I’d prefer Guantanamo, much better weather than Siberia and I’ve got a pair of orange Adidas Gazelles that would go nice with the orange jump suits.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
I’d prefer Guantanamo, much better weather than Siberia and I’ve got a pair of orange Adidas Gazelles that would go nice with the orange jump suits.Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Double Orange ?
Maybe you`ll end up in a concentration camp run by fashionistas!
blue estate:
Tempest:
I would vote in. The economy is collapsing. This is not project fear, this is Brexit reality. If you own a business and you are having to cut back due to Brexit , will you lay off those workers you know caused this by voting Leave first ? My answer is YES P45 for Brexiteers. Sorry but I don’t wanna pay for your mistakes. It would be unfair.
dont forget your P45 befor you leave
Well I’d vote remain again.
No the EU ain’t perfect but i think trying to improve it internally would have been better. And it turns out we could of changed our passport colour anyway [emoji23].
It doesn’t help though that the government are incompetent. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere close to the best exit deal possible.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Ironeddie - there’s not been much reasons so far to actually influence you to change your mind. It’s perfectly understandable then, that you’d feel the way you do.
The whole issue of Brexit has been clearly treated like “Squishing a turd through one’s fingers” by ALL parties at Westminster.
Our entire army of civil servants - just don’t want to do it!
IronEddie:
Well I’d vote remain again.No the EU ain’t perfect but i think trying to improve it internally would have been better. And it turns out we could of changed our passport colour anyway [emoji23].
It doesn’t help though that the government are incompetent. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere close to the best exit deal possible.
It’s obvious that the EU is by definition a Federal super state while the Leave vote is by definition an anti Federalist vote and a vote in favour of National Sovereignty.How could you possibly sort out that contradiction without either seceding from the Federation.
Or the Federation dissolving itself and then reforming along Confederal lines which returns supremacy and individual sovereignty to the Nation States which make up the new Confederation ( CSE ).In the form of the right of opt out and substitution.Which is never going to happen.
As opposed to what we’ve got in the form of the EU Federation in which a majority foreign vote can determine what happens here let alone unelected Commissioners and zb’s like Juncker.
The issue of passports is obviously the same as national sovereignty.IE a British passport,or even a British passport in the case of us being a Confederate Sovereign European State,obviously isn’t the same thing as the EU Federation passport which we’ve got and nothing to do with just the colour of it.
Winseer:
The whole issue of Brexit has been clearly treated like “Squishing a turd through one’s fingers” by ALL parties at Westminster.Our entire army of civil servants - just don’t want to do it!
It’s obvious that the establishment is all about remain and never had any intention of delivering a leave vote.Realistically it was a done deal from the point when Heath wasn’t charged with Treason.
More than half of the UK wants a “people’s vote” on Brexit, says new survey
Around 52 per cent of the UK wants a “people’s vote” on Brexit, a survey claims.
Only 31 per cent are opposed, according to Open Britain, and Labour supporters are most keen by 65 to 21 per cent.
Amongst 18 to 34-year-olds, which includes 500,000 people who could not vote in the 2016 referendum, the idea leads by 61 to 21.
Broken down by country, a “people’s vote” is ahead in England on 52 per cent, Wales on 58, Scotland on 59 and Northern Ireland on 45.
James McGrory, of Open Britain, said: “The people know the final deal is too important to be left to the politicians alone.
“The idea of a vote is overwhelmingly supported by Labour voters and it is difficult to see how Jeremy Corbyn could resist.”
Open Britain launches a campaign today calling for a public vote on whatever Brexit deal Theresa May presents to parliament after the summer.
It would have to take place before March 2019.
hkloss1:
“The idea of a vote is overwhelmingly supported by Labour voters and it is difficult to see how Jeremy Corbyn could resist.”Open Britain launches a campaign today calling for a public vote on whatever Brexit deal Theresa May presents to parliament after the summer.
It would have to take place before March 2019.
Just watch out as most of these groups are Blairite Remainers who are more opposed to Corbyn than anything else - including the fact that Corbyn is a left-wing Eurosceptic.
hkloss1:
More than half of the UK wants a “people’s vote” on Brexit, says new surveyAround 52 per cent of the UK wants a “people’s vote” on Brexit, a survey claims.
Only 31 per cent are opposed, according to Open Britain, and Labour supporters are most keen by 65 to 21 per cent.
Amongst 18 to 34-year-olds, which includes 500,000 people who could not vote in the 2016 referendum, the idea leads by 61 to 21.
Broken down by country, a “people’s vote” is ahead in England on 52 per cent, Wales on 58, Scotland on 59 and Northern Ireland on 45.
James McGrory, of Open Britain, said: “The people know the final deal is too important to be left to the politicians alone.
“The idea of a vote is overwhelmingly supported by Labour voters and it is difficult to see how Jeremy Corbyn could resist.”
Open Britain launches a campaign today calling for a public vote on whatever Brexit deal Theresa May presents to parliament after the summer.
It would have to take place before March 2019.
No it’s what we all expected.Keep the corrupt globalists want us to keep on voting until they get the answer for remain that they want.Or more likely make a better job of dumping the mountain of leave votes in a skip and rigging the turnout figure accordingly than they did the first time.
On that note the choice was and still is remain or leave and leave means leave not the remain in all but name that Blair and his allies are hoping for.
Rjan:
hkloss1:
“The idea of a vote is overwhelmingly supported by Labour voters and it is difficult to see how Jeremy Corbyn could resist.”Open Britain launches a campaign today calling for a public vote on whatever Brexit deal Theresa May presents to parliament after the summer.
It would have to take place before March 2019.
Just watch out as most of these groups are Blairite Remainers who are more opposed to Corbyn than anything else - including the fact that Corbyn is a left-wing Eurosceptic.
What was your vote in the referendum. 
Rjan:
Just watch out as most of these groups are Blairite Remainers who are more opposed to Corbyn than anything else - including the fact that Corbyn is a left-wing Eurosceptic.
You surprise me Rjan. Isn`t Brexit more important than Intra or Inter Party Politics?
Brexit will affect us for decades to come. Good or bad. Party Politics, rather than concern for the good of the Country has got us here, and should really be left at the door.
You have a clear belief in your political views, but do you confuse Party with politics?
Franglais:
Rjan:
Just watch out as most of these groups are Blairite Remainers who are more opposed to Corbyn than anything else - including the fact that Corbyn is a left-wing Eurosceptic.You surprise me Rjan. Isn`t Brexit more important than Intra or Inter Party Politics?
Brexit will affect us for decades to come. Good or bad. Party Politics, rather than concern for the good of the Country has got us here, and should really be left at the door.
You have a clear belief in your political views, but do you confuse Party with politics?
How can it possibly be Party politics when we’ve got Blairite controlled Labour allied with remain Conservative.In addition to Socialist Corbynites struggling with the contradiction between Socialism being ideologically Globalist.But who then don’t like the inevitable result when they’ve got it leaving them with the eventual realisation that they have to ally with Nationalism.Nationalism being closer to what they actually want as Shore,Benn,Heffer and now Hoey eventually realised.
IE the argument is clearly between ideologically Globalist NWO type government v Nationalist which,as it stands,obviously doesn’t translate into our Party representation system whatsoever,maybe with the exception of UKIP etc.
While it’s clear that the idea of a second vote is for the Remainers to get a second chance and/or infiltrate the Leave side to create a Brexit deal which means remain in all but name and with it staying with the ongoing Globalist NWO agenda of those like Macron,Blair and May.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
hkloss1:
“The idea of a vote is overwhelmingly supported by Labour voters and it is difficult to see how Jeremy Corbyn could resist.”Open Britain launches a campaign today calling for a public vote on whatever Brexit deal Theresa May presents to parliament after the summer.
It would have to take place before March 2019.
Just watch out as most of these groups are Blairite Remainers who are more opposed to Corbyn than anything else - including the fact that Corbyn is a left-wing Eurosceptic.
What was your vote in the referendum.
I was a staunch Remainer at the time , because ultimately the main problems in Britain are all of its own making, and I didn’t buy into the chauvinistic claptrap and right-wing propaganda that was on display and clearly being swallowed by Brexiteers at the time.
But several things have happened since then. Firstly, we’ve had the referendum. Secondly, the right-wing case seems to have visibly collapsed under the weight of its contradictions, which has reduced some of the perceived political risks (e.g. it’s apparent that the EU is not going to allow the Tories to force down pay and conditions, and abolish regulations, in order to undercut the EU). And thirdly, I’m happy to have seen Europe give the Tories a bloody nose in the negotiations, but it’s also convinced me that there is a very low likelihood of the EU reforming in any respect (including on the issues on which it does need to reform) unless it sustains some material political shocks.
Related to this last point is that it is apparent that the vast majority of Remain mouthpieces, are barely any more left-wing or honest with their arguments than the Brexit mouthpieces - they’re Blairite Remain mouthpieces, who simply want to maintain the status quo, whereas I’m really on the side of working class people who want change.
I’m not enumerating every little detail of why my view has changed (in some respects it’s only a subtle rather than a diametric change, since I am still violently opposed to the right-wing arguments for Brexit), but given where we are with the issue, I’m willing to accept Corbyn and McDonnell’s argument for a left-wing Brexit (since it will, in a variety of respects, give Labour much greater scope to reimpose democracy upon the economy).
Franglais:
Rjan:
Just watch out as most of these groups are Blairite Remainers who are more opposed to Corbyn than anything else - including the fact that Corbyn is a left-wing Eurosceptic.You surprise me Rjan. Isn`t Brexit more important than Intra or Inter Party Politics?
Brexit will affect us for decades to come. Good or bad. Party Politics, rather than concern for the good of the Country has got us here, and should really be left at the door.
You have a clear belief in your political views, but do you confuse Party with politics?
It depends what you mean by “party politics”. 10 years ago when you could barely get a ■■■ paper between the parties, except on a few social issues that were of greatest concern to a tiny minority of single-issue extremists, you had the parties trying to pretend that there were any real differences between them.
But today, there is a real difference between the Tories and Labour, and there is real choice, and the fact that both support Brexit shouldn’t lead you to believe that they support it for any of the same reasons. There is literally no overlap in the underlying reasons why the two parties support Brexit (really the only common ground is that both parties agree that a Brexit will give them more scope to implement their own agenda).
There is no Brexit that all of the country can agree will be good, because there are class issues at stake. In a country where the poor are getting poorer so as to pay for the rich to get richer, it’s a mistake to assume there is some sort of middle ground that suits both - the Blairites pretended that such a middle ground existed for 20 years, and all that happened was that they allowed the rich to wage class war unchecked, which is why decent pension schemes are dying a death, rents and mortgages are through the roof, wages have not grown so slowly in almost 200 years (and are lower in real terms than they were 10 years ago, or probably lower than they were 20 years ago if you’re a driver), public services are falling apart at the seams, and most people have kids who’ve gone through university (with parents now forced to support the next generation for 20-odd years by default, and the kids being saddled with tens of thousands in debt) and are being paid minimum wage at the end of it.
There is the choice between a right-wing Brexit which would be good only for the very rich (which is why the Tories are struggling to push it through, because in a democracy it will inevitably wipe them out to be seen to attack the majority at the same time as too-blatantly feathering the beds of the rich), and there is a left-wing Brexit which will (as part of a package of measures which it enables) be better for workers who earn their wages and pay their taxes for public services, whilst the rich who collect grossly excessive unearned incomes due to runaway market forces and pay next to no tax are going to become poorer.
That’s the democratic choice facing the country.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
What was your vote in the referendum.I was a staunch Remainer at the time
But several things have happened since then. Firstly, we’ve had the referendum. Secondly, the right-wing case seems to have visibly collapsed under the weight of its contradictions, which has reduced some of the perceived political risks (e.g. it’s apparent that the EU is not going to allow the Tories to force down pay and conditions, and abolish regulations, in order to undercut the EU). And thirdly, I’m happy to have seen Europe give the Tories a bloody nose in the negotiations, but it’s also convinced me that there is a very low likelihood of the EU reforming in any respect (including on the issues on which it does need to reform) unless it sustains some material political shocks.
Related to this last point is that it is apparent that the vast majority of Remain mouthpieces, are barely any more left-wing or honest with their arguments than the Brexit mouthpieces - they’re Blairite Remain mouthpieces, who simply want to maintain the status quo, whereas I’m really on the side of working class people who want change.
I’m not enumerating every little detail of why my view has changed (in some respects it’s only a subtle rather than a diametric change, since I am still violently opposed to the right-wing arguments for Brexit), but given where we are with the issue, I’m willing to accept Corbyn and McDonnell’s argument for a left-wing Brexit (since it will, in a variety of respects, give Labour much greater scope to reimpose democracy upon the economy).
I think it’s clear that we’re describing Globalist Blairite Brexit v Socialist Corbynite Brexit ( which by definition is an ideological oxymoron ) v Nationalist Brexit.
With it being clear that Nationalist is a left wing position not right wing.Leaving the Blairite type Globalists occupying the right wing.Which is why both Conservative and Labour are so closely allied on the subject and why for all of your references regarding the Corbynites you actually,by your own admission, voted with those Conservative and Blairite remainers and not the Labour-UKIP swing vote.Which is the clear difference here in that for all their bluster Corbynites have shown that when push comes to shove they’ll put their ideologically anti nation state values first to the point of preferring to vote remain knowingly allied with right wing Globalists like Blair and May etc in that.Rather than following even Hoey’s lead,who it’s clear is anything but right wing.
On that note it’s my bet that nothing’s changed in that you’ll still as expected want to sabotage any attempts regarding any serious return of sovereignty from the EU,and with it stopping of free movement and removing the remit of the ECJ over us.Or for that matter a protectionist trade regime,which will look after the interests of Brit workers rather than sacrificing them in the interests of EU workers and EU Globalist banker elites.All of that being mutually exclusive with staying in the EU single market in any way shape or form.All being perfectly legitimate aims and lines in the sand of any real Brexit and certainly not fitting the description of Right wing at all.
As for Corbyn if he had the slightest sympathy with the ‘left wing’ Leave vote he obviously would have put Hoey in the job of shadow Brexit minister.Not Starmer who,like you,is ideologically a remainer at heart,because Socialists can’t do Nationalism therefore having much more in common with the anti Nation State agenda of the Globalists like Blair and May.While trying to pretend otherwise obviously now to infiltrate the Leave side in order to help with May’s/Hammond’s and Starmer’s ongoing sabotage of Brexit.
Carryfast:
Franglais:
Rjan:
Just watch out as most of these groups are Blairite Remainers who are more opposed to Corbyn than anything else - including the fact that Corbyn is a left-wing Eurosceptic.You surprise me Rjan. Isn`t Brexit more important than Intra or Inter Party Politics?
Brexit will affect us for decades to come. Good or bad. Party Politics, rather than concern for the good of the Country has got us here, and should really be left at the door.
You have a clear belief in your political views, but do you confuse Party with politics?How can it possibly be Party politics when we’ve got Blairite controlled Labour allied with remain Conservative.In addition to Socialist Corbynites struggling with the contradiction between Socialism being ideologically Globalist.But who then don’t like the inevitable result when they’ve got it leaving them with the eventual realisation that they have to ally with Nationalism.Nationalism being closer to what they actually want as Shore,Benn,Heffer and now Hoey eventually realised.
IE the argument is clearly between ideologically Globalist NWO type government v Nationalist which,as it stands,obviously doesn’t translate into our Party representation system whatsoever,maybe with the exception of UKIP etc.
Socialists are not “globalists”, they’re “internationalists”. It might seem like there’s no apparent difference in the terms, but what “globalists” seek is a global free-market economy (typically an economy that is free of democracy or political control), whereas internationalists seek political unification of the working classes (and not necessarily supporting a market economy at all), and for these reasons the “globalists” and “internationalists” are probably mortal enemies.
For internationalists, the key point is that nationalism is often used to divide workers and yoke them into hostilities with each other, whereas the ruling classes are always internationally united when it suits them to be united against the working classes of their nations (the Paris Commune was an example, if I remember correctly, where the ruling classes called off a war, so that the French Army was released to attack Paris with full force).
While it’s clear that the idea of a second vote is for the Remainers to get a second chance and/or infiltrate the Leave side to create a Brexit deal which means remain in all but name and with it staying with the ongoing Globalist NWO agenda of those like Macron,Blair and May.
Broadly speaking I agree, most of those supporting a second referendum at this stage simply want a second bite of the cherry. That’s not to say that a second referendum could never be justified - particularly if informal polling showed a substantial shift in opinion, or if political circumstances require the result to be reconfirmed in light of subsequent events. But again, simply because of the dishonest agenda of the Blairite Remainers (and the fact that they are hostile to all left-wing reforms, whether or not it involves leaving the EU), I’m less inclined to support another referendum for that reason alone.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
How can it possibly be Party politics when we’ve got Blairite controlled Labour allied with remain Conservative.In addition to Socialist Corbynites struggling with the contradiction between Socialism being ideologically Globalist.But who then don’t like the inevitable result when they’ve got it leaving them with the eventual realisation that they have to ally with Nationalism.Nationalism being closer to what they actually want as Shore,Benn,Heffer and now Hoey eventually realised.IE the argument is clearly between ideologically Globalist NWO type government v Nationalist which,as it stands,obviously doesn’t translate into our Party representation system whatsoever,maybe with the exception of UKIP etc.
Socialists are not “globalists”, they’re “internationalists”. It might seem like there’s no apparent difference in the terms, but what “globalists” seek is a global free-market economy (typically an economy that is free of democracy or political control), whereas internationalists seek political unification of the working classes (and not necessarily supporting a market economy at all), and for these reasons the “globalists” and “internationalists” are probably mortal enemies.
For internationalists, the key point is that nationalism is often used to divide workers and yoke them into hostilities with each other, whereas the ruling classes are always internationally united when it suits them to be united against the working classes of their nations (the Paris Commune was an example, if I remember correctly, where the ruling classes called off a war, so that the French Army was released to attack Paris with full force).
While it’s clear that the idea of a second vote is for the Remainers to get a second chance and/or infiltrate the Leave side to create a Brexit deal which means remain in all but name and with it staying with the ongoing Globalist NWO agenda of those like Macron,Blair and May.
Broadly speaking I agree, most of those supporting a second referendum at this stage simply want a second bite of the cherry. That’s not to say that a second referendum could never be justified - particularly if informal polling showed a substantial shift in opinion, or if political circumstances require the result to be reconfirmed in light of subsequent events. But again, simply because of the dishonest agenda of the Blairite Remainers (and the fact that they are hostile to all left-wing reforms, whether or not it involves leaving the EU), I’m less inclined to support another referendum for that reason alone.
What’s the difference between the ( global ) ‘political unification’ of the working classes v the globalists ‘unification’ of both the global government system and the global economy.There obviously is no difference which is why both have historically tried to feed off of and leap frog each other in a continuous winner takes all power struggle all under the same ‘Labour’/‘Socialist’ banner.Which explains why the Labour Party has always had a place of influence for those like Jenkins and Callaghan and Blair and now Starmer but not Shore,Benn or Heffer or now Hoey.
As for ‘inter’ ‘Nationalism’ you can’t be ‘inter’ ‘Nationalist’ without first maintaining the idea of the ‘Nation’ State and therefore being ideologically ‘Nationalist’ as part of that first.The idea then being to use those National borders and Sovereignty as a sort of one way check valve which allows us to co operate with other like minded ‘Nations’ as we choose while at the same time being able to close the gates to counter productive competition and to look after the National interests of our own workers.Which in this case would obviously mean being able to enforce trade balance with our European trading ‘partners’ and stopping race to the bottom under cutting and artificial rigging of the European/UK labour market.In addition to stopping the situation of people like Merkel and Macron deciding UK immigration policy of flooding Europe with third world immigration as part of their anti Nation State Globalist agenda.
Nothing new in that argument either.It was at that point when I realised no Eric that is a Nationalist argument not a Socialist argument and ‘inter’ ‘Nationalist’ can never be reconciled with Socialist both being totally contradictory ideologies with Socialist by definition meaning anti Nation State no borders unification therefore Globalist.Which is why the Labour Party has always attracted scumbags like Blair and alienated people like Shore. 
youtube.com/watch?v=K1R3TgChPsU 3.27=3.57
Carryfast:
Rjan:
[…]What’s the difference between the ( global ) ‘political unification’ of the working classes v the globalists ‘unification’ of both the global government system and the global economy.There obviously is no difference which is why both have historically tried to feed off of and leap frog each other in a continuous winner takes all power struggle all under the same ‘Labour’/‘Socialist’ banner.Which explains why the Labour Party has always had a place of influence for those like Jenkins and Callaghan and Blair and now Starmer but not Shore,Benn or Heffer or now Hoey.
I’m only speaking in generalities, but in general “globalism” is somewhat synonymous with “cross-border trade”, whereas “internationalism” (at least for anyone on the left) is somewhat synonymous with “international democracy”.
In other words, one is an economic concept and the other is a political concept. For the most part we already have the former, but certainly not the latter. Generally speaking, the way socialists understand the world is that class is the main division in society, and that you really have far more in common with the French worker in your experience of daily life, than with the British aristocrat.
The EU project (notwithstanding its faults) is somewhat internationalist - it’s more than just an economic trade project, and seeks political unification over the long term.
On the Labour party, I wouldn’t say the Bennite strand of thought was ever marginalised. I’d say Benn himself is nowadays seen as a treasure of the Labour party, was a minster in the 60s and 70s, and was always seen as a significant figure. Corbyn, coming much later, you might say spent his career marginalised during the ascendancy and zenith of what we now call the Blairites, but in the sweep of history since the second world war, you wouldn’t say the likes of Benn or Corbyn were always marginalised, and of course the left-wing of Labour has come back with a bang since 2015 (and so too has left-wing Euroscepticism since 2016!). By contrast, it was Jenkins that ultimately felt out of place inside Labour and set up the SDP.
As for ‘inter’ ‘Nationalism’ you can’t be ‘inter’ ‘Nationalist’ without first maintaining the idea of the ‘Nation’ State and therefore being ideologically ‘Nationalist’ as part of that first.
I don’t think you have to be “a nationalist” to recognise and employ the concept of the nation. Nobody argues that nations don’t currently exist - the point is to transcend them, having seen them come to their logical conclusion in the 30s and 40s.
The idea then being to use those National borders and Sovereignty as a sort of one way check valve which allows us to co operate with other like minded ‘Nations’ as we choose while at the same time being able to close the gates to counter productive competition and to look after the National interests of our own workers.
But looking after “national interests” is not the same as looking after “workers’ interests”. The UK compensates for the geographic distribution of the private sector economy, for example, by tending to locate large public sector operations in places where the private sector has a smaller presence, and by controlling taxation, subsidies, planning permissions, and so on, all to counter the natural (and counterproductive) tendency of private sector employers to concentrate in narrow geographic areas.
Even within the English region of the UK, there are significant inequalities between North and South, partly because governments since the 1970s have done too little to counter the unequal concentration of economic activity in the South.
Which in this case would obviously mean being able to enforce trade balance with our European trading ‘partners’ and stopping race to the bottom under cutting and artificial rigging of the European/UK labour market.In addition to stopping the situation of people like Merkel and Macron deciding UK immigration policy of flooding Europe with third world immigration as part of their anti Nation State Globalist agenda.
But really what you’re objecting to is the neoliberal elements of the EU. There is nothing intrinsic about the EU which requires it to force workers into undercutting. It could implement EU-wide wage councils, for example, which level-up wages across the entire EU, or otherwise make wages equal in value across all EU nations (i.e. control the market so that, even with open borders, there is no incentive for workers to move around, and capitalists face the same wage bill wherever in the EU they place their factories and offices, and workers receive the same wages relative to the cost of living wherever they live in the EU).
The reason the EU doesn’t do this is not because it cannot be done - the UK used to have a whole host of sector-based wage councils, as well as the power of strong unions themselves to set national wage policies which prevent regional competition and undercutting - but because most national governments in the EU have been centre-right and are hostile to such socialist thinking and democratic control of the economy (as opposed to market control of the economy).
Agriculture is one of the only exceptions that comes to mind, where the EU has always maintained a common external tariff and a system of subsidies set at a level that supports small-scale farming even in the wealthiest countries like France - in the EU, you cannot undercut the French farmer and undermine his livelihood, because the state (both at the EU level and the French national level) has a system of controls to prevent it occurring, and if that means higher prices (so that the consumer pays a price necessary for a farmer to get a fair income), or contrarily if it means low prices and mountains of free butter, then that is considered a lesser evil than mountains of struggling or unemployed farmers yoked into competition, either competition with one another or with third world farmers who will work for a pittance.
But indeed, these sorts of controls on the economy extended generally in order to engineer an equalisation in the EU member economies, would probably make the EU state almost as radical as the Chinese or Soviet states in the economic sphere. Obviously, once the reconfiguration has been managed and completed and the EU-wide economy has been ironed out, it could ease up again (much like the UK does not need to closely manage worker migration between it’s constituent regions or have any special policies or controls).
Nothing new in that argument either.It was at that point when I realised no Eric that is a Nationalist argument not a Socialist argument and ‘inter’ ‘Nationalist’ can never be reconciled with Socialist both being totally contradictory ideologies with Socialist by definition meaning anti Nation State no borders unification therefore Globalist.Which is why the Labour Party has always attracted scumbags like Blair and alienated people like Shore.
youtube.com/watch?v=K1R3TgChPsU 3.27=3.57
As I say, there is nothing inherent in international socialism that requires globalism. Just as a global car company under the common control of a single entity, doesn’t imply that you have to have only one car factory centralised in one place on the globe, or even that each car factory needs to really share their supply chains (or even make the same models of car).
And at the end of the day, the Labour party does to a large extent reflect the views of its members and the state of the labour movement as a whole. It’s worth remembering that the vast majority of workers have never been socialists, and some union bosses (invariably elected by union members) have been fairly right-wing figures. The Eric Hammonds or the Ken Jacksons of the union world, all had the support of their members in attacking the interests of the working class as a whole, and in supporting the agendas of the Thatcher and Blair governments.
We must be rid of the gravy train house of losers .
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/209433
Please sign .