|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Jul 30, 2015 18:41:51 GMT
I'm just glad Corbyn has come out and finally said that he doesn't want to actively campaign to leave the EU. It's a bit of a game changer for progressives inside the Labour Party. Derrida I feel exactly the opposite, more akin to the viewpoint of Tony Benn, “the most formal surrender of British sovereignty and parliamentary democracy that has ever occurred in our history” . Isn't that to completely misunderstand the nature of federalism though? Benn was wrong and didn't understand the nature and purpose of integration. If you want a single European free trade area, that's great. But in order to integrate a free market you inevitably have to integrate taxation and fiscal policy to make it free and fair for each member. Which currency do you tag tax and exchange rates to? You don't have to have a unified Europe, but you do need to have a degree of financial and fiscal integration. The most formal surrender of sovereignty and democracy is apathy, not the European Union. Tony Benn was from a different era with politics that suited them. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 30, 2015 19:06:30 GMT
Derrida I feel exactly the opposite, more akin to the viewpoint of Tony Benn, “the most formal surrender of British sovereignty and parliamentary democracy that has ever occurred in our history” . Isn't that to completely misunderstand the nature of federalism though? Benn was wrong and didn't understand the nature and purpose of integration. If you want a single European free trade area, that's great. But in order to integrate a free market you inevitably have to integrate taxation and fiscal policy to make it free and fair for each member. Which currency do you tag tax and exchange rates to? You don't have to have a unified Europe, but you do need to have a degree of financial and fiscal integration. The most formal surrender of sovereignty and democracy is apathy, not the European Union. Tony Benn was from a different era with politics that suited them. I will have to completely disagree with you here Derrida.. Benn saw what was coming. If you look at Article 4 (3) TFEU258 and TFEU 260 our laws have to cede to the EU . Don't forget it is a PROCESS not the finished article, we are moving towards 'ever closer union' , the United States of Europe. Corbyn still has his doubts according to an interview in the New Statesman today, apparently.The TTIP alone, which Corbyn used to/does oppose is reason enough not to be part of the experiment If we are debating EU membership it is worth listening to the whole argument, as currently set out by those who have been questioning membership for many years. digital-ukip.nationbuilder.com/how_no_can_win?utm_campaign=watch_live_feed&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ukip |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Jul 30, 2015 19:40:11 GMT
Isn't that to completely misunderstand the nature of federalism though? Benn was wrong and didn't understand the nature and purpose of integration. If you want a single European free trade area, that's great. But in order to integrate a free market you inevitably have to integrate taxation and fiscal policy to make it free and fair for each member. Which currency do you tag tax and exchange rates to? You don't have to have a unified Europe, but you do need to have a degree of financial and fiscal integration. The most formal surrender of sovereignty and democracy is apathy, not the European Union. Tony Benn was from a different era with politics that suited them. I will have to completely disagree with you here Derrida.. Benn saw what was coming. If you look at Article 4 (3) TFEU258 and TFEU 260 our laws have to cede to the EU . Don't forget it is a PROCESS not the finished article, we are moving towards 'ever closer union' , the United States of Europe. Corbyn still has his doubts according to an interview in the New Statesman today, apparently.The TTIP alone, which Corbyn used to/does oppose is reason enough not to be part of the experiment If we are debating EU membership it is worth listening to the whole argument, as currently set out by those who have been questioning membership for many years. digital-ukip.nationbuilder.com/how_no_can_win?utm_campaign=watch_live_feed&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ukipHey. Yes we are going to have to agree to disagree. Benn was no prophet - he was against a single market and was pro isolationism. Isolationism has been proved to be disastrous. Tony Benn didn't want to pull out of the EU, he wanted out of the common market, an idea which nobody, not even UKIP, is mental enough to espouse. As for UKIP - I'm more than fully aware of their arguments, and understand the ceding of some legislative practices which the UK hasn't negotiated opt outs for. UKIP do not understand the nature of integration and the process of multilateralism though. The reason that some laws have to be ceded to Europe is because some legislation has to be across the EU. For example, the fee movement of people's across Europe means there has to be cross border cooperation. The single market means thee has to be some cooperation over tax and fiscal policy. UKIP don't want a debate about the pros and cons of membership of the European Union because it doesn't suit their agenda. If, for example, Cameron manages to obtain an opt out on the "ever closer Union of people's" which UKIP find somehow objectionable, what then? In short, UKIP will move the goalposts as they always do. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 20:14:48 GMT
I will have to completely disagree with you here Derrida.. Benn saw what was coming. If you look at Article 4 (3) TFEU258 and TFEU 260 our laws have to cede to the EU . Don't forget it is a PROCESS not the finished article, we are moving towards 'ever closer union' , the United States of Europe. Corbyn still has his doubts according to an interview in the New Statesman today, apparently.The TTIP alone, which Corbyn used to/does oppose is reason enough not to be part of the experiment If we are debating EU membership it is worth listening to the whole argument, as currently set out by those who have been questioning membership for many years. digital-ukip.nationbuilder.com/how_no_can_win?utm_campaign=watch_live_feed&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ukipHey. Yes we are going to have to agree to disagree. Benn was no prophet - he was against a single market and was pro isolationism. Isolationism has been proved to be disastrous. Tony Benn didn't want to pull out of the EU, he wanted out of the common market, an idea which nobody, not even UKIP, is mental enough to espouse. As for UKIP - I'm more than fully aware of their arguments, and understand the ceding of some legislative practices which the UK hasn't negotiated opt outs for. UKIP do not understand the nature of integration and the process of multilateralism though. The reason that some laws have to be ceded to Europe is because some legislation has to be across the EU. For example, the fee movement of people's across Europe means there has to be cross border cooperation. The single market means thee has to be some cooperation over tax and fiscal policy. UKIP don't want a debate about the pros and cons of membership of the European Union because it doesn't suit their agenda. If, for example, Cameron manages to obtain an opt out on the "ever closer Union of people's" which UKIP find somehow objectionable, what then? In short, UKIP will move the goalposts as they always do. You keep on referring to UKIP as though it is the only party opposed to certain forms of EU legislation . There are many from all parties that do .i am specifically referring to opt outs . I think you will also find that we will have that particular door slammed into our face when we enter into negotiation . The single market which you refer to is gradually beginning to split at the seams . Greece is one example but there will inevitably be others . In an ideal world most people would like to remain in Europe but not be shackled by its immigration rules , it's beaurocracy , and human rights legislation . To put it succinctly , we want to govern ourselves more and allow the British public to vote on such issues instead of the convoluted system that Brussels has chained us to. Tony Ben knew exactly what was around the corner , and to some extent so did Enoch Powell . The latter explicitely suggesting that there would be problems of integration and violence in the future . What we are now facing is not just the detrimental effects of mass immigration but also the demise of our national identity and culture . We are struggling to build enough houses , enough schools and the ability to pay our pensioners a decent income . The welfare budget in general is unsustainable in its present form and so is our health service . There comes a point in everyone's life when you have to look after number one and cut your losses . Already this week the crisis in Calais has cost over £1 million a day . That's one hell of a lot a money that has been lost forever. Serious questions and drastic measures need to be drawn up very quickly or we will end up going back into recession once again . |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 30, 2015 20:22:04 GMT
I will have to completely disagree with you here Derrida.. Benn saw what was coming. If you look at Article 4 (3) TFEU258 and TFEU 260 our laws have to cede to the EU . Don't forget it is a PROCESS not the finished article, we are moving towards 'ever closer union' , the United States of Europe. Corbyn still has his doubts according to an interview in the New Statesman today, apparently.The TTIP alone, which Corbyn used to/does oppose is reason enough not to be part of the experiment If we are debating EU membership it is worth listening to the whole argument, as currently set out by those who have been questioning membership for many years. digital-ukip.nationbuilder.com/how_no_can_win?utm_campaign=watch_live_feed&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ukipHey. Yes we are going to have to agree to disagree. Benn was no prophet - he was against a single market and was pro isolationism. Isolationism has been proved to be disastrous. Tony Benn didn't want to pull out of the EU, he wanted out of the common market, an idea which nobody, not even UKIP, is mental enough to espouse. As for UKIP - I'm more than fully aware of their arguments, and understand the ceding of some legislative practices which the UK hasn't negotiated opt outs for. UKIP do not understand the nature of integration and the process of multilateralism though. The reason that some laws have to be ceded to Europe is because some legislation has to be across the EU. For example, the fee movement of people's across Europe means there has to be cross border cooperation. The single market means thee has to be some cooperation over tax and fiscal policy. UKIP don't want a debate about the pros and cons of membership of the European Union because it doesn't suit their agenda. If, for example, Cameron manages to obtain an opt out on the "ever closer Union of people's" which UKIP find somehow objectionable, what then? In short, UKIP will move the goalposts as they always do. Derrida Yes I am very happy to disagree with you on this and your assessment of Benn, Corbyn's mentor. I am glad we can express different views without abuse! I am sure that we will return to this debate. Have a good night. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Jul 30, 2015 23:05:35 GMT
Yep, no need for abuse. No point either.
Speak soon BJR
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 23:24:47 GMT
How nice to see people behaving in an adult fashion .....could there be hope for the Oatcake in general ?
|
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Aug 1, 2015 9:18:09 GMT
How nice to see people behaving in an adult fashion .....could there be hope for the Oatcake in general ? Notice the main culprits of abuse on here haven't posted on this thread for a while . That explains it :/ |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 1, 2015 22:02:15 GMT
I'm still trying to understand why Corbyn wants to leave NATO.
Getting rid of Trident I can understand (if not necessarily agree with, but nonetheless). That said, without a nuclear deterrent, it seems common sense to think the UK would then need the NATO mutual defensive pact if we were attacked by someone outside of it, given that we would no longer have a nuclear defence.
I can't help thinking it's all getting a bit "1983 CND" student politics again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 23:23:46 GMT
I'm still trying to understand why Corbyn wants to leave NATO. Getting rid of Trident I can understand (if not necessarily agree with, but nonetheless). That said, without a nuclear deterrent, it seems common sense to think the UK would then need the NATO mutual defensive pact if we were attacked by someone outside of it, given that we would no longer have a nuclear defence. I can't help thinking it's all getting a bit "1983 CND" student politics again. Yeah ......Nuts isn't it ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 23:48:27 GMT
I'm still trying to understand why Corbyn wants to leave NATO. Getting rid of Trident I can understand (if not necessarily agree with, but nonetheless). That said, without a nuclear deterrent, it seems common sense to think the UK would then need the NATO mutual defensive pact if we were attacked by someone outside of it, given that we would no longer have a nuclear defence. I can't help thinking it's all getting a bit "1983 CND" student politics again. It is ......are those dammed women still at Greenham Common ? |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 4, 2015 16:45:08 GMT
It's all becoming clear now; Alan Johnson backs Yvette Cooper for Labour leadership.
How to make Yvette Cooper look good, stand her next to Jeremy Corbyn.
It was all a clever ploy after all!
|
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 4, 2015 18:05:37 GMT
It's all becoming clear now; Alan Johnson backs Yvette Cooper for Labour leadership. How to make Yvette Cooper look good, stand her next to Jeremy Corbyn. It was all a clever ploy after all! Alan Johnson, rather cleverly in my view, actually said that Corbyn supporters should place their second preference votes behind Yvette Cooper as she was the only potentially unifying candidate. He's not wrong, either, given the choice of candidates. Andy Burnham is a Blairite dressed as a left winger. He backs austerity and welfare cuts. Liz Kendall is an out-and-out Blairite centrist. Yvette Cooper, at least, actively says the Corbyn has a point. Cooper has also said that the only reason she backed the calamitous welfare bill shenanigans instigated by Harriet Harman was because, whilst she strongly disagreed with it, she fell under "collective shadow cabinet responsibility" which is, in fact, true. Corbyn could actively oppose Harman's leadership because he's not in the shadow cabinet. Naturally, there is nothing to suggest that the Labour Party won't collectivise behind Corbyn. If he gets over 50% of the first round votes, I'd suggest that's enough of a mandate. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 4, 2015 18:29:59 GMT
It's all becoming clear now; Alan Johnson backs Yvette Cooper for Labour leadership. How to make Yvette Cooper look good, stand her next to Jeremy Corbyn. It was all a clever ploy after all! Alan Johnson, rather cleverly in my view, actually said that Corbyn supporters should place their second preference votes behind Yvette Cooper as she was the only potentially unifying candidate. He's not wrong, either, given the choice of candidates. Andy Burnham is a Blairite dressed as a left winger. He backs austerity and welfare cuts. Liz Kendall is an out-and-out Blairite centrist. Yvette Cooper, at least, actively says the Corbyn has a point. Cooper has also said that the only reason she backed the calamitous welfare bill shenanigans instigated by Harriet Harman was because, whilst she strongly disagreed with it, she fell under "collective shadow cabinet responsibility" which is, in fact, true. Corbyn could actively oppose Harman's leadership because he's not in the shadow cabinet. Naturally, there is nothing to suggest that the Labour Party won't collectivise behind Corbyn. If he gets over 50% of the first round votes, I'd suggest that's enough of a mandate. It's great news it looks like Corbyn will win. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 18:34:44 GMT
Alan Johnson, rather cleverly in my view, actually said that Corbyn supporters should place their second preference votes behind Yvette Cooper as she was the only potentially unifying candidate. He's not wrong, either, given the choice of candidates. Andy Burnham is a Blairite dressed as a left winger. He backs austerity and welfare cuts. Liz Kendall is an out-and-out Blairite centrist. Yvette Cooper, at least, actively says the Corbyn has a point. Cooper has also said that the only reason she backed the calamitous welfare bill shenanigans instigated by Harriet Harman was because, whilst she strongly disagreed with it, she fell under "collective shadow cabinet responsibility" which is, in fact, true. Corbyn could actively oppose Harman's leadership because he's not in the shadow cabinet. Naturally, there is nothing to suggest that the Labour Party won't collectivise behind Corbyn. If he gets over 50% of the first round votes, I'd suggest that's enough of a mandate. It's great news it looks like Corbyn will win. Ha ha ha.... |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 4, 2015 18:36:10 GMT
It's great news it looks like Corbyn will win. Ha ha ha.... What happened to the new spirit of civility mumf? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 18:37:49 GMT
Why what's up?
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 4, 2015 18:46:58 GMT
Well you clearly find his impending victory amusing? Or are you on yet another wind up? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 19:35:58 GMT
Well you clearly find his impending victory amusing? Or are you on yet another wind up? Ever heard of the expression , we may have won this battle , but we have lost the war .... I suppose it's quite ironic given the fact that Corbyn is CND . What's great about appointing a certain defeat ? Fucking nuts .! |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 4, 2015 19:42:16 GMT
Well you clearly find his impending victory amusing? Or are you on yet another wind up? Ever heard of the expression , we may have won this battle , but we have lost the war .... I suppose it's quite ironic given the fact that Corbyn is CND . What's great about appointing a certain defeat ? Fucking nuts .! Polling suggests you're wrong on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 4, 2015 20:20:01 GMT
Alan Johnson, rather cleverly in my view, actually said that Corbyn supporters should place their second preference votes behind Yvette Cooper as she was the only potentially unifying candidate. He's not wrong, either, given the choice of candidates. Andy Burnham is a Blairite dressed as a left winger. He backs austerity and welfare cuts. Liz Kendall is an out-and-out Blairite centrist. Yvette Cooper, at least, actively says the Corbyn has a point. Cooper has also said that the only reason she backed the calamitous welfare bill shenanigans instigated by Harriet Harman was because, whilst she strongly disagreed with it, she fell under "collective shadow cabinet responsibility" which is, in fact, true. Corbyn could actively oppose Harman's leadership because he's not in the shadow cabinet. Naturally, there is nothing to suggest that the Labour Party won't collectivise behind Corbyn. If he gets over 50% of the first round votes, I'd suggest that's enough of a mandate. It's great news it looks like Corbyn will win. Great news for the Conservative party. Yes pal |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 4, 2015 20:24:52 GMT
Ever heard of the expression , we may have won this battle , but we have lost the war .... I suppose it's quite ironic given the fact that Corbyn is CND . What's great about appointing a certain defeat ? Fucking nuts .! Polling suggests you're wrong on that one. The same polls that said miliband had a very good chance of winning. I'd believe you before I believed a poll since the election |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 20:48:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 20:59:22 GMT
I quote "Labour is in the Death Zone"
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 4, 2015 21:10:15 GMT
I quote "Labour is in the Death Zone"That's only slightly higher than the green zone |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 4, 2015 21:11:20 GMT
I quote "Labour is in the Death Zone"True Mumf,In my opinion ,as things stand, Labour will not win the next election, whoever of the four is leader. If Corbyn doesn't win , I think that he has done enough to expose the frailties of the others and Labour's lack of identity and cohesion. BUT , most of all, as popular as some may think Corbyn is , I don't believe that he will be popular enough in the 60 /100 seats which decide elections under first past the post. Eg it does not matter whatsoever if 100% of the electorate support Labour in Stoke on Trent, it's just one seat. If anything ,I believe that the Tories will increase their majority, as things stand.Add the loss of Scotland and Labour is indeed in its death żone. One major caveat is the EU referendum , which could challenge many party loyalties, and focus minds. Electoral Reform is needed to give better democracy. The marginal seats that swung the wrong way for Labour gu.com/p/488m4?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_ColorNoteWinner takes all: 85 seats that will decide election gu.com/p/47jh9?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 21:21:03 GMT
When you read some of the blinkered bullshit and lies on here it is no wonder why the party is in such a bad way if the views expressed are representative of the party as a whole . I have nothing against the man per se , but I like to look at the bigger picture . I look for the weaknesses and as you rightly suggest , none of the candidates look capable of winning the next election . I quite agree with you .
I was against the appointment of Milliband and said so quite vociferously and openly as you know , and now that he has been heavily beaten , you'd think that the party would learn from its mistakes wouldn't you ? But no ....we go from one election defeat to facing abject obscurity if Corbyn wins .....
It's the strategy of fucking idiots .
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 4, 2015 22:00:15 GMT
I quote "Labour is in the Death Zone"They certainly are in Scotland for example where they were wiped out by an anti-austerity party. The message is simple. Time for truth, honesty and action. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 4, 2015 22:01:42 GMT
When you read some of the blinkered bullshit and lies on here it is no wonder why the party is in such a bad way if the views expressed are representative of the party as a whole . I have nothing against the man per se , but I like to look at the bigger picture . I look for the weaknesses and as you rightly suggest , none of the candidates look capable of winning the next election . I quite agree with you . I was against the appointment of Milliband and said so quite vociferously and openly as you know , and now that he has been heavily beaten , you'd think that the party would learn from its mistakes wouldn't you ? But no ....we go from one election defeat to facing abject obscurity if Corbyn wins ..... It's the strategy of fucking idiots . Weird but apart from your obvious homophobia and issues with race, the original post you put up is very in line with Corbyn's. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 4, 2015 22:03:05 GMT
It's great news it looks like Corbyn will win. Great news for the Conservative party. Yes pal Try reading Ken Clarke's article "pal" Come back when you have. |
|
