Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 256 total)
  • Author
  • #1120696


    The EU’s liberalisation directives make it illegal to renationalise key sectors, blocking a key Corbyn manifesto pledge. These directives have been made deliberately impossible to change. “Remain and Reform” simply means remaining locked into neoliberalism.


    Our independence from the EU means our own renewed commitments to full employment, industrial redevelopment, nationalisation of rail and utilities, a resurgence of public services and a communal ethic in favour of the common good can be made more possible.

    No neoliberal liked the referendum result, it has shaken their world. Leaving the EU provides a unique opportunity to end austerity, protect our agriculture and fishing industries, cut energy and house rents, rebuild social housing, invest in skills, science research and development. It should involve a return to publicly accountable schools, free higher education and the NHS outside of market forces.

    New Deal for Britain


    Love you babe!





    And please note Badder, you pie scoffing Wigan liberal, just in case you have been at the cheap Tesco Lambrini!


    The first link I posted is written by a network of activists, academics, journalists and policy experts, all on the broad political left.


    Left badder! The REAL left, not EU supporting liberal “progressives” (not so progressive), NOT Blairites and not centre right Lib dems!


    We are committed to widening the space for democratic debate, injecting new ideas into the Brexit process, and forging ties with European allies to revive a genuine left internationalism.






    I was made aware during the EU referendum, that the EU can actually block Corbs plans to renationalise the railways, as this flies in the face of EU open border competition laws.  If this is true then it will also block renationalisation of the water companies, gas and electricity, etc.

    Now when this came out AND Labour were at the time backing Remain officially, Corb said we could get round it.  Now I do hope there is a way around it.

    I wanted to remain in the EU mainly to protect our employment rights, and because everything we get from the EU does make that membership fee [email protected] the free trade keeps food prices down (Boris does not need to worry about this, even his mistress called him selfish and said “money doesn’t matter to you you are spoiled”, when she tried to throw the drunken Boris out of HER flat that night and he wouldn’t leave!).  Also I like EU courts having control over Con govs when it comes to Human Rights and employment law.

    When I weigh it all up I will take a chance on a future Labour gov (if very determined), finding a way to renationalise our key services from within the EU, simply so I can rest assured that the EU continue to keep the Cons in check.

    BTW Rupert Murdoch, who is not even BRITISH, has been quoted by reliable sources as saying,

    “I like the idea of the UK leaving the EU, because when I go to Brussels they will not do what I tell them, BUT when I go to 10 Downing St. THEY do”

    How does this make any self-respecting Brit feel? :unsure:

    So much for ” taking back control” lol :scratch:




    Badder I don’t actually disagree with you other than how to achieve that goal.


    One thing I will add though, food is NOT cheaper because of the EU and despite the EU, we will be able to negotiate BETTER deals outside the EU.

    The most obvious and damaging exhibit is, of course, the Common Agricultural Policy which takes up half the EU budget and lavishes subsidies onto the EU’s biggest landowners at the expense of millions of the poorest farmers in Africa.

    The criminal £30 billion-a-year subsidy regime allows the EU to dump thousands of tons of heavily-subsidised food into Africa every year. As a result local producers cannot export their products because they compete with the lower prices made possible by the CAP.

    How the EU starves Africa



    not worth responding to such a biased point of view. Why  not just say you hate tories! and no I am not a Tory supporter  and have voted Labour ( but won’t do so now)  :unsure:


    What’s wrong with saying “I hate Tories”? LOLOL

    I want it on my tombstone lol :yahoo:


    And stop talking for Badder as well you patronizing misogynist arsehole.

    Nice man :wacko:

    If badder asks me to stop commenting on he posts, then let her ask me. It’s not up to you to speak for anyone else.

    These are public posts. If badder wants people to stop joining in an arguent, and feels that ehr posts are just for a discussion with you, let her say. But these are public boards, and I’ll still make my points.

    Now fuck off and stop stalking me.

    I’m far from stalking you. You present extremely poor arguemnts here, 99% ego and 1% argumet. The arguments tend to go round and round one or two points.


    if anyone – anyone – makes a serious argument, or in your case an attempt at a serious argument, I have the right to contribute, whether you like it or not.

    You don’t control the boards yet!



    No Deal could well happen, though it’s not inevitable. It would be the beginning of brexit crisis, not the end.


    The Full Brexit group is one of many little groups (such  as the tiny Trade Unionists against the EU he quoted earlier) formed by the Red-Brown front of lexiteers, Morning Star and the creepy Spiked/Institute of Ideas. This is an old tactic – the same group of people form many different organisations to give the appearance of numbers.

    Badder is right. The nationalisation question is a red herring, and easily circumvented.. Why haven’t the French been forced to denationalise their railway system – the SNCF? Corbyn hs been made very aware of how to get round the EU rules.

    More important is the question of living standards, hygiene and employment rights, etc. No Deal would threaten these – which is why virtually the whole of the Labour and Trade Union movement, even Unite,  are totally opposed. only a small number of people who claim to be left wing but have closed their eyes to the shock to living standards caused by a no-deal brexit stand out.


    Finding it easier to negotiate trade deals is another red herring. We will actually find ourselves in a much worse positron if we don’t leave the EU carefully over a long period (at least 7-10 years). We will be the only country in the  WTO without a trade deal. Trump – a real Socialist hero! – is talking about a big, big and beautiful trade deal with us, but that’s how he talks. No trade deal is possible without the agreement of the US Congress, it will take several years to negotiate with the best of wills, and the Congress has made it clear that if the good Friday Agreement is broken such a trade deal would be dead in the water.

    Easier to negotiate a trade deal? It’s lying bullshyte meant to pull the wool over our eyes. We’ll be outside international trading agreements for quite a while, which means trading at a real disadvantage. The car industry is going ape – they know they will be quickly destroyed. Farmers will be ruined. Welsh farmers have pointed out that they will lose 92% of their exports and face 48% tariffs from the EU instead of 0%. They’ve warned of civil unrest.





    Badder darling,


    You don’t appear to realize, reform of the neoliberal Thatcherite Mark ll on speed corporatist EU trading block is impossible and designed deliberately so.



    • A proposal must emerge from either a national government, the European Parliament, or the European Commission.
    • The Council then discusses the proposal and passes it to the Council of Ministers, comprised of national heads of government.
    • The Council of Ministers must then consult the European Parliament, the Commission, and (if the proposal touches on monetary matters) the European Central Bank.
    • The Council of Ministers must vote on the proposal, with a simple majority required for it to progress further.
    • For any proposals suggesting fundamental change, the President of the European Council must then convene a “Convention”. This must be comprised of representatives from national parliaments, national governments, the European parliament, and the Commission, but the President has total discretion as to how many of each are included.
    • The Convention discusses the proposal and develops, by consensus, a draft treaty text.
    • An intergovernmental conference convenes to discuss the text.
    • If the text is approved, it must be ratified by member-states in accordance with domestic law, e.g. through national parliaments or referenda.

    To begin with, a majority of EU member-state governments (i.e. at least 15) must first agree to the potential change. Therefore, for R&R to work in the way leftists suggest – for the EU to be reformed in a socialist direction – socialist governments would need to have been elected in 15 EU countries, and they would have had to develop a consensus on EU reform. The likelihood of this occurring is obviously close to zero. Thanks in part to the EU treaties, even moderate social democratic parties – let alone real socialist parties – have been eviscerated across the continent, and there has been a widespread lurch to the right and towards nationalist populism. Britain only bucks this trend thanks to two unique factors: the extraordinary quirk of Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour Party leader, and Brexit, which has pulled the rug from beneath the main right-wing challenger party, UKIP.
    Even if we ride the unicorn into a fantastical future where 15 socialist governments are simultaneously elected across the EU, at step five the Council president has the power to rig proceedings against meaningful change. There is nothing to stop him or her stuffing the Convention with unelected bureaucrats from the Commission, or with the scarcely-elected Europhiles who dominate the European Parliament.


    Real reform is impossible.




    • This reply was modified 10 months ago by  Ge.


    Oh and Badder :cry: Just to put a smile on your fence panel thieving mush when you finally wake up.



    There is also a view among some on the Left, particularly in the trade unions, that while the EU’s enthusiasm for neoliberalism and austerity is an inescapable truth, our interests are best served by staying inside it because it has delivered some rights for workers. They claim that these rights would be threatened by a withdrawal from the EU.

    In truth, the picture is far more complex than that. Many of the main planks of workplace legislation giving benefits to UK workers – such as on health and safety, equal pay, the minimum wage and trade union recognition – were won through the UK parliament as a result of trade union campaigning. They had little or nothing to do with the EU.

    Even today, the broad sweep of workplace law – such as on pay, terms and conditions, dismissal, industrial relations and disputes – remains completely outside the remit of the EU. (This is why, for example, the Tory government is able to push the Trade Union Bill – the biggest assault on workers in a generation – through parliament without any opposition whatsoever from the EU.)


Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 256 total)

Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!