Brexit Negotiations

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Samtemdo8:
I have 2 very simple questions to ask here about Brexit.

1. Do you think the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland will be better off as a independent state should Brexit succeeds, if so explain why?

2. Do you think the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland should remain a client state of the European Union and will be better off remaining as such, if so explain why?

I have an even simpler question based upon assumptions you're making here.

Do you understand at all what the European Union is and how the states participating in it interact with the overall organization?

Silvanus:
Out of interest, what is it you find so objectionable about Jeremy Corbyn?

To be clear, I have some (fairly major) disagreements with the man as well. Yet, relatively, he's a fairly moderate centre-left politician, who has fielded nothing terribly left-field as far as European social democracy goes. The pearl-clutching reaction to him in the British press as been nothing short of ludicrous, and illustrates to me only that the centre in British politics has lurched severely to the right since 1997.

The chap has some severe hypocrisy when it comes to foreign politics and international relations. Particularly regarding the Israel-Palestine issue, but there are others. He surrounds himself with some fairly dubious people, turns a blind eye to bullying within the party, and seems to be buying into the whole messiah thing a bit too much. I dislike the Momentum group gaining influence in Labour - the group does not represent the voter base, but would happily run the Party's election chances into the ground if it had total power over it's little patch of land.

That said, I actually agree with a fair number of his policies. I just don't like the man, nor want him leading the country. A politician running on a similar platform without Corbyn's history, I could accept.

Wait... what? There are Americans who think the UK is a mere client state of the EU? The UK is one of the major players in the EU. It has 70m people, it's Europe's financial centre, it has military force projection, not just defence, it's universities are well regarded, it's one of the G8. How did the UK's image in the US drop so far that some think it's a CLIENT STATE?

Catnip1024:
The chap has some severe hypocrisy when it comes to foreign politics and international relations. Particularly regarding the Israel-Palestine issue, but there are others. He surrounds himself with some fairly dubious people, turns a blind eye to bullying within the party, and seems to be buying into the whole messiah thing a bit too much.

There are some unpleasant people who have enjoyed his company, certainly, though I'd say the same is true of almost any (major) party leader (or Prime Minister) for a good number of years. The objectionable nature of his associates is dwarfed by almost any leading member of the Conservative Party, for instance, yet it only gets brought up against him.

Once again, this is not to say criticism of Corbyn is invalidated by the Conservatives' crimes. That criticism remains valid. This is solely an observation of media imbalance.

Samtemdo8:
1. Do you think the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland will be better off as a independent state should Brexit succeeds, if so explain why?

The United Kingdom is an independent state.

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not independent states (they are devolved countries within the United Kingdom). The UK is an independent country. Being part of a treaty organization does not change anything.

Samtemdo8:
2. Do you think the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland should remain a client state of the European Union and will be better off remaining as such, if so explain why?

So, I have a very simple question to ask you.

Do you think the United States is a "client state" of NATO?

I mean, does this line of reasoning apply to all treaty organisations, or just to the EU?

Silvanus:
There are some unpleasant people who have enjoyed his company, certainly, though I'd say the same is true of almost any (major) party leader (or Prime Minister) for a good number of years. The objectionable nature of his associates is dwarfed by almost any leading member of the Conservative Party, for instance, yet it only gets brought up against him.

Once again, this is not to say criticism of Corbyn is invalidated by the Conservatives' crimes. That criticism remains valid. This is solely an observation of media imbalance.

As somebody who is extremely unlikely to ever be voting Conservative, coming from a former mining town and all, the argument that "the Tories are worse" is one which I have never understood. I am after a good politician, not the least shit one. I want a politician that I can vote for without feeling like I am selling my soul.

The media is imbalanced in it's coverage (or has been, of late it has been equally scathing of May). But that's all the more reason for Corbyn to allow someone to run who doesn't provide that kind of ammunition. Who hasn't done paid broadcasts for Iranian news networks, sort of thing. Or at the very least, to man up and not attempt to be so appeasing to everyone, all the time. Take his rather ambivalent approach to the whole Brexit thing, for example.

Catnip1024:
As somebody who is extremely unlikely to ever be voting Conservative, coming from a former mining town and all, the argument that "the Tories are worse" is one which I have never understood. I am after a good politician, not the least shit one. I want a politician that I can vote for without feeling like I am selling my soul.

Well, yes, hence the bit about the criticism remaining valid. Still, I would hardly say this makes him a "shit politician"; a lot of it is guilt-by-association at worst.

Catnip1024:

The media is imbalanced in it's coverage (or has been, of late it has been equally scathing of May). But that's all the more reason for Corbyn to allow someone to run who doesn't provide that kind of ammunition. Who hasn't done paid broadcasts for Iranian news networks, sort of thing. Or at the very least, to man up and not attempt to be so appeasing to everyone, all the time. Take his rather ambivalent approach to the whole Brexit thing, for example.

Of all the criticisms I've seen of the man, the notion that he's too appeasing to everyone is certainly one of the less believable ones. He's extraordinarily divisive, and has taken stances that have made enemies of huge numbers of interest groups, corporations, and media companies.

Silvanus:

Samtemdo8:
I have 2 very simple questions to ask here about Brexit.

1. Do you think the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland will be better off as a independent state should Brexit succeeds, if so explain why?

Well, it is already an "independent state" within the European Union; the Union is a largely economic and regulatory body, with very minimal (or tangential) impact on British law.

That said, I do not think it will be better off outside of the European Union. The loss of the single market and Customs Union would make trade with the UK quite onerous, and potentially costly, if there are close alternatives-- which there are, within the EU. The Conservative Party has threatened to make the UK a low-regulation, low-corporation-tax haven in order to attract businesses, which I think would be almost catastrophic for both social mobility and public funding. This would be another severe threat to the NHS and other sectors in dire need of investment.

Samtemdo8:

2. Do you think the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland should remain a client state of the European Union and will be better off remaining as such, if so explain why?

That depends. What do you mean by "client state"?

Catnip1024:
and I despise the prospect of having to choose between him and Jeremy Corbyn at a future election...

Out of interest, what is it you find so objectionable about Jeremy Corbyn?

To be clear, I have some (fairly major) disagreements with the man as well. Yet, relatively, he's a fairly moderate centre-left politician, who has fielded nothing terribly left-field as far as European social democracy goes. The pearl-clutching reaction to him in the British press as been nothing short of ludicrous, and illustrates to me only that the centre in British politics has lurched severely to the right since 1997.

I assume that was the proper word for a nation that is part of the EU.

Is the correct term "Member States" than?

Samtemdo8:

I assume that was the proper word for a nation that is part of the EU.

Is the correct term "Member States" than?

Ohh, right-o, I see what you mean.

My confusion stems from the fact that some people have been floating the idea of the UK having a special arrangement with the EU that sees it afforded certain rights and certain accesses, but is still short of full membership, like Norway (which is a member of the EEA, but not EU).

To reply, yes, I think the UK should remain. Some of the reasons given to leave were were exaggerated (the EU impact on UK legislation), some were bunkum entirely (?350 million a week for the NHS!), and others I don't even agree with in principle (end the restriction on our fishing!)

Avnger:

Samtemdo8:
I have 2 very simple questions to ask here about Brexit.

1. Do you think the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland will be better off as a independent state should Brexit succeeds, if so explain why?

2. Do you think the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland should remain a client state of the European Union and will be better off remaining as such, if so explain why?

I have an even simpler question based upon assumptions you're making here.

Do you understand at all what the European Union is and how the states participating in it interact with the overall organization?

I know it was formed after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

And that all the economies and certain policies are shared throughout all member states. Its why they all share the same currency and have English as a universal language for things like sign posts and such.

And my impression of Brexit is the UK wants to be 100% completely free from the EU with absolutely no association with them economically, politcally, and militarially?

Samtemdo8:

Avnger:

Samtemdo8:
I have 2 very simple questions to ask here about Brexit.

1. Do you think the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland will be better off as a independent state should Brexit succeeds, if so explain why?

2. Do you think the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland should remain a client state of the European Union and will be better off remaining as such, if so explain why?

I have an even simpler question based upon assumptions you're making here.

Do you understand at all what the European Union is and how the states participating in it interact with the overall organization?

I know it was formed after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

And that all the economies and certain policies are shared throughout all member states. Its why they all share the same currency and have English as a universal language for things like sign posts and such.

And my impression of Brexit is the UK wants to be 100% completely free from the EU with absolutely no association with them economically, politcally, and militarially?

Oof. Lot of things that are slightly to entirely mistaken here.

You are technically correct that the EU in roughly its current shape formed with the treaty of Maastricht in 1993. However, we should be careful with saying such things about the forming of the EU as it has a history of complicated predecessors that have gradually turned into the modern EU. This process precedes the fall of the Berlin wall.

We don't all share the same currency. The Euro is generally seen to be the currency that all member states except the UK and Denmark are to get eventually. However as of yet about 1 third of EU countries does not have the Euro. Countries can only enter once they fulfill certain requirements regarding their financial stability to prevent situations like what happened to Greece after they adopted the euro without meeting certain requirements.

Sign posts where I live are in Dutch only. Maybe English in some touristy area's like Amsterdam. English is spoken by a large part of the EU but not nearly all of its citizens. In larger countries with languages spoken around the world like France, Spain and to a lesser degree Germany it is perfectly possible to get by without English. In smaller countries like my own English is increasingly common to the point where it is becoming a bit of a political issue but this has little to do with the EU and much more with American media and higher education using a lot of English.

As for militairy cooperation. While EU armies are occasionally floated as an idea they don't exist yet and might never. Militairy cooperation is done either on a case by case basis or through NATO. For example the Netherlands and Belgium cooperate in protecting their airspace. The big militairy cooperation treaty is NATO which Britain will remain a part of.

The UK having no legal economic association with the EU is possible but it would be disastrous and only a few hardline brexiteers want such a thing. Neither Theresa May nor the EU seem to think such a thing is desirable at all. There is and will always be a lot of trade between the UK and the EU area because they are so close to eachother. Not having at least some kind of arrangements to make that go at least a bit smoother is just dumb.

Pseudonym:

Samtemdo8:

Avnger:

I have an even simpler question based upon assumptions you're making here.

Do you understand at all what the European Union is and how the states participating in it interact with the overall organization?

I know it was formed after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

And that all the economies and certain policies are shared throughout all member states. Its why they all share the same currency and have English as a universal language for things like sign posts and such.

And my impression of Brexit is the UK wants to be 100% completely free from the EU with absolutely no association with them economically, politcally, and militarially?

Oof. Lot of things that are slightly to entirely mistaken here.

Which is why I ask these questions to get confirmation.

Now a new one, what exactly is the point of contention the UK has with the EU that they want to brake away from the EU?

Samtemdo8:
Is the correct term "Member States" than?

Yes.

"Client state" is a pejorative term for a state whose government is covertly or overtly controlled by that of another state. The UK's situation within the EU is, again, more like membership in other international treaty organisations like NATO, in that it's actually the UK (and all member states) which have influence within the EU government, not the other way around.

Some eurosceptics don't see it that way, and believe that the EU (particularly the European Civil Service) represents a distinct interest group which imposes its will on the member states. Needless to say, this is extremely, extremely questionable.

Samtemdo8:
Now a new one, what exactly is the point of contention the UK has with the EU that they want to brake away from the EU?

That's a very complicated question.

On the government level, very little. The majority of the UK government was strongly in favour of remaining in the EU, which is why eurosceptic parties like the UK Independence Party were so set on a popular referendum. They could not have achieved Brexit through normal legislative means because it would simply have been defeated in parliament, and the issue put aside for a long time.

But, most right wing print media in the UK was strongly Eurosceptic. There are several reasons for this, firstly the EU is much more resistant to being influenced by British media than the British government, so it provides a kind of buffer to that influence. Secondly, it's just a good rolling narrative which sells newspapers. Regardless, for many years now the right wing British media has massively pushed a eurosceptic narrative.

This created a strong populist anti-EU sentiment, particularly among right wing voters, which lead to the formation of the UK independence party, which was a blatant attempt to capitalise on this. Key points of contention for UKIP (and the electorate) were.

* The amount paid into EU programs by the UK government. This became a major point of contention during the referendum with the now infamous "350 million for the NHS" claim, which turned out to be untrue but was very, very influential.
* Member states in the EU have a free movement agreement which allows EU citizens to travel between EU countries without passports. The implication has been made that it leads to higher migration, including non-EU migration. Again, this is probably not true and most people in the Brexit campaign have rolled back on the idea that Brexit will actually reduce migration figures at all, but again, this claim was very influential in the vote. Some voters seem to have gotten the impression that leaving the EU would prevent Muslims from migrating to the UK, despite the fact that there are no Muslim countries in the EU (and I think given recent events in Turkey, it's unlikely there will be for a very, very long time).
* The influence of EU law. The EU parliament has the ability to make laws, and many EU laws have been ratified into UK law. A particular point of contention is the human rights act, which is the UK ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights. Opponents argue that the HRA allows bad people (particularly foreign nationals) to claim protections or rights to which they shouldn't be entitled, and that only UK citizens should have human rights within the UK. This is to some extent true, the HRA is very inconvenient if you want to simply send someone off to a country where they will be tortured and executed, but some would say that is the point and that it's a good thing that such humanitarian legislation has a degree of oversight.
* Regulation. Much of the media coverage of the EU concerns the idea that the EU imposes bizarre or unecessary regulations which limit UK businesses. These range from actual things, like limits on fishing (which are designed to conserve fish reserves in areas like the North Sea which are heavily fished by several countries) through to things which are grotesquely misrepresented and generally untrue, like the EU supposedly banning the sale of non-straight bananas. It's worth noting that a lot of agricultural legislation put into EU law was spearheaded by the UK during the foot and mouth outbreak (a major disease outbreak in UK cattle which cost 8 billion and was blamed on lax legislation and bad farming practices).

In short, there is nothing substantial here, which is why parliament and the political class were very strongly against Brexit. However, there is a very strong feeling of resentment towards the EU in the UK, which the media and populist parties exploited and fanned the flames of. The likely result is that we are all going to suffer some pretty nasty economic consequences.

evilthecat:

In short, there is nothing substantial here, which is why parliament and the political class were very strongly against Brexit. However, there is a very strong feeling of resentment towards the EU in the UK, which the media and populist parties exploited and fanned the flames of. The likely result is that we are all going to suffer some pretty nasty economic consequences.

Which is also one of the reasons why this whole negotiation is such a mess.

There is not really any concession the UK can aim to get from the EU that they can reasonable sell the Brexiters as victory. They can't save 350 million a week to distribute elsewhere. They can't keep all the European Muslims out while getting white christian immigrants from Pakistan, India and other former colonies. They probably could kill their own Human Rights and try to sell that as a good thing, i guess. But it would be hard to get the EU to accept that for EU-citizens and still sign a beneficial trade deal. They can't get rid of EU regulations and at the same time let all their companies in the UK and operate EU wide under a common set of regulations.

evilthecat:
So, I have a very simple question to ask you.

Do you think the United States is a "client state" of NATO?

I mean, does this line of reasoning apply to all treaty organisations, or just to the EU?

Now while I'm definitely not one of the people who claim the EU overreaches so hard that "client state" is a fair description of any member (although occasionally you do get the impression that certain people in Br?ssel view less powerful countries like Poland or Greece as little more than client states, even though thats not the reality of the situation) , thats an unfair comparison. The NATO fulfills a completely different role, has completely different powers and the USA has much more pull there than any single member state has inside the EU, even Germany.

Samtemdo8:
I assume that was the proper word for a nation that is part of the EU.

Is the correct term "Member States" than?

There are plenty of people who believe, or like to pretend they believe that the UK is a client state, in the the EU runs them. Decades ago, the UK comedy "Yes Prime Minister" made a joke about an EU regulation banning the name "British Sausage", and demanding that they call them "Emulsified High-Fat Offal Tubes". Again, this was a joke, but ever since it's been repeated as fact every so often by right-wing tabloids.

You know how the US is part of the UN, and so the UN patrols backwoods US in their black helicopters so people have to build bunkers and buy lots of guns to fight them off? Less scary, but not much less absurd version of that.

Samtemdo8:
And my impression of Brexit is the UK wants to be 100% completely free from the EU with absolutely no association with them economically, politcally, and militarially?

Well, Brexiters, not the UK, but yes. They generally want to be totally separate to the EU economically. But keep all the benefits of being a EU member, of course, and are outraged if people suggest they might lose them.

It's not entirely true to say they want to build a wall and make the French pay for it, but I don't think it's entrirely false either.

Catnip1024:
Now, I despise the guy, and I despise the prospect of having to choose between him and Jeremy Corbyn at a future election...

But I have heard a worrying number of people warming to him, as a serious leader. I mean, I don't see how or why. Possibly because all the other options are equally abysmal. But they exist.

I think he has several aspects of appeal:

"Authenticity". Some people put a high premium on others being "real", although that somehow often seems to actually be a defence for tactlessness, insensitivity and openly holding unpalatable views.

Entertainment. Some people seem to think it's moer important to be amused by their democratic representatives than have them run the country effectively.

Single issue convictions. Someone may be a vast, weeping abcess on the face of politics generally, but as long as they're hammering a major issue in a way a chunk of people want to hear, they'll forget the overall awfulness.

Hype. If enough people simply talk about something, people can start to think it's credible. If enough people start treating something as credible, people start to think it's a good idea. Next thing you know, suddenly lots of people support that thing without really knowing or understanding much about it - but they know other people have been going on about it so it must be true, amiright?

These are all quite negative. He does of course have positives: he's obviously extremely clever, very well educated, and well presented in a classic, stuffy, posh British sort of way that somehow still clicks with the UK's inclination to forelock-tugging class deference.

Samtemdo8:
And my impression of Brexit is the UK wants to be 100% completely free from the EU with absolutely no association with them economically, politcally, and militarially?

It's complicated.

Firstly, there's the UK population, and then the UK government and various factions. On balance, the UK population by some 70:30 (i.e. those who voted remain and about half of Brexiters) want to retain very close links (particularly economic) with the EU.

However, there are problems. Many Britons want to both stay tightly economically linked to Europe but also have total border control. And the EU will not permit that. So bear in mind some of the UK population want contradictory things, and it's a lot less clear where they would stand if forced to choose.

In terms of the UK government, the UK is run by the Tories. The Tories hold the bulk of anti-EU sentiment in the UK: Tory members (i.e. the public, not MPs) are heavily EU hostile to the tune of around 80%. Tory MPs are much less Euroskeptic than members. About 30-40 (~10%) are heavily anti-EU, about 10-20 are heavily pro-EU, and the remainder are sort of moderates.

What this means is that the country is run by a party containing a very powerful and influential faction that is far more anti-EU than the general public. The Tory leadership, for the sake of their party, need to bend to this faction. Consequently, the British government is probably handling Brexit in a rather more anti-EU stance than is reflective of the country. As a result, end Brexit UK has a chance of being substantially less close to the EU than its population actually wanted on average.

Kitsune Hunter:
Although I hate the thought of someone like Mogg becoming PM and I can't take him seriously since he looks and sounds like an adult version of Walter from Dennis the Menace.

I will never be able to unsee that now

Silvanus:
Of all the criticisms I've seen of the man, the notion that he's too appeasing to everyone is certainly one of the less believable ones.

Look at any issue that pits his personal opinion against the unions. Submarines, for instance. Quite a major flip-flop for the thousands of voters who work on them.

He's extraordinarily divisive, and has taken stances that have made enemies of huge numbers of interest groups, corporations, and media companies.

That's not divisive, that's his street cred. He wants to come across as the hard on business, stand up for the little guy person. Being anti-capitalist isn't a divisive issue for the majority of the Labour voter base, in the same way that something like Brexit would be.

Catnip1024:
Being anti-capitalist isn't a divisive issue for the majority of the Labour voter base, in the same way that something like Brexit would be.

That's not entirely true: even within the Labour Party, there are definite limits to the extent one can be anti-capitalist without putting the willies up enough people.

Agema:

Catnip1024:
Being anti-capitalist isn't a divisive issue for the majority of the Labour voter base, in the same way that something like Brexit would be.

That's not entirely true: even within the Labour Party, there are definite limits to the extent one can be anti-capitalist without putting the willies up enough people.

I also love how being critical of some aspects of Capitalism makes you Anti-Capitalists.

Agema:
That's not entirely true: even within the Labour Party, there are definite limits to the extent one can be anti-capitalist without putting the willies up enough people.

But proposing nationalisation of the railways and increased taxes on big business is unlikely to lose many votes. It boosts his reputation in the way he wants it moulded. The people most likely to be put off by increased corporation tax and higher band income tax are those least likely to be voting Labour in the first place.

trunkage:
I also love how being critical of some aspects of Capitalism makes you Anti-Capitalists.

It's a useful term. Increasing corporation tax and higher income tax is anti-capitalist. Nobody is saying it is a bad thing. Workers rights are anti-capitalist. A free health service is anti-capitalist. What's your problem?

Catnip1024:
Look at any issue that pits his personal opinion against the unions. Submarines, for instance. Quite a major flip-flop for the thousands of voters who work on them.

On a lot of issues, he and the major unions are of one mind. Must that be appeasement? Could it not be... that that's just his position? He's held most of them since his protest days, long before his position afforded him his union connections, after all.

On the submarines specifically, he has said he would respect the Labour majority position, and still supports their nuclear disarmament (which was the core of his reason anyway). As flip-flops go, that's one of the mildest, and remains true to his original reason.

(Of course, one could validly ask what purpose the submarines would serve without the weaponry, but that's another question entirely...)

Catnip1024:
That's not divisive, that's his street cred. He wants to come across as the hard on business, stand up for the little guy person. Being anti-capitalist isn't a divisive issue for the majority of the Labour voter base, in the same way that something like Brexit would be.

You'd be surprised; a large number of people attracted to the party under Blair and Brown, who saw the party as big business-friendly (with good reason), have found him intensely divisive. The party's MPs certainly found him divisive, to the point of a motion of no confidence.

Catnip1024:
But proposing nationalisation of the railways and increased taxes on big business is unlikely to lose many votes. It boosts his reputation in the way he wants it moulded. The people most likely to be put off by increased corporation tax and higher band income tax are those least likely to be voting Labour in the first place.

This suggests to me you don't truly appreciate what the Labour voterbase was like post-97, and the impact Blair had. The Labour Party abandoned nationalisation and interventionism; it picked up a large number of economically-centrist (or non-interventionist, economically liberal) voters, and lost a swathe of its working class votership in return.

evilthecat:
* The influence of EU law. The EU parliament has the ability to make laws, and many EU laws have been ratified into UK law. A particular point of contention is the human rights act, which is the UK ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights. Opponents argue that the HRA allows bad people (particularly foreign nationals) to claim protections or rights to which they shouldn't be entitled, and that only UK citizens should have human rights within the UK. This is to some extent true, the HRA is very inconvenient if you want to simply send someone off to a country where they will be tortured and executed, but some would say that is the point and that it's a good thing that such humanitarian legislation has a degree of oversight.

But the UK won't be leaving the ECHR, will they? Because that is another reason this seems misguided to me. The EU and the ECHR are different and independend organisations. While the EU demands membership of the ECHR, the reverse is not true and 19 non-EU countries are members of the ECHR. The UK leaving the EU does not imply them leaving the ECHR. I think all European countries besides Belarus are in it. (Not that the likes of Russia and Turkey always follow these laws, nor even do other countries in some cases) So if the UK actually left the ECHR that would be a pretty big step.

Catnip1024:

Agema:
That's not entirely true: even within the Labour Party, there are definite limits to the extent one can be anti-capitalist without putting the willies up enough people.

But proposing nationalisation of the railways and increased taxes on big business is unlikely to lose many votes. It boosts his reputation in the way he wants it moulded. The people most likely to be put off by increased corporation tax and higher band income tax are those least likely to be voting Labour in the first place.

trunkage:
I also love how being critical of some aspects of Capitalism makes you Anti-Capitalists.

It's a useful term. Increasing corporation tax and higher income tax is anti-capitalist. Nobody is saying it is a bad thing. Workers rights are anti-capitalist. A free health service is anti-capitalist. What's your problem?

On the off chance your joking. Your talking about anti-corporationist. That's totally different from Anti-Capitalists. If you support corporation over everyone else, you aren't Capitalist. The Gilded Age was Anti-Capitalist, corporations got huge subsidies and favourable laws.

Workers rights are extensions of Property Rights. Worker entitlements are a different thing. Often these are mixed up. Free health care would be anti-Capitalist. Taxes, I feel like, are dependant on the purpose. Redistribution of wealth - Anti Capitalist. Maintaining property rights through courts and documentation, that's fulfilling institutional needs to make Capitalism function.

trunkage:
On the off chance your joking. Your talking about anti-corporationist. That's totally different from Anti-Capitalists. If you support corporation over everyone else, you aren't Capitalist. The Gilded Age was Anti-Capitalist, corporations got huge subsidies and favourable laws.

Workers rights are extensions of Property Rights. Worker entitlements are a different thing. Often these are mixed up. Free health care would be anti-Capitalist. Taxes, I feel like, are dependant on the purpose. Redistribution of wealth - Anti Capitalist. Maintaining property rights through courts and documentation, that's fulfilling institutional needs to make Capitalism function.

Well, since anti-corporationist doesn't appear to actually be a word, I'll stick with my phrase.

Workers rights are anti-capitalist as they provide some resistance to the whole supply and demand free market bullshit which people attempt to use to screw over the workforce. Changing taxes to hit the rich more is anti-capitalist as in theory it deters people from striving for more, as the work reward balance changes.

Catnip1024:
But proposing nationalisation of the railways and increased taxes on big business is unlikely to lose many votes.

These are broadly popular policies individually - but the risk can be how they sum and end up being portrayed by the press.

It's a useful term. Increasing corporation tax and higher income tax is anti-capitalist. Nobody is saying it is a bad thing. Workers rights are anti-capitalist. A free health service is anti-capitalist. What's your problem?

Anti-capitalist should more usefully describe wanting the destruction of the capitalist system as the fundamental basis of the economy, rather than simply moderating capitalism with a few socialistic policies.

Pseudonym:

But the UK won't be leaving the ECHR, will they?

It's been an ambition of May's for years. Incidentally, this would also breach Good Friday.

On the note of that, can any Brits say if they have an idea what is going on in regards to discussing the plans for the borders? Not just NI but Gibraltar etc?

Pseudonym:
But the UK won't be leaving the ECHR, will they?

That was discussed and seemingly they wanted to. There was some noise about how British Laws about Human rights are better anyway and every British citicen will eventually get better protection of their rights from British courts when the gouvernment is done. And the UK can't be forced to treat foreigners better than they deserve anymore.

It is a bit silent about that topic now. Maybe some more reasonable people explained how stupid that idea was and now the gouvernment hopes the voters somehow forget this particular topic.

Ninjamedic:

Pseudonym:

But the UK won't be leaving the ECHR, will they?

It's been an ambition of May's for years. Incidentally, this would also breach Good Friday.

Since when has that been a concern for May?

spartandude:

Ninjamedic:

Pseudonym:

But the UK won't be leaving the ECHR, will they?

It's been an ambition of May's for years. Incidentally, this would also breach Good Friday.

Since when has that been a concern for May?

EDIT: I just realised what you meant and that I read that wrong. Sorry about that.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36128318
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-campaign-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-2020-general-election-brexit-a7499951.html

Pseudonym:
But the UK won't be leaving the ECHR, will they?

There has been very open talk by some eurosceptic politicians about repealing the human rights act, which effectively means leaving the ECHR. Whether that could be pushed through parliament is another matter, but the intention clearly exists and (thanks to very hostile media coverage) is shared by significant proportion of the electorate. Theresa May has always been a particular opponent of the human rights act thanks to some high profile cases when she was head of the home office. However, the current Tory manifesto has deferred discussion of leaving the ECHR until after Brexit is complete.

There's also the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which doesn't get the media attention of the ECHR but is definately going.

Agema:
Anti-capitalist should more usefully describe wanting the destruction of the capitalist system as the fundamental basis of the economy, rather than simply moderating capitalism with a few socialistic policies.

It's a sliding scale. The same way that antisocial doesn't imply the desire to completely destroy society. The way I see it, it's related to the current system. If your changes are moving away from the idealised capitalist system, that's anti-capitalist. If they move towards it, pro-capitalist. It wasn't meant as an absolutist term by any means.

Catnip1024:

trunkage:
On the off chance your joking. Your talking about anti-corporationist. That's totally different from Anti-Capitalists. If you support corporation over everyone else, you aren't Capitalist. The Gilded Age was Anti-Capitalist, corporations got huge subsidies and favourable laws.

Workers rights are extensions of Property Rights. Worker entitlements are a different thing. Often these are mixed up. Free health care would be anti-Capitalist. Taxes, I feel like, are dependant on the purpose. Redistribution of wealth - Anti Capitalist. Maintaining property rights through courts and documentation, that's fulfilling institutional needs to make Capitalism function.

Well, since anti-corporationist doesn't appear to actually be a word, I'll stick with my phrase.

Workers rights are anti-capitalist as they provide some resistance to the whole supply and demand free market bullshit which people attempt to use to screw over the workforce. Changing taxes to hit the rich more is anti-capitalist as in theory it deters people from striving for more, as the work reward balance changes.

Oh great. You weren't joking. What you are suggesting is Fascism. Fascism favours (certain) corporations over everyone else. Note that this is economic side of Fascism and doesn't have to lead to the racial side (unless you have racist in control).

And yes, before we go further, I made up a word. Capitalism is distinct from support particular corporate interests.

I listen to quite a few economists who proclaim to be Capitalists. They keep pointing out that Capitalism isn't about government favouring one company or industry over another. I.e. farm subsides, copyrights being extended, the class of industry called utility which allows monopolisation, renewable or coal subsidies (in my country, the government was planning on paying for a rail line for a new mine to get a business on board. I'm dead against that). Bailouts in the GFC is a definitely Anti-Capitalists and pro (certain) corporation.

Your also changing the goal posts. I never said anything about progressive tax and I did say that wealth redistribution was Anti-Capitalist. Yes I would agree that progressive tax is Anti-Capitalists.

Intuitions like Property Rights and Rule of Law are really important to actual Capitalists (and they often make the distinction between law and legislation). Notice how these institutions actually interfere with supply and demand too? It means that you have to pay to enter a physical marketplace before you start selling (the virtual ones pretty much tax you per transaction as far as I'm aware.) You have to have the currency of the area (mean you have to buy some), also remembering that at some stage of US history, banks produced notes, not the reserve. You had to make sure you paid with acceptable notes, meaning you had to have different notes from different banks. Worker's Rights, like having to make payouts if an employee is injured, protects the Property Rights of the individual. Something like getting a car for work is an Entitlement and can be classed as Anti-Capitalist

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here