Owen Jones has BOTTLED IT, and so has Theresa May. She obviously isn't bothered about being leader anymore.
Owen Jones has BOTTLED IT, and so has Theresa May. She obviously isn't bothered about being leader anymore.
Johnson is being an egotistical twat.
So, 23rd of June. Slap bang in the middle of the Euros and only six weeks after local/Scottish Parliament elections. Seems like daft timing to me but that's probably what they were gunning for.
Gove says, "Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule?"
Isn't bollocks timing more likely to get the pensioners and mentals out?
It's more that the campaigns will be ignored, which suits Remain more than Leave.
What's funny about that?Originally Posted by Toby
Gove says, "Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule?"
It's ripped word for word from the SNP playbook.
But we're much bigger than just Scotland, so it's fair comment.
Okay, then.
The 'negotiation' is just a bag of shit.
It's going to be a leave vote.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02...backing-leave/
This is a fairly impressive argument, whichever side of the fence you're on.
If we do leave, what happens to all the people living here on a passport from an EU country and what happens to all the Brits currently living in EU countries?
Is the answer a clear one?
Oh god, I hope all those fucking Brits living in the Spanish Costas aren't going to come back.
Half of them would probably be straight in prison.
to both.
Seriously though, does no one actually know?
From that Gove article: "We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country."
That's not true, is it? Gordon Brown cut the VAT rate back around 2008/9, didn't he? The steel thing might be right, I dunno. But the house building thing sounds like bullshit. How and why does the EU stop that?
Just got to this part: "The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people. As a result of their efforts we developed, and exported to nations like the US, India, Canada and Australia a system of democratic self-government which has brought prosperity and peace to millions.
Our democracy stood the test of time. We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves"
I'm done. Fuck off.
The EU doesn't just make some rules and poor old Britain has to abide by them. We're as much a part of the decision making process as any of the other members.
Not definitively, because it would have to be negotiated after the vote. In all likelihood, since there's a more or less equal amount of Brits in the EU and EU nationals in Britain, it would be agreed that they could apply for indefinite right to remain.
Seriously though, does no one actually know?
We're a part who is always voted against, yes.
If you take the time to look at voting records in the European Council you'll see that you're wrong.
The Democratic Unionists are officially out.
'Where do the bureaucrats return to for sanctuary? To the European Union!'
There's 28 countries with vastly different cultures, living standards and economic and political circumstances trying to create rules which apply across the board. It simply does not and cannot work.
I must have missed those, where are they? I expect we vote for a lot of mundane shit, certainly. GS has summed up what I was going to say.
Without the EU, Jimmy would be working 75-hour weeks.
I disagree with both you and GS on that but then that's why we'll be voting differently. Although I don't advocate a European state in which everything is made the same anyway. I believe that we share broadly the same culture across much of Europe (but acknowlege that there are some big differences East to West and North to South) and I identify as European above all else so it's not something we're ever likely to agree on anyway. Needless to say I don't think the opposite view is illegtimate and I don't think most people will be voting on the same basis as I will.
I just googled 'EU Council Voting History'. I can do so again and get you the URL if you like but you're right, it's very boring stuff.
You may not advocate a European state, but that's the inevitable trajectory of the Eurozone states. There is only so long that they will be prepared to accept British intransigence if it is seen to impede the effective functioning of the Eurozone. Decisions can and will be taken to benefit the Eurozone. Cameron's "red card" will never be implemented. The Eurozone have already bullied the Greeks into conforming to the wider (i.e. German) will - what fucks will they give about the UK once we vote "Remain" and are seen to put the issue of membership to bed? We will be dragged further into it - we voted for a single market, and within 20 years it was clear it was moving towards political union. Where will it be in 20 years, if it hasn't collapsed as a consequence of its own fecklessness?
This isn't a vote for the organisation you want it to be - rather a vote for what it is. A directionless, ill-functioning shambles which has made a cock up of the Eurozone crisis, the migrant crisis and has no unified voice on the major foreign policy issues of the day.
I'm genuinely interested in how you think 'we share broadly the same culture across much of Europe'. Surely any notion of similarity breaks down as soon as you can't even speak the same language as the rest of them? Now, were we to join the United States...
Exactly.
The treatment of the Greeks is what swung it for me. I'm very much a lefty (I voted Green for fucks sake) but I cannot and will not live in a European superstate. I'd end up taking advantage of Miss Byron's citizenship and moving to America.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I do advocate a European state, but not one which has all nations therein being exactly the same as one another. There should be significant freedom with in a confederation of European nations led by a directly elected executive. The EU is the best existing way of us getting where I'd like us to be but I don't really care much about it as an entity. I do get a bit annoyed that it's, in my opinion of course, misrepresented as being an undemocratic bully of the UK but whatever.
Language I don't think is a massive issue, just as it isn't in international business. Everybody speaks English anyway. That's a slice of luck for us, but I don't think (it's impossible to say though) that I'd much care if that language were German or Spanish.
Perhaps shared culture isn't the best way of explaining. Shared cultural heritage would be better. As Europeans we've spent centuries fighting the same wars, being influenced by the same political movements, music, art and literature. In those ways the continent has always been borderless. I would accept entirely that there has always been a 'different-ness' about Britain rooted in us being an island and a maritime nation. But then all nations have some differences and I don't think ours are so stark as to merit us being thought of as separate to the rest of Europe.
Perhaps I've been reading the wrong history for years. Perhaps you have. It doesn't much matter, I think our respective views on this are fixed anyway so it's not something I have the inclination to debate. I'm not interested in persuading anybody.
I acknowledge that many of the reasons I'm giving could equally be relevant to the UK, the UK joining the US, the old Empire. Fair enough. I'm not arguing for any European exceptionalism. As I've said many times I personally identify as European. Other things too (I'm proud of being from Leicester, Leicestershire, being an East Midlander, a Midlander and an Englishman - and also believe in many political powers being exercised at those very local levels - but don't care much for Britain or the UK) but European above all else. Which I suppose is just a result of upbringing. My dad has always been ferociously Europhile so there's your early influence but I've never been dissuaded from that feeling myself and it's not as though I'm a person who doesn't expose myself to differing views either through reading or interaction with other people.
So there's a large part of it which is emotional for me as well, if that's the right term to use. I'd strongly prefer for us to vote to remain part of the EU (and I believe that's what will happen, by a comfortable margin) but am under no illusion that us doing so means that people are sanctioning the direction of travel I myself would like to see us follow. At the same time I'm not going to cry if people vote to leave either. I'll still have the same beliefs and self-identify in the same way. It would be a set back in terms of the UK being a part of what I'd like to see develop in Europe but such is life.
You mention that there is a 'different-ness' about Britain but I'd argue it's more than that.
As a nation we've always sat on the fringes. Our geographical position is the obvious place to start but if you look through our history you see it dotted. The Romans never fully subjugated Britain and the Normans needed about a year of burning down the north to get there. Throughout the medieval era we spent pretty much the best part of 300 years at war with the French and we were the ones who split off from the Roman Catholic Church because Henry VIII wanted a divorce. Our language and legal systems took a different route to that of mainland Europe and as you mention, we are a maritime nation, we traded with large sections of the world and the main principle of Britain was to extend it's reach far beyond it's shores. You'd argue Europe managed that as well, but it was only really the Dutch, French and Portuguese and even then it wasn't on the same scale. Throughout modern history we've been far closer to the Americans than Europe, who have always treated us as the weird kid on the outside, the one you have to invite to birthday parties so he's not the odd one out.
Just on the bit about us voting to be part of the single market and it becoming political union, that isn't true from an EU (or its predecessors) perspective. Everything suggests that if there was any deception at all (I wasn't born so don't know) it was one undertaken by British politicians.
The EU has always been about ever closer union, particularly economic and political. That was the transparent ambition of the founders of the Coal and Steel Community. The French vetoed a European Army as early as 1952. The Treaty of Rome was designed for the creation of unified defence and political union. The single currency was slated for 1980 and was being planned openly a decade prior. British politicians knew what they were getting in to. If they hid that then that's an issue for them, not the European Union.
It's an argument you can make legitimately may different ways but I feel how I feel. It's an interesting discussion but not one I have any desire to debate with the intention of claiming to be right and you wrong (which I know isn't what you're doing here). I've done it a million times before and it never ends well.
Scientology is based on better history than that.
I do read 'proper' history rather than just making stuff up. What I have taken in has reinforced my views but I daresay the same stands for most people.
I don't approach what I read with academic rigour, since I'm not (interested in) studying it. I doubt that I'm uniquely susceptible to interpreting what I absorb as having elements supportive of what I already believe.
Anyway, I don't claim a monopoly on truth.
Very broadly, maybe. What you advocate for is one giant monoculture, it seems. Which is odd. If I went to a different country I want it to be different, not the same culture in another land. And it used to be.
Yeah, but some interpretations are weaker than others. How can you cite 'centuries fighting the same wars' as an aspect of similarity?
Lee - I thought your desire for us to stay in the EU started and finished with the will to maintain easy travel between countries? Where's all this other bobbins come from?
.
I've said the opposite above.
They're an aspect of shared history which is an important part of developing shared culture. We've fought alongside other Europeans as allies as much as against as enemies over the centuries. Often with the aim of maintaining a balance of power across the continent as a subplot to self-interest too.
Obviously you will think my interpretation of histories (it isn't just about history of course but it's as good an example as any) is weaker than your own as we disagree fundamentally. But at the very least I think my interpretation is intellectually consistent. It might be wrong-headed but we're all exposed to that danger.
[QUOTE=QE Harold Flair;68195][There's nothing in posting about now that I haven't always believed. I do believe there are a number of practical benefits to EU membership but they aren't my primary concern. I've at least hinted at my pro-Europeanism before on here but perhaps not is as committed a fashion as I am today. Mainly because I don't find a debate about how I identify as an individual to be something that worthy of discussion. My views on this are more or less settled.
I think it's a little uncharitable to describe my stance as 'bobbins', presumably on the basis that you disagree and that mine is almost certainly a minority views. But there you go.
But you said we're all culturally similar? So I assume that's something you like and want to maintain? I think we are not, and it shows.
Perhaps, but normally your points of view are very well thought through and argued in the same manner. This seems anything but - by your own admission you can't even be arsed to explain it fully.
Yes, I value our similarities and want to maintain them. But I certainly don't want to force homogeneity where there are differences. Differences I've already referred to above. These also should be celebrated. I see no reason why the two desires cannot coexist.
I know you think we are not. I think we are. We could spend all night finding different ways of saying the same thing. It's why I don't spend time debating this particular issue on here.
I have explained it. I just don't fancy writing an essay on it. There's nothing in my explanation of my views that isn't thought through or which is inconsistent, even if you think my stance is very wrong. If you see inconsistencies or lack of thought then I'm more than happy to address those on here.
I'm certainly not refusing to discuss the issue; I just don't want to engage in something which ends up with me trying to persuade you that you're wrong and vice versa. It isn't what I come to TTH for these days. Actually it's the same in life. I don't discuss politics as a rule. It mostly ends in argument and life is too short.
No, I never implied you want to force it. You want it to happen naturally, but you obviously still want it, then? And why should differences be celebrated? Never quite got the thinking there. I do not celebrate most Islamic societies, do you?
One could argue that 'Europe', being everything west of the Balkans, has a shared culture arising from the long-term position of the Catholic Church post-1054 and the Great Schism. Granted the Reformation did result in significant divergence, but this was largely one of theological dispute. The foundation of the faith, and the impact on the legal and cultural development of the countries over which the Catholic Church had 'spiritual jurisdiction' are not massively different. That, however, is about the extent of it.
If one is looking for a shared culture, we have far more in common with the former countries within the Empire which had dominion status before WWII; that is, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. If we extend this to include the United States (borne as it was of Imperial expansion), we have a number of countries with similar parliamentary systems, similar values, the same language and comparable cultures to what was termed, at the time, the 'mother country'. These are the countries over which we can claim a shared cultural background and foundation. We cannot do this with mainland Europe.
Similarly, we made a fairly 'seamless' transition to constitutional monarchy post the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. This should be compared against the French experience (Monarchy, Republic, Empire, Monarchy, Republic, Empire, Republic) in the space of less than 80 years, Germany (unification and the Second Reich, Republic, Dictatorship, the Third Reich, partition, reunification) in the same of 120 years, Poland (partition, reconstituted, invasion and partition, dictatorship, burgeoning democracy), the Balkans and the break-up of Yugoslavia, Spain under Franco etc. etc. etc.
The experience of mainland Europe since Napoleon was marching his armies through Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland and Russia pushes them towards political and economic union to avoid another European war. This is entirely reasonable. Our experience is simply not the same. We've won our wars of consequence in Europe, starting with the thorough thumping of Napoleon and moving through to the 20th century. We're a maritime nation, mainland Europe isn't. Our Empire was decolonised, but it happened under a democratic government and as part of a deliberate policy. Compare this to the French - which collapsed in disaster in Indochina and Algeria (or if you want to look at the Second Empire, where Napoleon III was captured by the Germans - or the First Empire where Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo), Germany (the Second Reich which collapsed after WWI and the Third Reich after WWII), the Austro-Hungarians or the Ottomans which fell in WWI.
To argue that we have a shared culture and a shared historical experience is, in my view anyway, a completely erroneous view to take of history. There are tens of languages around the 28 member states of the European Union - even in the modern day, it would be impossible to put 28 'normal people' from these 28 countries in a room and have them reach a common view on anything. This is because all of the countries within the EU are different in their own way. Therefore, I think this idea of a 'shared history' leading to a 'shared culture' is a nonsense. Britain has, generally speaking, stood as a bastion of consistency (with the exception of Ireland) since the 1707 Act of Union whilst mainland Europe has torn itself apart.
There are arguments to be made in favour of the EU, but this idea is not one of them.
Now that's a quality post.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote