UKIP on the march in English council elections

Jaysus delivers again!

Of course it is. Its been a crucial part in enforcing "free trade" on others whilst it maintains protectionism at home

 

Reiver is clearly incapable of reasoned discussion.

And so let me get this right. Elected governments running the country is fascistic, but union barons running the country by undemocratic means is a blow for the workers?

And Thatcher was a rank amateur and damaging this country compared to the New Labour mafiosi.

 

which others? It puts up barriers for non european trade. the whole point of trade is for two parts to exchange things they have for things they want. its like making south america trade bananas and coffee with each other instead of trading with us europeans who really want it.

 

Obviously non-Europe. It has helped to enforce an inefficient multilateral regime that has harmed economic development. Crikey, they've made the yanks look like kittens

 

which regime are you talking about?

My point is anyways that the EU isn't neoliberal by far. It puts up very many barriers to free trade and laissez faire economics.

 

I'm talking about the consistent behaviour of the EU.

Clueless comment. Neoliberalism isn't about a free market result (such a result is impossible); its about imposing "free market economics" on regimes despite the negative effects that it assuredly generates

 

oh, I thought you were talking about some other regime that the EU supported. I misread. Yeah, the EU sucks and harms economic development.

the EU still wouldn't fit as it's not implementing free market economics.

 

You continue to misread. The EU has been very able at implementing free market economics. Its cobblers after all

 

how about no? it's corporatism and economic interventionism.

 

All economics in capitalism is interventionism. It would seem that you are ignorant of what 'free market economics' entails. Isn't that a terror!

 

jesus christ..

you're an economic illiterate.

 

Referring to the obvious confuses you? Do you have a nanny to hug?

And I'm not Jesus, so stop with that nonsense

 

You know it's called a free market because it's free of government interference right?

 

Laissez faire cannot exist (its neither achievable or desirable). Free market economics isn't about reduce interventionism. It about maintaining economic rents

 

why can't it exist?

rent seeking isn't free market, it's the result of government intervention in the economy.

 

Can Santa Claus exist?

Are you 12? I have to ask as you make such silly comment

Government is certainly the key economic agent in capitalism. The economic rent seeking ensures that its ultimately considerably unstable.

 

I'm actually quite sure saint nicholas was a real person, so yes.

Free market is about the government pretty much staying out of the market. The government giving money to special interest groups isn't free market, free market wants to get rid of that.

 

The naivety is splendid. Get someone to give you a blubbering welcome

 

...

well go ahead then, explain what the free market is.

And then you tell me what you call minimal government interference in the economy.

 

Glad to know you're a europhobe, but are you the kind who believes it can be reformed, who believes a political construct covering the whole of Europe could work? Or if not how would you describe your brand of europhobia? Would you vote to leave in any referendum? Do you have any faith in Cameron's plan to 'seize back 100 powers'?

Yes, in terms of domestic workers. I'm not whinging about anything, not in a Daily Mailesque way or flag waving twot way. The facts are the facts: the EU cares little for workers beyond keeping them working and serving politicians and corporations. We need politicians who can be kept on a very short leash by a thinking electorate, but even a democracy with a largely clueless electorate is better than an arrogant political class busy building the post democratic age.

 

I'm against preferential trade agreements of any form. It ensures discriminatory treatment and therefore distorts trade. Indeed, Europe has been particularly damaging in harming multilateral trade reform (given the obsessive use of agricultural protectionism through CAP).

And where's your evidence for that? Showing how the EU has harmed economic development is straight forward. How are you going to show that it harms domestic workers?

 

Speaking as somebody who buys and sells abroad, since the EU was enforced on us it's become much more expensive to post anything outside the EU. Also, anything arriving from outside the EU incurs extra postage charges. The EU isn't about free trading, it's about monopolising trade.

 

Ever rising cost of living, ever worsening employment protection, ever widening gulf between those at opposite ends of the income scale, ever more privatisation? Think bankers massively propped up with public money.

Refusal to support industries which rely on state aid to compete, and passing over money to competing industries in other countries. That one's pretty ironic ... we're not allowed to subsidise industries here (unless the EU allows it as in the case of the banking industry) but we are required to subsidise industries in other countries which then directly compete with our own.

It isn't surprising Labour, while at best meekly navel gazing amidst all this, is losing the working class vote.

 

Naff all to do with Europe. Of course the likes of UKIP like to "woe is us, blame the European" as they also support policies that will worsen cost of living, employment protection, income inequality and privatisation. They are, after all, Thatcherite filth

No, its about stopping harmful protectionism (which would then reduce the gains from the preferential trade agreement). Subsidies aren't out; see, for example, the support of Airbus.

Small fry stuff, which also leads to positive spillovers through economic integration.

They aren't. They just aren't getting the weak as pish middle England vote

 

Trade, employment and social protection policies are just some of competencies of the EU. No member state may legislate if its legislation conflicts with EU legislation in areas in which the EU holds competency and it has a huge body of law. Before this goes any further, do we agree on this basic stuff at least?