 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In, out, in, out; EU Referendum thread.
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's a sad fact (as Bonhoffer pointed out) that most people will not exercise their vote in the defence of the rights of others if their own do not currently appear to be threatened.
If we vote solely for our own interests, we do not much deserve the right to vote.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Successive Tory governments have taken away a lot of the rights of workers to unionise and strike, without any help (or hindrance) from the EU.
I reckon it would have been a lot worse had we not has the EU constraining.
What are you basing that thought on, though? I mean, if this government was so desperate to screw us all over but only being restrained by the EU then don't you find it odd that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are in the "Remain" camp? If Big Businesses are so keen to throw off the shackles of EU regulation and really stick it to their workers, why are so many of their CEOs in the "Remain" camp?
I think all this bluster about Evil Tories, Media Moguls and Multinational Corporations is just a scare tactic to frighten people into doing what its proponents want them to do. It's a con. A lie. It's "don't leave the village because there are creatures in the woods".
Marvin, I think people are trying to tell you that this isn't a simple, binary issue. Some want it considered that way, but it isn't. Sure Britain in the EU isn't ideal, but it is known whereas Britain out of the EU is not known.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And no, I don't care whether it conforms to a perfectly spherical model of democracy, I care about what helps those with the least the most.
That's the sort of thinking that can (and has) lead to revolution/coup and subsequent removal of the right to vote because ordinary people don't know what's best for them and only The Party (and/or The Glorious Leader) can be trusted to do what's right.
FWIW, I think 'the EU is necessary to protect our rights' is a weak argument for Remain.
That said, practically every other democratic system in the world includes some checks and balances against the 'tyranny of the majority', in the shape of a written, hard-to-change constitution that sets out the rights of the citizens, and an independent judiciary that can strike down laws not in conformity with the constitution. Britain does not, and ISTM Britain is particularly vulnerable in this respect because, as observed above, our tyranny is of the plurality, not the majority.
To me this is more an argument for constitutional reform, but in the absence of such reform, it's arguable that the EU performs the checks and balances that are absent from our system of government.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Either EU membership is better for ordinary people, which means the EU can interfere with UK government policy, or the EU is powerless to affect UK government policy in which case it's not any better for ordinary people at all. You can't have it both ways depending on which best supports your argument at the time.
I think that it's by way of a counterargument that's attained independent life. It's countering the claim that the EU does nothing for us except strangle us in red tape: the argument is that in fact we benefit overall from the regulations that the EU has introduced. You are of course quite right that if the UK government had the political will it could introduce the regulations on its own (though generally speaking they seem not to).
It makes sense to share research subsidies with the people who are one hour's flight away in similar timezones than with the people who are five hours' flight away in another timezone.
That said, although you're extolling the virtues of UK democracy on this thread, on other threads in the past when the subject of democracy has come up without the EU context you've complained that you live in a safe seat, and even if you didn't a single vote doesn't make a difference anyway.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Marvin, I think people are trying to tell you that this isn't a simple, binary issue.
Yes.
I've been majoring on Brexit in the context of globalisation. In the face of the increasing social and economic effects of globalisation, there is no "going back" to some kind of nostalgic view of sovereignty. The Brexit decision needs to be viewed in that context.
There is multinational support for remaining in Europe and there is multinational support for withdrawal. Multinationals are involved in lobbying at both national and EU level so their public pronouncements are all about positioning for ongoing negotiations over freedoms for themselves as entities.
It seems obvious to argue that they have increasing power and influence over our lives as a result of increasing globalisation. Sometimes, that influence is for the better, but only when it serves their interests as well as ours. Otherwise, there are questions of control and regulation to be considered. That also seems obvious.
So the issue is do we do better in negotiations over such matters as members of a larger family of nations - or on our own?
[ 02. June 2016, 10:00: 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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That said, practically every other democratic system in the world includes some checks and balances against the 'tyranny of the majority', in the shape of a written, hard-to-change constitution that sets out the rights of the citizens, and an independent judiciary that can strike down laws not in conformity with the constitution. Britain does not, and ISTM Britain is particularly vulnerable in this respect because, as observed above, our tyranny is of the plurality, not the majority.
On the other hand, not having a set-in-stone constitution means we don't get any of the problems that come with something written for a bygone age being used in the modern day (e.g. the whole Second Amendment business in America). We're a lot more free to decide what laws are appropriate for the modern day without having to fret about what our great-great-great-great-grandfathers would think.
For reviewing, amending and possibly striking down proposed laws we have the House of Lords. OK, it's rammed full of political appointees that have the job for life - but the same would apply to any putative Supreme Court as well. So would the Parliament Act.
As for Britain being uniquely vulnerable, I'm afraid I don't see much evidence of that risk in our history, especially given how many other countries with written constitutions and democratic elections have nevertheless fallen into dictatorship (be it actual or de facto).
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That said, although you're extolling the virtues of UK democracy on this thread, on other threads in the past when the subject of democracy has come up without the EU context you've complained that you live in a safe seat, and even if you didn't a single vote doesn't make a difference anyway.
Context matters. I think smaller nations are better in terms of people's votes (and therefore people themselves) actually mattering to their government, so when the discussion is about splitting up the UK (Scottish independence) I'll be in favour and when the discussion is about merging the UK into a larger political entity (the EU) I'll be against.
I think UK democracy doesn't work as well as it could because it's too big. To suggest that because I think that I should therefore support it becoming part of an even bigger political entity is nuts.
[ 02. June 2016, 10:32: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
I think the EU has become a scapegoat / excuse for the UK government. 10% of our legislation comes from the EU - and much of it is connected with worker's rights, safety, data protection etc - not the shape of bananas like UKIP would have us believe. That leaves 90% that the Government has direct control of.
Some of that 90% is stuff they would never do anyway - even without the EU - but it's far easier to blame them for not doing stuff rather than admit it's because they don't want too. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The Leave campaign reminds me of someone who wants a divorce but assumes that this will have no impact on their lives whatsoever. That their partner will just hand over the family home, car, kids and all the assets without a fight. And won't notice or mind they've spent the last few months bad mouthing them all the place.
If people want to to vote Leave, then that's fine. It's their demogratic right and all that. But expecting it not to have any impact is bonkers. We get certain things because we are members of the EU. If we leave we won't get them anymore. That's not scare-mongering. It's a simple fact. And anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
I remain to make my mind up, but every time someone makes the case that "we'd better not upset the other countries in case they take it out on us"or "we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.
I don't want to be a member of any club that people are scared of leaving because of the other members.
That's not a club, it's a protection racket.
[ 02. June 2016, 12:56: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
"we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.
There's a less emotive way of seeing this; we can't expect to leave and get as good a deal as we currently have because simple politics and timing won't allow it - not for a fairly long time if ever.
The idea that "we are so wonderful that we will get as good a deal as we want and sod everyone else" seems to be willfully ignorant.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Leave campaign reminds me of someone who wants a divorce but assumes that this will have no impact on their lives whatsoever. That their partner will just hand over the family home, car, kids and all the assets without a fight.
But, when we're told "it's just a temporary separation while we sort some things out" it's not a big issue to hand over the home, the car, the assets. It's when having done so we're told that it's over for good and now those assets have been handed over good luck at trying to get them back. Then you can add betrayal to the mix of confused emotions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Leave campaign reminds me of someone who wants a divorce but assumes that this will have no impact on their lives whatsoever. That their partner will just hand over the family home, car, kids and all the assets without a fight.
But, when we're told "it's just a temporary separation while we sort some things out" it's not a big issue to hand over the home, the car, the assets. It's when having done so we're told that it's over for good and now those assets have been handed over good luck at trying to get them back. Then you can add betrayal to the mix of confused emotions.
There is that. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
betjemaniac, I'm not saying that we shouldn't leave because the other countries will then gang up on us and give us a wedgy. But the level of dishonesty of the leave campaign and their dismissal of anything that doesn't fit their narrative of unicorns and rainbows post Brexit as "Project Fear" is stupid. Chris Stiles is right.
quote:
There's a less emotive way of seeing this; we can't expect to leave and get as good a deal as we currently have because simple politics and timing won't allow it - not for a fairly long time if ever.
The idea that "we are so wonderful that we will get as good a deal as we want and sod everyone else" seems to be willfully ignorant.
I'd have more respect for the leave campaign if they just came right out and said that leaving will be difficult, some bad shit will go down but the good things you'll get will be worth it. (Problem is, they don't seem to have anything about apart from "We hates the EU", "Migrants go home" and er ... That's it. Even they admit that all the spending promises they've made are just illustrations of what could happen)
Tubbs
[ 02. June 2016, 13:54: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So the issue is do we do better in negotiations over such matters as members of a larger family of nations - or on our own?
It seems obvious that the answer to that question depends on the degree to which the rest of the "family" want the same things that we do.
If a group of people more or less agree on a desired outcome, then they do better negotiating for it en bloc rather than as individuals. If the group can't agree on a common outcome, they probably do worse negotiating as a group than they would as individuals.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Leave campaign reminds me of someone who wants a divorce but assumes that this will have no impact on their lives whatsoever. That their partner will just hand over the family home, car, kids and all the assets without a fight. And won't notice or mind they've spent the last few months bad mouthing them all the place.
Some divorces are perfectly amicable. The difference is the "bad mouthing them all over the place" that you assert in your last sentence. It's possible for a couple to decide that they want different things, aren't compatible any more, and that they'd be better off apart, without any bad-mouthing.
This happens.
If you divorce someone, it doesn't have to mean that you think they're a bad person - it can just mean that you don't think you're compatible. If one of the parties thinks that the way they think and behave is the only possible way to be, then they're not going to be able to think that, and so will be bound to think that divorce implies "you're a bad person".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If a group of people more or less agree on a desired outcome, then they do better negotiating for it en bloc rather than as individuals. If the group can't agree on a common outcome, they probably do worse negotiating as a group than they would as individuals.
And if all but one of a group want one thing, the only chance the dissenter has of getting what they want is to negotiate as an individual.
--------------------
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 betjemaniac:
I remain to make my mind up, but every time someone makes the case that "we'd better not upset the other countries in case they take it out on us"or "we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.
I don't want to be a member of any club that people are scared of leaving because of the other members.
That's not a club, it's a protection racket.
That's not how it works though, unless you view your local sports club reserving its facilities for use by its members, as a 'protection racket'.
On the other hand, non-members inflicting themselves on the club, demanding equal treatment and refusing to pay their dues, is simple yobbishness.
That, I'm afraid, is the Brexit campaign in a nutshell.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
On the other hand, non-members inflicting themselves on the club, demanding equal treatment and refusing to pay their dues, is simple yobbishness.
That, I'm afraid, is the Brexit campaign in a nutshell.
Here's an alternative characterization: It's more like if your local sports club was also a dining club and maid service. The Brexit people want to play football, and the occasional round of golf, but don't like the food, and prefer to clean their own houses.
Whether or not they can negotiate for that, or whether the sports club will say that it's an all or nothing proposition, and if you want to play football you have to pay for our cleaners as well, is an open question, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable thing to want.
(This analogy isn't very fair - the various bits of EU regulation that the Brexitters would like to avoid have more in common with the free trade area than a maid service has with a football team. I think your analogy is equally unfair in the other direction, and reality lies in the middle.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If a group of people more or less agree on a desired outcome, then they do better negotiating for it en bloc rather than as individuals. If the group can't agree on a common outcome, they probably do worse negotiating as a group than they would as individuals.
And if all but one of a group want one thing, the only chance the dissenter has of getting what they want is to negotiate as an individual.
Countries can negotiate on both the national and multinational level - and do so. Finding out what are common interests and what are remaining national interests is just normal in making trading arrangements. It's not a binary game.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Finding out what are common interests and what are remaining national interests is just normal in making trading arrangements. It's not a binary game.
But isn't that (partly) the point of the Brexit discussion? Finding out whether what we think our interests are is the same as what the EU thinks its interests are? Because being an EU member means that you are not free to decide for yourself that you have a different interest from the rest of the EU on something which is an EU competence.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I remain to make my mind up, but every time someone makes the case that "we'd better not upset the other countries in case they take it out on us"or "we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.
I don't want to be a member of any club that people are scared of leaving because of the other members.
That's not a club, it's a protection racket.
This is the dilemma afflicting many voters. The Remain tactics have been something of a shambles from the start, and as they insist on keeping it up, (this morning we had it from the TUC), then the chances of it backfiring become ever more real.
People will generally be led rather the driven.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht
There is a dynamic relationship between treaty agreements and challenges of the day. Sometimes interests converge, sometimes they diverge, so you get tensions. The strategic question is whether there are sufficient remaining common interests in play to make multinational co-operation still valuable. The founders of the EU saw a creeping convergence, by agreement, over many years. Saying the game is no longer worth the candle on the basis of current difficulties is also saying it will never be worth the candle again. That's the problem with making it a referendum choice. It's not just about balancing advantages and disadvantages today.
[ 02. June 2016, 18:01: 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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The strategic question is whether there are sufficient remaining common interests in play to
make multinational co-operation still valuable.
Sure, but cooperation and convergence are different things. Cooperation is what I do with my friends when we do things as a group. A bunch of us do something together, and if someone doesn't fancy it, then they are free to sit this one out and join in with the next thing.
That's not what the EU offers.
quote:
The founders of the EU saw a creeping convergence, by agreement, over many years. Saying the game is no longer worth the candle on the basis of current difficulties is also saying it will never be worth the candle again.
No - it's saying that on average, over the long term, it's not worth it. That's a different statement from saying that it will never be worth it.
I am not a proponent of Brexit. I'm not a fan of the EU, its political ambitions or its "ever closer union", but I don't think there's a path to get from where we are now to the universe I'd like to be in that doesn't involve unacceptably bad short to medium term risks. This also means that I think the referendum was a tactical error (because I worry that a "remain" vote will give the federalists more encouragement).
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
In principle, I'm in favour of working towards an ever closer union, provided that unity is not mistaken for uniformity. So, to judge from his writings, was Robert Schuman, one of the founders of the EU. Despite its imperfections, I think the EU has and can still make a constructive contribution towards that hope.
But then, I'm a wartime baby. I grew up in a world repairing itself from the appalling damage caused by WW2. That still influences my hopes and my fears.
--------------------
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
..... it's fair to say my thinking has been influenced WW2 even though a 60s baby. My parents both came through it unscathed but passed on to us kids that feeling of history repeating itself when, as teenagers, they witnessed rumblings of war in the 30s became grim reality.
However when they voted in 1975 they wasn't any talk of war in Europe because the Cold War with the Soviets was dominant. Very strange that talk and fear of war has now silently crept back into the Western European language and thoughts when discussing EU unity.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
I would have thought that EU unity was the best preventive of war in Europe, and the best defence against non-EU warmongers.
Have filled in my polling card, but how, is my secret.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I remain to make my mind up, but every time someone makes the case that "we'd better not upset the other countries in case they take it out on us"or "we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.
You may or may not find this site useful. I came away thinking that the Leave campaign may be focusing mainly on things that EU membership isn't actually directly involved in so leaving won't change much, which is a depressing thought. I don't want to vote Remain but it's starting to look like the least worst option.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The rebel in me says Leave, the level headed, rational thinking part of me says Remain.
In fact, as in 75, the wording has been carefully crafted. The word "leave" being associated with something drastic and dangerous as opposed to the word "remain" conjuring up feelings of security, together with the notion that things will stay the same.
Also, the cherry on top? Picking the Referendum date close to a all-European football tournament. Well...you know, if you want the desired response you have to press the right buttons. Now all that remains is to see if the Remain strategy wins the result.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, part of me wants to say bog off to the whole stupid fucking idea of a referendum. But how do I do that?
But then again the sight of some of the Leave campaigners in their charabanc, rather like an awayday run by Community Service, is so ghastly and parodic, that my hand wanders to Remain. This is probably a gross ad hominem, but so be it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But then again the sight of some of the Leave campaigners in their charabanc, rather like an awayday run by Community Service, is so ghastly and parodic, that my hand wanders to Remain.
It does start to smack of lunatics and asylums and so on. One does wonder as to how and why chest-thumping has become vogue 2016.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
To the Leave campaigners I have just this to say. Pack your bags and leave.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
There was a bizarre inversion of the "Without the EU, the Tory's can sell off Britain" in the Telegraph (with Corbyn as the bad guy). I'm not sure what to make of it.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
To the Leave campaigners I have just this to say. Pack your bags and leave.
Of course, that joke can go the other way as well.
"To the Ramain campaigners: Stay right where you are. Don't come any closer."
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
There was a bizarre inversion of the "Without the EU, the Tory's can sell off Britain" in the Telegraph (with Corbyn as the bad guy). I'm not sure what to make of it.
I think I uderstand this part...
quote:
"Without the EU, the Tory's can sell off Britain"
But what was the inverted, anti-Corbyn version? Were they saying that, if Britain stays in the EU, Corbyn can better implement his harebrained socialist schemes?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
As much as like the cut of Obi-wan Corbyn's jib, the EU provides basic protections against all kinds of extremism, from equality issues all the way to property rights, taking in privacy and freedom of association along the way. To join and stay a member of the EU, you have to have a parliamentary democracy coupled with free and fair elections.
That's the bulwark against tyranny the EU gives. It's a guarantee for both left and right.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But what was the inverted, anti-Corbyn version? Were they saying that, if Britain stays in the EU, Corbyn can better implement his harebrained socialist schemes? [/QB]
That if we Brexited (so not a total inversion), Corbyn would get into power because reasons, then basically as you put it, word for word.
quote:
...just the sort of environment, in other words, in which Jeremy Corbyn and his madcap ideas could thrive.
And if he ever came to power, he would, once outside the EU, be able to do more or less whatever he wanted.
...
I guess I ought to put the source, (but sorry hosts)
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I remain to make my mind up, but every time someone makes the case that "we'd better not upset the other countries in case they take it out on us"or "we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.
You may or may not find this site useful. I came away thinking that the Leave campaign may be focusing mainly on things that EU membership isn't actually directly involved in so leaving won't change much, which is a depressing thought. I don't want to vote Remain but it's starting to look like the least worst option.
I certainly had the feeling that people were obsessing over things that leaving the EU wouldn't change following a particularly depressing discussion on Facebook yesterday.
In the meantime, the BBC have an interesting article on possible twists after a vote to leave. That we pretty much stay anyway....
BBC article
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
There was a bizarre inversion of the "Without the EU, the Tory's can sell off Britain" in the Telegraph (with Corbyn as the bad guy). I'm not sure what to make of it.
Was that Janet Daley's piece?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But what was the inverted, anti-Corbyn version? Were they saying that, if Britain stays in the EU, Corbyn can better implement his harebrained socialist schemes?
That if we Brexited (so not a total inversion), Corbyn would get into power because reasons, then basically as you put it, word for word.
quote:
...just the sort of environment, in other words, in which Jeremy Corbyn and his madcap ideas could thrive.
And if he ever came to power, he would, once outside the EU, be able to do more or less whatever he wanted.
...
I guess I ought to put the source, (but sorry hosts) [/QB]
I see, so a right-wing, pro-EU argument. To balance off all the right-wing, anti-EU arguments.
This referendum must be a real brain-strainer for the kind of people who decide how to vote by saying "Well, if all these right-wingers[or left-wingers, depending] are for it, ya damn right I'm against it."
Not that I really have a lot of sympathy for those kind of voters.
[ 06. June 2016, 15:59: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
This referendum must be a real brain-strainer for the kind of people who decide how to vote by saying "Well, if all these right-wingers[or left-wingers, depending] are for it, ya damn right I'm against it."
Not that I really have a lot of sympathy for those kind of voters.
OTOH when both Donald Trump and Putin think Brexit is a good idea, together with David Icke and various far-right groups, you don't necessarily want to be on that side. The alternative is deciding to be in the same camp as a bunch of quite unlikeable and untrustworthy politicians from various parties supporting the opposite view. There is no Good v Evil in this, neither Leave nor Remain are coming out of it at all well at present.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
This referendum must be a real brain-strainer for the kind of people who decide how to vote by saying "Well, if all these right-wingers[or left-wingers, depending] are for it, ya damn right I'm against it."
Not that I really have a lot of sympathy for those kind of voters. [/QB]
There are times when I wonder if that was the point, claim a mandate (I thought that meant having responsibilities too) from the winning side when convenient and get the credit for 'saving Britain' (from whichever loses).
And when it comes to the not so good bits, blame others for supporting the winning side and be the party that ...
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
This referendum must be a real brain-strainer for the kind of people who decide how to vote by saying "Well, if all these right-wingers[or left-wingers, depending] are for it, ya damn right I'm against it."
Not that I really have a lot of sympathy for those kind of voters.
OTOH when both Donald Trump and Putin think Brexit is a good idea, together with David Icke and various far-right groups, you don't necessarily want to be on that side. The alternative is deciding to be in the same camp as a bunch of quite unlikeable and untrustworthy politicians from various parties supporting the opposite view. There is no Good v Evil in this, neither Leave nor Remain are coming out of it at all well at present.
Perhaps that is a reflection of the fact that there aren't very many senior politicians in the UK who do command general respect at present.
In any event I don't really care what Gove's or Johnson's or Osborne's views are. This is not an election but a referendum, and so the views of economists*, constitutional lawyers and political philosophers are a bit more relevant.
Re the Guardian's report of a guerrila campaign to reverse a Brexit vote ie by way of a second referendum when the exit terms are known, this is very intersting. Just as with the Scottish referendum, the effects of leaving aren't known. As someone who is probably going to abstain or vote Leave, this makes me more likely to vote Leave.
*notwithstanding the fact that examining chickens' entrails often seems to result in more accurate predictions.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
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.
Not really. The issue was whether it was appropriate for Carney to make his comments. Carney said it was, because the economic effect was a relevant topic to the referendum. Rees-Mogg said he wasn't because the Bank of England should remain independent of politics.
There was a similar kerfuffle during the Scottish referendum when the UK gvt released a paper written by Nick McPherson, a senior civil servant, stating the reasons why a currency union between iScotland and rUK would be unworkable. The Yes campaign cried foul on precisely the same basis. I think subsequent to the campaign there was a finding that it was slightly improper for the UK govt to release the paper.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Not really. The issue was whether it was appropriate for Carney to make his comments. Carney said it was, because the economic effect was a relevant topic to the referendum. Rees-Mogg said he wasn't because the Bank of England should remain independent of politics.
Yes, Rees-Mogg as a history of suddenly becoming a stickler for procedure when it suits him (he spends a reasonable amount of time in Parliament talking out legislation that he doesn't approve of - but on purely procedural grounds, you understand).
The difference between this and the other case you quote; is that Carney is employed as the head of an independent Bank of England, which is supposed to speak about economic risks - that is after all part of its remit (as Andrew Tyrie pointed out).
quote:
*notwithstanding the fact that examining chickens' entrails often seems to result in more accurate predictions.
One has to distinguish clearly between short term predictions of the effects of specific targeted policies, and medium to long term predictions of levels of risk of the effects of much larger scale policies. In the case of the former you will get a fairly large divergence of opinion, in the case of the latter there will be a lot more convergence - in this case the majority of economists are in agreement.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I don't think it's beyond Carney's remit to comment on the economic conditions post-Brexit.
I've already bought US dollars for my trip abroad at the end of the month, because the closer we get to the 23rd, the lower the pound will go. If we vote to leave the EU, it'll fall through the floor.
If I can see that now, Carney will have seen it months ago. He's paid to plan for the future, and I imagine the lights are on in Threadneedle St pretty much 24/7, trying to work out how much of our economy will be left, and how high interest rates will have to go.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I not with regret the "chicken entrails" observation. It's just part of the rubbishing of experts (or "experts").
I agree with chris styles' thoughtful response. Rees-Mogg was still "playing the man" in my opinion, but using procedural arguments as grist to his mill.
As chris observed, Mark Carney's job description invalidates Rees-Mogg's argument and the Scottish parallel.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
This is a rhetorical issue, an exercise in apologetics. They always play to a draw on an endless economic balance sheet. The rationale of the CAP, responsible for 40% of the whole budget to sustain 2% of the whole economy, is beyond me, but there are other non-rational factors I'm sure.
And it's those that we bring to the party. Remain is inclusive. Leave isn't.
And there's a global storm brewing in the Balkans.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's a bit like being in the madhouse, although less humane. Also a bit like Animal Farm, 'the creatures outside looked from man to pig and pig to man, and already it was impossible to tell which was which'.
I suppose if one is choosing between right-wing and ultra-right-wing, one tends to choose the former. Or two shades of neo-liberalism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And there's a global storm brewing in the Balkans.
The old fuse still there, just waiting should Europe ever again turn itself into a pressure cooker ready to burst.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
Brexit’s lack of properly thought through plans beyond the referendum is perhaps the biggest chink in its armour. And with a dearth of friends in high places, it probably lacks the means of developing them. A big concern about the competence of this politically fragmented group if it does win.
But is the EU itself any better? Where is its strategic vision for the next few years? Faced with an existential crisis, it seems unable to sell itself or communicate any evidence of a clear direction, leading many of us to fear an equal level of incompetence, rather than just an unwillingness to let the federalism cat out of the bag.
I'm leaning towards an abstention.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
