This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
All EU members agree the EU needs reform. They don't agree what that reform should be. The British think reform is what they decide it to be and everyone else is backward for not doing what the British tell them to do. Cameron's speech and your comment are typical of this assumption.
The EU talk a good game on reform, then sneer and whine at 'populists' and moan about the UK not understanding them (the reverse is apparently never true). If they could live up to their dream it would be ok, but they clearly do not mean it when they talk about reform in any meaningful sense. They way they talk about opponents of further integration, and the concerns they have, once the heat dies down shows that.
Which is fine if that is truly what they want. It's better for them if we are not in there messing about.
To be clear, I think the UK has something to offer the EU. I agree with Alastair that Brexit is the EU's loss in that respect. I point out that EU members genuinely disagree on how the EU should be reformed so they stick with the status quo as the compromise that everyone can live with. The British saying the EU isn't interested in reform and it is bad, is neither perceptive nor useful.
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
All EU members agree the EU needs reform. They don't agree what that reform should be. The British think reform is what they decide it to be and everyone else is backward for not doing what the British tell them to do. Cameron's speech and your comment are typical of this assumption.
Did it never occur to you that the reason the British think that is because the EU play the game of telling us what we want to hear and then doing something completely different. Subsidiarity springs to mind.
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
All EU members agree the EU needs reform. They don't agree what that reform should be. The British think reform is what they decide it to be and everyone else is backward for not doing what the British tell them to do. Cameron's speech and your comment are typical of this assumption.
The EU talk a good game on reform, then sneer and whine at 'populists' and moan about the UK not understanding them (the reverse is apparently never true). If they could live up to their dream it would be ok, but they clearly do not mean it when they talk about reform in any meaningful sense. They way they talk about opponents of further integration, and the concerns they have, once the heat dies down shows that.
Which is fine if that is truly what they want. It's better for them if we are not in there messing about.
Subsidiarity seems to literally mean something else to the EU...
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
All EU members agree the EU needs reform. They don't agree what that reform should be. The British think reform is what they decide it to be and everyone else is backward for not doing what the British tell them to do. Cameron's speech and your comment are typical of this assumption.
Did it never occur to you that the reason the British think that is because the EU play the game of telling us what we want to hear and then doing something completely different. Subsidiarity springs to mind.
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
All EU members agree the EU needs reform. They don't agree what that reform should be. The British think reform is what they decide it to be and everyone else is backward for not doing what the British tell them to do. Cameron's speech and your comment are typical of this assumption.
Did it never occur to you that the reason the British think that is because the EU play the game of telling us what we want to hear and then doing something completely different. Subsidiarity springs to mind.
Given the centralisation of the UK state, they think receiving lessons on subsidiarity from us is an example of our sense of humour.
"Benign and progressive"? Tell that to the Greeks.
Greece was mad keen to join the Euro. They should not have been allowed to, they were unsuitable and suffered accordingly. Cruel to be kind, in that case, would have been better than the opposite. Still, hindsight often makes something appear obvious that at the time was anything but. Although I seem to remember Goldman Sachs being involved and that ought to have raised a flag.
I quite agree there's more than enough blame to go around. The Greek political class, the IMF and the Greek electorate, the liars in the Greek Treasury all bear their share of blame as well as the Eurocracy. But the experience of the Greeks, which could have been our experience if we'd joined the Euro, certainly shows exactly how benign and progressive the EU is. Leaving a country with 40% unemployment rather than making bondholders take realistic losses or abandon the dream of a currency that caused such damage shows where the EU's priorities lie.
And Greece's experience could have been ours if we'd joined the Euro. We would have boomed then busted spectacularly (and, because we're much bigger, maybe brought down the world's financial markets in the process). But, unbelievably, there are still people in this country who want us to join. The usual suspects of course.
The problem with this line of argument (the old 'democratic deficit' line) is that it assumes that the European Parliament could ever feel democratic. What I mean by that is what connection, what feeling of having an impact on the parliamentary make up and hence its decision- and policy-making, could people possibly have given the size of each constituency.
The largest groups people can truly feel part of is about 1500 people. British constituency size already stretches the sense of impact very far. 73 seats for an electorate of 46.8 million means there is essentially zero sense of connectedness between the individual voter and the outcome of voting.
But I don't think most people in Britain feel "truly part of" Westminster democracy either - sadly. Still less of local councils, where the proportionality is not far over 1500 but the bodies are powerless over most things that matter to people.
So you would favour abolishing local councils I presume? If they are powerless over anything important and people have no connection to them there's no point to them.
I think Nick is arguing the opposite point. That the EU (and councils) are worth retaining even if people don't feel connected to them.
"Benign and progressive"? Tell that to the Greeks.
Greece was mad keen to join the Euro. They should not have been allowed to, they were unsuitable and suffered accordingly. Cruel to be kind, in that case, would have been better than the opposite. Still, hindsight often makes something appear obvious that at the time was anything but. Although I seem to remember Goldman Sachs being involved and that ought to have raised a flag.
I quite agree there's more than enough blame to go around. The Greek political class, the IMF and the Greek electorate, the liars in the Greek Treasury all bear their share of blame as well as the Eurocracy. But the experience of the Greeks, which could have been our experience if we'd joined the Euro, certainly shows exactly how benign and progressive the EU is. Leaving a country with 40% unemployment rather than making bondholders take realistic losses or abandon the dream of a currency that caused such damage shows where the EU's priorities lie.
And Greece's experience could have been ours if we'd joined the Euro. We would have boomed then busted spectacularly (and, because we're much bigger, maybe brought down the world's financial markets in the process). But, unbelievably, there are still people in this country who want us to join. The usual suspects of course.
Greek GDP nearly tripled between 2000 and 2008. There's no plausible comparison between Greece and the UK as a member of the Eurozone.
This is where the discussion went wrong. Cameron's Bloomberg Speech was not about demanding concessions from Europe as if it was a zero-sum game; it was about reforming the EU to work in everyone's interests, not just whether 'Inners' or 'Outers', or Eurozone members or not (i.e. national membership positions) but the public as well. That aspiration ended up being dropped, which is how it ended up turning into the kind of concessionfest that inevitably put the EU's backs up and delivered insubstantial benefits options.
As soon as the debate became about 'exceptionalism', it headed down a wrong path.
All EU members agree the EU needs reform. They don't agree what that reform should be. The British think reform is what they decide it to be and everyone else is backward for not doing what the British tell them to do. Cameron's speech and your comment are typical of this assumption.
Did it never occur to you that the reason the British think that is because the EU play the game of telling us what we want to hear and then doing something completely different. Subsidiarity springs to mind.
Given the centralisation of the UK state, they think receiving lessons on subsidiarity from us is an example of our sense of humour.
Straw man attack there William. No one is saying the UK is not guilty of centralisation. But the EU specifically promoted the idea of subsidiarity to counter British (and other) complaints about centralisation and then have done the exact reverse. They put two meaningless clauses in the Lisbon Treaty and have then proceeded to ignore the whole subject and continue with their own centralisation.
So in spite of your spurious comments, my point stands. The EU says what it thinks it wants people to hear and then carries on doing exactly what it wants.
As for the peripheries, they got depopulation and stagnation. For the young in Greece and Spain and for both young and old elsewhere, the choice was staying in home with no work and no hope or uprooting to the UK, Germany or the Low Countries, getting a menial job which still paid a fortune and living far from home but earning.
Spain's population has grown by more than the UK's in absolute terms in the last 20 years, and its GDP has grown by more in percentage terms.
uk 58,544,938 (1998) 66,573,504 (2018) spain 40,292,642 (1998) 46,397,452 (2018)
"Benign and progressive"? Tell that to the Greeks.
Greece was mad keen to join the Euro. They should not have been allowed to, they were unsuitable and suffered accordingly. Cruel to be kind, in that case, would have been better than the opposite. Still, hindsight often makes something appear obvious that at the time was anything but. Although I seem to remember Goldman Sachs being involved and that ought to have raised a flag.
I quite agree there's more than enough blame to go around. The Greek political class, the IMF and the Greek electorate, the liars in the Greek Treasury all bear their share of blame as well as the Eurocracy. But the experience of the Greeks, which could have been our experience if we'd joined the Euro, certainly shows exactly how benign and progressive the EU is. Leaving a country with 40% unemployment rather than making bondholders take realistic losses or abandon the dream of a currency that caused such damage shows where the EU's priorities lie.
And Greece's experience could have been ours if we'd joined the Euro. We would have boomed then busted spectacularly (and, because we're much bigger, maybe brought down the world's financial markets in the process). But, unbelievably, there are still people in this country who want us to join. The usual suspects of course.
Greek GDP nearly tripled between 2000 and 2008. There's no plausible comparison between Greece and the UK as a member of the Eurozone.
ROFL
no it didnt
it grew quickly but thats how they ended up with all that debt
As for the peripheries, they got depopulation and stagnation. For the young in Greece and Spain and for both young and old elsewhere, the choice was staying in home with no work and no hope or uprooting to the UK, Germany or the Low Countries, getting a menial job which still paid a fortune and living far from home but earning.
Spain's population has grown by more than the UK's in absolute terms in the last 20 years, and its GDP has grown by more in percentage terms.
uk 58,544,938 (1998) 66,573,504 (2018) spain 40,292,642 (1998) 46,397,452 (2018)
according to world population review
I’ll check the data I had when I’m at my laptop. Maybe the 20 year period was too general. Either way the figures disprove the claim that they faced depopulation.
As for the peripheries, they got depopulation and stagnation. For the young in Greece and Spain and for both young and old elsewhere, the choice was staying in home with no work and no hope or uprooting to the UK, Germany or the Low Countries, getting a menial job which still paid a fortune and living far from home but earning.
Spain's population has grown by more than the UK's in absolute terms in the last 20 years, and its GDP has grown by more in percentage terms.
uk 58,544,938 (1998) 66,573,504 (2018) spain 40,292,642 (1998) 46,397,452 (2018)
according to world population review
I’ll check the data I had when I’m at my laptop. Maybe the 20 year period was too general. Either way the figures disprove the claim that they faced depopulation.
Spain has a lower population now than it had in 2010.
As for the peripheries, they got depopulation and stagnation. For the young in Greece and Spain and for both young and old elsewhere, the choice was staying in home with no work and no hope or uprooting to the UK, Germany or the Low Countries, getting a menial job which still paid a fortune and living far from home but earning.
Spain's population has grown by more than the UK's in absolute terms in the last 20 years, and its GDP has grown by more in percentage terms.
uk 58,544,938 (1998) 66,573,504 (2018) spain 40,292,642 (1998) 46,397,452 (2018)
according to world population review
I’ll check the data I had when I’m at my laptop. Maybe the 20 year period was too general. Either way the figures disprove the claim that they faced depopulation.
depends who youmean by "they"
immigration from EU oldies, Latin America and north Africa pushed up population, The native spanish still are having small families and the population has shrunk in the last 10 years.
As for the peripheries, they got depopulation and stagnation. For the young in Greece and Spain and for both young and old elsewhere, the choice was staying in home with no work and no hope or uprooting to the UK, Germany or the Low Countries, getting a menial job which still paid a fortune and living far from home but earning.
Spain's population has grown by more than the UK's in absolute terms in the last 20 years, and its GDP has grown by more in percentage terms.
uk 58,544,938 (1998) 66,573,504 (2018) spain 40,292,642 (1998) 46,397,452 (2018)
according to world population review
I’ll check the data I had when I’m at my laptop. Maybe the 20 year period was too general. Either way the figures disprove the claim that they faced depopulation.
depends who youmean by "they"
immigration from EU oldies, Latin America and north Africa pushed up population, The native spanish still are having small families and the population has shrunk in the last 10 years.
Well indeed I imagine that if the UK and Spain migration theoretically cancelled each other out numerically it wouldn't demographically. UK retirees moving to Spain to find sunshine doesn't cancel out Spanish working age people moving to the UK to find work.
Greek GDP nearly tripled between 2000 and 2008. There's no plausible comparison between Greece and the UK as a member of the Eurozone.
Eh? No country's sitatuions are identical, but, as a deficit country, the UK's experience in the euro would have been similar to Spain's, Greece's and Ireland's. An unsustainable boom driven by low interest rates followed by a massive bust. But, because we're too big to bail out, the fallout would have been even worse.
And Blair and Clegg still want us in the single currency. Unbelievable.
So you would favour abolishing local councils I presume? If they are powerless over anything important and people have no connection to them there's no point to them.
I think Nick is arguing the opposite point. That the EU (and councils) are worth retaining even if people don't feel connected to them.
I'd be tempted to abolish town councils. Borough councils do a necessary but unexciting job so I'd retain them, but with single-member wards or preferably PR to prevent single-party domination.
But yes, I don't think most people feel a close connection to any level of politics, and in my experience the EU Parliament is much serious and professional than most and deserve to stay.
Comments
https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/1082263916506476544
And Greece's experience could have been ours if we'd joined the Euro. We would have boomed then busted spectacularly (and, because we're much bigger, maybe brought down the world's financial markets in the process). But, unbelievably, there are still people in this country who want us to join. The usual suspects of course.
So in spite of your spurious comments, my point stands. The EU says what it thinks it wants people to hear and then carries on doing exactly what it wants.
spain 40,292,642 (1998) 46,397,452 (2018)
according to world population review
no it didnt
it grew quickly but thats how they ended up with all that debt
it wasnt growth it was a debt fuelled binge
immigration from EU oldies, Latin America and north Africa pushed up population, The native spanish still are having small families and the population has shrunk in the last 10 years.
And Blair and Clegg still want us in the single currency. Unbelievable.
But yes, I don't think most people feel a close connection to any level of politics, and in my experience the EU Parliament is much serious and professional than most and deserve to stay.