 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In, out, in, out; EU Referendum thread.
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It gets tricky, I think, when your political union has so many separate languages and historically different cultures.
Australia is essentially the result of an 1890s free trade agreement. However, that was between half a dozen colonies that were all British, and several of them had been founded by people from other colonies. That's very different to finding the common interest and understanding between Finns, Portuguese and Bulgarians. "Europe" as an entity is far more diverse than Australia, or the United States or Canada - at least once those places were colonised by Europeans.
EDIT: This is even the problem with the Euro - it seeks to tie together economies/cultures that don't have enough in common.
[ 23. February 2016, 12:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There is no necessary correlation between it being good to do something and it being easy.
--------------------
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
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
As someone who has lived and worked all over Europe, without constantly farting about with different eligibility rules, I shall be voting to stay in.
I've also worked in Switzerland, who are the subject of a BBC article about the pros and cons of being half in and half out.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is no necessary correlation between it being good to do something and it being easy.
There's no necessary reverse correlation, either.
It is entirely a question of whether the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa. I was merely pointing out that the more diverse the groups you're trying to unify, the greater some of the cons.
Especially while en route. Certainly, some of the discussions about the Euro at the time of the Greek crisis persuaded me that a common currency amongst separate political units is inherently good for the strongest of the tied economies, such as Germany, and inherently bad for the weakest ones, such as Greece.
And Schengen has been disrupted by the migration from Syria, because not all countries in the EU are equally attractive as destinations.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
alienfromzog wrote:
quote:
So, our current Prime Minister is using a referendum on an issue of national importance to try and manage the idiots in his own party. The most charismatic candidate to replace him as leader (and hence potential PM) is using the same referendum to play politics to serve his own ambition over the national interest.
Disillusioned with politics? Why?
Hah, I'll bite. How about perhaps the Prime Minister is calling a referendum because he actually wants to give us a voice - as many people have been requesting - as to whether we remain in the EU or not? Perhaps he is a principled man who wants to keep a promised electoral commitment?
Disillusioned with politics - why? Because the electoral is too cynical to accept that politicians often have good and noble motives and are good and noble people. We do not deserve the high quality of politicians that we have.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Hah, I'll bite. How about perhaps the Prime Minister is calling a referendum because he actually wants to give us a voice - as many people have been requesting - as to whether we remain in the EU or not? Perhaps he is a principled man who wants to keep a promised electoral commitment?
In which case, why all the shuttle diplomacy to get his piece of paper? What has been gained?
--------------------
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
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
I'm inclined to agree with Orfeo - the EU has grown so big and diverse that many of its people have very little in common with one another.
It seems to me that there is a lot wrong with the EU - over-expansion, lack of accountability of its officials, the pettiness of some of the rules it has imposed - which makes me feel a certain sympathy with those who want Britain to leave.
However, I think if I had a vote (which I don't) I'd probably be swayed by the idea that the EU is basically a bit broken, and Britain isn't going to be able to mend it from outside.
I also suspect that (as seemed to be the case with the Scottish independence referendum) there are probably practical issues (such as the status of British citizens living and/or working in other parts of the EU, and vice versa) which haven't been thought through properly.
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
TurquoiseTastic wrote:
quote:
Hah, I'll bite. How about perhaps the Prime Minister is calling a referendum because he actually wants to give us a voice - as many people have been requesting - as to whether we remain in the EU or not? Perhaps he is a principled man who wants to keep a promised electoral commitment?
Well, that is possibly true. There is of course an alternative view, that Cameron gave that committment in order to placate his own right wing (mainly Eurosceptic), and also placate possible UKIP voters. So he was saying, only a Tory govt will give you a referendum, in which you can oppose the EU.
Well, we don't have mind-reading equipment, so we can't directly enquire. We can only go off the runes, that is, indirect evidence and information.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
...the EU is basically a bit broken, and Britain isn't going to be able to mend it from outside.
If we're outside, we won't have to.
--------------------
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 Alan Cresswell:
Besides which, I didn't mention that I think one of the biggest things that the EU can give to the UK is increasing political union throughout Europe. But, for some reason, a lot of people seem to think that is a bad thing.
I can't understand why anyone thinks it's a good thing.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Hah, I'll bite. How about perhaps the Prime Minister is calling a referendum because he actually wants to give us a voice - as many people have been requesting - as to whether we remain in the EU or not? Perhaps he is a principled man who wants to keep a promised electoral commitment?
In which case, why all the shuttle diplomacy to get his piece of paper? What has been gained?
In order to clarify several issues that Eurosceptics said they were particularly concerned about, such as "ever closer union". And so it has.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I shall probably vote to stay in on the basis of germany making a better friend than it does enemy. A united Germany couldn't have been foreseen in 75 , one must hope their increased influence remiains benign.
Do you think the Federal Republic of Germany was an enemy between 1949 - 1972? I don't think it was.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Chapelhead: Where are the serous and solidly grounded arguments that deserve more than one-line response?
It was mentioned that Jeremy Corbyn wrote down his arguments in the Guardian. I'd need to find the link again, but maybe it contains serious and solidly grounded arguments.
Well, Jeremy Corbyn’s article was nuanced in that it was neither entirely in favour nor against close ties with Europe – but then so was Boris Johnson’s statement to the press outside his house on Sunday, when he contrasted his great affection for Europe with his decision that he would support the campaign to leave the EU.
But most of Corbyn’s article was about the irrelevance of David Cameron’s negotiations last week (something many people across the stay/leave spectrum would agree with). But the irrelevance of the negotiations is not a reason to stay in the EU – if anything, it is a reason to want to leave, as significant reform of the EU is not on the agenda.
The article also looks at areas where reform of Europe is needed, and I think that this is where the ‘stay’ argument is weakest in this piece. It seems to be a common line in Europhile arguments to say that what is needed is a reformed EU – but a reformed EU isn’t what we have. There is a logical fallacy* in this thinking, along the lines of
quote:
Person 1: “In this choice between ‘X’ and ‘Y’, I favour ‘X’.“
Person 2: “You are wrong to favour ‘X’, because ‘A’ is better’.”
The problem is that ‘A’ isn’t an option. The choice isn’t between leaving the EU and a reformed EU with all the problems fixed. The problems would have been fixed long ago, if there were the will to do so (the need to fundamentally reform the CAP has been discussed since before many of the people reading this were born – it wasn’t suddenly noticed two minutes ago). Apart from further enlargement, the most significant change to the EU we are likely to see in the foreseeable future is that we will have EU + TTIP, and that’s the EU people will be voting on. With the EU getting larger, reform will be even harder, so the choice is about the real EU we have now, not some fantasy EU where lions lie down with lambs and infants play safely near cobra’s nests.
Overall, there doesn’t seem much of substance in Jeremy Corbyn’s article for the ‘remain’ campaign (and not very much for the ‘leave’ campaign).
*There may even be a name for this particular fallacy, but if there is then it escapes me.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
...the EU is basically a bit broken, and Britain isn't going to be able to mend it from outside.
If we're outside, we won't have to.
We'll have to trade with someone, and our former European partners are going to be mighty pissed off if we go. Setting up bilaterals with them is going to be like trying to stay friends after a divorce.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
*There may even be a name for this particular fallacy, but if there is then it escapes me.
If there isn't, we can call it the Brussels fallacy for three weeks a month and the Strasbourg fallacy for the remainder.
(Completely agree, though.)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Chapelhead: Well, Jeremy Corbyn’s article was nuanced in that it was neither entirely in favour nor against close ties with Europe – but then so was Boris Johnson’s statement to the press outside his house on Sunday
First you complain that no-one is nuanced, now everyone is. I think the best thing is to look at what people are saying and see whether you agree with it or not, than doing nuance pissing contests. (I'm very bad at those.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We'll have to trade with someone, and our former European partners are going to be mighty pissed off if we go. Setting up bilaterals with them is going to be like trying to stay friends after a divorce.
Not necessarily. They'll still want to trade. The reason some will be pissed off is because some will probably wish they'd done the same thing themselves.
It also means the billions spent on membership of the EC club can finally be put to good use elsewhere in the country, like the NHS. It means not having to negotiate not wanting to underwrite bailouts and all the rest of it. We can finally get back to trading without the superstate hanging over us, and not having to haggle over harmonizing laws and having legislation imposed on us which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.
Yes, it is a leap in the dark in some ways but sometimes you have to take a chance. Staying in does have its advantages but at the same time it's always going to be unhappy and full of negotiations for opt-outs to this, that and the other. What we will lose is the right to sit at the table and put forward proposals for changes, but as they usually seem to have to be ratified by most of the heads of state of Europe who mostly just throw them out again, it's not that much of a loss really.
However, this may all be academic as nobody actually knows how the vote will really go. We could end up just continuing as we are.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Chapelhead: Well, Jeremy Corbyn’s article was nuanced in that it was neither entirely in favour nor against close ties with Europe – but then so was Boris Johnson’s statement to the press outside his house on Sunday
First you complain that no-one is nuanced, now everyone is. I think the best thing is to look at what people are saying and see whether you agree with it or not, than doing nuance pissing contests. (I'm very bad at those.)
I never complained about a lack of nuance. And it was you who complained about one-line posts - so I gave you a fuller analysis. But your lack of ability to come up with an argument means that you can only reply with an insult. So much for getting a sensible discussion.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Chapelhead: I never complained about a lack of nuance.
You did here. We're losing ourselves in meta-stuff. I still fail to see what your actual argument is about leaving the EU or not. I might join you again when I do.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
It also means the billions spent on membership of the EC club can finally be put to good use elsewhere in the country, like the NHS.
The amount we pay to be in EU is less than 1% of government expenditure. Some of that comes straight back, through support for infrastructure projects and other schemes (although since enlargement has introduced more nations that are significantly more in need of such funds that proportion has dropped). The amount of additional tax revenue gained from reduced trading costs boosting exports, from EU nationals working in the UK and other benefits is probably incalculable. Add in the savings gained by not having to maintain our own human rights courts, the efficiencies gained through European structures sorting out standards and regulations compared to doing that through bilateral negotiations with individual nations, and almost certainly leaving the EU will result in savings of a few billion and the loss of tax revenue (and trade) significantly in excess of the savings.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Add in the savings gained by not having to maintain our own human rights courts
Are you thinking of the European Court of Human Rights, which is separate to the EU?
I don't think this is a reason to stay, since we've done human rights in this country reasonably well before joining the Common Market. We also did the role of the supreme court quite cheaply too, until Blair couldn't resist tinkering and decided to vandalise Middlesex Guildhall.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Chapelhead: I never complained about a lack of nuance.
You did here. We're losing ourselves in meta-stuff. I still fail to see what your actual argument is about leaving the EU or not. I might join you again when I do.
Fail. Serious and solidly grounded does not equal nuanced.
And the point I've very clearly made is about the lack of good arguments being put forward by either side. On the whole, at present I find the 'sovereignty' argument by the 'leave' campaign the most persuasive, but I'd be happy to hear a strong case by either side.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Well, Jeremy Corbyn’s article was nuanced in that it was neither entirely in favour nor against close ties with Europe – but then so was Boris Johnson’s statement to the press outside his house on Sunday, when he contrasted his great affection for Europe with his decision that he would support the campaign to leave the EU.
Except that Boris' position is anything but (even once you ignore the fact that a mere 6 months ago he was supporting staying in the EU). He supports a vote to leave the EU out of the odd belief that if we vote to leave we'll get a better deal, after which we can then vote to stay.
I leave it to you to imagine the kind of flak Corbyn would get for adopting anything similar, but of course it's boris and he always gets an easy ride from the press because he's seen as one of them.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Add in the savings gained by not having to maintain our own human rights courts
Are you thinking of the European Court of Human Rights, which is separate to the EU?
Yes, I know. Just like Eurovision.
But, still generally associated with the whole EU project. As evidence, at some point in any discussion on leaving or staying in the EU someone will bring up the ECHR and how it's over-riding our sovereignty and courts.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Except that Boris' position is anything but (even once you ignore the fact that a mere 6 months ago he was supporting staying in the EU). He supports a vote to leave the EU out of the odd belief that if we vote to leave we'll get a better deal, after which we can then vote to stay.
I leave it to you to imagine the kind of flak Corbyn would get for adopting anything similar, but of course it's boris and he always gets an easy ride from the press because he's seen as one of them.
As I've said, the arguments from both sides seem to be pretty poor - and the idea that a 'leave' vote could be used as leverage in further negotiations is poor squared. But a caveat - is this Boris' position? It seems to be a case of the usual vague, unattributable 'sources say' that Boris might be thinking of ...
As for Jeremy Corbyn, my understanding is that he has previously been been a consistent Eurosceptic - the Labour party has had a pro-Europe line and this is one of the many areas on which he has been a persistent rebel, until now. Perhaps someone could say if his voting record indicates something different.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Chapelhead: And the point I've very clearly made is about the lack of good arguments being put forward by either side.
The point you were making, the one I reacted to, is that candidates should take a binary position, either pro-EU or anti-EU, and stick to it their whole lives. This is the criticism you levelled at Corbyn. It is what you are still talking about in your latest post. I stick to my point that formulating things in terms of a binary pro-EU or anti-EU stance is unhelpful.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But a caveat - is this Boris' position? It seems to be a case of the usual vague, unattributable 'sources say' that Boris might be thinking of ...
It was strongly implied in his telegraph column, and is in fact the position the PM portrayed Johnson as taking.
He has also signaled his support for this 'double referendum' idea in the past via the Sunday Times, which is a reasonable record of his views given his relationships with the press.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Chapelhead: And the point I've very clearly made is about the lack of good arguments being put forward by either side.
The point you were making, the one I reacted to, is that candidates should take a binary position, either pro-EU or anti-EU, and stick to it their whole lives. This is the criticism you levelled at Corbyn. It is what you are still talking about in your latest post. I stick to my point that formulating things in terms of a binary pro-EU or anti-EU stance is unhelpful.
Someone criticised Boris Johnson for picking a side which seems inconsistent with his previous position - I pointed out that Jeremy Corbyn has done the same thing. That's not saying that someone should hold the same view all their lives, just highlighting the Yes Prime Minister irregular verb nature of the argument quote:
Bernard: It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it: I have an independent mind; you are an eccentric; he is round the twist.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But a caveat - is this Boris' position? It seems to be a case of the usual vague, unattributable 'sources say' that Boris might be thinking of ...
It was strongly implied in his telegraph column, and is in fact the position the PM portrayed Johnson as taking.
He has also signaled his support for this 'double referendum' idea in the past via the Sunday Times, which is a reasonable record of his views given his relationships with the press.
Thanks for the elucidation. There a lot of vagueness in that Telegraph column as well.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Besides which, I didn't mention that I think one of the biggest things that the EU can give to the UK is increasing political union throughout Europe. But, for some reason, a lot of people seem to think that is a bad thing.
I can't understand why anyone thinks it's a good thing.
Because it's a hell of a lot better than the preceding 1000+ years of European history, of which we were as much of a part as others.
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Besides which, I didn't mention that I think one of the biggest things that the EU can give to the UK is increasing political union throughout Europe. But, for some reason, a lot of people seem to think that is a bad thing.
I can't understand why anyone thinks it's a good thing.
Because it's a hell of a lot better than the preceding 1000+ years of European history, of which we were as much of a part as others.
Ah. I see. It's because civil wars don't happen!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because it's a hell of a lot better than the preceding 1000+ years of European history, of which we were as much of a part as others.
Are you asserting that those are our only options? We're either part of a superstate or doomed to constant war?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah. I see. It's because civil wars don't happen!
Great minds think alike ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes, but one of the cardinal raisons d'etre of the EU was and is to prevent wars between its members which - remarkably, given the history of wars between its said members, especially it's six founders - it has succeeded in doing.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
As has already been mentioned, NATO and the need to remain united against the Soviet Union probably had more to do with that than the EU.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Operation Leave strikes me more and more as a right-wing fantasy, where regulations are swept away, including workers' rights and conditions, wages are permanently low, ditto taxes, and brown people are kept at a distance. What could go wrong?
I think many people on the left are ambivalent, as traditionally the EU was seen as a 'capitalist club' with few benefits. However, the 'social chapter' warmed the left to it more, although today the EU is probably seen as another carrier of the neo-liberal virus.
But for the left to ally with Boris and Gove would be certainly bizarre.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because it's a hell of a lot better than the preceding 1000+ years of European history, of which we were as much of a part as others.
Are you asserting that those are our only options? We're either part of a superstate or doomed to constant war?
There is, of course, a spectrum of positions. At one end there is the 100% sovereign nation state, at the other multi-national, global (if we're going to the very extreme) super-state.
I don't think anyone would argue that the first extreme is a good idea, especially in the modern world. About the closest example of such a state at the moment would be North Korea. That is a route that would lead to tensions over access to markets and resources, and historically those tensions have boiled over into armed conflict on many occasions.
The other extreme is certainly impractical at the moment. Though it is a utopian vision many hold. To minimise internal tensions it would need to be a state of equals, if one part of the whole dominates over others then eventually the state will collapse - which is part of where the EU struggles at the moment with the Eurozone dominated by Germany (and to a lesser extent Benelux and France) with Greece and Portugal very much the inferior partners. Most of the other EU institutions are not as bad, with more equal status for the nations that comprise the Union. That will be severely damaged by some countries pleading special status though.
In Europe we are certainly somewhere between those extremes. And, since 1945 have been on a trajectory that has been moving slowly towards a regional political union. Put of that impetus has been purely practical, a level of political union is needed to maintain a free trade zone, to manage fish stocks, to coordinate agricultural subsidies (initially to rebuild shattered farms to make Europe less dependent on imported foods, now more for environmental protection), to cooperate on security and criminal justice, etc. Part of the impetus has been ideological, a belief in the benefits of ever closer union, and that ideological impetus has sometimes pushed things slightly beyond the practical (eg: rushing the introduction of the Euro, which resulted in structures dominated by one nation and Eurozone members who still had economic issues that meant they were not ready to join - at least, not without the greater sharing of benefits between the member nations).
For me, I'm ideologically in favour of greater political union. I think that where the EU currently is is slightly short of where I think it could be from a practical perspective - I think we could practically manage more power to the European Parliament (I wouldn't change the powers of the Commission much, but put the Commission further under the Parliament to create greater accountability), I also think we could expand the Eurozone further (there's no practical reason why the UK and Scandanavian countries couldn't be in) although I don't see it as vital at this stage. Of course, that requires national governments to cede some powers to the EU, I also think it needs national governments to cede some powers downwards to regions within their national borders - so further devolved powers, even independence from Westmister, to Scotland, Wales, NI and other regions of the UK; likewise for Germany, France etc.
But, I recognise I'm an idealist. I have no particular attachment to the UK as a political entity.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but one of the cardinal raisons d'etre of the EU was and is to prevent wars between its members which - remarkably, given the history of wars between its said members, especially it's six founders - it has succeeded in doing.
This seems to me like a potential case of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. After this, therefore because of this.
I'm not convinced, not least because there is plenty of evidence of cases where unwise or undesired political unions didn't dampen friction, they created friction.
For a large part of this century the world has been dealing with the abominable mess created by boundary lines that marked out Iraq and Syria with little regard to natural groupings and common interests. Late last century Europe got to watch Yugoslavia blowing itself apart. The EU is not automatically like that, but any kind of broad idea that people will get along if you make them part of a political union is pie-in-the-sky thinking. They have to want it, and they have to want it to work. Grudging involvement just provides fuel for the grudge.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
It's not exactly post hoc ergo propter hoc, because the likes of Monnet and Schumann, in particular in putting forward the basis for the ESCS Treaty in 1951, did advance this as a reason: put France and Germany's heavy industry under supra-national control, they said, and you'll remove their capacity to go to war with each other again.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For a large part of this century the world has been dealing with the abominable mess created by boundary lines that marked out Iraq and Syria with little regard to natural groupings and common interests.
And, the same can be said of large parts of Africa and Asia. But, was the problem that the resulting nations were multi-ethnic, or that the lines divided people who shouldn't have been divided? Would a multi-ethnic nation covering the whole of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran which contained virtually the whole of the original ethnic groups (not putting an artificial line in the sand between them) have been more stable? Most of the tensions within those artificial nations have been because minority groups with substantial representation in neighbouring nations have been suspect - when faced with a choice between loyalty to fellow Kurds (say) or an artificial nation called "Iraq" there will be difficulties, if all the Kurds (and other groups) live within the same nation that potential conflict in loyalty is removed.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Fair point, Alan. But can the same be said in relation to Yugoslavia?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For a large part of this century the world has been dealing with the abominable mess created by boundary lines that marked out Iraq and Syria with little regard to natural groupings and common interests.
I believe they are originally administrative units of the Ottoman Empire established precisely so as to cut across natural groupings and common interests.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Fair point, Alan. But can the same be said in relation to Yugoslavia?
No, I would say that's a different situation. Though a lesson on the dangers of allowing one group of people (in Yugoslavia, the Serbs) within a nation to dominate. Within the EU, that would translate as ensuring the EU is a union of equals, and taking whatever steps are necessary to reduce the possibility of same nations being more equal than others (which has been part of where the EU has fallen below what it could have been).
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Fair point, Alan. But can the same be said in relation to Yugoslavia?
In spades. Yogoslavia was created post-WWI out of bits of the Astro Hungarian empire and the Kingdom of Serbia. The history of the area was such that most of the ethnic groups had past grievances against certain other ethnic groups, and all of them ultimately had a greater loyalty to their concept being a Serb or Croat than being a citizen of Yugoslavia.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For a large part of this century the world has been dealing with the abominable mess created by boundary lines that marked out Iraq and Syria with little regard to natural groupings and common interests.
I believe they are originally administrative units of the Ottoman Empire established precisely so as to cut across natural groupings and common interests.
The material I can find on Ottoman subdivisions suggests not, in that there's no clear relationship between these territories and the carve-up of territory that occurred around 1920.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Fair point, Alan. But can the same be said in relation to Yugoslavia?
In spades. Yogoslavia was created post-WWI out of bits of the Astro Hungarian empire and the Kingdom of Serbia. The history of the area was such that most of the ethnic groups had past grievances against certain other ethnic groups, and all of them ultimately had a greater loyalty to their concept being a Serb or Croat than being a citizen of Yugoslavia.
That's the exact opposite of Alan's point, and is actually more in favour of my concerns.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Fair point, Alan. But can the same be said in relation to Yugoslavia?
No, I would say that's a different situation. Though a lesson on the dangers of allowing one group of people (in Yugoslavia, the Serbs) within a nation to dominate. Within the EU, that would translate as ensuring the EU is a union of equals, and taking whatever steps are necessary to reduce the possibility of same nations being more equal than others (which has been part of where the EU has fallen below what it could have been).
Agreed. And that is indeed a problem some federations or similar arrangements face. Czechoslovakia is another example of a country that foundered because the partnership was seen as unequal (though of course it's dissolution was far more peaceful than Yugoslavia). Belgium has struggled a bit because Flanders economically dominates Wallonia.
In Canada and Australia the history is more of two strong units that hold each other in check plus a group of smaller units, though new and different tensions arise as the balance of power gradually shifts.
The EU seems to have a French/German axis.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The EU seems to have a French/German axis.
Whereas, it should have multiple axes - with the UK as one of the main balancing nations/groups, along with blocks for Scandanavia, Iberia, the Balkans, etc. All providing checks and balances against one or two nations dominating.
In the UK, the Euro-sceptics have succeeded in mainting the UK at a distance from the EU, stopping us taking up our position within the EU as part of that system of checks and balances. And, now having kept the UK voice as not much more than a whisper, they're using that as evidence that the UK has no voice in 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
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Membership apparently costs 10 euros per person per annum in the UK - one of the cheapest clubs around.
I didn't ask to join it.
And I'm not convinced. Isn't it £55 million a day?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
