One nice side-effect of Scottish independence is that Anglosphere countries around the world will gain a new distinct 'parent' nation. It's bad news for Empire 2.0 of course, but them's the breaks.
If the EU wanted a Continental model, it had one in the US. But what has been striking about the EU's political development is how determinedly it has turned its back on learning anything from the US model.
Given the increasing polarisation in the US I'm not sure it's necessarily a good model. Europe should never allow 'fly-over countries' to exist in the heart of the continent.
I think the US Constitution is a marvel. The Founding Fathers understood well the concept of the balance of powers, of creating a structure which tried hard to limit the tendency to autocracy and which made the people the source of political power. And it has stood the test of time remarkably well. Sure there are faults in the US model and in many aspects of US politics but there is something self-defeatingly stupid about the way the EU has refused to learn the best that can be learnt from how the US Constitution was created and the debates leading up to it.
The EU is rather de haut en bas in its political approach. The US is not. I prefer the latter and I think the EU would have done better if over the last 60 years it had put the people first rather than give - on occasion - the impression that it sees the people as a tiresome nuisance to be herded, chivvied and on occasion deceived into doing what the politicians think best for them, regardless of their own wishes.
The US constitution didn't prevent a very bloody civil war. I believe that it is still the case that more Americans died in battle in the civil war than in every other war that the US fought put together, up to and including the Korean War.
It's much better written than the EU constitution. But fine words don't necessarily produce fine results.
Agreed. The fact that even a well written Constitution did not prevent a civil war in the US should be a lesson to us in Europe that well intended projects don't necessarily lead to good outcomes.
If the EU wanted a Continental model, it had one in the US. But what has been striking about the EU's political development is how determinedly it has turned its back on learning anything from the US model.
Given the increasing polarisation in the US I'm not sure it's necessarily a good model. Europe should never allow 'fly-over countries' to exist in the heart of the continent.
I think the US Constitution is a marvel. The Founding Fathers understood well the concept of the balance of powers, of creating a structure which tried hard to limit the tendency to autocracy and which made the people the source of political power. And it has stood the test of time remarkably well. Sure there are faults in the US model and in many aspects of US politics but there is something self-defeatingly stupid about the way the EU has refused to learn the best that can be learnt from how the US Constitution was created and the debates leading up to it.
The EU is rather de haut en bas in its political approach. The US is not. I prefer the latter and I think the EU would have done better if over the last 60 years it had put the people first rather than give - on occasion - the impression that it sees the people as a tiresome nuisance to be herded, chivvied and on occasion deceived into doing what the politicians think best for them, regardless of their own wishes.
The US constitution didn't prevent a very bloody civil war. I believe that it is still the case that more Americans died in battle in the civil war than in every other war that the US fought put together, up to and including the Korean War.
It's much better written than the EU constitution. But fine words don't necessarily produce fine results.
I'll guess we'll know in another 200 years or so whether the EU's foundational documents have been as successful on that basis.
Frankly, however, I think it is a stupid basis on which to judge the US constitution. Could any document have defused such a fundamental difference? Highly unlikely.
Is it really such a stupid basis on which to judge the US constitution? In 1861, would we all have been discussing Confederexit? You're looking at this at a distance of over 150 years. In a very real sense, the same discussion about states' rights is taking place in relation to the EU but in relation to a baggier looser fit and with less killing. Perhaps the palsied language of the EU constitution has something going for it after all.
Mr. Divvie, you do remember there was a referendum about two and a half years ago?
And that Sturgeon was transparently playing silly buggers by wanting one in the middle of the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU?
Perhaps you should remember that whether Scotland has another referendum or not isn't really* your decision?
*isn't at all.
Good to know you don't consider yourself bound by the rule of law. You know, the one that says when you can have a referendum.
But that is the least of your worries. Woe betide the Scots if they don't ask prior permission of OGH....
what law is that one then, "only London Tories can call refendums" Law
That only Parliament can called referendums was part of the devolution agreement you guys voted in favour of. Remaining in a union subject to Parliament was also what Scotland voted for in 2014.
If you don't like that law, you've had multiple options to change the law from rejecting the devolution agreement to voting for independence.
One nice side-effect of Scottish independence is that Anglosphere countries around the world will gain a new distinct 'parent' nation. It's bad news for Empire 2.0 of course, but them's the breaks.
One nice side-effect of Scottish independence is that Anglosphere countries around the world will gain a new distinct 'parent' nation. It's bad news for Empire 2.0 of course, but them's the breaks.
In the unlikely event Scotland did vote for independence that would only really apply to some parts of the Appalachian US where Americans of Scottish origin are most prominent
If the EU wanted a Continental model, it had one in the US. But what has been striking about the EU's political development is how determinedly it has turned its back on learning anything from the US model.
Given the increasing polarisation in the US I'm not sure it's necessarily a good model. Europe should never allow 'fly-over countries' to exist in the heart of the continent.
I think the US Constitution is a marvel. The Founding Fathers understood well the concept of the balance of powers, of creating a structure which tried hard to limit the tendency to autocracy and which made the people the source of political power. And it has stood the test of time remarkably well. Sure there are faults in the US model and in many aspects of US politics but there is something self-defeatingly stupid about the way the EU has refused to learn the best that can be learnt from how the US Constitution was created and the debates leading up to it.
The EU is rather de haut en bas in its political approach. The US is not. I prefer the latter and I think the EU would have done better if over the last 60 years it had put the people first rather than give - on occasion - the impression that it sees the people as a tiresome nuisance to be herded, chivvied and on occasion deceived into doing what the politicians think best for them, regardless of their own wishes.
The US constitution didn't prevent a very bloody civil war. I believe that it is still the case that more Americans died in battle in the civil war than in every other war that the US fought put together, up to and including the Korean War.
It's much better written than the EU constitution. But fine words don't necessarily produce fine results.
I'll guess we'll know in another 200 years or so whether the EU's foundational documents have been as successful on that basis.
Frankly, however, I think it is a stupid basis on which to judge the US constitution. Could any document have defused such a fundamental difference? Highly unlikely.
Is it really such a stupid basis on which to judge the US constitution? In 1861, would we all have been discussing Confederexit? You're looking at this at a distance of over 150 years. In a very real sense, the same discussion about states' rights is taking place in relation to the EU but in relation to a baggier looser fit and with less killing. Perhaps the palsied language of the EU constitution has something going for it after all.
Or perhaps the whole western world by the 21st century has evolved into a different place than that of the 19th century.
One nice side-effect of Scottish independence is that Anglosphere countries around the world will gain a new distinct 'parent' nation. It's bad news for Empire 2.0 of course, but them's the breaks.
Is that going to be an X-Box game?
I think the idea is that they're going to release it as soon as they can, and trust that they can fix all the bugs with patches later.
Mr. Divvie, you do remember there was a referendum about two and a half years ago?
And that Sturgeon was transparently playing silly buggers by wanting one in the middle of the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU?
It's not in the middle. Her schedule is for after the Brexit negotiations have been finalised but before being actioned.
Except we don't know yet when the Brexit negotiations will have been finalised. Plus how long after they're being finalised are you giving for campaigning etc? You can't start the campaigning on the final negotiations before the final negotiations have been finalised.
Mr. Divvie, you do remember there was a referendum about two and a half years ago?
And that Sturgeon was transparently playing silly buggers by wanting one in the middle of the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU?
Perhaps you should remember that whether Scotland has another referendum or not isn't really* your decision?
*isn't at all.
Good to know you don't consider yourself bound by the rule of law. You know, the one that says when you can have a referendum.
But that is the least of your worries. Woe betide the Scots if they don't ask prior permission of OGH....
what law is that one then, "only London Tories can call refendums" Law
No. The one law - that only the Westminster Govt. can call referendums - that law. Wanna go UDI instead? Go on....you know you want to.... It wouldn't harm your credibility in financial markets one little bit, walking away from the rule of law, no sirree....
The US constitution didn't prevent a very bloody civil war. I believe that it is still the case that more Americans died in battle in the civil war than in every other war that the US fought put together, up to and including the Korean War.
It's much better written than the EU constitution. But fine words don't necessarily produce fine results.
I'll guess we'll know in another 200 years or so whether the EU's foundational documents have been as successful on that basis.
Frankly, however, I think it is a stupid basis on which to judge the US constitution. Could any document have defused such a fundamental difference? Highly unlikely.
Is it really such a stupid basis on which to judge the US constitution? In 1861, would we all have been discussing Confederexit? You're looking at this at a distance of over 150 years. In a very real sense, the same discussion about states' rights is taking place in relation to the EU but in relation to a baggier looser fit and with less killing. Perhaps the palsied language of the EU constitution has something going for it after all.
It's not the wording which matters so much as the concepts those words express. The concepts underlying the US Constitution, for instance, that power comes from the people and is not something coming down to them are very important and, to me, inspiring.
"We, the people" is far more preferable, to me, to subsidiarity.
The EU is rather too much like Le Roi Soleil and "L'etat c'est moi" for my liking. I prefer Locke and Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke.
One of the criticisms is that the EU is trying to have a much less baggy, tighter fit and the concern is that this risks, if not war, the growth of some very illiberal forces which increase the risk of civil unrest eg Le Pen, Golden Dawn etc. I hope this risk does not materialize. I really do. But the direction of travel is not tremendously encouraging.
So 7% of those still supporting UKIP regret leaving. One should also add those who used to support UKIP and now no longer do.
One shouldn't, actually, in the absence of any evidence of their existence, and numbers. And as Mike and I have pointed out, about 2-4% of the 7% is pure noise.
You have form from the previous thread for not being able to put fairly straightforward statistics into their proper context. Perhaps the words "logical" in your name and "facts" in your picture thingy are a bit over-optimistic?
Could you explain my 'form'. I do try to put statistics 'in their correct context'. If there are fewer people identifying themselves as UKIP (and there are) then it makes sense that there would be fewer supporting their main policy - doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. If people supported UKIP because they supported their main policy and that policy objective had been achieved, they'd have no reason to support them any more.
Furthermore if some people supported UKIP because they supported their main policy and then another party (let alone the party of government) pledges to implement that policy it means some of their supporters might switch to that party.
Is there actually a list of things that can get you banned? Or is it a bit like the Captain's Cloak and Cover-all:
All other crimes not capital committed by any person or persons in the fleet, which are not mentioned in this act, or for which no punishment is hereby directed to be inflicted, shall be punished by the laws and customs in such cases used at sea.
It seems to be a reasonable way of establishing the precedent that Mr.S. be formally invited to future events (assuming a short sharp shock).
My only regret is calling Sean an @rse before I realised he was banned. One prefers to do that to someone's face rather than behind their back, as it were.
Mr. Divvie, you do remember there was a referendum about two and a half years ago?
And that Sturgeon was transparently playing silly buggers by wanting one in the middle of the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU?
Perhaps you should remember that whether Scotland has another referendum or not isn't really* your decision?
*isn't at all.
Good to know you don't consider yourself bound by the rule of law. You know, the one that says when you can have a referendum.
But that is the least of your worries. Woe betide the Scots if they don't ask prior permission of OGH....
what law is that one then, "only London Tories can call refendums" Law
That only Parliament can called referendums was part of the devolution agreement you guys voted in favour of. Remaining in a union subject to Parliament was also what Scotland voted for in 2014.
If you don't like that law, you've had multiple options to change the law from rejecting the devolution agreement to voting for independence.
Held by Westminster and you think Scotland's 57 MP's can outvote the 600 other ones , methinks you do not get how counting of votes works.
One nice side-effect of Scottish independence is that Anglosphere countries around the world will gain a new distinct 'parent' nation. It's bad news for Empire 2.0 of course, but them's the breaks.
My main contemporary criticism of the US Constitution, which is generally a splendid document, is that it has made recognising social change - particularly with regards to rights - the preserve of the judiciary and not the legislature.
Unsurprisingly this makes it very difficult to "settle" issues like abortion and same-sex marriage; and for the losers in such debates to accept the result.
The US started from the base of a clean slate, geographically and historically (ignoring, as everybody did, the rights of the indigenes) and a huge degree of cultural and ethnic homogeneity: of the 34 signatories of the Constitution virtually all are clearly (from their surnames) of UK descent, with just a steward's enquiry over Ingersoll, and so are two thirds of the inhabitants (wiki article). The EU has had to be constructed bottom-up, the USA was top-down, and meaningful comparisons between the two are pretty much impossible. The only precedents we have for constructing superstates with members as diverse as the EU are the great empires from Alexander onwards.
My main contemporary criticism of the US Constitution, which is generally a splendid document, is that it has made recognising social change - particularly with regards to rights - the preserve of the judiciary and not the legislature.
Unsurprisingly this makes it very difficult to "settle" issues like abortion and same-sex marriage; and for the losers in such debates to accept the result.
That is also its strength, though. It means that matters which were settled once - according to the then societal norms - can be revisited as those norms change. This is how the Supreme Court could come to a decision in 1954 on schooling for blacks which was different to what it had been 40 years earlier.
And these issues are not just the preserve of the judiciary but a combination of the judiciary and the legislature and the President e.g. as in much of the civil rights legislation.
I think that issues such as abortion are never going to be seen as "settled" by the losers because it is not the lack of a democratic vote which bothers them but that the wrong "moral" decision has been made (whether that decision is to permit abortion or to deny a woman this right).
Mr. Divvie, you do remember there was a referendum about two and a half years ago?
And that Sturgeon was transparently playing silly buggers by wanting one in the middle of the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU?
Perhaps you should remember that whether Scotland has another referendum or not isn't really* your decision?
*isn't at all.
Good to know you don't consider yourself bound by the rule of law. You know, the one that says when you can have a referendum.
But that is the least of your worries. Woe betide the Scots if they don't ask prior permission of OGH....
what law is that one then, "only London Tories can call refendums" Law
That only Parliament can called referendums was part of the devolution agreement you guys voted in favour of. Remaining in a union subject to Parliament was also what Scotland voted for in 2014.
If you don't like that law, you've had multiple options to change the law from rejecting the devolution agreement to voting for independence.
Held by Westminster and you think Scotland's 57 MP's can outvote the 600 other ones , methinks you do not get how counting of votes works.
Where did I say that Scotland's 57 MP's can outvote the 600 other ones? I never said that.
Had you voted for independence in 2014 then you would have taken the power away from Westminster. Instead you [as a nation] voted to stay where Westminster has that power which means you need to convince a majority of Westminster's MPs to grant any further referendum.
Very amusing to see the knots that the GOP are tying themselves into re: US health reform. I'm looking forward to Plato explaining why it's all due to MSM liberal bias.
Mr. Divvie, you do remember there was a referendum about two and a half years ago?
And that Sturgeon was transparently playing silly buggers by wanting one in the middle of the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU?
Perhaps you should remember that whether Scotland has another referendum or not isn't really* your decision?
*isn't at all.
Good to know you don't consider yourself bound by the rule of law. You know, the one that says when you can have a referendum.
But that is the least of your worries. Woe betide the Scots if they don't ask prior permission of OGH....
what law is that one then, "only London Tories can call refendums" Law
That only Parliament can called referendums was part of the devolution agreement you guys voted in favour of. Remaining in a union subject to Parliament was also what Scotland voted for in 2014.
If you don't like that law, you've had multiple options to change the law from rejecting the devolution agreement to voting for independence.
Held by Westminster and you think Scotland's 57 MP's can outvote the 600 other ones , methinks you do not get how counting of votes works.
Where did I say that Scotland's 57 MP's can outvote the 600 other ones? I never said that.
Had you voted for independence in 2014 then you would have taken the power away from Westminster. Instead you [as a nation] voted to stay where Westminster has that power which means you need to convince a majority of Westminster's MPs to grant any further referendum.
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
Very amusing to see the knots that the GOP are tying themselves into re: US health reform. I'm looking forward to Plato explaining why it's all due to MSM liberal bias.
What is it with you and your hatred of Plato? Sure, she has a certain set of views, but why come on here and just bad mouth her when she isn't even on? It's bizarre.
My main contemporary criticism of the US Constitution, which is generally a splendid document, is that it has made recognising social change - particularly with regards to rights - the preserve of the judiciary and not the legislature.
Unsurprisingly this makes it very difficult to "settle" issues like abortion and same-sex marriage; and for the losers in such debates to accept the result.
That is also its strength, though. It means that matters which were settled once - according to the then societal norms - can be revisited as those norms change. This is how the Supreme Court could come to a decision in 1954 on schooling for blacks which was different to what it had been 40 years earlier.
And these issues are not just the preserve of the judiciary but a combination of the judiciary and the legislature and the President e.g. as in much of the civil rights legislation.
I think that issues such as abortion are never going to be seen as "settled" by the losers because it is not the lack of a democratic vote which bothers them but that the wrong "moral" decision has been made (whether that decision is to permit abortion or to deny a woman this right).
Yes, it is a strength and a weakness - the tension is inherent in a well-designed system. But the idea that the judiciary can change its fundamental opinion of the same words tends to undermine its authority - though clearly the same happens here with law.
And its authority is further undermined by the politicisation of judicial appointments, which sadly has got ever more extreme.
Abortion is far more settled in the UK than in the US - the moral opposition is still there but the political acceptance is far greater. [Edit: the polling is obviously much more one-sided in the UK, but that may partly be because of the effect of acceptance over time].
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
I was 15 ish and not overly interested in politics. My recollection is that everyone thought it was about a common market, not abour political union. I think that view is quite strongly borne out by the wording of the question, "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" The gloss in brackets was necessary because that was what everyone called it.
It is of course possible that we were warned about Ever Closer Union and just ignored it, like smokers with the warnings on fag packets.
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
I'm not Mr Glenn but I was 22 in 1975. I seem to recall that the No side of Powell, Benn, Castle, Foot et al constantly referred to political union. The Left, though not Powell, objected that almost its entire economic policies would be banned if we stayed in.
I voted No. Yes won by a 67/33% landslide. I later changed my mind. If you can't beat them, join them. In the last 40 years, the UK has empirically been governed rather better by Brussels than it has by Whitehall.
O/T - David Hodge, Leader of Surrey CC and Arch-Champion of Adult Social Care has resigned as Conservative group leader on the LGA. Apparently, more than minor rumblings of discontent. But perhaps Ministers' revenge?
Very amusing to see the knots that the GOP are tying themselves into re: US health reform. I'm looking forward to Plato explaining why it's all due to MSM liberal bias.
What is it with you and your hatred of Plato? Sure, she has a certain set of views, but why come on here and just bad mouth her when she isn't even on? It's bizarre.
Hatred is over the top. I find her discourse and refusal to retract statements that are proven to be false objectionable, that's all.
There are plenty of posters on here who recieve far worse, cf Alastair Meeks.
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
No I wasn't an adult in 1975. I've watched the whole debate, and it was shown by the BBC on the Saturday night before the vote and watched live by *9 million* people.
The official 'No' campaign leaflet explicitly said that the aim was to merge Europe into a single country.
I honestly believe that people's memories have become hazy over time, and I would concede that the general political discourse about Europe in the UK became more disingenuous over time.
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
Mr. 13, my memory is that it was mentioned by the out team, people like Peter Shore, Benn, and Powell. All the "good guys" said that they were wrong and there would be no compromise of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The UK was a much more respectful place in those days and if all the mainstream politicians were promising us something and only the screwballs on the fringe were saying that they were lying it was natural to believe the former group.
The bugger is that Shore, Benn, Powell etc turned out to be telling the truth and the "good guys" were lying through their teeth. Heath in his later years even admitted the fact, though, being the nasty piece of work that he was, he absolved himself of blame and said that it was the voters' fault for not reading the treaties and informing themselves properly.
Well the lies of forty-odd years ago, together with all those uttered in the meantime, have come home to roost. We are leaving.
The bugger is that Shore, Benn, Powell etc turned out to be telling the truth and the "good guys" were lying through their teeth. Heath in his later years even admitted the fact, though, being the nasty piece of work that he was, he absolved himself of blame and said that it was the voters' fault for not reading the treaties and informing themselves properly.
Mr Llama - I urge you to rewatch Heath's contribution to that debate with an open mind before condemning him in such terms. I find what him to have been remarkably frank and candid.
One nice side-effect of Scottish independence is that Anglosphere countries around the world will gain a new distinct 'parent' nation. It's bad news for Empire 2.0 of course, but them's the breaks.
In the unlikely event Scotland did vote for independence that would only really apply to some parts of the Appalachian US where Americans of Scottish origin are most prominent
The Ulster Scots are a major US demographic and have supplied a number of US presidents, most recently Bill Clinton.
Very amusing to see the knots that the GOP are tying themselves into re: US health reform. I'm looking forward to Plato explaining why it's all due to MSM liberal bias.
What is it with you and your hatred of Plato? Sure, she has a certain set of views, but why come on here and just bad mouth her when she isn't even on? It's bizarre.
Hatred is over the top. I find her discourse and refusal to retract statements that are proven to be false objectionable, that's all.
There are plenty of posters on here who recieve far worse, cf Alastair Meeks.
I don't doubt it, but she hasn't posted on this thread, as far as I can tell, but you pop up and your first thought is to belittle her. What satisfaction did that give you?
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
Mr. 13, my memory is that it was mentioned by the out team, people like Peter Shore, Benn, and Powell. All the "good guys" said that they were wrong and there would be no compromise of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The UK was a much more respectful place in those days and if all the mainstream politicians were promising us something and only the screwballs on the fringe were saying that they were lying it was natural to believe the former group.
The bugger is that Shore, Benn, Powell etc turned out to be telling the truth and the "good guys" were lying through their teeth. Heath in his later years even admitted the fact, though, being the nasty piece of work that he was, he absolved himself of blame and said that it was the voters' fault for not reading the treaties and informing themselves properly.
Well the lies of forty-odd years ago, together with all those uttered in the meantime, have come home to roost. We are leaving.
Heath did say during the 1975 referendum in answer to questions from the Left and Powell that it was more than just economic.
He was highly evasive in his answers but it was bloody obvious; if it was only economic, why not stay in EFTA with Scandinavia, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria et al?
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
I'm not Mr Glenn but I was 22 in 1975. I seem to recall that the No side of Powell, Benn, Castle, Foot et al constantly referred to political union. The Left, though not Powell, objected that almost its entire economic policies would be banned if we stayed in.
I voted No. Yes won by a 67/33% landslide. I later changed my mind. If you can't beat them, join them. In the last 40 years, the UK has empirically been governed rather better by Brussels than it has by Whitehall.
One nice side-effect of Scottish independence is that Anglosphere countries around the world will gain a new distinct 'parent' nation. It's bad news for Empire 2.0 of course, but them's the breaks.
In the unlikely event Scotland did vote for independence that would only really apply to some parts of the Appalachian US where Americans of Scottish origin are most prominent
The Ulster Scots are a major US demographic and have supplied a number of US presidents, most recently Bill Clinton.
A plurality of Americans are of British or Irish origin (including Scots or Ulster Scots), a majority of Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians (outside Quebec) are of English origin
Unlike PB.Com, created by OGH and his son in 2004 and then nurtured by them since then, the US constitution developed in in two stages.
At first there was the Articles of Confederation. This proved to be far too weak for the country to govern itself. Then, with perils threatening and an immense land to exploit they built the Constitution. Highly educated and fearing the dangers of central authority they put in checks and balances. It is not fixed in stone---witness the ludicrous 18th amendment and its repeal--- and nothing is perfect in the human state. But I hope we shall witness Mr. Trump being tied in knots by the constitution of the very America hopes to "make great" again. However the ludicrousness his election itself doesn't guarantee that.
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
I'm not Mr Glenn but I was 22 in 1975. I seem to recall that the No side of Powell, Benn, Castle, Foot et al constantly referred to political union. The Left, though not Powell, objected that almost its entire economic policies would be banned if we stayed in.
I voted No. Yes won by a 67/33% landslide. I later changed my mind. If you can't beat them, join them. In the last 40 years, the UK has empirically been governed rather better by Brussels than it has by Whitehall.
What is the empirical measure of good governance?
Clean drinking water, not bathing in turds, climate change legislation, social rights for employees not just management, data privacy and protection of private data ... by and large, EU legislation was 'centrist', with a Parliament being elected by PR not FPTP.
I apologise, but I may not be able to read your reply as time has caught up with me & I must go to a meeting at 2.00 pm.
My journey was the other way. I was a Europhile in 1975, and my only irritation was the one-sided nature of the debate. I wanted Yes to win but I wanted to win fairly, I may have watched more Yes propaganda than No propaganda, and it was certainly true of the average voter. And the Yes campaign certainly poo-pooed the possibility of ever closer union.
At my age, I didn't stay in on Saturday nights to watch debates. I'm 67 now, and wonder how many of the my demographic would have done.
My role in Europe was in science advice, so I didn't play an active role in negotiating 'gangs'. I was caught with an afternoon free in Brussels one day and ushered into a meeting with legal representative of most of the EU countries. They wanted to discuss legal ramifications of some proposed change they were planning.
Despite my protestations that I knew as much about European or British law as their cat, they persisted in questioning me. Although I did my best, I now suspect it was a cover for saying "Well, we asked the British representative." Their cat would have given away their ruse. Maybe not, but you can see how I began to have some reservations.
More to the point, I suspect that if you asked the over-sixties, what role did the Rome Treaty preamble play in the 1975 referendum, or since, the two main answers would be ... "You what?" and "Don't know."
I'm not surprised that No did mention it. I'm also not surprised that Yes didn't.
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
Mr. 13, my memory is that it was mentioned by the out team, people like Peter Shore, Benn, and Powell. All the "good guys" said that they were wrong and there would be no compromise of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The UK was a much more respectful place in those days and if all the mainstream politicians were promising us something and only the screwballs on the fringe were saying that they were lying it was natural to believe the former group.
The bugger is that Shore, Benn, Powell etc turned out to be telling the truth and the "good guys" were lying through their teeth. Heath in his later years even admitted the fact, though, being the nasty piece of work that he was, he absolved himself of blame and said that it was the voters' fault for not reading the treaties and informing themselves properly.
Well the lies of forty-odd years ago, together with all those uttered in the meantime, have come home to roost. We are leaving.
Heath did say during the 1975 referendum in answer to questions from the Left and Powell that it was more than just economic.
He was highly evasive in his answers but it was bloody obvious; if it was only economic, why not stay in EFTA with Scandinavia, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria et al?
The group I was involved with certainly expected that econmoc union would lead on to political, if not union, then a much closer 'coming togther’.
One nice side-effect of Scottish independence is that Anglosphere countries around the world will gain a new distinct 'parent' nation. It's bad news for Empire 2.0 of course, but them's the breaks.
In the unlikely event Scotland did vote for independence that would only really apply to some parts of the Appalachian US where Americans of Scottish origin are most prominent
The Ulster Scots are a major US demographic and have supplied a number of US presidents, most recently Bill Clinton.
Clinton's basically English. The Scots Irish numbers are greatly exaggerated for some reason.
So Mike banned Mortimer for not informing him about the PB meet?
Yes. I expect that common courtesy.
LOL ! Why wasn't you invited? It seems a bit odd to have a PB meet up and to not invite Mr PB himself!
A bit like having a birthday party without the birthday boy... Or a wedding without the bride !
As I understood it, this was a CELEBRATION of serving Article 50 and leaving the EU. Invited or not, I doubt OGH would have enjoyed it. There's a reasonable expectation he would just have sat there like the Incredible Sulk. Best not to antagonize with an invite. Same goes for Mr Meeks.
I never saw it as a formal PB meet, just a gathering for those who read the blog. Official PB Meets invariably get their own thread. So banning is a considerable over-reaction in my opinion. In a couple of years time - when readers actually meet to celebrate LEAVING - I'd suggest any such gathering will have to be arranged under a front organisation: perhaps a meeting of "Those Who Own a Comb" *wink*..... pulling said comb out of your top pocket half an inch will be sufficient to gain admittance.....
Well it all sounds very bizarre but I do think if your going to use the PB brand for a meet up it's only fair to check with Mike first...
So Mike banned Mortimer for not informing him about the PB meet?
Yes. I expect that common courtesy.
LOL ! Why wasn't you invited? It seems a bit odd to have a PB meet up and to not invite Mr PB himself!
A bit like having a birthday party without the birthday boy... Or a wedding without the bride !
As I understood it, this was a CELEBRATION of serving Article 50 and leaving the EU. Invited or not, I doubt OGH would have enjoyed it. There's a reasonable expectation he would just have sat there like the Incredible Sulk. Best not to antagonize with an invite. Same goes for Mr Meeks.
I never saw it as a formal PB meet, just a gathering for those who read the blog. Official PB Meets invariably get their own thread. So banning is a considerable over-reaction in my opinion. In a couple of years time - when readers actually meet to celebrate LEAVING - I'd suggest any such gathering will have to be arranged under a front organisation: perhaps a meeting of "Those Who Own a Comb" *wink*..... pulling said comb out of your top pocket half an inch will be sufficient to gain admittance.....
Well it all sounds very bizarre but I do think if your going to use the PB brand for a meet up it's only fair to check with Mike first...
Though banning Mortimer seems harsh.
Perhaps OGH can organise a rival bash on the same night for Remaniacs to celebrate the LD win in Richmond Park and parish council by elections?
The US is one such model. It is probably one of the most successful models for a political structure encompassing a Continent in the Western world and it is, IMO, pretty bloody silly and arrogant of people like Giscard d'Estaing to loftily disdain the idea of learning anything from the US model. The EU has French political structure in its DNA and, frankly, French political structures have hardly been a success over the years, let alone over the two centuries since the US was founded.
The US model does not need to be copied in toto. But the reason the EU Constitution got into such a mess - remember, it was rejected by both the Dutch and the French - should perhaps have given the EU Poo-Bahs pause for some serious thought and reflection on these topics.
There wasn't - or not enough - and that is one reason why, 60 years after it was founded - its second largest member has decided to leave. Whatever the many successes of the EU over those 60 years, this is one very very significant failure and it would be good for the rest of the EU and its member states if someone somewhere in that organization had a bit of self-reflection on why that happened and what it might mean for them and how they are conducting themselves.
I'm not sure that the US Constitution has worked very well, because it (like the European one) fudged the federal/confederal choices, to the point that you could say that a 6-year civil war was fought over how to interpret it. It is still fundmaentally broken, in that (a) it's undemocratic, giving small states disproportionate Senate representation and electoral college representation (which is why Clinton got a popular majority and Trump got an EC majority) (b) it delegates the fixing of bouyndaries to partisan local bodies who routinely gerrymander (c) the separation of powers only works to the extent of preventing bad things from happening, but builds in deadlocks which make it difficult to progress in any direction, as Trump is now finding despite a majority in both Houses
I agree that these fundamntal issues need to be thought through. A problem in Europe has been tat the people who set up the system did intend it to evolve federally, but the big country governments really don't want to lose their power, so the Parliament is sidelined by the Council at every opportunity. A decision to be federal or not is relaly needed to avoid endless fudges.
One nice side-effect of Scottish independence is that Anglosphere countries around the world will gain a new distinct 'parent' nation. It's bad news for Empire 2.0 of course, but them's the breaks.
In the unlikely event Scotland did vote for independence that would only really apply to some parts of the Appalachian US where Americans of Scottish origin are most prominent
The Ulster Scots are a major US demographic and have supplied a number of US presidents, most recently Bill Clinton.
Clinton's basically English. The Scots Irish numbers are greatly exaggerated for some reason.
I read something about this last week, related to St. Patrick's Day, that by far the largest hyphenated American group would be the English-American, but that they have a much lower profile as is common with the default/majority/largest ethnic group in a country.
So Mike banned Mortimer for not informing him about the PB meet?
Yes. I expect that common courtesy.
LOL ! Why wasn't you invited? It seems a bit odd to have a PB meet up and to not invite Mr PB himself!
A bit like having a birthday party without the birthday boy... Or a wedding without the bride !
As I understood it, this was a CELEBRATION of serving Article 50 and leaving the EU. Invited or not, I doubt OGH would have enjoyed it. There's a reasonable expectation he would just have sat there like the Incredible Sulk. Best not to antagonize with an invite. Same goes for Mr Meeks.
I never saw it as a formal PB meet, just a gathering for those who read the blog. Official PB Meets invariably get their own thread. So banning is a considerable over-reaction in my opinion. In a couple of years time - when readers actually meet to celebrate LEAVING - I'd suggest any such gathering will have to be arranged under a front organisation: perhaps a meeting of "Those Who Own a Comb" *wink*..... pulling said comb out of your top pocket half an inch will be sufficient to gain admittance.....
Well it all sounds very bizarre but I do think if your going to use the PB brand for a meet up it's only fair to check with Mike first...
Though banning Mortimer seems harsh.
Perhaps OGH can organise a rival bash on the same night for Remaniacs to celebrate the LD win in Richmond Park and parish council by elections?
We had a discussion a while back about the use of words like Remoaner, Snowflake etc and that it diluted the argument being put by use of an insult to describe someone.
I don't know about other Remainers but Remainiacs sounds like quite an affectionate insult to me. I like it.
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
I was 15 ish and not overly interested in politics. My recollection is that everyone thought it was about a common market, not abour political union. I think that view is quite strongly borne out by the wording of the question, "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" The gloss in brackets was necessary because that was what everyone called it.
It is of course possible that we were warned about Ever Closer Union and just ignored it, like smokers with the warnings on fag packets.
You're missing the point. Successive democratically-elected governments (ie the ones you supported, or not) agreed to all the measures that you say are now so profoundly undemocratic.
So Mike banned Mortimer for not informing him about the PB meet?
Yes. I expect that common courtesy.
LOL ! Why wasn't you invited? It seems a bit odd to have a PB meet up and to not invite Mr PB himself!
A bit like having a birthday party without the birthday boy... Or a wedding without the bride !
As I understood it, this was a CELEBRATION of serving Article 50 and leaving the EU. Invited or not, I doubt OGH would have enjoyed it. There's a reasonable expectation he would just have sat there like the Incredible Sulk. Best not to antagonize with an invite. Same goes for Mr Meeks.
I never saw it as a formal PB meet, just a gathering for those who read the blog. Official PB Meets invariably get their own thread. So banning is a considerable over-reaction in my opinion. In a couple of years time - when readers actually meet to celebrate LEAVING - I'd suggest any such gathering will have to be arranged under a front organisation: perhaps a meeting of "Those Who Own a Comb" *wink*..... pulling said comb out of your top pocket half an inch will be sufficient to gain admittance.....
Well it all sounds very bizarre but I do think if your going to use the PB brand for a meet up it's only fair to check with Mike first...
Though banning Mortimer seems harsh.
Perhaps OGH can organise a rival bash on the same night for Remaniacs to celebrate the LD win in Richmond Park and parish council by elections?
We had a discussion a while back about the use of words like Remoaner, Snowflake etc and that it diluted the argument being put by use of an insult to describe someone.
I don't know about other Remainers but Remainiacs sounds like quite an affectionate insult to me. I like it.
As a lapsed Remainiac in name only it does sound reasonable I agree
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
I was 15 ish and not overly interested in politics. My recollection is that everyone thought it was about a common market, not abour political union. I think that view is quite strongly borne out by the wording of the question, "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" The gloss in brackets was necessary because that was what everyone called it.
It is of course possible that we were warned about Ever Closer Union and just ignored it, like smokers with the warnings on fag packets.
You're missing the point. Successive democratically-elected governments (ie the ones you supported, or not) agreed to all the measures that you say are now so profoundly undemocratic.
I don't say any such thing, wtf are you on about? If I thought the EU was that profoundly undemocratic I would not have voted to stay in it.
The US is one such model. It is probably one of the most successful models for a political structure encompassing a Continent in the Western world and it is, IMO, pretty bloody silly and arrogant of people like Giscard d'Estaing to loftily disdain the idea of learning anything from the US model. The EU has French political structure in its DNA and, frankly, French political structures have hardly been a success over the years, let alone over the two centuries since the US was founded.
The US model does not need to be copied in toto. But the reason the EU Constitution got into such a mess - remember, it was rejected by both the Dutch and the French - should perhaps have given the EU Poo-Bahs pause for some serious thought and reflection on these topics.
There wasn't - or not enough - and that is one reason why, 60 years after it was founded - its second largest member has decided to leave. Whatever the many successes of the EU over those 60 years, this is one very very significant failure and it would be good for the rest of the EU and its member states if someone somewhere in that organization had a bit of self-reflection on why that happened and what it might mean for them and how they are conducting themselves.
I'm not sure that the US Constitution has worked very well, because it (like the European one) fudged the federal/confederal choices, to the point that you could say that a 6-year civil war was fought over how to interpret it. It is still fundmaentally broken, in that (a) it's undemocratic, giving small states disproportionate Senate representation and electoral college representation (which is why Clinton got a popular majority and Trump got an EC majority) (b) it delegates the fixing of bouyndaries to partisan local bodies who routinely gerrymander (c) the separation of powers only works to the extent of preventing bad things from happening, but builds in deadlocks which make it difficult to progress in any direction, as Trump is now finding despite a majority in both Houses
[snip]
not sure that's true.
(a) all systems are undemocratic in some degree. Britain gives disproportionate power to large parties. The deliberate disparity in representation between the House and Senate is a check to prevent an over-mighty secitonal majority abusing its power. it's a feature, not a bug.
(b) it doesn't delegate: that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of where power lies. The power never left the states. That states gerrymander is certainly a failure but it's a consequence of culture, not a constitutional failure: it's seen as a 'spoil of victory'. American commentators might take a similar view of the traditional ability of a UK PM to fix the date of an election.
So Mike banned Mortimer for not informing him about the PB meet?
Yes. I expect that common courtesy.
LOL ! Why wasn't you invited? It seems a bit odd to have a PB meet up and to not invite Mr PB himself!
A bit like having a birthday party without the birthday boy... Or a wedding without the bride !
As I understood it, this was a CELEBRATION of serving Article 50 and leaving the EU. Invited or not, I doubt OGH would have enjoyed it. There's a reasonable expectation he would just have sat there like the Incredible Sulk. Best not to antagonize with an invite. Same goes for Mr Meeks.
I never saw it as a formal PB meet, just a gathering for those who read the blog. Official PB Meets invariably get their own thread. So banning is a considerable over-reaction in my opinion. In a couple of years time - when readers actually meet to celebrate LEAVING - I'd suggest any such gathering will have to be arranged under a front organisation: perhaps a meeting of "Those Who Own a Comb" *wink*..... pulling said comb out of your top pocket half an inch will be sufficient to gain admittance.....
Well it all sounds very bizarre but I do think if your going to use the PB brand for a meet up it's only fair to check with Mike first...
Though banning Mortimer seems harsh.
Perhaps OGH can organise a rival bash on the same night for Remaniacs to celebrate the LD win in Richmond Park and parish council by elections?
We had a discussion a while back about the use of words like Remoaner, Snowflake etc and that it diluted the argument being put by use of an insult to describe someone.
I don't know about other Remainers but Remainiacs sounds like quite an affectionate insult to me. I like it.
As a lapsed Remainiac in name only it does sound reasonable I agree
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
I was 15 ish and not overly interested in politics. My recollection is that everyone thought it was about a common market, not abour political union. I think that view is quite strongly borne out by the wording of the question, "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" The gloss in brackets was necessary because that was what everyone called it.
It is of course possible that we were warned about Ever Closer Union and just ignored it, like smokers with the warnings on fag packets.
You're missing the point. Successive democratically-elected governments (ie the ones you supported, or not) agreed to all the measures that you say are now so profoundly undemocratic.
I don't say any such thing, wtf are you on about? If I thought the EU was that profoundly undemocratic I would not have voted to stay in it.
I am on about the fact that you (seem to be) bemoaning the change in the EU from common market to ever closer union and that that was never mooted in 1975 so somehow we have been sold a pup or we ignored the warnings. Whereas the EU has changed and at each stage of change, the UK has agreed to change with it.
I googled "fat Scottish football fans". I was going to post a witty retort about the SNP Indyref negotiation team. It genuinely came up with mostly pictures of Salmond! Sort of ruined the effect.
The bugger is that Shore, Benn, Powell etc turned out to be telling the truth and the "good guys" were lying through their teeth. Heath in his later years even admitted the fact, though, being the nasty piece of work that he was, he absolved himself of blame and said that it was the voters' fault for not reading the treaties and informing themselves properly.
Mr Llama - I urge you to rewatch Heath's contribution to that debate with an open mind before condemning him in such terms. I find what him to have been remarkably frank and candid.
Mr. Glenn, my post was, as I said, an account of my memory of that time (and indeed the debates that led to us joining the the EEC in the first place - the referendum of 1975 was whether we should stay in, not whether we should join). In 1975 I did not have access to a television, well I did in the Mess but I would have been hooted out of the room for suggesting we watch a political debate, but I did read the newspapers every day.
Yes, memories fade overtime but I am not yet that senile that I cannot remember how I and my fellows felt given the information that we had. It really was the great and the good saying one thing and the fringe and loopy politicians saying the other and we all believed the great and the good because they would not lie to us. Maybe Cameron expected a similar result last year. However the world had turned and we knew, not least because of Blair and Iraq as well as Major after Maastricht and what had happened with the progress of the EEC over forty years, that thy great and the good will lie to us.
As a fine point of interest, you note that the televised debate was watched by 9 million people. I terms of TV audiences at that time that was not a particularly large number. Morecombe and Wise shows in the 70s would attract 20+ million viewers. It was as I said a different world.
So Mike banned Mortimer for not informing him about the PB meet?
Yes. I expect that common courtesy.
LOL ! Why wasn't you invited? It seems a bit odd to have a PB meet up and to not invite Mr PB himself!
A bit like having a birthday party without the birthday boy... Or a wedding without the bride !
As I understood it, this was a CELEBRATION of serving Article 50 and leaving the EU. Invited or not, I doubt OGH would have enjoyed it. There's a reasonable expectation he would just have sat there like the Incredible Sulk. Best not to antagonize with an invite. Same goes for Mr Meeks.
I never saw it as a formal PB meet, just a gathering for those who read the blog. Official PB Meets invariably get their own thread. So banning is a considerable over-reaction in my opinion. In a couple of years time - when readers actually meet to celebrate LEAVING - I'd suggest any such gathering will have to be arranged under a front organisation: perhaps a meeting of "Those Who Own a Comb" *wink*..... pulling said comb out of your top pocket half an inch will be sufficient to gain admittance.....
Well it all sounds very bizarre but I do think if your going to use the PB brand for a meet up it's only fair to check with Mike first...
Though banning Mortimer seems harsh.
Perhaps OGH can organise a rival bash on the same night for Remaniacs to celebrate the LD win in Richmond Park and parish council by elections?
We had a discussion a while back about the use of words like Remoaner, Snowflake etc and that it diluted the argument being put by use of an insult to describe someone.
I don't know about other Remainers but Remainiacs sounds like quite an affectionate insult to me. I like it.
As a lapsed Remainiac in name only it does sound reasonable I agree
Agreed then.
I would also turn up to a bash in Richmond.
I am sure Mr Meeks can find a venue in Richmond Park suitably plush enough to rival the Brexiteers do, Kew Gardens Orangery perhaps?
My previous comment suggesting Mike was intolerant over Mortimer has been deleted. In an ironic way, presumably.
It's funny seeing you preaching tolerance considering the song and dance you made about purging me from Hertsmere CLP because I said that I was going to vote for Jezza.
Was Mortimer really red carded for organising a shindig?!
The follicly challenged overlord stroked his cat then smote him. Banished for presuming.
To be honest Mike does have a point. What would happen if Mortimer was a psychopath who, having lured various PBers to this place, proceeded to carve them up with a machete? Mike would certainly be investigated as some kind of accomplice.
Comments
If you don't like that law, you've had multiple options to change the law from rejecting the devolution agreement to voting for independence.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/andy-burnham-and-sadiq-khan-are-both-slippery-self-mythologisers-so-why-do
"We, the people" is far more preferable, to me, to subsidiarity.
The EU is rather too much like Le Roi Soleil and "L'etat c'est moi" for my liking. I prefer Locke and Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke.
One of the criticisms is that the EU is trying to have a much less baggy, tighter fit and the concern is that this risks, if not war, the growth of some very illiberal forces which increase the risk of civil unrest eg Le Pen, Golden Dawn etc. I hope this risk does not materialize. I really do. But the direction of travel is not tremendously encouraging.
My only regret is calling Sean an @rse before I realised he was banned. One prefers to do that to someone's face rather than behind their back, as it were.
REMAIN 48%
FWIW Boris talked about (citing Churchill) the empires of the future being Empires of the Mind, which is legitimate in my view.
Unsurprisingly this makes it very difficult to "settle" issues like abortion and same-sex marriage; and for the losers in such debates to accept the result.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/benevolent-dictators.html
Mr. Royale, sadly, I agree.
And these issues are not just the preserve of the judiciary but a combination of the judiciary and the legislature and the President e.g. as in much of the civil rights legislation.
I think that issues such as abortion are never going to be seen as "settled" by the losers because it is not the lack of a democratic vote which bothers them but that the wrong "moral" decision has been made (whether that decision is to permit abortion or to deny a woman this right).
Had you voted for independence in 2014 then you would have taken the power away from Westminster. Instead you [as a nation] voted to stay where Westminster has that power which means you need to convince a majority of Westminster's MPs to grant any further referendum.
Were you an adult in 1975? Did you have an interest in politics? I was, and one of the main complaints of my demographic was that the preamble to the Treaty of Rome was never mentioned in 1975.
You seemed to have unearthed a reference to it in an hour and half debate on a Saturday night. What were viewing figures? Did you watch the whole 90 minutes?
I don't remember watching it, and from my memory I know no one who did. I was 25 and didn't get married until later that year. OK, that's an anecdote, but it was still news to me when we voted last year. Even though, I'm more politically involved than most.
It was never an issue in the intervening years - and I attended Euro meetings in Brussels.
Dr Palmer believes it was mentioned, but he's hardly the average member of the public.
And its authority is further undermined by the politicisation of judicial appointments, which sadly has got ever more extreme.
Abortion is far more settled in the UK than in the US - the moral opposition is still there but the political acceptance is far greater. [Edit: the polling is obviously much more one-sided in the UK, but that may partly be because of the effect of acceptance over time].
It is of course possible that we were warned about Ever Closer Union and just ignored it, like smokers with the warnings on fag packets.
I voted No. Yes won by a 67/33% landslide. I later changed my mind. If you can't beat them, join them. In the last 40 years, the UK has empirically been governed rather better by Brussels than it has by Whitehall.
There are plenty of posters on here who recieve far worse, cf Alastair Meeks.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36438017
The official 'No' campaign leaflet explicitly said that the aim was to merge Europe into a single country.
I honestly believe that people's memories have become hazy over time, and I would concede that the general political discourse about Europe in the UK became more disingenuous over time.
The bugger is that Shore, Benn, Powell etc turned out to be telling the truth and the "good guys" were lying through their teeth. Heath in his later years even admitted the fact, though, being the nasty piece of work that he was, he absolved himself of blame and said that it was the voters' fault for not reading the treaties and informing themselves properly.
Well the lies of forty-odd years ago, together with all those uttered in the meantime, have come home to roost. We are leaving.
He was highly evasive in his answers but it was bloody obvious; if it was only economic, why not stay in EFTA with Scandinavia, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria et al?
At first there was the Articles of Confederation. This proved to be far too weak for the country to govern itself. Then, with perils threatening and an immense land to exploit they built the Constitution. Highly educated and fearing the dangers of central authority they put in checks and balances. It is not fixed in stone---witness the ludicrous 18th amendment and its repeal--- and nothing is perfect in the human state. But I hope we shall witness Mr. Trump being tied in knots by the constitution of the very America hopes to "make great" again. However the ludicrousness his election itself doesn't guarantee that.
Good try, founding fathers.
I apologise, but I may not be able to read your reply as time has caught up with me & I must go to a meeting at 2.00 pm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-39380779
My journey was the other way. I was a Europhile in 1975, and my only irritation was the one-sided nature of the debate. I wanted Yes to win but I wanted to win fairly, I may have watched more Yes propaganda than No propaganda, and it was certainly true of the average voter. And the Yes campaign certainly poo-pooed the possibility of ever closer union.
At my age, I didn't stay in on Saturday nights to watch debates. I'm 67 now, and wonder how many of the my demographic would have done.
My role in Europe was in science advice, so I didn't play an active role in negotiating 'gangs'. I was caught with an afternoon free in Brussels one day and ushered into a meeting with legal representative of most of the EU countries. They wanted to discuss legal ramifications of some proposed change they were planning.
Despite my protestations that I knew as much about European or British law as their cat, they persisted in questioning me. Although I did my best, I now suspect it was a cover for saying "Well, we asked the British representative." Their cat would have given away their ruse. Maybe not, but you can see how I began to have some reservations.
More to the point, I suspect that if you asked the over-sixties, what role did the Rome Treaty preamble play in the 1975 referendum, or since, the two main answers would be ... "You what?" and "Don't know."
I'm not surprised that No did mention it. I'm also not surprised that Yes didn't.
Though banning Mortimer seems harsh.
In an ironic way, presumably.
(a) it's undemocratic, giving small states disproportionate Senate representation and electoral college representation (which is why Clinton got a popular majority and Trump got an EC majority)
(b) it delegates the fixing of bouyndaries to partisan local bodies who routinely gerrymander
(c) the separation of powers only works to the extent of preventing bad things from happening, but builds in deadlocks which make it difficult to progress in any direction, as Trump is now finding despite a majority in both Houses
I agree that these fundamntal issues need to be thought through. A problem in Europe has been tat the people who set up the system did intend it to evolve federally, but the big country governments really don't want to lose their power, so the Parliament is sidelined by the Council at every opportunity. A decision to be federal or not is relaly needed to avoid endless fudges.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/24/hundreds-civil-service-jobs-forbrexitnegotiators-have-not-filled/
PMIs at a 6 year high. This should really help our growth and should encourage a more positive outlook on the negotiations.
It might even help me win £50 off Robert.
https://twitter.com/Oldfirmfacts1/status/844893178746605568
I don't know about other Remainers but Remainiacs sounds like quite an affectionate insult to me. I like it.
(a) all systems are undemocratic in some degree. Britain gives disproportionate power to large parties. The deliberate disparity in representation between the House and Senate is a check to prevent an over-mighty secitonal majority abusing its power. it's a feature, not a bug.
(b) it doesn't delegate: that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of where power lies. The power never left the states. That states gerrymander is certainly a failure but it's a consequence of culture, not a constitutional failure: it's seen as a 'spoil of victory'. American commentators might take a similar view of the traditional ability of a UK PM to fix the date of an election.
(c) Again, that's a feature not a bug.
I would also turn up to a bash in Richmond.
Yes, memories fade overtime but I am not yet that senile that I cannot remember how I and my fellows felt given the information that we had. It really was the great and the good saying one thing and the fringe and loopy politicians saying the other and we all believed the great and the good because they would not lie to us. Maybe Cameron expected a similar result last year. However the world had turned and we knew, not least because of Blair and Iraq as well as Major after Maastricht and what had happened with the progress of the EEC over forty years, that thy great and the good will lie to us.
As a fine point of interest, you note that the televised debate was watched by 9 million people. I terms of TV audiences at that time that was not a particularly large number. Morecombe and Wise shows in the 70s would attract 20+ million viewers. It was as I said a different world.