Posts by Matthew Hooton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to Sacha,
Yes, and wasn't that popular in much of Canterbury? Now extrapolate that across moat other resources and economic and social activities and ask how Cantabrians would feel about it.
-
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to Rich Lock,
It’s very simple, as pointed out by someone John Harris* talked to post-result: ”If you’ve got money, you vote in … if you haven’t got money, you vote out”
That can't really be right can it? Not if Labour voters tended to vote Remain and Tory voters Leave. And do all Londoners and Scots have money but not people in Wales or the shires?
I don't think economic factors ("neoliberalism" or whatever) can explain what has happened here. Some of the arguments above really seem to be "Neoliberalism is bad so it must be that that caused this." I think you need to look to cultural and geographic factors - and also the EU's goal of "ever closer union" undermining national sovereignty and eventually establishing something like a federal state, without seeking to become more democratic. You can't seek "ever closer union" without becoming democratic and expect people to accept it. The EU better respond now, or other countries will leave, which would be a world historic disaster.
I wrote about the cultural factors in the NBR a week before the vote, for anyone in a uni or with a subscription: http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/britons-should-vote-exit-eu-mh
-
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Brexit appears to be a symptom of collective anger at trickle-down economics breaking its promise to share the gains
How does that explain Labour voters voting Remain and Tories voting Leave?
-
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Before wibbling on about how undemocratic the EU is, with all its appointed this and that, it would be honest to mention the appointments are largely made by the (democratically elected) EU parliament.
That's not really correct. The president of the (unelected) Commission is nominated by the (unelected) Council and the "parliament" gets to vote yea or nay. The president then appoints Commissioners based on "suggestions" from member states. The parliament can approve or veto the Commission as a whole. See http://ec.europa.eu/about/index_en.htm
This is really quite inadequate in a democratic sense given the enormous powers of the Commission and its commitment to "ever closer union" in a constitutional sense.
Imagine if our Prime Minister and Cabinet were appointed like this: regional council chairs would meet, and choose a candidate; parliament then gets to say yea or nay, the Prime Minister then appoints Ministers on the "suggestion" of regional council chairs; and parliament gets to vote yea or nay on the Cabinet as a whole.
And then imagine the Cabinet is the only body even able to suggest legislation? Which, as the Commission puts its arrogantly, "is then adopted by the co-legislators, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers."
And imagine if the stated goal of this system was "ever closer union" when in fact NZ regions believed themselves to be sovereign states.
And imagine if our second largest economic and population region, Canterbury, with a slightly different culture from the rest of us, had argued for decades it was unhappy, especially with "ever closer union". And the response from Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin was to sniff "we'll that's just because you aren't committed to the New Zealand Ideal."
Wouldn't Canterbury be likely to want to leave?
-
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to John Palethorpe,
I see this as the second best outcome. The best would have been, say, 67-33 to Remain. The worst, I think, would have been 51-49 to Remain. Basically, the UK and the EU have always had an uncomfortable relationship and at least this is a decision so that the UK can get on and forge its destiny and - hopefully - the EU can now reform itself and pursue ever-closer union with popular support among its member states. The most important thing is not to see a return of the interstate rivalries that characterised Europe for hundreds of years. Perhaps we will end up with Churchill's original concept, of a United States of Europe (excluding the UK - and I guess Switzerland). We'll see.
-
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to Soon Lee,
There seems to be quite a bit of Buyer’s Remorse going on
Is there? See http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brexit-opinion-poll-reveals-majority-8283139
Are you sure the 2.7 million weren't always for Remain (and perhaps the most passionately so)?
-
By not taking the European Parliament seriously, political parties and the media ensured that it didn’t really mean anything to British voters.
But why would anyone take it seriously? It doesn't even have the power to propose legislation (which can only come from the unelected Commission). The (unelected) Council of Ministers acts as a Senate above it. Hopefully, the EU responds to this event by seriously addressing its democratic deficit. If it does not, other countries will leave. And if that includes a major continental power then the risk is a return in a few decades to the pre-1945 rivalry among states, which seriously risks leading to war.
But you cannot blame UK citizens (or French ones or others where support for the EU is falling) for wanting out of a profoundly undemocratic institution which never less asserts huge authority over their domestic policies and has never really taken the principle of subsidiarity seriously, no matter how often the EU Commission talks about it.
-
Hard News: Hate and guns, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
nobody ever really knows what the fuck was going through Mateen’s mind because this is real life not television where everything ties up in a neat bow at the end
This is probably the most sensible comment I have read on this topic anywhere on the internet.
-
Hard News: Hate and guns, in reply to andin,
Thats your suggestion? And dont hold the NRA culpable?
Well, it's something he could do specifically. A change of political tactics is clearly required, but if I knew what that involved I wouldn't be running a little PR company in NZ.
And of course the NRA is culpable. But it doesn't take anyone anywhere to just say on the internet 'aren't they evil but they are too powerful so nothing can be done'. Of course they are evil. They need to be beaten. Someone somewhere must have an idea about how that could be done, and the leadership skills to make it happen. Don't know what or who that would be of course.
-
Hard News: Hate and guns, in reply to Joe Wylie,
the idea that he carries some kind of charismatic influence with the residue of his natural US allies is a joke
I meant more to hold a seminar or two with gun reform lobbyists.