EU Referendum in the UK

They shouldn't have shorter working days and earlier retirements either if they want to be a part of the EU.[/quote:1nll8822]
If you honestly think that was the major issue, blame the capitalist class for being unable to keep the greek people down without excessive benefits.[/quote:1nll8822]

I don't believe it, I know it for a fact. The Greeks are pissed because of government reforms which were a condition of receiving the bailout.

In a truly capitalist society, Greece would have been left to rot and would never have been bailed out. Moreover, this whole mess was created thanks to overspending in the public sector so you can blame socialism for what's happening in Greece.

They shouldn't have shorter working days and earlier retirements either if they want to be a part of the EU.[/quote:3mtf7wfx]
If you honestly think that was the major issue, blame the capitalist class for being unable to keep the greek people down without excessive benefits.[/quote:3mtf7wfx]

I don't believe it, I know it for a fact. The Greeks are pissed because of government reforms which were a condition of receiving the bailout.

In a truly capitalist society, Greece would have been left to rot and would never have been bailed out. Moreover, this whole mess was created thanks to overspending in the public sector so you can blame socialism for what's happening in Greece.[/quote:3mtf7wfx]
If the capitalist class didnt give the greek people these insane benefits, unrest would of occurred, and revolt would of broke out. Blame the capitalists for delaying there crisis. In a "truly" capitalist society, greek people would of had a successful revolution already.

Socialism isnt free healthcare, or free that. Its COMMON OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION BY THE WORKING PEOPLE OR ALL OF SOCIETY THROUGH DIRECT DEMOCRATIC METHODS.

The 'capitalist class' gave Greece these insane benefits because Greece lied. Plain and simple. Nothing to do with the Eu's ideaology whatsoever. Greece would benefit from capitalism as private enterprise would actually allow them to independently maintain a functioning economy.

Yes, but it all counts for nothing if you can't pay for it.

Greece's debt was caused by overspending and tax evasion. They spent way too much money irresponsibility. Another contributing factor is the high rate of tax evasion especially among the rich.

The 'capitalist class' gave Greece these insane benefits because Greece lied. Plain and simple. Nothing to do with the Eu's ideaology whatsoever. Greece would benefit from capitalism as private enterprise would actually allow them to independently maintain a functioning economy.

Yes, but it all counts for nothing if you can't pay for it.[/quote:3pwgxoqo]
Capitalists give benefits for two reasons ONLY: To keep the working class down, Or to react in fear to general strikes and massive unrest. A capitalist just doesn't go HERE LOL, BENEFITS! Greek people would have had similar results in lazzie-faire capitalism, only with a quicker revolution due to lack of benefits. The Greek people are known for there rioting anarchists and there constantly striking communist party backed unions. Its worse then France. If the capitalist class DIDN'T lie and DIDN'T give insane benefits, Greece would be a socialist state or a anarchist free zone already.

You don't pay for socialism, atleast not necessarily. You can have mutualism, a market of cooperatives with labor vouchers as representation of work for example. Regardless, Greece wasnt and isnt socialist, its welfare capitalist or social democratic.

Not that I think this is AT ALL the major factor.

So how is it that many working class people go on to become millionaires? Damned incompetent of those capitalists to let them slip through the net of oppression.

Which would solve absolutely nothing. The money still wouldn't be there.

Fortunately, France still retains a relatively healthy economy thanks to a flourishing private sector.

Greece is more socialist than most of the EU. And it would still be dirt poor on account of it not producing anything. Tourism isn't that lucrative, and its shipping sector is up the creek thanks to China and the like.

Again, this only works if you're actually producing anything.

No, the major factor is that Greece is spending money it doesn't have.

People go from oppressed to oppressor many times in history.

It would give the Greek people liberation and control over their own economy.

Avoiding the point.

Ugh, PLEASE tell me, WERE do the workers control the means of production directly and democratically in Greece?

Obviously the cooperatives would just sit there and sip ice tea.

More like the rich lieing, trying to delay capitalism's fall, tax evasion, and many more things.

That's a good one, but the bloated social spending of one country, and the resulting fallout is no indication of the decline of capitalism.

It indicates that the country was unable to keep the working class from disobeying without excessive spending that would lead to a massive debt crisis.

The difference is that under capitalism, you can go as far as your ability and work ethic allows.

An economy which produces nothing.

What, that France is successful because they have a functioning economy and Greece does not? Entirely relevant.

The shipping companies were started by private citizens who worked their way up, thanks to the opportunities afforded to them through capitalism.

Based on past experience, you are right. They would not do this They would just sit there and sip ouzo.

I'm sure someone said the same thing during the 1930s.

Long time lurker here, just thought I'd add my thoughts to this thread.

Firstly I'd just like to talk about the original point of the thread. I was lucky enough to be at Westminster on Monday and I was also lucky enough to speak to one of the MPs who rebelled against the government. It should probably be made clear that a massive majority of the 81 Tory MPs that rebelled actually advocated the third option on the potential referendum which said that we should renegotiate our position in the EU, they didn't want a straight forward in/out referendum that would be advocated by UKIP or other similar parties.

However having it would be largely inconsequential as when the EU next makes a change in any form of policy then it will automatically trigger a referendum here in the UK.

The most important thing to come from all of this is the inevitable relay of media reports claiming that the Conservative party is split on European issues, as it was in the late 80's. In reality this really isn't true. I've heard a lot being made of the 3 Line Whip in place but it made little difference, especially when compared to the public support given to the rebelling MPs. I imagine it would be detrimental to the government to punish the rebels as this whole debate has been played out in a very public light, and David Cameron will want to let the waters settle on the issue.

On Greece I feel that the whole situation is a complete mess. If they hadn't spent money they knew they didn't have, or potentially couldn't loan then the rest of the eurozone, and the world, wouldn't be in this trouble. Greece lied about their deficit and got found out (almost a mute point considering most Eurozone, and, for that matter, EU, countries do the same) and they are paying for it. The Greeks are all angry because they were a largely socialist country. Most major industries were nationalised but in the wake of this financial crisis they've all been privatised, something which has damaged their pride somewhat. I'm hoping that Europe can knuckle down now and work on erasing those debts.

It is kinda frustrating not knowing what the future holds for your nation. Canada knows it will still be Canada in 50 years time most likely. The US knows it will be the US. Here, in the UK, it may be the EU, still the UK, just England, a Northern European Union....argh!

The UK would do well to distance itself from the EU as much as possible. Dictatorship by pan-national proxy-leaders isn't exactly forward thinking.

Let the Continent fiddle with hyper-bureaucracy and byzantine government.

Out of curiosity, Kal. What future would you suggest for the UK?

I either see us working with the EU, trying to reform it and make it work or leaving the EU and accepting that we cannot be a global power for much longer thus focusing more on domestic issues and improving the quality of living at home. Or we could further unite the Commonwealth like UKIP suggests (lol!) and as awesome it would be to have a CANZUK union, the nations seem to have grown too distant to relive the "gloreh of teh empire". I imagine most Canadians and Australasians would rather shoot themselves in the foot than grow closer to the UK.

There seems to be no general idea among the government of what to do if we left the EU.

Being out of the EU is the alternative to the EU. The course of action Britain takes in the wake of that departure is virtually guaranteed to be superior to the status quo or attempts to reform the EU.

Except most of our trade would still be with the EU. By leaving the EU we would be putting ourselves in a postion where we would be bound by EU trading standards, but have absolutely no say in what those standards are.

The EU has the potential to be a wondeful force for good, if only it could be properly reformed. Remember it was origionaly only intedended as a trading union and not a quasi-political pool of sovereignty.

By leaving the EU you effectively doom the EU to be dismantled in the near future.

The EU has a far greater potential for being the source of trans-national dictatorship and the suffocation of effective democracy.

Which is how it should have stayed.

Yeah, sure. Despite what some "little Britainers" might want the world to think the UK is not the lynchpin of the EU. And the Continetnals i've meet are very pro-europe and would be all "omg Britains leaving, whats the point in even having the EU anymore!!!!"

The EU has a far greater potential for being the source of trans-national dictatorship and the suffocation of effective democracy.[/quote:7uo23b49]

Any sort of desire to back that uo, maybe by proving that all the pro democratic nations that make up the largest power block in the EU are actually secretly pro-dictatorship. Also, the myth that the EU is an evil dictatorial rules-forge is grossly exagerated by anti-EU parties.

Which is how it should have stayed.[/quote:7uo23b49]

While I agree it needs to be reformed the good it has done cannot be denied. The world is globalising, and Europe is making an attempt to actually bring nations together. You can bitterly fight it an make things worse, or you can try an work with it an make it better.

Btw, why not try applying your arguments to Kansas leaving the US. Or maybe New York or California; that would be a bit more realsitic as Kansas is not really an equivilent of Britain metaphorically speaking.

The Assembly is the only democratic institution of the EU and it's completely subordinate (and pretty much powerless) to the Commission (which is supposed to serve a custodial role, not a policy-making one...). Additionally, the Council is led by a man who no one elected, and as a result the 'Head of State' for the EU is not a representative of anything but his own vision on what the EU should be.

To bind nations together.

False dichotomy. You fight it and make things much better. Transnational political entities are never a good thing, especially when they aren't democratic or responsible to anything but themselves.

The situations are so radically different that it's impossible to compare the two.

To think that you would not seriously erode the legitimacy or staying power of the EU by leaving is incredibly naive.

I agree that the Assembly needs more power and the commission needs less. The interesting balance though is that the Commission actually gets things done, which frankly is somewhat refreshing. The Council may be headed by an unelected "Head of State" but its members are elected officials from each country and they wield the larger power within it.

To bind nations together.[/quote][/quote]

Nations are already being binded together by international trade and frankly realist theories of IR are starting to get a bit old. A world government is coming. The role of the State has changed in a meangingful. The EU is simply the second (US was the first) Union of nations that share a common economic and cultural and ideological foundation coming together and unifying.

False dichotomy. You fight it and make things much better. Transnational political entities are never a good thing, especially when they aren't democratic or responsible to anything but themselves.[/quote]

Any normative rational for why "transnational political entities are never a good thing"? And historically speaking working within a system to bring logical change has almsot always worked out better than breaking away in a tantrum and saying "we wont have anything to do with this" I should have said you fight it from within I guess. But ultimatley you gain a lot more legitimacy for implementing reforms if you co-operate rather than totally oppose. Especially when your opposing doesn't really effect the EU in any massively harmful manner.

Only because the civil war established an dictatorial mandate that states cannot withdraw from the Union. Europe has a bit more cultural divergence simply due to having more history but ultimately Europeans are mostly all social democratic, human rights, meritocratic oriented.

I don't think it would seriously harm its legitamcy. Britain was not an origional member, its been consistently very anti-EU and most Europeans are very pro-EU and don't really care about Britain. In comparision to France and Gemrany we don't play much of a role in Europe. Furthermore i'm confident that any damage done would simply be a set back for the inevitable.