British politics

[Cannibal72]

I'm talking about my country.
It's bad because of higher prices, to start with.

I'm not pro-privatisation in any way, but your argument here is disingeunous. Your whole argument to date has been predicated on the generalised failings of the EU, and yet now you claim to only be talking about Belgium - a country which for its own very, very particular historical reasons has had peculiarly and intensely negative effects from privatisation.

(I'll respond to your post above when I have more time).

 

[CheckMyPecs]

OK, that's one. I'll love to hear another.

Telecoms.

 

[ray j willings]

I'm talking about my country.
It's bad because of higher prices, to start with.

Thanks to liberalisation, air fares are way lower than they were in the 1990s, and that's just one example.

Its cheaper to fly to Barcelona than to travel through England.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Its cheaper to fly to Barcelona than to travel through England.

That's because the privatisation of British Railways (which, incidentally, was planned by the British government over a decade before the Treaty of Barcelona came into force) was botched. It doesn't change the fact that liberalisation is, in general, good for driving down prices, though.

 

[Echoes]

I was talking about the privatisation of electricity, railway and post, not airlines.

In some sectors, it can work, in others, it cannot. I'm no communist. I don't advocate for the nationalisation of toothpaste companies ...

What happened in Belgium has happened in most European countries all the same. Britain was just ahead of their time.

 

[King Boonen]

Most of this chat seems to have very little to do with UK politics...

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re:

Most of this chat seems to have very little to do with UK politics...

UK politics right now are all about Europe, in case you didn't notice. They have a referendum coming up.

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Why?

 

[ferryman]

Re: Re:

Most of this chat seems to have very little to do with UK politics...

UK politics right now are all about Europe, in case you didn't notice. They have a referendum coming up.

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Erm, not quite. A rather significant election day coming up on Thursday in Scotland. Be ignorant of it or diss it as you wish but it is potentially a game changer in UK politics if it is another landslide (which it will be) particularly if the Tories come in second. As for Brexit. It won't happen. I doubt it will actually be even close come June vote time.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re: Re:

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Why?

I lived in England when Grocer Heath pushed the rest of Europe into accepting the UK's 'exceptional' status. It pissed me off then, and it has pissed me off ever since, that Britain wants its cake, and to eat it too - and that the rest of Europe has let the UK get away with this 'I'm so special' attitude. I thought then, and still think now, that the UK should shat, or get off the pot. Be a full fledged member, or get out. Since they refuse to give up their British exceptionalism, and demand special treatment, and exemptions from regulations that apply to all others, I say fark the Brits. I'd like to see the rest of Europe kick them out. In, or out, but not 'in' with exceptions. I love the English, I have an English son, but I detest the UK's misplaced, 'colonial' arrogance towards the rest of 'Europe'.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Most of this chat seems to have very little to do with UK politics...

UK politics right now are all about Europe, in case you didn't notice. They have a referendum coming up.

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Not really, Europe seems to be a side circus at most, and I'm one of "they".

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Why?

I lived in England when Grocer Heath pushed the rest of Europe into accepting the UK's 'exceptional' status. It pissed me off then, and it has pissed me off ever since, that Britain wants its cake, and to eat it too - and that the rest of Europe has let the UK get away with this 'I'm so special' attitude. I thought then, and still think now, that the UK should shat, or get off the pot. Be a full fledged member, or get out. Since they refuse to give up their British exceptionalism, and demand special treatment, and exemptions from regulations that apply to all others, I say fark the Brits. I'd like to see the rest of Europe kick them out. In, or out, but not 'in' with exceptions. I love the English, I have an English son, but I detest the UK's misplaced, 'colonial' arrogance towards the rest of 'Europe'.

I'm assuming you have the same opinion of Denmark, Ireland and Poland then?

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re: Re:

Most of this chat seems to have very little to do with UK politics...

UK politics right now are all about Europe, in case you didn't notice. They have a referendum coming up.

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Not really, Europe seems to be a side circus at most, and I'm one of "they".

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Why?

I lived in England when Grocer Heath pushed the rest of Europe into accepting the UK's 'exceptional' status. It pissed me off then, and it has pissed me off ever since, that Britain wants its cake, and to eat it too - and that the rest of Europe has let the UK get away with this 'I'm so special' attitude. I thought then, and still think now, that the UK should shat, or get off the pot. Be a full fledged member, or get out. Since they refuse to give up their British exceptionalism, and demand special treatment, and exemptions from regulations that apply to all others, I say fark the Brits. I'd like to see the rest of Europe kick them out. In, or out, but not 'in' with exceptions. I love the English, I have an English son, but I detest the UK's misplaced, 'colonial' arrogance towards the rest of 'Europe'.

I'm assuming you have the same opinion of Denmark, Ireland and Poland then?

First, apologies for suggesting that "UK politics right now are all about Europe", that was evidently an exaggeration. Secondly, sorry KB, for some reason I thought that you were a 'continental'.

As for Denmark, Ireland and Poland, I make no claim to any expert knowledge about these countries' individual exceptions, but as far as I know none of them enjoy anything like the degree of 'difference' that the UK insists on as part of its 'one foot in, one foot out' membership of the EU. My view is that the Brits should be fully committed, without so many exceptions, or be honest and get out.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Most of this chat seems to have very little to do with UK politics...

UK politics right now are all about Europe, in case you didn't notice. They have a referendum coming up.

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Not really, Europe seems to be a side circus at most, and I'm one of "they".

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Why?

I lived in England when Grocer Heath pushed the rest of Europe into accepting the UK's 'exceptional' status. It pissed me off then, and it has pissed me off ever since, that Britain wants its cake, and to eat it too - and that the rest of Europe has let the UK get away with this 'I'm so special' attitude. I thought then, and still think now, that the UK should shat, or get off the pot. Be a full fledged member, or get out. Since they refuse to give up their British exceptionalism, and demand special treatment, and exemptions from regulations that apply to all others, I say fark the Brits. I'd like to see the rest of Europe kick them out. In, or out, but not 'in' with exceptions. I love the English, I have an English son, but I detest the UK's misplaced, 'colonial' arrogance towards the rest of 'Europe'.

I'm assuming you have the same opinion of Denmark, Ireland and Poland then?

First, apologies for suggesting that "UK politics right now are all about Europe", that was evidently an exaggeration. Secondly, sorry KB, for some reason I thought that you were a 'continental'.

As for Denmark, Ireland and Poland, I make no claim to any expert knowledge about these countries' individual exceptions, but as far as I know none of them enjoy anything like the degree of 'difference' that the UK insists on as part of its 'one foot in, one foot out' membership of the EU. My view is that the Brits should be fully committed, without so many exceptions, or be honest and get out.

I'll take that as a complement! Born and raised in the North of England and currently plying my trade in the West of Scotland.

No need for the apologies, I just think that Europe is really a side issue for most people at the moment. Health, education, jobs and tax are all much more prominent in the news and the coverage of the referendum seems to be mainly about "politiking" of the various factions within the main parties.

The UK have 5 opt-outs, Denmark 4, and Ireland and Poland 1 a piece I think, but it does seem that the rhetoric is always aimed at the UK when these come up. The flipside of the "all in or all out" argument is that the UK (and others) were allowed to argue for these exceptions and had them ratified by the other member states. It could be argued that agreeing to something and then using it as a stick to beat someone afterwards is disingenuous and, also, that other members could have argued for exceptions if they had been so inclined.

I actually think we should be all in, I also get sick of our separatist attitudes but I think it's played up by other members for their own benefit rather than because they disagree with it.

As an aside it's worth noting that voting powers, I think, are assigned to states based around population (the top few certainly fall in line with that, although with a few differences which must be due to another small factor) and that those countries with larger populations would stand to benefit considerably if the 29 council votes the UK possess are removed. Currently the top 6 countries have a minimum of 27 votes each. The next country, Romania, have 14. Removing the "uppity child" that the UK can be at times were make it easier for the more powerful nations to get their way.


Back to my original post though, it was more about the fact that the discussion seemed to be about European politics in general, rather than European issues related to the UK, that's all.

 

[Brullnux]

I feel the debate on Europe though should be the centre of UK politics at the moment. This is a pretty big deal, and IMO bigger than any claims of anti-semitism or senile Ken Livingstone comments. This will change and shape the UK's future - it's stupid that 16-17 year olds don't get to vote. KB you had it right in Scotland with your referendum in 2014, where they were allowed to vote.

I understand with what Amster is saying, though. Our tactic is mainly 'stand on the sides bitching about Europe', without actually doing anything to change it. I really want the UK to be at the forefront, changing the EU into a more social and less neo-liberal institution, helping destroy the idiotic TTIP and ensuring that trade deals are made for the people rather than for multi-national corporations. To often we passively watch the goings on and complain; ask for some special status that we barely need instead of shifting the EU into something that every one of those 28 countries is helped by. Europe is a great place filled with great cultures. It is not 'impossible to change Europe' as some say. Podemos are rising in Spain, the PS are the only people trying to destroy the TTIP (although they are pretty inept) and if the whole 'social' movement, left or right, come together than it can change. Forget Juncker.


Onto British domestic politics, there has been a few storms in the last week or so. One was the Labour fiasco, so badly handled; the other two were BHS and the Dep. of Education forcing every school into an academy and doing exams at 5 and 6, when we start school. BHS is just a classic case of financial fraud from the top - Green (the owner) took out £580m for him and recently the company found a £570m where the Pension Protection Fund should be, I think, I'm not well versed in it.

 

[ferryman]

Re: Re:

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Why?

I lived in England when Grocer Heath pushed the rest of Europe into accepting the UK's 'exceptional' status. It pissed me off then, and it has pissed me off ever since, that Britain wants its cake, and to eat it too - and that the rest of Europe has let the UK get away with this 'I'm so special' attitude. I thought then, and still think now, that the UK should shat, or get off the pot. Be a full fledged member, or get out. Since they refuse to give up their British exceptionalism, and demand special treatment, and exemptions from regulations that apply to all others, I say fark the Brits. I'd like to see the rest of Europe kick them out. In, or out, but not 'in' with exceptions. I love the English, I have an English son, but I detest the UK's misplaced, 'colonial' arrogance towards the rest of 'Europe'.

You've obviously not a clue about British politics with your inconsistent use of England, UK and Britain. Or are they all the same to you?

 

[Brullnux]

At the London mayorals, in Barnet the voter registration forms sent out to 155 polling stations were incomplete so hundreds were sent back, including the Chief Rabbi. Considering Khan's large lead in polls, it could have seemed like a calculated, cynical move to lower the voter turnout in a Labour dominated area, but still have the older, perhaps more Tory voters going. However, Barnet is normally won by the Conservatives so it is just a mistake; a very stupid mistake.

Meanwhile Drudge Report attack Khan's religion, and Labour expected to lose out in many places among council elections. Apparently. Very early still.

 

[python]

Re: Re:

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Why?

I lived in England when Grocer Heath pushed the rest of Europe into accepting the UK's 'exceptional' status. It pissed me off then, and it has pissed me off ever since, that Britain wants its cake, and to eat it too - and that the rest of Europe has let the UK get away with this 'I'm so special' attitude. I thought then, and still think now, that the UK should shat, or get off the pot. Be a full fledged member, or get out. Since they refuse to give up their British exceptionalism, and demand special treatment, and exemptions from regulations that apply to all others, I say fark the Brits. I'd like to see the rest of Europe kick them out. In, or out, but not 'in' with exceptions. I love the English, I have an English son, but I detest the UK's misplaced, 'colonial' arrogance towards the rest of 'Europe'.

You've obviously not a clue about British politics with your inconsistent use of England, UK and Britain. Or are they all the same to you?

i got the same impression, though i suspect he knows better nor did it seem malicious...

in that regard, i thought instantly of the yanks who never visited the continent, much less lived in europe like amster has repeatedly indicated.

the remainder of the 'in or out' argument should take into account the unique geography of the untied kingdom...it has always been a difficult balancing act of excreting its due influence on the continent while technically being on its fringes. france and germany were often in a way... they still are, though in quite a different way, while the alternative pull of the united states was not there historically.

thus a different set of challenges.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re: Re:

I'm all for a Brexit, btw.

Why?

I lived in England when Grocer Heath pushed the rest of Europe into accepting the UK's 'exceptional' status. It pissed me off then, and it has pissed me off ever since, that Britain wants its cake, and to eat it too - and that the rest of Europe has let the UK get away with this 'I'm so special' attitude. I thought then, and still think now, that the UK should shat, or get off the pot. Be a full fledged member, or get out. Since they refuse to give up their British exceptionalism, and demand special treatment, and exemptions from regulations that apply to all others, I say fark the Brits. I'd like to see the rest of Europe kick them out. In, or out, but not 'in' with exceptions. I love the English, I have an English son, but I detest the UK's misplaced, 'colonial' arrogance towards the rest of 'Europe'.

You've obviously not a clue about British politics with your inconsistent use of England, UK and Britain. Or are they all the same to you?

I used different terms advisedly, which someone with better reading comprehension would have understood. I lived in England, but England wasn't joining the EU, the UK aka Britain was. It's not rocket science, and yes I have more than a passing clue since I lived in England for 18 years.

P.S. There might be a case for the last 'UK' reading "English arrogance".

 

[CheckMyPecs]

So the SNP loses its majority in Scotland.

 

[ferryman]

Re:

So the SNP loses its majority in Scotland.

As I've replied to you before. You know cook all about British politics. It's been a crushing win for the SNP. That you don't understand the Scottish election system is pretty sad but you still post. Give it a rest.

 

[Brullnux]

Khan smashes Goldsmith. Labour 3rd in Scotland behind the Tories, lost 1 council in England and one seat in Wales. Apart from Scotland, all better than expected. Tories the opposite. UKIP pretty poor, all things considering. Lib Dems OK. SNP great in Scotland, as expected. Plaid good in Wales.

 

[Echoes]

In every member state of the EU, the EU itself should be the key topic because they are imposing their measures on us, in a dictatorial way. Employment, health or taxes all depend on the EU commission. They dictate.

Changing Europe into a more social institution is just a dream. Europe cannot be any different to what it is. If you want to change the treaties, you need the unanimity of all 28 member states. How can you ever think that 28 governments might one day agree on one common policy. It's absurd. Besides the fact that each member state has their particular national interest, it is impossible to think that Finland which has a huge tradition of liberalism might some day agree with France, which is traditionally more social. When the French elected a so-called "socialist" president to succeed a so-called "conservative" one, the Spaniard did the exact opposite with their Prime Ministers. It's a been like a Rubik's Cube.

The Euro governments have no more power, the Commission has the upper hand. They decide and the governments obey. Already in 1962, General De Gaulle realised that it was impossible for European nations to have a common policy and he assumed that there should be an external federator, a federator that would not be European and which has a policy that would govern us. He did not say who this federator was but we all understood that it was the United States of America!

Can we imagine France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg being prepared on a matter of importance to them in the national or international sphere, to do something that appeared wrong to them, merely because others had ordered them to do so? Would the peoples of France, of Germany, of Italy, of the Netherlands, of Belgium or of Luxembourg ever dream of submitting to laws passed by foreign parliamentarians if such laws ran counter to their deepest convictions? Clearly not. It is impossible nowadays for a foreign majority to impose their will on reluctant nations. It is true, perhaps, that in this 'integrated' Europe as it is called there might be no policy at all. This would simplify a great many things. Indeed, once there was no France, no Europe; once there was no policy - since one could not be imposed on each of the six states, attempts to formulate a policy would cease. But then, perhaps, these peoples would follow in the wake of some outsider who had a policy. There would, perhaps, be a federator, but he would not be European. And Europe would not be an integrated Europe but something vaster by far and, I repeat, with a federator.

https://books.google.be/books?id=5uKGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=de+gaulle+%22i+repeat+a+federator%22&source=bl&ots=MN7ezkCrGP&sig=uUk_81QkUzl25BfpaIGxX3OEdEY&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP_aO_7sfMAhXMDsAKHVZgAdIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=de%20gaulle%20%22i%20repeat%20a%20federator%22&f=false

 

[Maxiton]

In every member state of the EU, the EU itself should be the key topic because they are imposing their measures on us, in a dictatorial way. Employment, health or taxes all depend on the EU commission. They dictate.

Changing Europe into a more social institution is just a dream. Europe cannot be any different to what it is. If you want to change the treaties, you need the unanimity of all 28 member states. How can you ever think that 28 governments might one day agree on one common policy. It's absurd. Besides the fact that each member state has their particular national interest, it is impossible to think that Finland which has a huge tradition of liberalism might some day agree with France, which is traditionally more social. When the French elected a so-called "socialist" president to succeed a so-called "conservative" one, the Spaniard did the exact opposite with their Prime Ministers. It's a been like a Rubik's Cube.

The Euro governments have no more power, the Commission has the upper hand. They decide and the governments obey. Already in 1962, General De Gaulle realised that it was impossible for European nations to have a common policy and he assumed that there should be an external federator, a federator that would not be European and which has a policy that would govern us. He did not say who this federator was but we all understood that it was the United States of America!

Can we imagine France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg being prepared on a matter of importance to them in the national or international sphere, to do something that appeared wrong to them, merely because others had ordered them to do so? Would the peoples of France, of Germany, of Italy, of the Netherlands, of Belgium or of Luxembourg ever dream of submitting to laws passed by foreign parliamentarians if such laws ran counter to their deepest convictions? Clearly not. It is impossible nowadays for a foreign majority to impose their will on reluctant nations. It is true, perhaps, that in this 'integrated' Europe as it is called there might be no policy at all. This would simplify a great many things. Indeed, once there was no France, no Europe; once there was no policy - since one could not be imposed on each of the six states, attempts to formulate a policy would cease. But then, perhaps, these peoples would follow in the wake of some outsider who had a policy. There would, perhaps, be a federator, but he would not be European. And Europe would not be an integrated Europe but something vaster by far and, I repeat, with a federator.

https://books.google.be/books?id=5uKGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=de+gaulle+%22i+repeat+a+federator%22&source=bl&ots=MN7ezkCrGP&sig=uUk_81QkUzl25BfpaIGxX3OEdEY&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP_aO_7sfMAhXMDsAKHVZgAdIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=de%20gaulle%20%22i%20repeat%20a%20federator%22&f=false

If the EU is to survive, and be viable (in every sense), it has to be democratized. The European Commission has to become a body of elected representatives from each country, or it has to be replaced by such a body. Maybe there needs to be two bodies, or two houses, for greater checks and balances. One of those bodies could consist of elected representatives, and the other of people appointed according to their expertise.

 

[python]

Re:

Khan smashes Goldsmith.

i am surprised this significant development did not get more traction.

a major european capital got a chief who swore his allegiance to the queen on.....on.....the book of Quran.

while i send a bunch of kudos to all london voters at large for their unconventional choice, the mild surprise shall be easily explained by the fact a full one third of those london voters, i hear, was not born in the uk.

my take: it is all part of the natural events.

where i draw the red line is that any immigrant or a refugee or what ever their legal status may be should strive to adopt to the local conditions (the language , culture etc) BEFORE they try too hard a stance to impose their native proclivities on the locals.

for me, it is a matter of being a polite guest. first and formost.

once, the adaptation took place, i see an even like a muslim becoming a major of the traditionally christian capital totally natural.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Khan smashes Goldsmith.

i am surprised this significant development did not get more traction.

a major european capital got a chief who swore his allegiance to the queen on.....on.....the book of Quran.

while i send a bunch of kudos to all london voters at large for their unconventional choice, the mild surprise shall be easily explained by the fact a full one third of those london voters, i hear, was not born in the uk.

my take: it is all part of the natural events.

where i draw the red line is that any immigrant or a refugee or what ever their legal status may be should strive to adopt to the local conditions (the language , culture etc) BEFORE they try too hard a stance to impose their native proclivities on the locals.

for me, it is a matter of being a polite guest. first and formost.

once, the adaptation took place, i see an even like a muslim becoming a major of the traditionally christian capital totally natural.

London is the multicultural capital of the world, IMO. Seeing it as the first European capital to have a Muslim mayor does not surprise me. Especially considering that the opposition was Goldsmith, and the Tories. The only way the Conservatives can win London back now is another personality like BoJo or if Labour or Khan do especially badly. Khan should be good for London. He, unlike Livingstone and Johnson, is not a showboat and does not crave media attention. He will actually work for London and not headlines.