|
Post by charliecufc on Mar 1, 2016 13:57:16 GMT
Oh come on. Any bill put forward to the HoC that could potentially leave the NHS open to privatisation would be immediately thrown out. No-one would even have the nerve to put forward such a proposal. The NHS is the sacred cow of UK politics (for some reason) and, owing to public opinion, all parties support its state ownership and free access to all. On the other hand, I will eat my own face if TTIP doesn't get forced through the EU parliament. Besides the point. Labour were still held accountable for their actions. The EU Commission are not. 'Should be' according to whom? Unelected bureaucrats? There was no democratic element involved in the decision making, for obvious reasons. Greek banks are not the most worthwhile charitable cause going. You can debate the merits of cutting handouts to able-bodied people, but it does not breach anyone's human rights or constitute 'discrimination', particularly if food banks (a more worthy cause) are making up the shortfall. Nor does criticising immigration or attempting to rumble bogus welfare claimants. Besides, there'd be less need for welfare if Brussels didn't deliberately inflate our cost of living. Agree re: bedroom tax. Pray tell, what is this Tory end game then? I trust democratically elected politicians that are answerable to their constituents more than those that aren't. I also think those I profoundly disagree with have the same right to follow their conscience and have their views accurately represented in parliament. Unfortunately, you don't agree.
|
|
Sandypants
Reserve team star
Posts: 4,059
Favourite CUFC player: Harrison Dunk
|
Post by Sandypants on Mar 1, 2016 17:00:36 GMT
Are you insane? They've already passed several, hiding them in broader legislation so that they would go under the radar!
|
|
|
Post by charliecufc on Mar 1, 2016 17:35:10 GMT
Nah.
My understanding of the NHS reform act in 2012 that er, 'Hugh' mentioned previously is that the scope for privatisation was grossly exaggerated by the media at the time. This was concluded by independent reports. TTIP is a bit more significant than just giving government the license to contract out hospital cleaning to private providers. I don't know what the other 'several' acts you are referring to are.
Regardless, I won't take any alleged anti-austerity campaigner seriously so long as they support the European Union.
Here's a recent interview between Farage & Galloway (Faralloway) stressing the importance of democracy and how the EU undermines it, which is my wider point:
|
|
Sandypants
Reserve team star
Posts: 4,059
Favourite CUFC player: Harrison Dunk
|
Post by Sandypants on Mar 1, 2016 18:54:22 GMT
I wouldn't say I support the EU, just that I have much more faith in them than decades' worth of our own government.
|
|
cambcam
Reserve team substitute
Posts: 2,590
|
Post by cambcam on Mar 1, 2016 19:02:10 GMT
I'd rather have less faith in something you can vote on and sling out every 5 years than little faith in something you can't.
|
|
Sandypants
Reserve team star
Posts: 4,059
Favourite CUFC player: Harrison Dunk
|
Post by Sandypants on Mar 1, 2016 19:05:35 GMT
I might come to agree if Corbyn proves to be a viable alternative, but one hasn't existed for such a long time that slinging out an offender just to replace them with one of a like mind hardly puts me at ease.
|
|
|
Post by warren62 on Mar 2, 2016 15:30:21 GMT
I might come to agree if Corbyn proves to be a viable alternative, but one hasn't existed for such a long time that slinging out an offender just to replace them with one of a like mind hardly puts me at ease. But you know he wont ever be creditable .
|
|
Sandypants
Reserve team star
Posts: 4,059
Favourite CUFC player: Harrison Dunk
|
Post by Sandypants on Mar 2, 2016 22:32:42 GMT
Which is exactly the issue.
|
|
|
Post by charliecufc on Mar 3, 2016 13:12:53 GMT
It's probably worth pointing out that much of Corbyn's Labour leadership manifesto is illegal under EU law, so whether he's 'credible' or not is a bit of a red herring until we Brexit. Besides FPTP, one of the main reasons we have two impotent, wishy washy, overlapping red and blue Blairite parties is because Brussels effectively bans any other ideology. Corbyn was at the very least a 'soft eurosceptic' until he lost his testicles round about the time he sought to become leader of Her Majesty's opposition.
'Straight talking, honest politics' my arse.
|
|
utopia
Reserve team regular
Posts: 3,065
|
Post by utopia on Mar 3, 2016 17:14:45 GMT
It's probably worth pointing out that much of Corbyn's Labour leadership manifesto is illegal under EU law, so whether he's 'credible' or not is a bit of a red herring until we Brexit. Besides FPTP, one of the main reasons we have two impotent, wishy washy, overlapping red and blue Blairite parties is because Brussels effectively bans any other ideology. Corbyn was at the very least a 'soft eurosceptic' until he lost his testicles round about the time he sought to become leader of Her Majesty's opposition. 'Straight talking, honest politics' my arse. The reason we have wishy washy politics is because we have first past the post as our electoral system. It practically enshrines two-party politics as the status quo. Also makes it much easier for wealthy people or companies to buy influence.
|
|
|
Post by charliecufc on Mar 3, 2016 17:54:59 GMT
It's probably worth pointing out that much of Corbyn's Labour leadership manifesto is illegal under EU law, so whether he's 'credible' or not is a bit of a red herring until we Brexit. Besides FPTP, one of the main reasons we have two impotent, wishy washy, overlapping red and blue Blairite parties is because Brussels effectively bans any other ideology. Corbyn was at the very least a 'soft eurosceptic' until he lost his testicles round about the time he sought to become leader of Her Majesty's opposition. 'Straight talking, honest politics' my arse. The reason we have wishy washy politics is because we have first past the post as our electoral system. It practically enshrines two-party politics as the status quo. Also makes it much easier for wealthy people or companies to buy influence. I agree ^^^ However, the scope is further narrowed when you have a HoC that is subordinate to the EU parliament and the parameters it sets.
|
|
Mark of Carnage
Reserve team substitute
Responsibility, Resilience, Respect
Posts: 2,558
|
Post by Mark of Carnage on Mar 4, 2016 8:21:41 GMT
The leave campaign appears keen to strip away the rights of free movement of workers afforded under the Treaty of Rome of the 1,262,000 UK citizens living in the other 27 EU States. Those in Ireland will be fine should we leave the EU as they come under the Common Travel Area but for the remaining 1 million UK citizens the loss of access to public funds for workers is likely to be devastating to the majority. Loss of social assistance, the end of benefit coordination rules and right to reside. No free health care or benefit support for them or their families. I'd guess many UK citizens working in other EU States are also providing valuable trade links between the UK and other EU States. Do we really want to introduce these kind of barriers to UK workers freedom of movement.
|
|
Mark of Carnage
Reserve team substitute
Responsibility, Resilience, Respect
Posts: 2,558
|
Post by Mark of Carnage on Mar 4, 2016 10:45:19 GMT
The subsidies and tariffs that make up the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) not only endow wealthy landowners with taxpayers money, it also inflates the price of food for European consumers (by 17% on average) and keeps third world farmers entrenched in poverty. What would you replace the CAP with? I don't like any more than you do paying out jollies to wealthy landowners but without the subsidies businesses would run at a loss. Inevitably the UK government would have to cough up a similar sum to the CAP and pay this direct to farmers, at the very least as transitional arrangements, to keep them from running at a loss. I would think that without the subsidies farmers would have to charge more rather than less and we would see either increases in prices at the supermarkets or supermarkets seeking their produce from the EU and sidelining British producers. All this talk of trade arrangements with the EU will come to nothing if we don't open our market to the EU too. So what's the point. Seems like a monumental waste of time and hassle on this issue if we leave. As an island nation farming is a vital national interest so huge subsidies from tax payers to farmers is not going to stop whether we are in the EU or not but the transition would not be easy and pain free so why seek to damage something that is in the national interest by leaving the EU.
|
|
|
Post by charliecufc on Mar 4, 2016 13:45:47 GMT
The subsidies and tariffs that make up the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) not only endow wealthy landowners with taxpayers money, it also inflates the price of food for European consumers (by 17% on average) and keeps third world farmers entrenched in poverty. What would you replace the CAP with? I don't like any more than you do paying out jollies to wealthy landowners but without the subsidies businesses would run at a loss. Inevitably the UK government would have to cough up a similar sum to the CAP and pay this direct to farmers, at the very least as transitional arrangements, to keep them from running at a loss. I would think that without the subsidies farmers would have to charge more rather than less and we would see either increases in prices at the supermarkets or supermarkets seeking their produce from the EU and sidelining British producers. All this talk of trade arrangements with the EU will come to nothing if we don't open our market to the EU too. So what's the point. Seems like a monumental waste of time and hassle on this issue if we leave. As an island nation farming is a vital national interest so huge subsidies from tax payers to farmers is not going to stop whether we are in the EU or not but the transition would not be easy and pain free so why seek to damage something that is in the national interest by leaving the EU. In an ideal world, I wouldn't replace the CAP with anything. Business should be able to stand on its own two feet and the poor should not subsidise the rich. Artificially inflating food prices whilst doling out money to wealthy landowners is about as cynical as it gets. It also necessitates greater welfare spending. Food prices would not go up, they would decrease dramatically as we'd be able to trade freely with third world farmers. It's up to consumers if they want to pay a premium and support British producers or not. I don't agree that farming is a 'vital national interest' either - if we can stave off starvation whilst surrounded by German U-boats by digging for victory then we'll cope in peacetime. As an industry, it doesn't warrant any special treatment whatsoever. Obviously none of this is going to happen any time soon, but it certainly won't if we remain in the EU. In the mean time, direct subsidies would be an improvement. UK farmers don't do well out of the CAP. My understanding is agricultural-heavy economies like France and Spain get the lion's share of the pooled money.
|
|
|
Post by habinagedu on Mar 4, 2016 20:18:59 GMT
It's probably worth pointing out that much of Corbyn's Labour leadership manifesto is illegal under EU law, so whether he's 'credible' or not is a bit of a red herring until we Brexit. Besides FPTP, one of the main reasons we have two impotent, wishy washy, overlapping red and blue Blairite parties is because Brussels effectively bans any other ideology. Corbyn was at the very least a 'soft eurosceptic' until he lost his testicles round about the time he sought to become leader of Her Majesty's opposition. 'Straight talking, honest politics' my arse. The reason we have wishy washy politics is because we have first past the post as our electoral system. It practically enshrines two-party politics as the status quo. Also makes it much easier for wealthy people or companies to buy influence. And wealthy union bosses, to add some balance...
|
|