Not me, and I am slightly mystified as to why it seems so easy to use this as a stick to beat the EU with. Would Scotland gaining independence have been a reason to leave the EU? One thing that is making me ponder is the (unconscious I think) statement that Brexit makes about the religion of economic growth. It’s the first time to the best of my knowledge that people have knowingly (in some cases at least) voted for something which would be, on the surface, economically bad for them. As long as we are prepared to live with the consequences this may be a good thing.
Interesting issue on Michael Gove's joke on the Today program re - Harvey Wallbangerstein. Momentum followers on Twitter went wild, calling for a public execution of Gove (though none mentioned Lord Kinnock's follow up joke about groping, or how well the joke was received apparently by most of the audience at the live program). Can there be issues beyond a joke? Sure, for me jokes about disabled children, indeed any jokes about children unless of the most benign kind are out, jokes about rapes where violence is used, jokes based purely on someone's skin colour etc. But in Weinstein's case, he's a disgusting man who used power to get sexual favours from young women starting out in showbusiness, but from what I know, he never threatened violence against the women. He did not force them physically. Had the women involved threatened to call the police immediately, he would have backed off - this is illustrated by the recorded dialogue when Weinstein was trying to seduce a young woman. She was resisting and he was relentless, but with little physical content. These "casting couch" demeanours will have women saying something like - "That monster Harvey raped me." "He held you down?" "No, but he threatened to trash my fledgling career as an actress if I didn't do what he asked." "Is that rape?" "Sure it is. What's an ambitious girl trying to make it in Hollywood supposed to do? I had to give in or going back to stacking shelves in Wallmart" There have been many actresses, Marilyn Monroe, Joan Crawford etc who have had sex on the casting couch to get a part in a film. Is it right? No. Is what Weinstein did right, abusing his power? No, he should be prosecuted, though it may be difficult on criminal charges if there is no threat of physical force. He'll certainly have his ass sued in the civil courts. Can people make jokes about Weinstein and other casting couch pressures? Well, I think yes. The jokes are a bit tasteless, but I don't think a joke lessens what abusers-of-power-for-sexual-favours do, or the contempt and disdain in which the public at large hold them.
Scotland's surely not a good example, Stan, since they were afforded a legal referendum on independence that the British Government would have honoured. The "No" result has lanced the boil, at least for now. In Spain, it's the opposite. Madrid has refused a referendum, and used low level police violence against Catalonian citizens who tried to participate in a Catalan constructed referendum. It's made the whole thing worse, and opening wounds that have never fully healed from the 1930's. Your point about whether quality of life involves more than money is an interesting one, particularly where Brexit is concerned. Most Leavers acknowledge there will be a short time financial hit for leaving the EU, but also believe long term, which should be in as good a financial position (one trade deals are organised ex-EU) if not better that when we were an EU member.
The Catalan crisis has not shown the EU. up in a good light. The way that they have uncritically rallied around Spain reminds me of the way the monarchies all stuck together in times of old. When it comes to the point of sfifling criticism of state violence then you have to ask what has become of the moral standing of the EU. Theoretically according to 3 separate articles of the EU. constitution a country can be suspended from the EU. for using military force against its own population - it appears that the red lines should be shown to Spain sooner, rather than after the event. I was/am a remainer because I believe that the EU. can be reformed, but I have always understood the reasons for Brexit - which are far deeper than simple xenophobia. Aside from Ukip or the fear of immigration, or some misguided belief in sovereignty, there has always been a strongly left wing argument for Brexit - which has been somewhat ignored by many commentators. Michael Foot's Labour party had Brexit as part of their manifesto in 1983, Tony Benn was also a well known critic of the EU. and both George Galloway and Arthur Scargill were also on the side of Brexit. The fact is that a future Labour Party programme involving renationalization of railways, energy, post etc. would be difficult within the context of EU. rules. For many the EU. has become a neo liberal club - we have seen the forced privatizations in Greece, also the way TTIP and CETA were discussed behind closed doors and how Wallonia became a Paria state through trying to oppose them. Many think that the EU. was established only as a way of protecting free trade against democracy - that many of their ideals such as 'free movement' have nothing altruistic about them, but rather the need to provide cheap mobile labour when required. What is needed is that the EU. Parliament really gains the powers of a parliament which is responsible to the electors - and that the non elective organs ie. the EU Commission (amongst others) are stripped of their powers - beginning with Juncker.
No, and I don't understand their logic in thinking the Catalan situation has any connection to Brexit. On one hand, we are leaving the EU because many people want the UK to make its own laws, control its own borders and are fed up with the EU interfering with the way things are done in the UK. On the other hand, they use the fact that the EU does not publicly interfere in events within one of their sovereign member countries as a stick to beat the EU with and a reason to support leaving.
But even as you describe it the secessionist issues are U.K. and Spanish. Of course the EU has an interest and involved, but only at a step removed from the main action, i can’t see these things as issues which would turn a remainder into a leaver. I wasn’t really making a quality of life comment on the economic thing, rather that whoever you are in the world the drive is to economic growth, which only stutters with things like the financial crash. It struck me that voting for a crash was a first. On reflection I’m probably wrong, people assumed they wouldn’t be any worse off. The remain campaign presented its arguments incredibly poorly. Economic growth is built on investment and credit. Investment and credit are in abundant supply in times of confidence about the future, the reverse in times of uncertainty. Guess what will happen when we increase uncertainty? I commented on this on the Review thread. I heard it live. I’m probably more lenient than you in that I don’t think anything is off limits for attempted humour, but that doesn’t mean I will find it funny. What Gove did just brings his judgement as a minister into question yet again. This was an obviously premeditated attempted joke from a politician, not Frankie Boyle, which any idiot should know would upset some people. But he didn’t. What Kinnock said was actually worse, the class A cretin. Rape is defined as forcing someone who doesn’t want to to have sex. It doesn’t have to include actual physical force or the threat of it. Just to be clear.
Some people really do think the EU is a dictatorship German Fourth Reich, so they are wondering why the EU army isn't invading with Juncker in the lead Panzer. You and I, BD, know it's a glorified trading block with aspirations, and won't get involved in spats like this. They should however say that any new nation formed from an existing one won't be a member of the EU*. Unless London leaves England and stays in the EU - that's allowed
On the rape issue, rape is essentially sexual penetration without consent. You're right it does not have to involve physical force, but the question all these aspiring young actresses making rape allegations will have to answer is how Weinstein managed to penetrate them without physical force. Given his modus operandi, it seems unlikely that he threatened force or violence either. More likely, he threatened to cut them out of his forthcoming movie or similar. There is the abuse of power, but the victim is free to leave at any time
Having no experience in these matters and no knowledge of Weinstein’s modus operandi I’m uncomfortable with the way this discussion is going, and will duck out. It’s one thing having sex for another purpose and quite another being pressured into it by threats, career based or otherwise. Let me be clear I am not accusing either you or Goldie of this, but we are drifting into the area of ‘well, she was asking for it/she’s manipulating the situation/it’s an outright lie to entrap an innocent man’. I think any man worth his salt knows when a woman doesn’t want to have sex. If they then choose to use their physical or other power in order to have sex, it’s rape. This may not be the legal definition, but it suits me. As above, I will duck out on this subject now, it doesn’t feel right for a bunch of blokes to be guessing motives of women. Every story in the news bit of the Sunday Times today was either Catalonia or sexual harassment - Hollywood, Westminster, BBC, EU Parliament, it just goes on and on. This is not an attempt to close the discussion down, just me absenting myself. Free speech for all!
You've completely misread what I'm saying. I don't suggest any of the permutations of the womens' motives that you suggest. I've no doubt Weinstein's advances were unwelcome and unexpected. But given the influence the man had in Hollywood and thus over their fledgeling film careers, the women apparently were faced with a choice. Run for it or submit and endure for the sake of their careers. Tippi Hedren's career was effectively ended by Hitchcock when she spurned his advances, so the career threat is real. But the question is, if the young woman opts for "endure", can it be rape? It's a legal question upon which a criminal court must decide. Sorry to make you feel uncomfortable.
apparently Last year, the UK Gov borrowed £52bn & also gave away £13.5bn in Foreign Aid. IT BORROWED £13,500,000,000 TO GIVE IT AWAY
I agree with your point of view. However, I have met women and men who would have sex with someone who could further their career. Both parties know what's going on, but I'm not so sure it's what I would call rape. Weinstein forcing himself on women is totally different imo. He knows they're desperate to succeed and uses that to pressure them. This is different to a person willingly participating in order to further their career.
No doubt some aid is wasted or goes to places it's not most needed, but I'm glad we are in a position we can afford to help the poorest people in the world (and we can afford it).
i think its great that the uk can afford to give away 25% of what it borrows i might even look up the top 10 recipients if i get a minute
This is such an over-simplistic analysis of how the government finances its expenditure. You could just as easily say it borrowed the money to fund the NHS, or give it to the Royal Navy to buy an aircraft carrier, or build HS1/HS2, or pay for the Ministry of Brexit to be formed. Just pick something you don't like.
Borrowing for the above would be fine At least it would be borrowing for UK expenditure on UK nationals
