Originally posted by Beef Oven!
View Post
Chomsky on Trump
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Beef Oven! View PostTheresa May urged to challenge President Trump on torture comments. Great idea - go over there to try and get some sorely needed business and introduce discussions by telling off for his bad behaviour! Why not just tell him we don’t do business with people who use torture, if we mean it!!??
Comment
-
-
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by jean View Post
Now, "to cherry-pick" and more specifically "not to be permitted to cherry-pick" on the grounds that others will demand to cherry-pick too. What is its definition? I only ask because those who use such a phrase must be required to say where there are rotten cherries rather than the loveliest cherries. If a system is so wonderful not to be challenged at all, then every part of it can only logically be the loveliest cherry. So we need a very public statement from them - where do they think is their dud fruit? Has Mr Verhofstadt a helpful view?Last edited by Lat-Literal; 27-01-17, 19:02.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Lat-Literal View PostNow, "to cherry-pick" and more specifically "not to be permitted to cherry-pick" on the grounds that others will demand to cherry-pick too. What is its definition? I only ask because those who use such a phrase must be required to say where there are rotten cherries rather than the loveliest cherries. If a system is so wonderful not to be challenged at all, then every part of it can only logically be the loveliest cherry. So we need a very public statement from them - where do they think is their dud fruit? Has Mr Verhofstadt a helpful view?
I haven't heard a single pro-European claiming that the EU is without faults. To claim that would be quite absurd. Pro-Europeans simply claim that the benefits of membership have been plain to see for the security and standard of living for the huge majority of Europeans since WWII.
On the other hand we constantly hear ad nauseum from Eurosceptics (and have heard for decades) that the EU has apparently nothing but faults. To listen to them there have been no benefits, they just bang on about the fee (which in any case is mostly wildly exaggerated) and those blasted foreigners in general.
That is just as absurd ... and Wilde's Lord Darlington summed up such a curious attitude perfectly and in far fewer words!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View Post'Pooling Sovereignty' for the benefit of all members means exactly that. All prospective members have to contribute a fee if they expect to join any club. Only the British ... at least about half of them ... appear to think one can demand all the benefits of a club and not be members. In other words, that is 'cherry picking' on the grandest of scales. Quite extraordinary coming from supposedly 'the most mature and sophisticated electorate in the world' ?.
I haven't heard a single pro-European claiming that the EU is without faults. To claim that would be quite absurd. Pro-Europeans simply claim that the benefits of membership have been plain to see for the security and standard of living for the huge majority of Europeans since WWII.
On the other hand we constantly hear ad nauseum from Eurosceptics (and have heard for decades) that the EU has apparently nothing but faults. To listen to them there have been no benefits, they just bang on about the fee (which in any case is mostly wildly exaggerated) and those blasted foreigners in general.
That is just as absurd ... and Wilde's Lord Darlington summed up such a curious attitude perfectly and in far fewer words!
It's a very important (negotiating) point.
I am now going to write to Theresa. I'm asking her to send The Donald a few episodes of Trumpton so that during the negotiations he can better understand the British way of life!Last edited by Lat-Literal; 27-01-17, 22:11.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Beef Oven! View PostI’m not convinced of the relevance of this observation.
I somehow doubt if he has ever penetrated to the masses who put Trump where he is today; and for all his theorising, I don't think Chomsky is any more capable than Hillary Clinton of developing a strategy to 'deal' with Trump.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostAll well argued points, though it's not clear whether you see a return to smaller, individual states as the desirable alternative - a scramble to the top (with Germany, as likely as not, still at the top). The poorer states of Europe were not (economically) impoverished in the first place by joining the EU, and competition with stronger states won't benefit them.
I would say that the European Community was broadly a success, in increasing and sharing prosperity and embedding common standards of respect for democracy, the rule of law, human rights as well as the relative political and economic autonomy of individual nation-states, so that different states could pursue a more social democratic, or more free-market orientated system according to their preferences. The European Union I think has broadly been a failure, in its inflexible pursuit of a common monetary and political union even when that pursuit was clearly leading to serious economic damage and political upheaval Monetary union can only work if there is a mechanism for transfer from the richer to the poorer countries, but the Germans would never agree to that principle being embedded without central oversight of national budgets which in itself would lead to a potential repeat of the Greek humiliation for other countries. So my preference is for a co-operative association more like the EC, with either a return to national currencies or a more flexible exchange-rate system. Of course Germany would still be the strongest economy because of its size and productive capacity, but the common currency system disproportionately favours them and harms the weaker countries, who cannot devalue or alter interest rates. The strong Deutschmark - or Euro within a smaller group of states - would limit Germany's advantage.
As for the EU's particular democratic deficit: I'm not sure that it's less democratic than the 'plurality' of the UK's system of democracy in which a succession of minorities change the government (though only to switch from A to B and B to A most of the time). Or a narrow majority losing an election, if you're speaking of the 'popular vote'.
But there's never much one can do, seemingly, about hatred of 'the other'. Except give in to the people of violence, however unjust that may be. Give them what they want.
As to the question of "hatred of the other" and violence, I think a lot of people in the last decade have suffered a form of economic violence as a result of bad policy-making. There are policies which will increase the likelihood of hatred and division. I have mentioned the move towards monetary union and I add the policy on free movement. It was entirely foreseeable that leaving the free movement principle in place unaltered after the access of the former Soviet Bloc countries would lead to a large increase in migration flows from south and east to north and west, and this was only increased by the Eurozone crisis. To me it is a laissez-faire principle which favours mainly white Europeans from particular countries and classes and discriminates against mainly non-white non-Europeans, including citizens of former European colonies. It also leaves refugees fleeing war, persecution and economic devastation in a desperate situation, pressed out on the borders of Europe while the privileged movement rights of Europeans are preserved. I think it's divisive, discriminatory and unethical, and those who talk about racism and xenophobia should think about how Europe treats non-Europeans.
Comment
-
Comment