Any country that is considered to have an "advanced economy" has a mixed economy: capitalism + socialism. For reading sources, have you considered Jacobin Magazine? Besides US affairs, they write extensively on foreign affairs too. Link: https://www.jacobinmag.com/
Yeah, a society that's purely ANYTHING is a bad thing. I meant countries that are typically said to be primarily socialist, although, I think having anything close to a free market is primarily capitalist- That's up for debate. Either way, those are countries I see people point to the most when the want an example when talking about socialism.
And the UK parliament just voted down May's deal. As expected. Not expected is how large the defeat was. Over 230 votes defeated. Barely 202 voted for her deal. That is the largest defeat ever in the UK history. Thing highest before was around 160 or 180.
And the UK parliament just voted down May's deal. As expected. Not expected is how large the defeat was. Over 230 votes defeated. Barely 202 voted for her deal. That is the largest defeat ever in the UK history. Thing highest before was around 160 or 180.
Unsurprising, it was a very bad deal - to not even get a single concession from Europe on any major issue is going to be pretty damning. Still, I don’t really Blame May, it was always going to be difficult to negotiate in good faith with the EU when they’re in the mindset that Britain must be punished for leaving and to give even an inch is to be seen as a crushing defeat that will lead to the entire union unravelling. From here whence we go is now pretty uncertain, maybe the EU will finally recognise that a good deal for both sides is better than an uncontrolled Brexit?
Given the UK's demands "We want the same benefits we had until now but without paying for them" it does make sense that the EU took a hard stance. Else everybody would leave. Why pay for benefits when you can get them for free?
Given the UK's demands "We want the same benefits we had until now but without paying for them" it does make sense that the EU took a hard stance. Else everybody would leave. Why pay for benefits when you can get them for free?
I can’t believe I’m actually having to earnestly point this out but here goes.
I don’t know what sensationalist rubbish European press have been spouting about pantomime negotiations, but let’s be realistic here - the exact benefits as before but without paying for them isn’t something that’s going to happen is it? So do you think that realistically that is what Britain’s negotiators went to Brussels with? Of course not. For all the media hype, these are sober international negotiations by teams of civil servants.
What Britain does want is the EU to recognise that we are starting from a point of maximum entanglement and suddenly cliff edging it isn’t going to be a very beneficial path for either side. When entanglement has taken place over 40 years, it’s realistic to expect Brexit to be an ongoing process not an event. Therefore accommodating that is the key to eventually being able to build a new mutually beneficial trading relationship that keeps Britain out of unwanted political integration.
The really childish part here is the EU taking an all in or all out stance. At the end of the day, if Britain wants to leave, we want to leave. It’s not for the EU to prevent that by trying to make disentanglement as difficult as possible. I hear a lot of complaint from Europe that Britain considers itself too good for Europe, but I don’t think that’s the case. What makes Europe better for the UK than our natural allies in the Anglosphere? Why does Germany think it should be more important to the UK than Australia or Canada, and that Britain should be willing to accept a lot of crap from the EU that it doesn’t want for the privilege of trade when CANZUS would offer it without those stipulations? Basically we’re better off in an agreement like TPP, but we need the EU to be patient and give us time to disentangle ourselves first, that’s all.
It's fun to see Brits blaming the EU for the shit which we voted to do - the EU didn't ask for Brexit, we did.
As for the EU making disentanglement as difficult as possible, that's just not true.
I'm pretty sure that some of them [the French for example] would welcome us finally leaving - it'd offer them the clarity necessary to move on and stop them having to waste time dealing with our fractious parliament [and it's ever-changing demands].
The French, amongst others, have been actively planning (and, more importantly, preparing) for a no-deal Brexit - we have barely begun.
The EU have a right (and a responsibility) to protect their citizens living in the UK, so ensuring that there is clarity over what happens to them isn't that big of a request - shit, I am currently working in Austria and it's pretty shocking how little effort the UK, my home country, has put into ensuring that I can continue to work here after Brexit is all done and dusted. I've had more input from my work (and the Austrian authorities) in assuring that I'm able to continue working afterwards, than I've got from my own parliament (yeah, how's that for looking out for your own?).
The EU want to ensure that their businesses don't suffer under Brexit, which they will (as will UK businesses) most likely. It's damage mitigation. It can't just be done 'last minute' as out government seems to think it can - or at least, act like it can.
The UK government has almost zero clue what advice to offer businesses, as they still have no idea what form Brexit will take.
How can businesses prepare for that?!?
Then we have the Irish border - that wonderful issue (which was dismissed as 'simple' - but has proven to be anything but [funny that - project 'fear' turning out to be project 'reality']). The EU want clarity on that, as makes sense when the UK doesn't want to be part of the EU single market (and doesn't want to allow free trading across a non-existent border [looking forward to that wonderful technology which doesn't exist yet, but will easily fix this minor niggle]).
What else?
The idea that we are being 'punished' is almost laughable - I say 'almost' as there is an argument in how they aren't completely rolling over and agreeing to all of our ludicrous demands - it does make sense for them to protect their own and not make it better for non-members (I mean, that's kind of the point of being in a club - to get benefits from your membership which others aren't able to receive).
For example, them wanting to ensure a backstop agreement is just plain common sense. They, like us, don't want Irish people (Northern and ROI) to suffer under a 'no-deal Brexit'.
What makes Europe better [for trade] is:
its proximity (yeah, closer does equal easier [faster and cheaper] with trade)
its wealth (being the largest barrier-free economic area in the world does have some benefits)
the fact that we've already got deals with them - and already have established business with them
etc. etc. etc.
Like, what do you think that Australia or Canada can offer us, which Europe can not (at a fraction of the cost)?
The fact that they aren't in the evil EUSSR?!?
Do you think that we have more to offer them then they currently receive from their own trading partners?
Who's in the strongest position, to get the best deal?
The guys who have already got their trading partners sorted, or the guys who have just quit their trading block and now have to start from scratch (thus are desperately trying to make deals at any cost [especially to prove to themselves that leaving wasn't a terrible mistake])?
Look, you can think that Brexit is a great idea, and I can disagree with you.
Who knows, you might even have some legitimate reasons for thinking so (more legitimate than the old 'gaining back our sovereignty'/'looking after our own'/'blue passports and differentially-shaped bananas').
I don't believe that everyone who voted for Brexit was a moron or a racist.
But to try and cry foul, blame the EU for 'being mean', and try and shift all responsibility onto them (rather than our fucking awful negotiating team/parliament), is just being silly.
Wow, quite a lot of straw man stuff in there I’m not being coerced into arguing for, sorry.
Ultimately it boils down to this; the EU says it wants a good relationship with Britain after Brexit, this is good, I want to see that too. Their inflexible actions suggest they want to cause as much damage as possible to the British economy, though, which isn’t the action of friendship.
The EU says they want Britain to remain committed to European security after Brexit, but insist on hampering our ability to do so by locking us out of Galileo (which we have been instrumental in developing and have put a lot of money into). The EU say they don’t want to see a hard border in Ireland, yet stupidly insisted making the talks on the future relationship happen after the divorce agreement (if they hadn’t this whole Charlie-Foxtrot could have been avoided). Of course the greatest irony of all was being condescending to David Cameron in the initial ‘better deal’ negotiations when he had every right to demand the meagre concessions he did as the elected head of state. Britain is expected to jump through all sorts of hoops in return for access to a globally diminishing single market, that makes products from outside enormously more expensive and which we run an enormous trade deficit with.
You say you have a personal interest in it all working out on British citizens in the EU - I sincerely hope it does work out for you. But ultimately that’s on the Austrian Government, not the British Government (or even the EU). Our side have already begun offering European citizens settled status unilaterally, if you have concerns, perhaps look at the government of the country you’re in, whose responsibility it is?
The EU has always been full of contradictions, but how on Earth are we supposed to negotiate in good faith with this perfidious nonsense?
Entirely fine, I have no intention of arguing with you either - it'll probably only be a waste of time for the both of us.
I only do reply due to your accusations of 'straw men arguments' - so, feel free to reply to this (if you want) and we can leave it as you having the final word.
I'm not sure which straw men you are referring to - you mentioned in your first post that the EU was trying to
Which I stated as being patently untrue, but rather they were trying not to make it 'as easy as possible' - giving us everything we want and not expecting anything in return.
You also asked in your first post
What makes Europe better for the UK than our natural allies in the Anglosphere?
What makes Europe better [for trade] is:
its proximity (yeah, closer does equal easier [faster and cheaper] with trade)
its wealth (being the largest barrier-free economic area in the world does have some benefits)
the fact that we've already got deals with them - and already have established business with them
Now, you may not agree with that list, or my arguments in particular, but, unless you are referring to something else I said, claiming them as just straw men is rather unfair (or at least I believe so).
Their inflexible actions suggest they want to cause as much damage as possible to the British economy
As I stated previously, their 'inflexibility', as you see it, isn't so much to 'damage our economy', but rather to safeguard their own (and their free market).
Unless you believe they also wish to maximize damage to their own economies under Brexit?
All the things that they've been 'stubborn'/'inflexible' on cut both ways after all.
The EU says they want Britain to remain committed to European security after Brexit, but insist on hampering our ability to do so by locking us out of Galileo (which we have been instrumental in developing and have put a lot of money into).
Yeah, ignoring the money issue (which an argument could well be made that we should receive some form of reimbursement), I also fail to see how locking us out helps their security.
That said, I honestly haven't looked much into this particular point, so it is possible that they have a legitimate reason (though I can't really grasp as to what that could be).
The EU say they don’t want to see a hard border in Ireland, yet stupidly insisted making the talks on the future relationship happen after the divorce agreement (if they hadn’t this whole Charlie-Foxtrot could have been avoided).
I'm wondering how easy they should make it, without risking their single market.
I have yet to see any solution to this problem, other than talk of 'technology' which doesn't exist (and might never).
As for the issue of 'freedom of movement' - Sabine Weyand gave a talk about this recently, where she pointed out that a backstop must exist as the border issue must be resolved (once it is, the backstop becomes meaningless). She stated that there can't be a time-limit on the backstop as that removes the whole purpose of the backstop, as if the issue isn't sorted by the time the time-limit is up, then any issues which might exist don't just disappear.
Britain is expected to jump through all sorts of hoops in return for access to a globally diminishing single market
Whether it really is diminishing or not (I've seen some ludicrous arguments about the inherent weakness of the EU single market - and how likely the EU is to crash), it's still the world's largest trading block, with one of the largest economies.
Now, it might make trade with the rest of the world appear less appetizing than with EU nations, but it also means that trade with you will appear more appetizing to the other EU nations.
You say you have a personal interest in it all working out on British citizens in the EU - I sincerely hope it does work out for you. But ultimately that’s on the Austrian Government, not the British Government (or even the EU). Our side have already begun offering European citizens settled status unilaterally, if you have concerns, perhaps look at the government of the country you’re in, whose responsibility it is?
That's very kind, but I'm afraid that it is not entirely down to the Austrian Government (until the 'settled status' discussions have been completed and formalized, by both sides [UK and EU]).
Now, there could well be deals drafted to fix that, sure, but they currently do not exist - and that is the big issue (and something which should be sorted ASAP, not 'further down the line')
Brexit is still being managed by nitwits. Doesn't surprise me. Still, the bigger issue is the Euro, and it's clear it'll be done at some point. You can't have a single currency without the political infrastructure to support it, otherwise you just screw yourself on fiscal + monetary policy. Doesn't surprise me though considering how stupid Davos elites are. It's one of the unfortunate side-effects of having too much money: You're surrounded by sycophants who tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear.
Can't believe BoJo is about to become next PM. We really must be the whacky timeline of the parallel universes where all the shit happens that should not happen.
There are ways - but most require the Conservative rebels, Labour, and some of the other parties (Lib Dems, Greens, and the SNP, being prime examples) to stop playing party politics and work together
This isn't helped by how much of a liability Corbyn is - and how willing he'd be to see the UK burn, so long as he could become the PM to rule over the ashes
There are ways - but most require the Conservative rebels, Labour, and some of the other parties (Lib Dems, Greens, and the SNP, being prime examples) to stop playing party politics and work together
This isn't helped by how much of a liability Corbyn is - and how willing he'd be to see the UK burn, so long as he could become the PM to rule over the ashes
He's the leader of the Labour party - the current opposition party (2nd biggest party based upon seat number in the HoC [House of Commons])
He's a historical Eurosceptic - and, as far as I'm concerned, not a very skilled politician (if it were me, I'd rather that someone else was leader, so we could have a proper opposition party to challenge the Tories more effectively)
But yeah, unlikely but not impossible.
Who knows, this current move by Johnson might have galvanized those who don't want a 'hard Brexit' to finally pull their fingers out of their arses and do something to ensure that it doesn't happen.
All the votes thus far suggest that the numbers should be with stopping a 'hard Brexit' - but, as I said, it's not unusual for politicians to favour party unity over what they believe to be in the best interests of the country.
He's the leader of the Labour party - the current opposition party (2nd biggest party based upon seat number in the HoC [House of Commons])
He's a historical Eurosceptic - and, as far as I'm concerned, not a very skilled politician (if it were me, I'd rather that someone else was leader, so we could have a proper opposition party to challenge the Tories more effectively)
But yeah, unlikely but not impossible.
Who knows, this current move by Johnson might have galvanized those who don't want a 'hard Brexit' to finally pull their fingers out of their arses and do something to ensure that it doesn't happen.
All the votes thus far suggest that the numbers should be with stopping a 'hard Brexit' - but, as I said, it's not unusual for politicians to favour party unity over what they believe to be in the best interests of the country.
Ah, I know who he is. It's the power hungry part that kinda caught me off guard.
That last bit sounds like the most likely alternative given the world's political climate in general (tribalism is a thing everywhere). On the other hand, there might be enough money to be lost due to a hard brexit that interests pretty much align against it for once.
There's been an update to our forum rules to broaden crediting/sourcing to all series news/announcement, etc. Please read HERE
Oscars Contest 2023 is LIVE! Click HERE for a chance to win your Oscar!
It's back! MH presents a celebration of manga/anime culture; Mangahelpers Awards 2022 is NOW LIVE!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
