/decorator who has not been able to raise his wages for 15 years. There’s always someone else, he says, willing to work for less.

A driver who arrived from Turkey 18 years ago, who says the bus companies used to pay more than £12 an hour, but can now pay £10 or less because they have so many takers (and yes, the irony is noted).*

A care-home cleaner in a rundown seaside town who reckons her hopes of ever getting more than the minimum wage are zero. Each blames an influx of workers from the EU.

Each of them are voting out.

Tell them the EU protects workers’ rights and they just laugh. When companies launch recruitment drives in eastern Europe they blame skills shortages in Britain. Really?

If a big business wants to hire, say, drivers on £25 an hour, it will find it can do so easily; what they really mean is that they can’t find people willing to work for £10 an hour or less, with antisocial hours to boot.

Meanwhile, workers here rejecting low wages are told they are lazy, chavvy and feckless when they refuse to be part of the so-called “jobs factory of Europe”. Meanwhile, as wages for people in low-income groups are pegged back, rents rise.

Many times I interviewed Britain’s biggest buy-to-let landlord, Fergus Wilson, and many times he told me how well he was doing from eastern European migrants, who filled nearly all his properties and kept his rental income booming.

Rents in parts of the country are at catastrophic levels, snatching as much as 60% of pay. Migration is only part of the reason why that is happening. But when George Osborne declares house prices will fall by 18% if Britain quits, he’s giving the game away.

He is saying membership of the EU keeps prices and rents much higher than they would otherwise be. Young people struggling with ludicrous rents, take note.

Much of the rebellion against the EU is from the left-behinds, the victims of globalisation, sticking two fingers up against the establishment, muddled though their reasons may be. If Britain leaves as a consequence, Brussels should not seek to punish them. These voices can be heard in many other parts of Europe.

Reading El Pais this week, I was struck by below-the-line comments furious at depressed wages and immigration. You hear similar statements, and rather more ugly, in Denmark and Holland. Austria narrowly avoided electing a far-right president.

The left everywhere rightly trembles at the thought of a Le Pen victory in France. But, while condemning, the left should seek to understand why the right has gained such ground. Yvette Cooper’s call this week for “controls and brakes” to manage economic migration has been widely mocked as an 11th-hour conversion.

But whether Britain quits or not, the institutions of the EU need to take a serious look at labour rules, and why so many Europeans think Brussels panders to the interests of big corporates rather than working people.

Jeremy Corbyn has declared himself only 75% “in”. If only more politicians could be similarly nuanced. I’m around 60% out, 40% in, and annoyed like so many others about how the campaign on both sides has become so extreme.

There is much to like about the EU, but my feeling is that Brussels will only be jolted into serious reform by a shock event such as Brexit. You can’t divorce and keep the benefits of marriage, say the remain camp. But the EU was never a marriage. We’re more like flatmates who recently haven’t been getting along too well. But we can still get back together, even if one of us flounces off to the parents for a bit after a bust-up.

Yes, there is uncertainty, but democracy is a messy business. If the risk is that wages may stabilise in places, if the risk is that rents may fall – then they are risks I’m happy to take."

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/jun/18/eu-vote-brexit-working-people-rents-wages

* when i was working down in christchurch last year i got much the same comment from a polish taxi driver saying romanians and bulgarians were undercutting his shekels.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Brexit
Posted: 6/19/2016 2:56:36 AM
Oor jo. IF you are browsing today and IF you read this post what make ye of this article below? I found it most interesting that the TUC only has 52 affiliated unions out of the 150 registered. The geezer makes some boss points as well.
So IF you read the article below i would be interested in your thoughts on what the geezer says.........


" ‘THE EU HAS DONE NOTHING FOR WORKERS’ RIGHTS’

It’s an insult to say that our rights are protected and depend on the European Union. You tell that to a Greek worker, an Italian worker, a Spanish worker, or any of those accession states, who were told that their national collective-bargaining structures had to disappear if they were to get into the EU. Or Greece and others who were told that as a condition of bailouts you wipe out the whole of the collective-bargaining structure.’

Doug Nicholls, chair of Trade Unionists Against the EU (TUAEU), is unimpressed. Not just with the paltry state of workers’ rights across the European Union – one of the reasons TUAEU, which represents Eurosceptic trade unionists from across Britain, is campaigning for Brexit – but also with the Labourites, Guardian scribes and even trade-union bosses who are plumping for Remain in the name of protecting workers’ rights.

Nicholls knows what he’s talking about. By his own estimation, he’s the longest-serving general secretary in the trade-union movement: he’s chaired the Community and Youth Workers’ Union, he’s been the general secretary of the General Federation of Trade Unions since 2012, and he set up TUAEU in 2015. Talking to Nicholls, just as Corbyn’s Labour Party and its attendant trade unions are doubling their efforts to get out the left-wing vote for Remain, I can tell he’s utterly perplexed by the death of Euroscepticism among the labour-movement leadership.

So much of the pro-EU, pro-worker rhetoric coming from the left-wing Remain camp, he tells me, fails the sniff test. Not least because worker’s rights in Britain, hard won over centuries of agitation, are far superior to those offered by the EU. ‘Because of the history of the British working class, we were very advanced’, he says. ‘The right to holidays was established here very early on compared with most other countries… The minimum wage is uniquely British, and not in any European law.’

So what about the much-hailed European Social Chapter, the Council of Europe treaty which enshrines social and economic rights in relation to employment, working hours and parental leave? According to Nicholls, it’s not worth the regulation EU paper it’s printed on. ‘Never once has the European Union or the Social Chapter sat by my side and assisted the negotiations with employers’, he says. ‘Its continued prerogatives are around information and consultation – you know, “we’ll give you a bit of notice as to when we’re going to close your factory”.

‘The EU has done nothing for workers’ rights’ Worse still, the EU has shafted workers when the going has gotten tough. Nicholls points to Greece, Hungary and other accession states where collective bargaining – the bedrock of trade unionism – has been abolished in exchange for membership and bailouts.

Then there’s the uncomfortable truth that this supposed beacon of workers’ rights presides over millions of unemployed Europeans. ‘We say that there is a fundamental right under capitalism to work’, says Nicholls. ‘The European Union has 23million unemployed workers, that’s the equivalent of the entire population of Belgium and the Netherlands being unemployed.’

All of this begs the question: why have trade unions, from Unite to Unison to the GMB, opted for Remain? ‘Let’s get the facts straight’, interjects Nicholls. ‘There’s 150 trade unions listed by the certification officer, 52 of those affiliated are to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), and of those 52 affiliated to the TUC, 15 are affiliated to the Labour Party. Of those, 13 and only 13 declared publicly for a Remain vote.

So, one has to ask is the tail wagging the dog? But even among those unions that have taken strong Remain positions… there is a lot of discontent with their EU position, and most [members] as we can sense it are voting for Leave.

’ When it comes to the leftish activists and commentators insisting that the EU can be reformed from within, that a new workers’ movement can turn the EU into a socialist utopia, Nicholls is far more scathing: ‘It’s pathetic and it’s ignorant of what the EU is. The EU can only be reformed by a simultaneous decision of the 28 member states. Now if there are any individuals who think that they are so Messiah-like that they can convince all 28 member states to simultaneously abandon the capitalist agenda, then they should step forward and give us a plan as to how to do that. There is no plan from any of them. Because they know the task is impossible.’

The fact that so many on the left have abandoned Euroscepticism for fear that a Brexit now would embolden the Tories, and turn Britain into a ‘neoliberal fantasy island’, is risible, says Nicholls: ‘Those who make that argument talk at the same time about reforming the EU. So on one hand, they’ve got the arrogance to believe that they and their supporters can reform the 28 member states of the EU area with its 500million people, while on the other hand they’re saying they’re scared to death of Boris Johnson. How utterly pathetic is that?’

The once Eurosceptic left’s 11th-hour embrace of the EU is, to Nicholls’ mind, ‘the most puzzling thing I’ve ever seen happening in the labour movement since I got involved in the 1970s’. ‘It has all the hallmarks’, he says, ‘of fear of the people, and it was fear of the people that was the origin of the EU… It was fear of the power of the universal franchise being expressed postwar. It was fear of those that had done the most to rid the continent of fascism.’

Here’s the nub. Putting aside the fearmongering and fact-flinging that has defined the debate so far, the EU referendum is about democracy – that old-fashioned belief that the demos is wise enough to decide who rules them, and, by extension, that workers have the wherewithal to agitate in their own interests. As Nicholls puts it:

‘There is another right that workers have: the right to vote. And the right to have a universal franchise that would empower the majority against the interests of the minority was a very basic right that the European Union was set up to deny and to dilute and to ignore.’

On 23 June, let’s all stick up for that most fundamental of workers’ rights, and vote to Leave."

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-eu-has-done-nothing-for-workers-rights/18464#.V2ZlAyPTVcs
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 123
Brexit
Posted: 6/19/2016 12:39:21 PM
Right Vladimir...
I started to write a long reply, and then I kept changing it.

This whole referendum was a tory idea.
The first thing they did was to pander to the growing "nationalists" like BNP and UKIP, by driving signs around London, warning illegal immigrants to "go home".
They promised to reduce immigration: "To the tens of thousands".
What they've really been doing is decimating public services, schools, hospitals, housing, libraries, and youth clubs, by slashing public spending by local authorities, and then blaming the inadequacies of those services on "uncontrolled immigration by Labour".
That was their 'narrative'.

So they promised a referendum, despite nobody asking for one, and it won them the election, twice.

Now they've realised what a disaster that would be for the country, from an investment and economic POV.

They opposed the minimum wage, warning of dire consequences, and mass unemployment. If I could be bothered, I'd find the full-page ad' they took out in the Times, or the Telegraph, when Labour proposed it.
They only "embrace" it now, because they've realised that it reduces the welfare bill massively, because they don't have to 'top-up' the poverty wages of so many. Low paid workers are no better-off, because their tax credits or housing benefits have been cut by at least as much as any pay rise.
They 'opted-out' of the 'social chapter', because it reduced the working weeks that employers could force their workers to do.
They've systematically reduced the power of the unions, and in doing so, also the funding to their opposition, the Labour Party.

Then I read this, on another forum, and Billy Bragg says everything else I feel, here:
https://www.facebook.com/billybraggofficial/posts/10153484789162471

Staying in the EU was always going to be a hard sell to those of us on the left. The treatment of Greece and the threat of TTIP suggest that the European Union is little more than a neo-liberal cartel. The serious lack of accountability and the ridiculous practice of moving the whole parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg make it hard to love. Jeremy Corbyn spoke for many of us when he said he was 7.5 out of 10 in favour of remaining within the EU.

Over the past few days, as the Leave campaign has begun to bang loudly on the anti-immigrant drum, my reasons for voting remain have become crystal clear. The Brexit Brigade - economic libertarians all - have promised that Britain's exit will be no pain and all gain, with no regard of the consequences for those at the bottom of the pile if their economic wishful thinking is wrong. They have no qualms about blaming the working class for all societies ills in the same manner they have scapegoated the immigrants

I have friends on the left who have made a socialist case for voting Leave and, while I understand their arguments, I have wondered how they can share a political platform with Johnson, Gove, Patel, Farage et al. Since Thursday, however, I feel that none of us on the left can be in any doubt who will be emboldened by a victory for Leave. I have spent all my political life fighting against people like Thomas Mair, who, by shouting 'Independence for Britain' as he was arrested, clearly wanted the world to know which side he is on.

This is no longer an economic argument, of even one of national sovereignty. This is a battle for the soul of our country. If we win, we will have to work hard to address the genuine problems that mass immigration causes. We will need to build schools, hospitals and union membership. We will need to give a voice to the forgotten and the marginalised so that they can have some control over their lives and communities. And we will need to reform the EU to make it more about people and less about profits.

None of this will be possible if we vote to Leave. If the libertarians triumph, what's left of our welfare state will be sold to the highest bidder and our workplaces - the most deregulated in Europe - will be stripped of their meagre protections. The Tory Party will be reborn as shiny suited free market zealots. At the same time the forces of division will be emboldened and the lives of our fellow citizens - those who don't fit in with their warped idea of who does and who doesn't belong - will be made a misery. But if we win, then we will have momentum and the chance to utilise it while the Tories tear themselves apart over Europe.

If you are a person of the left, I urge you not to vote Leave next Thursday. If the thought of voting remain is too much to bear, I totally respect that as a principled position and ask you to consider abstaining. Better that than to have helped unleash forces that we have opposed in solidarity with one another over the past decades.

Well said Billy.
That's also my opinion.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Brexit
Posted: 6/19/2016 10:56:17 PM
Right oor jo. I think you are wrong to support remain because the eu will NEVER change. It is a disaster for democracy..........

"This whole referendum was a tory idea."
There has been a clamour for years to have a say on the eu mate. It is not a new thing. Of course the out of touch with reality political elites have a solution to this referendum..........

"EU Referendum: Unelected Tory Minister Ros Altmann Says Voters Should Not ‘Overrule’ MPs ‘Majority of MPs want to stay in’
An unelected Government minister has apologised after she urged voters not to back ‘Brexit’ because most MPs want to remain in the European Union - and that would “overrule” them.

In a surprising outburst, Baroness Ros Altmann, the pensions minister who sits in the House of Lords, wrote in a tweet that “your democratically elected leaders” back Remain and that “voting Brexit overrules your own MPs”.

Majority of MPs in all 3parties want to stay in EU. They’re your democratically elected leaders. Voting Brexit overrules your own MPs — Ros Altmann (@rosaltmann) June 9, 2016

Baroness Altmann, a long-term campaigner for pensions reform, was given a peerage by Mr Cameron after the election, but was a paid-up member of Labour, the Huffington Post previously revealed."

Imagine us lower classes disobeying the great and good eh? Whatever next? We should doff our caps and bend our knee to those who know best.........

"The first thing they did was to pander to the growing "nationalists" like BNP and UKIP, by driving signs around London, warning illegal immigrants to "go home". They promised to reduce immigration: "To the tens of thousands"."
They didn't need to pander to anyone mate immigration has always been an issue in working class communities around these isles.......

"What they've really been doing is decimating public services, schools, hospitals, housing, libraries, and youth clubs, by slashing public spending by local authorities, and then blaming the inadequacies of those services on "uncontrolled immigration by Labour". That was their 'narrative'."

The tories and their at the time liberal allies blamed the cuts on labours handling of the economy during the gordon brown regime. And being tories they do love to cut public spending as a rule. And labour DID allow 'uncontrolled immigration'. As pointed out by billy bragg.

"So they promised a referendum,despite nobody asking for one, and it won them the election, twice."

They were forced by public unrest and the threat of ukip taking tory votes. Who do you class as 'nobody'? There are going to be a sizable portion of votes cast for leave. Are they 'nobody'?.........

"Now they've realised what a disaster that would be for the country, from an investment and economic POV."

They are tories. They are owned by vested interests and global capitalism mate. Anyone who votes remain have threw their lot in with global capitalism.

"They opposed the minimum wage, warning of dire consequences, and mass unemployment. They only "embrace" it now, because they've realised that it reduces the welfare bill massively, because they don't have to 'top-up' the poverty wages of so many. Low paid workers are no better-off, because their tax credits or housing benefits have been cut by at least as much as any pay rise."

The minimum wage is a farce that enabled bosses to employ workers on zero hour contracts or exploit cheap foreign labour.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Brexit
Posted: 6/19/2016 11:01:48 PM
Do you REALLY think that a big business capitalist owned eu is in place for working folk? Too much green been smoked mate methinks.........

"They 'opted-out' of the 'social chapter', because it reduced the working weeks that employers could force their workers to do. They've systematically reduced the power of the unions, and in doing so, also the funding to their opposition, the Labour Party."

I will quote once again what the geezer from the trade unions against the eu said..........

"So what about the much-hailed European Social Chapter, the Council of Europe treaty which enshrines social and economic rights in relation to employment, working hours and parental leave? According to Nicholls, it’s not worth the regulation EU paper it’s printed on. ‘Never once has the European Union or the Social Chapter sat by my side and assisted the negotiations with employers’, he says. ‘Its continued prerogatives are around information and consultation – you know, “we’ll give you a bit of notice as to when we’re going to close your factory”.

"‘The EU has done nothing for workers’ rights’ Worse still, the EU has shafted workers when the going has gotten tough. Nicholls points to Greece, Hungary and other accession states where collective bargaining – the bedrock of trade unionism – has been abolished in exchange for membership and bailouts.

Then there’s the uncomfortable truth that this supposed beacon of workers’ rights presides over millions of unemployed Europeans. ‘We say that there is a fundamental right under capitalism to work’, says Nicholls. ‘The European Union has 23million unemployed workers, that’s the equivalent of the entire population of Belgium and the Netherlands being unemployed.’"

As for remain 'protecting' workers rights that is a load of bollocks. For a start, the EU is not responsible for as many employment rights as you might think..........


"The UK implemented the Equal Pay Act in 1970, before it even joined the EU. It already had sex and race discrimination laws too, according to the TUC, while its maternity leave exceeded the EU minimum of 14 weeks when that directive came in.

It is true that the EU has strengthened, expanded and updated these rights over the decades. It has also added new ones, such as the right to holiday pay, unpaid parental leave and equal treatment for part-time workers.

Yet two of the biggest EU directives — the maximum 48-hour week and the agency workers’ regulations — contained big loopholes or opt-outs for UK employers. Indeed, Britain’s labour market is the least regulated in the EU.

According to the OECD’s employment protection index, the UK comes in at 31 out of 34 rich countries. That begs the question of which labour market regulations the government would do away with, should the UK leave the EU.

It is hard to imagine any government going into the 2020 election with “bring back sexism in the workplace” or “let’s have fewer paid holidays” on their leaflets. The truth is that most employers are not angling for these EU-related rights to be repealed.

Similarly, trade unions and labour activists complain most loudly about the growth of precarious work and the introduction of the trade union bill, which aims to make it harder for unions to strike. Yet as employment policy expert Richard Dunstan points out, these key battles over workers’ rights are “wholly domestic”. Brussels has been no bulwark against them and a vote for Remain would do nothing to change them.

As Martin Warren, head of labour relations at Eversheds, wryly observes: “There’s more than one way to skin a cat.” A vote for Brexit on June 23 would have important implications for the labour market but that is because it would shake up immigration and trade. The impact on employment rights is a sideshow — no matter what the Leave and Remain campaigns may say.

https://next.ft.com/content/7067d5e0-fa4e-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b

So basically what you are claiming is the eu is good for workers rights? Yet both articles above have destroyed that myth............
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Brexit