Actually I think that's a bit out of date now. I was comparing their fanaticism with the Red Guard, not their politics. The days of politics being about social transformation are long gone, capitalism has won for the time being (though it can still be managed, have the hard edges knocked off), these twats are very modern individualists, obsessed with rights, invisible injustice, being victims on behalf of others and finding people to blame for their inadequacies rather than facing up to them. They may think that they are left wing, but they couldn't grasp the basics of the Communist Manifesto, and wouldn't get past the first paragraph of Das Kapital. They are playing at the periphery, and I hope they stay there. All their radicalism will disappear with the first salary slip and mortgage payment, when property will be their inalienable right. Who is going to tell Durbar?
OK, let's call them the New Hard Left. There were plenty of old hard left students that looked for victims to fight for, were vague on the various communist manifestos and went on to make decent careers in the City, so the distinction isn't great.
One thing I don't understand about the Tata Steel thing is why the workers are threatened with having their pension halved. It's not as if Tata has gone bust, they have an obligation to honour their pension commitments, and anyway the pension funds should be kept separately from the rest of the business and administered by trustees. If the fund does not have enough cash the company should top it up. Did we learn nothing from Maxwell and the Mirror?
My understanding - there's a deficit of about £1/2 billion in the pension scheme. Tata Steel have debts of about £11bn. Tata's trying to negotiate with the unions on its pension obligations. The unions insist on keeping Tata's feet to the flames and are threatening to strike next month
I had not realised that all but 2 (UK and Denmark) of the EU member states are obliged by treaty to move towards political union. Current thinking in Brussels is that to keep the EU project alive, there must be a rapid move to political union. So in not many years, the UK will be sitting down to negotiate on new laws and regulations with Denmark and a representitive for the other 26 member states. The UK's negotiating strength will be next to nil. So looking ahead, and on the basis that the EU is changing daily, there is a strong argument that the real choice in June is Out or head towards political union.
How is that harder than now? Each country will have a say still. Our veto on certain items will still hold. What the other countries do regarding political union doesn't affect us. Sorry Goldie but that's another guess at what you fear might happen. Nobody knows, so putting it in the way you have is yet more scare mongering...
I don't think the overall direction of the EU has ever been a secret Goldie. Ever since the decision to go for the Euro 'ever closer union' has been explicit. We and the Danes opted out. Our choice, we have to live with the consequences, preferably without whining about them incessantly. The 'oh aren't we clever we avoided the Euro' one minute followed by the 'oh we don't have the final say on anything it's not fair' is tiresome. We chose to be outside the inner circle. Now we are choosing whether to stay where we are or move outside the circle while still trying to be a part of it somehow. I think your scenario is exaggerated though. We are not the only European country with a strong sense of identity (though we don't in my view, have a common sense of identity, there are many different versions of what the UK means).The decisions on closer union will be taken in Berlin, Paris, Rome etc not Brussels, and I don't think it will happen anytime soon. The problems of the Euro are at least partly down to it being a monetary but not a fiscal policy currency. And fiscal policy Union (taxation rates, public spending etc) is a necessary part of political union, but precluded by the wide economic and political difference between the member states.
No, I'm not trying to scaremonger, Chaz. I'm genuinely interested in investigating this argument. As you say, the UK's veto doesn't apply to everything, and in addition will have to be used sparingly if good relations within the EU are to be maintained. Brussels dislike the veto in principle, and frequent use by the UK would go down badly. At present, there are only 19 Euro member states, so a larger number outside that can support the UK's objections to laws proposed. Those states will join the Euro shortly, the Eurozone will become stronger (after all the problems with Greece etc) and all major decisions will be made within the Eurozone. If you don't think that's reality, tell me why, because it seems to me it's by far the most likely scenario.
Tata Steel may have debts, but Tata is a much bigger corporation than just steel. If somehow they dodge their pension obligations, perhaps we can just extract the cash from Jaguar Land Rover to make up the shortfall.
But that will be the case whether we stay in or leave, won't it? And of course the Eurozone will become stronger, on the '**** you buddy' principle, and in those terms they can't be criticised, Brexit is based on the same principle. As above, it was our government's choice not to be part of this. As a result we have avoided financial commitments related to the Eurozone bailouts, but ceded influence with the Eurozone nations. I have no idea whether this is a good trade or not, but without it Brexit would not even be possible. I see the £ is still on its slow descent against the € and $.
I assume the subsidiary Tata Steel has the legal obligations, so you cannot breach the corporate veil. I don't know if the parent company has given guarantees. Tata Parent's strength in their negotiations with the unions is that it can wind up the subisidiary. It's weakness is that it will not want to see one of its companies go bust - not good for the Tata name
You're right in your earlier post that we are where we chose to be, outside the inner circle - the referendum in June asks - is that good enough? Decisions on the Eurozone future will, as you say, be made by the major Euro states, but my understanding is that fiscal union is to be pushed forward as a matter of urgency to avoid the problems we saw in Greece. Status quo is no good for the Euro. They aren't going to hang around on this. On your comment above, it's not the same if we're in or out. If we stay in, we're bound into a club where we don't make the rules. If we come out, we will negotiate so far as we are able on terms of trading in the single market (which is a diminishing market for the EU) but we won't have to accept interference with our own laws that don't impact selling on the Continent. Parliament regains control over on environmental matters, migration matters, farming, fishing, oil exploration in the North Sea, employee working conditions and simply a huge number of day to day matters that don't need decisions from Brussels
Well put, that's the crux of it. Personally I see no more reason to trust or respect politicians or civil servants in London than Brussels, they are still distant to me, and I don't think my degree of democratic control over them is radically different i.e virtually nil in both cases. In fact my familiarity with the British versions probably puts them at a disadvantage. But I can understand the desire to have our own barely accountable people nominally in charge closer to home than others. I just don't share that desire, and I think achieving it will have at best short term negative economic consequences, at worst serious long term ones.
That's fair enough. But we come back to where we started above. The UK will be marginalised if the Eurozone is successful and absorbs the 26 states. If the June referendum is a Remain result, then the UK will face a decision soon about whether to join the Euro and be part of decision-making, or stay in the EU club but outside the club-within-a-club, and simply accept the rules that the Eurozone makes, with a qualified and unpopular veto
Entirely predictably the Brexiters are spending today whining about it being unfair that the Government is sending a let's stay in leaflet to every house in the country, rather than making their case. If they can't raise £9m to do the same themselves bad luck. The Government has a position, and until 28 days before the referendum it has a perfect right to state it. Indeed it would be negligent and cowardly not to. Just heard that both the official remain and leave campaigns will also get a state funded mail shot. So what exactly Farridge and Johnson were complaining about spending public money on the news is beyond me. So far I have received 2 leaflets stuffed through the letterbox. A fairly shoddy looking one from Remain, playing on the fear agenda, all about prices, jobs etc. And today something from the Grassroots Out group (no idea who is in it) not making a case at all, just asking for cash, or time, to support them. If you choose to waste your cash like that Brexiters be prepared for the outcome you don't want. Still mithering on about this today, forgetting to take their media opportunities to make the Brexit case, Farridge going on about 'political elites', some idiot MP (Labour Brexiter I think) claiming it's all to cover up Cameron's Panama issues. And the dreaded words 'it's not fair' come into play. Aah, diddums.
Dave and Giddy could at least have printed it on absorbent paper on a roll so potential voters could find a use for it...
No, no and no. The UK would become the most powerful and influential 'external force' stating an independent case. If anything, it would likely be listened to more than today. The UK would not face a Euro vote because the Pound is enshrined in both UK AND EU law. And we'd be no less disadvantaged when it comes to legal statutes than it is now. Goldie, it's clear you see the EU as a club for bullies ganging up on the poor little UK. Hopefully the majority of voters don't share your disclosures view of our largest trading partner and our strong position in it.
Take an example, Chaz. The Eurozone countries will want the Eurozone to thrive. They need a financial centre, probably Frankfurt, and they will want that to thrive. It will compete with London. France, in particular, has for years been highly jealous of London's success. If the Eurozone passes laws within the EU to boost Frankfurt at the cost of The City of London, there won't be a thing the UK could do about it except complain - and who will listen?
And with the UK out of the EU, how is that different? Actually, it's far more likely to happen if we leave because the EU won't have a single financial powerhouse if London leaves...
