EU Elections 2019

[Busaholic]

Evidence is not a verb.



You could provide evidence for those claimed policy positions, if they are correct.

I am not necessarily supporting any of those parties, but you claimed they were being dishonest. That's a factual claim, so it deserves to be factually justified. Otherwise it's like something said by a brexiter.

I think it's undoubtedly true that the relatively few proponents of Scottish and Welsh nationalism in most of the early twentieth century would be considered right wing, even fascist in some cases, and resolutely anti-socialist and anti-internationalism. The Irish side is so much more complicated that I wouldn't begin to try to define it. Now the modern nationalist parties recognise that their previous stances will not attract many voters, particularly the young. The late politician Margo MacDonald was instrumental in getting the SNP to move leftwards; she later married Jim Sillars, a Labour, then Scottish Labour, then SNP MP, though both of them abandoned the party later. Sillars, who is still alive, I believe takes the once-common far left view that the EU is undemocratic and that the U.K. should leave it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Evidence is not a verb.

A spectacular own goal in the first minute.

verb

1. 
   be or show evidence of.
   "the quality of the bracelet, as evidenced by the workmanship, is exceptional"
   synonyms: indicate, show, reveal, be evidence of, display, exhibit, manifest, denote, evince, signify;

You could provide evidence for those claimed policy positions, if they are correct.

I did not claim them to be policy positions but rather I stated an opinion or observation on political cognitive dissonance you won't find written down on any of their websites (because that's what this part of the forum seems to run on, finding a position, and then googling selective supporting resources when challenged, without ever making an intelligent argument...).

You can't be both nativist and internationalist. A true nationalist party pursuing the local agenda of a small nation can't support the EU, beyond wanting to be a member so it gets bankrolled by larger economies. Either, these are really nativist parties tapping into moderate votes and competing in the middle ground through support (in Sinn Fein's case, extremely reluctantly!) for the EU - as is my suspicion. Or, they are genuine Eu-philes who don't really care too much about local issues as long as they can use someone else's money to fund their projects.

Otherwise it's like something said by a brexiter.

As a Remainer myself I continue to be amazed at how extraordinarily rude and bad-faith some of my fellow voters continue to be towards people they don't agree with.

 

[fowler9]

having worked in both denmarks and sweden quite substantially for the last 10 years I can assure you that's not the case!
their left wing is nowhere near as left as corbyn.

I said Labour, not Corbyn.

 

[fowler9]

No it wasn’t, if you actually read the post.

Yeah it was if you read the actual post. I said the Labour party were more like Denmark or Sweden when someone compared them to communism or Maoists or some such rubbish. I said more like, not exactly like, and this was in comparison to the real left wing extremists.

 

[ashkeba]

The House of Lords doesn't have the power to block legislation from being passed under the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, only to refine the legislation and make amendments that the Commons doesn't have to listen to.

So what? It's still a chamber mostly of appointees and far more unelected members than yh any other EU country, isn't it?

 

[AlterEgo]

Yeah it was if you read the actual post. I said the Labour party were more like Denmark or Sweden when someone compared them to communism or Maoists or some such rubbish. I said more like, not exactly like, and this was in comparison to the real left wing extremists.

When people use the idiom “more like”, this is an expression of approximating one for the other.

“Shrewsbury Town are a pub team” “-er no mate they’re not, more like a League One team!” - means Shrewsbury are in League One, not some middle ground like the National League.

“He wanted to pay me £50 for the car but that’s far too little - more like £3000!” - means £3000 is the value of the car, or thereabouts, not some middle ground like £1500.

“I thought it would take only an hour to walk to town but it was more like two hours in the end” - means it took two hours.

“Victims of Hillsborough? More like a bunch of drunk hooligans who were responsible for their own deaths” - is a direct slur, implying exactly what it says, not some middle ground of shared responsibility by people who’d had one or two drinks. It is of course an outrageous and wholly wrong thing to say but I have included it as an example we can both relate to. We know exactly what is being said there.

Everyone knows if you say “Labour aren’t the Khmer Rouge! Actually, they are more like Sweden or Denmark” this is an approximation of the Labour Party with the government of Sweden and Denmark.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/more like

If you want to express that something is only more like another thing but perhaps not very much - for rhetorical effect - you need to close the sentence with a proper comparison and “more like” ceases to be an idiom meaning “approximately like the thing I’m about to say”.

“Labour aren’t the Khmer Rouge! That’s ridiculous, I mean they’d be more like the libertarian centre-right government of Denmark than the bloody Khmer Rouge.”

This is a clear expression that you don’t approximate the Labour Party with Denmark’s government but are rather showing how far away on a spectrum the Khmer Rouge are from Labour.

People tend to associate all Scandinavian countries with democratic socialism, which is a big fallacy. Sweden currently does have a democratic socialist government, but Denmark’s is so very far away from democratic socialism it deserved to be pointed out.

Everyone here is an adult who knows how to use the term “more like”, so I’m amused to see people claim it means something else!

 

[anme]

A spectacular own goal in the first minute.

1-0 to you!

I did not claim them to be policy positions but rather I stated an opinion or observation on political cognitive dissonance you won't find written down on any of their websites (because that's what this part of the forum seems to run on, finding a position, and then googling selective supporting resources when challenged, without ever making an intelligent argument...).

So basically you have no evidence that anyone was lying, right?

You can't be both nativist and internationalist. A true nationalist party pursuing the local agenda of a small nation can't support the EU, beyond wanting to be a member so it gets bankrolled by larger economies. Either, these are really nativist parties tapping into moderate votes and competing in the middle ground through support (in Sinn Fein's case, extremely reluctantly!) for the EU - as is my suspicion. Or, they are genuine Eu-philes who don't really care too much about local issues as long as they can use someone else's money to fund their projects.

To be honest I think these arguments are absurd. It's hard to know exactly where to start so I won't give a comprehensive response, but here are a few points.

- According to you, you can't be in favour of one union but against another. So if you believe in the UK, you must also believe in the EU. You must also believe that a union between the EU and the USA would be a good thing. And furthermore, that this union must join with the Asian countries. And the African ones. Etc. On the other hand, if you don't believe in one union, such as the UK, you cannot be in favour of any others. Presumably even the union of the Scottish counties is then too much for you. Independence for Sutherland!

- Why would someone who is an "EU-phile" not care about local projects? It's possible to believe that some issues are best tackled locally, and some at national level, and some at European level, etc. A key principle of the EU is subsidiarity - that's a good word to look up in the dictionary.

- You have absolutely no understanding of how a small country sees the EU. Don't you think benefits like access to the single market, freedom of movement for your citizens across a wide area, and influence over policy across a whole continent might be important? Not to mention being part of a larger club that will hopefully take your side when necessary (see for example the EU's position on the Irish border).

- It's also worth noting that if an independent Scotland joined the EU, it would probably be a net financial contributor.

As a Remainer myself I continue to be amazed at how extraordinarily rude and bad-faith some of my fellow voters continue to be towards people they don't agree with.

I apologise if my comment offended anyone. I genuinely thought it was uncontroversial on both sides. Have you ever heard a leave supporter disagree with Michael Gove's famous instruction not to listen to experts?

 

[AlterEgo]

So basically you have no evidence that anyone was lying, right?

I never said anyone lied - please don't make out I did. I was really, really clear that this is a problem of cognitive dissonance. Why is this such a combative issue?

- According to you, you can't be in favour of one union but against another.

I did not say or even imply that!

So if you believe in the UK, you must also believe in the EU.

Er, no...ask the DUP. I don't support their position on either EU or UK unions, but I find their position at least rational and not in conflict.

You must also believe that a union between the EU and the USA would be a good thing. And furthermore, that this union must join with the Asian countries. And the African ones. Etc. On the other hand, if you don't believe in one union, such as the UK, you cannot be in favour of any others. Presumably even the union of the Scottish counties is then too much for you. Independence for Sutherland!

An enormous strawman wearing a clown nose and a flower squirting water.

- Why would someone who is an "EU-phile" not care about local projects? It's possible to believe that some issues are best tackled locally, and some at national level, and some at European level, etc. A key principle of the EU is subsidiarity - that's a good word to look up in the dictionary.

True EU-Philes really believe in the EU as a democratic force for good. While I voted Remain because it was the least destructive option, I consider the EU to be wholly undemocratic, primarily because of its lack of demos (I have covered this argument before in another thread and will not do so again).

The EU does not allow itself to be simply content with the principle of subsidiarity. The effect of its laws is wide ranging and affects even the smallest decisions taken by everyday people. It does not seek simply to apply international standards across its members but rather regulates many things it ought to have no say in.

You have absolutely no understanding of how a small country sees the EU. Don't you think benefits like access to the single market, freedom of movement for your citizens across a wide area, and influence over policy across a whole continent might be important? Not to mention being part of a larger club that will hopefully take your side when necessary (see for example the EU's position on the Irish border).

I'm in a small country right now, which since 1973 has been a net recipient of the EU, and only last year became a net contributor. The enormous rejuvenation of Ireland's infrastructure and public utilities has been paid for by someone else. This is, on the one hand, great (roads in Donegal are better!), but nativist parties like Sinn Fein don't appreciate being a vassal state of Europe. I don't think a small country cares about its influence in setting laws which apply in other countries. The example of the Irish border is a little spurious because this is a problem caused by the existence of the EU (i.e. it would not exist if there was no EU). Access to the single economic market is great but you don't need to be in an ever-expanding political union to have a customs union. As far as being in a nice big club goes, Ireland is finding out the hard way that it cannot be fiscally sovereign when it comes to its aggressive attraction of multinationals with very attractive corporation tax policies. The EU began to sue Ireland, Apple settled for 12 billion Euro or thereabouts, and Irish taxpayers aren't likely to see a cent. The EU isn't anything like a club, it's a union whereby member states agree to cede sovereignty over some key issues in return for benefits. This point is very often not discussed.

It's also worth noting that if an independent Scotland joined the EU, it would probably be a net financial contributor.

...for the first few years, certainly. See what happens to Scotland when the oil dries up. (NB: I support an independent Scotland, but not the one the SNP has in mind!)

I've always been a little uncomfortable with the EU because I honestly don't feel like I'm European. I'm British and Irish; I don't have a huge deal, culturally or politically, in common with states like Italy, Slovakia, Romania, and so on. I have little to no interest in sending a representative to set laws that govern these places and don't really care much for European representatives voting on things that affect me.

I'd still vote Remain tomorrow if the option was there, but purely out of the principle that Brexit is destructive process. I'd rather ride the EU bus until the wheels fall off.

 

[anme]

I never said anyone lied - please don't make out I did. I was really, really clear that this is a problem of cognitive dissonance. Why is this such a combative issue?



I did not say or even imply that!



Er, no...ask the DUP. I don't support their position on either EU or UK unions, but I find their position at least rational and not in conflict.



An enormous strawman wearing a clown nose and a flower squirting water.



True EU-Philes really believe in the EU as a democratic force for good. While I voted Remain because it was the least destructive option, I consider the EU to be wholly undemocratic, primarily because of its lack of demos (I have covered this argument before in another thread and will not do so again).

The EU does not allow itself to be simply content with the principle of subsidiarity. The effect of its laws is wide ranging and affects even the smallest decisions taken by everyday people. It does not seek simply to apply international standards across its members but rather regulates many things it ought to have no say in.



I'm in a small country right now, which since 1973 has been a net recipient of the EU, and only last year became a net contributor. The enormous rejuvenation of Ireland's infrastructure and public utilities has been paid for by someone else. This is, on the one hand, great (roads in Donegal are better!), but nativist parties like Sinn Fein don't appreciate being a vassal state of Europe. I don't think a small country cares about its influence in setting laws which apply in other countries. The example of the Irish border is a little spurious because this is a problem caused by the existence of the EU (i.e. it would not exist if there was no EU). Access to the single economic market is great but you don't need to be in an ever-expanding political union to have a customs union. As far as being in a nice big club goes, Ireland is finding out the hard way that it cannot be fiscally sovereign when it comes to its aggressive attraction of multinationals with very attractive corporation tax policies. The EU began to sue Ireland, Apple settled for 12 billion Euro or thereabouts, and Irish taxpayers aren't likely to see a cent. The EU isn't anything like a club, it's a union whereby member states agree to cede sovereignty over some key issues in return for benefits. This point is very often not discussed.



...for the first few years, certainly. See what happens to Scotland when the oil dries up. (NB: I support an independent Scotland, but not the one the SNP has in mind!)

I've always been a little uncomfortable with the EU because I honestly don't feel like I'm European. I'm British and Irish; I don't have a huge deal, culturally or politically, in common with states like Italy, Slovakia, Romania, and so on. I have little to no interest in sending a representative to set laws that govern these places and don't really care much for European representatives voting on things that affect me.

I'd still vote Remain tomorrow if the option was there, but purely out of the principle that Brexit is destructive process. I'd rather ride the EU bus until the wheels fall off.

OK there's so much in here that is bizarre or just wrong. I'm just going to make a few points as an incomplete response.

- Your argument that it's dishonest to support membership of one political union but not another was demonstrated to be untrue by reduction to the absurd. You seem to recognise this yourself in this post with your reference to the DUP.

- You say "The EU does not allow itself to be simply content with the principle of subsidiarity. The effect of its laws is wide ranging and affects even the smallest decisions taken by everyday people. It does not seek simply to apply international standards across its members but rather regulates many things it ought to have no say in."
Please give examples of how EU laws affect the smallest decisions taken by everyday people, and explain why you don't like each one.
Also please remember that national governments have to approve EU directives through the European Council!

- You claim the Irish border problem would not exist without the EU. I struggle to understand the logic behind this but I guess you are suggesting that without the EU there would never have been the Good Friday agreement. That might be true but seems to demonstrate something very positive about the EU!

- Your argument that the EU is wholly undemocratic is clearly nonsense.

- You don't appear understand what the single market is. It is not just a customs union. It is also an area of (to some degree) common business regulation and mutual recognition of regulatory competence. This is critical. This is why, for example, many companies can base themselves in Ireland and conduct their business across Europe from there. Ireland itself has chosen to have low business rates to attract businesses. You can question the wisdom of that policy but it's a choice of the Irish government.
The single market is the common regulations - this is why we have common regulations and is the main day to day business of the EU.

- Please look up the definition of "vassal state".

- You say "The EU isn't anything like a club, it's a union whereby member states agree to cede sovereignty over some key issues in return for benefits."
I'm not sure why you think it's nothing like a club. Can I ask what you think the benefits are of ceding some sovereignty to the EU?

 

[AlterEgo]

- Your argument that it's dishonest to support membership of one political union but not another was demonstrated to be untrue by reduction to the absurd. You seem to recognise this yourself in this post with your reference to the DUP.

I never said it was dishonest to support one political union but not the other. Please say where I claimed it wasn’t ideologically possible to do this.

You say "The EU does not allow itself to be simply content with the principle of subsidiarity. The effect of its laws is wide ranging and affects even the smallest decisions taken by everyday people. It does not seek simply to apply international standards across its members but rather regulates many things it ought to have no say in."
Please give examples of how EU laws affect the smallest decisions taken by everyday people, and explain why you don't like each one.

Sure, the right to be forgotten - which applies to all people - is terrible. No person has the right to be forgotten unless they are a child. All people need to be accountable for things they have said and done in the past and which are available online - unless the information of course is wrong. I don’t agree with the legal expulsion of factually correct historical information.

EU citizens working and living in one EU country can claim child benefit for dependents living in other countries. This is plainly daft. I don’t see why, if I work in Germany, the German state should subsidise my kids living in London, and I don’t see why I as a taxpayer should subsidise a German person working here with their kids in Berlin.

EU law says electricity, which I consider a human right to heat a house, is subject to a minimum of 15% VAT. I worked for the energy regulator and saw for myself how appalling the fuel poverty problem is in some pockets of this country, and their bills are inflated 15% for no proper reason. If a Tory government enacted that policy it would be rightly seen as quite contrary to fairness. Also see the tampon tax, set by the EU.

You claim the Irish border problem would not exist without the EU. I struggle to understand the logic behind this but I guess you are suggesting that without the EU there would never have been the Good Friday agreement. That might be true but seems to demonstrate something very positive about the EU!

The EU was not responsible for the Good Friday Agreement.

The only reason there’s a problem with the border today is because one state will be in the EU and the other without. That’s the whole border problem today. Neither state wants a hard border but the fact the EU exists means some sort of enforced border is inevitable.

Your argument that the EU is wholly undemocratic is clearly nonsense.

No points to make?

You can’t be a democracy without a demos. People need to have a significant shared experience, culturally and politically, to voluntarily submit to political union. I don’t think the EU has this. This is so often understated by Remainers. It isn’t just about geography - think about why a world government would be a bad idea but you’re prepared to entertain a European one. It’s because you feel European, right? A connection, camaraderie, union with the peoples of Europe. And you’re happy and comfortable with engaging in shared political decision making with those people.

You don't appear understand what the single market is. It is not just a customs union. It is also an area of (to some degree) common business regulation and mutual recognition of regulatory competence. This is critical. This is why, for example, many companies can base themselves in Ireland and conduct their business across Europe from there. Ireland itself has chosen to have low business rates to attract businesses. You can question the wisdom of that policy but it's a choice of the Irish government.

I understand this perfectly. You don’t need a political union like the EU to have any of this. Other common markets exist without a supranational body like the EU.

Please look up the definition of "vassal state".

How about you try explaining why small countries aren’t vassal? How is Ireland, which has historically taken billions from the EU (read: other countries) for example, wholly independent, when it cannot set its own tax rates as a result of its membership?

You say "The EU isn't anything like a club, it's a union whereby member states agree to cede sovereignty over some key issues in return for benefits."
I'm not sure why you think it's nothing like a club. Can I ask what you think the benefits are of ceding some sovereignty to the EU?

I don’t think there are any benefits in *ceding some sovereignty* to any state or body.

But, EU membership gives extra individual freedoms, geopolitical stability, and easier trade. I’d say those are the top three. I think this country will be worse off out of the EU in the short to medium term.

I’ll repeat I voted to stay in. I just don’t like the EU drum-beating by people who seem to think to defeat Leave they need to whitewash over some difficult truths. We don’t. I also still feel that truly nativist parties can’t sing the praises of the EU with a straight face.

 

[edwin_m]

The only reason there’s a problem with the border today is because one state will be in the EU and the other without. That’s the whole border problem today. Neither state wants a hard border but the fact the EU exists means some sort of enforced border is inevitable.

There was a hard border in Ireland while both countries were outside the EU.

To avoid a hard border both countries concerned have to have the same or very similar regimes of customs duties and standards for goods, otherwise the country with the more strict rules is undercut by people bringing goods over the unpoliced border. Minor differences can be tolerated, for if different taxation or exchange rates makes it worthwhile for people to travel a few miles to do their shopping over the border. However it does mean that to avoid the hard border in a non-EU context, both countries would have to agree similar policies - effectively Ireland as the smaller country would have to tag along with whatever Britain wanted. This all assumes, as most unbiased commentators seem to, that the much-touted but ill-defined "alternative arrangements" aren't workable.

 

[Busaholic]

There was a hard border in Ireland while both countries were outside the EU.

To avoid a hard border both countries concerned have to have the same or very similar regimes of customs duties and standards for goods, otherwise the country with the more strict rules is undercut by people bringing goods over the unpoliced border. Minor differences can be tolerated, for if different taxation or exchange rates makes it worthwhile for people to travel a few miles to do their shopping over the border. However it does mean that to avoid the hard border in a non-EU context, both countries would have to agree similar policies - effectively Ireland as the smaller country would have to tag along with whatever Britain wanted. This all assumes, as most unbiased commentators seem to, that the much-touted but ill-defined "alternative arrangements" aren't workable.

Not workable because non-existent if you don't inhabit an 'Alice in Wonderland' world.. Oh, for Jonathan Swift to be alive and writing - the Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin's withering comments on the situation would, though, either go over the top of the heads of the candidates and their supporters or be too much for their lilliputian brains.

 

[fowler9]

When people use the idiom “more like”, this is an expression of approximating one for the other.

“Shrewsbury Town are a pub team” “-er no mate they’re not, more like a League One team!” - means Shrewsbury are in League One, not some middle ground like the National League.

“He wanted to pay me £50 for the car but that’s far too little - more like £3000!” - means £3000 is the value of the car, or thereabouts, not some middle ground like £1500.

“I thought it would take only an hour to walk to town but it was more like two hours in the end” - means it took two hours.

“Victims of Hillsborough? More like a bunch of drunk hooligans who were responsible for their own deaths” - is a direct slur, implying exactly what it says, not some middle ground of shared responsibility by people who’d had one or two drinks. It is of course an outrageous and wholly wrong thing to say but I have included it as an example we can both relate to. We know exactly what is being said there.

Everyone knows if you say “Labour aren’t the Khmer Rouge! Actually, they are more like Sweden or Denmark” this is an approximation of the Labour Party with the government of Sweden and Denmark.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/more like

If you want to express that something is only more like another thing but perhaps not very much - for rhetorical effect - you need to close the sentence with a proper comparison and “more like” ceases to be an idiom meaning “approximately like the thing I’m about to say”.

“Labour aren’t the Khmer Rouge! That’s ridiculous, I mean they’d be more like the libertarian centre-right government of Denmark than the bloody Khmer Rouge.”

This is a clear expression that you don’t approximate the Labour Party with Denmark’s government but are rather showing how far away on a spectrum the Khmer Rouge are from Labour.

People tend to associate all Scandinavian countries with democratic socialism, which is a big fallacy. Sweden currently does have a democratic socialist government, but Denmark’s is so very far away from democratic socialism it deserved to be pointed out.

Everyone here is an adult who knows how to use the term “more like”, so I’m amused to see people claim it means something else!

Blimey. Well thanks for telling me what I think, and in such a lengthy and verbose way. I stand by thinking that Labours policies are more like social democratic ones in Scandinavia than those of left wing extremists in various countries over the years which is what the person I was responding to was saying. If you want to believe that I was saying Labour are "exactly" like the governments of Sweden and Denmark then feel free but that isn't what I think and it isn't what I said. Perhaps I should have said more similar to, would that work for you?

I largely agree with a lot of the things you have recently said above. There are a lot of things I am not keen on about the EU but would rather remain at the moment as I feel it is more advantageous for our country unless we have a sensible plan for what to do if we leave.

 

[AlterEgo]

Blimey. Well thanks for telling me what I think, and in such a lengthy and verbose way. I stand by thinking that Labours policies are more like social democratic ones in Scandinavia than those of left wing extremists in various countries over the years which is what the person I was responding to was saying. If you want to believe that I was saying Labour are "exactly" like the governments of Sweden and Denmark then feel free but that isn't what I think and it isn't what I said. Perhaps I should have said more similar to, would that work for you?

I largely agree with a lot of the things you have recently said above. There are a lot of things I am not keen on about the EU but would rather remain at the moment as I feel it is more advantageous for our country unless we have a sensible plan for what to do if we leave.

I’m not telling you what you think, I’m telling you what you said. The two obviously differ.

 

[fowler9]

I’m not telling you what you think, I’m telling you what you said. The two obviously differ.

I said more like. You explained that this generally means same as (In your opinion). I explained that this isn't what I meant. Get down off that high horse.

 

[AlterEgo]

I said more like. You explained that this generally means same as (In your opinion). I explained that this isn't what I meant. Get down off that high horse.

It’s not my opinion, it’s what the idiom means. I accept that this is not what you meant now you explained yourself, but it is still what you said!

It would have been a lot easier to just be honest, and admit to thinking what a lot of people wrongly believe - that Denmark is a democratic socialist state - and accept the correction. That’s why you grouped it with Sweden, and everyone can see that.

 

[fowler9]

It’s not my opinion, it’s what the idiom means. I accept that this is not what you meant now you explained yourself, but it is still what you said!

It would have been a lot easier to just be honest, and admit to thinking what a lot of people wrongly believe - that Denmark is a democratic socialist state - and accept the correction. That’s why you grouped it with Sweden, and everyone can see that.

Alright mate I was wrong and I apologise. I will do more reading. I thought Denmark were democratic socialists.

I still stand by Labour being more like Denmark's politics than the Khmer Rouge though. Ha ha .

 

[AlterEgo]

Alright mate I was wrong and I apologise. I will do more reading. I thought Denmark were democratic socialists.

I still stand by Labour being more like Denmark's politics than the Khmer Rouge though. Ha ha .

No problem! It is a popular misconception! (I agree that it’s not proper to compare modern Labour with the Khmer Rouge or any communist state!)

 

[fowler9]

No problem! It is a popular misconception! (I agree that it’s not proper to compare modern Labour with the Khmer Rouge or any communist state!)

All good mate. Bad assumption on my part .Which song is that from? "It's a popular misconception"? Ignore me, I'll Google .Ha ha.

 

[radamfi]

Denmark may not be particularly welcoming to immigrants these days, but they still have high personal taxation, plus a 25% VAT rate and high taxes on new car purchases. They also still have the famous "flexicurity" policy, where employees get generous unemployment benefit and training in return for giving employers a lot of flexibility to "hire and fire". So in general I would say that Denmark is still a social democratic country, certainly from the social security/employment point of view.

 

[fowler9]

Denmark may not be particularly welcoming to immigrants these days, but they still have high personal taxation, plus a 25% VAT rate and high taxes on new car purchases. They also still have the famous "flexicurity" policy, where employees get generous unemployment benefit and training in return for giving employers a lot of flexibility to "hire and fire". So in general I would say that Denmark is still a social democratic country, certainly from the social security/employment point of view.

Well this is where I got my thinking from. No matter what people think about Corbyn and the characters he hangs around with (They are often the same people very laissez-fair when it comes to the characters and governments the Tories do business with) I don't think the Labour Party are really in the pockets of Sendero Luminoso or the Khmer Rouge.

 

[Busaholic]

Well this is where I got my thinking from. No matter what people think about Corbyn and the characters he hangs around with (They are often the same people very laissez-fair when it comes to the characters and governments the Tories do business with) I don't think the Labour Party are really in the pockets of Sendero Luminoso or the Khmer Rouge.

Don't know about pockets, but Corbyn's ears always seem very receptive to Len McCluskey's blandishments. How is it that Corbyn's hold on the leadership still seems secure when he's doing as bad a job as May is/was doing? Labour should be twenty points ahead in the opinion polls!

 

[ashkeba]

Where is welcoming to immigrants any more? Anywhere in the EU? If so, how did they vote?

 

[EM2]

All good mate. Bad assumption on my part .Which song is that from? "It's a popular misconception"? Ignore me, I'll Google .Ha ha.

'Saturn 5' by Inspiral Carpets.

 

[Esker-pades]

The EU was not responsible for the Good Friday Agreement.

The only reason there’s a problem with the border today is because one state will be in the EU and the other without. That’s the whole border problem today. Neither state wants a hard border but the fact the EU exists means some sort of enforced border is inevitable.

The Good Friday Agreement was created when both states were in the EU. The existence of common laws regarding trade and the like meant that the Good Friday Agreement was easier. We can see this by the fact that there is not a solution to the Irish border post-Brexit. These problems are as a direct result of the decision to leave the EU.

The last sentence is plain wrong. The decision of the UK to leave the EU has created the problem.

 

[Giugiaro]

Just a question. Regarding the Scottish Independence issue, is it truth that the region of Scotland is a net receiver of the EU Budget targeted towards the UK?

If the trend is to continue after Scotland becomes independent (not forgetting the transition period to become an EU member) then it would make sense for the SNP to be Europeistic, since as net receivers they would get money "for free" from the EU to invest in the country in several sectors, strengthening their political relationship with its people and economy.

Leaving the EU means Scotland, maybe, stops getting that money, giving them more reasons to seek independence from the UK.

It wouldn't be too far-fetched to think the SNP could look at a No Deal scenario as an opportunity to defend its own cause, and use the EU as a confort pillow.

Now, how would they solve the border issue with England? All I can see is a plethora of issues in there, as it does with the Ireland-NI border.

 

[edwin_m]

Now, how would they solve the border issue with England? All I can see is a plethora of issues in there, as it does with the Ireland-NI border.

A very interesting question. There is far more population each side, though I think the actual length of border is shorter with fewer crossing points.

 

[Butts]

At least Scotland remained a "Green Free Zone" in the latest EU Elections !!! (and is Labour free)

Is this because The Scottish Green Party is a separate entity to that of the English and Welsh variety ?

I am probably the only forum member that voted Scottish Conservative in the poll - we held on to our seat.

In my view there is a huge latent opportunity for The Scottish Conservatives with a great leader like Ruth Davison to make further progress at both MSP and MP levels if we get a sensible replacement for Teresa May.

Just ask GUS B what happened in Moray at the last General Election !!

With Labour imploding , I could see us becoming the second party in Scotland in both Parliaments.

Forget the "Panda Jokes" , Scotland is there for the taking.

 

[GusB]

At least Scotland remained a "Green Free Zone" in the latest EU Elections !!! (and is Labour free)

Is this because The Scottish Green Party is a separate entity to that of the English and Welsh variety ?

I am probably the only foirum member that voted Scottish Conservative in the poll - we held on to our seat.

In my view there is a huge latent opportunity for The Scottish Conservatives with a great leader like Ruth Davison to make further progress at both MSP and MP levels if we get a sensible replacement for Teresa May.

Just ask GUS B what happened in Moray at the last General Election !!

With Labour imploding , I could see us becoming the second party in Scotland in both Parliaments.

Forget the "Panda Jokes" , Scotland is there for the taking.

The Scottish Greens did fairly well, and better than before, but not enough to gain a seat. Disappointing, but such is life.

If you specifically wish to talk about my own area, your beloved Tories were kicked into 3rd place, with the Brexit party picking up more votes. The SNP were still way ahead.

As for the Tories becoming the second party representing Scotland in both Parliaments, I think you'll find they already are. Do keep up at the back!

And regarding that Great Leader whom you so adore, I have no doubt that she has her eye on the bigger prize. With her stance on Brexit going from remain to leave almost overnight, she's one lady that's certainly for turning!

 

[krus_aragon]

At least Scotland remained a "Green Free Zone" in the latest EU Elections !!! (and is Labour free)

Is this because The Scottish Green Party is a separate entity to that of the English and Welsh variety ?

Wales also remained "Green free", but that was probably inevitable given that we had eight parties competing for four seats here.

Of course, once they get to the EU Parliament, the SNP and Plaid Cymru will sit with the Greens in the Greens / European Free Alliance group.