I disagree. Globalism will mean lower wages and more work going to migrants and out sourced to other countries.

Your prognosis is all about markets and trade deals which are a total unknown.

A moot argument, globalisation is inevitable consequence of capitalism and technology. There is no capacity for the regulation of multi-nationals.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

The national gpovernment must serve the interests of the people, not itself or that of self interest groups.

Capitalism must be made to work for the people not at the expense of the people. That is the ideal.

The Trump phenomenon is a symptom of the failure of government to recognise this. The US election will be most likely decided by recent migrants and this is the irony of the liberal/Democrat vote. They are voting against the interests of their own demographic and for all the factors that have caused the decline in their own living standards. Trump is one of the few men who could afford to run against "the establishment". Clinton is funded by business and will probably win because of that and Trump's indiscipline.

Whilst I tend to agree with this ideology, the problem is that national governments capacity to regulate or control international corporations is negligible. It could only be achieved with a consensus of nations via something like the UN or EU. In response to regulation Multinationals tend to shift affected profit arms to 'more pliant' countries, and import into the more regulated countries either via a subsidiary or third party.

Increasingly companies, operating in the UK, will utilise the weakness of international law, to maximise profits, irrespective of individual national interests.

The demands of Corporate interests, are more defining on government, any government, than the actual government itself.

I don't see how this form of capitalism can be made to work for any individual country, as its principle architect has no real national ties.

Although, Saunders did surprisingly well. Of course Trump is the establishment - Not representing Business, but actually being business. I don't think so much he represents a 'protest' in the way maybe UKIP did, but an internal disgust at the core of republicans, which saw the Tea Party splinter off its lunatic fringe, and is increasingly losing it working class base.

Republican politics in the US is split between moderates, corporate interest representatives, the religious right, the wealthy and working joes.

In the same way Labour has seen problems here, the Republican Trump, is effectively their Corbyn - Lots of grass roots, core republican supporters, no real support within the party itself - Effectively those ordinary, key Republicans have been alienated by the party, but not so much as to become democratic voters, instead like in the Labour party they've been sparked by an outsider from the fringe, who appeals on a level they engage with.

Just like Corbyn with the 'old left' over New Labour. Trump appeals to that alienated right wing, working class.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Indeed. The only way to steer them in the right direction is via the ballot box. We need people who actually take responsibility for the interests of their citizens rather than just paying lip service to it. Seeking advantage against other nations via capitalism is a recipe for disaster but the rules of survival are at play. What price will we pay in the competition? There must be some collective understanding that we must preserve the relative paradise that we enjoy now and resist the threat of globalisation, mass migrations and the steady and unnecessary destruction of planet Earth for greed.

BTW. Marx was deluded. Communism only works in a pure form and that cannot exist in reality. We need another alternative.

[Tweet Link]

No go on. Baring in mind that i've said on here numerous times that we should follow the result of the referendum, but don't let that cloud your judgement.

Do you have a problem with someone posting evidence that the referendum result is non binding.

Edited by nickgusset (08 Nov 2016 8.49pm)

You have said a lot of things Gusset. Most of what you say is disingenuous I suspect.

Do you know what this says about you?

So,after a load of now seemingly meaningless codswallop from so many Brexiters about the desirability of Brexit to take back our "sovereignty" (woops sorry meant kick out immigrants), we just ignore our constitutional law,honed over centuries, because the Judges inconveniently remind us of the paramountcy of parliament and remind us that the executive needs to refer matters to parliament.

Nothing to do with ignoring the will of the people.Just reminding the executive it's a long established principle that it can't use royal prerogative powers to override parliament when it comes to revoking treaties.

Its called due process..its what we Brits are supposed to be so proud of in relation to our "sovereignty"...

Complying with constitutional rules might be a drag (and from time to time piss off those of all political persuasions) buts it's what separates us from places where "enemies of the people" is something heard about on a regular basis...

Enemies of the people?

Jesus wept...

Edited by legaleagle (08 Nov 2016 8.58pm)

Yes it is due process and it's not designed to over rule a democratic vote....and it won't,trust me.