The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Bremain redux a lesson for our political class > Comments

Bremain redux a lesson for our political class : Comments

By Graham Young, published 27/6/2016

It is a powerful coalition because it tends to value experience over theories, which is really to say reality over fantasy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Dear Graham,

Spoken like a true neo-liberal.

“less regulation and free enterprise” might just as well read freedom for the business classes to remove the EU protections on wages and work hours or freedom to pollute and contaminate.

“everyone pulls their weight without expecting a handout” could just as well be read as signalling fresh attacks on the welfare state. A winding back of the National health system is already being floated by leaver Nigel Farage.

Ultimately Brexit can indeed be viewed as a move from human-centric European policies to nationalistic themes and business-centric laissez faire 'freedoms'.

What is most disturbing however is the constant decrying and attacking of 'mindless bureaucrats'. This relatively small group, consisting of members of all the EU nations, made heroic efforts to bring what was such a divisive continent together into a generally cohesive group delivering prosperity, improvements in human rights, and deregulated movement of people and goods for all these postwar years. Quite remarkable really.

John Ralston Saul in his book Volaire's Bastards writes about the fight to bring proper sanitation to Paris. In the 1860s there were suburbs in which 95% of the children who were born failed to reach the age of 5 but is would take over 50 years to get just half the city's buildings on sewers.

Cont..
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 27 June 2016 10:26:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont..

“The long delays were largely due to the virulent opposition of the property owners, who did not want to pay to install sanitary piping in their buildings. These people were the New Right of their day”

Ralston Saul goes on to say; “It was the creation of an effective bureaucracy which brought an end to all this filth and disease and the public servants did so against the mass of the middle and upper classes. The free market opposed sanitation. The rich opposed it. The civilised opposed it. Most of the educated opposed it. That is why it took a century to finish what could have been done in ten years. Put in contemporary terms, the market economy angrily and persistently opposed clean public water, sanitation, garbage collection and improved public health because they appeared to be unprofitable enterprises which, in addition, put limits on the individual's freedoms.”

He asks the question; “if the battle fought and won was both just and popular, have the old elites been able to convince so many citizens that the public servants and the services they offer are to be looked upon with contempt?”

You wrote;

“Another is the failure of progressivism against progress. Brussels represents the sort of polite future that our own elites would like to usher us into – lots of regulations; one-size fits all, except for minorities who often earn extra entitlements; an edureaucracy; and lots of political correctness and self-censorship.”

This is indeed a victory for the old elites for whom you speak, and division and wealth inequality looks like it may well be ascendant, but we can only hope the damage might be limited to Britain.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 27 June 2016 10:27:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

Central bankers are our servants, not our masters. Admittedly they're not serving us very well, but that's more due to the political restrictions they're under rather than any decision they make.

Global gross debt is high, but global net debt is zero. So the size of the debt really isn't a problem. The way the economy works, most of the money only exists as debt. We don't need exponential growth of money just to pay off the debt, but we do need to keep the money supply growing to keep the economy growing. That's quite easy, as businesses can (as a trend) afford to borrow more money whenever the economy grows, interest rates fall or there is inflation. And when the private sector can't afford to increase its debt, the public sector can.

And as I have pointed out before, the "bail in" arrangements don't allow the confiscation of banking deposits on the whim of bank failures. This is a matter for national governments, but generally there is some level of protection for depositors.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 27 June 2016 10:43:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steelerudux

Britain is not Europes nanny or benevolent benefactor.

The Eurozone was forged on the idea of mutual benefits to all
member countries.
Europe has failed to be an equal partner and now is a drain on the British
people and the government purse.

You can also blame Isis and the muslim war in Syria and African wars in Libya
for Britain being forced to
shut down the easy flow of people between borders.
More trouble caused by muslims
Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 27 June 2016 11:40:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now tell me Aidan, if the banking system is safe,why do they need "bail in" ? i.e. powers of deposit confiscation . These powers were passed here in Australia without parliamentary endorsement. How is this possible in our so called democracy ?
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 27 June 2016 11:40:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haven't I told you this already, Arjay?

"Bail in" does not mean deposit confiscation. It's the bondholders, not the depositors who are liable. How much depositors are protected if the bank collapses is a matter for national governments and is beyond the scope of what the G20 agreed to.

Deposits are safe because governments guarantee them. That doesn't mean the banking system is safe; that's a different issue. However in Australia the banking system is quite well regulated and therefore quite safe.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 12:09:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy