British General Election 2015

Oh don’t worry, if you’ve seen me get, ah, passionate here before now you’ll know I’ve a thick skin :slight_smile: . Robust debating is fun IMHO :slight_smile: .

Anyway (glances at the mods), I want that referendum because it’s our best chance to get out of a corrupt, anti-democratic, protectionist racket. If we leave, it means the UK gets to set its own trade policies again (eg with the rest of the Commonwealth of Nations, which are both more populous and faster-growing than the EU and/or just the Eurozone - oh, and let’s not forget we share a head of state with a bunch of them!), and given that we have a trade deficit with the rest of the EU (ie, we buy more of their stuff than they buy of ours), it’ll be in their interests to continue trading freely (or relatively freely) with us.

As Dan Hannan puts it, if you’re going to shackle yourself to a regional trade bloc, the EU is basically the worst possible one to pick :stuck_out_tongue: . And culturally, I have far more in common with Canadians, Aussies, yanks and Indians (and New Zealanders, and… yeah look up an old map of the British Empire I guess, you get the picture :smiley: ) than I have with basically any European culture.

I agree the defence budget should be protected, but sadly there are few votes in defence these days, what with the Cold War being over. On the lack of housing, bleh: damned whoever you vote for. Tories will be wary of building on greenbelt land, Labour will try and somehow magic up housing from somewhere (“pay for it? Say what?” :stuck_out_tongue: )… my instinct is to go with the free market option though.

It can lead to a lot of uncertainty. Technically, the Queen picks an MP to be the next PM, but traditionally (if not legally) they must have a command of a majority in the Commons. If they lack one, she can form a minority government, but that may well lead to another election before long.

In US terms, a hung parliament is like having one party control the House of Reps and the other control the Senate: a recipe for gridlock without some cross-party support.

(On the other hand, a “not-hung” parliament is like having control of all 3 branches of the US government, including the super-majorities required to pass constitutional amendments. The British system is predicated on “parliamentary sovereignty” rather than, say, “popular sovereignty”, so Parliament is pretty powerful.)

Finally, unlike the US system, the PM is not separate from the legislature: he or she must be an MP. Imagine if Obama was still in a Senator when he became President.

Pro-EU: The EU is a massive boost to the economy, has prevented war in Europe since WW2, loads of convenient things (visa-free travel etc).
Anti-EU: See above. War in Europe was prevented by (a) the Cold War and (b) the USA. Also see Dan Hannan’s blog post re the economic “benefits” of being shackled to the EU.

Economically, the case is overwhelmingly against it (as an aside, notice how it’s the same people supporting staying in who supported adopting the Euro for the UK etc… “always wrong all the time” :smiley: ).

Oh, what twaddle. The EU is explicitly trying for, to quote its own documents, “ever closer union”, and many of its politicians and such openly talk about wanting to make it into an honest-to-god supranational government.

Saying that by opposing this you want “early 20th century views on State Sovereignty” is daft. I am not European, I am British, my head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, and I do not see why we should be prevented from trading on our own terms with any part of the world on the insistence of any foreign power.

Heck, try that line on most people around the world, and I suspect you’ll find you’re in a minority. Ask a Chinese person why their trade policy should be blocked by Japan or Thailand or the Philippines, or ask an American why Mexico should be able to veto their trade arrangements: the answer is generally going to be “they can’t” - or perhaps, if they’re more politically nuanced, “given realpolitiks they can obviously try, especially if they have legitimate concerns, but they have no right to”.

Oh, finally… it’s the pro-EU side that’s isolationist. The anti-EU people (“hi”) want to leave the EU so that we can have more trade with the world, not less. How does leaving a trade bloc in order to be able to trade with everyone make you isolationist exactly?

(And no, it’s not about global prestige or power projection. The UK does that very well without (or in spite of) the EU, just like France.)

The numbers may be smaller than he claims, but people still don’t like it much. 30 secs of googling yields this from YouGov for example.

Similar stuff here. Clearly, it’s still a serious issue for many.

Exactly how left- or right- wing UKIP ends up being is going to be interesting actually, because from what I’ve seen they do draw a lot of their support from traditional Labour voters (ie, working class types). Now I think you’re right that Nigel Farage is very much a Thatcherite (hence why I approve of him :stuck_out_tongue: ), but I think we’re going to have to disagree on how destructive his policies will be for working class people in the UK. Heck, imagine that UKIP gets into power in May, and slashes immigration down to, oh, 5,000 a year. Suddenly, a lot of downward pressure on low-skilled jobs will disappear (at least over a few years, given that these things take time to have an effect), which will be rather nice for a lot of working class people in the UK, no?

Don’t forget the greens, the various communist parties, the BNP, and all the other wacky far-Left power-worshipping totalitarians.


As for US politics, hmm. The GOP have a nice selection on offer: union-busting Scott Walker, Tea Party favourites like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (also what about VP Paul Ryan?), plus more moderate candidates like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush (though I doubt it’ll be the latter, the name being too poisonous still). The Democrats have… Hillary “laws are for little people” Clinton*.

Um. I’m thinking the Dems could be in for an uphill struggle this time around.



*Seriously, read up on her abuse of a private email server etc for all her State Dept. emails etc. It’s not “did anyone get access to them?” IMHO, it’s “how many?” :confused:

1 Like

@Froggy for British Prime Minister

2 Likes

@Teleros for British Prime Minister

Seriously, that was a great argument for your opinion on British politics. I must agree with you on most of it, particularly WRT the EU Referendum.

1 Like

Exactly what are “early 20th century views on State Sovereignty”? Are you suggesting that someone who advocates for state sovereignty is anachronistic, and that all rational people these days believe that we should have transnational government?

No no not at all. I did have a long response written out to you and @teleros but then I realized I’ve managed to avoid political discussions for 3 years because I cannot be bothered with it. Far too much ideology involved - @Teleros and I are just completely opposite and any discussion will be largely fruitless for both of us.

Essentially all I’m saying is that it’s not a bad thing to cede certain aspects of sovereignty http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100336931

Huh? In Denmark we generally se a government without majority vote as a posetive thing.

That would be Stalin if you are going to draw connections to bad people…

Sweden to, they just think of it in different terms I’m afraid.

[quote=“Teleros, post:21, topic:11843”]
slashes immigration down to, oh, 5,000 a year.
[/quote]As a human being I find the notion of this to be horrible. What about those forced to flee from Syria and other dangerous parts of the world? Sweden can’t take all of them. When will the rest of the EU and world take there part?

This year alone Sweden is expecting 83 000 refuges. How many did England take in? How many will they take in?

In 2013 Sweden took in 26 400(out of 45 005 arrivals), 300 more then Germany(that had 76 165 arrivals). France accepted 16 155(out of 61 715 arrivals) and England accepted 13 400(out of 22 355 arrivals). Sweden alone took in 20% of the total amount of refuges accepted. Tiny Sweden. Our economy is not that big, yet we manage.

Compared to population Malta was the most generous with 1610 accepted(out of 1 905 arrivals), Sweden was second.

3 Likes

If I was in charge (And this is why I will never be voted into government or given power), I would collect all the refugees and make them into a well-trained army and then use that army to take back their homes.

I thought you where a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.

And that’s what the US tried and failed to do with Kuba.

God forbid it. :fearful:

2 Likes

We’re part of the EU and accept refugees too you know!

I know. But its easy to forget about you when you accepted only 205 out of the woping 840 people who wanted to go there in 2013. You really have no ground to complain about immigrants.

As an American, I think you’re all being melodramatic. We welcome immigration, as legal immigrants only help our economy and boost the labor force. The only problem we have is with illegal immigration, which is mainly because we have nearly 12 million inhabitants whose very presence in the US is a crime. As long as the citizens are willing to understand basic US politics and laws, they are happily accepted into our country. And we accept around 1 million immigrants yearly.

Although I must say, Sweden’s policy might be doing more harm than good. European immigration is somewhat different, and with smaller nations the countries may need to think about long term consequences for themselves. I thought [URL=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/410918/sweden-opt-suicide-immigration-daniel-pipes] this article[/URL] to be particularly interesting.

I must say, for several (unrelated) reasons I really hate Sweden.

I stopped reading from the point the guy started saying “right” wing instead of just saying right wing… The political climate in a nation changes over time and that mean that of course what is deffined as the middle of the ideologies changes too. The original far right wing in both denmark and sweeden was extreme royalists and actually tried to put the king back in power.

God what an idiot.

  1. We were talking about Sweden.
  2. @Elderon said a similar thing about America today in another political debate.
  3. Sweden is awful.

Seriously? He put it in quotations because current right-wing Swedes are far-left by American standards and the article is American.

good point

Not so good reason

Worse reason also why?

Which he pointed out… Continuing marking it that way though is a way to ridicule the concept of the sweedish right wing.

Don’t want to get into it, the whole nation is ideologically so far away from America that neither can understand why the heck the other would do the things it does.

It’s the same reason @Geoffers747 won’t argue with @Teleros, only several times more extreme.

2 Likes

Whilst we are happy to take them, or at least everyone but the Swedish democrats, and we know they help the economy and to repopulate areas there is only so many Sweden with its 9.5 million population and not to big economy can integrate successfully.

All of those that are accepted are not permanently accepted either. It is our hope that there homeland will one day stabilize again and that they will be able to return home. Hopefully with fond memories of Sweden. For example everyone arriving from Syria are given permanent leave to stay. These are after all refuges hoping to return home one day yet they should be allowed to continue on with there lives.

[quote=“Dwalus, post:33, topic:11843”]
I must say, for several (unrelated) reasons I really hate Sweden.
[/quote]Care to mention them? I would like to see if i can help change your mind to a better opinion of my country.

That actually doesn’t make either of the two nations awfull.


Also sorry if I am a bit flippant about politics but one of our parties fullfiled Godwins law not to long ago and it is hard to take anything seriously :laughing:

I edited my post to rephrase it. I won’t argue because of our different ideologies, that’s not the reason I don’t like Sweden.

Nope, I already said our beliefs are too different.