Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home3/tandem/public_html/golemXIV/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-hooks.php on line 160

Two videos – one politics, one philosophy

Two quite different videos for you.

First is a public talk I gave recently on the TTIP trade agreement and its Investor State Dispute Settlement ISDS.  I have been giving this talk up and down the country for most of the last two years, updating it as events have unfolded.  Most of what I say is about the way Arbitration works, who the arbitrators are and what power arbitration gives to corporations. Therefore almost everything I say applies just as accurately to the TPP as well. If you want to skip what I say about the TTIP itself and skip to where I talk about  Arbitration then skip down to about 12.25.

I can I also say that while I have harsh  – but true – things to say about US food and animal standards I would like to point out that in return Europe wants America to lower its standards on trading derivatives. So I don’t want anyone to think America is the bady here and Europe all peaches and cream. If the TTIP goes through Europe will export its insane and stupid ideas about derivatives to America.  The losers here will be the ordinary people on both sides of the pond, the only winners will be the corporations.

The title of the talk is “The Death of Democracy”.

The other video is completely different. It’s a panel discussion I was involved in at last year’s Hay on Wye Philosophy festival. The panel was me, Oxford Professor of Chemistry Peter Atkins and Steve Fuller, Postmodernist sociologist from Warwick University. The debate asked if Science has become like a religion for some people? The title was “This is our Church.” I got accused of being anti-science which surprised me and made me laugh. See what you think.

If you don’t want to watch the entire debate then follow the link which will take you to their page where you can watch each section on its own.

http://iai.tv/video/this-is-our-church#

, ,

38 Responses to Two videos – one politics, one philosophy

  1. Josh March 25, 2015 at 10:22 pm #

    Great, thought-provoking videos, David.

    • Golem XIV March 25, 2015 at 10:36 pm #

      Thank you. I always enjoy Peter Atkin’s hyperbole. Hope to interview him for the films I am just starting.

  2. steviefinn March 26, 2015 at 12:35 am #

    I had already seen the TTIP video but enjoyed the second. I would have liked the segments to go on a bit longer, especially when they got a bit heated. It kind of reminded me of the long standing argument between Richard Feynman & his artist friend regarding a flower. The artist saw it’s beauty which to him was enough, while Feynman saw mainly it’s nuts & bolts, although he did acknowledge that it was beautiful, but in another sense..

    Personally I don’t think some things are made of nuts & bolts, but I am no scientist.

    • harold wilson's pipe April 12, 2015 at 9:51 pm #

      You may need to revisit what Feynman actually said. Here’s the start of a Feynman quote:
      “I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty”

      The Interwebs will find the rest.

      Feynman believed in beauty AND in nuts and bolts.

      He didn’t think much of the ‘social sciences’ though.

      And while I’m here: if David were to stand in the Green Party leadership elections, he’d get my vote. He might even get a few more new members. Go for it!

      • steviefinn April 13, 2015 at 10:00 am #

        Agreed – but I think he was more interested in the nuts & bolts. whereas the artist was only interested in the beauty. I think there is beauty in the nuts & bolts too, but am more interested in the gaps which they are presently trying to fill with dark matter & energy.

        Also agree on the social sciences – I had a pointless argument with somebody connected to economics the other day, who seemed to think that Europe’s & the world’s problems could be solved by his proposed tweek in the present Neoliberal bollocks. I got the feeling that his world view had been adopted to fit his pet & anything that represented a threat to it was dismissed or not even considered.

        He twisted my words but most of the time kind of held onto a repeated technical mantra as if to convince me has was a scientist & therefore all knowing. I only know for sure where he & others like him should stick their models.

        Very Agreed on David’s leadership bid.

        • neil terry April 15, 2015 at 12:52 am #

          Economics sounds like total bollox to me as a scientist and also as the whining fantasies of caught crooks or false complainants to me as an ex-cop. The most obvious thing is that if economics is being talked no argument is present, just rhetoric and snide pretence at knowing.

          What’s needed is real-time critique. All current affairs does is demonstrate no one knows anything in this area. There is no science in economics’ methods and the idea economists can act as objective scientists is drawn from a stupid reading of how scientists act in writing up discoveries.

          One even sees Newsnight presenters ridiculing the Greens with snide looks – how very rational of them! Debate is presented at unbright 12 year old mental age levels.

          • Hawkeye April 15, 2015 at 1:55 pm #

            Neil

            For genuine scientific critiques of standard Economic dogma, this blog article from a few years back covers some of the more accomplished efforts of the 20th Century (e.g. Frederick Soddy & Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen) to reign in the mainstream’s voodoo economic theories:

            http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2013/08/illogical-economics-guest-post-by-hawkeye/

  3. Sophia Torelli March 26, 2015 at 4:45 am #

    The best explanation of the dangers hidden In the TTIP I’ve read yet. Neoliberalism is a very destructive force. World government anyone? Worldwide Fascism?

    In the US there is very little of this that is known by the people. I have read that Harry Reid is very against it as are some but not all other Democrats–but not the Republicans of course or Obama. Has he sold us out to get some kind of cooperation from the multinationals or the Repups(they have the maturity of puppies, but are not as lovable)?
    This brings back memories of NAFTA, where “Dino” Clinton sold us across the Rio Grande and down the Yangtze River and let all the foxes (Wall Street) into the hen house. Many phony promises and statistics were promulgated then too. The result–a soft depression and a very powerfully 1% and weakling Democracy.

  4. Emma Telford March 27, 2015 at 1:17 pm #

    Dear David,

    I very much enjoyed your TTIP talk – engaging and amusingly delivered, and comprehensible to everyone. I wonder if you can supply the references you mention in your talk – the EU research for instance, so that I can look these up? Not because I doubt the veracity of what you say at all, but so that I can refer to these myself when I ask my MP about this topic in a forthcoming hustings. It’s useful to be able to challenge the official narrative as you have done, with independent data. Many thanks!

    • steviefinn March 28, 2015 at 12:02 pm #

      I am taking the liberty of providing some info Emma, as I think David is up to his eyeballs at the moment. The first link is to a pdf of the United Nations report on TTIP using an alternative & more realistic model than the sunshine & roses one that TPTB have adopted. The second is useful for lots of info if you are on facebook :

      http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/ttip_simulations.html

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/againstTheTTIP/

      • Emma Telford March 28, 2015 at 6:32 pm #

        Many thanks! I don’t know how David manages to fit in a day job.

    • Golem XIV March 29, 2015 at 8:13 pm #

      Dear Emma,

      Thank you for your kind words. I will try to forward you some of teh references but it may be a few days. I am horribly busy as I am just to start a new series in the morning and don’t quite know where I shall find the extra hours.

      • Emma Telford March 30, 2015 at 10:15 pm #

        Much appreciated David. There will be many opportunities over the coming weeks to make my point to Jesse Norman! (our incumbent). I’m not a member of any political party myself, but would you accept an invitation from the Hereford Green Party or local 38 Degrees members to come and speak at some future point, when life is less busy?

  5. The Happy Hobbit March 29, 2015 at 3:02 pm #

    Dear David

    I have been following your blog (silently for the most part) now for the past 5 years. I recently watched your talk on TTIP which was truly excellent, and concur with a commenter’s sentiment about cloning you!

    I do however, have a dilemma. I recently took the survey on https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ which showed me to be fairly evenly split between the Greens and UKIP – go figure! I think that makes me a left wing Libertarian (isn’t that how Yanis Veroufakis described himself?).

    In my research on the Green Party, I have been reading their detailed policies on Economics (http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html). Much of it chimes with my developing Green ethics, most notably the emphasis on localism and decentralisation. This then is surely at odds with the whole concept of the behemoth that is the EU, where power seems to be gathering towards the center. My particular question at this time revolves around the Green Party’s monetary policies:

    “EC664(d): Any new money created by the NMA will be credited to the account of the Government as additional revenue, to be spent into circulation in the economy in accordance with the budget approved by Parliament”

    This would surely be seen by the powers in Brussels as a loan from the NMA to the Government. How then does this stand up against Article 104(1) of the Masstrict Treaty – Financing of Government Deficits via Central Bank Credit:

    “Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the ECB or with the central banks of the Member States… in favour of Community institutions or bodies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities… shall be prohibited…”

    My general understanding of this article is that it forces national governments to go to private banks to borrow to fund deficits. I very much approve of the thrust of the Green Party’s ideas of a National Monetary Authority, but I fail to see how this can be rationalised with staying within the EU construct. Localism and a United States of Europe do not go hand in hand.

    Any clarity you (or others) could shed would be welcome. Thanks.

    Tongue in cheek PS: Do you have any interest in becoming leader of the Greens?

  6. Golem XIV March 29, 2015 at 8:11 pm #

    Hello HH,

    Sorry this weekend has been a bit frantic. You are quite right there is a problem between membership[p of Europea and quite a anumber of our financial, monetary and indeed Foreign policies. The one the refer to would indeed bring us up against EU law.

    Our stance on Europe is we would offer the nation a free and quick in/out referendum. We would argue for staying in but ONLY to seek very radical change. We feel the EU has become a coroporate and centralizing machine rather than a voice for its people’s.

    That siad I personally feel we would have to break quite a number of our treaty obligations – not least the one you mention – and think the EU itself would finds it a very hard thing to swollow and still allow us to remain a member.

    But we would leave teh EU rather than have to disavow pur finanaicla policies.

    As for your tongue in cheek question – although it does seem most arrogant – I do in fact have a hope to run for leadership in the next contest. I have no idea if I would gat anywhere but feel I would do some good just by running and making my arguments to the whole party.

    • FallingLeaf March 30, 2015 at 12:44 pm #

      Not to fuel anything, but, David, I think you would do an immense amount of good just even running for leadership.

      You’re one of the most knwoledgeable and thought-provoking voices I’ve found out there and getting yourself out there would be good for the party and for us in general, I feel. Not arrogant at all 🙂

      • Emma Telford March 30, 2015 at 9:59 pm #

        I concur. David speaks very well, cogent and from the heart, thoroughly researched, direct but without aggression or defensiveness. Please do have a go David! You have much to offer.

    • The Happy Hobbit March 30, 2015 at 6:29 pm #

      Thanks David, that’s just what I was hoping. I had not heard anywhere that the Greens are offering an in/out referendum. Surely this is something the MSM would report with glee. But I guess if it is not in a press release then they won’t find out for themselves.

      May I echo FallingLeaf’s comments about any potential run for leadership. It was your blog together with Chris Martenson’s “Crash Course” and Michael Ruppert’s “Collapse” that really kick started my education in economics, the environment and geopolitics; thank you so much.

      The alternative political scene in this country badly needs someone as knowledgeable, erudite and as accomplished a speaker as yourself. Whilst I’m not sure you would relish it, the thought of watching you facing off against someone like Jeremy Paxman is a tantalising prospect indeed! 🙂

  7. Mason March 30, 2015 at 11:50 am #

    Hello Golem XIV and everyone who reads this,

    If you want to stop the TTIP, take action and sign the petition:
    https://stop-ttip.org/

    It will be used to pressure the politicians in stopping the TTIP.
    And if you are really serious (as I know Golem XIV to be at least), don’t forget to send the link to your friends.

    Kind regards,
    Mason

    • Kavy March 30, 2015 at 8:49 pm #

      Thanks for the link, Mason. I signed it.

      • Mason March 30, 2015 at 10:21 pm #

        🙂

  8. Helen Stephenson March 30, 2015 at 9:29 pm #

    David, Where do you find your energy? I have just finished watching the TTIP video followed by listening to “Company v Country” on Radio 4 – at last some serious BBC coverage of the subject (although I think there was an “In Business” programme on it). Even the Chief Executive of the International Dispute Resolution Centre does not necessarily know the identity of parties to an arbitration taking place there!

    I’m sorry the West Dorset Greens weren’t able to invite you down. Maybe sometime in the future. Meantime I’m endeavouring to prepare a searching question for our parliamentary candidates, including Oliver Letwin, at hustings on 25th April. Just got to finish reading Captive State and Richard Murphy’s “The Courageous State”.

    I’ll be on the train to Scarborough on 6th May (en route to Staithes – outside your constituency?) so will encourage local passengers to put their X by your name while reminding them that the current incumbent has fiddled his expenses in the past, that he is against mandatory rules, reporting or sanctions on soil protection and will have supported the casting aside of the EU Soil Directive as red tape.

    On the subject of the EU and their crusade against red tape, were it not so scary I’d be loving the irony of the bureaucracy created in the cause against anything that costs business anything. This includes the creation of the High-Level Group on Administrative
    Burdens and the appointment of a First Vice Present for Better Regulation.

    Very best wishes for your campaign.

    Helen

  9. Old Guy April 2, 2015 at 12:13 pm #

    Excellent video on the TTIP. Agree most Americans do not know anything about the treaty. ISDS is a farce to be honest.

    If a corporation wants to take the risk of investing in a country, they also take the liability of investing there. Outright confiscation of a companies assets because of a governmental change needs to be taken up in the courts.

    I love your analogy of arbitration while us pleebs must use our own court system. I will use that one in my next discussion. That will rile my buddies up. Many of them are all for it and I am the loner in the group.

    Alas my fellow citizens will be discussing Dances with the Stars as opposed to intelligently discussing TTIP. I have spoken at length about this plan and not only the loss of sovereignty but also another shipment of our jobs to overseas locations.

    Nothing new about a few controlling the world though. Corporations and even worse bankers already control most of the world.

  10. just me April 4, 2015 at 11:58 am #

    OT ?.

    “UK Intelligence Services Attack SNP”

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/04/uk-intelligence-services-attack-snp/

  11. Roger G Lewis April 10, 2015 at 8:23 am #

    Hi David,

    Great to see these two videos. I also hope that you are meeting with success out on the stump I have been following the UK election with interest and have been cheered to see that Bristol West may well go green, my postal vote is in North Somerset which is likely to remain Blue and in the hands of Dr Liam Fox, who I do not particularly warm too after some dealings several years back ( thats another story)
    On TTIP its interesting to see how misleading the EU’s own q and a is on the whole treaty, The Eu is a corporate Animal in my view and there to serve the interests of Corporations and not citizens, perhaps that is the real history of Democracy as sold to the masses and with Excesses of that sort of Democracy ( the only kind that has ever really existed)happening cyclically we will see what ever passes for Post Industrial Revolution occurring soon. Will the 2015 election see enough people step outside the Media thought control paradigm, We’ll see , there is a slim chance The SNP came close to disturbing the status quo in the Referendum last year and that momentum seems to be carrying over into this election very interesting to see how the Main stream media is trying to get that lid back on the box.

    The second Video is very interesting the discussion you chaired at Hay last year with Rupert Sheldrake tackles the same questions His the Science delusion is very amusing.
    A Glorious Accident , Early 90’s Documentary ( Dennet and Sheldrake both figure)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLl95O8M4rrtVqzBfgVKxILADK0VXKbmD-&v=_noh9aSWUlU

    Your DIscussion where Sheldrake and Dennet reprise their Argument.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_KdYOYYuI

    Sheldrakes Banned Ted Talk.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

    I think the TTIP is ultimately about Fascism and Scientism is also about fascism as an enabler of hierarchical power structures and justifier of a sort of narcissism of small differences. I also share the same opinion about Philosophy which i see also as an enable of hierarchical power structures when taken in its institutional context.

    14 defining characteristics of Fascism.
    http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm
    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
    to the government’s policies or actions.

    Substitute Scientism for religion in the above paragraph. The technocratic jack boot seems to be stamping ever harder on democracy.

    • steviefinn April 10, 2015 at 11:42 am #

      In terms of the ‘ Glorius accident ‘ videos Roger – the one featuring Freeman Dyson in which he talks about the beaucracy that was ‘ Bomber Command ‘, where a huge machine or system is established to perform a certain task, as he says, so was Eichmann’s extermination process. A construct that relies on many small human cogs to maintain it’s momentum & where, even if they don’t agree with the purpose, or in BC’s case, decide that the machine has outlived it’s usefulness, as in the many pointless operations like Dresden. Is it perhaps the case that this is a major problem today, in as much as huge systems like the EZ, the US military & industrial complex, the central banks, corporations & probably many others, are all steaming full ahead until the point where they eventually hit a large enough iceberg ?

      As Freeman said, he didn’t like the course of the ship, but felt helpless inside it – giving up his job & protesting would have had little effect, so he decided that his work of trying to cut down the high fatality rate among bomber crews was at least a way he could do something positive to alleviate the effects of the mincing machine he was part of. Perhaps there are many others, with or without Freeman’s scruples, whose livelihoods & or positions of power rely on the always forward momentum.

      As in the case of the USSR which despite the fact that it’s captains knew for sometime that the construct was unsustainable, they couldn’t alter the steering. Maybe this is why the EZ & other entities are it seems to me, heading the same way & why it will take a huge crash to sink what is being touted as the unsinkable.

  12. steviefinn April 10, 2015 at 2:31 pm #

    Perhaps this is a good example – Germany’s Neoliberal voyage to nowhere good;

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/04/herr-schaubles-foibles-eurozone-rebalancing-conundrum.html

  13. JayD April 12, 2015 at 10:55 pm #

    Your lifetime’s supply of democracy
    xxxx
    xx
    xxxx
    Never Mind the Ballots …….28 years on
    Chumbawawba……. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2ilMH3Ie08

  14. harold wilson's pipe April 13, 2015 at 11:45 am #

    First, welcome back David (forgot to say it in my post yesterday). And sorry I’m a bit late to the game here.

    I haven’t had a chance to watch David’s two videos yet but in the weekend newspaper’s letters column, someone suggested Harold Crooks’ feature documentary, The Price We Pay, was worth a look.

    Made by a Canadian, and released (only?) in Canada (in connection with the Toronto International Film Festival), but based on the little info I have so far, it would benefit from much wider exposure.

    Anyone here seen it? Any comments?

    Official trailer for The Price We Pay: https://vimeo.com/103132639 (under three minutes)
    More background: http://www.informactionfilms.com/en/productions/the-price-we-pay.php

    “Director Harold Crooks (Surviving Progress) blows the lid off the dirty world of corporate malfeasance with this incendiary documentary about the dark history and dire present-day reality of big-business tax avoidance, which has seen multinationals depriving governments of trillions of dollars in tax revenues by harboring profits in offshore havens.”

    (Surviving Progress can currently be found in full on Youtube, and has been shown on British TV maybe twice in the darker corners of mainstream TV)

    Anyone recognise the uncredited speaker shortly after 00:30 in the trailer who says he regards the City of London as the world’s biggest tax haven?

    • Hawkeye April 14, 2015 at 12:32 pm #

      hwp

      Thanks for the link to “The price we pay”. I have seen “Surviving Progress” and it’s a powerful film, so here’s hoping this can live up to that standard.

      Regarding the speaker, I presume you mean the person with an English accent giving an open air talk (Occupy style). I would hazard a guess at John Christensen who contributed to Nicholas Shaxson’s book “Treasure islands”:

      http://events.it-sudparis.eu/mcsaf2009/pdf/jc-publications.pdf

      If not him, then I’m sure it is someone linked to the likes of the Tax Justice Network, or Richard Murphy’s Tax Research.

      Hope that helps!

      – Hawkeye

      • steviefinn April 23, 2015 at 6:49 pm #

        I hadn’t seen ” Surviving Progress “, but thanks to you I now have – powerful scary stuff. Here’s a link to a version in English with Spanish sub-titles for anyone interested ;

        https://vimeo.com/56217994

        I watched another video afterwards which was interesting in how it partly explained the cushy relationship between bankers & US presidents going back to the 19th century. It seems as though prior to the Nixon era there was in terms of policy agreed between these 2 parties, a consideration of the overall public good. Something that has all but disappeared since then. It’s Nomi Prins talking about her book ” All the President’s Bankers ” which I would like to read. If there is ever a sequel in the future, it could be well called ” All the Banker’s Presidents ” :

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlgEE9tUgvY

  15. neil terry April 15, 2015 at 1:37 am #

    Preaching to the converted here David, but thanks anyway. These trade agreements have a long and dire history and have had nothing to do we genuine free trade at any time I’m aware of. There is plenty of evidence that small groups of people manage to incite (quietly) wars and military interventions to promote trade that favours their investments. History is so corrupt we end up worshipping vile slavers, drug-pushers, crooks and merchants of genocide. The US Civil War would be a good place to find how trade and tariff agreements are at the foot of much evil and how we come to live in propaganda fantasies

    The issues in TTIP are older and more sinister than we can imagine.

  16. Bryce Malton April 22, 2015 at 3:15 pm #

    Thank you for that fantastic explanation of the TTIP David. I have forwarded the link to everyone I know in the hope of spreading the word. I started following your work after seeing you speak at Lancaster Uni a few years back and you never disappoint.

    On the side note – if you were to run for leader of the Green Party and offer an in/out referendum on Europe you would have created the ideal party as far as I am concerned. Please run.

    • Golem XIV April 23, 2015 at 4:51 pm #

      Thank you. It is GP policy to offer an in/out vote.

      • Bryce Malton April 24, 2015 at 8:13 am #

        Hi David, I don’t wish to hijack this comment thread but I would just like to ask you a clear question about the referendum issue. In your reply you state it is GP policy to offer a referendum. I immediately checked the GP website and read the lengthy policy section on Europe. The very last item read “EU905 Any UK decision to withdraw from the EU shall be subject to a referendum.” but that then is dependent initially on a decision being taken. The policy prior to that seems to indicate a lengthy (and in my opinion fruitless) attempt to change the EU from within. It seems actually very pro EU.
        So the question is – how or when will the GP make a decision to leave the EU and trigger the referendum? What will be the criteria and trigger points, and what are the timescales the GP leadership envisage having to wait to see if change will happen?

        My own personal viewpoint is that we need to leave as soon as possible. This is driven from my judgement that (a) this country cannot sustain the immigration levels we are seeing without serious future damage to our countryside and environment due to the required increases in infrastructure and housing. (b) the EU has already declared it is unwillingness to change in regards to UK suggestions and the vested economic interests in the EU are now stacked against us.

        • Golem XIV April 24, 2015 at 8:54 am #

          Hello Bryce,

          This might take longer than this reply. If it does then I would be happy to carry on by email. golemxivg@gmail.com

          Yes, I see your concern. Yes, we will offer a referendum but what would trigger it? And that is not clear in the manifesto.

          If you look through our manifesto there are I think three or possibly four major policies which would clearly put us on a collision course with Europe according to our various agreements with them. Such as our willingness to use protective tarrifs to stop dumping of goods from countries whose awful labour or environmental laws allow them to produce goods far more cheaply than we can. We would level the playing field with carefully chosen tarrifs. This would be done very selectively, but would be done.

          Another is our firm intention to withdraw from the big banks their right to produce the money supply. This right would be brought back under democratic control.

          There are others but at this time in the morning they don’t leap to mind. There are also some things not in teh manifesto that we would have to do as a cosequence of policies which may not even be clear to some in the GP, but are very clear to me and those like me .

          They are all perfectly legal from the point of view of a sovereign people. All quite achievable. None would bring the sky falling on our heads. Many have been done elsewhere and work. BUT they would put us on a collision course with Europe. Not least would by withdrawing from the TTIP were our current dear leaders to agree to it.

          All of which amounts to a trigger. The key is this – we will do these things. The collision with Europe them becomes a fait acompli. We would not spend fruitless years negotiating and trying to refom. We would ‘do’ and then simply say to Europe -“If you want us to remain part of Europe, you find the euro-fudge to explain it to your voters. And if you don’t/can’t and want to force us out then that is your decision.”

          In the mean time a refernedum would have been triggered for the people of this country to have their own say. Our position and mine is that with a much more robust ‘do and tell’ rather than ‘wait and ask’ stance we would be better staying in Europe and changing it. We would argue that view in the referendum. But the choice would not be ours to make. and Others would argue the opposite I am sure.

          I think Europe would be very reluctant to force us out. But the main thing is as a sovereign people we will sort out what we have promised our electorate and square that with Europe after.

          They would know we were going to do it from reading our manifesto and talking to us. So we aren’t talking about trickery. But we don’t ask. We politely inform.

          I hope this helps. Please bear in mind I speak as a member of the GP not for the GP in any official capacity. Some in the GP might dissagree with what I have written. Like any good living party there are healthy debates and differences. But what I have said about our policies putting us at odds with Europe is true even if some in the GP have not quite thought it through.

          I hope this helps

  17. Naoise McDonagh May 19, 2015 at 5:32 am #

    Hi David,

    Excellent talk on the Trojan Horse Trade Agreements TPP, TTIP and TPA. I do agree that there is no hint of hyperbole in calling your talk ‘The Death of Democracy’. Our generation is at a crucial junction where the final dismantling of real democracy is taking place at the hands of the neoliberalists, particularly revealed in these global trade agreements.

    Your efforts in bringing this to light are most admirable and much appreciated. Without such interventions society will sleep walk into a totalitarian nightmare of inequality and deprivation alongside gross wealth and scorn for the subjugated. Counter-ideas must be spread by all concerned with waylaying such projects. Good showing in the election, and a great shame it did not work out this time.

    Ps, a mutal friend JS put me on to your work, as I have a keen interest in Irish finance and its heinous misdeeds of the 2008 era

  18. Phil T. June 8, 2015 at 9:01 pm #

    May 27, 2015 (From DemocracyNow.ORG)

    Julian Assange on the Trans-Pacific Partnership:
    Secretive Deal Isn’t About Trade, But Corporate Control

    As negotiations continue, WikiLeaks has published leaked chapters of the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership — a global trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries. The TPP would cover 40 percent of the global economy, but details have been concealed from the public. A recently disclosed “Investment Chapter” highlights the intent of U.S.-led negotiators to create a tribunal where corporations can sue governments if their laws interfere with a company’s claimed future profits. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange warns the plan could chill the adoption of health and environmental regulations.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_trans_pacific

Leave a Reply