The flip side of "uncertainty" is "dynamism". Uncertainty is being used as a buzzword to explain why the economy will be damaged but too much certainty creates sclerosis and is a bad thing - see Brown's attempts to defeat boom and bust and the decades long eurosclerosis*.
Far from uncertainty creating a negative cycle within the economy it is entirely possible that it could provide an adrenaline boost to the economy. The chance of that happening may be less than 50% in your eyes but they are objectively not zero percent.
There is a small chance of that in the long term, although the mechanism is completely opaque and seems mainly to comprise wishful thinking. But even if right in the long term, it can't conceivably give a boost in the short-term (say three years), to offset the negative effects of uncertainy on inward investment and business confidence.
And, to be fair, I don't think any of small number of economists who reckon Brexit would be good in the long term are claiming that it will be actually positive in the short term. A few think it will be neutral.
I lived in Germany from 1998 to 2008, and I was also struck by the completely different attitude to the EU. While some Germans regarded the EU with exasperation and annoyance, there was non of the outright hostility that was prevalent in the UK even then. They tended to see the EU as their family - irritating and awkward sometimes, but still "us". The UK attitude, in contrast, has been very much "us" and "them" for the last few decades. Personally, I put the most blame for this on the insidious nature of an enduring anti-EU campaign by the British press.
I am not at all surprised and I don't believe it has a damn thing to do with the British Press. The UK has never been part of Europe in the same way that continental countries have. We have always been the awkward place off to the left that didn't give in to the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the French again or the Germans, but we fought with them all to stop any of them getting too big and to preserve our own interests. We have always remained separate and have never been ruled by any of them, whilst they have repeatedly conquered and ruled each other (frequently until the UK put together an alliance and busted it up).
Remember too, Mr. Enjineeya, the press exists to sell papers so they are more likely to reflect rather than lead opinion. If the UK press appears to you to be anti-EU that is because that is what their readers want to see. The old, probably apocryphal, headline, "Fog in the channel - Continent cut off", resonates because it captures a mood of the people of these islands.
We do not belong in the EU, our whole history and tradition (legal, trading, whatever you like) goes against it. We will never be happy partners in this political construct and so it's probably best for all if we get out now. We can still be friends, we can cooperate when our interests collide (with have with Portugal since 1373), but we will never be comfortable "pooling sovereignty" to the level demanded by the EU.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
150 years? Pah! There was an Orangery in Hampton Court palace for rather longer and Queen Anne put one in at Kensington Palace in about 1700 to say nothing of the gardens at Kew. Not quite the same thing as commercial growers though is it?
Bollocks. Most markets for most goods through most of history have not been regulated. Why should banana shape be regulated at all? Where does regulation 'for the sake of a level playing field' end? With no choice for the consumer?
Regulation is a political choice just like anything else. Much regulation should be pushed down to the lowest level of government appropriate, not all of it pushed up the the highest.
You are confusing two different points. Should banana shape be regulated at all? No, I would say not. But if it is regulated, it should be done at the single-market level, not at the individual country level, otherwise it acts as a non-tariff barrier.
I don't think any EU member countries grow bananas.
However, what are the actual EU regulations that apply to the import and sale of bananas?
Spain does (Canary islands).
I imagine a number of the French DomToms grow bananas.
I lived in Germany from 1998 to 2008, and I was also struck by the completely different attitude to the EU. While some Germans regarded the EU with exasperation and annoyance, there was non of the outright hostility that was prevalent in the UK even then. They tended to see the EU as their family - irritating and awkward sometimes, but still "us". The UK attitude, in contrast, has been very much "us" and "them" for the last few decades. Personally, I put the most blame for this on the insidious nature of an enduring anti-EU campaign by the British press.
I am not at all surprised and I don't believe it has a damn thing to do with the British Press. The UK has never been part of Europe in the same way that continental countries have. We have always been the awkward place off to the left that didn't give in to the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the French again or the Germans, but we fought with them all to stop any of them getting too big and to preserve our own interests. We have always remained separate and have never been ruled by any of them, whilst they have repeatedly conquered and ruled each other (frequently until the UK put together an alliance and busted it up).
Remember too, Mr. Enjineeya, the press exists to sell papers so they are more likely to reflect rather than lead opinion. If the UK press appears to you to be anti-EU that is because that is what their readers want to see. The old, probably apocryphal, headline, "Fog in the channel - Continent cut off", resonates because it captures a mood of the people of these islands.
We do not belong in the EU, our whole history and tradition (legal, trading, whatever you like) goes against it. We will never be happy partners in this political construct and so it's probably best for all if we get out now. We can still be friends, we can cooperate when our interests collide (with have with Portugal since 1373), but we will never be comfortable "pooling sovereignty" to the level demanded by the EU.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975.
The process for Turkey joining the EU is not imaginary, it has already begun. It is a matter of public record and our government's policy is to encourage it not veto it.
That's like saying putting in an application for a mortgage is the same as 'the bank are giving me a mortgage'.
At the moment, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the 'process' as you call it producing a successful result in anything like the foreseeable future, and anyway we have a veto.
Clearly, Vote Leave's claim is an outright lie, as is their claim about £350m a week (why not give the real figure, which would be politically just as effective?). Nothing unusual about that, of course, but it's the santimonious faux-outrage about the Remain claims which is so hilarious, all the more so because the Remain claims which they get so indignant about are forecasts, and therefore matters of opinion, not objectively false.
Do you actually expect casually interested voters to understand your somewhat casuistic distinction ?
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
150 years? Pah! There was an Orangery in Hampton Court palace for rather longer and Queen Anne put one in at Kensington Palace in about 1700 to say nothing of the gardens at Kew. Not quite the same thing as commercial growers though is it?
150 years? Pah! There was an Orangery in Hampton Court palace for rather longer and Queen Anne put one in at Kensington Palace in about 1700 to say nothing of the gardens at Kew. Not quite the same thing as commercial growers though is it?
we like to think of it as a smallholding, :-)
from memory the bananas never mature into anything edible.
Bollocks. Most markets for most goods through most of history have not been regulated. Why should banana shape be regulated at all? Where does regulation 'for the sake of a level playing field' end? With no choice for the consumer?
Regulation is a political choice just like anything else. Much regulation should be pushed down to the lowest level of government appropriate, not all of it pushed up the the highest.
You are confusing two different points. Should banana shape be regulated at all? No, I would say not. But if it is regulated, it should be done at the single-market level, not at the individual country level, otherwise it acts as a non-tariff barrier.
I am not confusing things at all. There a plenty of things that are regulated at the national level, and where there are no efforts to move up to the supranational level. Electrical outlets and plugs. Educational systems and curricula. Many of these are NTBs. Even if they are, there may well be strong economic and cultural reasons for not standardizing.
Not everything has to be done at the EU level. That is why the concept of subsidiarity is enshrined in the Treaties and the Protocols.
Bananas are grown in the Canaries and in Madeira, both of which are in the EU.
It seems that the EU (that's our taxes) has been subsidising the growing of bananas in EU "Outermost Regions" of Canary Islands; Guadalupe, Martinique, Azores and Madeira to the tune of €278m per year.
Andrew Neil may not be the BBC’s official lead political interviewer (presumably BBC management are a bit twitchy about his role with the Spectator, and his past as an opinionated Murdoch editor) but there is no one at the corporation who turns up to an interview better briefed, or who is less likely to miss the weak spot in a politician’s argument. Which explains why it is so rare that he gets the chance to interview someone like David Cameron.
But he is going to do four big interviews as part of the BBC’s EU referendum coverage. One, with George Osborne, has already been announced. Now we have the final list.
Monday 6 June: Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary (Remain)
Wednesday 8 June: George Osborne, the chancellor (Remain)
Friday 10 June: Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader (Leave)
Friday 17 June: Iain Duncan Smith, the former work and pensions secretary (Leave)
Why would the BBC be twitchy about Neil's previous jobs. Marr was Editor of the Independent.
Also, interesting that it's Hilary Benn from Labour rather than Alan Johnson.
Osborne and Benn have the trickier tasks here, both being front-benchers and bound by official party policy. As free-lancers, IDS and Farage can spout any old cr*p and there's no comeback.
Studies have shown that only 13% of people get it right. A very profound and depressing statistic.
What hope is there for us, in making the correct decision on... Brexit, who to elect as a government, how and when to go to war, who to select as a life partner... on anything at all!
I lived in Germany from 1998 to 2008, and I was also struck by the completely different attitude to the EU. While some Germans regarded the EU with exasperation and annoyance, there was non of the outright hostility that was prevalent in the UK even then. They tended to see the EU as their family - irritating and awkward sometimes, but still "us". The UK attitude, in contrast, has been very much "us" and "them" for the last few decades. Personally, I put the most blame for this on the insidious nature of an enduring anti-EU campaign by the British press.
I am not at all surprised and I don't believe it has a damn thing to do with the British Press. The UK has never been part of Europe in the same way that continental countries have. We have always been the awkward place off to the left that didn't give in to the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the French again or the Germans, but we fought with them all to stop any of them getting too big and to preserve our own interests. We have always remained separate and have never been ruled by any of them, whilst they have repeatedly conquered and ruled each other (frequently until the UK put together an alliance and busted it up).
Remember too, Mr. Enjineeya, the press exists to sell papers so they are more likely to reflect rather than lead opinion. If the UK press appears to you to be anti-EU that is because that is what their readers want to see. The old, probably apocryphal, headline, "Fog in the channel - Continent cut off", resonates because it captures a mood of the people of these islands.
We do not belong in the EU, our whole history and tradition (legal, trading, whatever you like) goes against it. We will never be happy partners in this political construct and so it's probably best for all if we get out now. We can still be friends, we can cooperate when our interests collide (with have with Portugal since 1373), but we will never be comfortable "pooling sovereignty" to the level demanded by the EU.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975.
Citation please.
Didn't the phrase come about in 1983?
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
I am not confusing things at all. There a plenty of things that are regulated at the national level, and where there are no efforts to move up to the supranational level. Electrical outlets and plugs. Educational systems and curricula. Many of these are NTBs. Even if they are, there may well be strong economic and cultural reasons for not standardizing.
Eh? What has that got to do with the point I made?
Bollocks. Most markets for most goods through most of history have not been regulated. Why should banana shape be regulated at all? Where does regulation 'for the sake of a level playing field' end? With no choice for the consumer?
Regulation is a political choice just like anything else. Much regulation should be pushed down to the lowest level of government appropriate, not all of it pushed up the the highest.
You are confusing two different points. Should banana shape be regulated at all? No, I would say not. But if it is regulated, it should be done at the single-market level, not at the individual country level, otherwise it acts as a non-tariff barrier.
I don't think any EU member countries grow bananas.
However, what are the actual EU regulations that apply to the import and sale of bananas?
Spain does (Canary islands).
I imagine a number of the French DomToms grow bananas.
Bollocks. Most markets for most goods through most of history have not been regulated. Why should banana shape be regulated at all? Where does regulation 'for the sake of a level playing field' end? With no choice for the consumer?
Regulation is a political choice just like anything else. Much regulation should be pushed down to the lowest level of government appropriate, not all of it pushed up the the highest.
You are confusing two different points. Should banana shape be regulated at all? No, I would say not. But if it is regulated, it should be done at the single-market level, not at the individual country level, otherwise it acts as a non-tariff barrier.
I am not confusing things at all. There a plenty of things that are regulated at the national level, and where there are no efforts to move up to the supranational level. Electrical outlets and plugs. Educational systems and curricula. Many of these are NTBs.
To be honest not standardising plugs is an affront to the right to free movement of people. It's time someone challenged it in the ECJ to make sure Brussels takes control of this area.
I lived in Germany from 1998 to 2008, and I was also struck by the completely different attitude to the EU. While some Germans regarded the EU with exasperation and annoyance, there was non of the outright hostility that was prevalent in the UK even then. They tended to see the EU as their family - irritating and awkward sometimes, but still "us". The UK attitude, in contrast, has been very much "us" and "them" for the last few decades. Personally, I put the most blame for this on the insidious nature of an enduring anti-EU campaign by the British press.
I am not at all surprised and I don't believe it has a damn thing to do with the British Press. The UK has never been part of Europe in the same way that continental countries have. We have always been the awkward place off to the left that didn't give in to the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the French again or the Germans, but we fought with them all to stop any of them getting too big and to preserve our own interests. We have always remained separate and have never been ruled by any of them, whilst they have repeatedly conquered and ruled each other (frequently until the UK put together an alliance and busted it up).
Remember too, Mr. Enjineeya, the press exists to sell papers so they are more likely to reflect rather than lead opinion. If the UK press appears to you to be anti-EU that is because that is what their readers want to see. The old, probably apocryphal, headline, "Fog in the channel - Continent cut off", resonates because it captures a mood of the people of these islands.
We do not belong in the EU, our whole history and tradition (legal, trading, whatever you like) goes against it. We will never be happy partners in this political construct and so it's probably best for all if we get out now. We can still be friends, we can cooperate when our interests collide (with have with Portugal since 1373), but we will never be comfortable "pooling sovereignty" to the level demanded by the EU.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975.
Citation please.
Didn't the phrase come about in 1983?
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
All this talk of bananas makes me wonder when the king over the water of British politics, the titan that is David Miliband, will 'intervene' in the referendum campaign.
The process for Turkey joining the EU is not imaginary, it has already begun. It is a matter of public record and our government's policy is to encourage it not veto it.
That's like saying putting in an application for a mortgage is the same as 'the bank are giving me a mortgage'.
At the moment, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the 'process' as you call it producing a successful result in anything like the foreseeable future, and anyway we have a veto.
Clearly, Vote Leave's claim is an outright lie, as is their claim about £350m a week (why not give the real figure, which would be politically just as effective?). Nothing unusual about that, of course, but it's the santimonious faux-outrage about the Remain claims which is so hilarious, all the more so because the Remain claims which they get so indignant about are forecasts, and therefore matters of opinion, not objectively false.
Do you actually expect casually interested voters to understand your somewhat casuistic distinction ?
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
I'd like to think even the great non-political masses could grasp the glaring difference between applying for membership and being granted membership.
The process for Turkey joining the EU is not imaginary, it has already begun. It is a matter of public record and our government's policy is to encourage it not veto it.
That's like saying putting in an application for a mortgage is the same as 'the bank are giving me a mortgage'.
At the moment, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the 'process' as you call it producing a successful result in anything like the foreseeable future, and anyway we have a veto.
Clearly, Vote Leave's claim is an outright lie, as is their claim about £350m a week (why not give the real figure, which would be politically just as effective?). Nothing unusual about that, of course, but it's the santimonious faux-outrage about the Remain claims which is so hilarious, all the more so because the Remain claims which they get so indignant about are forecasts, and therefore matters of opinion, not objectively false.
Do you actually expect casually interested voters to understand your somewhat casuistic distinction ?
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
Yes; one of the consequences of this election is that trust in politicians will - rightfully - fall even further.
I am disgusted by my own side. I am disgusted by the Remain side. I am disgusted by supporters of both sides for their extraordinary cognitive dissonance: well, our campaign is basically playing it fair, it's the other lot who are worse liars.
Throughout my life I have generally thought that the general mistrust of politicians was misplaced. However misguided their views, I thought Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, David Cameron, etc., wanted the best for the British people. Sure, their vision of nirvana - and in particular the path to it - might be different, but they all wanted the best for everyone. The tactics used in this referendum have made me lose a lot of respect for a lot of people.
I'm trying to think of a single person whom I have more respect for now than a month ago: Sarah Woolaston?
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
And the No campaign leaflet sent to everyone in 1975 went further and said that the Common Market 'sets out in stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation'.
Mr. Dawning, I do think it'd be fairer to alternate the Remain and Leave interviews.
The later two (both Leavers) have the advantage of being able to reply, if they wish, to the points the Remain interviewees made. They also have the disadvantage of being nearer the vote, so any howler has less time to fade.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
Hmmmm, the only reason I have to worry about press freedom is because of some rich people are trying to suppress it.
As for ever closer union in 1975, I recall that we were specifically told by the great and the good that it would not mean what it turned out it did mean. In fact Heath was specific, on national television, that we would not be in the position we now are. The vote in 1975 was to remain in the EEC not what that has become.
By the way, I have no insular paranoia. I have no wish to turn the clock back to the 1950s (I lived through them) or our back on the world, nor am I frightened to face the future (not that at my age I'll see much of it, but I do care for my son). I just believe that the UK would be a better place to live and be better placed to face that future if it were outside the EU.
I am disgusted by my own side. I am disgusted by the Remain side. I am disgusted by supporters of both sides for their extraordinary cognitive dissonance: well, our campaign is basically playing it fair, it's the other lot who are worse liars.
Hear, hear!
Would you want any of this lot running a post-Brexit UK?
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
And the No campaign leaflet sent to everyone in 1975 went further and said that the Common Market 'sets out in stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation'.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
In fact Heath was specific, on national television, that we would not be in the position we now are.
One parliament cannot bind the hands of its successors. We are in the position we are in now because the great British public voted for parties that ratified the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon. Lisbon in particular resulted in a fundamental shift in the nature of the EU but that's what we get for voting Labour I guess.
Mr. D, Labour promised a referendum, then reneged upon that promise because the constitution's font and title were changed. The electorate didn't vote for a party that would sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.
I am not confusing things at all. There a plenty of things that are regulated at the national level, and where there are no efforts to move up to the supranational level. Electrical outlets and plugs. Educational systems and curricula. Many of these are NTBs. Even if they are, there may well be strong economic and cultural reasons for not standardizing.
Eh? What has that got to do with the point I made?
You made the point that if bananas (and other items) are to be regulated, it should be at the EU level, not the national level. That is patently not what the Treaties say - it is up to the Commission to make a case by case argument as to why it is best regulated at the EU level, and not the national level, and to assess the impact of doing so.
In case you've forgotten what you said:
"Should banana shape be regulated at all? ... if it is regulated, it should be done at the single-market level, not at the individual country level, otherwise it acts as a non-tariff barrier."
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
And the No campaign leaflet sent to everyone in 1975 went further and said that the Common Market 'sets out in stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation'.
Churchill also wanted to merge Le Royaume-Uni with France.
Oh for crying out loud. Yes - as German tanks were rolling towards Paris and as a last desperate act in June 1940 to try and shore up French resistance before it collapsed.
The process for Turkey joining the EU is not imaginary, it has already begun. It is a matter of public record and our government's policy is to encourage it not veto it.
That's like saying putting in an application for a mortgage is the same as 'the bank are giving me a mortgage'.
At the moment, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the 'process' as you call it producing a successful result in anything like the foreseeable future, and anyway we have a veto.
Clearly, Vote Leave's claim is an outright lie, as is their claim about £350m a week (why not give the real figure, which would be politically just as effective?). Nothing unusual about that, of course, but it's the santimonious faux-outrage about the Remain claims which is so hilarious, all the more so because the Remain claims which they get so indignant about are forecasts, and therefore matters of opinion, not objectively false.
Do you actually expect casually interested voters to understand your somewhat casuistic distinction ?
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
I'd like to think even the great non-political masses could grasp the glaring difference between applying for membership and being granted membership.
We analyse the arse off everything on PB and have developed our own codes and modus operandi. Voters havent so for something that's just noise I suspect youre hoping against reality.
In the few times I have discussed it with my family ( all voters ) I'm surprised at the basis on which they will vote. Only my son appears to have any inkling of what the issues are and he's undecided atm ( nutcase dad / french girlfriend ie money versus sex ! ).
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
In fact Heath was specific, on national television, that we would not be in the position we now are.
One parliament cannot bind the hands of its successors. We are in the position we are in now because the great British public voted for parties that ratified the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon. Lisbon in particular resulted in a fundamental shift in the nature of the EU but that's what we get for voting Labour I guess.
Actually the fundamental shift came from Maastricht. It was that treaty that formed the basis for the creation of the Union and the institutions. Lisbon was effectively an amending treaty. Which is why if you read it you will find it is not a stand alone treaty at all but relies upon the existence of all the previous treaties as it is concerned primarily with amending clauses within those treaties.
One good reason why you should always look sideways at anyone who says they have 'read the Lisbon treaty' without referencing the earlier treaties.
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
And the No campaign leaflet sent to everyone in 1975 went further and said that the Common Market 'sets out in stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation'.
Churchill also wanted to merge Le Royaume-Uni with France.
Oh for crying out loud. Yes - as German tanks were rolling towards Paris and as a last desperate act in June 1940 to try and shore up French resistance before it collapsed.
It's hardly a comparable situation is it?
Still not acceptable. I'm just glad the French lived up to their cheese eating surrender monkeys moniker.
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
And the No campaign leaflet sent to everyone in 1975 went further and said that the Common Market 'sets out in stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation'.
Churchill also wanted to merge Le Royaume-Uni with France.
Oh for crying out loud. Yes - as German tanks were rolling towards Paris and as a last desperate act in June 1940 to try and shore up French resistance before it collapsed.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
Hmmmm, the only reason I have to worry about press freedom is because of some rich people are trying to suppress it.
As for ever closer union in 1975, I recall that we were specifically told by the great and the good that it would not mean what it turned out it did mean. In fact Heath was specific, on national television, that we would not be in the position we now are. The vote in 1975 was to remain in the EEC not what that has become.
By the way, I have no insular paranoia. I have no wish to turn the clock back to the 1950s (I lived through them) or our back on the world, nor am I frightened to face the future (not that at my age I'll see much of it, but I do care for my son). I just believe that the UK would be a better place to live and be better placed to face that future if it were outside the EU.
Pretty much my position. The interconnectedness and increased complexity of international trade and affairs means that economies have to be ever more flexible in order to survive and thrive. That is the exact opposite of what the EU offers.
I am pro-Brexit precisely because I am an internationalist who wants Britain to be able to adapt, be competitive and thrive in a global environment, and not wrap itself in the protections of a regional comfort blanket.
The process for Turkey joining the EU is not imaginary, it has already begun. It is a matter of public record and our government's policy is to encourage it not veto it.
That's like saying putting in an application for a mortgage is the same as 'the bank are giving me a mortgage'.
At the moment, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the 'process' as you call it producing a successful result in anything like the foreseeable future, and anyway we have a veto.
Clearly, Vote Leave's claim is an outright lie, as is their claim about £350m a week (why not give the real figure, which would be politically just as effective?). Nothing unusual about that, of course, but it's the santimonious faux-outrage about the Remain claims which is so hilarious, all the more so because the Remain claims which they get so indignant about are forecasts, and therefore matters of opinion, not objectively false.
Do you actually expect casually interested voters to understand your somewhat casuistic distinction ?
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
Yes; one of the consequences of this election is that trust in politicians will - rightfully - fall even further.
I am disgusted by my own side. I am disgusted by the Remain side. I am disgusted by supporters of both sides for their extraordinary cognitive dissonance: well, our campaign is basically playing it fair, it's the other lot who are worse liars.
Throughout my life I have generally thought that the general mistrust of politicians was misplaced. However misguided their views, I thought Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, David Cameron, etc., wanted the best for the British people. Sure, their vision of nirvana - and in particular the path to it - might be different, but they all wanted the best for everyone. The tactics used in this referendum have made me lose a lot of respect for a lot of people.
I'm trying to think of a single person whom I have more respect for now than a month ago: Sarah Woolaston?
Wayne my press operator - " it's all fking bollocks"
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
And the No campaign leaflet sent to everyone in 1975 went further and said that the Common Market 'sets out in stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation'.
Churchill also wanted to merge Le Royaume-Uni with France.
Oh for crying out loud. Yes - as German tanks were rolling towards Paris and as a last desperate act in June 1940 to try and shore up French resistance before it collapsed.
It's hardly a comparable situation is it?
For TSE it's all comparable. I'd love to see him react to a really dangerous situation.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
In fact Heath was specific, on national television, that we would not be in the position we now are.
One parliament cannot bind the hands of its successors. We are in the position we are in now because the great British public voted for parties that ratified the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon. Lisbon in particular resulted in a fundamental shift in the nature of the EU but that's what we get for voting Labour I guess.
Quite, but the point in question was about what happened in 1975. Lots of people were not happy then about ever closer union, as someone claimed. There was considerable disquiet about it, but reassurance was given by the great and the good that the "loonies" such as Benn Shore et al had it wrong. Turned out though that the likes of Benn and Shore had it right and further the likes of Heath were lying through their teeth.
I lived in Germany from 1998 to 2008, and I was also struck by the completely different attitude to the EU. While some Germans regarded the EU with exasperation and annoyance, there was non of the outright hostility that was prevalent in the UK even then. They tended to see the EU as their family - irritating and awkward sometimes, but still "us". The UK attitude, in contrast, has been very much "us" and "them" for the last few decades. Personally, I put the most blame for this on the insidious nature of an enduring anti-EU campaign by the British press.
I am not at all surprised and I don't believe it has a damn thing to do with the British Press. The UK has never been part of Europe in the same way that continental countries have. We have always been the awkward place off to the left that didn't give in to the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the French again or the Germans, but we fought with them all to stop any of them getting too big and to preserve our own interests. We have always remained separate and have never been ruled by any of them, whilst they have repeatedly conquered and ruled each other (frequently until the UK put together an alliance and busted it up).
Remember too, Mr. Enjineeya, the press exists to sell papers so they are more likely to reflect rather than lead opinion. If the UK press appears to you to be anti-EU that is because that is what their readers want to see. The old, probably apocryphal, headline, "Fog in the channel - Continent cut off", resonates because it captures a mood of the people of these islands.
We do not belong in the EU, our whole history and tradition (legal, trading, whatever you like) goes against it. We will never be happy partners in this political construct and so it's probably best for all if we get out now. We can still be friends, we can cooperate when our interests collide (with have with Portugal since 1373), but we will never be comfortable "pooling sovereignty" to the level demanded by the EU.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
Not at all. There are plenty of politicians on record from the 1975 referendum specifically denying it had anything to do with closer union. Heath was quite happy to later admit it was necessary to mislead the public over this.
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
And the No campaign leaflet sent to everyone in 1975 went further and said that the Common Market 'sets out in stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation'.
Churchill also wanted to merge Le Royaume-Uni with France.
Oh for crying out loud. Yes - as German tanks were rolling towards Paris and as a last desperate act in June 1940 to try and shore up French resistance before it collapsed.
It's hardly a comparable situation is it?
Isn't it?
In the last seventy six years, both in peacetime and wartime, A British PM in wartime and a French PM in peacetime suggested unification/a union between the UK and France, and before the EC/EU were formed. The point is you don't have to be a Federalist to suggest such a thing.
The process for Turkey joining the EU is not imaginary, it has already begun. It is a matter of public record and our government's policy is to encourage it not veto it.
That's like saying putting in an application for a mortgage is the same as 'the bank are giving me a mortgage'.
At the moment, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the 'process' as you call it producing a successful result in anything like the foreseeable future, and anyway we have a veto.
Clearly, Vote Leave's claim is an outright lie, as is their claim about £350m a week (why not give the real figure, which would be politically just as effective?). Nothing unusual about that, of course, but it's the santimonious faux-outrage about the Remain claims which is so hilarious, all the more so because the Remain claims which they get so indignant about are forecasts, and therefore matters of opinion, not objectively false.
Do you actually expect casually interested voters to understand your somewhat casuistic distinction ?
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
Yes; one of the consequences of this election is that trust in politicians will - rightfully - fall even further.
I am disgusted by my own side. I am disgusted by the Remain side. I am disgusted by supporters of both sides for their extraordinary cognitive dissonance: well, our campaign is basically playing it fair, it's the other lot who are worse liars.
Throughout my life I have generally thought that the general mistrust of politicians was misplaced. However misguided their views, I thought Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, David Cameron, etc., wanted the best for the British people. Sure, their vision of nirvana - and in particular the path to it - might be different, but they all wanted the best for everyone. The tactics used in this referendum have made me lose a lot of respect for a lot of people.
I'm trying to think of a single person whom I have more respect for now than a month ago: Sarah Woolaston?
Jean Claude Juncker. He's stayed stumm (just about), to be fair.
The thing is that if Cameron wants to win his referendum, it's not in his interest that Corbyn pretends to think he and Osborne are temporarily sound fellows saying sensible things. He needs Corbyn to fire up left-wing voters, and the way to do that is to rubbish the wilder stuff from Osborne but point out the real dangers of leaving from a Labour perspective. The number of Labour voters who will vote Remain because they trust Osborne is zero, but the number who think that a Tory government free of EU constraints will run amok is substantial and needs to be mobilised.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
In fact Heath was specific, on national television, that we would not be in the position we now are.
One parliament cannot bind the hands of its successors. We are in the position we are in now because the great British public voted for parties that ratified the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon. Lisbon in particular resulted in a fundamental shift in the nature of the EU but that's what we get for voting Labour I guess.
Quite, but the point in question was about what happened in 1975. Lots of people were not happy then about ever closer union, as someone claimed. There was considerable disquiet about it, but reassurance was given by the great and the good that the "loonies" such as Benn Shore et al had it wrong. Turned out though that the likes of Benn and Shore had it right and further the likes of Heath were lying through their teeth.
And yet decades later Britain was still able to decide independently to invade Iraq, to quantitatively ease in huge amounts, to hold referendums on Scottish independence and now EU membership. The reassurances about Britain still being in control of its destiny were absolutely correct then as they are now.
The process for Turkey joining the EU is not imaginary, it has already begun. It is a matter of public record and our government's policy is to encourage it not veto it.
That's like saying putting in an application for a mortgage is the same as 'the bank are giving me a mortgage'.
At the moment, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the 'process' as you call it producing a successful result in anything like the foreseeable future, and anyway we have a veto.
Clearly, Vote Leave's claim is an outright lie, as is their claim about £350m a week (why not give the real figure, which would be politically just as effective?). Nothing unusual about that, of course, but it's the santimonious faux-outrage about the Remain claims which is so hilarious, all the more so because the Remain claims which they get so indignant about are forecasts, and therefore matters of opinion, not objectively false.
Do you actually expect casually interested voters to understand your somewhat casuistic distinction ?
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
Yes; one of the consequences of this election is that trust in politicians will - rightfully - fall even further.
I am disgusted by my own side. I am disgusted by the Remain side. I am disgusted by supporters of both sides for their extraordinary cognitive dissonance: well, our campaign is basically playing it fair, it's the other lot who are worse liars.
Throughout my life I have generally thought that the general mistrust of politicians was misplaced. However misguided their views, I thought Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, David Cameron, etc., wanted the best for the British people. Sure, their vision of nirvana - and in particular the path to it - might be different, but they all wanted the best for everyone. The tactics used in this referendum have made me lose a lot of respect for a lot of people.
I'm trying to think of a single person whom I have more respect for now than a month ago: Sarah Woolaston?
Jean Claude Juncker. He's stayed stumm (just about), to be fair.
He gave an interview to Der Spiegel today in which he said that the European Commission is very unpopular in the UK so he knows it's best for him to keep quiet.
The main quote from the interview was 'too much Europe will kill Europe'.
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
And the No campaign leaflet sent to everyone in 1975 went further and said that the Common Market 'sets out in stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation'.
Churchill also wanted to merge Le Royaume-Uni with France.
Oh for crying out loud. Yes - as German tanks were rolling towards Paris and as a last desperate act in June 1940 to try and shore up French resistance before it collapsed.
It's hardly a comparable situation is it?
Isn't it?
In the last seventy six years, both in peacetime and wartime, A British PM in wartime and a French PM in peacetime suggested unification/a union between the UK and France, and before the EC/EU were formed. The point is you don't have to be a Federalist to suggest such a thing.
No but it helped to be a Plantagenet (or related to them), they were awfully keen on the idea and from really early on.
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
And the No campaign leaflet sent to everyone in 1975 went further and said that the Common Market 'sets out in stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation'.
Churchill also wanted to merge Le Royaume-Uni with France.
Oh for crying out loud. Yes - as German tanks were rolling towards Paris and as a last desperate act in June 1940 to try and shore up French resistance before it collapsed.
It's hardly a comparable situation is it?
Isn't it?
In the last seventy six years, both in peacetime and wartime, A British PM in wartime and a French PM in peacetime suggested unification/a union between the UK and France, and before the EC/EU were formed. The point is you don't have to be a Federalist to suggest such a thing.
True! One has to be up shits creek though, and for Churchill in 1940 the creek couldn't have been deeper.
Mr. D, Labour promised a referendum, then reneged upon that promise because the constitution's font and title were changed. The electorate didn't vote for a party that would sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.
Nobody should be promising referendums, least of all granting them.
The entire idea of this referendum is an affront to representative democracy, built on a false premise that there was a groundswell of public demand for a plebiscite. There was not. Had Cameron just binned the idea, the vast majority of people would have shrugged their shoulders, except for a few table-thumpers in the press and a handful of political obsessives.
If you asked people if they wanted to vote on the England football team to face Portugal tonight, you might very well get a healthy majority in favour. That doesn't mean the public should be allowed to select the national side via a vote. Referendums are a generally bad idea, asking a public with very little information to vote on matters of national importance.
More to the point, Cameron clearly believes that a Leave vote would be disastrous. What business has a Prime Minister offering a choice of outcomes to the public, if one of those choices would be disastrous for the country he is employed to act in the best interests of?
I'm minded to agree with Robert Smithson down thread. This is an ill wind indeed, and it is blowing nobody any good.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
Hmmmm, the only reason I have to worry about press freedom is because of some rich people are trying to suppress it.
As for ever closer union in 1975, I recall that we were specifically told by the great and the good that it would not mean what it turned out it did mean. In fact Heath was specific, on national television, that we would not be in the position we now are. The vote in 1975 was to remain in the EEC not what that has become.
By the way, I have no insular paranoia. I have no wish to turn the clock back to the 1950s (I lived through them) or our back on the world, nor am I frightened to face the future (not that at my age I'll see much of it, but I do care for my son). I just believe that the UK would be a better place to live and be better placed to face that future if it were outside the EU.
Pretty much my position. The interconnectedness and increased complexity of international trade and affairs means that economies have to be ever more flexible in order to survive and thrive. That is the exact opposite of what the EU offers.
I am pro-Brexit precisely because I am an internationalist who wants Britain to be able to adapt, be competitive and thrive in a global environment, and not wrap itself in the protections of a regional comfort blanket.
The process for Turkey joining the EU is not imaginary, it has already begun. It is a matter of public record and our government's policy is to encourage it not veto it.
That's like saying putting in an application for a mortgage is the same as 'the bank are giving me a mortgage'.
At the moment, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the 'process' as you call it producing a successful result in anything like the foreseeable future, and anyway we have a veto.
Clearly, Vote Leave's claim is an outright lie, as is their claim about £350m a week (why not give the real figure, which would be politically just as effective?). Nothing unusual about that, of course, but it's the santimonious faux-outrage about the Remain claims which is so hilarious, all the more so because the Remain claims which they get so indignant about are forecasts, and therefore matters of opinion, not objectively false.
Do you actually expect casually interested voters to understand your somewhat casuistic distinction ?
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
Yes; one of the consequences of this election is that trust in politicians will - rightfully - fall even further.
I am disgusted by my own side. I am disgusted by the Remain side. I am disgusted by supporters of both sides for their extraordinary cognitive dissonance: well, our campaign is basically playing it fair, it's the other lot who are worse liars.
Throughout my life I have generally thought that the general mistrust of politicians was misplaced. However misguided their views, I thought Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, David Cameron, etc., wanted the best for the British people. Sure, their vision of nirvana - and in particular the path to it - might be different, but they all wanted the best for everyone. The tactics used in this referendum have made me lose a lot of respect for a lot of people.
I'm trying to think of a single person whom I have more respect for now than a month ago: Sarah Woolaston?
Jean Claude Juncker. He's stayed stumm (just about), to be fair.
He gave an interview to Der Spiegel today in which he said that the European Commission is very unpopular in the UK so he knows it's best for him to keep quiet.
The main quote from the interview was 'too much Europe will kill Europe'.
Quite right. I read that too, but as it was in Der Spiegel I let him off as I doubt it counts as MSM in the UK.
I am disgusted by my own side. I am disgusted by the Remain side. I am disgusted by supporters of both sides for their extraordinary cognitive dissonance: well, our campaign is basically playing it fair, it's the other lot who are worse liars.
Hear, hear!
Would you want any of this lot running a post-Brexit UK?
I am disgusted by my own side. I am disgusted by the Remain side. I am disgusted by supporters of both sides for their extraordinary cognitive dissonance: well, our campaign is basically playing it fair, it's the other lot who are worse liars.
Hear, hear!
Would you want any of this lot running a post-Brexit UK?
The process for Turkey joining the EU is not imaginary, it has already begun. It is a matter of public record and our government's policy is to encourage it not veto it.
That's like saying putting in an application for a mortgage is the same as 'the bank are giving me a mortgage'.
At the moment, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the 'process' as you call it producing a successful result in anything like the foreseeable future, and anyway we have a veto.
Clearly, Vote Leave's claim is an outright lie, as is their claim about £350m a week (why not give the real figure, which would be politically just as effective?). Nothing unusual about that, of course, but it's the santimonious faux-outrage about the Remain claims which is so hilarious, all the more so because the Remain claims which they get so indignant about are forecasts, and therefore matters of opinion, not objectively false.
Do you actually expect casually interested voters to understand your somewhat casuistic distinction ?
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
I'd like to think even the great non-political masses could grasp the glaring difference between applying for membership and being granted membership.
We analyse the arse off everything on PB and have developed our own codes and modus operandi. Voters havent so for something that's just noise I suspect youre hoping against reality.
In the few times I have discussed it with my family ( all voters ) I'm surprised at the basis on which they will vote. Only my son appears to have any inkling of what the issues are and he's undecided atm ( nutcase dad / french girlfriend ie money versus sex ! ).
Money versus Sex, well that is an equation the solution of which that will shift over time, but for a well set up, right thinking young man sex will win out.
My own son (23) is of no doubt. We should leave, but he is also a radical free trader, not keen on the welfare state being more than than what was envisioned by Beveridge and that the UK should be spending much more on the Royal Navy. So somehow I doubt he is typical of his generation
I lived in Germany from 1998 to 2008, and I was also struck by the completely different attitude to the EU. While some Germans regarded the EU with exasperation and annoyance, there was non of the outright hostility that was prevalent in the UK even then. They tended to see the EU as their family - irritating and awkward sometimes, but still "us". The UK attitude, in contrast, has been very much "us" and "them" for the last few decades. Personally, I put the most blame for this on the insidious nature of an enduring anti-EU campaign by the British press.
I am not at all surprised and I don't believe it has a damn thing to do with the British Press. .... We have always remained separate and have never been ruled by any of them, whilst they have repeatedly conquered and ruled each other (frequently until the UK put together an alliance and busted it up).
Remember too, Mr. Enjineeya, the press exists to sell papers so they are more likely to reflect rather than lead opinion. If the UK press appears to you to be anti-EU that is because that is what their readers want to see. The old, probably apocryphal, headline, "Fog in the channel - Continent cut off", resonates because it captures a mood of the people of these islands.
We do not belong in the EU, our whole history and tradition (legal, trading, whatever you like) goes against it. ... We can still be friends, we can cooperate when our interests collide (with have with Portugal since 1373), but we will never be comfortable "pooling sovereignty" to the level demanded by the EU.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975.
Citation please.
Didn't the phrase come about in 1983?
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
Treaty establishing the European Economic Community
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,
DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples, ......
Mr. D, Labour promised a referendum, then reneged upon that promise because the constitution's font and title were changed. The electorate didn't vote for a party that would sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.
Nobody should be promising referendums, least of all granting them.
The entire idea of this referendum is an affront to representative democracy, built on a false premise that there was a groundswell of public demand for a plebiscite. There was not. Had Cameron just binned the idea, the vast majority of people would have shrugged their shoulders, except for a few table-thumpers in the press and a handful of political obsessives.
If you asked people if they wanted to vote on the England football team to face Portugal tonight, you might very well get a healthy majority in favour. That doesn't mean the public should be allowed to select the national side via a vote. Referendums are a generally bad idea, asking a public with very little information to vote on matters of national importance.
More to the point, Cameron clearly believes that a Leave vote would be disastrous. What business has a Prime Minister offering a choice of outcomes to the public, if one of those choices would be disastrous for the country he is employed to act in the best interests of?
I'm minded to agree with Robert Smithson down thread. This is an ill wind indeed, and it is blowing nobody any good.
While I agree with the last paragraph, I’m not at all sure that Cameron believes a Leave vote would be disastrous. I think he’s like Boris J and thought he was running with the wind of (short-term) political advantage. Instead of which it appears, for the moment, to have swung round and he’s going down to an ignominious defeat and, I fear, taking us all with him.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
Hmmmm, the only reason I have to worry about press freedom is because of some rich people are trying to suppress it.
As for ever closer union in 1975, I recall that we were specifically told by the great and the good that it would not mean what it turned out it did mean. In fact Heath was specific, on national television, that we would not be in the position we now are. The vote in 1975 was to remain in the EEC not what that has become.
By the way, I have no insular paranoia. I have no wish to turn the clock back to the 1950s (I lived through them) or our back on the world, nor am I frightened to face the future (not that at my age I'll see much of it, but I do care for my son). I just believe that the UK would be a better place to live and be better placed to face that future if it were outside the EU.
Pretty much my position. The interconnectedness and increased complexity of international trade and affairs means that economies have to be ever more flexible in order to survive and thrive. That is the exact opposite of what the EU offers.
I am pro-Brexit precisely because I am an internationalist who wants Britain to be able to adapt, be competitive and thrive in a global environment, and not wrap itself in the protections of a regional comfort blanket.
My reasons for Brexit also.
And yet there are posters on here who try and represent us that want to leave as nothing more than blinkered fools who want to live in the past. One has to wonder.
Mr. D, Labour promised a referendum, then reneged upon that promise because the constitution's font and title were changed. The electorate didn't vote for a party that would sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.
Nobody should be promising referendums, least of all granting them.
The entire idea of this referendum is an affront to representative democracy, built on a false premise that there was a groundswell of public demand for a plebiscite. There was not. Had Cameron just binned the idea, the vast majority of people would have shrugged their shoulders, except for a few table-thumpers in the press and a handful of political obsessives.
If you asked people if they wanted to vote on the England football team to face Portugal tonight, you might very well get a healthy majority in favour. That doesn't mean the public should be allowed to select the national side via a vote. Referendums are a generally bad idea, asking a public with very little information to vote on matters of national importance.
More to the point, Cameron clearly believes that a Leave vote would be disastrous. What business has a Prime Minister offering a choice of outcomes to the public, if one of those choices would be disastrous for the country he is employed to act in the best interests of?
I'm minded to agree with Robert Smithson down thread. This is an ill wind indeed, and it is blowing nobody any good.
Mr Cameron was all in favour of the UK - and said that he believed it would "thrive outside the EU". Mr Cameron speaks with forked tongue.
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
And the No campaign leaflet sent to everyone in 1975 went further and said that the Common Market 'sets out in stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation'.
Churchill also wanted to merge Le Royaume-Uni with France.
Oh for crying out loud. Yes - as German tanks were rolling towards Paris and as a last desperate act in June 1940 to try and shore up French resistance before it collapsed.
It's hardly a comparable situation is it?
Still not acceptable. I'm just glad the French lived up to their cheese eating surrender monkeys moniker.
To be fair, they sank their own fleet in November 1942, when Vichy was invaded by Germany (more ships than the British sank at Mers-el-Kebir).
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
In fact Heath was specific, on national television, that we would not be in the position we now are.
One parliament cannot bind the hands of its successors. We are in the position we are in now because the great British public voted for parties that ratified the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon. Lisbon in particular resulted in a fundamental shift in the nature of the EU but that's what we get for voting Labour I guess.
Quite, but the point in question was about what happened in 1975. Lots of people were not happy then about ever closer union, as someone claimed. There was considerable disquiet about it, but reassurance was given by the great and the good that the "loonies" such as Benn Shore et al had it wrong. Turned out though that the likes of Benn and Shore had it right and further the likes of Heath were lying through their teeth.
And yet decades later Britain was still able to decide independently to invade Iraq, to quantitatively ease in huge amounts, to hold referendums on Scottish independence and now EU membership. The reassurances about Britain still being in control of its destiny were absolutely correct then as they are now.
Will Britain be able to do that now that it has to act in the interests of Europe with its seat on the UN Security council?
Mr. D, Labour promised a referendum, then reneged upon that promise because the constitution's font and title were changed. The electorate didn't vote for a party that would sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.
Nobody should be promising referendums, least of all granting them.
The entire idea of this referendum is an affront to representative democracy, built on a false premise that there was a groundswell of public demand for a plebiscite. There was not. Had Cameron just binned the idea, the vast majority of people would have shrugged their shoulders, except for a few table-thumpers in the press and a handful of political obsessives.
If you asked people if they wanted to vote on the England football team to face Portugal tonight, you might very well get a healthy majority in favour. That doesn't mean the public should be allowed to select the national side via a vote. Referendums are a generally bad idea, asking a public with very little information to vote on matters of national importance.
More to the point, Cameron clearly believes that a Leave vote would be disastrous. What business has a Prime Minister offering a choice of outcomes to the public, if one of those choices would be disastrous for the country he is employed to act in the best interests of?
I'm minded to agree with Robert Smithson down thread. This is an ill wind indeed, and it is blowing nobody any good.
I think what you mean is "I personally didn't want a referendum". I think the fact that polls are showing that the non- status-quo option is likely to receive upwards of 40% of the vote shows that there was a substantial demand for a referendum, on an issue where many people differ significantly from their elected representatives.
I lived in Germany from 1998 to 2008, and I was also struck by the completely different attitude to thewas prevalent in the UK even then. They tended to see the EU as their family - irritating and awkward sometimes, but still "us". The UK attitude, in contrast, has been very much "us" and "them" for the last few decades. Personally, I put the most blame for this on the insidious nature of an enduring anti-EU campaign by the British press.
I am not at all surprised and I don't believe it has a damn thing to do with the British Press. The UK has never been part of Europe in the same way that continental countries have. We have always been the awkward place off to the left that didn't give in to the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the French again or the Germans, but we fought with them all to stop any of them getting too big and to preserve our own interests. We have always remained separate and have never been ruled by any of them, whilst they have repeatedly conquered and ruled each other (frequently until the UK put together an alliance and busted it up).
Remember too, Mr. Enjineeya, the press exists to sell papers so they are more likely to reflect rather than lead opinion. If the UK press appears to you to be anti-EU that is because that is what their readers want to see. The old, probably apocryphal, headline, "Fog in the channel - Continent cut off", resonates because it captures a mood of the people of these islands.
We do not belong in the EU, our whole history and tradition (legal, trading, whatever you like) goes against it. We will never be happy partners in this political construct and so it's probably best for all if we get out now. We can still be friends, we can cooperate when our interests collide (with have with Portugal since 1373), but we will never be comfortable "pooling sovereignty" to the level demanded by the EU.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975. Our descent into insular paranoia since then has indeed been driven largely by media hostility to the EU project. Your claim that the media simply reflects, rather than forms, opinion is absurd. If that were true, we wouldn't have to worry about press freedom, for example.
We were comfortable with "ever closer union" back in 1975.
Citation please.
Didn't the phrase come about in 1983?
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
1957 in the Treaty of Rome
Treaty of Rome, such a 1950s throwback. Let's party like it's 1958!
If the EU could get over this "ever closer union" bollox, and get back to a trade organisation, with a little bit of cross border agreement on justice, defence and the like, then it might find itself a bit more popular. It appears that most of the EU leaders and elite know that, but don't really care.
The process for Turkey joining the EU is not imaginary, it has already begun. It is a matter of public record and our government's policy is to encourage it not veto it.
That's like saying putting in an application for a mortgage is the same as 'the bank are giving me a mortgage'.
At the moment, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the 'process' as you call it producing a successful result in anything like the foreseeable future, and anyway we have a veto.
Clearly, Vote Leave's claim is an outright lie, as is their claim about £350m a week (why not give the real figure, which would be politically just as effective?). Nothing unusual about that, of course, but it's the santimonious faux-outrage about the Remain claims which is so hilarious, all the more so because the Remain claims which they get so indignant about are forecasts, and therefore matters of opinion, not objectively false.
Do you actually expect casually interested voters to understand your somewhat casuistic distinction ?
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
I'd like to think even the great non-political masses could grasp the glaring difference between applying for membership and being granted membership.
We analyse the arse off everything on PB and have developed our own codes and modus operandi. Voters havent so for something that's just noise I suspect youre hoping against reality.
In the few times I have discussed it with my family ( all voters ) I'm surprised at the basis on which they will vote. Only my son appears to have any inkling of what the issues are and he's undecided atm ( nutcase dad / french girlfriend ie money versus sex ! ).
Money versus Sex, well that is an equation the solution of which that will shift over time, but for a well set up, right thinking young man sex will win out.
My own son (23) is of no doubt. We should leave, but he is also a radical free trader, not keen on the welfare state being more than than what was envisioned by Beveridge and that the UK should be spending much more on the Royal Navy. So somehow I doubt he is typical of his generation
My two are also not typical. Son working 50+ hours a week to build up his first BTL in an 18 month period and daughter studying business and both in a minority of LEAVe with their peers.
Mr. D, Labour promised a referendum, then reneged upon that promise because the constitution's font and title were changed. The electorate didn't vote for a party that would sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.
Nobody should be promising referendums, least of all granting them.
The entire idea of this referendum is an affront to representative democracy, built on a false premise that there was a groundswell of public demand for a plebiscite. There was not. Had Cameron just binned the idea, the vast majority of people would have shrugged their shoulders, except for a few table-thumpers in the press and a handful of political obsessives.
If you asked people if they wanted to vote on the England football team to face Portugal tonight, you might very well get a healthy majority in favour. That doesn't mean the public should be allowed to select the national side via a vote. Referendums are a generally bad idea, asking a public with very little information to vote on matters of national importance.
More to the point, Cameron clearly believes that a Leave vote would be disastrous. What business has a Prime Minister offering a choice of outcomes to the public, if one of those choices would be disastrous for the country he is employed to act in the best interests of?
I'm minded to agree with Robert Smithson down thread. This is an ill wind indeed, and it is blowing nobody any good.
I think what you mean is "I personally didn't want a referendum". I think the fact that polls are showing that the non- status-quo option is likely to receive upwards of 40% of the vote shows that there was a substantial demand for a referendum, on an issue where many people differ significantly from their elected representatives.
Just because 40% are against the status quo doesn't mean that there was a groundswell of public support for a referendum. Capital punishment is a case in point.
If the EU could get over this "ever closer union" bollox, and get back to a trade organisation, with a little bit of cross border agreement on justice, defence and the like, then it might find itself a bit more popular. It appears that most of the EU leaders and elite know that, but don't really care.
The "ever closer union" "bollox" is exactly what we signed up for. It's there, right at the start of the Treaty of Rome setting the basis for the EEC that we subsequently joined. We (or, at least, anyone who could read) were promised ever closer union, and that's exactly what we've been getting. You can hardly blame the EU if we've got cold feet since then.
If the EU could get over this "ever closer union" bollox, and get back to a trade organisation, with a little bit of cross border agreement on justice, defence and the like, then it might find itself a bit more popular. It appears that most of the EU leaders and elite know that, but don't really care.
The "ever closer union" "bollox" is exactly what we signed up for. It's there, right at the start of the Treaty of Rome setting the basis for the EEC that we subsequently joined. We (or, at least, anyone who could read) were promised ever closer union, and that's exactly what we've been getting. You can hardly blame the EU if we've got cold feet since then.
Comments
And, to be fair, I don't think any of small number of economists who reckon Brexit would be good in the long term are claiming that it will be actually positive in the short term. A few think it will be neutral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anguilla
https://www.facebook.com/TELEGRAPH.CO.UK/videos/vb.143666524748/10154334907249749/?type=2&theater
Citation please.
I suspect "theyre all telling lies" will be the outcome and politicans will sink one notch deeper in to the swamp.
Not everything has to be done at the EU level. That is why the concept of subsidiarity is enshrined in the Treaties and the Protocols.
You might wish to read up about it:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/subsidiarity.html
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/classical-history-for-beginners.html
Studies have shown that only 13% of people get it right. A very profound and depressing statistic.
What hope is there for us, in making the correct decision on... Brexit, who to elect as a government, how and when to go to war, who to select as a life partner... on anything at all!
We're doomed, obviously.
[Edit: apparently it's older, just popularised later as a metaphor for Europe's future]
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/04/12/eu-referendum-david-miliband-shows-why-remain-is-struggling
The main effect of his "intervention" was to remind us why he's the only person in Britain to lose an election to Ed Miliband.
I am disgusted by my own side. I am disgusted by the Remain side. I am disgusted by supporters of both sides for their extraordinary cognitive dissonance: well, our campaign is basically playing it fair, it's the other lot who are worse liars.
Throughout my life I have generally thought that the general mistrust of politicians was misplaced. However misguided their views, I thought Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, David Cameron, etc., wanted the best for the British people. Sure, their vision of nirvana - and in particular the path to it - might be different, but they all wanted the best for everyone. The tactics used in this referendum have made me lose a lot of respect for a lot of people.
I'm trying to think of a single person whom I have more respect for now than a month ago: Sarah Woolaston?
http://civitas.org.uk/content/files/1975ReferendumNO.pdf
The later two (both Leavers) have the advantage of being able to reply, if they wish, to the points the Remain interviewees made. They also have the disadvantage of being nearer the vote, so any howler has less time to fade.
As for ever closer union in 1975, I recall that we were specifically told by the great and the good that it would not mean what it turned out it did mean. In fact Heath was specific, on national television, that we would not be in the position we now are. The vote in 1975 was to remain in the EEC not what that has become.
By the way, I have no insular paranoia. I have no wish to turn the clock back to the 1950s (I lived through them) or our back on the world, nor am I frightened to face the future (not that at my age I'll see much of it, but I do care for my son). I just believe that the UK would be a better place to live and be better placed to face that future if it were outside the EU.
Would you want any of this lot running a post-Brexit UK?
In case you've forgotten what you said:
"Should banana shape be regulated at all? ... if it is regulated, it should be done at the single-market level, not at the individual country level, otherwise it acts as a non-tariff barrier."
What a lazy boy you are TSE.
It's hardly a comparable situation is it?
One hopes your pestilence has ended.
In the few times I have discussed it with my family ( all voters ) I'm surprised at the basis on which they will vote. Only my son appears to have any inkling of what the issues are and he's undecided atm ( nutcase dad / french girlfriend ie money versus sex ! ).
One good reason why you should always look sideways at anyone who says they have 'read the Lisbon treaty' without referencing the earlier treaties.
Oh and Maastricht was signed by Major of course.
I am pro-Brexit precisely because I am an internationalist who wants Britain to be able to adapt, be competitive and thrive in a global environment, and not wrap itself in the protections of a regional comfort blanket.
a succinct analysis of the political spectrum
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 36m36 minutes ago
Nigel 'Man of the people' Farage has just bet £1000 on Brexit.
http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eur108919.pdf
Amongst a long list of requirements (in Annex I) it does say that they should be "free from malformation or abnormal cuvature of the fingers".
"Defects of shape" are allowed in Class II bananas provided ............
The size must be a minimum of 14cm but allows smaller bananas from Madeira, the Azores, the Algarve, Crete, Lakonia and Cyprus.
They lost.
The main quote from the interview was 'too much Europe will kill Europe'.
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/734306199563309056
The entire idea of this referendum is an affront to representative democracy, built on a false premise that there was a groundswell of public demand for a plebiscite. There was not. Had Cameron just binned the idea, the vast majority of people would have shrugged their shoulders, except for a few table-thumpers in the press and a handful of political obsessives.
If you asked people if they wanted to vote on the England football team to face Portugal tonight, you might very well get a healthy majority in favour. That doesn't mean the public should be allowed to select the national side via a vote. Referendums are a generally bad idea, asking a public with very little information to vote on matters of national importance.
More to the point, Cameron clearly believes that a Leave vote would be disastrous. What business has a Prime Minister offering a choice of outcomes to the public, if one of those choices would be disastrous for the country he is employed to act in the best interests of?
I'm minded to agree with Robert Smithson down thread. This is an ill wind indeed, and it is blowing nobody any good.
I suspect it's an excellent bet.
There are a few too many Julius Caesars in this debate. We need Brutus back.
My own son (23) is of no doubt. We should leave, but he is also a radical free trader, not keen on the welfare state being more than than what was envisioned by Beveridge and that the UK should be spending much more on the Royal Navy. So somehow I doubt he is typical of his generation
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,
DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,
......
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_in_Toulon