Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:57 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

Hallelujah, some common sense.

It appears to me that, where trade is concerned, it is only interested in the member states trading amongst themselves, with 'Europe' trading with people outside of it. I really don't like that idea.

Personally I don't see why we can't trade with whoever we can forge trade links with. Why should we be compelled to go to Europe over the United States or of the Commonwealth?

OK.
You'll have heard of BRIC ? These are the economic powers of the future.
Let's say you are an important apparatchik in the Chinese or Indian leadership with a huge and still rising economy built on the backs of more than a billion people ... and there are trade delegations from all four corners of the world queuing up to talk to you ... which ones do you talk to first? Or at all ? The little one off the coast of Europe that has a population (and market) of a paltry 60 million whose business is very handy but by no means essential to you ... or the ones with huge markets like the EU and USA that you really don't want to fall out with? Which would you do trade deals with?

Look at Germany ... even during these recent crises, it has increased its exports to where? To BRIC and especially China, that's where!
Why do you think an important economy like Germany wants to keep Europe intact? To sell to us? Well, yes but increasingly more to have clout in the wider world.
The same applies to us, if we could just wipe our island-monkey eyes and see it.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:05 am  

Mintball wrote:

Bleedin' hell – that's a poor excuse even by your standard of finding yourself backed into a corner after making a big, knee-jerk about the previous government and then finding it gets picked to pieces easily.

And plenty of people decide not to have children. They just don't all pretend that makes them into some form of superior being because they judge others for daring not to be able to plan for every possible eventually that may happen to them a decade or more down the line.

the previous government SHAFTED the UK, it's there for us all to see.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:06 am  

Standee wrote:

the previous government SHAFTED the UK, it's there for us all to see.

As opposed to the ones before that, which set in place the core economic approach of the following 30 years?

Or do you need to be reminded of this FACT every single time you have a rant?

Let's face it – in your world, you just stick your fingers in your ears and whistle instead of acknowledging the damage done to the country by deindustrialisation – and let's ignore the use of North Sea gas revenues to pay for that. Or privatisation – all perfect. The bar on new social housing – brilliant and not remotely connected with what has happened in the last few years, oh no.

And anyone who doesn't like it is simply spouting the politics of envy – as opposed to your politics of look-at-me-I'm-so-perfect.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:08 am  

Standee wrote:

the previous government SHAFTED the UK, it's there for us all to see.

It is?

Go on, show me

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:10 am  

Standee wrote:

the previous government SHAFTED the UK, it's there for us all to see.

Is that an argument?
Maybe it needs fleshing-out a bit ... you know, with facts and that.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:15 am  

Mintball wrote:

As opposed to the ones before that, which set in place the core economic approach of the following 30 years?

Or do you need to be reminded of this FACT every single time you have a rant?

Let's face it – in your world, you just stick your fingers in your ears and whistle instead of acknowledging the damage done to the country by deindustrialisation – and let's ignore the use of North Sea gas revenues to pay for that. Or privatisation – all perfect. The bar on new social housing – brilliant and not remotely connected with what has happened in the last few years, oh no.

And anyone who doesn't like it is simply spouting the politics of envy – as opposed to your politics of look-at-me-I'm-so-perfect.

I believe in the politics of rewarding effort, not rewarding laziness, it's a fairly simple ideal.

But, as is the way on here, it's become Socialist Worker where the usual suspects just gang up when they don't like someones opinion.

as you well know, I am far from perfect, but I don't sit and whinge about what opportunities other people are afforded, I get out there and grab them for myself, it's called ambition.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:31 am  

Standee wrote:

I believe in the politics of rewarding effort, not rewarding laziness, it's a fairly simple ideal...

... and slagging people off when you don't approve of them for not, say, planning for potential redundancy 10 years ahead. After all – how very dare they! How lazy of them to have been made redundant – their fault, obviously. And how lazy of them to not have planned for a future covering every possible eventuality.

By the way – nice. Now you're posting as though anyone here wants to 'reward laziness'. Well done. You wouldn't be able to find any evidence to support that, but it's another nice little red herring. And good for you for being one in a million on this forum and standing up for decent values against all those (who don't exist) who want to 'reward laziness'.

Standee wrote:

But, as is the way on here, it's become Socialist Worker where the usual suspects just gang up when they don't like someones opinion...

Haven't you got rid of that chip yet? You never did explain why, as a white, straight male, you were a poor persecuted little individual and should have a support group.

And now you just run away, without being able to support your comments, claiming that everybody who doesn't agree with you reads a paper that I suggest very few on here would read. You really don't like facts, do you?

Standee wrote:

as you well know, I am far from perfect, but I don't sit and whinge about what opportunities other people are afforded, I get out there and grab them for myself, it's called ambition.

You know enough about me to know that I would never read the Socialist Worker. You know enough about others here to know the same of them. But that doesn't stop you flinging such statements around because people dare to disagree with you. And, as you've done yet again here, you use such tactics when you've been asked to prove one of your rants.

You've done well and you've had some luck. Good for you. But you actively condemn others for not doing what you think they should. How dare people have a family when they can't guarantee, years ahead, that they'll still be in well-paid work, for instance. And you bring up your saintliness on the issue as a complete red herring when you're challenged to back up a knee-jerking rant, as on this thread.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:37 am  

Mintball wrote:

... and slagging people off when you don't approve of them for not, say, planning for potential redundancy 10 years ahead. After all – how very dare they!

By the way – nice. Now you're posting as though anyone here wants to 'reward laziness'. Well done. You wouldn't be able to find any evidence to support that, but it's another nice little red herring. And good for you for being one in a million on this forum and standing up for decent values against all those (who don't exist) who want to 'reward laziness'.

Haven't you got rid of that chip yet? You never did explain why, as a white, straight male, you were a poor persecuted little individual and should have a support group.

And now you just run away, without being able to support your comments, claiming that everybody who doesn't agree with you reads a paper that I suggest very few on here would read. You really don't like facts, do you?

You know enough about me to know that I would never read the Socialist Worker. You know enough about others here to know the same of them. But that doesn't stop you flinging such statements around because people dare to disagree with you. And, as you've done yet again here, you use such tactics when you've been asked to prove one of your rants.

You've done well and you've had some luck. Good for you. But you actively condemn others for not doing what you think they should. How dare people have a family when they can't guarantee, years ahead, that they'll still be in well-paid work, for instance. And you bring up your saintliness on the issue as a complete red herring when you're challenged to back up a knee-jerking rant, as on this thread.

if you say so Mintball, what people CAN do is take out redundancy insurance etc. but they dont.

as ever, politics is proving devisive and you're getting angry and abusive when people don't agree.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:45 am  

Standee wrote:

if you say so Mintball, what people CAN do is take out redundancy insurance etc. but they dont.

Most people have NI.

Standee wrote:

as ever, politics is proving devisive and you're getting angry and abusive when people don't agree.

Irony alert.

Re: Red Ed : Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:46 am  

Mintball wrote:

Yes, because we don't trade with either of those entities – and that's because the nasty EU stops us.

Can we assume you've never actually heard of anything like NAFTA?

I didn't say we DON'T trade with them. I said Europe PREFERS us to only trade with other European countries.