I don't think so. Trade, travel and business is (and will become) ever more global but I see no evidence of the decline of the relevance and importance of nations and, indeed, believe they are a fundamental part of the human condition.
The EU's problem, in part, is not that it is a superstate, but it isn't one and is never likely to be. The other EU members with functioning polities - France and Germany in particular - have no intention of winding down their nation states. This means that supporters of the EU - like me for the most part - have to argue that a partial solution is a good solution, that a glass half full is much better than no glass at all. On the other hand it makes arguing for exit with EEA difficult. If the EU is half-baked, the EEA is quarter-baked. And actually I don't think it will work for Britain.
But unless the Eurozone becomes a country soonish then it will break.
The Eurozone won't become a country for the reasons I mentioned, but it could break. The Eurozone has been highly stressed but the constituent parts have shown a remarkable willingness to keep the show on the road. Bear in mind there have been Euro winners as well as losers and that the relatively successful countries like Germany are more important in the scheme of things than basket cases like Greece. The probability of breakup in the medium term is unknowable, but I would put it at less than 20%.
The problem is not the Eurozone per se but the lack of commonality between Europe's leaders and its citizens. I was going to write 'a lack of democracy' but while that's true - particularly within the EU - it's only one of three aspects. The other two are democratically-elected politicians like Merkel doing stupid things her country disapproves of (now - they didn't necessarily last summer), and electorates like Greece's wanting to have their cake and eat it.
It's possible. If most of us in the UK are going into this referendum not understanding what the issues are about, the same likely applies to electorates and politicians elsewhere in the EU
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
To be fair he does command genuine majority support.
Incidentally I would respect the Brexit camp much more if they were also arguing to withdraw from NATO but for most of them that seems to be an even bigger sacred cow: a security blanket as much as a security alliance.
Whether Putin actually commands majority support is questionable though he certainly has moments when he does. The drop in commodities prices hasn't done the Russian economy any favours.
I agree about NATO. If you're really concerned about sovereignty then NATO has to form part of the debate, particularly as it lost a purpose 25 years ago and failed to really find a role since.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
Except the problem with that logic is the EU is not simply about breaking down barriers, if it was I'd support it. The EU wants to raise new barriers between Europe and the rest of the world.
Quite so. The EU is more protectionist than the UK.
Those who believe free trade is beneficial should vote LEAVE.
Dr. Foxinsox, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Denmark, the Netherlands, would all do perfectly well without the EU. There have always been larger and smaller nations. The EU is necessary for neither.
More small nations would help centralise power, though.
I think many Britons fail to understand Federalism, it having never really being a part of our political system. Even the shelved devolution debates do not address it.
In Europe the concept is much more familiar, with many countries either being Federal in nature (Germany, Switzerland) or having been part of federations in recent history. I think they better understand the need and also the tensions between Federated states and the Federal government.
I see the future of the EU as a Federation with a fairly weak central government. I think that the interests of the federated nations will always balance any centralising tendency.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
So why do Scotland want independence from the UK and
why do the Catalans want independence from Spain?
They want mutual interdependence within a common system of governance. The only place in Europe were true independence is still sought is Moscow.
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
To be fair he does command genuine majority support.
Incidentally I would respect the Brexit camp much more if they were also arguing to withdraw from NATO but for most of them that seems to be an even bigger sacred cow: a security blanket as much as a security alliance.
Whether Putin actually commands majority support is questionable though he certainly has moments when he does. The drop in commodities prices hasn't done the Russian economy any favours.
I agree about NATO. If you're really concerned about sovereignty then NATO has to form part of the debate, particularly as it lost a purpose 25 years ago and failed to really find a role since.
At the risk of reviving #RussianSpyGate, I'll bite. I thought Putin's approval ratings were very good?
Exactly my point. Like Brexit, Trump, the anti politics of new European movements, Jeremy Corbyn, the nationalist movements are part of the same sentiment- vain attempts to stop the world changing.
Casino Royale posted earlier he is starting to see solidarity withy the hard left Brexit. Incredible. Politics is fascinating at the minute, as interesting as it's been in my lifetime for sure.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
So why do Scotland want independence from the UK and
why do the Catalans want independence from Spain?
Woah. Steady on, I didn't say that.
I said I'm starting to feel affinity with the patriotic Left.
I don't see tax and public services as much of a dividing line as I do on culture and values, even though I am an economic classical liberal in general.
tyson - sorry but I don't really agree. If there was a sense of universal culture around the world then it would be reasonable to think as you do. But there isn't. Do you really believe that most of the people in the middle east for instance want the same things that you or I do? Reasonably ordered societies are usually built on strong institutions that take generations to develop. Simply discarding these things for some internationally agreed norm is impossible - at least for now.
You talk about change but for what purpose? The left didn't used to believe in CHANGE they believed in PROGRESS. Why should people blindly accept change if they think it is to something worse. Why should they embrace change if it makes them personally worse off? It makes no sense.
On an international level clearly some countries will think they have better legal systems than others. Some will think their corporate culture is less corrupt. Why should they wilfully allow their own standards to be compromised for a generalised norm? You seem to want to believe in a non-judgemental worldview in which there is no better or worse, just diversity. I find that attitude vacuous. I also don't think it fits with what a lot of pro-Europeans - at least those on the continent - believe. What many of them are truly passionate about is not opening up the whole world and endless diversity but in PRESERVING European culture and identity in the post-imperial world of US hegemony and rising 'third world powers'.
How we could do with a liberal like Christopher Hitchens.
Dr. Foxinsox, I know you used quotation marks but Catalonia and Scotland cannot possibly be considered city-states.
A better example for the argument you're seeking to make would be the desire of Venice and its environs to secede from Italy.
Scotland less so than Catalonia perhaps, but having a overarching structure does allow smaller nations to prosper.
A further example is in the Balkans. After breaking up Yugoslavia, the successor states are all* busy applying to re-unify under the EU.
*Kosova excluded
That's because the former Yugoslavian republics are impoverished and would gain subsidies etc to join the EU ... not pay for the privilege. It is not comparable to us at all.
Good post. In terms of the public sector vocational degrees- nursing, policing, social work, teaching should all come with healthy bursaries. Utility degrees such as IT, catering, engineering, banking, should almost all receive hefty contributions from the sectors that benefit from them- either directly to students, or to the colleges and Universities, or both. And the rest- English, History whatever- people can pay their own fees in totality.
I cannot understand why we do not do this, but instead we just see all students and education as the same, and self funded.
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
Leave aside the NHS and public bodies the question of training people is perhaps a bit of a chicken and egg situation. An awful lot of companies just will not invest in training young people into skilled trades because they do not need to all the time they can get people from overseas, possibly pay them less than a native and dump the marginal costs (housing benefit etc. on to the taxpayers).
Perhaps if the ability to import trained staff were greatly restricted then such companies might start training our own young people.
That said, and to give Oborne and his mates some credit, they have at least made a start with forcing companies to pay for training through the new compulsory apprenticeship levy. A policy first proposed, albeit in slightly different form, on this site by our own Nick Palmer. Though go back a couple of decades and there was a building trades training levy on all building companies, so I suppose there is rarely anything new in politics.
To sum up, until UK management (public and private sector) start seeing training as an investment and not a cost, I think we will always have high levels of immigration.
Dr. Foxinsox, the power's only flowing one way, and that's from nation-states to Brussels. It's a power grab by subtle and sly measures, not an open and honest federation.
When voters reject a constitution, the eurocrats changed the font and re-ordered the paragraphs, then put it through anyway.
Yes, which is why the EU as a trading partnership isn't on the table. People refer glibly to the EEA as a major international system but it is really just Norway (no disrespect to Liechtenstein and Andorra...). Norway is a small, wealthy, self-disciplined and independent-minded country. They are happy to outsource their trading systems to people who deal with these things and operate within the systems these people devise. The EEA works for Norway. I think it highly unlikely to work for the UK, given our objections to the EU.
There is absolutely no reason why EEA/EFTA membership wouldn't work for the UK. There is also absolutely no reason why the EEA/EFTA would have to become more like the EU if the EU were not there and the EEA replaced it.
The EU exists in the form it does because that is how it was designed. It was never intended as a simple trading organisation and if it were such it would have no need for a single currency, a parliament, commission or any of the other trappings of statehood. It would be limited in its scope only to matters connected with trade.
The idea that the EU organisation as it is currently configured is somehow necessary for trade is simply a fantasy.
Casino- that is a superb observation, and sums up forty something people like me too.
I think national identity will become even more fluid in the future through migration. You can see through football- fans are much less involved in the national team, and instead are drawn to their team of choice (often not even local) which sometimes comprises only foreign players.
Brexit is a last but vain attempt to hold back the tide- but the die is cast, the world is changing, and even if we vote Brexit, we will not stop the momentum of change. We cannot roll back technology which is the primary cause of change.
Trump's populism too is made of the same ilk, trying to roll back the clock, and similarly flawed.
I firmly believe we have to welcome the change- the breaking down of barriers is part of human evolution. If we withdraw back to national identities the world will become a much more dangerous place.
And, whilst I am in somewhat of a philosophical mood- spare a thought for the African migrants coming through Libya. They are only following what our ancestors did- escaping poverty and disease in Africa for a better life in Europe.
Lastly, just to make you all feel better in Blighty- it is pissing down and freezing here in Florence. I am half tempted to stick on the central heating.
Mr. Royale, as well as people easily reaching different conclusions from the same information, it's easier to be on the consensus/fashionable side of the argument. It's not long ago UKIP were just a joke and the race card was played whenever immigration was raised.
A sizeable number of the young simply see nations as no longer relevant, and they believe they have an international culture and identity, and so the argument just stops there.
Except the problem with that logic is the EU is not simply about breaking down barriers, if it was I'd support it. The EU wants to raise new barriers between Europe and the rest of the world.
Quite so. The EU is more protectionist than the UK.
Those who believe free trade is beneficial should vote LEAVE.
The EU external tarrifs have come down substantially over the years, and the trend continues. There is also preferential access for agricultural exports from the poorer nations in Africa.
We do retain some non-tarriff barriers such as restrictions on Growth Hormone fed beef or GMO, etc but these show pretty high approval ratings with the British public.
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
To be fair he does command genuine majority support.
Incidentally I would respect the Brexit camp much more if they were also arguing to withdraw from NATO but for most of them that seems to be an even bigger sacred cow: a security blanket as much as a security alliance.
...
I agree about NATO. If you're really concerned about sovereignty then NATO has to form part of the debate, particularly as it lost a purpose 25 years ago and failed to really find a role since.
Whilst I agree that NATO has lost its purpose and should have been wound up 20 years ago, it really has nothing to do with the sovereignty debate. NATO imposes nothing on its members, it has no ability to hand down directives, it has no central court which claims to be able to force member countries into a course of action, it doesn't claim to the supreme law making authority. It doesn't even force its members to join in a war if one of them is attacked.
No, no, NATO has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states.
According to Corbyn, it is all the media's fault, everybody from BBC / Guardian rightward is against him.
Some of my Facebook friends are unhappy with how she has treated JC. I can't comment because I don't see enough of her reporting but you can't dismiss claims of bias out of hand. Tories have hardly been unknown to criticise the BBC.
The Corbynistas are making themselves look as ridiculous as the Tory right.
Laura Kuenssberg was very negative on the early results as they came in for the council elections for Labour. She showed no balance when the full weekends elections came in which included the mayoralty elections. From my perspective she is the most anti labour BBC political correspondent they have ever had. Whether this is anti corbyn rather Labour is hard to tell.
She did cock that up slightly (although the mayoral landslide victory was despite Corbyn, certainly not because of him) but the idea that booing and hissing a journalist at a press conference is ever acceptable resides only in the warped minds of the Momentum group.
I agree not acceptable.
Must admit I prefer Andrew Neil, who I guess would be conservative, but gives every side the same thorough questioning of their positions. Kuenssberg is not in the same class for balance .
Dr. Foxinsox, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Denmark, the Netherlands, would all do perfectly well without the EU. There have always been larger and smaller nations. The EU is necessary for neither.
More small nations would help centralise power, though.
I think many Britons fail to understand Federalism, it having never really being a part of our political system. Even the shelved devolution debates do not address it.
In Europe the concept is much more familiar, with many countries either being Federal in nature (Germany, Switzerland) or having been part of federations in recent history. I think they better understand the need and also the tensions between Federated states and the Federal government.
I see the future of the EU as a Federation with a fairly weak central government. I think that the interests of the federated nations will always balance any centralising tendency.
I could buy most of that. But, unfortunately, that is not the direction of travel of the EU. A weak federal state would not have the power of directive over the shape of a banana, the disinfectant you can use in a hospital, what research you can do in a lab, and so on ad nauseum.
I think why many, myself included, supported the idea of Maastricht but have since fallen out of love with the EU is that the principle of subsidiarity, which was supposed to have been a key part of Maastricht and would have let the federal body be only as strong as it needed to be (or, more aptly, only deal with issues that truly needed to rise to a supranational level), has been so roundly ignored.
And, of course, the Euro became a political rather than financial project. And ever-extending overreach. And ...
Good post. In terms of the public sector vocational degrees- nursing, policing, social work, teaching should all come with healthy bursaries. Utility degrees such as IT, catering, engineering, banking, should almost all receive hefty contributions from the sectors that benefit from them- either directly to students, or to the colleges and Universities, or both. And the rest- English, History whatever- people can pay their own fees in totality.
I cannot understand why we do not do this, but instead we just see all students and education as the same, and self funded.
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
Leave aside the NHS and public bodies the question of training people is perhaps a bit of a chicken and egg situation. An awful lot of companies just will not invest in training young people into skilled trades because they do not need to all the time they can get people from overseas, possibly pay them less than a native and dump the marginal costs (housing benefit etc. on to the taxpayers).
Perhaps if the ability to import trained staff were greatly restricted then such companies might start training our own young people.
That said, and to give Oborne and his mates some credit, they have at least made a start with forcing companies to pay for training through the new compulsory apprenticeship levy. A policy first proposed, albeit in slightly different form, on this site by our own Nick Palmer. Though go back a couple of decades and there was a building trades training levy on all building companies, so I suppose there is rarely anything new in politics.
To sum up, until UK management (public and private sector) start seeing training as an investment and not a cost, I think we will always have high levels of immigration.
But should such assistance not be reliant upon the desired outcome being achieved? NHS funding to prospective nurses should surely be in the form of a loan to be paid off by hours spent working for the NHS (at no financial cost) or failing that by the individual. This would include doctors and nurses who 'went private' before the loan was paid off. I'm all for private healthcare, but the NHS shouldn't have to fund people going in to it - or do you feel they should?
Except the problem with that logic is the EU is not simply about breaking down barriers, if it was I'd support it. The EU wants to raise new barriers between Europe and the rest of the world.
---
Quite so. The EU is more protectionist than the UK.
Those who believe free trade is beneficial should vote LEAVE.
Brexit is the real outward-looking internationalist option
I think there are problems with this comforting thought, which was mirrored in Scotland by supporters of independence.
Firstly, the concrete effect of the break is to put up barriers between us and our nearest and - thanks to geography - most important partners. That's the here and now. We might hope that deepening of relations elsewhere will compensate but those are hypothetical.
There is no reason to think there's any linkage between the raising of barriers close to home and greater opportunities elsewhere. We don't sell more to China just because we sell less to Germany.
Germany does more trade with China than we do.
People who are really internationalist and are out in the world selling stuff almost all support being in the various unions.
tyson - sorry but I don't really agree. If there was a sense of universal culture around the world then it would be reasonable to think as you do. But there isn't. Do you really believe that most of the people in the middle east for instance want the same things that you or I do? Reasonably ordered societies are usually built on strong institutions that take generations to develop. Simply discarding these things for some internationally agreed norm is impossible - at least for now.
You talk about change but for what purpose? The left didn't used to believe in CHANGE they believed in PROGRESS. Why should people blindly accept change if they think it is to something worse. Why should they embrace change if it makes them personally worse off? It makes no sense.
On an international level clearly some countries will think they have better legal systems than others. Some will think their corporate culture is less corrupt. Why should they wilfully allow their own standards to be compromised for a generalised norm? You seem to want to believe in a non-judgemental worldview in which there is no better or worse, just diversity. I find that attitude vacuous. I also don't think it fits with what a lot of pro-Europeans - at least those on the continent - believe. What many of them are truly passionate about is not opening up the whole world and endless diversity but in PRESERVING European culture and identity in the post-imperial world of US hegemony and rising 'third world powers'.
How we could do with a liberal like Christopher Hitchens.
Dr. Foxinsox, I know you used quotation marks but Catalonia and Scotland cannot possibly be considered city-states.
A better example for the argument you're seeking to make would be the desire of Venice and its environs to secede from Italy.
Scotland less so than Catalonia perhaps, but having a overarching structure does allow smaller nations to prosper.
A further example is in the Balkans. After breaking up Yugoslavia, the successor states are all* busy applying to re-unify under the EU.
*Kosova excluded
That's because the former Yugoslavian republics are impoverished and would gain subsidies etc to join the EU ... not pay for the privilege. It is not comparable to us at all.
I am sure that these countries have many reasons to join (preventing a reoccrrance of war being another of them) but my point still stands. The viability of small City-states is enhanced by being members of a larger federation.
I could see Northern Ireland being viable as a nation within the EU in a way that would be very difficult with complete independence.
I agree with you- I think though I am speaking though much further ahead when the world will be a much better place- in the future there will not be any crime because of technology- people will not be able to get away with it. The health system in the future will be beyond recognition. There will be little concept of manual labour. Much of our legal framework and corporate structure will be standardised through technology across borders.
In this moment I completely agree with preserving European institutions and developing them. After all, migrants want to come here. It is the things we have that they want. They are escaping their own poor governance.
tyson - sorry but I don't really agree. If there was a sense of universal culture around the world then it would be reasonable to think as you do. But there isn't. Do you really believe that most of the people in the middle east for instance want the same things that you or I do? Reasonably ordered societies are usually built on strong institutions that take generations to develop. Simply discarding these things for some internationally agreed norm is impossible - at least for now.
You talk about change but for what purpose? The left didn't used to believe in CHANGE they believed in PROGRESS. Why should people blindly accept change if they think it is to something worse. Why should they embrace change if it makes them personally worse off? It makes no sense.
On an international level clearly some countries will think they have better legal systems than others. Some will think their corporate culture is less corrupt. Why should they wilfully allow their own standards to be compromised for a generalised norm? You seem to want to believe in a non-judgemental worldview in which there is no better or worse, just diversity. I find that attitude vacuous. I also don't think it fits with what a lot of pro-Europeans - at least those on the continent - believe. What many of them are truly passionate about is not opening up the whole world and endless diversity but in PRESERVING European culture and identity in the post-imperial world of US hegemony and rising 'third world powers'.
How we could do with a liberal like Christopher Hitchens.
I could see Northern Ireland being viable as a nation within the EU in a way that would be very difficult with complete independence.
If you broke down all the EU member states to their smallest viable consistent nations, you'd be left with a Europe dominated by England and France. (As it should be. ;-) )
Good post. In terms of the public sector vocational degrees- nursing, policing, social work, teaching should all come with healthy bursaries. Utility degrees such as IT, catering, engineering, banking, should almost all receive hefty contributions from the sectors that benefit from them- either directly to students, or to the colleges and Universities, or both. And the rest- English, History whatever- people can pay their own fees in totality.
I cannot understand why we do not do this, but instead we just see all students and education as the same, and self funded.
Our government cut the number of training places and recently withdrew Bursaries for Nurse training.
If we were serious about reducing immigration then a good place to start would be by training enough Doctors, Nurses, IT workers, hotel receptionists and chefs that we didn't need to import.
Then create pay and working conditions to retain them!
Leave aside the NHS and public bodies the question of training people is perhaps a bit of a chicken and egg situation. An awful lot of companies just will not invest in training young people into skilled trades because they do not need to all the time they can get people from overseas, possibly pay them less than a native and dump the marginal costs (housing benefit etc. on to the taxpayers).
Perhaps if the ability to import trained staff were greatly restricted then such companies might start training our own young people.
That said, and to give Oborne and his mates some credit, they have at least made a start with forcing companies to pay for training through the new compulsory apprenticeship levy. A policy first proposed, albeit in slightly different form, on this site by our own Nick Palmer. Though go back a couple of decades and there was a building trades training levy on all building companies, so I suppose there is rarely anything new in politics.
To sum up, until UK management (public and private sector) start seeing training as an investment and not a cost, I think we will always have high levels of immigration.
But should such assistance not be reliant upon the desired outcome being achieved? NHS funding to prospective nurses should surely be in the form of a loan to be paid off by hours spent working for the NHS (at no financial cost) or failing that by the individual. This would include doctors and nurses who 'went private' before the loan was paid off. I'm all for private healthcare, but the NHS shouldn't have to fund people going in to it - or do you feel they should?
Indeed it isn't difficult to create a golden handcuff if that's what you want.
Dr. Foxinsox, I know you used quotation marks but Catalonia and Scotland cannot possibly be considered city-states.
A better example for the argument you're seeking to make would be the desire of Venice and its environs to secede from Italy.
Scotland less so than Catalonia perhaps, but having a overarching structure does allow smaller nations to prosper.
A further example is in the Balkans. After breaking up Yugoslavia, the successor states are all* busy applying to re-unify under the EU.
*Kosova excluded
That's because the former Yugoslavian republics are impoverished and would gain subsidies etc to join the EU ... not pay for the privilege. It is not comparable to us at all.
I am sure that these countries have many reasons to join (preventing a reoccrrance of war being another of them) but my point still stands. The viability of small City-states is enhanced by being members of a larger federation.
I could see Northern Ireland being viable as a nation within the EU in a way that would be very difficult with complete independence.
Indeed. I would expect Scotland to leave the UK in the event of a Brexit as the EU will be quite happy to roll out the red carpet to them and this will assuage enough of the economic uncertainties to convince the few % needed to swing the vote.
Dr. Foxinsox, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Denmark, the Netherlands, would all do perfectly well without the EU. There have always been larger and smaller nations. The EU is necessary for neither.
More small nations would help centralise power, though.
I think many Britons fail to understand Federalism, it having never really being a part of our political system. Even the shelved devolution debates do not address it.
In Europe the concept is much more familiar, with many countries either being Federal in nature (Germany, Switzerland) or having been part of federations in recent history. I think they better understand the need and also the tensions between Federated states and the Federal government.
I see the future of the EU as a Federation with a fairly weak central government. I think that the interests of the federated nations will always balance any centralising tendency.
I could buy most of that. But, unfortunately, that is not the direction of travel of the EU. A weak federal state would not have the power of directive over the shape of a banana, the disinfectant you can use in a hospital, what research you can do in a lab, and so on ad nauseum.
I think why many, myself included, supported the idea of Maastricht but have since fallen out of love with the EU is that the principle of subsidiarity, which was supposed to have been a key part of Maastricht and would have let the federal body be only as strong as it needed to be (or, more aptly, only deal with issues that truly needed to rise to a supranational level), has been so roundly ignored.
And, of course, the Euro became a political rather than financial project. And ever-extending overreach. And ...
Regulation is the flipside of a single market. Britain pushed for a single market (under MrsT) and the regulations on standards have to be set centrally for a level playing field.
Dr. Foxinsox, I know you used quotation marks but Catalonia and Scotland cannot possibly be considered city-states.
A better example for the argument you're seeking to make would be the desire of Venice and its environs to secede from Italy.
Scotland less so than Catalonia perhaps, but having a overarching structure does allow smaller nations to prosper.
A further example is in the Balkans. After breaking up Yugoslavia, the successor states are all* busy applying to re-unify under the EU.
*Kosova excluded
That's because the former Yugoslavian republics are impoverished and would gain subsidies etc to join the EU ... not pay for the privilege. It is not comparable to us at all.
My wife is very pro-EU for Bulgaria.
Corruption and organised crime are a huge problem there, they have no money, and she sees no other way to lift the country up.
Dr. Foxinsox, I know you used quotation marks but Catalonia and Scotland cannot possibly be considered city-states.
A better example for the argument you're seeking to make would be the desire of Venice and its environs to secede from Italy.
Scotland less so than Catalonia perhaps, but having a overarching structure does allow smaller nations to prosper.
A further example is in the Balkans. After breaking up Yugoslavia, the successor states are all* busy applying to re-unify under the EU.
*Kosova excluded
That's because the former Yugoslavian republics are impoverished and would gain subsidies etc to join the EU ... not pay for the privilege. It is not comparable to us at all.
I am sure that these countries have many reasons to join (preventing a reoccrrance of war being another of them) but my point still stands. The viability of small City-states is enhanced by being members of a larger federation.
I could see Northern Ireland being viable as a nation within the EU in a way that would be very difficult with complete independence.
I wonder if a future British government might find that rather tempting.
Miss Plato, I've been to Liverpool and Manchester, once each. Was struck by the number of churches in Liverpool, and their purple wheelybins.
I went on rugby tour to Liverpool back in 2003 and got so wrecked on the first night that I ordered a taxi from a nightclub and it brought me back to Wales. I woke up near Ross on Wye and had to be taken to a cashpoint to pay the rest of what I owed of the £185 fare.
I got home, my missus looked at me like I was gone off, got in my car and drove back to Liverpool to play in the Birkenhead 7s.
I could see Northern Ireland being viable as a nation within the EU in a way that would be very difficult with complete independence.
If you broke down all the EU member states to their smallest viable consistent nations, you'd be left with a Europe dominated by England and France. (As it should be. ;-) )
I'd suggest England, France and Spain, indeed as it was for several centuries.
Dr. Foxinsox, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Denmark, the Netherlands, would all do perfectly well without the EU. There have always been larger and smaller nations. The EU is necessary for neither.
More small nations would help centralise power, though.
I think many Britons fail to understand Federalism, it having never really being a part of our political system. Even the shelved devolution debates do not address it.
In Europe the concept is much more familiar, with many countries either being Federal in nature (Germany, Switzerland) or having been part of federations in recent history. I think they better understand the need and also the tensions between Federated states and the Federal government.
I see the future of the EU as a Federation with a fairly weak central government. I think that the interests of the federated nations will always balance any centralising tendency.
I could buy most of that. But, unfortunately, that is not the direction of travel of the EU. A weak federal state would not have the power of directive over the shape of a banana, the disinfectant you can use in a hospital, what research you can do in a lab, and so on ad nauseum.
I think why many, myself included, supported the idea of Maastricht but have since fallen out of love with the EU is that the principle of subsidiarity, which was supposed to have been a key part of Maastricht and would have let the federal body be only as strong as it needed to be (or, more aptly, only deal with issues that truly needed to rise to a supranational level), has been so roundly ignored.
And, of course, the Euro became a political rather than financial project. And ever-extending overreach. And ...
Regulation is the flipside of a single market. Britain pushed for a single market (under MrsT) and the regulations on standards have to be set centrally for a level playing field.
Bollocks. Most markets for most goods through most of history have not been regulated. Why should banana shape be regulated at all? Where does regulation 'for the sake of a level playing field' end? With no choice for the consumer?
Regulation is a political choice just like anything else. Much regulation should be pushed down to the lowest level of government appropriate, not all of it pushed up the the highest.
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
To be fair he does command genuine majority support.
Incidentally I would respect the Brexit camp much more if they were also arguing to withdraw from NATO but for most of them that seems to be an even bigger sacred cow: a security blanket as much as a security alliance.
...
I agree about NATO. If you're really concerned about sovereignty then NATO has to form part of the debate, particularly as it lost a purpose 25 years ago and failed to really find a role since.
Whilst I agree that NATO has lost its purpose and should have been wound up 20 years ago, it really has nothing to do with the sovereignty debate. NATO imposes nothing on its members, it has no ability to hand down directives, it has no central court which claims to be able to force member countries into a course of action, it doesn't claim to the supreme law making authority. It doesn't even force its members to join in a war if one of them is attacked.
No, no, NATO has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states.
Has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states? We're committed to collective defence. If someone attacks Turkey we are obliged to go to war against them. It's hard to think of anything more "sovereign nature" than that
Dr. Foxinsox, I know you used quotation marks but Catalonia and Scotland cannot possibly be considered city-states.
A better example for the argument you're seeking to make would be the desire of Venice and its environs to secede from Italy.
Scotland less so than Catalonia perhaps, but having a overarching structure does allow smaller nations to prosper.
A further example is in the Balkans. After breaking up Yugoslavia, the successor states are all* busy applying to re-unify under the EU.
*Kosova excluded
That's because the former Yugoslavian republics are impoverished and would gain subsidies etc to join the EU ... not pay for the privilege. It is not comparable to us at all.
My wife is very pro-EU for Bulgaria.
Corruption and organised crime are a huge problem there, they have no money, and she sees no other way to lift the country up.
Do you think the EU is the acceptable face of imperialism?
I cannot help but think of that Radio Presenter who read out the very funny hoax email about Jimmy Saville live- something along the lines of:
I am slightly perplexed by all those nasty rumours about Jimmy Saville. After all, when I went on Jim'll fix it, he was a very nice man and taught me to milk a cow blindfold.
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
To be fair he does command genuine majority support.
Incidentally I would respect the Brexit camp much more if they were also arguing to withdraw from NATO but for most of them that seems to be an even bigger sacred cow: a security blanket as much as a security alliance.
...
I agree about NATO. If you're really concerned about sovereignty then NATO has to form part of the debate, particularly as it lost a purpose 25 years ago and failed to really find a role since.
Whilst I agree that NATO has lost its purpose and should have been wound up 20 years ago, it really has nothing to do with the sovereignty debate. NATO imposes nothing on its members, it has no ability to hand down directives, it has no central court which claims to be able to force member countries into a course of action, it doesn't claim to the supreme law making authority. It doesn't even force its members to join in a war if one of them is attacked.
No, no, NATO has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states.
Has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states? We're committed to collective defence. If someone attacks Turkey we are obliged to go to war against them. It's hard to think of anything more "sovereign nature" than that
We have promised to we are not obliged to. Critical difference.
tyson - sorry but I don't really agree. If there was a sense of universal culture around the world then it would be reasonable to think as you do. But there isn't. Do you really believe that most of the people in the middle east for instance want the same things that you or I do? Reasonably ordered societies are usually built on strong institutions that take generations to develop. Simply discarding these things for some internationally agreed norm is impossible - at least for now.
You talk about change but for what purpose? The left didn't used to believe in CHANGE they believed in PROGRESS. Why should people blindly accept change if they think it is to something worse. Why should they embrace change if it makes them personally worse off? It makes no sense.
On an international level clearly some countries will think they have better legal systems than others. Some will think their corporate culture is less corrupt. Why should they wilfully allow their own standards to be compromised for a generalised norm? You seem to want to believe in a non-judgemental worldview in which there is no better or worse, just diversity. I find that attitude vacuous. I also don't think it fits with what a lot of pro-Europeans - at least those on the continent - believe. What many of them are truly passionate about is not opening up the whole world and endless diversity but in PRESERVING European culture and identity in the post-imperial world of US hegemony and rising 'third world powers'.
How we could do with a liberal like Christopher Hitchens.
IMHO the middle-class Left have moved over the last forty years from supporting equality of incomes/outcomes to equality of culture/values. Economic redistribution from the rich to the poor has now switched in emphasis to political redistribution from "privileged" groups and traditional structures to unprivileged minority groups and post national structures.
They were proved wrong on the first, and they will be proved wrong on the latter.
According to Corbyn, it is all the media's fault, everybody from BBC / Guardian rightward is against him.
Some of my Facebook friends are unhappy with how she has treated JC. I can't comment because I don't see enough of her reporting but you can't dismiss claims of bias out of hand. Tories have hardly been unknown to criticise the BBC.
The Corbynistas are making themselves look as ridiculous as the Tory right.
Laura Kuenssberg was very negative on the early results as they came in for the council elections for Labour. She showed no balance when the full weekends elections came in which included the mayoralty elections. From my perspective she is the most anti labour BBC political correspondent they have ever had. Whether this is anti corbyn rather Labour is hard to tell.
She did cock that up slightly (although the mayoral landslide victory was despite Corbyn, certainly not because of him) but the idea that booing and hissing a journalist at a press conference is ever acceptable resides only in the warped minds of the Momentum group.
I agree not acceptable.
Must admit I prefer Andrew Neil, who I guess would be conservative, but gives every side the same thorough questioning of their positions. Kuenssberg is not in the same class for balance .
She should not have asked the question about the GMB, something entirely outside the "need to inform" ambit of BBC News. It was a question for "he says, she says" banter/entertainment, which the BBC News should stay away from. Trying to embarrass the LOTO on that is plain wrong.
What she should have focused solely on was immigration and Corbyn's views.
I could see Northern Ireland being viable as a nation within the EU in a way that would be very difficult with complete independence.
If you broke down all the EU member states to their smallest viable consistent nations, you'd be left with a Europe dominated by England and France. (As it should be. ;-) )
I'd suggest England, France and Spain, indeed as it was for several centuries.
I would suggest that Spain is a federation, which leaves us and the frogs...
Dr. Foxinsox, I know you used quotation marks but Catalonia and Scotland cannot possibly be considered city-states.
A better example for the argument you're seeking to make would be the desire of Venice and its environs to secede from Italy.
Scotland less so than Catalonia perhaps, but having a overarching structure does allow smaller nations to prosper.
A further example is in the Balkans. After breaking up Yugoslavia, the successor states are all* busy applying to re-unify under the EU.
*Kosova excluded
That's because the former Yugoslavian republics are impoverished and would gain subsidies etc to join the EU ... not pay for the privilege. It is not comparable to us at all.
My wife is very pro-EU for Bulgaria.
Corruption and organised crime are a huge problem there, they have no money, and she sees no other way to lift the country up.
Do you think the EU is the acceptable face of imperialism?
This is another point we don't really understand about the EU. Many of the elites in the poorer countries want to be part of a Franco-German Empire. They may be disappointed about how the German national interest has re-asserted itself over the Euro but on balance they'd rather stay in than leave.
Miss Plato, I've been to Liverpool and Manchester, once each. Was struck by the number of churches in Liverpool, and their purple wheelybins.
I went on rugby tour to Liverpool back in 2003 and got so wrecked on the first night that I ordered a taxi from a nightclub and it brought me back to Wales. I woke up near Ross on Wye and had to be taken to a cashpoint to pay the rest of what I owed of the £185 fare.
I got home, my missus looked at me like I was gone off, got in my car and drove back to Liverpool to play in the Birkenhead 7s.
Dr. Foxinsox, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Denmark, the Netherlands, would all do perfectly well without the EU. There have always been larger and smaller nations. The EU is necessary for neither.
More small nations would help centralise power, though.
I think many Britons fail to understand Federalism, it having never really being a part of our political system. Even the shelved devolution debates do not address it.
In Europe the concept is much more familiar, with many countries either being Federal in nature (Germany, Switzerland) or having been part of federations in recent history. I think they better understand the need and also the tensions between Federated states and the Federal government.
I see the future of the EU as a Federation with a fairly weak central government. I think that the interests of the federated nations will always balance any centralising tendency.
I could buy most of that. But, unfortunately, that is not the direction of travel of the EU. A weak federal state would not have the power of directive over the shape of a banana, the disinfectant you can use in a hospital, what research you can do in a lab, and so on ad nauseum.
I think why many, myself included, supported the idea of Maastricht but have since fallen out of love with the EU is that the principle of subsidiarity, which was supposed to have been a key part of Maastricht and would have let the federal body be only as strong as it needed to be (or, more aptly, only deal with issues that truly needed to rise to a supranational level), has been so roundly ignored.
And, of course, the Euro became a political rather than financial project. And ever-extending overreach. And ...
Regulation is the flipside of a single market. Britain pushed for a single market (under MrsT) and the regulations on standards have to be set centrally for a level playing field.
Bollocks. Most markets for most goods through most of history have not been regulated. Why should banana shape be regulated at all? Where does regulation 'for the sake of a level playing field' end? With no choice for the consumer?
Regulation is a political choice just like anything else. Much regulation should be pushed down to the lowest level of government appropriate, not all of it pushed up the the highest.
Or go below the government level to simple company/customer preferences.
Eating a fresh banana should not make you sick. Beyond that it should be customer choice.
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
To be fair he does command genuine majority support.
Incidentally I would respect the Brexit camp much more if they were also arguing to withdraw from NATO but for most of them that seems to be an even bigger sacred cow: a security blanket as much as a security alliance.
...
I agree about NATO. If you're really concerned about sovereignty then NATO has to form part of the debate, particularly as it lost a purpose 25 years ago and failed to really find a role since.
Whilst I agree that NATO has lost its purpose and should have been wound up 20 years ago, it really has nothing to do with the sovereignty debate. NATO imposes nothing on its members, it has no ability to hand down directives, it has no central court which claims to be able to force member countries into a course of action, it doesn't claim to the supreme law making authority. It doesn't even force its members to join in a war if one of them is attacked.
No, no, NATO has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states.
Has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states? We're committed to collective defence. If someone attacks Turkey we are obliged to go to war against them. It's hard to think of anything more "sovereign nature" than that
We have promised to we are not obliged to. Critical difference.
NATO has integrated control structures and all the rest of it. It's a bit more than a promise.
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
To be fair he does command genuine majority support.
Incidentally I would respect the Brexit camp much more if they were also arguing to withdraw from NATO but for most of them that seems to be an even bigger sacred cow: a security blanket as much as a security alliance.
...
I agree about NATO. If you're really concerned about sovereignty then NATO has to form part of the debate, particularly as it lost a purpose 25 years ago and failed to really find a role since.
Whilst I agree that NATO has lost its purpose and should have been wound up 20 years ago, it really has nothing to do with the sovereignty debate. NATO imposes nothing on its members, it has no ability to hand down directives, it has no central court which claims to be able to force member countries into a course of action, it doesn't claim to the supreme law making authority. It doesn't even force its members to join in a war if one of them is attacked.
No, no, NATO has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states.
Has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states? We're committed to collective defence. If someone attacks Turkey we are obliged to go to war against them. It's hard to think of anything more "sovereign nature" than that
No, we are not obliged to any such thing. Please actually read Article 5 of the NATO treaty. I'll give you a link to save you looking it up:
Although that's only really independence for one person rather than an entire country.
To be fair he does command genuine majority support.
Incidentally I would respect the Brexit camp much more if they were also arguing to withdraw from NATO but for most of them that seems to be an even bigger sacred cow: a security blanket as much as a security alliance.
...
I agree about NATO. If you're really concerned about sovereignty then NATO has to form part of the debate, particularly as it lost a purpose 25 years ago and failed to really find a role since.
Whilst I agree that NATO has lost its purpose and should have been wound up 20 years ago, it really has nothing to do with the sovereignty debate. NATO imposes nothing on its members, it has no ability to hand down directives, it has no central court which claims to be able to force member countries into a course of action, it doesn't claim to the supreme law making authority. It doesn't even force its members to join in a war if one of them is attacked.
No, no, NATO has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states.
Has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states? We're committed to collective defence. If someone attacks Turkey we are obliged to go to war against them. It's hard to think of anything more "sovereign nature" than that
We have promised to we are not obliged to. Critical difference.
The wording is critical and in this case rather vague. What we are obliged to do under article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty is act against the aggressors of Turkey just as much as the aggressors of ourselves
I agree with you- I think though I am speaking though much further ahead when the world will be a much better place- in the future there will not be any crime because of technology- people will not be able to get away with it. The health system in the future will be beyond recognition. There will be little concept of manual labour. Much of our legal framework and corporate structure will be standardised through technology across borders.
In this moment I completely agree with preserving European institutions and developing them. After all, migrants want to come here. It is the things we have that they want. They are escaping their own poor governance.
tyson - sorry but I don't really agree. If there was a sense of universal culture around the world then it would be reasonable to think as you do. But there isn't. Do you really believe that most of the people in the middle east for instance want the same things that you or I do? Reasonably ordered societies are usually built on strong institutions that take generations to develop. Simply discarding these things for some internationally agreed norm is impossible - at least for now.
You talk about change but for what purpose? The left didn't used to believe in CHANGE they believed in PROGRESS. Why should people blindly accept change if they think it is to something worse. Why should they embrace change if it makes them personally worse off? It makes no sense.
On an international level clearly some countries will think they have better legal systems than others. Some will think their corporate culture is less corrupt. Why should they wilfully allow their own standards to be compromised for a generalised norm? You seem to want to believe in a non-judgemental worldview in which there is no better or worse, just diversity. I find that attitude vacuous. I also don't think it fits with what a lot of pro-Europeans - at least those on the continent - believe. What many of them are truly passionate about is not opening up the whole world and endless diversity but in PRESERVING European culture and identity in the post-imperial world of US hegemony and rising 'third world powers'.
How we could do with a liberal like Christopher Hitchens.
My ideal vision for the future is a world of free, self-governing liberal democracies where corruption is a thing of the past.
We colloborate and cooperate (that could include regional action on pollution, contagious diseases and security, and globally on some environmental matters, space exploration and asteroid defence) but do not seek to govern each other.
Bollocks. Most markets for most goods through most of history have not been regulated. Why should banana shape be regulated at all? Where does regulation 'for the sake of a level playing field' end? With no choice for the consumer?
Regulation is a political choice just like anything else. Much regulation should be pushed down to the lowest level of government appropriate, not all of it pushed up the the highest.
You are confusing two different points. Should banana shape be regulated at all? No, I would say not. But if it is regulated, it should be done at the single-market level, not at the individual country level, otherwise it acts as a non-tariff barrier.
I said that the article admitted that the premise was untrue.
In the final paragraph (not the final sentence as I originally said, my mistake), the article states that the EU had "grudging granted a reprieve". This wording, though ambiguous, is expressly intended to reference the fact that the proposal has in fact been abandoned. The final sentence is just covering fire - the proposal could equally well be introduced in Britain after a Leave vote.
Now, let's have another look at that headline: "why staying in Europe could harm your pension". The entire article is based around a proposal which has now been abandoned, as the authors clearly knew from their own words and as those who knew the facts would understand.
So yes, I feel my original statement was (bar the slip of "sentence" for "paragraph") an entirely fair summary.
Well yes or no.
I am just stunned at your complete naivety in just accepting that "abandoned" means just that for the EU. It doesn't and never will do if it conflicts or gets in the way of the EU project. Just look at history and you will see to think anything else is quite simply stunning.
Examples such as the Lisbon treaty effectively "abandoned " so they went away and rewrote it supposedly?What they actually did was change the date and the colour of the front page and steamrollered it through anyway under the guise of a new document. . That traitor Brown was so embarrassed ( saying something for that fuckwit) even he had to sneak in through the back door to sign it. Referendums are regularly ignored or simply considered not binding ( Netherlands and Ireland) That's until they get the answer they want of course then as it by magic and a sprinkle of EU fairy dust that correct decision is suddenly fully binding and can never be undone or rerun.
Sir ....you are really naive to think anything different. The absolute ramrodding this country is going to get from the EU when it votes remain will not only make your eyes water they will pop their sockets. It's there.... all of it, Waiting ...quietly in the background for people like you to make the "right" decision.
I could see Northern Ireland being viable as a nation within the EU in a way that would be very difficult with complete independence.
If you broke down all the EU member states to their smallest viable consistent nations, you'd be left with a Europe dominated by England and France. (As it should be. ;-) )
I'd suggest England, France and Spain, indeed as it was for several centuries.
I would suggest that Spain is a federation, which leaves us and the frogs...
The Frogs themselves have many subsidiary parts like Brittany, Burgundy and Aquitaine that could leave too then.
England would be by far the oldest (edit and biggest) extant nation that dates back consistently to the 11th century.
Dr. Foxinsox, I know you used quotation marks but Catalonia and Scotland cannot possibly be considered city-states.
A better example for the argument you're seeking to make would be the desire of Venice and its environs to secede from Italy.
Scotland less so than Catalonia perhaps, but having a overarching structure does allow smaller nations to prosper.
A further example is in the Balkans. After breaking up Yugoslavia, the successor states are all* busy applying to re-unify under the EU.
*Kosova excluded
That's because the former Yugoslavian republics are impoverished and would gain subsidies etc to join the EU ... not pay for the privilege. It is not comparable to us at all.
My wife is very pro-EU for Bulgaria.
Corruption and organised crime are a huge problem there, they have no money, and she sees no other way to lift the country up.
Do you think the EU is the acceptable face of imperialism?
No. She'd prefer Britain to run Bulgaria anyway, as would my mother-in-law.
Mr. Betting, I think you're overegging the cake. Remain, rightly, remains [ahem] favourite to win.
England and Wales to vote out, Northern Ireland and Scotland (And Gibraltar) to go "Remain"
London and the northern urban areas to be the only "Remain" reservoirs in England. Landslide for "Leave" in the East Midlands
I'm not so sure about those northern urban areas....
Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford, Newcastle, Manchester will all go heavily for Remain. I expect that smaller cities and large towns (eg Rotherham, Doncaster, Hartlepool, Hull) will go for Leave.
I find the values split in this country now simply astonishing.
There are middle-class graduate friends of mine with whom I share almost nothing in common, politically.
Is that surprising though? You are towards the rightward end of the centre-right. We know that most of the population (rightly or wrongly) don't identify with that position.
Do we?
Amongst AB graduates, yes, but over 50% voted UKIP or Tory at GE2015, and over 55% in England.
The Tories actually won a plurality of graduates at the general election and got their highest vote share amongst AB voters; UKIP by contrast got their lowest vote share amongst graduates and AB voters. Socially UKIP and Tory voters are polar opposites, Tories have more in common with LD voters in terms of background and UKIP Labour voters though if some more Leave Tories shift to UKIP that could change a bit
Cutting nurse bursaries is one of the most stupid, cruel, short sighted, counter productive policies that has come out of any Govt in my memory. Shame on the Tories for doing this.
Harry Cole Corbyn plunges Remain into chaos by branding Treasury forecasts "hysterical hype" + vowing to torpedo EU trade deal: https://t.co/3FmLFWInFB
The thing is that if Cameron wants to win his referendum, it's not in his interest that Corbyn pretends to think he and Osborne are temporarily sound fellows saying sensible things. He needs Corbyn to fire up left-wing voters, and the way to do that is to rubbish the wilder stuff from Osborne but point out the real dangers of leaving from a Labour perspective. The number of Labour voters who will vote Remain because they trust Osborne is zero, but the number who think that a Tory government free of EU constraints will run amok is substantial and needs to be mobilised.
I could see Northern Ireland being viable as a nation within the EU in a way that would be very difficult with complete independence.
If you broke down all the EU member states to their smallest viable consistent nations, you'd be left with a Europe dominated by England and France. (As it should be. ;-) )
I'd suggest England, France and Spain, indeed as it was for several centuries.
I would suggest that Spain is a federation, which leaves us and the frogs...
Spain isn't a federation, which is one of its big problems. Each region has its own level of autonomy. Some have a lot - the Basques - some have less but want more - the Catalans - and others have not so much - the Castillians.
Comments
I agree about NATO. If you're really concerned about sovereignty then NATO has to form part of the debate, particularly as it lost a purpose 25 years ago and failed to really find a role since.
Quite so. The EU is more protectionist than the UK.
Those who believe free trade is beneficial should vote LEAVE.
In Europe the concept is much more familiar, with many countries either being Federal in nature (Germany, Switzerland) or having been part of federations in recent history. I think they better understand the need and also the tensions between Federated states and the Federal government.
I see the future of the EU as a Federation with a fairly weak central government. I think that the interests of the federated nations will always balance any centralising tendency.
I said I'm starting to feel affinity with the patriotic Left.
I don't see tax and public services as much of a dividing line as I do on culture and values, even though I am an economic classical liberal in general.
You talk about change but for what purpose? The left didn't used to believe in CHANGE they believed in PROGRESS. Why should people blindly accept change if they think it is to something worse. Why should they embrace change if it makes them personally worse off? It makes no sense.
On an international level clearly some countries will think they have better legal systems than others. Some will think their corporate culture is less corrupt. Why should they wilfully allow their own standards to be compromised for a generalised norm? You seem to want to believe in a non-judgemental worldview in which there is no better or worse, just diversity. I find that attitude vacuous. I also don't think it fits with what a lot of pro-Europeans - at least those on the continent - believe. What many of them are truly passionate about is not opening up the whole world and endless diversity but in PRESERVING European culture and identity in the post-imperial world of US hegemony and rising 'third world powers'.
How we could do with a liberal like Christopher Hitchens.
I cannot understand why we do not do this, but instead we just see all students and education as the same, and self funded.
When voters reject a constitution, the eurocrats changed the font and re-ordered the paragraphs, then put it through anyway.
Are you saying you have never been to London Mr Dancer?
The EU exists in the form it does because that is how it was designed. It was never intended as a simple trading organisation and if it were such it would have no need for a single currency, a parliament, commission or any of the other trappings of statehood. It would be limited in its scope only to matters connected with trade.
The idea that the EU organisation as it is currently configured is somehow necessary for trade is simply a fantasy.
We do retain some non-tarriff barriers such as restrictions on Growth Hormone fed beef or GMO, etc but these show pretty high approval ratings with the British public.
I've been to Beijing, though. And Cardiff.
No, no, NATO has nothing to do with the sovereign nature of its member states.
Must admit I prefer Andrew Neil, who I guess would be conservative, but gives every side the same thorough questioning of their positions.
Kuenssberg is not in the same class for balance .
I think why many, myself included, supported the idea of Maastricht but have since fallen out of love with the EU is that the principle of subsidiarity, which was supposed to have been a key part of Maastricht and would have let the federal body be only as strong as it needed to be (or, more aptly, only deal with issues that truly needed to rise to a supranational level), has been so roundly ignored.
And, of course, the Euro became a political rather than financial project. And ever-extending overreach. And ...
I think there are problems with this comforting thought, which was mirrored in Scotland by supporters of independence.
Firstly, the concrete effect of the break is to put up barriers between us and our nearest and - thanks to geography - most important partners. That's the here and now. We might hope that deepening of relations elsewhere will compensate but those are hypothetical.
There is no reason to think there's any linkage between the raising of barriers close to home and greater opportunities elsewhere. We don't sell more to China just because we sell less to Germany.
Germany does more trade with China than we do.
People who are really internationalist and are out in the world selling stuff almost all support being in the various unions.
I could see Northern Ireland being viable as a nation within the EU in a way that would be very difficult with complete independence.
I agree with you- I think though I am speaking though much further ahead when the world will be a much better place- in the future there will not be any crime because of technology- people will not be able to get away with it. The health system in the future will be beyond recognition. There will be little concept of manual labour. Much of our legal framework and corporate structure will be standardised through technology across borders.
In this moment I completely agree with preserving European institutions and developing them. After all, migrants want to come here. It is the things we have that they want. They are escaping their own poor governance.
Corruption and organised crime are a huge problem there, they have no money, and she sees no other way to lift the country up.
I got home, my missus looked at me like I was gone off, got in my car and drove back to Liverpool to play in the Birkenhead 7s.
Warrior-level stupidity.
I have been up the highest mountain in Borneo, but never visited the Lake District despite being born 30 miles away.
I always enjoy going to London, though not as much as leaving it!
Regulation is a political choice just like anything else. Much regulation should be pushed down to the lowest level of government appropriate, not all of it pushed up the the highest.
I am slightly perplexed by all those nasty rumours about Jimmy Saville. After all, when I went on Jim'll fix it, he was a very nice man and taught me to milk a cow blindfold.
They were proved wrong on the first, and they will be proved wrong on the latter.
Mr. Llama, Spain singular? You vulgar modernist.
Mr. Fenster, did you win?
What she should have focused solely on was immigration and Corbyn's views.
Corbyn's Downfall
https://youtu.be/MonCtaCzNEY
Eating a fresh banana should not make you sick. Beyond that it should be customer choice.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
We are obliged to take such action as we think necessary, and report what we have done to the Security council, no more.
We colloborate and cooperate (that could include regional action on pollution, contagious diseases and security, and globally on some environmental matters, space exploration and asteroid defence) but do not seek to govern each other.
I am just stunned at your complete naivety in just accepting that "abandoned" means just that for the EU. It doesn't and never will do if it conflicts or gets in the way of the EU project. Just look at history and you will see to think anything else is quite simply stunning.
Examples such as the Lisbon treaty effectively "abandoned " so they went away and rewrote it supposedly?What they actually did was change the date and the colour of the front page and steamrollered it through anyway under the guise of a new document. . That traitor Brown was so embarrassed ( saying something for that fuckwit) even he had to sneak in through the back door to sign it. Referendums are regularly ignored or simply considered not binding ( Netherlands and Ireland) That's until they get the answer they want of course then as it by magic and a sprinkle of EU fairy dust that correct decision is suddenly fully binding and can never be undone or rerun.
Sir ....you are really naive to think anything different. The absolute ramrodding this country is going to get from the EU when it votes remain will not only make your eyes water they will pop their sockets. It's there.... all of it, Waiting ...quietly in the background for people like you to make the "right" decision.
England would be by far the oldest (edit and biggest) extant nation that dates back consistently to the 11th century.
Not saying that's representative, though.
https://news.vice.com/video/jeremy-corbyn-the-outsider
Hard to top Glasgow East, though.
Being total pedantic I will then have point out that you have been to London – if only to catch your flight to Beijing from Heathrow!
UK university staff look less politically balanced than even the US. New @timeshighered poll https://t.co/tf79UDC0NA https://t.co/MhVNwztqBJ
bitte nicht gehen .... wir brauchen Ihre schöne Geld
Bet she's promising us a good German spanking if we do go.
Edited extra bit: also, landed in Shanghai. It was an internal Chinese flight from there to Beijing.
Die we win?
Nein !
I'll get my coat..
NEW: Merkel breaks her #Brexit silence. Tells UK "on your own you won't get a good result from the single market" if you're not at the table
The timing of the comment "at least the local elections went well" and the following reactions of those listening in the room is perfect.
Corbyn plunges Remain into chaos by branding Treasury forecasts "hysterical hype" + vowing to torpedo EU trade deal: https://t.co/3FmLFWInFB
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/jeremy-corbyns-european-speech-was-cleverer-you-think
and the Guardian blog is perceptive too:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/02/eu-referendum-live-cameron-and-corbyn-make-the-case-for-remain-separately
The thing is that if Cameron wants to win his referendum, it's not in his interest that Corbyn pretends to think he and Osborne are temporarily sound fellows saying sensible things. He needs Corbyn to fire up left-wing voters, and the way to do that is to rubbish the wilder stuff from Osborne but point out the real dangers of leaving from a Labour perspective. The number of Labour voters who will vote Remain because they trust Osborne is zero, but the number who think that a Tory government free of EU constraints will run amok is substantial and needs to be mobilised.
"Steiner.."