Davis Millibands comments

Still can't see why you've quoted verbatim from an article in the Observer whitewave. And not a quotation mark in sight.

Are you referring to the source of David Milibad's article Ana ? I gave a link to it on the country after Brexit thread - it is in one of today's papers.

So now for ana benefit as she is clearly not up to speed with the newspapers, threads etc.

Reference.
David Miliband 13/08/17
Commentary published in the Observer.
Undoubtedly can be found on- line should you want to be assed to look.

So he then looks at what the EU in his estimation stands for.
He describes it as a coalition of democratic states which pledge to advance human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

That he argues is not a threat to Britain, rather it is a team we should be in.

Miliband then goes on to make an argument for us to be in the EEA.

There briefly is Miliband the elder argument.

For what? Not pursuing the matter of sources any further? Well it obviously wasn't going to be forthcoming anyway.

I am hoping that those so critical of Miliband will now produce sensible arguments as to why they are critical.

Thanks ana

Miliband then describes how autocratic leadership is on the march throughout the world.

Even in democratic nations there is a split between uthoritarian and pluralists camps.

Very few countries are immune.

I can't argue with this

I have indeed read your posts whitewave - but have it your own way...

So Europe stands for pluralism, minority rights, the rule of law, international cooperation, -not just the single market.

It isn't just a market. It is a vision of a good society. Rights and holidays for employees. Limits on oligopolies, standards for the environment. The single market stands against a market society.

Whilst I agree with a lot of what has been said here. You will not be surprised to know that I do have some reservations.

Miliband then continues the argument by saying that Brexit is an unparalleled act of economic self- harm. But it wasn't just about the economy it is about a particular vision of society as well as politics and economics.

Yes this is a huge debate, and in my opinion was not addressed at all in the referendum debate.

ana you have obviously not read my posts.

Miliband then goes on to argue that the case against the EU depends on the avoidance of any discussion of the alternative.

So we voted not knowing anything about what was to rep,ace it.

It is a stitch up.

This is the reason why it is essential that parliament or public are given the right to vote between EU membership and what will eventually be the negotiated alternative. When we will know exactly what a post Brexit UK will look like.
It is a democratic demand.

In my view - No one should be frightened of the democratic process.

Democracy didn't end on June 23 2016. It is a process. MPs must exercise their judgement. Delegating to May and Davis, never mind Johnson and Fix, the settlement if a workable alternative to our membership of the EU is a delusion, and abdication.

I absolutely agree with this. A coterie of 3 plus 1 should in no way decide the future of our country for generations to come.

Where do you get all this information from, whitewave?

You rarely give any sources but the posts certainly aren't all in your own words (having read your posts for several years now)

He then looks at the fight back that has begun.
Names such as Kinnock, Hague and Alexander calling for the UK to embrace the EEA.
He suggest Clegg and Hammond are making eminent sense.

I personally have questions over the EEA as I understand that it is outside of the Customs Union, and am not convinced that it would be a sensible course bearing in mind the level of business carried out by so many companies in the UK that use the facilities afforded by the CU.

I can understand Hammonds assertion however that transition arrangements are vital. But I am still unclear about the final landing after these transition arrangements have ended.

The referendum he argues was/is both rash and chaotic. Both timing and content governerned by factions in the Tory party (I think that is unfortunately absolutely correct. Not what Britain needs, rather what certain parts of the Tory party wanted)

Our negotiating position is a mystery.

Yes, even I would suggest to the Brexiters,

Miliband then goes onto argue that the reason for this malaise in both countries has common root.
It is politics based on what you are against rather than what you are trying to achieve, or what you are for.
Both the campaigns against Affordable Care and the EU, have a common trope; the politics of grievance.

In Both campaigns there were outright lies, and a complete refusal to describe, never mind debate, what would replace the status quo.

I absolutely agree with this last point as far as the UK and the referendum and since.
No one can describe a post Brexit Britain.
No one knew what they were voting for when they voted to leave.
The majority of voters voted on lies.

OK now that some have made it clear what they think of David Miliband, without addressing what he actually said, let's look at what he argues in his interview.

He argues that the UK and the USA who previously were justly proud of the quality of their governance are suffering from a degree of dysfunction.
Rather than stability and global leadership there is confusion.

Well looking at America there is undoubtedly confusion and crises since the Trump presidency. Instability has been the order of the day and getting worse with the NK problem. Trump is not providing stable or intelligent global leadership. So yes, in America's case I agree that there is dysfunction in its governance.
Turning to Britain.
The Brexit problem, is for sure providing a period of economic and social instability.
Mays government - with a tiny minority had found it impossible to follow any agenda but is subject to the vagaries of the DUP and the threat of easily losing the vote in parliament. We know that the Tories, like Labour are a very broad church and satisfying all her MPs. Is proving impossible.
This government will be characterised by crises after crises as the months go by.
So yes I agree with his analysis over that.

Roesarered, why are you so anti, surely we need politicians like DM rather than the Comedians we have today running the Foriegn Office and negotiations on Brexit

It is sickening to see how this Country is being abused by extreme greedy and powerful Tabloid owners, extreme RW politicians, like Farage and Boris Brexit brigade. Let's get back to a form of decent normality and create a decent Britain at the decision making tables for us all in Europe and beyond.

Yes a new (Centre) party could be in order Anniebach I am sure it would win back may disillusioned socialists who can not bring themselves to vote for Corbyn and his crazy idea.

I don't agree roses I think DM could save the Labour Party. He would have made an excellent leader and would not have allowed himself to be dictated to by the unions. I would love to see him make a comeback (although appreciate that he would not be made very welcome by JC and his disciples).

I always hoped DM would bide his time and make a come back.

roses, these 'have been' politicians have such an over inflated good opinion of themselves as the nation's saviours - how can it fail?!! Or, god forbid, is it a nice little job in the EU, post parliamentary life that is the draw? - of course not, perish the thought!!!

I have been against a new centre party but now I think I would be for it.

We need David Miliband like a hole in the head.

David Miliband could have saved the Labour Party and he was robbed of the leadership by the looney lefties and the unions who only wanted a puppet that they could control. I like DM and respected him too. He has very little chance of getting back in (whether he wants to or not is another question).