|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In, out, in, out; EU Referendum thread.
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though if we vote to Remain (hopefully, when) there will be a further referendum at some point. It's required under the European Union Act 2011 whenever there is an amendment to one of the treaties that are the basis of the EU.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Chancellor Gideon just gave the best argument for Brexit I've heard so far:
Brexit would hit house prices, says Osborne
I think this might persuade some people I know who are "soft" remainers to vote leave.
Does he really think the idea that membership of the EU will make houses even more unaffordable (which I question), will persuade many people to his cause? Starting to wonder if he's a Brexit mole.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It just reflects who he is talking to. If someone has paid an insanely large amount of money for a house, then the thought of it losing value is unwelcome. He's talking to those who have bought a house when prices were high (anytime in the last few decades), not to those who are trying to buy now.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I always considered myself Liberal remainer but confess to beginning to wobble a bit of late.
28 Countries in the EU with more to join? One central large member which seems to have it's bath-towel draped over the tiller with a reputation for control freakery ?
I mean, if this thing is so fragile that they are telling us it'll fold if Britain leaves then one really has to wonder. But my goodness, we won't half be punished in the interim for party pooping if Brexit wins.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think this article provides a somewhat different dimension.
Roy Searle of the Northumbria Community has been making similar points about the moral basis and its Judaeo-Christian roots, peace as the primary aim of solidarity, and the importance of subsidiarity in the foundations. I've heard very little of any of that in the media coverage, which seems to have focused on economics, fear, polarisations and polemics.
I think there is some value in arguing whether the EU, in its evolution, may sometimes have lost sight of its foundations principles. But that strikes me as an argument in favour of reform.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Does he really think the idea that membership of the EU will make houses even more unaffordable (which I question), will persuade many people to his cause? Starting to wonder if he's a Brexit mole.
To add to what Alan said above; it's an inside baseball thing. The Conservatives have a majority among the over 40s (among under 40s Labour has a majority - but in general elections they are less likely to vote) who largely own their own homes. It's just an attempt to prop up the Conservative 'base' behind remain.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I suppose Osborne just can't suppress his natural inclination to look for wedge issues, even when campaigning for a cause which is about a sense of unity and community at least as much as it is about self-interest.
I'm sure a lot of young, euro-friendly people will read his remarks and say "is he freakin serious ?"
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I always considered myself Liberal remainer but confess to beginning to wobble a bit of late.
28 Countries in the EU with more to join? One central large member which seems to have it's bath-towel draped over the tiller with a reputation for control freakery ?
I mean, if this thing is so fragile that they are telling us it'll fold if Britain leaves then one really has to wonder. But my goodness, we won't half be punished in the interim for party pooping if Brexit wins.
UK/Irish citizen living five miles from the Northern Ireland border - here for family caring, and I study part time in Ulster University Coleraine. I've seen the old days of customs on the ROI side, let alone the security issues around the Troubles - even a slight roll back from the fully open border would be a bloody pain, and all because some bigots want to pull up the drawbridge in Kent. Don't kid me that there is a liberal case for Leave - there isn't one. Ian Duncan Smith's late conversion to populism should prove that.
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Don't kid me that there is a liberal case for Leave - there isn't one. Ian Duncan Smith's late conversion to populism should prove that.
Er, I didn't say there was a liberal case for Leave. Liberals have always been fully committed to Britain's membership of EU. Thing is the Tories climbed out of the mire on the shoulders of the Liberals to win last year's Election, so they are now virtually a non-entity.
Maybe now Labour and Tory have apparently converged in the centre there isn't a need for a Liberal moderating influence. All shall be revealed on June 24th as to just how many 'bigots' there are about the place.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Does he really think the idea that membership of the EU will make houses even more unaffordable (which I question), will persuade many people to his cause? Starting to wonder if he's a Brexit mole.
To add to what Alan said above; it's an inside baseball thing. The Conservatives have a majority among the over 40s (among under 40s Labour has a majority - but in general elections they are less likely to vote) who largely own their own homes. It's just an attempt to prop up the Conservative 'base' behind remain.
Yep. Whilst I have never bought the notion of Osborne as the supposed political genius many claim he is I think he's right tactically with this one.
People who worry about house prices dropping and might vote to leave will be persuaded by this argument. People who think (know) prices are stupid and are voting remain anyway are unlikely to change to leave in significant numbers.
AFZ
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think this article provides a somewhat different dimension.
Given that it states plainly that decreasing the sovereignty of individual nation states and eliminating the democratic process in favour of following the consensus of an unelected oligarchy were foundational aims of the EU, it confirms to me that Leave is the only way I can vote.
Naturally, anyone who doesn't much care about such archaic and irrelevant concepts as self-determination or democracy is free to vote Remain.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think this article provides a somewhat different dimension.
Given that it states plainly that decreasing the sovereignty of individual nation states and eliminating the democratic process in favour of following the consensus of an unelected oligarchy were foundational aims of the EU
While it certainly states the former, I can't see where it says the latter. Nowhere does it suggest that the EU is anti-democratic, and in its stated aim of subsidiarity, is profoundly pro-demos.
So, if you're intent on making an idol of the nation state, then yes, the EU is your worst nightmare come true. I don't worship lines on a map, so I don't feel the same way.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think this article provides a somewhat different dimension.
Given that it states plainly that decreasing the sovereignty of individual nation states and eliminating the democratic process in favour of following the consensus of an unelected oligarchy were foundational aims of the EU, it confirms to me that Leave is the only way I can vote.
Naturally, anyone who doesn't much care about such archaic and irrelevant concepts as self-determination or democracy is free to vote Remain.
The European Commission is hardly democratic but the House of Lords wins any battle for the title of "Unelected oligarchy" outside of the College of Cardinals and the Marylebone Cricket Club.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
The European Commission isn't meant to be democratic. That's why they don't make any decisions.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The European Commission isn't meant to be democratic. That's why they don't make any decisions.
OK, the Council of Ministers makes decisions. But how often does the Council act contrarily to the Commission? I'm sure they do, but they are hand in glove and the Council of Ministers isn't much more democratic anyway.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
The Commission can propose legislation, but it's entirely subservient to the European parliament, and to the Council of Ministers (who are the elected heads of the governments of the 28 member states).
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The House of Commons isn't exactly a shining example of democracy. It's an intermittently elected dictatorship which much of the time is relatively benign, but when a party can have an overall majority on only 35% of the vote (2005), and another can increase its share of the vote by only 0.8% on the previous election and have an overall majority on under 37% of the vote (2015), the UK Parliament cannot claim to any credentials as representative democracy.
The argument that a leave vote is a vote for democracy is delusional.
[ 22. May 2016, 21:05: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Given that it states plainly that decreasing the sovereignty of individual nation states and eliminating the democratic process in favour of following the consensus of an unelected oligarchy were foundational aims of the EU
While it certainly states the former, I can't see where it says the latter. Nowhere does it suggest that the EU is anti-democratic, and in its stated aim of subsidiarity, is profoundly pro-demos.
What you call "pro-demos" is based on a political view of what is best for people, and one that has historically had little time for any suggestion that the people concerned should have a say in that. We've seen that on this very thread, with all the comments about people just voting for whatever the media moguls tell them, which sound to me a lot like saying the poor misguided dears shouldn't be given too much of a say because they'll just choose the wrong thing. Democracy, on the other hand, is all about the people being able to decide for themselves - regardless of whether what they decide is what the left-wing intelligentsia thinks is right.
The part of the article to which I was referring is this:
quote:
A final constituent element of solidarity is the commitment to political harmony. In contemporary debates over the EU much is made of the “democratic deficit” – that is, the extent to which European institutions fail adequately to demonstrate their democratic accountability. The early European institutions were designed in part precisely to avoid
democratic clashes of the Westminster parliamentary style. The Commission was meant to be a-political and based on consensus (there was also no majority voting). This reflects
a wider concern among the founders of the European project to prioritise harmony (a term that appears remarkably frequently across the two treaties in question).
Sounds to me like that's saying "harmony" is more important than the democratic process.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
To me it reads more like a commitment to develop a form of democratic representation that emphasises harmony rather than confrontation, democracy working to construct consensus among those elected to represent the people (and, thus achieve something that is as close as possible to being acceptable to the majority of the people) rather than the Westminster model of a Government representing a minority (just a larger minority than the Opposition) producing policies that are (presumably) acceptable to those who voted for them but quite possible not acceptable to the majority of the electorate.
I think there can be a very good case made that harmonious consensus is more democratic than other models.
The EU is a unique set of different bodies established to represent different groups within Europe, and to hold those in tension and harmony. We have a directly elected Parliament, representing the people of Europe. We have a Council of ministers representing the different governments within Europe. And, we have the Commission which represents Europe as a whole entity. Now, it might be claimed (probably with some justification) that the balance between those three interests is imperfect - but, it's a tripod that will continue to stand even if not perfect.
The question is, is there a more democratic way of having a body representing the whole of Europe other than the Commission of a-political appointees? Without any sort of pan-European political party system you can't get a government formed by the largest party in the Parliament, no matter how many forms of coalition you employ. You could directly elect members, but then how does that differ from the Parliament? And, even if those options work then you have the Commission beholden to the interests of individual citizens which removes the leg of the stool that represents Europe as a complete entity, and you create two legs representing the citizens against the one representing the governments.
It's a difficult situation to sort out (if it needs sorting out at all). One that is the direct result of a bunch of different sovereign nations (who all wish to remain sovereign) joining into a Union that is more than just a free-trade zone and common market but a long way short of being a federal state.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sounds to me like that's saying "harmony" is more important than the democratic process.
It sounds to me like that's saying "reaching an agreement is more important than allowing one group of ideologues to impose their view on others".
Which is exactly what they are saying. You might prefer another way, but don't make it sound sinister when it's not.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's a difficult situation to sort out (if it needs sorting out at all). One that is the direct result of a bunch of different sovereign nations (who all wish to remain sovereign) joining into a Union that is more than just a free-trade zone and common market but a long way short of being a federal state.
The tension here is between those who believe it should only be a free trade zone and common market and those who think it should be a federal state. The Commission has long been dominated by the latter, as have the governments of some of the most prominent players. British politics and public opinion has tended more towards the former. Now that Cameron has got it in writing that the UK is exempt from "ever closer political integration" it still remains to be seen if the British public thinks those aims are best served from within or without.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though, if the intention has been to create a federal European state the Commission and prominent European nations has done nothing towards forwarding that aim. Quite the opposite much of the time, with national governments basically trying to use European instruments to benefit themselves rather than Europe as a whole. The claim by some in the Leave camp that Europe is becoming a new German empire (or French, depending on who you're listening to) is a recognition that Europe is not moving towards a federal nation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sounds to me like that's saying "harmony" is more important than the democratic process.
It sounds quite waffly to me, but I would interpret it as saying the EU is set up to find solutions that are acceptable to all members rather than merely a majority of members.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Marvin
How do national democracies control the increasing power of multinationals and the increasing impacts of globalisation when they do not operate in the best interests of their people?
How do they do that better than larger federal associations of national governments?
I think the growing threats to national sovereignty, as historically understood, are much more to be found by looking at both globalisation and the behaviour of multinational companies. Compared with the reach of those factors, the effects of EU membership have been pretty small beer.
Don't misunderstand me. I think economic globalisation is both a mixed blessing and a mixed curse. The argument is about sovereignty; if the effects of globalisation and multinationals are becoming a curse, what can a national government do better to preserve sovereignty than a multinational association? What practical steps can it take?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Marvin
How do national democracies control the increasing power of multinationals and the increasing impacts of globalisation when they do not operate in the best interests of their people?
How do they do that better than larger federal associations of national governments?
I think the growing threats to national sovereignty, as historically understood, are much more to be found by looking at both globalisation and the behaviour of multinational companies. Compared with the reach of those factors, the effects of EU membership have been pretty small beer.
Don't misunderstand me. I think economic globalisation is both a mixed blessing and a mixed curse. The argument is about sovereignty; if the effects of globalisation and multinationals are becoming a curse, what can a national government do better to preserve sovereignty than a multinational association? What practical steps can it take?
A government could vilify them, accusing them of defrauding honest taxpayers and claiming what they shouldn't while not showing the slightest inclination in paying their fair share.
No, let's not bother. We've got the disabled and benefits claimants for that. Moreover, they don't have the accounting, legal and PR talent to defend themselves either.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I'd suggest that the best thing you could do would be to set Jacob Rees-Mogg onto them: he certainly had the number of the Governor of the BoE (and his flunkies) yesterday.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd suggest that the best thing you could do would be to set Jacob Rees-Mogg onto them: he certainly had the number of the Governor of the BoE (and his flunkies) yesterday.
I find that very hard to believe. Have you got a link?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Here's a link.
I've read the various accounts and watched the video excerpt. My reading is that Mark Carney played the ball and Jacob Rees Mogg played the man.
Playing the man seems to be the Brexit tactic. Anyone who provides forecasts of bad outcomes as a result of Brexit must be biased, or have a hidden agenda. I have not yet seen any pro-Brexit commentator attack the forecasts on the basis of their methodology. Playing the man involves a lot less work of course.
[ 25. May 2016, 14:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd suggest that the best thing you could do would be to set Jacob Rees-Mogg onto them: he certainly had the number of the Governor of the BoE (and his flunkies) yesterday.
Thank you Barnabas 62. Having watched the extract, L'organist, I drew exactly the opposite conclusion from you. The Governor of the BoE is clearly right to have given the public the advice he has given. Jacob Rees-Mogg is clearly wrong to have said he shouldn't have done.
He might as well be arguing that the Chief Medical Officer shouldn't advise against smoking because the taxation implications would be dabbling in politics.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Playing the man involves a lot less work of course.
And it is effective. It allows the audience to avoid actually thinking for themselves.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Which is what the politicians want. Get people used to not thinking for themselves, let them accept that other people can do their thinking for them. A thinking electorate is uncontrollable.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is what the politicians want. Get people used to not thinking for themselves, let them accept that other people can do their thinking for them. A thinking electorate is uncontrollable.
Careful, you'll have democracy breaking out.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
No fear of that, I'm afraid.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is what the politicians want. Get people used to not thinking for themselves, let them accept that other people can do their thinking for them. A thinking electorate is uncontrollable.
In the current context, I'm not sure that an unthinking electorate is controllable either.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
A large proportion of the Electorate thought the 03 Iraq intervention was a bad idea, or at the best laden with risk. It didn't stop the Establishment pressing ahead.
Once in a while joe public is allowed to put a cross on a piece of paper in the belief it will change the course of future events. I'm very dubious as to whether that ever really is the case.
As for this ridiculous EU Referendum. If we think the Remain fear campaign has so far been lacking in imagination, wait a while, we haven't had the emotional blackmail yet....You know the bit whereby we are endangering the future of our kids if we vote leave? If the benefit of being in the EU is so obvious, coupled with the fact that it's filling all our pockets in the most spectacular way then why on earth is the opportunity even being presented to ditch our membership?
The thought of a return to the past in terms of war on the European Continent is the only thing that might cause me to vote remain. OTOH if this EU is developing into a bad marriage then there is no saying that tensions won't continue to rise by staying put.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the current context, I'm not sure that an unthinking electorate is controllable either.
Up to a point, but I think the 'problem' now is that a new equilibrium has been reached, so rather than de-escalating the situation, each politician believes that they can get a small amount of advantage every time they triangulate on some edge issue.
If you have been following the expenses story, it's pretty clear that this is the direction that the Tories took prior to the last election - both in importing Lynton Crosby, as well as practices from US (possibly in some ways trying to substitute technology for manpower). The various leaflet campaigns in the London mayoral election were just the most visible manifestation of this.
Should they chose to use the same tactics internally, a future leadership election could be fairly nasty.
[ 27. May 2016, 09:18: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
why on earth is the opportunity even being presented to ditch our membership?
One word. Tories.
quote:
The thought of a return to the past in terms of war on the European Continent is the only thing that might cause me to vote remain. OTOH if this EU is developing into a bad marriage then there is no saying that tensions won't continue to rise by staying put.
As someone on twitter has said:
Pre-EU:
War, war, war, war, war, war, war, war
EU:
Arguments about bananas
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Call me boring but I'd sooner have arguments about bananas.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Call me boring but I'd sooner have arguments about bananas.
Then in spite of your hesitations, you should vote remain.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Then in spite of your hesitations, you should vote remain.
Indeed I should.
However, like the confirmed pacifist who lied about his age to join up in 1914, I have a tendency towards being swayed by the climate.
< He was over 45 as opposed to under 18 >
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As I've a postal vote, I have now voted. Because of the Bank Holiday, it won't reach the Returning Officer for a few days, but it means I don't have to listen to ghastlies like Boris, Grayling or Andrea Leadsom any more.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, we voted by post yesterday. Two Remainers clocked up.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As someone on twitter has said:
Pre-EU:
War, war, war, war, war, war, war, war
EU:
Arguments about bananas
People are pretty bad at thinking about time, in my experience. It's as if they think a mere 50 or 60 years without a conflict between Western European powers is significant. There have been plenty of similar periods in history, and all of them ended in war for one reason or another. Maybe the EU itself will be the cause of the next one?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The argument that the EU has brought us peace is probably the weakest of the reasons to remain in the EU. For a start, there has been an extended period of time while there has not been a war between European powers, but it's certainly not been a time without war - even within Europe.
And, of course, it's ultimately a argument from correlation. There's been peace between European nation while we've had the EU. Though I'm certain the EU has contributed to that - most importantly by bringing considerable prosperity to all the nations in the EU (even Greece and Portugal are much more prosperous now than they were 50 years ago) - I don't think anyone can say whether or not we would have had a similar period without war between European nations without the EU. Other factors have certainly contributed - NATO, the US funded reconstruction of western Europe, the simple decline of European nations as global superpowers and the end of empire being among them.
There are so many very strong arguments for staying in the EU that I don't quite see why people use the weak ones.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Yes, my guess is that the nuclear-backed standoff between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was a bigger factor contributing to non-conflict(if not outright peace) in Europe than was the EEC/EU.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The strong arguments are though all linked to prosperity, together with increased prospects of acquiring wealth or self-betterment of some sort.
The Leavers hung up on home rule, control of our own borders and wotnot aren't interested in all that carrot stuff. If it is possible to scare to shit out of folks by suggesting Western Europe could again see the type of conflict we all believe ended with AH blowing his brains out, then that stick will be used by Remainers .
But as Marvin has said it would be a moot point as to whether the tension caused by holding unwilling Member States together or allowing them the freedom to leave was, in the unhappy event of future hostilities, the actual cause.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The strong arguments are though all linked to prosperity, together with increased prospects of acquiring wealth or self-betterment of some sort.
The Leavers hung up on home rule, control of our own borders and wotnot aren't interested in all that carrot stuff. If it is possible to scare to shit out of folks by suggesting Western Europe could again see the type of conflict we all believe ended with AH blowing his brains out, then that stick will be used by Remainers .
But as Marvin has said it would be a moot point as to whether the tension caused by holding unwilling Member States together or allowing them the freedom to leave was, in the unhappy event of future hostilities, the actual cause.
Serious question, not rhetorical...
What portion of the Leavers do you think would be swayed over to Remain by the threat of another war?
I'm asking because, from what I've seen, a lot of Leavers are the kind of people who talk about how the EU represents the Second Coming Of Hitler, or other similarly fascistic scenarios. I know that's probably hyperbole, but still, the fact that they so easily associate Europe with Nazism makes me think they'd have a hard time imagining that anything in a Leave timeline could be worse than Remain.
[ 29. May 2016, 19:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'm asking because, from what I've seen, a lot of Leavers are the kind of people who talk about how the EU represents the Second Coming Of Hitler, or other similarly fascistic scenarios. I know that's probably hyperbole
A lot of Leavers seem to have a heavy dose of nostalgia about some mythical past when Britain was both democratic and in charge of it's own destiny (or to put it rather less tactfully, a view of Britain as equal parts Downton Abbey and Trumptonshire).
In that sense, I think that there are a lot of commonalities with the movement behind Trump in the US.
Of course, both movements will fail and fail catastrophically, whether or not we stay in the EU or Trump wins.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I think there could be a significant number of Leavers who, like myself, could be made to think twice about inviting instability to their doorstep.
There has been nut-ideas for some time that Germany has a hidden agenda of supremecy, neutering Britain into a position that it couldn't fight another war. Personally I think, since German reunification, such a position may already have been reached, meaning we'd do far better to stay on good terms with the old foe.
Johnson was a bit foolish to make comparisons between today's EU and the proposed Nazi super-state that never happened. Anyone with half a brain knows this is not the case.
If the Remain side overplay the 'could be war' bit, it starts to look like some kind of veiled threat. That will likely increase the suspicions of don't know voters who are already somewhat disturbed by the intensity negative campaigning.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
