Turn on thread page Beta
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Agreed- see my response to Aperfect balance



    The EU as it is today is dying. Whether it evolves, which I hope it will, we have yet to see
    You are still speaking a lot of nonsense.
    Countries arent pressuring to leave.
    The ones that are anti immigration also happen to be amongst the largest beneficiaries of free money.
    Lot of fantasy on your part.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Well one is a supranational body the other is s national health service..

    They are vastly different in how they operate and function
    Yes, but with regards to doomsday warnings they've had very similar treatment. The point is that you've added nothing by saying "the EU is dying".
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    I mean we could go back to ww2 if we really want to, the Rise and faliure of Facism in Germany and also Italy although that is far less important, the atrocities of Germany ruined Facism and its image (Good) but at the same time made people want to distance themselves from Far Right Ideologies and that has rubbed off on the moralistic and proper conservatism that we once had, not the flimsy conservatism of today, to the furthest extent it is why we now see people calling hardline conservatives facist and how nationalism (In terms of immigration and pride not genocide) is seen as evil because of Germany.

    The EEC once was perfectly fine, it was more like a friendly group that facilitated better trade and easier agreements, it was warped and now Germany has a large amount of control, they force nations to bend to the will of the EU in totally absurd ways.

    Granted it was not all Germany but they have a lot to do with it
    Agree with all of that but it’s still far too simplistic.

    You forget the key component of Marxism.

    As bad as national socialism undoubtedly was I think the greater evil was the USSR and it’s useful idiots and sympathisers in the West.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Hard I grant you, but not impossible. I’m not really s huge fan of democracy as people don’t realky know what they want. Let’s tackle your list.

    Women- women (and men) overall want to have a family, and whilst not necessarily wanting to return to being housewives I think introducing women into the labour market was more about making money and lowering wages than about female emancipation. This can be explained why women are so often unhappy and the low rate of women identifying as feminist.

    Those without work- well if we grant the above and there are less women competing and barely any immigration then there will be far more jobs available. Not to mention that this means we would abolish the welfare state completely, which I doubt. But even if we did, a stronger social community and institutions like the church would also play a role- and not contribute to the scourge of generations of ‘long term inemployed’

    The sick- slightly more complicated. The nhs was designed when people were living to the age of about 60. Some form of universal insurance coverage guaranteed by the state might be more appropriate.

    The retired- most old people and disabled people would rather live and die in the dignity of their own homes with their families than be carted off to care homes. I say that as someone with six years experience in the care sector
    And of course we had great social cohesion in the early part of the twentieth century, Tonypandy and similar, the rise of the Labour movement being merely an irrational reaction to that wonderful society.

    Have you ever talked with people who lived first hand during that period, my Grandfather was born in 1890 and lived to 1989, he left school at fourteen and rather than labouring ( as had been the lot of most of his ancestors per the census records of the 19th century) he escaped into the army. My Grandmother had very little education and worked as a pastry cook. The changes in the social order of the 20th century resulted in him being a Major (acting Lt Colonel) by 1945, owning a three storey house in Edinburgh and his having been awarded an MBE, social advancement that would have been pretty unlikely in 1900.

    You are tilting at an illusion as any study of social and economic history would make very clear.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    You are still speaking a lot of nonsense.
    Countries arent pressuring to leave.
    The ones that are anti immigration also happen to be amongst the largest beneficiaries of free money.
    Lot of fantasy on your part.
    The only fantasy is the one you are constructing in your strawman.

    Where have I said the above?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Once again, people with little to no economic understanding think they can make informed opinions on economical "problems".

    The EU is essential for our country. We have 500 MILLION people on our geographical doorstep to trade with. Not only that, we also get to trade without any tariffs, and we also benefit from freedom of movement for both businesses and individuals. We benefit from immigration, which means we get more workers for our jobs. Many argue that Europeans are "stealing our jobs" - yet most immigrants are taking the lower paid jobs eg. NHS nurses, bus drivers, cleaners, and waste disposal, which nobody else wants to do because of the ridiculously low pay. By living in our country, immigrants also pay taxes and buy goods from our British companies, which means that we benefit from them the same way they benefit from us. The only real argument against immigration is the classic "stealing muh job" 'argument', which is ridiculous. If you're having your job taken by someone who doesn't speak english as their main language, and is likely to have a lower qualification than you, then I think you are the problem, not them. Also, over 50% of UK immigration is from outside the EU, and the government has control over this immigration. But we let them come, because it's a benefit to our economy. By being in the EU, we also have the ability to move to other european countries, to live and work in them, potentially even sending our money back to the UK.

    The next fallacy I would like to address is the whole argument of "we'll get better trade deals if we leave the eu!", or "our economy will be stronger if we leave the eu!". Both of those arguments are rubbish. There are very few countries that would be worth even considering to trade with. You can instantly rule out a large number of countries that are simply too small or have too bad of an economy to trade with. Then we have countries like america, but to trade with them we have to ship across the entire atlantic, and we are at the mercy of Trump to actually make a sensible decision. But even if we did try, we have almost no bargaining power. Trade with america and china would also be terrible for our industry. For example, china's steel industry would basically put our steel industry out of business. We would get a bad trade deal which we suffer from, and potentially destroy many of our industries.

    Finally, I would like to address your unsubstantiated opinions on the eu being "politically unstable" and "falling apart". Sorry, but thats false. Even with a rise in far right and euroskeptical opinions in politics, none of them are large enough to even matter, and with the current disaster of brexit, many will finally wake up and realise that the euroskeptics and anti-eu media have been spoonfeeding them lies and ignorance. The only reason the Leave vote even won was because most people had no idea what the vote actually meant, and just did what they were told by their tabloid newspapers, without even bothering to look up basic facts on the whole issue.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    And of course we had great social cohesion in the early part of the twentieth century, Tonypandy and similar, the rise of the Labour movement being merely an irrational reaction to that wonderful society.
    Ay?


    Have you ever talked with people who lived first hand during that period, my Grandfather was born in 1890 and lived to 1989, he left school at fourteen and rather than labouring ( as had been the lot of most of his ancestors per the census records of the 19th century) he escaped into the army. My Grandmother had very little education and worked as a pastry cook. The changes in the social order of the 20th century resulted in him being a Major (acting Lt Colonel) by 1945, owning a three storey house in Edinburgh and his having been awarded an MBE, social advancement that would have been pretty unlikely in 1900.
    The army has consistently been a excellent way for poor people to improve social mobility.

    Also:

    A: presumably your grandfathers ancestors chose not to go down that route

    B: your grandfathers ancestors would not have had access to among many other things the internet and electronics.

    You are tilting at an illusion as any study of social and economic history would make very clear.
    See A and B. We would not be returning to the past
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Agree with all of that but it’s still far too simplistic.

    You forget the key component of Marxism.

    As bad as national socialism undoubtedly was I think the greater evil was the USSR and it’s useful idiots and sympathisers in the West.
    I would have to write books If I were to explain everything and I do not have the time for that, Marxism is a key component and a very complicated one
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    I would have to write books If I were to explain everything and I do not have the time for that, Marxism is a key component and a very complicated one

    Fair enough then 👍🏻

    PRSOM
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Ay?




    The army has consistently been a excellent way for poor people to improve social mobility.

    Also:

    A: presumably your grandfathers ancestors chose not to go down that route

    B: your grandfathers ancestors would not have had access to among many other things the internet and electronics.



    See A and B. We would not be returning to the past
    But I thought you wanted the society and strata of 1900 with the tech of 2018, if you have such a society that surely comes with the greater social divides amongst a larger working class, a smaller than today middle class and a small upper class, otherwise it is not that society.

    What the 20th century has done is expand that middle class , a far greater proportion of wealth and assets now devolving to them, in large part led by the flow of opportunities in manual work decreasing and the number of clerical and service roles increasing; though the tech of the next thirty years is likely to erode even these as more and more becomes automated.

    There is maybe an argument that the great social flows of the 1940s and 1950s have now slowed (the grammar schools / university bursaries etc leveling outcomes for those from non affluent backgrounds in these later decades)

    I never actually asked him but I suspect my Grandfather in 1900 would have been somewhat surprised that by the 1950s four of his five yet to be born children would have had professional occupations; a lawyer, a surveyor, a lecturer and a minister, the fifty odd years from 1900 having seen vast improvements in opportunities for those born in the 1920s and 1930s.

    Your idea that 1900 contained a better society than today is to my eyes flawed, a different society but not better, if you wanted to pick a sweet spot (even if it did in the earlier stages have rationing) I would likely pick the 1950s into the 1960s, but even that period was a mirage hiding the problems in British industry and society that started to come home to roost in the 1970s and 1980s.

    People believe there was some sort of golden period with social cohesion , but that is remembering the good bits (the highlights) and ignoring the bad bits. How many individuals from working class backgrounds born in 1900 went to Oxford, not many, but a fair few born in the 1920s did including my father and his best friend, both from originally working class families. And if one looks at the MPs and public figures of the 1960s and 1970s one sees the result of that change in society for the better.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Hard I grant you, but not impossible. I’m not really s huge fan of democracy as people don’t realky know what they want. Let’s tackle your list.

    Women- women (and men) overall want to have a family, and whilst not necessarily wanting to return to being housewives I think introducing women into the labour market was more about making money and lowering wages than about female emancipation. This can be explained why women are so often unhappy and the low rate of women identifying as feminist.

    Those without work- well if we grant the above and there are less women competing and barely any immigration then there will be far more jobs available. Not to mention that this means we would abolish the welfare state completely, which I doubt. But even if we did, a stronger social community and institutions like the church would also play a role- and not contribute to the scourge of generations of ‘long term inemployed’









    The sick- slightly more complicated. The nhs was designed when people were living to the age of about 60. Some form of universal insurance coverage guaranteed by the state might be more appropriate.

    The retired- most old people and disabled people would rather live and die in the dignity of their own homes with their families than be carted off to care homes. I say that as someone with six years experience in the care sector
    you are wrong when you say there will be more jobs if there are fewer women and immigrants doing jobs. Where do you think jobs come from? Who creates the demand for goods and services that lead to jobs being created in the first place?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Sorry GenialGermanGent, but it seems very clear to me that we are beginning to witness the end of the EU- at least on its current form.

    Across Europe previously fringe Euroscepticism parties are in opppsition. Italy has a good chance like Austria before it of having a ‘hard right’ coalition. Next up is Sweden, Where the the Swedish Democrats are likely to do even better than last time if not win.

    Brexit May merely have just spared us waiting for the inevitable
    Good.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    you are wrong when you say there will be more jobs if there are fewer women and immigrants doing jobs.
    Just noticed this. Ay?

    Where do you think jobs come from? Who creates the demand for goods and services that lead to jobs being created in the first place?
    Employers? The market?

    Expand on your argument. Also- we can trade and sell with other countries instead of relying entirely on our own customers
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Just noticed this. Ay?



    Employers? The market?

    Expand on your argument. Also- we can trade and sell with other countries instead of relying entirely on our own customers
    Employers and the market don't create jobs, customers do that, a business without customers has no income and closes. How are you going to export a cup of coffee that a female customer buys on her way to work?
 
 
 

3,382

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.