Left wingers are getting a bit scared
Discussion
Mrr T said:
XJ Flyer said:
Cameron is 'actually' just trying to create a situation whereby it will be easier to get through the cutbacks he'll have to make in England to keep the Scottish unionists onside.
As for fleshing out the position that there is no sovereign English parliament and if there was the Union would be finished the facts speak for themselves.So long as the union exists we will continue with the situation whereby the English are stitched up in order to hold the thing together.
This makes even less sense. Scotland just voted to stay in the union, but since it has its own parliament does that mean a union does not exists.?As for fleshing out the position that there is no sovereign English parliament and if there was the Union would be finished the facts speak for themselves.So long as the union exists we will continue with the situation whereby the English are stitched up in order to hold the thing together.
A union does not mean the UK cannot be arranged on a federal basis with many matters being decided within national parliaments and a federal government deciding join matters. Just like in the USA.
In this case I'm referring to the type of situation whereby the most likely scenario of a Cameron led English parliament would go along the lines of cutbacks in the English public spending budget,like education and social welfare decided by English MP's,to fund the extra public spending in the Scottish budget to keep the big spending Scottish Unionists like Gordon Brown onside.Just as is the case now.But this time we'd have a far more cut happy Con administration with no opposition to its plans and a far more spending happy Scottish one.
In which case the Scottish have the best of all worlds situation of higher spending targets at the expense of lower English ones with or without an English parliament.The important bit being that the overall UK budget remains the same but the Scottish as usual want more out of it,per head of population,than the English.
In which case the English parliament only gets the powers to set a lower English budget to subsidise the higher Scottish one with no powers to reduce the Scottish one to increase the English one,because the English have no control over the overall UK budget distribution of which it is a net contributor.
As I've said bearing in mind all the above the decision as to English independence in that situation should be a no brainer for anyone with any sense.Just as in the case of the EU.
toppstuff said:
FiF said:
Zod said:
Nope; even at a third reading, this remains a lot of words making no sense at all.
Top tips. Very little that particular poster writes makes any sense. Scroll straight past it and save time like a lot of the rest of us.
steveT350C said:
XJ Flyer said:
No I view the issues as being all the same.Those being all of the same downsides of being part of a federation.Wether it be the UK or the EU and especially in the case of us being a net contributor to the budgets of both at the expense of ourselves.
The question then being the selective opposite positions which UKIP has on each respectively.IE support of federalism in one case and a stated supposed ideological opposition to it in the other.
It's your point of view which you are of course entitled to. The question then being the selective opposite positions which UKIP has on each respectively.IE support of federalism in one case and a stated supposed ideological opposition to it in the other.
I personally don't want to be part of the EU, which has been forced upon me, without my consent, during my life.
Quite happy for the Jocks to stay part of the UK, as they always have been, during my life.
I don't really bother with ideologies and isms, they tend to be used by people who wish to cloud issues and appear 'intelligent'.
Edited by steveT350C on Monday 22 September 19:03
As for those who either didn't have a choice in being in the EU as opposed to being born under it the former would only be those under the age of 18 at the 1975 referendum .Me being one.I would have voted against then on the same grounds as now.That being an ideological opposition to Federalism just like Fascism.The same ideological opposition which UKIP supposedly has.Unfortunately in my case we weren't allowed to vote in that referendum at 16.While of course the same condition applied then as has been applied to the Scottish by Cameron now you get one chance then that's it no more for at least a lifetime probably more.So don't expect any help in that regard from the federalist cause in making any exceptions in the case of another EU referendum.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 20:40
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 20:44
XJ Flyer said:
steveT350C said:
XJ Flyer said:
No I view the issues as being all the same.Those being all of the same downsides of being part of a federation.Wether it be the UK or the EU and especially in the case of us being a net contributor to the budgets of both at the expense of ourselves.
The question then being the selective opposite positions which UKIP has on each respectively.IE support of federalism in one case and a stated supposed ideological opposition to it in the other.
It's your point of view which you are of course entitled to. The question then being the selective opposite positions which UKIP has on each respectively.IE support of federalism in one case and a stated supposed ideological opposition to it in the other.
I personally don't want to be part of the EU, which has been forced upon me, without my consent, during my life.
Quite happy for the Jocks to stay part of the UK, as they always have been, during my life.
I don't really bother with ideologies and isms, they tend to be used by people who wish to cloud issues and appear 'intelligent'.
Edited by steveT350C on Monday 22 September 19:03
As for those who either didn't have a choice in being in the EU as opposed to being born under it the former would only be those under the age of 18 at the 1975 referendum .Me being one.I would have voted against then on the same grounds as now.That being an ideological opposition to Federalism just like Fascism.The same ideological opposition which UKIP supposedly has.Unfortunately in my case we weren't allowed to vote in that referendum at 16.While of course the same condition applied then as has been applied to the Scottish by Cameron now you get one chance then that's it no more for at least a lifetime probably more.So don't expect any help in that regard from the federalist cause in making any exceptions in the case of another EU referendum.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 20:40
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 20:44
I choose UKIP.
steveT350C said:
XJ Flyer said:
steveT350C said:
XJ Flyer said:
No I view the issues as being all the same.Those being all of the same downsides of being part of a federation.Wether it be the UK or the EU and especially in the case of us being a net contributor to the budgets of both at the expense of ourselves.
The question then being the selective opposite positions which UKIP has on each respectively.IE support of federalism in one case and a stated supposed ideological opposition to it in the other.
It's your point of view which you are of course entitled to. The question then being the selective opposite positions which UKIP has on each respectively.IE support of federalism in one case and a stated supposed ideological opposition to it in the other.
I personally don't want to be part of the EU, which has been forced upon me, without my consent, during my life.
Quite happy for the Jocks to stay part of the UK, as they always have been, during my life.
I don't really bother with ideologies and isms, they tend to be used by people who wish to cloud issues and appear 'intelligent'.
Edited by steveT350C on Monday 22 September 19:03
As for those who either didn't have a choice in being in the EU as opposed to being born under it the former would only be those under the age of 18 at the 1975 referendum .Me being one.I would have voted against then on the same grounds as now.That being an ideological opposition to Federalism just like Fascism.The same ideological opposition which UKIP supposedly has.Unfortunately in my case we weren't allowed to vote in that referendum at 16.While of course the same condition applied then as has been applied to the Scottish by Cameron now you get one chance then that's it no more for at least a lifetime probably more.So don't expect any help in that regard from the federalist cause in making any exceptions in the case of another EU referendum.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 20:40
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 20:44
I choose UKIP.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 21:21
ash73 said:
I'm surprised how many people on here are dead against the EU, but want to create the exact same structure within the UK.
^ This.I was starting to think that I was the only one thinking along those lines.Their logic seems to be based on that inherent contradiction of the UK in UKIP meaning the ideology of Unionist/Federalist.Which obviously can't possibly work together with the ideology required for it to also be an Independence/anti Federalist Party.
XJ Flyer said:
No.Just that having seen UKIP ally itself with the Brown and Cameron agenda in favour of the federalist cause in the case of saving the UK there's no way that I'd now vote for what is a obviously the contradiction of a Unionist,supposedly ideologically anti federalist, Party.Probably in just the same way that the SNP was probably defeated by the contradiction in the idea of a Federalist,supposed Nationalist,Party.IE something stinks about UK politics and I think it is probably best to not get involved with voting for any of it.Bearing in mind that Farage has also obviously nailed his colours to a regime which has put a condition on the future of Scottish nationalism which he obviously doesn't agree with himself in the case of another EU referendum.
If you could just see your way into working "Global Thermonuclear War" into this thread as well, that would be lovely. Still running the "XJ Flyer PH Mad Badger Bingo" card, you see.But it's not exactly the same structure, the EU is a bunch of individual states sharing a currency and not much else that are slowly being coerced into a federal structure.
If the EU just came out and said that they want to create a European federal state, explained how it would operate, how the democratic process would work, what powers would go to states and what to the EU and then gave us a referendum to decide I might vote for it. Instead they are trying to sneak it in via the back door bit by bit. If they won't be honest with me then I don't want anything to do with them.
If the EU just came out and said that they want to create a European federal state, explained how it would operate, how the democratic process would work, what powers would go to states and what to the EU and then gave us a referendum to decide I might vote for it. Instead they are trying to sneak it in via the back door bit by bit. If they won't be honest with me then I don't want anything to do with them.
ash73 said:
I'm surprised how many people on here are dead against the EU, but want to create the exact same structure within the UK.
It isn't hard to understand at all. It is all about degrees. A federation of the nations of the UK would be small, manageable and relatively straightforward given our shared history. The EU is anything but these things.
OK, I get the idea that philosophically they are similar, but in practice and execution they would be quite different. It is pretty absurd to draw comparisons with regional assemblies or, even, national parliaments within the UK, with an EU superstate crossing over different cultures and different languages.
jurbie said:
But it's not exactly the same structure, the EU is a bunch of individual states sharing a currency and not much else that are slowly being coerced into a federal structure.
If the EU just came out and said that they want to create a European federal state, explained how it would operate, how the democratic process would work, what powers would go to states and what to the EU and then gave us a referendum to decide I might vote for it. Instead they are trying to sneak it in via the back door bit by bit. If they won't be honest with me then I don't want anything to do with them.
The EU couldn't make its federalist agenda much more of an open secret if it tried.The fact is you've made your view clear enough in that post in that you have no ideological objections to us being part of the EU federation.If the EU just came out and said that they want to create a European federal state, explained how it would operate, how the democratic process would work, what powers would go to states and what to the EU and then gave us a referendum to decide I might vote for it. Instead they are trying to sneak it in via the back door bit by bit. If they won't be honest with me then I don't want anything to do with them.
The government structure of which is already well known and in use and being sufficient to give it that ideological title now in that the EU parliament holds sovereignty,by majority voting rights of foreign elected MEP's,over the national UK one,on numerous legislative issues that govern our daily lives.That is in addition to it voting through a budget that keeps us in the position of being a net contributor to the scam.IE even Stevie Wonder could see that is a Federation in all including the name.
toppstuff said:
ash73 said:
I'm surprised how many people on here are dead against the EU, but want to create the exact same structure within the UK.
It isn't hard to understand at all. It is all about degrees. A federation of the nations of the UK would be small, manageable and relatively straightforward given our shared history. The EU is anything but these things.
OK, I get the idea that philosophically they are similar, but in practice and execution they would be quite different. It is pretty absurd to draw comparisons with regional assemblies or, even, national parliaments within the UK, with an EU superstate crossing over different cultures and different languages.
There are no different degrees of Federalism it is either a federally governed union of non sovereign states governed by a central supreme parliament which holds the sovereignty of the Union.Or it isn't in the form of a sovereign independent nation state,or a Confederation of seperate sovereign states which have supreme government powers over the decision making process of the Confederation.Many people seeming to be confusing the first with the last of those options.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 00:37
XJ,
Let's cut through the crap.
Did the UK have the power to say no to letting in 500K Rumanian gypsy's, a proportion of which live and defecate in the central reservation of Park Lane, Mayfair?, or did Angela say no, stuff you, you're a member of my club so you have to let them go wherever they wish.
Or would you prefer the Australian answer?
Phil
Knightsbridge, SW3
Let's cut through the crap.
Did the UK have the power to say no to letting in 500K Rumanian gypsy's, a proportion of which live and defecate in the central reservation of Park Lane, Mayfair?, or did Angela say no, stuff you, you're a member of my club so you have to let them go wherever they wish.
Or would you prefer the Australian answer?
Phil
Knightsbridge, SW3
So I'd like, for want of a better description, a Federal UK where powers are devolved at a regional level with a centralised national government supporting those regions.
The EU wants a Federal organisation where they control as much as possible of each of the regions.
Very different concepts.
The EU wants a Federal organisation where they control as much as possible of each of the regions.
Very different concepts.
eharding said:
If you could just see your way into working "Global Thermonuclear War" into this thread as well, that would be lovely. Still running the "XJ Flyer PH Mad Badger Bingo" card, you see.
It's not often I agree with you Sir but on this occasion. If we can work in a rant on motorway limits in a politics thread I'll have all four corners.
Edited by FiF on Tuesday 23 September 06:49
Transmitter Man said:
XJ,
Let's cut through the crap.
Did the UK have the power to say no to letting in 500K Rumanian gypsy's, a proportion of which live and defecate in the central reservation of Park Lane, Mayfair?, or did Angela say no, stuff you, you're a member of my club so you have to let them go wherever they wish.
Or would you prefer the Australian answer?
Phil
Knightsbridge, SW3
Typically federalist logic trying to make the case to an anti federalist that I have to accept one form of federation or another.Neither thanks.Let's cut through the crap.
Did the UK have the power to say no to letting in 500K Rumanian gypsy's, a proportion of which live and defecate in the central reservation of Park Lane, Mayfair?, or did Angela say no, stuff you, you're a member of my club so you have to let them go wherever they wish.
Or would you prefer the Australian answer?
Phil
Knightsbridge, SW3
In this case the answer would be the seperate 'sovereign' nation states of England ( all of Ireland not just most of it ),Scotland,and Wales.How they govern themselves is then up to them.As for us based on the logic of it mostly being about local democracy England would then be run as a 'Confederation' of local government based on our old Saxon regional and county governments.In which the counties dictate to the regions and they then dictate that to the 'Confederal' government at Westmister want they intend to do not vice versa.In which case Surrey doesn't get people like Prescott or Cameron telling us to concrete over our countryside with development for example and I get electoral control over what happens in my own back yard.
All of which would be the antithesis of the average Soviet thinking top down dictatorship federalist.
As for Australia that is a sovereign country so it is up to them how they govern themselves.The relevant bit being that they haven't taken over NZ and then told the New Zealanders that the two governments and their national sovereignty will be merged to form the United Kingdom of Australia and New Zealand with it's supreme parliament in Canberra.The words 'local' 'sovereignty' and 'supremacy' of government being the deal breaker in the case of any federal system.
Asterix said:
So I'd like, for want of a better description, a Federal UK where powers are devolved at a regional level with a centralised national government supporting those regions.
The EU wants a Federal organisation where they control as much as possible of each of the regions.
Very different concepts.
No the words federal and devolved are a contradiction.The EU is just trying to do what federations do IE top down centralised government with the top being the supreme government.The EU wants a Federal organisation where they control as much as possible of each of the regions.
Very different concepts.
If you want devolved then you want 'seperate' 'nation states'/regional government and if they must then work together while keeping their sovereignty/powers over the decision making process you want a 'Confederation' not a 'federation'.No surprise that the US has tried to make the word Confederation off the options list since the war of Northern Agression against the CSA.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 11:03
There are some interesting headlines across today's papers with Labour re-heating yet another dollop of anachronistic politics of envy for the benefit of their faithful tribesmen and women. They're frit for sure.
Headline 1 UKIP to abolish IHT
Headline 2 English Home Rule at heart of Tory plans
Headline 3 Labour to introduce Mansion Tax
There didn't appear to be anything much from the LibDems, which is apt.
Headline 1 UKIP to abolish IHT
Headline 2 English Home Rule at heart of Tory plans
Headline 3 Labour to introduce Mansion Tax
There didn't appear to be anything much from the LibDems, which is apt.
XJ Flyer said:
Asterix said:
So I'd like, for want of a better description, a Federal UK where powers are devolved at a regional level with a centralised national government supporting those regions.
The EU wants a Federal organisation where they control as much as possible of each of the regions.
Very different concepts.
No the words federal and devolved are a contradiction.The EU is just trying to do what federations do IE top down centralised government with the top being the supreme government.The EU wants a Federal organisation where they control as much as possible of each of the regions.
Very different concepts.
If you want devolved then you want 'seperate' 'nation states'/regional government and if they must then work together while keeping their sovereignty/powers over the decision making process you want a 'Confederation' not a 'federation'.No surprise that the US has tried to make the word Confederation off the options list since the war of Northern Agression against the CSA.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 11:03
Zod said:
XJ Flyer said:
Asterix said:
So I'd like, for want of a better description, a Federal UK where powers are devolved at a regional level with a centralised national government supporting those regions.
The EU wants a Federal organisation where they control as much as possible of each of the regions.
Very different concepts.
No the words federal and devolved are a contradiction.The EU is just trying to do what federations do IE top down centralised government with the top being the supreme government.The EU wants a Federal organisation where they control as much as possible of each of the regions.
Very different concepts.
If you want devolved then you want 'seperate' 'nation states'/regional government and if they must then work together while keeping their sovereignty/powers over the decision making process you want a 'Confederation' not a 'federation'.No surprise that the US has tried to make the word Confederation off the options list since the war of Northern Agression against the CSA.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 11:03
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff