The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The Czechs and Hungarians?

Nice to see we're setting the bar high hobo.

it's the blue-square premiership we're in now...

This is so simplistic it's below you both.

Even if we were not a genuinely sui generis case (which we are), which 'Premier League' countries are available for alliance in the EU?

Germany and France want fundamentally different things from the EU to us.

this is so simplistic as to be beneath you.

it's preposterous to suggest that we can have no alliance because we want different things.

Fair enough, but if you say that then you have to accept that we DO still have an alliance with all of Europe's Premier League, no?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

We do also seem to keep coming back to X or Y wanting "different things to us", which I think is probably incorrect 1) because "us" isn't particularly clear - Government? People? Businesses? And 2) depending on the "us" they probably don't want fundamentally different things, they probably want the same things but are approaching it differently.

1.) There is a broad consensus in the UK around wanting the best economic deal for the UK but not a federal Europe.

2.) Fine, you can reduce anything to that if you want and say that even people diametrically opposed politically fundamentally want the same thing. I was just talking about the structure of the European political institutions. Maybe you'd prefer to talk of fundamental disagreement over the best means of achieving the same ends?

[Worthy4England]

We do also seem to keep coming back to X or Y wanting "different things to us", which I think is probably incorrect 1) because "us" isn't particularly clear - Government? People? Businesses? And 2) depending on the "us" they probably don't want fundamentally different things, they probably want the same things but are approaching it differently.

1.) There is a broad consensus in the UK around wanting the best economic deal for the UK but not a federal Europe.

2.) Fine, you can reduce anything to that if you want and say that even people diametrically opposed politically fundamentally want the same thing. I was just talking about the structure of the European political institutions. Maybe you'd prefer to talk of fundamental disagreement over the best means of achieving the same ends?

See, I still disagree with point 1) it's easy to talk in such terms, but rather more difficult to nail down to anything factual. I'd agree that I don't believe that most individuals don't want more integration, but opinion polls are notoriously fickle on this subject (they were showing a majority in favour of leaving prior to the 1975 referendum), so it's only my belief. I suspect the ruling party in Scotland isn't that fussed either as they'd rather go in their own direction.

The rhetoric about "the best deal" isn't clear cut either, or to ask you the same question that you asked LK, "what does best deal look like?" To give a ferinstance, I recall the Armageddon that was going to befall this Sceptered Isle with the introduction of the minimum wage...It's not happened yet, whereas near meltdown from having a largely unregulated financial sector came pretty close. I would think that "best deal" would have substantial differences within UK interested parties. Given the tax payer is still paying for the latter event, had it been more tightly regulated by legislation from Brussels, would that have been a bad thing in hindsight?

[thebish]

The Czechs and Hungarians?

Nice to see we're setting the bar high hobo.

it's the blue-square premiership we're in now...

This is so simplistic it's below you both.

Even if we were not a genuinely sui generis case (which we are), which 'Premier League' countries are available for alliance in the EU?

Germany and France want fundamentally different things from the EU to us.

this is so simplistic as to be beneath you.

it's preposterous to suggest that we can have no alliance because we want different things.

Fair enough, but if you say that then you have to accept that we DO still have an alliance with all of Europe's Premier League, no?

I don't see why i have to accept that? Dave walked away from the table...

[Hoboh]

[quote="thebish
it's the blue-square premiership we're in now...

This is so simplistic it's below you both.

Even if we were not a genuinely sui generis case (which we are), which 'Premier League' countries are available for alliance in the EU?

Germany and France want fundamentally different things from the EU to us.

this is so simplistic as to be beneath you.

it's preposterous to suggest that we can have no alliance because we want different things.[/quote]

Fair enough, but if you say that then you have to accept that we DO still have an alliance with all of Europe's Premier League, no?[/quote]

I don't see why i have to accept that? Dave walked away from the table...[/quote]

I'd have had everyone at the table shot Godfather style

[Lord Kangana]

Seeing as we defended the interests of 10% of this economy, may I ask who is defending the other 90%?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

[Fair enough, but if you say that then you have to accept that we DO still have an alliance with all of Europe's Premier League, no?

I don't see why i have to accept that? Dave walked away from the table...

You have said yourself that it's possible to want different things and still have an alliance - presumably that means disagreements from time to time which are not fatal to the alliance, which is surely what this was?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

We do also seem to keep coming back to X or Y wanting "different things to us", which I think is probably incorrect 1) because "us" isn't particularly clear - Government? People? Businesses? And 2) depending on the "us" they probably don't want fundamentally different things, they probably want the same things but are approaching it differently.

1.) There is a broad consensus in the UK around wanting the best economic deal for the UK but not a federal Europe.

2.) Fine, you can reduce anything to that if you want and say that even people diametrically opposed politically fundamentally want the same thing. I was just talking about the structure of the European political institutions. Maybe you'd prefer to talk of fundamental disagreement over the best means of achieving the same ends?

See, I still disagree with point 1) it's easy to talk in such terms, but rather more difficult to nail down to anything factual. I'd agree that I don't believe that most individuals don't want more integration, but opinion polls are notoriously fickle on this subject (they were showing a majority in favour of leaving prior to the 1975 referendum), so it's only my belief. I suspect the ruling party in Scotland isn't that fussed either as they'd rather go in their own direction.

The rhetoric about "the best deal" isn't clear cut either, or to ask you the same question that you asked LK, "what does best deal look like?" To give a ferinstance, I recall the Armageddon that was going to befall this Sceptered Isle with the introduction of the minimum wage...It's not happened yet, whereas near meltdown from having a largely unregulated financial sector came pretty close. I would think that "best deal" would have substantial differences within UK interested parties. Given the tax payer is still paying for the latter event, had it been more tightly regulated by legislation from Brussels, would that have been a bad thing in hindsight?

Hang on, do you actually disagree with point 1 or not, or are you just saying we don't have enough reliable evidence to make talking about a 'consensus' worthwhile? I don't have any evidence, it's just my own hunch based on my own limited experience... if anything, my doubts are that I am wrong in the other direction and that there is a large body of people who don't actually want to stay in the EU.

I'm struggling to see that much of that second paragraph is relevant. Why on earth are you throwing minimum wages and financial regulation into the mix here? It's true that people disagree on what the 'best deal' is at any given time and that only hindsight sorts these things out - all I'm saying is that most people have a vague sense of wanting to get the best economically out of Europe, even if none of us can really be sure what that is.

Incidentally, are you trying to suggest that European institutions had more of a clue of the dangers of securitisation, sub prime mortgages etc before anyone else did and at any time proposed regulation that would have avoided some of the trouble that came with the financial crisis?

[thebish]

[Fair enough, but if you say that then you have to accept that we DO still have an alliance with all of Europe's Premier League, no?

I don't see why i have to accept that? Dave walked away from the table...

You have said yourself that it's possible to want different things and still have an alliance - presumably that means disagreements from time to time which are not fatal to the alliance, which is surely what this was?

hmmm - but you canj no longer have disagreements if you're not even in the room when the issues are discussed - at least, not disagreements that make a ha'porth of difference...

[Worthy4England]

We do also seem to keep coming back to X or Y wanting "different things to us", which I think is probably incorrect 1) because "us" isn't particularly clear - Government? People? Businesses? And 2) depending on the "us" they probably don't want fundamentally different things, they probably want the same things but are approaching it differently.

1.) There is a broad consensus in the UK around wanting the best economic deal for the UK but not a federal Europe.

2.) Fine, you can reduce anything to that if you want and say that even people diametrically opposed politically fundamentally want the same thing. I was just talking about the structure of the European political institutions. Maybe you'd prefer to talk of fundamental disagreement over the best means of achieving the same ends?

See, I still disagree with point 1) it's easy to talk in such terms, but rather more difficult to nail down to anything factual. I'd agree that I don't believe that most individuals don't want more integration, but opinion polls are notoriously fickle on this subject (they were showing a majority in favour of leaving prior to the 1975 referendum), so it's only my belief. I suspect the ruling party in Scotland isn't that fussed either as they'd rather go in their own direction.

The rhetoric about "the best deal" isn't clear cut either, or to ask you the same question that you asked LK, "what does best deal look like?" To give a ferinstance, I recall the Armageddon that was going to befall this Sceptered Isle with the introduction of the minimum wage...It's not happened yet, whereas near meltdown from having a largely unregulated financial sector came pretty close. I would think that "best deal" would have substantial differences within UK interested parties. Given the tax payer is still paying for the latter event, had it been more tightly regulated by legislation from Brussels, would that have been a bad thing in hindsight?

Hang on, do you actually disagree with point 1 or not, or are you just saying we don't have enough reliable evidence to make talking about a 'consensus' worthwhile? I don't have any evidence, it's just my own hunch based on my own limited experience... if anything, my doubts are that I am wrong in the other direction and that there is a large body of people who don't actually want to stay in the EU.

I'm struggling to see that much of that second paragraph is relevant. Why on earth are you throwing minimum wages and financial regulation into the mix here? It's true that people disagree on what the 'best deal' is at any given time and that only hindsight sorts these things out - all I'm saying is that most people have a vague sense of wanting to get the best economically out of Europe, even if none of us can really be sure what that is.

Incidentally, are you trying to suggest that European institutions had more of a clue of the dangers of securitisation, sub prime mortgages etc before anyone else did and at any time proposed regulation that would have avoided some of the trouble that came with the financial crisis?

You've given the relevance to the second paragraph, more eloquently than I could. Most people only have a vague sense of wanting the best economically out of Europe, but apparently there is broad concensus on it. It breaks down into broadly - "I'm not avin that it ain't got the Queens ead on it" and Anybody but United syndrome. Oh then there's some very narrow vested interests.

The problem of "who had a clue" and should have done something is much wider than Europe. Lets be honest, if I offered you a black box and told you it had some really great stuff in it, but some stuff that might kill you - yet it was worth a hundred bucks, you probably wouldn't think it was a nailed on "must have". Yet the banking industry was all complicit with trading these boxes. Had Europe legislated without the UK, the in country financial institutions would have perceived that the UK and the US had an advantage, so probably wouldn't have agreed to it, however regulation of the entire European market might have made the US listen more. That level of regulatory framework has to have independence from the beauty pageant's that are general elections, because they might take decisions for the right financial reasons at the wrong time for a particular government. As it stands, we will continue to be largely governed in this area by the US, where we don't get a vote, than be governed by Europe where we do.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

[Fair enough, but if you say that then you have to accept that we DO still have an alliance with all of Europe's Premier League, no?

I don't see why i have to accept that? Dave walked away from the table...

You have said yourself that it's possible to want different things and still have an alliance - presumably that means disagreements from time to time which are not fatal to the alliance, which is surely what this was?

hmmm - but you canj no longer have disagreements if you're not even in the room when the issues are discussed - at least, not disagreements that make a ha'porth of difference...

We don't want to be part of a European fiscal union and never have, and so we are not attending meetings of the European fiscal union - this does not seem wildly illogical to me. It's true that what they will discuss at their meetings of this club we are not a member of will affect us, just as the Euro Group finance minister meetings already do, but plenty of other countries (the US, China) could also say that.

Whenever there is a meeting of the EU, the club we are a member of, we will be in the room and have a vote.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Off to see the Iron Lady tonight, sharing DC's reservations about the propriety of using MT's dementia as a storytelling device in her own lifetime.

[thebish]

Off to see the Iron Lady tonight, sharing DC's reservations about the propriety of using MT's dementia as a storytelling device in her own lifetime.

I shan't be watching it - there's no way I would ever use my free time to watch Thatcher - but, I have to say I think I agree with you about the bit in bold...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And our alliances with Europe's 'Premier League'?

[thebish]

And our alliances with Europe's 'Premier League'?

I watched the trailer for that - it was shoite!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And our alliances with Europe's 'Premier League'?

I watched the trailer for that - it was shoite!

[Worthy4England]

Off to see the Iron Lady tonight, sharing DC's reservations about the propriety of using MT's dementia as a storytelling device in her own lifetime.

I shan't be watching it - there's no way I would ever use my free time to watch Thatcher - but, I have to say I think I agree with you about the bit in bold...

Me neither. She's still alive, so there can't possibly be a happy ending.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Off to see the Iron Lady tonight, sharing DC's reservations about the propriety of using MT's dementia as a storytelling device in her own lifetime.

I shan't be watching it - there's no way I would ever use my free time to watch Thatcher - but, I have to say I think I agree with you about the bit in bold...

Me neither. She's still alive, so there can't possibly be a happy ending.

Sad.

[Worthy4England]

Off to see the Iron Lady tonight, sharing DC's reservations about the propriety of using MT's dementia as a storytelling device in her own lifetime.

I shan't be watching it - there's no way I would ever use my free time to watch Thatcher - but, I have to say I think I agree with you about the bit in bold...

Me neither. She's still alive, so there can't possibly be a happy ending.

Sad.

But true.

[thebish]

I think we've had a couple of goes round the block on thatcher-death grave-dancing before!