Britain and the European Union

[Chang]

 

To say that the European Super State is responsible for every good thing that has come our way regarding human rights is erroneous. The video suggests that were it not for the ECHR we would be cowering in fear in a totalitarian state and that is beyond ridicule

 

This video was however produced by The Guardian (Defender of all things left wing and liberal) and so we must expect pro E.U. bias. Thank you for posting it gatito.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Chang

[gatito]

To say that the European Super State is responsible for every good thing that has come our way regarding human rights is erroneous. The video suggests that were it not for the ECHR we would be cowering in fear in a totalitarian state and that is beyond ridicule

 

This video was however produced by The Guardian (Defender of all things left wing and liberal) and so we must expect pro E.U. bias. Thank you for posting it gatito.

 

You're welcome Chang!

 

I think that it sums up the Pythonesque nature of this thread rather well...

 

[Chang]

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret between the EU and US. As a bi-lateral trade agreement, TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations. It is, as John Hilary, Executive Director of campaign group War on Want, said: “An assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.”

 

Since before TTIP negotiations began last February, the process has been secretive and undemocratic. This secrecy is on-going, with nearly all information on negotiations coming from leaked documents and Freedom of Information requests.

 

1 The NHS

Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.

The European Commission has claimed that public services will be kept out of TTIP. However, according to the Huffington Post, the UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston has admitted that talks about the NHS were still on the table.

 

2 Food and environmental safety

TTIP’s ‘regulatory convergence’ agenda will seek to bring EU standards on food safety and the environment closer to those of the US. But US regulations are much less strict, with 70 per cent of all processed foods sold in US supermarkets now containing genetically modified ingredients. By contrast, the EU allows virtually no GM foods. The US also has far laxer restrictions on the use of pesticides. It also uses growth hormones in its beef which are restricted in Europe due to links to cancer. US farmers have tried to have these restrictions lifted repeatedly in the past through the World Trade Organisation and it is likely that they will use TTIP to do so again.

 

The same goes for the environment, where the EU’s REACH regulations are far tougher on potentially toxic substances. In Europe a company has to prove a substance is safe before it can be used; in the US the opposite is true: any substance can be used until it is proven unsafe. As an example, the EU currently bans 1,200 substances from use in cosmetics; the US just 12.

 

3 Banking regulations

TTIP cuts both ways. The UK, under the influence of the all-powerful City of London, is thought to be seeking a loosening of US banking regulations. America’s financial rules are tougher than ours. They were put into place after the financial crisis to directly curb the powers of bankers and avoid a similar crisis happening again. TTIP, it is feared, will remove those restrictions, effectively handing all those powers back to the bankers.

 

4 Privacy

Remember ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)? It was thrown out by a massive majority in the European Parliament in 2012 after a huge public backlash against what was rightly seen as an attack on individual privacy where internet service providers would be required to monitor people’s online activity.  Well, it’s feared that TTIP could be bringing back ACTA’s central elements, proving that if the democratic approach doesn’t work, there’s always the back door. An easing of data privacy laws and a restriction of public access to pharmaceutical companies’ clinical trials are also thought to be on the cards.

 

5 Jobs

The EU has admitted that TTIP will probably cause unemployment as jobs switch to the US, where labour standards and trade union rights are lower. It has even advised EU members to draw on European support funds to compensate for the expected unemployment.

 

Examples from other similar bi-lateral trade agreements around the world support the case for job losses.  The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada and Mexico caused the loss of one million US jobs over 12 years, instead of the hundreds of thousands of extra that were promised.

 

6 Democracy

TTIP’s biggest threat to society is its inherent assault on democracy. One of the main aims of TTIP is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits. In effect it means unelected transnational corporations can dictate the policies of democratically elected governments.

 

ISDSs are already in place in other bi-lateral trade agreements around the world and have led to such injustices as in Germany where Swedish energy company Vattenfall is suing the German government for billions of dollars over its decision to phase out nuclear power plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Here we see a public health policy put into place by a democratically elected government being threatened by an energy giant because of a potential loss of profit. Nothing could be more cynically anti-democratic.

 

There are around 500 similar cases of businesses versus nations going on around the world at the moment and they are all taking place before ‘arbitration tribunals’ made up of corporate lawyers appointed on an ad hoc basis, which according to War on Want’s John Hilary, are “little more than kangaroo courts” with “a vested interest in ruling in favour of business.”

So I don’t know about you, but I’m scared. I would vote against TTIP, except… hang on a minute… I can’t. Like you, I have no say whatsoever in whether TTIP goes through or not.  All I can do is tell as many people about it as possible, as I hope, will you. We may be forced to accept an attack on democracy but we can at least fight against the conspiracy of silence.

[Karl]

Facts ? Facts ? No one cares about those. It's safer to stay in and we have Daves 'cast iron guarantee' that we won't be going to get any closer to Europe (probably because moving a 1200 mile Long Island is an engineering nightmare). Anyway, if we leave, then non of us will ever be able to get into Europe again because it would be like a really, really bad kind of thing with a French Berlin Wall/maginot line, missile complexes and Europeans staring at us from the slits of concrete watch towers.

[Kirran]

If you guys think Obama's a socialist, and that the SNP are socialist extremists, you're sure lucky I'm not in power anywhere

 

In fact all our major political clusters in the modern West are solidly dominated by the objective right wing, and towards the authoritarian side rather than the libertarian too.

 

Neo-liberalism and free market economics are what's causing the problem, and that won't change with us leaving the EU.

 

I grew up in the UK's most Europhile county

[Karl]

If you guys think Obama's a socialist, and that the SNP are socialist extremists, you're sure lucky I'm not in power anywhere

In fact all our major political clusters in the modern West are solidly dominated by the objective right wing, and towards the authoritarian side rather than the libertarian too.

Neo-liberalism and free market economics are what's causing the problem, and that won't change with us leaving the EU.

I grew up in the UK's most Europhile county

 

We haven't had free market economics since the beginning of the 20th century, it's close to being a complete Government/corporate hybrid (fascistic economics) amongst all the major players including the banks and monetary system.

 

The right/left paradigm has long been a myth, it's really just degrees of serfdom. I'm cautious of calling 'libertarian' the opposite to serfdom because it has become infected with collectivist rot.

 

There are two elites in Britain. One sees its future inside the EU, the other has become disenchanted with the progress been made and wants to leave. Most of us voting out know and recognise the realities, but, like Scotland, if we vote to leave my guess is that the current welfare system will come under increasing pressure and begin to break down. The Government will then be forced to cut spending and try to increase taxation. When that fails-as it will-they will have to begin looking at loosening the- in your words neo-liberal shackles- or risk collapse.

[Chang]

If you guys think Obama's a socialist, and that the SNP are socialist extremists, you're sure lucky I'm not in power anywhere

 

Your probably correct in that assumption.

 

In fact all our major political clusters in the modern West are solidly dominated by the objective right wing, and towards the authoritarian side rather than the libertarian too.

 

Are you suggesting that things would be better were we "solidly dominated" by Socialist rule? If that is the case then I fear you are deluded.

 

Neo-liberalism and free market economics are what's causing the problem, and that won't change with us leaving the EU.

 

That may well be the case but at least it will be a start.

 

I grew up in the UK's most Europhile county

I rather like Cambridge though it does have an unpleasant air of left wing Liberalism about it.

[Kirran]

I rather like Cambridge though it does have an unpleasant air of left wing Liberalism about it.

 

Quoting properly got confusing, so I'm gonna just do it like this:

 

r.e. whether things would be better were we "solidly dominated by socialist rule" - thoroughly depends on the nature of the socialism. It isn't homogenous. I'd rather you'd be a bit more civil about it, as well - you may think my opinions are invalid, but you could keep it to yourself.

 

r.e. it being a start - I don't think so, really. I think we're better off staying in, where we can be a part of reform.

 

r.e. Cambridge - I'm not from Cambridge, and am just here temporarily, so I can't comment too accurately on that.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Kirran

[Apech]

Quoting properly got confusing, so I'm gonna just do it like this:

 

r.e. whether things would be better were we "solidly dominated by socialist rule" - thoroughly depends on the nature of the socialism. It isn't homogenous. I'd rather you'd be a bit more civil about it, as well - you may think my opinions are invalid, but you could keep it to yourself.

 

r.e. it being a start - I don't think so, really. I think we're better off staying in, where we can be a part of reform.

 

r.e. Cambridge - I'm not from Cambridge, and am just here temporarily, so I can't comment too accurately on that.

 

I was born in Cambridge - which may explain a lot about me

 

Socialism (or the left wing) has changed unrecognisably since I first encountered it.  Now it seems to be all about intersectionalist minority victim culture.  Not so in the old days, particularly post war when it was much more about the needs of the many and had a strong element of people working together but with an emphasis on individual responsibility and high standards of behaviour.  Now it just seems to be about whining and encouraging people to feel and be weak - in an unpleasant aggressive way.  Shame how things have declined.

[Chang]

r.e. whether things would be better were we "solidly dominated by socialist rule" - thoroughly depends on the nature of the socialism. It isn't homogenous. I'd rather you'd be a bit more civil about it, as well - you may think my opinions are invalid, but you could keep it to yourself.

 

You may find this thread of interest. http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/38911-socialism-does-work/

[Karl]

Quoting properly got confusing, so I'm gonna just do it like this:

 

r.e. whether things would be better were we "solidly dominated by socialist rule" - thoroughly depends on the nature of the socialism. It isn't homogenous. I'd rather you'd be a bit more civil about it, as well - you may think my opinions are invalid, but you could keep it to yourself.

 

r.e. it being a start - I don't think so, really. I think we're better off staying in, where we can be a part of reform.

 

r.e. Cambridge - I'm not from Cambridge, and am just here temporarily, so I can't comment too accurately on that.

 

As reforming it would only be to make the way we wanted rather than every other country, I suggest that you are living on fantasy island. It isn't ever going to be reformed in the way we want it and 50 years of trying has resulted in nothing but some agreements that we don't have to follow every rule.

[Kirran]

I was born in Cambridge - which may explain a lot about me

 

Socialism (or the left wing) has changed unrecognisably since I first encountered it.  Now it seems to be all about intersectionalist minority victim culture.  Not so in the old days, particularly post war when it was much more about the needs of the many and had a strong element of people working together but with an emphasis on individual responsibility and high standards of behaviour.  Now it just seems to be about whining and encouraging people to feel and be weak - in an unpleasant aggressive way.  Shame how things have declined.

 

Well, that's there as an element, certainly. But I don't understand it to define the modern left.

 

As reforming it would only be to make the way we wanted rather than every other country, I suggest that you are living on fantasy island. It isn't ever going to be reformed in the way we want it and 50 years of trying has resulted in nothing but some agreements that we don't have to follow every rule.

 

When you say "we", which group do you refer to?

[Karl]

Well, that's there as an element, certainly. But I don't understand it to define the modern left.

 

 

 

When you say "we", which group do you refer to?

Each individual on our Island. It generally splits into 3 active groups. Those who are looking for socialist utopia (communists) those wanting big business crony capitalism(Facists) and those wanting Liberty. As for the rest they really don't care one way or another, they will cry when someone takes away their biscuits and smile when they get them.

 

The Liberty side of the Labour and Conservative parties realised the horrible compromise they were getting within the EU. They realised that freedom of mind (labour) and freedom of body (conservatives) could never occur under technocratic bureaucracy. That being in the EU was akin to living life under the auspices of an inhuman machine which didn't care about Liberty, only process, order and organisation. Unfortunately it falls down because men are not machines and those that run the vast bureaucracy are fallible men. Under any crisis the EU will prove aimless and incompetent, it is not unlike a giant county council of middling bureaucrats who can cope with a bit of road design or a town statue-not very well, but passably-told they must fight a war, or produce a space ship to cross the Galaxy.

 

The reason the EU will never reform is that it is the home of the useless, the incompetent, the average. Those people have found a niche, as do those in Whitehall, in which they can hide their mediocrity and lack of independent productivity whilst being handsomely rewarded. They won't change because it doesn't serve them to change. Thus, over time, stagnation and corruption set in and eventually grind every bit of independence action out of the population through institutionalised hopelessness. You might rout an army, or overcome every problem in order to fly to Mars, but a bureaucracy will resist change far beyond the capacity of any one person or group has to enact it.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Karl

[Chang]

Well, that's there as an element, certainly. But I don't understand it to define the modern left.

 

The "Modern Left." Now there is a term to conjure with.

 

[Karl]

The "Modern Left." Now there is a term to conjure with.

 

 

Perfect. The undeserved rich get richer because the poor are voting to enable them. Unfortunately crime does pay when everyone has abandoned their moral codes.

[Kirran]

Again: not monolithic.

 

The left includes Noam Chomsky, Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi and Nicola Sturgeon.

 

Just as the right includes Mussolini, David Cameron, Nigel Farage and David Duke.

[Karl]

Again: not monolithic.

 

The left includes Noam Chomsky, Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi and Nicola Sturgeon.

 

Just as the right includes Mussolini, David Cameron, Nigel Farage and David Duke.

 

I have no time for any of them. Left and Right it's all the same to me. They all want to control men by imposing their idealism.

[Kirran]

I have no time for any of them. Left and Right it's all the same to me. They all want to control men by imposing their idealism.

 

Who do you have time for?

[Karl]

Who do you have time for?

 

Those that share the same values and principles I do:

 

Accepting the responsibility to form ones own judgement and to live by the work of ones own mind. Permitting no breach between between body and mind, between action and thought, between their lives and their convictions. To recognise that the unreal is unreal and has no value, that neither love, nor fame, nor money is a value if obtained by fraud. Who judges other men and is prepared to be judged in turn. A producer of material value be it goods, or services and one who is committed to achieving their own moral perfection.

 

[Kirran]

Those that share the same values and principles I do: Accepting the responsibility to form ones own judgement and to live by the work of ones own mind. Permitting no breach between between body and mind, between action and thought, between their lives and their convictions. To recognise that the unreal is unreal and has no value, that neither love, nor fame, nor money is a value if obtained by fraud. Who judges other men and is prepared to be judged in turn. A producer of material value be it goods, or services and one who is committed to achieving their own moral perfection.

 

Well, fair enough.

 

Sadly, this isn't the kind of stuff you can translate easily into partisan political stances.

[Karl]

Well, fair enough.

 

Sadly, this isn't the kind of stuff you can translate easily into partisan political stances.

 

Which is why I no longer vote in elections. I support specific aims but not political parties. The less the Government does the better. I want them out of everything except in so far as maintaining an objective justice system with the force to back it up.

[Kirran]

Which is why I no longer vote in elections. I support specific aims but not political parties. The less the Government does the better. I want them out of everything except in so far as maintaining an objective justice system with the force to back it up.

 

How would healthcare work? How would prisons work? How would the government be funded? How would it be elected or chosen?

 

It'd be fair to say I am anarchist also - but these things still have to covered in a stateless or near-stateless society.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Kirran

[Karl]

How would healthcare work? How would prisons work? How would the government be funded? How would it be elected or chosen?

 

It'd be fair to say I am anarchist also - but these things still have to covered in a stateless or near-stateless society.

 

I'm not an anarchist, but a rational radical. I understand the requirement for a Government that deals with justice, force and prisons. I also accept that we would need to finance it.

 

We don't need a Government healthcare system, education, welfare or all the other things in which the state has now inserted itself. They shouldn't be involved in commerce, marriage, births, banks, roads or any other kind of thing that isn't strictly to do with the objective rule of law and its enforcement.

 

Payment would be a voluntary affair much like taking out insurance. Each person would pay a different contract rate determined by their particular requirements. Just as in the course of normal life, if you have nothing then your costs would be commensurate. If you were wealthy and had businesses then your costs woukd automatically be higher.

 

Unlike some who want to lay out the exact system, I think it's better to begin the radical action prior to figuring out every detail. As things change and Government shrinks, there will no longer be a dependence on the state to provide services beyond justice and force. It isn't just a case of changing the political framework, but the entire philosophy must change. There will still be criminality, but not the legally protected large scale criminality we see operating openly today.

 

 

[Kirran]

I'm not an anarchist, but a rational radical. I understand the requirement for a Government that deals with justice, force and prisons. I also accept that we would need to finance it. We don't need a Government healthcare system, education, welfare or all the other things in which the state has now inserted itself. They shouldn't be involved in commerce, marriage, births, banks, roads or any other kind of thing that isn't strictly to do with the objective rule of law and its enforcement. Payment would be a voluntary affair much like taking out insurance. Each person would pay a different contract rate determined by their particular requirements. Just as in the course of normal life, if you have nothing then your costs would be commensurate. If you were wealthy and had businesses then your costs woukd automatically be higher. Unlike some who want to lay out the exact system, I think it's better to begin the radical action prior to figuring out every detail. As things change and Government shrinks, there will no longer be a dependence on the state to provide services beyond justice and force. It isn't just a case of changing the political framework, but the entire philosophy must change. There will still be criminality, but not the legally protected large scale criminality we see operating openly today.

 

Who would decide what is illegal?

 

Also, last year my mother got breast cancer. She had a mammectomy, went through chemo and radiotherapy, and is now OK. Didn't spend a penny. What would happen to people who didn't have the money to have paid for that? Leave them to it?

[Karl]

The leave.eu campaign is doing themselves no favours with me today. Apparently we don't have an area coordinator so I couldn't have any flyers or leaflets. I didn't really want the job of coordinator as I'm not that kind of organiser, but happy to do my bit. Eventually, after sending them an email outlining my disappointment and frustration they apologised and agreed to send me some stuff.

 

I wonder if this is what is happening everywhere else ? They appear to be treating it like an election and only working in areas that aren't staunch Labour which is stupid in a referendum where every vote counts as one vote.

 

It's damned hard work trying to be an unpaid volunteer.