I think I've asked you this before GB, although I might be misremembering. But you are against neo-liberalism and as such, the EU. So why the support for TPP? I thought the TPP was a very neo-liberal construct, which is why Bernie Sanders is against it. I'm not trying to be clever, I'd just honestly like to know your thoughts on that.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
I think I've asked you this before GB, although I might be misremembering. But you are against neo-liberalism and as such, the EU. So why the support for TPP? I thought the TPP was a very neo-liberal construct, which is why Bernie Sanders is against it. I'm not trying to be clever, I'd just honestly like to know your thoughts on that.
I posted a link efta does not mean EEA membership
I am a remainer and Norway is worse than we currently have and not enough leave for the Leavers.... Could still be the least bad option
But we would be joining EFTA to go into the EEA though, right? If we're going down the Norway route, that is.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Re Abbott, it's all about higher standards for labour. I made this point re Corbyn associating with 'terrorists' Scara has no problems with Thatcher geting into bed with her 'good friend' Pinochet... a mass murderer. That's fine apparently.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Having met Diane Abbott I can tell you 1-1 representing her constituents she is an upstanding MP. When my businesses needed her help, she gave me all the time I could have wished for, was charming, insightful, and a credit to parliment. To be fair, most MPs are terrific representing people who approach them. It's undoubtably one of the best parts of our democracy. I've had the pleasure of meeting with 20-30 MPs when lobbying for changes to a particular law, and each and every one was impeccable.
It is shame that we are not working on and improving other aspects of government that don't function as well. Too many things fester out of the public eye not delivering value to people and wasting money. And not only are they left to tick over, people are not even aware of the waste.
It is shame that we are not working on and improving other aspects of government that don't function as well. Too many things fester out of the public eye not delivering value to people and wasting money. And not only are they left to tick over, people are not even aware of the waste.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
I had to check out question time. @the dza I agree Fiona Bruce should have kept her bias under check better. I like her though and she'll improve, learn when to step in.
The other thing that struck me is the double standards of many broadcasters and politicians in this brexit popularist society. Of the question time pannel I'd guess only one voted Leave. So what happens is, these people have to 'pander to the masses', they feel they have to be fair and somehow court the popuarist sentiment and be a bit 'pro brexit'. This is true of our government too. And its a compromised position which leads to no good.
People are not able to call things as they are. Politicians are no longer trying to do whats best, but what they think they should for the third of the country that voted Leave. The outcome is stasis - as we see now in parliment. By trying to pander to (an irrational) Brexit all they do is bring about a stop to government work. It is also disengenious, and leads to a belief that brexit actually might offer something - when truth be told it does not. I find that deeply worrying. People have to be true to thier beliefs, and tell the truth, especially those in power. If it is clear to someone that the Brexit on the table offers essentially the same UK but with a wrose economy - in perpetuity not just short term - then isn't there a duty to explain why, and not tuck logic and truth away, in the name of popularism?
Instead of having a question time pannel of people who don't believe in Leave who pander to the masses, it would be cleaner and help to process brexit faster, to get more people on the pannel who are atually pro-Leave. Then have a frank and honest debate.
The compromised nature of politics now is deeply damaging imo. Leaders have to have the strength to lead, to impart vision, to stand up for what they think is right. If you had a Brexiteer in power for example, it may not go to plan, it may not work out, but we'd find out a lot sooner. The current balancing act is harming the UK, and the only way to resolve is for us to work through exactly what Brexit will entail with clarity and honesty.
The other thing that struck me is the double standards of many broadcasters and politicians in this brexit popularist society. Of the question time pannel I'd guess only one voted Leave. So what happens is, these people have to 'pander to the masses', they feel they have to be fair and somehow court the popuarist sentiment and be a bit 'pro brexit'. This is true of our government too. And its a compromised position which leads to no good.
People are not able to call things as they are. Politicians are no longer trying to do whats best, but what they think they should for the third of the country that voted Leave. The outcome is stasis - as we see now in parliment. By trying to pander to (an irrational) Brexit all they do is bring about a stop to government work. It is also disengenious, and leads to a belief that brexit actually might offer something - when truth be told it does not. I find that deeply worrying. People have to be true to thier beliefs, and tell the truth, especially those in power. If it is clear to someone that the Brexit on the table offers essentially the same UK but with a wrose economy - in perpetuity not just short term - then isn't there a duty to explain why, and not tuck logic and truth away, in the name of popularism?
Instead of having a question time pannel of people who don't believe in Leave who pander to the masses, it would be cleaner and help to process brexit faster, to get more people on the pannel who are atually pro-Leave. Then have a frank and honest debate.
The compromised nature of politics now is deeply damaging imo. Leaders have to have the strength to lead, to impart vision, to stand up for what they think is right. If you had a Brexiteer in power for example, it may not go to plan, it may not work out, but we'd find out a lot sooner. The current balancing act is harming the UK, and the only way to resolve is for us to work through exactly what Brexit will entail with clarity and honesty.
Last edited:
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Mainly because it's a step in the right direction. It's less neoliberal than the EU or NAFTA so would improve our current position, while allying with economically fairly balanced countries like Japan, Canada and Australia
Yes EFTA members vote for membership to efta but its not automatic entry to EEA which is then decided by a EEA Council.
But mainly it's stupidism.
Question Time is an unbearable watch. I'd liken it to 'The 2 Minutes Hate' in 1984.
She's an easy target because she's a fudging fool.
I'd be very happy with a Norway (or preferably Switzerland) model. The problem is that it's not as easy to get through parliament due to party politics.
It would require a border in Ireland (probably not a great idea) or the Irish Sea, which would require replacing the DUP votes. In theory, May should be able to get enough Labour MPs to vote for Norway to counteract the DUP and the more entrenched hard Brexit types.
Problem is, Corbyn has made it clear with his recent actions that his priority is to bring down the government, not to properly oppose or to act in the best interests of the country. That means if the Labour MPs do as they're told, they will vote it down.
What May really needs to do is find a group of ambitious moderates in the labour party (just look for the ones huddled and shaking in the corner), and convince them to rebel against the Marxist wing.
Politics means she can probably get the votes to get Norway through but not govern afterwards as the DUP will not keep the partnership if a border is at the sea.
StephenH
David Ginola
That reminds me of one of my favourites!
‘I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my arse’
Last edited:
Corbyn will do everything he can to vote any Conservative proposal through. It will be an interesting test of his leadership to see if he can force the moderates to vote against what they want.
Would they necessarily need Labour votes though (they will get a few with Norway option).
ringo
Tim Sherwood
For me one of the main interests over the next few weeks will be the strategy of the no-deal supporters, both in parliament and outside.
I was heavily involved in politics in my 20s. To the extent that I went to conference, had use of a parliamentary pass at various times, was involved in think-tanks and various political activities.. Was on the executive committee of a reasonably influential party political organisation. Many of the people in the group that I mixed with went on to a play senior role in one of the main parties (and/or other political parties). Even back then there was a concerted effort and planning by people of a libertarian disposition to engineer an exit from the EU, a much closer alliance with the US, and implement a neo-con, libertarian agenda in government. There were a lot of Rand, Hayek, Pirie/ASI "disciples". I think people would be surprised to learn of the radical position held by people that were very senior politicians where that wouldn't be the public perception of them. I know for sure that one person currently very close to the PM, at that time held very strong libertarian views and for all I know still does. Maybe the PM is aware of this, maybe she isn't.
That's why I still think no-deal is a strong possibility. There are powerful interests that have invested in this option, and it won't get taken off the table without a struggle. Even if there is a majority in parliament against it.
I was heavily involved in politics in my 20s. To the extent that I went to conference, had use of a parliamentary pass at various times, was involved in think-tanks and various political activities.. Was on the executive committee of a reasonably influential party political organisation. Many of the people in the group that I mixed with went on to a play senior role in one of the main parties (and/or other political parties). Even back then there was a concerted effort and planning by people of a libertarian disposition to engineer an exit from the EU, a much closer alliance with the US, and implement a neo-con, libertarian agenda in government. There were a lot of Rand, Hayek, Pirie/ASI "disciples". I think people would be surprised to learn of the radical position held by people that were very senior politicians where that wouldn't be the public perception of them. I know for sure that one person currently very close to the PM, at that time held very strong libertarian views and for all I know still does. Maybe the PM is aware of this, maybe she isn't.
That's why I still think no-deal is a strong possibility. There are powerful interests that have invested in this option, and it won't get taken off the table without a struggle. Even if there is a majority in parliament against it.
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
Remain have done such a good job sabotaging Brexit that No Deal being a strong option is their fault. It them that voted Mays deal out leaving it more of a possibility. Well done