I don't know why she persists in trying to do politics. She did a single good thing -albeit for the wrong reasons - and now she thinks she is on a crusade.
She should rest on her laurels and realise that her attempts at forming a new party are doomed to failure before they start - not because of her but because of what she is trying to do. Something many others have tried (and failed) to do before from far stronger positions
Much of the public seem unaware of how important the Article 50 case was in protecting citizens from their own government if they attempt to remove rights by using Henry VIII powers .
Instead of being lauded she was disgracefully attacked.
I argued at the time that she was right in what she was doing. My main argument against her was that she was being disingenuous about the reasons for it. As she has subsequently made clear, her main concern was not in making sure things were done right but in trying to stop Brexit entirely.
Hence my comment that she was doing the right thing but foir the wrong reasons.
I feel like quite a lot of important legal decisions or rights can come about that way, as possibly awful people seek to get away with something but it reveals important principles for everyone. Emphasising the primacy of Parliament was a worthwhile endeavour, even if you are absolutely correct the motivation was abundantly clear.
On the article 50 case I almost felt like the government wanted it to go down that way, since Parliament then overwhelmingly voted in favour and were always going to given the climate of the times, which was then used many times against MPs who obviously didn't want to go at all, but had voted to trigger.
I still don’t know why the tiggers didn’t join the Lib Dem’s. Totally bizarre. It could have made a significant difference.
Having made the not inconsiderable leap to quit their previous parties it appears too many of them just couldn't go further, at least not right away. It meant their moment was lost unfortunately.
The bookshop is in a tourist area. I’d want to look at whether it’s possible to set up a (portable) coffee kiosk outside.
Separately, I went to a bookshop in Kingston, New York, which doubled as a kind of pub for afternoon/evening functions. (I want to say bar, but it was mostly craft beer). But it had been done very well, the internal set up worked nicely, so would have cost a bit of money. And I imagine that’s a total bugger to get licensing laws for.
Internet cafe?
Aren’t they dead? Or if not, they’re rather seedy affairs aren’t they?
The simplest form would be a portable kiosk - there’s one that was routinely parked outside Haggerston Station in London - cost around £5000 inc espresso machine - to dispense coffees on fine days.
Would probably make more money than the bookshop, although logistics would need to be carefully considered. People get pissed off if they can’t buy an actual book because some idiot is getting a double mocha latte with flakes*
On rising insurance costs - I assume the main explanation / biggest factor is interest rates.
2008-22 was a mad period of nearly free money where investors were looking eek out yield anywhere they could find it. This had the effect of depressing insurance premiums.
That period looks to be well and truly over (?) so, as night follows day, insurance premiums are inevitably rising again.
The mistake people are making is to think 2008-22 was normal. It wasn’t.
Belgium still rubs along, despite a general belief on PB that it doesn’t. Indeed, it’s one of the oldest nation states on the planet, older even than NZ!
Is that much of a claim? Even just taking from the period of nation-states as we formulate them today there's not all that many firmly established and/or governing themselves for lengthy periods. Places with broadly similar borders and cultural boundaries which are very old seem even rarer.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
Or too many other places to mention.
Frank’s clearly the type of person who thinks that going down the garden centre is travel.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
They've never had an alternative one and I hardly think it is the ideal example.
How about Switzerland, then.
All the major languages are just extensions of their respective nation states so it's not replicable. The same thing doesn't work quite so well in Belgium.
I don’t even understand what this means.
What I will say is that I believe Swiss Germans can speak French and vice versa, and the Italian speakers are too small to worry about. Also the Swiss central government is famously limited.
The point is that it's sui generis because it is surrounded by France, Germany and Italy. If you took them away and Switzerland were just a mountainous island, the concept wouldn't work.
A country that has always made its money by robbing people; originally the mountains made this easier; nowadays, not so much.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
They've never had an alternative one and I hardly think it is the ideal example.
How about Switzerland, then.
All the major languages are just extensions of their respective nation states so it's not replicable. The same thing doesn't work quite so well in Belgium.
I don’t even understand what this means.
What I will say is that I believe Swiss Germans can speak French and vice versa, and the Italian speakers are too small to worry about. Also the Swiss central government is famously limited.
The point is that it's sui generis because it is surrounded by France, Germany and Italy. If you took them away and Switzerland were just a mountainous island, the concept wouldn't work.
A country that has always made its money by robbing people; originally the mountains made this easier; nowadays, not so much.
Switzerland still, in essence, is an “offshore” centre which succeeds because it is next to those other countries (kind of what Ireland is now doing to the UK).
I don’t want to be too reductive, it’s manufacturing and pharma industries are enviable, there is a lot to learn, but ultimately it’s model cannot replicated at a larger scale in the UK.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
Or too many other places to mention.
Frank’s clearly the type of person who thinks that going down the garden centre is travel.
Which other places? If your previous experience is imperialism, perhaps multi-lingual democracy is fine. It's hard to believe people would happily trade in a democracy where there is a common language for one where there isn't.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
They've never had an alternative one and I hardly think it is the ideal example.
How about Switzerland, then.
All the major languages are just extensions of their respective nation states so it's not replicable. The same thing doesn't work quite so well in Belgium.
I don’t even understand what this means.
What I will say is that I believe Swiss Germans can speak French and vice versa, and the Italian speakers are too small to worry about. Also the Swiss central government is famously limited.
The point is that it's sui generis because it is surrounded by France, Germany and Italy. If you took them away and Switzerland were just a mountainous island, the concept wouldn't work.
A country that has always made its money by robbing people; originally the mountains made this easier; nowadays, not so much.
Switzerland still, in essence, is an “offshore” centre which succeeds because it is next to those other countries (kind of what Ireland is now doing to the UK).
I don’t want to be too reductive, it’s manufacturing and pharma industries are enviable, there is a lot to learn, but ultimately it’s model cannot replicated at a larger scale in the UK.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Other multilingual democracies include Mauritius, North Macedonia, Suriname, Philippines, Botswana, Ghana and South Africa.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
They've never had an alternative one and I hardly think it is the ideal example.
How about Switzerland, then.
All the major languages are just extensions of their respective nation states so it's not replicable. The same thing doesn't work quite so well in Belgium.
I don’t even understand what this means.
What I will say is that I believe Swiss Germans can speak French and vice versa, and the Italian speakers are too small to worry about. Also the Swiss central government is famously limited.
The point is that it's sui generis because it is surrounded by France, Germany and Italy. If you took them away and Switzerland were just a mountainous island, the concept wouldn't work.
A country that has always made its money by robbing people; originally the mountains made this easier; nowadays, not so much.
Switzerland still, in essence, is an “offshore” centre which succeeds because it is next to those other countries (kind of what Ireland is now doing to the UK).
I don’t want to be too reductive, it’s manufacturing and pharma industries are enviable, there is a lot to learn, but ultimately it’s model cannot replicated at a larger scale in the UK.
Why?
It kind of predates on the surrounding economies. Geneva is for French businesses that don’t want French regulation, etc etc.
You might argue that London can/does do this with respect to the EU but I don’t think it’s enough to sustain 65million.
For similar reasons, Singapore‘s position as the East Asian entrepot is not a model we can adopt, although of course there is much to learn.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Other multilingual democracies include Mauritius, North Macedonia, Suriname, Philippines, Botswana, Ghana and South Africa.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Deleted due to stupidity.
Not to worry - it's the ones who don't at least sometimes do that that we need to worry about ...
On rising insurance costs - I assume the main explanation / biggest factor is interest rates.
2008-22 was a mad period of nearly free money where investors were looking eek out yield anywhere they could find it. This had the effect of depressing insurance premiums.
That period looks to be well and truly over (?) so, as night follows day, insurance premiums are inevitably rising again.
The mistake people are making is to think 2008-22 was normal. It wasn’t.
I thought the insurers invested surplus monies so high interest rates actually subsidise premiums.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
Or too many other places to mention.
Frank’s clearly the type of person who thinks that going down the garden centre is travel.
I’m my typology of PB posters, he’s a “pooter” though, rather than a “bristler”.
The bookshop is in a tourist area. I’d want to look at whether it’s possible to set up a (portable) coffee kiosk outside.
Separately, I went to a bookshop in Kingston, New York, which doubled as a kind of pub for afternoon/evening functions. (I want to say bar, but it was mostly craft beer). But it had been done very well, the internal set up worked nicely, so would have cost a bit of money. And I imagine that’s a total bugger to get licensing laws for.
Lots of independent bookshops have gone the coffee shop route - that seems to work.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Deleted due to stupidity.
Don’t hold yourself to higher standards than the rest of us!
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
They've never had an alternative one and I hardly think it is the ideal example.
How about Switzerland, then.
All the major languages are just extensions of their respective nation states so it's not replicable. The same thing doesn't work quite so well in Belgium.
I don’t even understand what this means.
What I will say is that I believe Swiss Germans can speak French and vice versa, and the Italian speakers are too small to worry about. Also the Swiss central government is famously limited.
The point is that it's sui generis because it is surrounded by France, Germany and Italy. If you took them away and Switzerland were just a mountainous island, the concept wouldn't work.
Switzerland - the land where Germans, French and Italians live in harmony. With a huge pile of guns.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
The bookshop is in a tourist area. I’d want to look at whether it’s possible to set up a (portable) coffee kiosk outside.
Separately, I went to a bookshop in Kingston, New York, which doubled as a kind of pub for afternoon/evening functions. (I want to say bar, but it was mostly craft beer). But it had been done very well, the internal set up worked nicely, so would have cost a bit of money. And I imagine that’s a total bugger to get licensing laws for.
Lots of independent bookshops have gone the coffee shop route - that seems to work.
I think there’s a trick to it though, which a lot don’t get. I think if you do it well, it can be amazing. Badly, and it can actually deter customers.
Admittedly, I have remainer/elite/metropolitan standards.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
Or too many other places to mention.
Frank’s clearly the type of person who thinks that going down the garden centre is travel.
I’m my typology of PB posters, he’s a “pooter” though, rather than a “bristler”.
He is an entomologist's tool? How can you deduce that from a simple post?
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
They've never had an alternative one and I hardly think it is the ideal example.
How about Switzerland, then.
All the major languages are just extensions of their respective nation states so it's not replicable. The same thing doesn't work quite so well in Belgium.
I don’t even understand what this means.
What I will say is that I believe Swiss Germans can speak French and vice versa, and the Italian speakers are too small to worry about. Also the Swiss central government is famously limited.
The point is that it's sui generis because it is surrounded by France, Germany and Italy. If you took them away and Switzerland were just a mountainous island, the concept wouldn't work.
A country that has always made its money by robbing people; originally the mountains made this easier; nowadays, not so much.
Switzerland still, in essence, is an “offshore” centre which succeeds because it is next to those other countries (kind of what Ireland is now doing to the UK).
I don’t want to be too reductive, it’s manufacturing and pharma industries are enviable, there is a lot to learn, but ultimately it’s model cannot replicated at a larger scale in the UK.
Why?
It kind of predates on the surrounding economies. Geneva is for French businesses that don’t want French regulation, etc etc.
You might argue that London can/does do this with respect to the EU but I don’t think it’s enough to sustain 65million.
For similar reasons, Singapore‘s position as the East Asian entrepot is not a model we can adopt, although of course there is much to learn.
We couldn't emulate Scandinavian economies for similar reasons the other way too.
We need British solutions to suit the British economy.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
“I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders.”
So you are telling us Sunak needs to learn Welsh?
Almost everyone in Wales speaks English even if as a second language. You'll need to do better than this.
The better example of India I think has been made. It's probably easier if everyone speaks the same language, but it isn't totally needed.
I recall being a bit startled by being told by Indians that they consider English as a good common language and that it has *less* connotations of oppression etc than the alternatives.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
“I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders.”
So you are telling us Sunak needs to learn Welsh?
Almost everyone in Wales speaks English even if as a second language. You'll need to do better than this.
The better example of India I think has been made. It's probably easier if everyone speaks the same language, but it isn't totally needed.
Right, back in the departures lounge for rescheduled flight. Fingers crossed I get home tonight! As airport hotels go, the Renaissance Warsaw is really quite lovely, they even had champagne included in the breakfast buffet!
I still don’t know why the tiggers didn’t join the Lib Dem’s. Totally bizarre. It could have made a significant difference.
The SDP is deeply embedded in Labour folklore. Myths about how it gave Thatcher 15 terms as PM etc.
I can't see how they can, for the same period of decades, also have claimed that the SNP did exactly the same thing. Obviously some logical disconnect there.
I believe the discussion was triggered by Lord Sumption’s observation that one of Brexit’s failures is that it leaves the space clear for a potential single European hegemonic power, contra to 500 years of British foreign policy.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
I believe the discussion was triggered by Lord Sumption’s observation that one of Brexit’s failures is that it leaves the space clear for a potential single European hegemonic power, contra to 500 years of British foreign policy.
Rather more than that, given that a fair chunk of "Britain" has been partly handed over to that putative superstate by the incompetence of the Leavers.
In which case, on both counts, who are the traitors?
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
“I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders.”
So you are telling us Sunak needs to learn Welsh?
Almost everyone in Wales speaks English even if as a second language. You'll need to do better than this.
To be members of a Nation State, everyone needs to speak the same language? Are you sure?
You don’t share my hunch it’s not politics that sets learning of language, but commercial - the language of the Roman Empire wasn’t Roman, it was Greek for this reason.
So which of the languages of the British State are you going to insist in the main one for commerce? Or talking to the police? Or politicians and government officials? You want only one language used for certain situations or transactions? In the Welsh example, that language cannot be English, as it would suppress Welsh culture and heritage.
And once you insist on your position, how are you going to enforce it? The power from Madrid cannot have spies on the the streets of Barcelona hauling people off to the castle on the hill for speaking Catalan, no more so than the English on the streets of Cardiff.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
“I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders.”
So you are telling us Sunak needs to learn Welsh?
Almost everyone in Wales speaks English even if as a second language. You'll need to do better than this.
To be members of a Nation State, everyone needs to speak the same language? Are you sure?
You don’t share my hunch it’s not politics that sets learning of language, but commercial - the language of the Roman Empire wasn’t Roman, it was Greek for this reason.
So which of the languages of the British State are you going to insist in the main one for commerce? Or talking to the police? Or politicians and government officials? You want only one language used for certain situations or transactions? In the Welsh example, that language cannot be English, as it would suppress Welsh culture and heritage.
And once you insist on your position, how are you going to enforce it? The power from Madrid cannot have spies on the the streets of Barcelona hauling people off to the castle on the hill for speaking Catalan, no more so than the English on the streets of Cardiff.
Point of order: Roman Empire language was Latin in the western empire; Greek in the eastern empire. Or, later, Greek full stop when the western empire was lost.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
“I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders.”
So you are telling us Sunak needs to learn Welsh?
Almost everyone in Wales speaks English even if as a second language. You'll need to do better than this.
The better example of India I think has been made. It's probably easier if everyone speaks the same language, but it isn't totally needed.
I recall being a bit startled by being told by Indians that they consider English as a good common language and that it has *less* connotations of oppression etc than the alternatives.
I'd never thought about it, but it makes sense to me - let's give credit to the Indians that they have been perfectly capable of engaging in their own oppressions (or being oppressed by others) in the thousands of years of civilization there before we entered onto the scene.
I believe the discussion was triggered by Lord Sumption’s observation that one of Brexit’s failures is that it leaves the space clear for a potential single European hegemonic power, contra to 500 years of British foreign policy.
Is this the point that we need to be pro-Europe in order to be anti-Europe?
Such alliances will work on raw geopolitical power and realpolitik, not institutional architecture.
I'd argue we've been more able to be influential over Ukraine outside than inside as we are not bound by the CFSP.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
My point is that your argument that a multilingual democracy doesn’t work, is total bunk.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
I still don’t know why the tiggers didn’t join the Lib Dem’s. Totally bizarre. It could have made a significant difference.
The SDP is deeply embedded in Labour folklore. Myths about how it gave Thatcher 15 terms as PM etc.
I can't see how they can, for the same period of decades, also have claimed that the SNP did exactly the same thing. Obviously some logical disconnect there.
Probably not much logical connection there. Most parties have a gut attachment to various myths, Labour’s is a sense of deep entitlement to the votes of the working class. If by some mischance these wc voters go elsewhere, it’s only temporary and they’ll return gratefully to the party that truly represents them. This is the unifying force of SLab as it’s currently exists, but it’s mildly startling how pervasive it is in UKLab: we’ll get those Scottish voters back that the dastardly SNP have stolen from us!
I still don’t know why the tiggers didn’t join the Lib Dem’s. Totally bizarre. It could have made a significant difference.
The SDP is deeply embedded in Labour folklore. Myths about how it gave Thatcher 15 terms as PM etc.
I can't see how they can, for the same period of decades, also have claimed that the SNP did exactly the same thing. Obviously some logical disconnect there.
Probably not much logical connection there. Most parties have a gut attachment to various myths, Labour’s is a sense of deep entitlement to the votes of the working class. If by some mischance these wc voters go elsewhere, it’s only temporary and they’ll return gratefully to the party that truly represents them. This is the unifying force of SLab as it’s currently exists, but it’s mildly startling how pervasive it is in UKLab: we’ll get those Scottish voters back that the dastardly SNP have stolen from us!
Did you see Polly Toynbee's article on how the radical leftie SKS was challenging the SNP head-on, btw? Presumably you'd regard it as part of that downfall myth.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
My point is that your argument that a multilingual democracy doesn’t work, is total bunk.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
Can it really be called democracy if a significant part of the electorate can’t directly participate in the ‘national’ conversation?
All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.
You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.
Taking a fucking look at yourselves.
Who is arguing for a “single state”. Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.
I believe the discussion was triggered by Lord Sumption’s observation that one of Brexit’s failures is that it leaves the space clear for a potential single European hegemonic power, contra to 500 years of British foreign policy.
Is this the point that we need to be pro-Europe in order to be anti-Europe?
Such alliances will work on raw geopolitical power and realpolitik, not institutional architecture.
I'd argue we've been more able to be influential over Ukraine outside than inside as we are not bound by the CFSP.
The point is, it is easier to exercise power inside than out. That’s should be obvious.
Second, being “pro-Europe” doesn’t mean being “pro an undemocratic superstate” or whatever bogeyman you are implicitly conjuring.
To quote Thatcher, “The European Community belongs to all its members. It must reflect the traditions and aspirations of all its members.
And let me be quite clear.
Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”
Finally, the CFSP is a bit of paper tiger. The only aspect I’d concede is that Britain is in much greater control of trade sanction ability since leaving the EU, although British trade sanctions in isolation are not a very useful level without the US and EU in accompaniment.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
“I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders.”
So you are telling us Sunak needs to learn Welsh?
Almost everyone in Wales speaks English even if as a second language. You'll need to do better than this.
The better example of India I think has been made. It's probably easier if everyone speaks the same language, but it isn't totally needed.
The view of a proper thinking liberal. Of which there do not seem to be many on this site.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
My point is that your argument that a multilingual democracy doesn’t work, is total bunk.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
Belgium is a mutually incomprehensible lingual democracy. If you are in a French or German speaking community you won't be able to interact with local government services in Flemish. We learned zero Flemish or German at my Francophone community school.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
My point is that your argument that a multilingual democracy doesn’t work, is total bunk.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
Can it really be called democracy if a significant part of the electorate can’t directly participate in the ‘national’ conversation?
Sorry, which bizarre counterfactual are we talking about? It’s getting confusing.
The direct answer to the words of your question is no, but who is making the alternative case?
All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.
You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.
Taking a fucking look at yourselves.
Who is arguing for a “single state”. Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.
I still don’t know why the tiggers didn’t join the Lib Dem’s. Totally bizarre. It could have made a significant difference.
The SDP is deeply embedded in Labour folklore. Myths about how it gave Thatcher 15 terms as PM etc.
I can't see how they can, for the same period of decades, also have claimed that the SNP did exactly the same thing. Obviously some logical disconnect there.
Probably not much logical connection there. Most parties have a gut attachment to various myths, Labour’s is a sense of deep entitlement to the votes of the working class. If by some mischance these wc voters go elsewhere, it’s only temporary and they’ll return gratefully to the party that truly represents them. This is the unifying force of SLab as it’s currently exists, but it’s mildly startling how pervasive it is in UKLab: we’ll get those Scottish voters back that the dastardly SNP have stolen from us!
Did you see Polly Toynbee's article on how the radical leftie SKS was challenging the SNP head-on, btw? Presumably you'd regard it as part of that downfall myth.
I did. Still waiting for a sighting of these leftwing credential that SKS is supposed to be parading. Comes to something when Sarwar & Slab are positioned to the left of rUKLab.
I still don’t know why the tiggers didn’t join the Lib Dem’s. Totally bizarre. It could have made a significant difference.
The SDP is deeply embedded in Labour folklore. Myths about how it gave Thatcher 15 terms as PM etc.
I can't see how they can, for the same period of decades, also have claimed that the SNP did exactly the same thing. Obviously some logical disconnect there.
“If all the left of centre people all voted for Labour, as they should, we would never lose”
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
My point is that your argument that a multilingual democracy doesn’t work, is total bunk.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
Can it really be called democracy if a significant part of the electorate can’t directly participate in the ‘national’ conversation?
Sorry, which bizarre counterfactual are we talking about? It’s getting confusing.
The direct answer to the words of your question is no, but who is making the alternative case?
You are. You are asserting the democracy doesn't depend on there being a common language.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
My point is that your argument that a multilingual democracy doesn’t work, is total bunk.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
Belgium is a mutually incomprehensible lingual democracy. If you are in a French or German speaking community you won't be able to interact with local government services in Flemish. We learned zero Flemish or German at my Francophone community school.
You will know Belgium better than me. But I presume all Flemings can speak French, and the federal Belgian political class all speak French.
I still don’t know why the tiggers didn’t join the Lib Dem’s. Totally bizarre. It could have made a significant difference.
The SDP is deeply embedded in Labour folklore. Myths about how it gave Thatcher 15 terms as PM etc.
I can't see how they can, for the same period of decades, also have claimed that the SNP did exactly the same thing. Obviously some logical disconnect there.
Probably not much logical connection there. Most parties have a gut attachment to various myths, Labour’s is a sense of deep entitlement to the votes of the working class. If by some mischance these wc voters go elsewhere, it’s only temporary and they’ll return gratefully to the party that truly represents them. This is the unifying force of SLab as it’s currently exists, but it’s mildly startling how pervasive it is in UKLab: we’ll get those Scottish voters back that the dastardly SNP have stolen from us!
Did you see Polly Toynbee's article on how the radical leftie SKS was challenging the SNP head-on, btw? Presumably you'd regard it as part of that downfall myth.
I did. Still waiting for a sighting of these leftwing credential that SKS is supposed to be parading. Comes to something when Sarwar & Slab are positioned to the left of rUKLab.
Also when the Slab candidate is actively denying UKLab policy on key issues, as already remarked on here. Wonder how that will come out in the wash?
I believe the discussion was triggered by Lord Sumption’s observation that one of Brexit’s failures is that it leaves the space clear for a potential single European hegemonic power, contra to 500 years of British foreign policy.
Is this the point that we need to be pro-Europe in order to be anti-Europe?
Such alliances will work on raw geopolitical power and realpolitik, not institutional architecture.
I'd argue we've been more able to be influential over Ukraine outside than inside as we are not bound by the CFSP.
Oh no, not this shit again. 'Iraq' (a war instigated by the most pro-EU PM we've ever had) pretty much undermines the idea that the CFSP would have in any way prevented us from helping Ukraine.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
My point is that your argument that a multilingual democracy doesn’t work, is total bunk.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
Can it really be called democracy if a significant part of the electorate can’t directly participate in the ‘national’ conversation?
Sorry, which bizarre counterfactual are we talking about? It’s getting confusing.
The direct answer to the words of your question is no, but who is making the alternative case?
You are. You are asserting the democracy doesn't depend on there being a common language.
Jesus Christ this is boring now.
You and your friend have been given several counter examples. If you want to contend that India, Indonesia, Switzerland, Canada and Belgium are not “true democracies” then go ahead.
Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.
Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.
I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
“I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders.”
So you are telling us Sunak needs to learn Welsh?
Almost everyone in Wales speaks English even if as a second language. You'll need to do better than this.
The better example of India I think has been made. It's probably easier if everyone speaks the same language, but it isn't totally needed.
The view of a proper thinking liberal. Of which there do not seem to be many on this site.
I believe the discussion was triggered by Lord Sumption’s observation that one of Brexit’s failures is that it leaves the space clear for a potential single European hegemonic power, contra to 500 years of British foreign policy.
Is this the point that we need to be pro-Europe in order to be anti-Europe?
Such alliances will work on raw geopolitical power and realpolitik, not institutional architecture.
I'd argue we've been more able to be influential over Ukraine outside than inside as we are not bound by the CFSP.
Oh no, not this shit again. 'Iraq' (a war instigated by the most pro-EU PM we've ever had) pretty much undermines the idea that CFSP would have in any prevented us from helping Ukraine.
As does Ukraine itself, judging from the varying responses inside the EU.
All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.
You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.
Taking a fucking look at yourselves.
Who is arguing for a “single state”. Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Assume you were listening to the reading of the biography of Orwell’s first wife on R4. The recounting of Orwell rewarding himself with a (v.young) Berber girl because he’d been good was particularly disturbing.
All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.
You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.
Taking a fucking look at yourselves.
Who is arguing for a “single state”. Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
I think it'd be nice (for that matter I was vice-chair of the all-party (yes, Tories were in it too) parliamentary group for WORLD government), but I'm not exactly arguing for it, since I can see it's not on the cards. Without going to the extreme language that Casino's using today, I think a more reasonable complaint is that Brexiteers invented a "rapid move towards a single state" that clearly wasn't anywhere near happening, in order to scare people into voting for their scheme. While Monnet and the other founders saw it as desirable, in practice it proceeds at a millimetre per year, and in some ways is going backwards.
My underlying view is that tribalism has caused endless pain throughout history, and nation states are just the current incarnation of that. English, Irish, French, German, Russian, and indeed Ukrainian nationalism all seem to me stained by appalling things done in their name in the past - some much worse than others, but all basically prone to endorse awful things in the name of lines on a map. I've nothing against enjoying our culture and asking new residents to broadly go along with it, but the progress of peoples isn't a zero-sum game and it makes sense to try to work together as far as we can. If that eventually means a single state, tant mieux.
All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.
You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.
Taking a fucking look at yourselves.
Who is arguing for a “single state”. Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.
I still don’t know why the tiggers didn’t join the Lib Dem’s. Totally bizarre. It could have made a significant difference.
The SDP is deeply embedded in Labour folklore. Myths about how it gave Thatcher 15 terms as PM etc.
I can't see how they can, for the same period of decades, also have claimed that the SNP did exactly the same thing. Obviously some logical disconnect there.
“If all the left of centre people all voted for Labour, as they should, we would never lose”
As a liberal I am no closer to Labour than I am to the Conservatives. Labour can't simply add up all those who are not Conservatives or UKIP(and whatever other name you want to add here for the loony right) and assume they are left of centre and should fall into line.
Having said that I also don't understand why the Tiggers didn't join the LDs, similarly those that stayed in the SDP.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
My point is that your argument that a multilingual democracy doesn’t work, is total bunk.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
Can it really be called democracy if a significant part of the electorate can’t directly participate in the ‘national’ conversation?
Sorry, which bizarre counterfactual are we talking about? It’s getting confusing.
The direct answer to the words of your question is no, but who is making the alternative case?
You are. You are asserting the democracy doesn't depend on there being a common language.
Jesus Christ this is boring now.
You and your friend have been given several counter examples. If you want to contend that India, Indonesia, Switzerland, Canada and Belgium are not “true democracies” then go ahead.
Then you're contradicting yourself. How can India be a true democracy if monolingual speakers of multiple minority languages are unable to participate directly in the national conversation and need to rely on second-hand translations?
All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.
You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.
Taking a fucking look at yourselves.
Who is arguing for a “single state”. Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
I think it'd be nice (for that matter I was vice-chair of the all-party (yes, Tories were in it too) parliamentary group for WORLD government), but I'm not exactly arguing for it, since I can see it's not on the cards. Without going to the extreme language that Casino's using today, I think a more reasonable complaint is that Brexiteers invented a "rapid move towards a single state" that clearly wasn't anywhere near happening, in order to scare people into voting for their scheme. While Monnet and the other founders saw it as desirable, in practice it proceeds at a millimetre per year, and in some ways is going backwards.
My underlying view is that tribalism has caused endless pain throughout history, and nation states are just the current incarnation of that. English, Irish, French, German, Russian, and indeed Ukrainian nationalism all seem to me stained by appalling things done in their name in the past - some much worse than others, but all basically prone to endorse awful things in the name of lines on a map. I've nothing against enjoying our culture and asking new residents to broadly go along with it, but the progress of peoples isn't a zero-sum game and it makes sense to try to work together as far as we can. If that eventually means a single state, tant mieux.
Very considered, thank you.
Yes, Brexiters created a bogeyman (the undemocratic single state) and constantly used language to suggest the path toward it was irrevocable (“the train is leaving the platform etc”).
Have you read Perry Anderson’s magisterial critique of the EU project? It is much more informed, and therefore more powerful, than the nonsense seen on here.
I still don’t know why the tiggers didn’t join the Lib Dem’s. Totally bizarre. It could have made a significant difference.
Having made the not inconsiderable leap to quit their previous parties it appears too many of them just couldn't go further, at least not right away. It meant their moment was lost unfortunately.
IIRC they believed that their status as MP and high profile meant they should have leading roles in the party
Long serving and loyal LibDems - understandably- objected
Those arguing for a "single state" are traitors, plain and simple, and deserve nothing but contempt.
Now now. If people are honest about it and simply want to make their case to the public, as I presume Nick Palmer would advocate, let them do it.
It's the stealthy, dishonest, conniving attitude I object to.
Who or what is being stealthy and dishonest, and can you cite actual points in support?
Otherwise, you’re just King Lear, mingeing on about the “terrors of the earth”.
Er... yes.
Let's create a single currency but not actually explain to people what the full implications of it are because then they might reject the idea and once it's in place they'll have no option but to back further political integration.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
My point is that your argument that a multilingual democracy doesn’t work, is total bunk.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
Belgium is a mutually incomprehensible lingual democracy. If you are in a French or German speaking community you won't be able to interact with local government services in Flemish. We learned zero Flemish or German at my Francophone community school.
You will know Belgium better than me. But I presume all Flemings can speak French, and the federal Belgian political class all speak French.
Some can, but plenty can't and are more likely to have some facility with English.
Federal politicians are expected to speak Flemish and French and, ideally, German but, again, many don't. Charles Michel has notable facility with all three community languages and English but his old man was a language teacher. The royal family are resolutely Francophone like the rest of the Bruxellois elite.
What I will say is that I believe Swiss Germans can speak French and vice versa, and the Italian speakers are too small to worry about. Also the Swiss central government is famously limited.
Most Swiss Germans don't speak French fluently, and vice versa - if you see a French Swiss speaker on German Swiss TV they'll be subtitled or dubbed. As you say, though, central government is very limited, so it doesn't really matter much, any more than people in Yorkshire don't really care if they can't follow what's happening in Penzance. I do think that subsidiarity (devolving decision-making to the lowest level feasible to make things work) is an important balance to any kind of large state - without it, even the current EU would''t work at all.
I believe the discussion was triggered by Lord Sumption’s observation that one of Brexit’s failures is that it leaves the space clear for a potential single European hegemonic power, contra to 500 years of British foreign policy.
Is this the point that we need to be pro-Europe in order to be anti-Europe?
Such alliances will work on raw geopolitical power and realpolitik, not institutional architecture.
I'd argue we've been more able to be influential over Ukraine outside than inside as we are not bound by the CFSP.
Oh no, not this shit again. 'Iraq' (a war instigated by the most pro-EU PM we've ever had) pretty much undermines the idea that CFSP would have in any prevented us from helping Ukraine.
As does Ukraine itself, judging from the varying responses inside the EU.
Rapidly transforming themselves away from multilingual democracy. WG must be advising them.
Looks like there are plenty of examples of democracies working across several languages- let's chuck Spain and Canada in the mix as well.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
Quebec nearly voted for independence. Brief research suggests about half the population there understands English. How many Spanish people can't speak Spanish?
Scotland also nearly voted for independence.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
'Scotland also nearly voted for independence.'
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
My point is that your argument that a multilingual democracy doesn’t work, is total bunk.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
Can it really be called democracy if a significant part of the electorate can’t directly participate in the ‘national’ conversation?
Sorry, which bizarre counterfactual are we talking about? It’s getting confusing.
The direct answer to the words of your question is no, but who is making the alternative case?
You are. You are asserting the democracy doesn't depend on there being a common language.
Jesus Christ this is boring now.
You and your friend have been given several counter examples. If you want to contend that India, Indonesia, Switzerland, Canada and Belgium are not “true democracies” then go ahead.
Then you're contradicting yourself. How can India be a true democracy if monolingual speakers of multiple minority languages are unable to participate directly in the national conversation and need to rely on second-hand translations?
What language is the “national conversation” of India held in, and what % of the population does this disenfranchise?
Those arguing for a "single state" are traitors, plain and simple, and deserve nothing but contempt.
Now now. If people are honest about it and simply want to make their case to the public, as I presume Nick Palmer would advocate, let them do it.
It's the stealthy, dishonest, conniving attitude I object to.
Who or what is being stealthy and dishonest, and can you cite actual points in support?
Otherwise, you’re just King Lear, mingeing on about the “terrors of the earth”.
Er... yes.
Let's create a single currency but not actually explain to people what the full implications of it are because then they might reject the idea and once it's in place they'll have no option but to back further political integration.
What are these “full implications”? And who hasn’t explained them to whom?
I believe the discussion was triggered by Lord Sumption’s observation that one of Brexit’s failures is that it leaves the space clear for a potential single European hegemonic power, contra to 500 years of British foreign policy.
Is this the point that we need to be pro-Europe in order to be anti-Europe?
Such alliances will work on raw geopolitical power and realpolitik, not institutional architecture.
I'd argue we've been more able to be influential over Ukraine outside than inside as we are not bound by the CFSP.
Oh no, not this shit again. 'Iraq' (a war instigated by the most pro-EU PM we've ever had) pretty much undermines the idea that CFSP would have in any prevented us from helping Ukraine.
As does Ukraine itself, judging from the varying responses inside the EU.
Rapidly transforming themselves away from multilingual democracy. WG must be advising them.
And Russia is a beacon of parliamentary democracy, of course
Okay this is officially the flight from Hell. Another indefinite delay, woo!
But fair play to FlyDubai, the short-haul Emirates subsidiary, they’ve been quick with information and support. Looks like we have a properly dead plane, in which case we might be here either late tonight or another hotel, if they have to send another plane out to pick us up. Supposed to be back in the office tomorrow, oh well.
I believe the discussion was triggered by Lord Sumption’s observation that one of Brexit’s failures is that it leaves the space clear for a potential single European hegemonic power, contra to 500 years of British foreign policy.
Is this the point that we need to be pro-Europe in order to be anti-Europe?
Such alliances will work on raw geopolitical power and realpolitik, not institutional architecture.
I'd argue we've been more able to be influential over Ukraine outside than inside as we are not bound by the CFSP.
Oh no, not this shit again. 'Iraq' (a war instigated by the most pro-EU PM we've ever had) pretty much undermines the idea that CFSP would have in any prevented us from helping Ukraine.
As does Ukraine itself, judging from the varying responses inside the EU.
Rapidly transforming themselves away from multilingual democracy. WG must be advising them.
And Russia is a beacon of parliamentary democracy, of course
Okay this is officially the flight from Hell. Another indefinite delay, woo!
But fair play to FlyDubai, the short-haul Emirates subsidiary, they’ve been quick with information and support. Looks like we have a properly dead plane, in which case we might be here either late tonight or another hotel, if they have to send another plane out to pick us up. Supposed to be back in the office tomorrow, oh well.
I believe the discussion was triggered by Lord Sumption’s observation that one of Brexit’s failures is that it leaves the space clear for a potential single European hegemonic power, contra to 500 years of British foreign policy.
Is this the point that we need to be pro-Europe in order to be anti-Europe?
Such alliances will work on raw geopolitical power and realpolitik, not institutional architecture.
I'd argue we've been more able to be influential over Ukraine outside than inside as we are not bound by the CFSP.
Oh no, not this shit again. 'Iraq' (a war instigated by the most pro-EU PM we've ever had) pretty much undermines the idea that CFSP would have in any prevented us from helping Ukraine.
As does Ukraine itself, judging from the varying responses inside the EU.
Rapidly transforming themselves away from multilingual democracy. WG must be advising them.
And Russia is a beacon of parliamentary democracy, of course
All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.
You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.
Taking a fucking look at yourselves.
Who is arguing for a “single state”. Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.
Waiting in Counterfactual Corner is a discussion where Stalin and his idea’s flee to Mexico, and Trotsky is the heir of Lenin, so what would have been different?
I would suggest quite a lot. Take Spanish history alone, if POUM and other Trotskyist parties had not been purged and liquidated by Stalinists in the middle of a conflict with the Nationalists, the whole Spanish history to this date could have been different. Likewise UK and many other countries if Communist parties of the world were not just affiliates of Stalin’s Communist party of the USSR.
I suggest Ace, no one can support both Marx-Lenin-Trotsky on the one hand Stalin-USSR on the other - such a position doesn’t understand such fundamental differences as between anti-capitalist Revolutionary vs. Conservative, or brotherhood of workers v Imperialism.
Okay this is officially the flight from Hell. Another indefinite delay, woo!
But fair play to FlyDubai, the short-haul Emirates subsidiary, they’ve been quick with information and support. Looks like we have a properly dead plane, in which case we might be here either late tonight or another hotel, if they have to send another plane out to pick us up. Supposed to be back in the office tomorrow, oh well.
All the best!
All fun and games. The trick is not to let yourself get too stressed out by a situation that’s out of your control. If I get back to the office a day late, I get back to the office a day late. It’s just me and the wife, no screaming kids, although the Mrs had a dodgy salad in the lounge last night and isn’t at her best today. What happens, happens. The airline has been good so far, and we have good travel insurance if they’re not.
Tory (slim) hopes rest on Lab and LDs not getting their shit together.
The real campaign is now - between Lab and LD - to establish who the clear rival is. Once that is confirmed (by early polling), one of them needs to get behind the other.
The earlier poll is not useful, and was probably initiated by the Tories in the hopes of causing disagreement among their rivals.
If Lab really have selected a “blow-in”, then that is very stupid, as otherwise I’d have made them favourites.
All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.
You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.
Taking a fucking look at yourselves.
Who is arguing for a “single state”. Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
So it would seem.
Orwell was not a Trotskyist.
Probably not a barrier to being shot for being one, in a scenario where it's Stalin doing the shooting.
Tory (slim) hopes rest on Lab and LDs not getting their shit together.
The real campaign is now - between Lab and LD - to establish who the clear rival is. Once that is confirmed (by early polling), one of them needs to get behind the other.
The earlier poll is not useful, and was probably initiated by the Tories in the hopes of causing disagreement among their rivals.
If Lab really have selected a “blow-in”, then that is very stupid, as otherwise I’d have made them favourites.
I don’t think Lab and LD need to get behind whichever of them turns out to be the main challenger. If the main challenger is clear, the voters will do that regardless of the parties.
All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.
You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.
Taking a fucking look at yourselves.
Who is arguing for a “single state”. Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.
Waiting in Counterfactual Corner is a discussion where Stalin and his idea’s flee to Mexico, and Trotsky is the heir of Lenin, so what would have been different?
I would suggest quite a lot. Take Spanish history alone, if POUM and other Trotskyist parties had not been purged and liquidated by Stalinists in the middle of a conflict with the Nationalists, the whole Spanish history to this date could have been different. Likewise UK and many other countries if Communist parties of the world were not just affiliates of Stalin’s Communist party of the USSR.
I suggest Ace, no one can support both Marx-Lenin-Trotsky on the one hand Stalin-USSR on the other - such a position doesn’t understand such fundamental differences as between anti-capitalist Revolutionary vs. Conservative, or brotherhood of workers v Imperialism.
If the roles were reversed, perhaps the ideals would have been too. Isn't that what a Marxist analysis would say? In other words, Trotsky would have become Stalin.
Comments
On the article 50 case I almost felt like the government wanted it to go down that way, since Parliament then overwhelmingly voted in favour and were always going to given the climate of the times, which was then used many times against MPs who obviously didn't want to go at all, but had voted to trigger.
The simplest form would be a portable kiosk - there’s one that was routinely parked outside Haggerston Station in London - cost around £5000 inc espresso machine - to dispense coffees on fine days.
Would probably make more money than the bookshop, although logistics would need to be carefully considered. People get pissed off if they can’t buy an actual book because some idiot is getting a double mocha latte with flakes*
*dont offer this option.
2008-22 was a mad period of nearly free money where investors were looking eek out yield anywhere they could find it. This had the effect of depressing insurance premiums.
That period looks to be well and truly over (?) so, as night follows day, insurance premiums are inevitably rising again.
The mistake people are making is to think 2008-22 was normal. It wasn’t.
I can see the Greens doing v well at next GE.
The "Chums" theory would say that the issue isn't that voters can't handle polyglot democracies. But the Oxford Union Witty Banter version of debate fails in that situation. And for some politicians, that's what it's all about.
But I can see them doing well in the subsequent locals.
Frank’s clearly the type of person who thinks that going down the garden centre is travel.
I don’t want to be too reductive, it’s manufacturing and pharma industries are enviable, there is a lot to learn, but ultimately it’s model cannot replicated at a larger scale in the UK.
Geneva is for French businesses that don’t want French regulation, etc etc.
You might argue that London can/does do this with respect to the EU but I don’t think it’s enough to sustain 65million.
For similar reasons, Singapore‘s position as the East Asian entrepot is not a model we can adopt, although of course there is much to learn.
I think you’re original point - that a demos should be able to understand it’s leadership - is a decent one, but there’s no rule that a successful democracy must be monolingual, and your underlying conclusion - that Britain is therefore better off out of a European “single state” - is riddled with holes.
I think if you do it well, it can be amazing. Badly, and it can actually deter customers.
Admittedly, I have remainer/elite/metropolitan standards.
1:00 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g94hO5U6KyM
We need British solutions to suit the British economy.
You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.
Taking a fucking look at yourselves.
Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
So what? Are you suggesting Quebec independence had nothing to do with language?
What I would say is that you can have multiple languages but if people cannot understand the language of their leaders you have a problem. The EU has tried to create a superstate by stealth, not setting out the political implications of a single currency to the electorate at the time and even now is finding it impossible.
In which case, on both counts, who are the traitors?
You don’t share my hunch it’s not politics that sets learning of language, but commercial - the language of the Roman Empire wasn’t Roman, it was Greek for this reason.
So which of the languages of the British State are you going to insist in the main one for commerce? Or talking to the police? Or politicians and government officials? You want only one language used for certain situations or transactions? In the Welsh example, that language cannot be English, as it would suppress Welsh culture and heritage.
And once you insist on your position, how are you going to enforce it? The power from Madrid cannot have spies on the the streets of Barcelona hauling people off to the castle on the hill for speaking Catalan, no more so than the English on the streets of Cardiff.
Such alliances will work on raw geopolitical power and realpolitik, not institutional architecture.
I'd argue we've been more able to be influential over Ukraine outside than inside as we are not bound by the CFSP.
As I noted above, you simply want to try to make another point, which is that a EU superstate is a bad thing, and presumably you think they “the EU” is hoodwinking uncomprehending Greeks and Latvians by doing it all in French and German.
There is, I believe, an old debating maxim; no case; abuse the opposition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Taiwan
It's the stealthy, dishonest, conniving attitude I object to.
Perun 20230827: The Death of Prigozhin -The crash & its implications for Wagner, Africa, Ukraine & Russia, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va3UtYl6PUs , 58mins
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/22/labour-leftwing-credentials-byelection-snp-rutherglen-hamilton-west-keir-starmer
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Second, being “pro-Europe” doesn’t mean being “pro an undemocratic superstate” or whatever bogeyman you are implicitly conjuring.
To quote Thatcher,
“The European Community belongs to all its members.
It must reflect the traditions and aspirations of all its members.
And let me be quite clear.
Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”
Finally, the CFSP is a bit of paper tiger.
The only aspect I’d concede is that Britain is in much greater control of trade sanction ability since leaving the EU, although British trade sanctions in isolation are not a very useful level without the US and EU in accompaniment.
The direct answer to the words of your question is no, but who is making the alternative case?
Otherwise, you’re just King Lear, mingeing on about the “terrors of the earth”.
Orwell was not a Trotskyist.
But I presume all Flemings can speak French, and the federal Belgian political class all speak French.
You and your friend have been given several counter examples. If you want to contend that India, Indonesia, Switzerland, Canada and Belgium are not “true democracies” then go ahead.
My underlying view is that tribalism has caused endless pain throughout history, and nation states are just the current incarnation of that. English, Irish, French, German, Russian, and indeed Ukrainian nationalism all seem to me stained by appalling things done in their name in the past - some much worse than others, but all basically prone to endorse awful things in the name of lines on a map. I've nothing against enjoying our culture and asking new residents to broadly go along with it, but the progress of peoples isn't a zero-sum game and it makes sense to try to work together as far as we can. If that eventually means a single state, tant mieux.
https://www.tutor2u.net/history/topics/poum
Having said that I also don't understand why the Tiggers didn't join the LDs, similarly those that stayed in the SDP.
Yes, Brexiters created a bogeyman (the undemocratic single state) and constantly used language to suggest the path toward it was irrevocable (“the train is leaving the platform etc”).
Have you read Perry Anderson’s magisterial critique of the EU project? It is much more informed, and therefore more powerful, than the nonsense seen on here.
Long serving and loyal LibDems - understandably- objected
Let's create a single currency but not actually explain to people what the full implications of it are because then they might reject the idea and once it's in place they'll have no option but to back further political integration.
Federal politicians are expected to speak Flemish and French and, ideally, German but, again, many don't. Charles Michel has notable facility with all three community languages and English but his old man was a language teacher. The royal family are resolutely Francophone like the rest of the Bruxellois elite.
And who hasn’t explained them to whom?
But fair play to FlyDubai, the short-haul Emirates subsidiary, they’ve been quick with information and support. Looks like we have a properly dead plane, in which case we might be here either late tonight or another hotel, if they have to send another plane out to pick us up. Supposed to be back in the office tomorrow, oh well.
I would suggest quite a lot. Take Spanish history alone, if POUM and other Trotskyist parties had not been purged and liquidated by Stalinists in the middle of a conflict with the Nationalists, the whole Spanish history to this date could have been different. Likewise UK and many other countries if Communist parties of the world were not just affiliates of Stalin’s Communist party of the USSR.
I suggest Ace, no one can support both Marx-Lenin-Trotsky on the one hand Stalin-USSR on the other - such a position doesn’t understand such fundamental differences as between anti-capitalist Revolutionary vs. Conservative, or brotherhood of workers v Imperialism.
Manchester Police to probe SNP Cash for seats claim. Strange Manchester , only known connection is that their new auditors are in Manchester.
https://twitter.com/ColumboPolitics/status/1695699685686550642
The real campaign is now - between Lab and LD - to establish who the clear rival is. Once that is confirmed (by early polling), one of them needs to get behind the other.
The earlier poll is not useful, and was probably initiated by the Tories in the hopes of causing disagreement among their rivals.
If Lab really have selected a “blow-in”, then that is very stupid, as otherwise I’d have made them favourites.