Originally posted by robbie carrobieI wonder who "we" are? Is your question addressed to the forum generally, a bit like "Does the panel think?"
Its all very confusing. Are we saying that a rejection of the EU is a rejection of neo liberalism, banksters, globalists and the austerity they have imposed?
As far as liberalism, banksters and globalists are concerned, the major argument has been about regulation by "Brussels." We are told that an elected European Parliament and a Council of elected government ministers served by an appointed (by governments) Commission and an independent court system is undemocratic. It seems the voters prefer regulation by Monsanto, Amazon, AstraZeneca,.. The corporations and financial gamblers can comply with all of our laws created democratically by our sovereign parliament - as long as we ensure that we do not pass any laws that regulate their activities in the public interest.
I would say that, on the whole, the attack aginst regulation by "Brussels" has been overwhelmingly effective and benefits, not the people, but the City of London.
As regards austerity, it was never justified and was the wrong response economically (never mind morally) to the 2008 banking crash. It may turn out to be the only possible response to Brexit, as public revenues collapse with economic disorder and as the big manufacturers uproot our industries (what has not already transferred to Asian economies and what little the Tories have not already undermined) and take our jobs to Poland, Spain, France .... Maybe even Greece?
I would say that intensifying inequality provoked the social unrest and anger that characterised the Brexit vote in working class areas around the country. Racism, excessive nationalism, violence in political language and behaviour, all correlate with inequality. People do not engage in subtle analysis in such times - instead they lash out in anger. Ordinary people have been humiliated by recent governments and see no relief. They will punish any and every aspect of what they think of as "establishment." Farage and the far right take full advantage and get the greatest benefit from this anger and he is laughing all the way to his hedge fund backers.
Originally posted by finneganI was referring to the 'we', as the consensus of the forum, ideas being espoused by kcmax and others held in common. Neo liberalism, banksters, NWO etc aside I still don't understand what the alleged advantages are, if any of leaving the European union. Surely there must be some? I find it incredulous that its pure emotional raw sentiment that has led to this and that reason is all but superfluous.
I wonder who "we" are? Is your question addressed to the forum generally, a bit like "Does the panel think?"
As far as liberalism, banksters and globalists are concerned, the major argument has been about regulation by "Brussels." We are told that an elected European Parliament and a Council of elected government ministers served by an appointed (by g ...[text shortened]... t the greatest benefit from this anger and he is laughing all the way to his hedge fund backers.
1 edit
I just dont get it, lets take the premise that rejection of E.U. was a rejection of Neo liberalism, banksters and globalists, just sayin. The UK and its dependencies will now become a tax haven for illicit money laundering, tax dodging American corporations like Apple and Amazon and Russian oligarchs, but wait! it already was, that's weird, we seem to have got it the wrong way round??? it was the E.U. that we just rejected that was reelin them in. Ouch! Is it not the case? Please someone direct me to a non biased source so that i can attempt to assimilate what this all means.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you do get it.
I just dont get it, lets take the premise that rejection of E.U. was a rejection of Neo liberalism, banksters and globalists, just sayin. The UK and its dependencies will now become a tax haven for illicit money laundering, tax dodging American corporations like Apple and Amazon and Russian oligarchs, but wait! it already was, that's weird, we seem ...[text shortened]... omeone direct me to a non biased source so that i can attempt to assimilate what this all means.
3 edits
Originally posted by QuarlI am guessing this refers to some EU regulations on electrical products.
Electric tea kettles, toasters, hair dryers and other important kit banned by dictatorial people that aren't answerable to anyone.
They will probably have emerged from the European Commission after consultation with the relevant industry. That is their job. They regulate trade. That is the purpose of the EU. To set common standards for trade across the EU instead of having diverse regulations in each state for arbitrary reasons. Remember it is primarily an economic prject and all about free trade, which requires smoothing out regulatory barriers to trade - viz - too much diversity of rules.
The Commission is accountable to the Council of Ministers (elected governments of all states) and to the European Parliament. It is also exposed to public scrutiny and there are frequent political campaigns to influence regulations.
If you do not like EU regulations set by the commission, and do not want states to set their own, perhaps you prefer no regulations and allow the corporations to operate unregulated. That, in any case, is what the Tories will be offering us once we exit the EU. Monsanto will be so happy but maybe the bees will be less enhusiastic.
However, if our manufacturers and services are to trade with the EU once we leave, they will have to comply with EU regulations, but will no longer be represented in the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament and will no longer get to appoint a British Commissioner. That is not more democratic - it is more idiotic.
The regulations will not go away but maybe the British suppliers will. Shame. Our jobs will go to Europe.
Originally posted by SuzianneSurely you don't think her flip-flop on the TPP was anything but politically motivated?
So what's your point? I bet you believed in the tooth fairy when you were 3.
She's gone on record since then as being against TPP. And need I remind you that Hillary is not Bill? Too many people in this forum love to conflate the two.
If the TPP is not passed by the time of her inauguration, do you expect her to still oppose it?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderPersonally I don't think she will oppose it. My take on all of this is not one of nefarious conspiracy, but rather more one of inevitable catch-up that governments are taking to establish a regulatory framework around economic activity already in play. That the WTO have been having talks since the end of WW2 and the fact that worldwide agreements to standardise quantities and measurements are all within the charter of the general agreement on tarrifs and trade, GATT, all mean that a global market can operate because of a decreasing ambiguity between producers and suppliers meeting the needs, perceived or otherwise, of consumers.
Surely you don't think her flip-flop on the TPP was anything but politically motivated?
If the TPP is not passed by the time of her inauguration, do you expect her to still oppose it?
The glass half empty view sees the emerging superstructure of global trade negatively, paying close attention to the levers of power and the groups in control. The glass half full approach is to view the framework of trade positively as heralding in an era of unparalleled trade opportunities.
Lest we forget 100 years ago Europe was in the thick of World War, that would repeat with greater devastation a generation later. One hundred years previous to that war to end all others, Europe was embroiled in the Napoleonic wars which followed on the back of the French and American revolutions and preceded the bloody American civil war.
Whatever angst and animosity felt towards the apparent architect's of a NWO, the reality is that if Europe and the world can avoid large scale military conflict for another one hundred years, the upside in terms of quality of life and standard of living of the common person will only increase. If the architect's enjoy more time in the sun as a consequence of being inside of the project, the mature thing would be to get over it and wait our turn. Unfortunately history says we are not good at patiently waiting in line and there are far too many folk only too willing to trash the joint because in their estimation progress and sunshine is taking a tad too long......