Topic: Euro Election 2019

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

What were their records, out of interest?

[biggytitbo]

That would be a great point if Labour weren't putting forward ultra remainer EU supremists like Adonis as candidates. Give me someone willing to compromise on a soft brexit at least and I'd consider it. Otherwise, in an election that doesn't matter to a parliament that doesn't matter, a protest vote for brexit is entirely justified.


If we want a massive election victory for Labour do it where it matters in the local elections.

[Paul Calf]

wrong thread...

Yep. Sorry.

[jobotic]

Socialists don't vote far-right.

[Paul Calf]

Well, it’s not hard to see why National Socialists might vote for Farage’s party.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-fascist-nazi-song-gas-them-all-ukip-brexit-schoolfriend-dulwich-college-a7185236.html

[ComedyUnitInsider]

FoM is (obviously) hugely important to me but I recognise that it's way below things like child poverty, healthcare, housing, environment, education, justice, work, war and not having it, and so on for many (and rightly so).  Corbyn has to care and fight for all these needs, all of these people and I'm glad he's not a single issue politician like Farage.  He's a person who is trying to make really terrible shit better for everyone.  If that means my FoM has to go, I give it.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I really enjoyed reading your post, it was well written and well argued.

Here's where we fundamentally disagree. FoM isn't something that we have to sacrifice to make all of those priorities happen. It's actually the opposite. It fuels the economy. It lowers the risk of war. It has a massive positive influence on all of the things that you list.

You talk about it like it's some kind of vain indulgence that we should shake off in the pursuit of nobler goals. You've lost sight of the fact it actually makes all of us richer - culturally and financially. We gain nothing by ending it. It's destructive and only destructive.

[pancreas]

CUI: Corbyn is not opposed to FoM. But he has recognised that winning an election may be dependent on publicly disavowing it. Subsequent to winning an election and being in a position to make people's lives better and reducing the amount of frustration and hate that they feel, he believes (I propose) that the issue of immigration will be de-dramatised. He said as much in the last election campaign. He resolutely refused any hard immigration targets but put forward a case that a proper education system which got British people into meaningful work would create a natural fall in immigration as we supplied more of 'our' skilled labour 'ourselves'. This is good politics.

'But why won't he just say he supports it?' Because he may lose an election if he does and you'll get a movement-free Tory Brexit with visa-based travel to the EU. Arguably, the only reason that Brexit is on the rocks at the moment is that he fought such a good campaign in 2017—which stated a commitment to ending FoM. You might call that dishonest, but if honesty got you a full-throated Tory Brexit, then you moralise at your peril.

Of course, there's also plenty to say about how FoM in the EU is abused by the private sector. One way which is prevalent is the loophole where you pay workers in the UK in their home currency, not subject to UK minimum wage laws and evidently far lower than minimum wage in the UK. This happens especially in haulage—if the lorry starts off in Poland, the driver is a Polish worker and is paid in Zloty.

[chveik]

He resolutely refused any hard immigration targets but put forward a case that a proper education system which got British people into meaningful work would create a natural fall in immigration as we supplied more of 'our' skilled labour 'ourselves'. This is good politics.

that's rather idealistic, the number of asylum seekers and refugees is obviously going to increase.

[NoSleep]

that's rather idealistic, the number of asylum seekers and refugees is obviously going to increase.

But it was qualified by the sentence that followed.

'But why won't he just say he supports it?' Because he may lose an election if he does and you'll get a movement-free Tory Brexit with visa-based travel to the EU. Arguably, the only reason that Brexit is on the rocks at the moment is that he fought such a good campaign in 2017—which stated a commitment to ending FoM. You might call that dishonest, but if honesty got you a full-throated Tory Brexit, then you moralise at your peril.

That's why it is "good politics", not because it's the ultimate goal.

[chveik]

But it was qualified by the sentence that followed.

That's why it is "good politics", not because it's the ultimate goal.

fair enough

[greenman]

CUI: Corbyn is not opposed to FoM. But he has recognised that winning an election may be dependent on publicly disavowing it. Subsequent to winning an election and being in a position to make people's lives better and reducing the amount of frustration and hate that they feel, he believes (I propose) that the issue of immigration will be de-dramatised. He said as much in the last election campaign. He resolutely refused any hard immigration targets but put forward a case that a proper education system which got British people into meaningful work would create a natural fall in immigration as we supplied more of 'our' skilled labour 'ourselves'. This is good politics.

I mean even more simply I think you could argue a lot of jobs in areas like retail could be made "meaningful" with the combination of a reasonably minimum wage and a de emphasis on part time work. I think the focus specifically on zero hours actually looks past the far larger issue with companies shifting away from decent 30-40 hour contracts, the retail sector these days is dominated by 10-20ish hour contracts with overtime that comes and goes as needed(for them).

'But why won't he just say he supports it?' Because he may lose an election if he does and you'll get a movement-free Tory Brexit with visa-based travel to the EU. Arguably, the only reason that Brexit is on the rocks at the moment is that he fought such a good campaign in 2017—which stated a commitment to ending FoM. You might call that dishonest, but if honesty got you a full-throated Tory Brexit, then you moralise at your peril.

Realistically I think you see a lot of the higher level support for a second referendum in media/politics circles these days is much more concerned with hurting Corbyn than it is achieving its stated goal. It really just makes more of a nonsense of the idea that he's some kind of demagogic extremist rather than a principled pragmatist, the extremism we see most of in politics towards is a slavish demand to keep the neo liberial status quo.

[Buelligan]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I really enjoyed reading your post, it was well written and well argued.

Here's where we fundamentally disagree. FoM isn't something that we have to sacrifice to make all of those priorities happen. It's actually the opposite. It fuels the economy. It lowers the risk of war. It has a massive positive influence on all of the things that you list.

You talk about it like it's some kind of vain indulgence that we should shake off in the pursuit of nobler goals. You've lost sight of the fact it actually makes all of us richer - culturally and financially. We gain nothing by ending it. It's destructive and only destructive.

I understand all of that, believe me, if FoM goes, my home goes, my job goes, my life goes.  I have nothing else.  It is absolutely not a vain indulgence to me. 

Apart from all that has already been said by pancs and NS, I understand, as a socialist and a human, that I don't always come first.  I understand that if everything can't be perfect then sometimes, some people have to lose and it's better to lose FoM than lose it and everything else and carry on bleeding to death under the fucking tories. 

Try selling FoM at the moment to an electorate that have been groomed with years of propaganda like this from that utter cunt, Arron Banks, and see what happens to your socialist nirvana.  You'll lose FoM, the possibility of future FoM and everything else.  Not really what I'm hoping for if I'm honest.

[greencalx]

Of course, there's also plenty to say about how FoM in the EU is abused by the private sector. One way which is prevalent is the loophole where you pay workers in the UK in their home currency, not subject to UK minimum wage laws and evidently far lower than minimum wage in the UK. This happens especially in haulage—if the lorry starts off in Poland, the driver is a Polish worker and is paid in Zloty.

I think this is an important point that is often overlooked. Whilst overall I think FoM is a Good Thing, it does come with some problems, which need to be accepted and fixed as opposed to ignored (by zealous Remainers) or used as a reason to dump all the benefits (Leavers). Another point that pro-FoMmers  seem to find hard to accept is that there is a difference between people and goods moving across a border. Public services (like education and healthcare) need to follow people in a way they don’t need to follow fridges or insurance policies. Again, fixable with investment but again people seem to bury their heads in the sand about this. The EU’s mantra that the four freedoms are indivisible is unhelpful here, because I think that tends to distract people from thinking about the frameworks you need (beyond just letting stuff move about freely) to facilitate those freedoms.

[Zetetic]

Which is presumably why we have the work on the 'social pillar' that a left Labour government could be substantially bolstering. (With some difficulty, I'm sure.)

The extent to which any of our issues with education or healthcare are due to a rights-based approach to migration within the European Union is trivial. Is that head-burying? When I'd rather be worrying about the bursaries in England, or the gross underfunding in general of the services in question (you know, to deal with the burdens imposed by school-age schoolchildren or massively comorbid pensioners rather than working-age in work adults)? (Yes, yes, have a migration community fund if you want and then make inconsequential with funding increases across the board. Fine.)

I think a lot of the problem is that any sensivle conversation about FoM's problems - which are overwhelming to do with labour markets requiring more regulation etc. - first has to clear the decks of the dross that's gone before.

[Zetetic]

This happens especially in haulage—if the lorry starts off in Poland, the driver is a Polish worker and is paid in Zloty.

How far does the mobility package agreed in December go towards tackling this? (Enough to provoke protests from Poland, I'm aware, but I don't know much beyond that.)

Even if so, there are obviously questions about whether Western Europe (broadly) should have been much more proactive and timely in dealing with this.

[Zetetic]

Actually is that technically to do with a single market for services? The whole point of the cabotage fiddle is that the labour hasn't ostensibly been bought in the UK (or France or Germany etc) labour market?

The issue is that the labour hasn't 'moved' (along with extending cabotage rights).

Does open up the usual can of worms of what the UK as 3rd country does in response.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The 3 people voting Lib Dem, above. Ahahahaha

Swipe right on a corpse

[Buelligan]

Don't forget this is a comedy website.  People will have their little joke.

And, of course, there are unscrupulous people here with more than one account who may have been tempted to click some bollocks as well as their human vote.  Don't think this would be LD's cos that's not really trollish, just weird, like Art or something but some tits saying they're voting for the tories, I mean, come on.  Got to be a joke account, hasn't it.

[FerriswheelBueller]

The 3 people voting Lib Dem, above. Ahahahaha

Swipe right on a corpse

Imagine being so completely and utterly politically bereft you vote Lib Dem.

[pancreas]

Imagine being so much of a paedophile that you vote Lib Dem.

[Fambo Number Mive]

3 people voting Change UK. The party that keeps it's policies a surprise. Maybe that's what appeals to people. They vote for them and then guess what their policies are.

[Danger Man]

You might call that dishonest

I might. Probably because it is dishonest.

What a tiresome hack you are.

[Danger Man]

Just to be clear, I sometimes get PMs from people who are too scared to post their opinions on here because they know what will happen when the caring, sharing mob denounce them for deviation.

So, even though I agree with my above post I'm only doing it as a favour. Pancreas being a tired old hack isn't enough to make me bother to post. He's one more £100 bottle of wine away from being a parody account.

I used to work in Japanese universities where my socialist bosses told me I'd be fired if I joined a union, I assume the UK has gone the same way and Pancreas has to pretend to be left-wing to get tenure/promotion.

[Paul Calf]

It’s surprising how many people on message boards get PMs from people who secretly agree with them. There must be some sort of divine ratio at work, like the one where people whose Twitters get hacked are overwhelmingly likely to have been sending dick pics to 19-year-old production runners at the time.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Just to be clear, I sometimes get PMs from people who are too scared to post their opinions on here because they know what will happen when the caring, sharing mob denounce them for deviation.

- Unsubstantiated attention seeking claim, that far from being "clear" is caveated in a way so vague as to be meaningless ✓
- Use of phrase "on here" ✓
- Reference to CaB being one hive minded group (of which he is not a part of, but separate, aside of, possibly above) ✓

[PlanktonSideburns]

Just got a PM from someone who wishes to remain unnamed who claims he saw a visibly sexually excited Danger Man tucking 10 pound notes into the folds of a rotisserie chicken in Morrisons

[PlanktonSideburns]

Comedy unit insider posted an opinion that danger man's proposed villains disagreed with, and they posted very polite responses I thought.

Certainly didn't send me a load of PM'S a about CUI'S alleged microscopic penis or badly painted Warhammer40k collection, like people are CONSTANTLY  doing about poor old DM. Makes you think

[Buelligan]

Is it too late to say I just had an email from someone that agrees with me and doesn't even know about people "on here"?


_{Penis beakers}

[PlanktonSideburns]

Email is 5x more powerful than a forum DM I recon

[Buelligan]

I got tons of 'em.


_{Mark Francois has a tiny warhammer}