crouch

Scapegoating is convenient, particularly when trying to understand complex social phenomena. And some of these issues are not straightforward and have taken years to emerge. It's also more comforting in that, placing blame on the "other", means you don't have to look at yourself in the mirror where of course, in truth, at least some the problems reside. As you say some of these issues are deeply emotive (nostalgia; back to the future) and perhaps don't fit easily into the transactional nature of modern party politics which is full of not very capable people trying to be relevant and failing miserably, even at the very basic level of understanding the concerns of their constituents. They seem utterly irrelevant to these emotive concerns and it isn't surprising that folk look outside the current structures to pursue remedies.

No of course not. The point about a scapegoat is that they are convenient not guilty.

On this basis populism is a manifestation of the "scapegoat" principle whereby you fix blame on an external source and, by implication, may avoid internal turmoil should the guilt be closer at hand. But of course for this to work there has to be discontent to begin with which the established institutions have failed to address.

Does that mean he's not an academic? His point is that the Remain/Leave divide is a cultural one with no clear parallels with party. In fact the 2019 GE result supports this with so many Labour voting Tory. The Tories were in the grip of neoliberalism and austerity until it became apparent that this was a disastrous policy and threw the gears into reverse and filled the hole left by inadequate private demand. Was it so economically illiterate? Most would say no.

A very interesting article. However, he puts the spread of populism down to "political entrepreneurs" and I find this weak. He confesses at the very end that liberals and social democrats have difficulty in devising a response. Is the implication that they don't have as many or as competent "political entrepreneurs" as do the populists or that their arguments are weak? Not a very convincing proposition. Of course the alternative is to admit that the populists do have a point, at least in some areas, which mainstream politics has failed to meet. I think the article dismisses populism too easily; it isn't just something that has sprung to life on the basis of the evil machinations of a few slick chancers like Dominic Cummimgs; the roots were there already and he has confessed that its eradication will pose problems for the liberal and social democratic viewpoints.

Matthew Goodwin is an academic and has published many works on this topic. As quite common if you can't or won't debate the issue carry out an ad hominem attack as a substitute. What is your opinion about the points Goodwin actually raises?

I don't know what a trade agreement will include or exclude; neither do you because we don't have one yet; in fact I don't think there's even a draft of one.

Are we currently negotiating a trade agreement with the US? Yes I thought we were. Has that agreement been concluded? I don't think so. Will this issue definitely be in any final trade agreement? As yet we can't tell; people are staking out positions by saying what they want. When there is news I will listen to the hyperbole; when there isn't - no. What is wrong with people like you that any whispers are immediately translated into decisions? Are you incapable of waiting for the facts or do you prefer to just assume instead because its easier?

Quite, but by this time the EEC was the status quo and people accepted this.

Yes and although India does have a young population it has something else which is arguably more important. India is a democracy and in a true democracy dissent is allowed and dissent is the mother of progress which, by definition, means beyond the status quo. This means that India can fully participate in development and eventually move under its own steam. Contrast this with China, larger and with a far better historic claim to be numero uno in the World. However, it has a political system which does not allow dissent and eventually this will tell. You can steal your way forward to a good degree but this will only take you so far. China will fail because of its politics.

Gordon's book is very comprehensive, with very detailed arguments but, as you imply, at the end of the day it's a hypothesis. I agree; and that is a widespread assumption but it is an assumption and a gesture of optimism. Of course one day it will be destroyed by an asteroid or some other cataclysmic event but the slow strangulation a la Thomas Malthus is less likely.

We will see.

I cannot speak for others nor am I liable for what they say. Yes I quite agree with this. When Ted Heath was asked if joining the EEC would in any way affect our sovereignty he denied this completely despite the fact that the FO had written a paper on this which laid all these issues out. But of course not only were we comprehensively lied to then we had no referendum and no choice anyway.

Quote me where I said this would happen. You need to be careful before you call people liars.

I don't deny this. However, this was never my view; I have always seen it as a fork in the road, a substantial shift that might come off in any defined sense but then again may not. Uncertainty rules. Quite. There is something which bedevils this whole issue. I believe the UK - and the EU for that matter - is already subject to adverse secular trends in the following areas: demography; climate change; energy costs; technological depletion. Demography and rising energy costs are already having a substantial effect on the standard of living and climate change will have. With regard to technological depletion the case for that is here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Fall-American-Growth-Princeton/dp/0691175802/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2G9BCJSGMVZK9&dchild=1&keywords=robert+gordon&qid=1591360127&sprefix=robert+go%2Caps%2C151&sr=8-1 Gordon's thesis is that we are at the very end of the technological revolution of the nineteenth century with little to take its place and therefore growth will reduce as a result. All these issues are not favourable and will affect both the UK and the EU; they will also provide more than adequate grounds for the scapegoating you suggest.

Actually I agree with you. I think even our welfare standards are too low but, being vegetarian, I'm against using animals in this way anyway.

Quite, and to assume otherwise is to deny epistemology. Looking at the EU vs Brexit it simply has to be given time before a sensible judgement can be rendered. Don't forget that the EU was not formed for economc reasons; it was formed to prevent war or, as I believe, as a bulwark against Communism and the Cold War. In that respect the EU did serve a useful function. Whether it has been a final success economically is a more difficult question to answer as you need a counterfactual and those are always contentious. Of course Brexit means different things to different people. However, economically, if the EU GDP grew at an average of 2.5% between 2020/2040 and UK GDP grew by 1.5% over the same period does provide powerful evidence that, economically at least, it was not a good idea. Of course a counterfactual might be better but the above might be regarded as a substitute.

Absolutely.

I assume that the reason for this is to give people choice. If they are happy with US food standards then they can buy this product at a higher price; banning it means they cannot have it at all. Possibly; I certainly don't defend it.

On what basis do you conclude I am happy? And what am I happy abou?

What I object to is the posting of a link which alludes to a dual tariff proposal which the the NFU has said is ""a significant step forwards"; because it would prevent the US from flooding the UK with cheap imports suddenly morphs into: "Britons to be forced to eat Chlorinated Chicken".

This has its ironic side as the EU was largely a creation of the US as a bulwark in the Cold War. I would doubt if a confederation of doubtful destination and considerable diversity provides a huge geopolitical challenge to the US in the same way that a large unitary state like China does. I wasn't suggesting that the UK should try and recapture its position of 100 years ago but merely that the term "global Britain" does have some resonance in the recent past. Not only am I not telling you I'm not even suggesting it. Straw man. Quite; and I don't blame them.

Who is saying the plan is to bring "this" (presumably the EU)down? What would be the purpose of bringing it "down"? Is it? You know far more than I do. Really? Again you know far more than me. Are you familiar with the term "British Empire" or have you heard the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets"? Not always, just fairly recently.

All of this is based on assumptions about the future; and by future I mean both that of the UK and the EU. Not being able to come up with an understanding of something does not make it irrational. However, if the assumptions you make are outlandish then obviously that will affect any conclusions you come to. As I see it you can make a reasonable case both for staying in and leaving the EU; most countries are not in a bloc like the EU and show no inclination to head in that direction; they are like te vast majority - independent nation states who deal with matters intergovernmentally. At the end of the day we don't know whether leaving the EU was an act of monumental stupidity or the best thing to happen since Cromwell, and won't know for at least 20 years.

How are Britons going to be "forced" to eat chlorinated chicken? Will you have a letter in the post saying that you'll be fined £10,000 unless you eat chlorinated chicken - and you must provide witness statements. Or will you have to attend the local police station where they will shove a plate of chicken at you and say "eat that!" and threaten violence if you don't? We need this cleared up.