EU-BREXIT - Page 305 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By Rugoz
#15048526
Potemkin wrote:The paradox of politics is rather like the paradox of capitalist competition - any self-respecting capitalist is striving for total market domination, a monopoly. But actually achieving that goal would, paradoxically, end the very system of competition itself.


There's no paradox here. The capitalist's interests don't have to be aligned with those of society for capitalism to work.

Potemkin wrote:Every self-respecting political party is striving for their total domination of the political system - this is true for the Hong Kong protesters as well as for the Chinese government.


Nonsense. A political party might want 100% of the votes, but loyalty to the multi-party system can still be a part of its program.
By Atlantis
#15048555
Potemkin wrote:The paradox of politics is rather like the paradox of capitalist competition - any self-respecting capitalist is striving for total market domination, a monopoly.


You are talking about imperialism not about the market economy. That reflects your British background and certainly is no proof of any universally valid truth.

Democracy needs a multi-party system to function and the market economy needs competition to function. That cannot enter the Anglo-Saxon mind which is hard-wired on imperialism and monopoly capitalism.

For example, even before the GroKo (big coalition), chancellor Merkel (CDU) expressed concern about the weak state of the Social-Democrat (SPD) opposition party, because the CDU needs a strong SPD in opposition. Airbus expressed concern about the terrible state of Boeing because without it's rival, Airbus too would suffer.

Anglo-Saxons, on the contrary, always want to eliminate all opposition, in politics and in business, to maximize profits to an obscene degree. That is not sustainable. Imperialism is self-destructive - as we witness all too clearly in these days.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15048577
Atlantis wrote:You are talking about imperialism not about the market economy. That reflects your British background and certainly is no proof of any universally valid truth.

Democracy needs a multi-party system to function and the market economy needs competition to function. That cannot enter the Anglo-Saxon mind which is hard-wired on imperialism and monopoly capitalism.

My point is that the interests of each individual capitalist - to achieve 100% market share - are in contradiction with the interests of the capitalist economy as a whole, which requires multiple competing capitalists in order to function. In the end, absent government intervention in the market, the individual capitalist's interests will win. One or other of the capitalists will achieve their dream of monopolising the market, and the market economy will then cease to exist and be replaced by something else - a private monopoly, which will likely be replaced by a state monopoly once the public outcry against it becomes loud enough. This process of development is inevitable, and is inherent in the capitalist market economy itself, which, because of its internal contradictions, contains the seeds of its own destruction.

For example, even before the GroKo (big coalition), chancellor Merkel (CDU) expressed concern about the weak state of the Social-Democrat (SPD) opposition party, because the CDU needs a strong SPD in opposition. Airbus expressed concern about the terrible state of Boeing because without it's rival, Airbus too would suffer.

Why would Airbus suffer without competition from its rival Boeing? Serious question. :eh:

Anglo-Saxons, on the contrary, always want to eliminate all opposition, in politics and in business, to maximize profits to an obscene degree. That is not sustainable. Imperialism is self-destructive - as we witness all too clearly in these days.

You're preaching to the choir, Atlantis. In fact, the self-destructive nature of monopoly capitalism is what I'm counting on. Lol. ;)
By Rugoz
#15048634
Potemkin wrote:In the end, absent government intervention in the market, the individual capitalist's interests will win. One or other of the capitalists will achieve their dream of monopolising the market, and the market economy will then cease to exist and be replaced by something else - a private monopoly, which will likely be replaced by a state monopoly once the public outcry against it becomes loud enough. This process of development is inevitable, and is inherent in the capitalist market economy itself, which, because of its internal contradictions, contains the seeds of its own destruction.


No, this is not generally true. It only applies to natural monopolies. At least you would have to demonstrate that in the absence of antitrust law all markets would be monopolized, which is incredibly unlikely. Even then you could argue that laws against anti-competitive practices are simply part of the laws required for free markets to function properly.
User avatar
By noemon
#15048758
Rugoz wrote:No, this is not generally true. It only applies to natural monopolies. At least you would have to demonstrate that in the absence of antitrust law all markets would be monopolized, which is incredibly unlikely.


Even if certain markets are not monopolised by a single company they are in fact monopolised by a small number of companies(oligopolies). And that is true for electronics, media, food, tools, finance, energy and a whole host of other things and it is becoming true for more and more items.

Even then you could argue that laws against anti-competitive practices are simply part of the laws required for free markets to function properly.


Isn't it obvious?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15048823
There's a new sexual move called The Brexit.

Spoiler: show
It's where you promise to pull out, but don't.


:excited:
By Atlantis
#15050967
More than 40 years have passed yet the battle lines and the arguments against and in favor the EU/EC membership are still the same. The only thing that has changed is that the quality of the political debate has deteriorated due to the rise of right-wing populism.





None of the Brexocrittters fear mongering has come true.
By Red Rackham
#15050976
Atlantis wrote:More than 40 years have passed yet the battle lines and the arguments against and in favor the EU/EC membership are still the same. The only thing that has changed is that the quality of the political debate has deteriorated due to the rise of right-wing populism.


You say that more than 40 years have passed as if it's nothing, you appear to be glossing over the fact that the British electorate have never been asked if they want to join any European institution, and the reason for that is because we have always had pro EEC/EU government's who never represented the majority. Both Labour and the Tories have traditionally been pro Europe.
By Rich
#15051421
The Brexit referendum was a totally undemocratic. If we voted to Leave it meant that we left and future electorates were left with an effectively irreversible decision. If we had voted to Remain, the Leavers (the real ones not the fake ones like Boris Johnson) would have immediately started to delegitimise the result. In fact that's not correct, Brexiteer fascists had already started to delegitimise the expect Remain "victory". A Remain victory of 51.9% would have been absolutely worthless.

The majority of the Press for low information voters was pro Leave. The BBC and other TV engaged inn a fake impartiality, where totally unrepresentative nobodies like Kate Hoey, who was really always a UKIP / Brexit Party enterist were endlessly paraded across our screens. If there was a referendum on flat earth with the same media environment, I bet it would get pretty close to 50%.

Sure the majority of Business may have wanted to Remain but Brexit has been a massive, massive win for the political establishment. Its been a massive win for the two party system. Its been a massive win for the Tory party. The losers were the old Labour party establishment. But how much that is due to Brexit is not clear. Corbyn was elected before the Referendum campaign really got started.

So we've lost as far as I'm concerned. I think we need to accept we've lost, so then we can move on to vengeance. A lot of politics is about prioritisation. To a large degree that is the key to Nigel Farrage's success. That he's focussed on this one thing. So I feel my focus within UK politics, as much as I focus on politics at all, will be to see a United Ireland as quickly as possible. I do feel the Sinn Fein leadership read the situation better than me. They clearly worked out, early on that they wanted Brexit, which is why they have completely stood down during this whole Brexit saga. They have shown admirable discipline during this whole process.

The DUP, the Paysleyites, have had it coming to them for over half a century. It would be nice to see them finally getting some of their just rewards.
User avatar
By Ter
#15051431
Rich wrote: I think we need to accept we've lost, so then we can move on to vengeance.

The opposite will also certainly come to pass. If BREXIT is sabotaged, the leavers will cause immense trouble for many years to come. Nigel Farage will be enjoying his role no doubt.

But @Rich I have never understood why you, as an eccentric intellectual, would continue to welcome the governance by the Brussels Eurocrats.
And do you really need all those Polish plumbers and Romanian drivers in the UK ?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15051440
Rich wrote:So I feel my focus within UK politics, as much as I focus on politics at all, will be to see a United Ireland as quickly as possible. I do feel the Sinn Fein leadership read the situation better than me. They clearly worked out, early on that they wanted Brexit, which is why they have completely stood down during this whole Brexit saga. They have shown admirable discipline during this whole process.

Indeed, they're smart guys. And the SNP is in the same position - it would be massively in their favour for Brexit to go ahead, but they cannot publicly say so. I don't know how Nicola Sturgeon manages to keep a straight face during Brexit debates. Lol. :lol:

The DUP, the Paysleyites, have had it coming to them for over half a century. It would be nice to see them finally getting some of their just rewards.

Indeed. Witnessing the public humiliation and long-term strategic defeat of the DUP at the hands of the Tory Party, no less, has been one of the few bright spots of the whole sorry Brexit saga. :)
By Rich
#15051442
Ter wrote:The opposite will also certainly come to pass. If BREXIT is sabotaged, the leavers will cause immense trouble for many years to come.

Oh sure, but that's politics, most issues are not permanently solved and even if they are, they are just replaced by new problems. Anyway I just want to win, I'm not looking to abolish the game or end of history. I've never understood the Buddhists. They say they want to abolish suffering. This seems reckless to put it mildly. What would people write about? What would the Poets do? In a world without suffering, there would be no "Game of Thrones", no "Hunger Games", no exciting cop shows about child murder and abduction.

Ter wrote:Nigel Farage will be enjoying his role no doubt.

I'm rather fond of Nige and Boris. I'd prefer to have both of them on my team. I felt almost sad for Nige the way he was so comprehensibly turned over by Boris. The problem with Boris is that sooner or later there comes a moment when you and Boris's interests diverge.

But @Rich I have never understood why you, as an eccentric intellectual, would continue to welcome the governance by the Brussels Eurocrats.

Well I just don't buy the the "Eurocrats are the problem" line. The problem is the national politicians of the member countries.

And do you really need all those Polish plumbers and Romanian drivers in the UK ?

Well @Ter I can put my hand on my heart and say I've never had carnal knowledge of a Polish Plumber or a Hungarian Truck Driver, but a number of my friends and intimates are Polish, Czech, Swedish etc. Many friends, acquaintances and people I work with, live and work part time in Spain and Portugal. I believe in loyalty to my friends essential interests. Plus I plan to live part time in Europe myself.

However Britain particularly the South East is full up. there needed to be limitations on free movement for Britain. If I had been Prime Minister, I'd have given the EU 3 months to create and implement a plan, failing that I'd have acted unilaterally. The idea that we needed to leave the EU to control immigration was absurd. The whole Brexit saga has been a way to allow immigration to carry on unhindered and to stop the rise of an anti immigration party like in nearly every other European country.
By Rugoz
#15051605
Rich wrote:They say they want to abolish suffering. This seems reckless to put it mildly. What would people write about? What would the Poets do? In a world without suffering, there would be no "Game of Thrones", no "Hunger Games", no exciting cop shows about child murder and abduction.


I doubt George R. R. Martin has endured much suffering in his life. He draws his inspirations from history and other fantasy works. If we end all suffering, we'll just keep reciting history for all eternity. :excited:
User avatar
By Ter
#15051618
Rich wrote:Well I just don't buy the the "Eurocrats are the problem" line. The problem is the national politicians of the member countries.

How can you deny that the majority of decisions governing the daily lives of the people living in the 28 member states of the EU are taken by unelected Eurocrats in Brussels ?

(just this morning I read on the BBC web site that the EU commission has decided that it will not be necessary to put cats on a leash when they are outside of the house because that would hamper their liberty of movement)
If you are willing to live with that kind of nonsense, to be ruled by those arrogant bastards in Brussels, then I suggest you vote to remain.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15051619
Ter wrote:How can you deny that the majority of decisions governing the daily lives of the people living in the 28 member states of the EU are taken by unelected Eurocrats in Brussels ?

(just this morning I read on the BBC web site that the EU commission has decided that it will not be necessary to put cats on a leash when they are outside of the house because that would hamper their liberty of movement)
If you are willing to live with that kind of nonsense, to be ruled by those arrogant bastards in Brussels, then I suggest you vote to remain.


Because its a lie?
User avatar
By Ter
#15051622
JohnRawls wrote:Because its a lie?

No, because it illustrates to what length the nation states have given up their independence.
Brussels has to approve the national budgets, can nullify the outcome of justice decisions, can impose all kinds of decisions including even nonsense idiocies like the ruling about the cats having to wear a leash or not.
It seems to me that the EU Commission is keeping the 27 member states on a leash.

That is why I hope that the UK, and later maybe some other countries, can regain their independence from Brussels.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15051627
Ter wrote:No, because it illustrates to what length the nation states have given up their independence.
Brussels has to approve the national budgets, can nullify the outcome of justice decisions, can impose all kinds of decisions including even nonsense idiocies like the ruling about the cats having to wear a leash or not.
It seems to me that the EU Commission is keeping the 27 member states on a leash.

That is why I hope that the UK, and later maybe some other countries, can regain their independence from Brussels.


You are deflecting. Your lie was that MAJORITY of decision is done by UNELECTED eurocrats.

So the lie number one is that its majority of decision. EU law probably doesn't cover 10% compared to what the rest of legislature of each state covers. So that is the first part of the lie.

Lie number two is that those Eurocrats are not elected. They are elected just not by direct democracy. If we talk about European parliament then there are direct elections. Other positions that don't have direct elections for them are confirmed and nominated by people who are directly elected by the people of Europe.

Unless you want to argue that representative democracy is not democratic then you have no leg to stand on honestly in this argument.

What people usually do is say "OH look EU passed like 30 000 statutary instruments while we passed like 1000 acts of law in the same time". Oh my god, EU is like legislating 90% of our laws if not more. In reality EU acts cover specifics or amend specifics instead of being 1 large legal document with trillions of regulations/laws. So the reality of the situation is that EU law covers like 10-15% while the rest is basically the law of your country/country/municipality etc.

Ter, i am not saying EU is perfect. The problem is that a lot of the things are exagerated about the EU to turn it in to a simple slogan. Reality is much more complicated. What can be said about this is that EU law usually covers modern issues so its much more relevant. (GDPR for example)
User avatar
By Ter
#15051629
JohnRawls wrote:Other positions that don't have direct elections for them are confirmed and nominated by people who are directly elected by the people of Europe.


Let's skip discussion about the Euro parliament because they are just a bunch of well-paid jokers without real decision power.
The laws (aka directives) are made by the commission. The commission consists of thousands of people from all over the EU who are recruited by the commission itself. That stands very far from what you said. The only people in power who are indirectly voted in by the people are the commissioners and other top bureaucrats.

It goes without saying that people elected by their countries (10 - 50 million population) are closer to the population than people elected indirectly by 500+ million people.
The commission used to give advice, now they issue directives. They are arrogant and need to be put in their place.

Anyway John, I know you are a Europhile (are you trying to get on the gravy train ?)

So I maintain my stand that I am happy for the UK to break away from that exercise in federalisation and globalism that the EU has become.
By Rugoz
#15051630
JohnRawls wrote:So the lie number one is that its majority of decision. EU law probably doesn't cover 10% compared to what the rest of legislature of each state covers. So that is the first part of the lie.


10% seems too low even by the most optimistic estimates. E.g.

If we take EU regulations and directives into account, then yes, it does start to look as if up to 65 per cent of our legislation comes from Brussels. But this figure is based on counting every law passed by the European Commission between 1993 and 2014: all 49,699 of them. Plenty of these have been dropped, replaced or rendered redundant. It is thought the total number of EU laws in force is less than half that figure (22,398, according to March 2015 reports). And many of these – measuring the pungency of olive oil, tobacco growing guidelines – are not relevant to British farmers or manufacturers.

Taking regulations into account, the Commons Library has conceded that it is possible to justify any figure between 15 and 55 per cent.


https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... e-brussels

JohnRawls wrote:Unless you want to argue that representative democracy is not democratic then you have no leg to stand on honestly in this argument.


In the US the "one-step" representative democracy in Washington is already despised by most citizens. What makes you think a 2-step representative democracy in Brussels will fare better in the long term?
  • 1
  • 303
  • 304
  • 305
  • 306
  • 307
  • 323

Update from Hong Kong local media. A Hong Kong p[…]

Trump Pardons...

That you think the corruption is limited to one si[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

It's fun to tell stories. How long ago was this?[…]

Trump and Russiagate

I'm neither surprised nor taken aback. I was expec[…]