Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
I don't think any are likely to be made England captain, if that's what you're suggesting.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
The disconnect and perception of democratic deficit is enhanced by the use of appointed Commissioners (often unpopular failed politicians from across the Continent appointed by cronyism or convenience for unspecified or renewable periods). As a Nation we would not have voted to give Brittan, Mandleson, Patten or Kinnock(s) lengthy periods of power and influence.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
Have you got that mixed up with the point of Brexit? To give the illusion of control.
Oh, we will certainly have more control within these shores.
Your argument really is: does that make up for the loss of influence beyond these shores, that ends up ultimately influencing what happens within these shores?
My judgement is yes: I think our influence was exaggerated, although it did help score occasional liberal regulatory wins inside the single market, the constraints of our membership too inflexible, the future direction of the EU would exacerbate both, and, given our strategic position and the fact most of the future geopolitics in the 21st Century will be global, which the EU didn't help very much with anyway, we had better options.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
The disconnect and perception of democratic deficit is enhanced by the use of appointed Commissioners (often unpopular failed politicians from across the Continent appointed by cronyism or convenience for unspecified or renewable periods). As a Nation we would not have voted to give Brittan, Mandleson, Patten or Kinnock(s) lengthy periods of power and influence.
Unless they're appointed to the Lords grrr.
All four of Brittan, Mandelson, Patten and Kinnock were elected to Westminster where they all enjoyed lengthy periods of power (except for Neil Kinnock) and influence.
But the facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good rant.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
Is that true?
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
I might remind you of that opinion the next time that a Scottish independence thread is in full spate.
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.
Oh for heavens sake Mr Meeks, my idea for damming the Thames was a JOKE. I didn't think you would be so triggered by it. I'm London born myself (assuming Barnet counts).
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
To me the economics are entirely secondary and if they were the only reason for supporting the EU I would find them insufficient.
and your primary reason is ?
Identity, geopolitics, culture, good governance.
This is arguing for a European identity over a British one. Good luck with that!
No worse than UK arguing a British one over a Scottish one.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
Is that true?
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
I might remind you of that opinion the next time that a Scottish independence thread is in full spate.
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.
Suggesting London might want to go its own way, if one isn't trolling, is borderline mental. If Remain had won and Farage suggested a Leave voting area went independent you would say he was crazy
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
No Idea why he has been banned, I've been away form PB for most of the last week. But are these the 'drinks' you refer to the Article 50 calibration drinks suggested about a month ago?
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.
You don't speak for London, and London does not have a unanimous view on EU membership. 42% voted to Remain, 28% for Leave, 30% didn't even care enough to vote.
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
No Idea why he has been banned, I've been away form PB for most of the last week. But are these the 'drinks' you refer to the Article 50 calibration drinks suggested about a month ago?
Yes, that's it.
Is it invitation only? or can I join the fun?
Which way did you vote???
I think all are welcome, 6pm at Truckles, Bloomsbury Way I believe
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. The sovereignty of the UK parliament is worth something to me. Since we often measure value in money terms I ascribe a money value to this (of course not all true value is countable). I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
Yes membership of the EU is comparable to you being a slave in antebellum Georgia.
To be fair to Patrick (though I don't share his assumptions either), the monetary value of not being a slave in antebellum Georgia is at least an order of magnitude greater than the figures he's talking about. And from the perspective of a committed leaver, a couple of thousand pounds is not a ridiculous amount of cash.
What is absurd is his request that we all share his assumptions.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
Is that true?
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
I might remind you of that opinion the next time that a Scottish independence thread is in full spate.
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.
Suggesting London might want to go its own way, if one isn't trolling, is borderline mental. If Remain had won and Farage suggested a Leave voting area went independent you would say he was crazy
London's economy is about the same size as that of Sweden. There are other successful city states around the world, Singapore being an obvious example. The idea isn't borderline mental (though it may on occasion be trolling as well).
London is far more different from the rest of Britain than any component parts of the rest of Britain are from each other. It is far from impossible to imagine them going their separate ways.
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
No Idea why he has been banned, I've been away form PB for most of the last week. But are these the 'drinks' you refer to the Article 50 calibration drinks suggested about a month ago?
Yes, that's it.
Is it invitation only? or can I join the fun?
Which way did you vote???
I think all are welcome, 6pm at Truckles, Bloomsbury Way I believe
Many thanks Isam, I look forward to seeing you there? just one question: 6pm which day?
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
No Idea why he has been banned, I've been away form PB for most of the last week. But are these the 'drinks' you refer to the Article 50 calibration drinks suggested about a month ago?
Yes, that's it.
Is it invitation only? or can I join the fun?
Which way did you vote???
I think all are welcome, 6pm at Truckles, Bloomsbury Way I believe
Many thanks Isam, I look forward to seeing you there? just one question: 6pm which day?
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th, Pie Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, opposite the British Museum. Reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
Is that true?
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
I might remind you of that opinion the next time that a Scottish independence thread is in full spate.
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.
Suggesting London might want to go its own way, if one isn't trolling, is borderline mental. If Remain had won and Farage suggested a Leave voting area went independent you would say he was crazy
London's economy is about the same size as that of Sweden. There are other successful city states around the world, Singapore being an obvious example. The idea isn't borderline mental (though it may on occasion be trolling as well).
London is far more different from the rest of Britain than any component parts of the rest of Britain are from each other. It is far from impossible to imagine them going their separate ways.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
The disconnect and perception of democratic deficit is enhanced by the use of appointed Commissioners (often unpopular failed politicians from across the Continent appointed by cronyism or convenience for unspecified or renewable periods). As a Nation we would not have voted to give Brittan, Mandleson, Patten or Kinnock(s) lengthy periods of power and influence.
Unless they're appointed to the Lords grrr.
All four of Brittan, Mandelson, Patten and Kinnock were elected to Westminster where they all enjoyed lengthy periods of power (except for Neil Kinnock) and influence.
But the facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good rant.
Yes Patten was in Westminster until he lost his seat to a Lib Dem. He was appointed to the Commission after losing his Westminster seat.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
Is that true?
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
I might remind you of that opinion the next time that a Scottish independence thread is in full spate.
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.
Suggesting London might want to go its own way, if one isn't trolling, is borderline mental. If Remain had won and Farage suggested a Leave voting area went independent you would say he was crazy
London's economy is about the same size as that of Sweden. There are other successful city states around the world, Singapore being an obvious example. The idea isn't borderline mental (though it may on occasion be trolling as well).
London is far more different from the rest of Britain than any component parts of the rest of Britain are from each other. It is far from impossible to imagine them going their separate ways.
"London is far more different from the rest of Britain than any component parts of the rest of Britain are from each other"
Is it really? Didn't analysis on the Brexit vote show London was more Leave than it should have been demographically?
I have a feeling you don't give all parts of London equal weight. In fact, born and bred Londoners are probably weighted down as they don't live in the trendy tourist areas
Of course Hezza, as ever, has it precisely backwards. For 500 years our foreign policy has been to oppose the creation of a superstate on the continent of Europe. We like nation states not monsters. We have always come in on the side of those fighting against a would-be superpower. We fought the Holy Roman Empire. We fought the Spanish in Elizabeth I' s time. We fought Napoleon. We fought the Nazis. And now we fight the EU. T'was ever thus.
We are not fighting the EU. We are leaving it. The EU and its member states are not our enemies.
A highly centralised, German-dominated superstate?
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In an EU superstate voters cannot do these things. I guess the overall monetary value of the identity/sovereignty side of the Brexit choice is the Patrick value times about 64 million. Personally I value my vote at the 'many thousands of pounds' level -at the very least. Actually if I was faced with some hypothetical binary choice of paying money or becoming a serf I'd pay much more than many thousands of pounds. Maybe 6 figures. But, if we round off the UK average 'no serfdom' value to around 2 grand each (cheapskates!) then the sovereignty is issue is worth over 100 billion to the UK. And £2,000 each is peanuts for our self respect and identity and sovereignty. Maybe it's more than ten times that. It's worth a trillion quid. Much less than 1 year of GDP.
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
That kind of thinking is precisely what led to the Brexit vote in the first place: legitimate concerns being dismissed because they are associated with views or people viewed as distasteful, silly, obsessive, stupid or nasty - often wrongly.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
The disconnect and perception of democratic deficit is enhanced by the use of appointed Commissioners (often unpopular failed politicians from across the Continent appointed by cronyism or convenience for unspecified or renewable periods). As a Nation we would not have voted to give Brittan, Mandleson, Patten or Kinnock(s) lengthy periods of power and influence.
Unless they're appointed to the Lords grrr.
All four of Brittan, Mandelson, Patten and Kinnock were elected to Westminster where they all enjoyed lengthy periods of power (except for Neil Kinnock) and influence.
But the facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good rant.
Yes Patten was in Westminster until he lost his seat to a Lib Dem. He was appointed to the Commission after losing his Westminster seat.
I fought he was Governor of Hong Kong after he lost his seat?
My judgement is yes: I think our influence was exaggerated, although it did help score occasional liberal regulatory wins inside the single market, the constraints of our membership too inflexible, the future direction of the EU would exacerbate both, and, given our strategic position and the fact most of the future geopolitics in the 21st Century will be global, which the EU didn't help very much with anyway, we had better options.
I've got a feeling the next few years will be the period when we really start to see the EU emerge as one of the principal agents in global politics. It's already the main bulwark against the protectionist urges of the new US administration.
Having read the overnight thread and the charge sheet against Islam so eloquently expressed by @SeanT ... may I suggest a simple strategy, it's only three words long: "enforce the law".
London is far more different from the rest of Britain than any component parts of the rest of Britain are from each other. It is far from impossible to imagine them going their separate ways. Now that IS unhinged.
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
No Idea why he has been banned, I've been away form PB for most of the last week. But are these the 'drinks' you refer to the Article 50 calibration drinks suggested about a month ago?
Yes, that's it.
Is it invitation only? or can I join the fun?
Which way did you vote???
I think all are welcome, 6pm at Truckles, Bloomsbury Way I believe
Many thanks Isam, I look forward to seeing you there? just one question: 6pm which day?
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th, Pie Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, opposite the British Museum. Reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Lab candidate disqualified. Second by-election likely.
Still difficult to know much about the relative movement of the LibDems using as your measuring stick seats where they didn't stand last time.... Dunster was previously a Tory-Green two-horse race. Not many of them around!
Coming from not standing to 49.7% is not a bad effort. Is that really difficult for you to understand ?
I have no idea of past voting history in this ward. Rejoice at the notion that the LibDems actually managed ot find a candidate, if you must. But if the LibDems managed to poll 75% previously, it would be a very meh result.
Are you really that pig-shit thick? Or just desperate for anything to suggest that the national polling average of the LibDems is W-A-Y off beam at 9%?
The five pollsters who have produced UK opinion polls in the last ten days are ICM, ComRes, IpsosMori, YouGov and Opinium. The simple average of their LibDem poll scores is 10.4%. I suspect their actual poll share is more like 11%, as all the pollsters are currently finding more people who claim to have voted LibDem in 2015 than actually did so. People who identify as LD are therefore being slightly downweighted. (This is in contrast to the coalition period where pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem.)
So basically like the opposite of the 'spiral of silence'?
Exactly
It's just a conjecture, but its opposite effect was very apparent just before the 2015 elections (and was one of the reasons I was spectacularly negative on the LibDems).
That kind of thinking is precisely what led to the Brexit vote in the first place: legitimate concerns being dismissed because they are associated with views or people viewed as distasteful, silly, obsessive, stupid or nasty - often wrongly.
I did not dismiss the concerns.
I did, however, note that they are almost invariably expressed by people who make it abundantly clear that they are not genuine concerns, given their complete indifference to related problems, and who if any attempt had in fact been made to address a democratic deficit at an EU level would have been the very first to wet themselves in outrage at the purported assembly of a European superstate.
The complete bad faith of all too many Leavers who were very clear about what they did not want but utterly nihilistic and unable to express what they did in fact want is one of the reasons that Brexit is going to be so disastrous.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
The disconnect and perception of democratic deficit is enhanced by the use of appointed Commissioners (often unpopular failed politicians from across the Continent appointed by cronyism or convenience for unspecified or renewable periods). As a Nation we would not have voted to give Brittan, Mandleson, Patten or Kinnock(s) lengthy periods of power and influence.
Unless they're appointed to the Lords grrr.
All four of Brittan, Mandelson, Patten and Kinnock were elected to Westminster where they all enjoyed lengthy periods of power (except for Neil Kinnock) and influence.
But the facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good rant.
Yes Patten was in Westminster until he lost his seat to a Lib Dem. He was appointed to the Commission after losing his Westminster seat.
I fought he was Governor of Hong Kong after he lost his seat?
So he was used to dealing with evil Empires when he got to Brussels?
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
To me the economics are entirely secondary and if they were the only reason for supporting the EU I would find them insufficient.
and your primary reason is ?
Identity, geopolitics, culture, good governance.
This is arguing for a European identity over a British one. Good luck with that!
No worse than UK arguing a British one over a Scottish one.
I agree Malc. You go if you want to. I'm not anti Sindy.
London is far more different from the rest of Britain than any component parts of the rest of Britain are from each other. It is far from impossible to imagine them going their separate ways. Now that IS unhinged.
You could also say (with as much truth, I'm sure) that Hampstead is far more different to Barking than any component parts of the rest of Britain are from each other.
Are PBers that attend the @Mortimer organised drinks next week going to be treated like English Cricketing rebels going on a tour of Apartheid South Africa?
No Idea why he has been banned, I've been away form PB for most of the last week. But are these the 'drinks' you refer to the Article 50 calibration drinks suggested about a month ago?
Yes, that's it.
Is it invitation only? or can I join the fun?
Which way did you vote???
I think all are welcome, 6pm at Truckles, Bloomsbury Way I believe
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
The disconnect and perception of democratic deficit is enhanced by the use of appointed Commissioners (often unpopular failed politicians from across the Continent appointed by cronyism or convenience for unspecified or renewable periods). As a Nation we would not have voted to give Brittan, Mandleson, Patten or Kinnock(s) lengthy periods of power and influence.
Unless they're appointed to the Lords grrr.
All four of Brittan, Mandelson, Patten and Kinnock were elected to Westminster where they all enjoyed lengthy periods of power (except for Neil Kinnock) and influence.
But the facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good rant.
I'd like to see the HoL being restricted to those who have not been an MP. Perhaps it would improve the place.
That kind of thinking is precisely what led to the Brexit vote in the first place: legitimate concerns being dismissed because they are associated with views or people viewed as distasteful, silly, obsessive, stupid or nasty - often wrongly.
I did not dismiss the concerns.
I did, however, note that they are almost invariably expressed by people who make it abundantly clear that they are not genuine concerns, given their complete indifference to related problems, and who if any attempt had in fact been made to address a democratic deficit at an EU level would have been the very first to wet themselves in outrage at the purported assembly of a European superstate.
The complete bad faith of all too many Leavers who were very clear about what they did not want but utterly nihilistic and unable to express what they did in fact want is one of the reasons that Brexit is going to be so disastrous.
But that nihilism is in part at least a consequence of the frustration and futility they feel in their inability to affect the course of the EU. And it is a point that I have some sympathy with.
Whether or not it might have been a convenient argument to cover other, more fundamental, objections that some Leavers might have had, the fact remains that it was and is a convenient argument because it has so much validity.
I think Meeks' problem is that he can't see why so many people dislike the EU. To fight a political opponent you need to understand them. To be able to articulate their argument no matter how much you may disagree. Meeks simply doesn't understand why people value their identity/vote/sovereignty and are willing to accommodate some disruption to defend that. He just doesn't get that for the 52% staying in is the disaster he fears Brexit might become. We avoided our disaster on June 23rd. I prefer the Antifrank of old. Can we have him back?
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
The disconnect and perception of democratic deficit is enhanced by the use of appointed Commissioners (often unpopular failed politicians from across the Continent appointed by cronyism or convenience for unspecified or renewable periods). As a Nation we would not have voted to give Brittan, Mandleson, Patten or Kinnock(s) lengthy periods of power and influence.
Unless they're appointed to the Lords grrr.
All four of Brittan, Mandelson, Patten and Kinnock were elected to Westminster where they all enjoyed lengthy periods of power (except for Neil Kinnock) and influence.
But the facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good rant.
Yes Patten was in Westminster until he lost his seat to a Lib Dem. He was appointed to the Commission after losing his Westminster seat.
I fought he was Governor of Hong Kong after he lost his seat?
Correct. He was appointed to the EU to replace Leon Brittan, who served through to 1999. Patten was nominated during the period that Hague was Conservative leader, Hague having replaced Brittan as MP for Richmond.
That kind of thinking is precisely what led to the Brexit vote in the first place: legitimate concerns being dismissed because they are associated with views or people viewed as distasteful, silly, obsessive, stupid or nasty - often wrongly.
I did not dismiss the concerns.
I did, however, note that they are almost invariably expressed by people who make it abundantly clear that they are not genuine concerns, given their complete indifference to related problems, and who if any attempt had in fact been made to address a democratic deficit at an EU level would have been the very first to wet themselves in outrage at the purported assembly of a European superstate.
The complete bad faith of all too many Leavers who were very clear about what they did not want but utterly nihilistic and unable to express what they did in fact want is one of the reasons that Brexit is going to be so disastrous.
But that nihilism is in part at least a consequence of the frustration and futility they feel in their inability to affect the course of the EU. And it is a point that I have some sympathy with.
Whether or not it might have been a convenient argument to cover other, more fundamental, objections that some Leavers might have had, the fact remains that it was and is a convenient argument because it has so much validity.
I have a limited sympathy with the point too. The limitation comes from the bad faith. If any attempt had been made by those objectives to suggest improvements rather than demolition of the entire structure, I'd have had more sympathy.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
The disconnect and perception of democratic deficit is enhanced by the use of appointed Commissioners (often unpopular failed politicians from across the Continent appointed by cronyism or convenience for unspecified or renewable periods). As a Nation we would not have voted to give Brittan, Mandleson, Patten or Kinnock(s) lengthy periods of power and influence.
Unless they're appointed to the Lords grrr.
All four of Brittan, Mandelson, Patten and Kinnock were elected to Westminster where they all enjoyed lengthy periods of power (except for Neil Kinnock) and influence.
But the facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good rant.
Yes Patten was in Westminster until he lost his seat to a Lib Dem. He was appointed to the Commission after losing his Westminster seat.
I fought he was Governor of Hong Kong after he lost his seat?
So he was used to dealing with evil Empires when he got to Brussels?
Patten is Chancellor of Oxford where I got to know him
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
Is that true?
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
I might remind you of that opinion the next time that a Scottish independence thread is in full spate.
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.
Suggesting London might want to go its own way, if one isn't trolling, is borderline mental. If Remain had won and Farage suggested a Leave voting area went independent you would say he was crazy
London's economy is about the same size as that of Sweden. There are other successful city states around the world, Singapore being an obvious example. The idea isn't borderline mental (though it may on occasion be trolling as well).
London is far more different from the rest of Britain than any component parts of the rest of Britain are from each other. It is far from impossible to imagine them going their separate ways.
"London is far more different from the rest of Britain than any component parts of the rest of Britain are from each other"
Is it really? Didn't analysis on the Brexit vote show London was more Leave than it should have been demographically?
I have a feeling you don't give all parts of London equal weight. In fact, born and bred Londoners are probably weighted down as they don't live in the trendy tourist areas
A higher proportion of White Londoners voted for Brexit than did White Northerners.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
Is that true?
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
I might remind you of that opinion the next time that a Scottish independence thread is in full spate.
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.
I'm not sure if there is a strict definition/agreed set of criteria for what determines a demos. I suppose it would be a shared sense of history, commonly accepted geographic boundaries, clear government structure, etc.
That kind of thinking is precisely what led to the Brexit vote in the first place: legitimate concerns being dismissed because they are associated with views or people viewed as distasteful, silly, obsessive, stupid or nasty - often wrongly.
I did not dismiss the concerns.
I did, however, note that they are almost invariably expressed by people who make it abundantly clear that they are not genuine concerns, given their complete indifference to related problems, and who if any attempt had in fact been made to address a democratic deficit at an EU level would have been the very first to wet themselves in outrage at the purported assembly of a European superstate.
The complete bad faith of all too many Leavers who were very clear about what they did not want but utterly nihilistic and unable to express what they did in fact want is one of the reasons that Brexit is going to be so disastrous.
But that nihilism is in part at least a consequence of the frustration and futility they feel in their inability to affect the course of the EU. And it is a point that I have some sympathy with.
Whether or not it might have been a convenient argument to cover other, more fundamental, objections that some Leavers might have had, the fact remains that it was and is a convenient argument because it has so much validity.
I think the inability to impact the course of the EU bureaucracy has been adequately demonstrated over the last few years with repeated referendum votes until the plebiscite change the result, altering a 'constitution' to a treaty to avoid public rejection or just ignoring votes by the electorate. All these are also examples of how left wing extremists handle power. The journey merits any means to achieve a result.
My belief (although being only on the periphery of things in European meetings) was that 28 separate countries equals 28 different opinions. Gangs had to be formed and a system of swapsie ruled. We'll vote for this if you vote for us on other things.
Now this is seen was seen as a diplomatic and negotiating coup. It wasn't - it was schoolyard politics and often equally childish. The only way to run a European community which wants a finger in not just trade deals, but all political ideas was to unite as one country. That was and is the aim, and makes political sense. That's why politicians like it.
The tricky bit was the opinion of the voters in Europe. Hence the softly, softly catchee monkey scheme. You start with trade deals to entice, then you add the other political obligations when you can.
Some voters have no problem with this, but I've always found it dishonest. But it's seen as progressive and hence time is on their side.
The EU may cone clean when we leave, but it's a risky tactic. I suspect they'll eventually amalgamate and it will seem to have been a natural progression - which to some extent is true.
My theory is that Sean T is trying to get banned from PB so he has an excuse not to attend the PB drinks gathering!
Sean T is one of the very few reasons to visit this site. He's utterly bonkers, and about as discreet as a cluster bomb - but his words are always compelling. Sites like this need people like him!
I'm not sure if there is a strict definition/agreed set of criteria for what determines a demos. I suppose it would be a shared sense of history, commonly accepted geographic boundaries, clear government structure, etc.
Charles, Mr Meeks is an habitual offender to ascribing to Leavers the views that fit his argument, rather than anything based on evidence.
Most Leavers I know, and particularly those who recognized the validity of non-economic arguments in the assessment of whether to leave or stay, very explicitly acknowledge that those same non-economic arguments apply to the Scottish situation, albeit while recognizing that the potential economic hit for Scotland from independence is greater proportionately than the potential hit to the UK from Brexit.
Thus it could be entirely rational and consistent for someone who voted for Brexit on that basis to vote for Scotland to remain in the UK, while recognizing the validity of the decisions of those who choose independence based on a different weighting/assessment of the economic vs non-economic arguments.
Further to my comment below addressed to Alanbrooke, it really is rich of Leavers to say that Remainers only care about economics when their sole reason for claiming that things are going ok is the fact that the economy hasn't fallen off a cliff. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
au contraire, I'm replying to you on your sole argument since 2015
leaver arguments are pretty varied encompassing economic performance, control of borders and national sovereignty
you only have one tune.
To me the economics are entirely secondary and if they were the only reason for supporting the EU I would find them insufficient.
and your primary reason is ?
Identity, geopolitics, culture, good governance.
This is arguing for a European identity over a British one. Good luck with that!
No worse than UK arguing a British one over a Scottish one.
I agree Malc. You go if you want to. I'm not anti Sindy.
I know Patrick , but nasty Theresa will not even let us decide. She makes EU look like pussy cats, who would hav ethought she had Mugabe thinking before they crowned her. She will be doing an Erdogan shortly and making herself leader for life.
I did, however, note that they are almost invariably expressed by people who make it abundantly clear that they are not genuine concerns, given their complete indifference to related problems, and who if any attempt had in fact been made to address a democratic deficit at an EU level would have been the very first to wet themselves in outrage at the purported assembly of a European superstate.
Whether or not it might have been a convenient argument to cover other, more fundamental, objections that some Leavers might have had, the fact remains that it was and is a convenient argument because it has so much validity.
I have a limited sympathy with the point too. The limitation comes from the bad faith. If any attempt had been made by those objectives to suggest improvements rather than demolition of the entire structure, I'd have had more sympathy.
This is a fair point. It is a point which is covered in some depth and detail in Larry Siedentop's book - Democracy in Europe - written when the proposed EU Constitution was being prepared.
It seems to me that there were three options to "cure" the democratic deficit: (1) make the EU a unitary state with the EU Parliament as the effective legislature for that state; (2) having a proper Federal structure - similar to the US model; or (3) continue keeping the nation states as the primary political unit with the EU being a mechanism for effective collaboration between member states.
The real issue has been that Britain has wanted (3) whereas other states and the EU Commission itself have wanted either (1) or (2) or an unhappy mishmash of the two, sometimes with a bit of (3) added in. That has proved an untenable fudge.
Personally, I have my doubts about whether you can effectively create a (1) by fiat from above let alone trying to create political structures through the back door of economics. But while I'm prepared to accept that some want the destruction of the EU and that this shows an element of bad faith, you should accept that some of those who say that they don't want (1) or don't think it right for Britain do so not because they want to destroy the EU but because they feel that (3) is a better way to go for all the countries concerned, not least because an effective and socially cohesive demos is more likely to succeed in a relatively smaller area, such as in a nation state rather than in something as large as a Continent.
If the EU wanted a Continental model, it had one in the US. But what has been striking about the EU's political development is how determinedly it has turned its back on learning anything from the US model.
A question for remainers: What is the monetary value of my vote counting?
I can directly elect or unlect an MP. I can vote for a complete change of policy or direction. In
Henceforth please could any 'economic' remoaners compare their apocalypse arguments with the necessary hurdle of a trillion quid's worth of pain. Ta.
If you equate membership of the EU to serfdom then you are quite unhinged.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
The whole point of the European Parliament is to give the peoples of the EU a sense they can affect the future direction of the EU, without actually giving them any power to do so.
The disconnect and perception of democratic deficit is enhanced by the use of appointed Commissioners (often unpopular failed politicians from across the Continent appointed by cronyism or convenience for unspecified or renewable periods). As a Nation we would not have voted to give Brittan, Mandleson, Patten or Kinnock(s) lengthy periods of power and influence.
Unless they're appointed to the Lords grrr.
All four of Brittan, Mandelson, Patten and Kinnock were elected to Westminster where they all enjoyed lengthy periods of power (except for Neil Kinnock) and influence.
But the facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good rant.
I'd like to see the HoL being restricted to those who have not been an MP. Perhaps it would improve the place.
The equivalent of three and a half year's gross or five year's net contributions. Not really a very strong argument against Brexit is it. Leave and you have to pay £10 billion a year for five years, stay and you have to pay £10 billion a year (and rising) for ever.
Remainiacs really do have some dumb arguments.
Also:
1. This is their opening gambit. 2. Any transition arrangement payments will be offset against this. 3. It doesn't include a share of assets. 4. We'll likely simply take British retirees onto our own books.
The actual cash exit payment will likely be less than £15bn. (I would guess it will probably be more like £10-12bn.)
Most importantly - the final Brexit deal will be decided in Berlin, Paris, Rome, Warsaw and Madrid. Junker will do as he is told or he will be replaced.
Junker Junked would be the tabloid dream headline.
The whole profile reads like someone who would act alone. It is odd that there is a suggestion early in the article that he will have had help. The profile has obsessive loner written all over it.
Adrian Russell Ajao was birth name of Westminster attacker Khalid Masood, 52, police say.
That's obviously an exaggeration for comic effect but deliberately missing the point like that doesn't help either.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU and - among with other things - one that might have been big enough to tip the balance in the referendum. It's not a coincidence that it feels remote to many people when they can't see how they can affect its future direction; when their connection with the parliament is itself looser than it was when the elections were under FPTP and people had a single, local MEP, and when it's unclear how the parliament drives the future of the EU (which it doesn't, or at least, only very indirectly). That lack of connection between citizen and institution is fatal for anything that wields as much power as the EU does, when it does so in a way that has minority support within the electorate.
I would have more sympathy with that as a line of argument were it not for the fact that the most intense Leavers are also the ones who are most adamant that exactly the most appropriate demos is the one that Britain already has and that on no account must a different arrangement or a break-up of the UK be even contemplated. Their obsession about the appropriate level of connection between citizen and governing body is highly restricted in scope.
Is that true?
The most ardent leavers I've come across typically say that they *think* that the UK is a demos, but if the people of Scotland decide that they should leave then clearly they (the Leavers) are wrong, and the UK demos is smaller than they thought,
I might remind you of that opinion the next time that a Scottish independence thread is in full spate.
And suggest that London might want to go its own way and they're damming the Thames and cutting off the power supplies.
I'm not sure if there is a strict definition/agreed set of criteria for what determines a demos. I suppose it would be a shared sense of history, commonly accepted geographic boundaries, clear government structure, etc.
I think it's also reasonable to point out that there are quite a few countries today that probably don't have coherent demos - Belgium being the most obvious example.
And there were many countries that did not have coherent demos when they were formed, and it only developed over time. I think the US would be one example of that, as was the United Kingdom itself.
Many states without coherent demos lasted some time before breaking up: Yugoslavia or the Austro-Hungarian Empire for example.
Comments
But the facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good rant.
I didn't think you would be so triggered by it.
I'm London born myself (assuming Barnet counts).
I think all are welcome, 6pm at Truckles, Bloomsbury Way I believe
What is absurd is his request that we all share his assumptions.
London is far more different from the rest of Britain than any component parts of the rest of Britain are from each other. It is far from impossible to imagine them going their separate ways.
Is it really? Didn't analysis on the Brexit vote show London was more Leave than it should have been demographically?
I have a feeling you don't give all parts of London equal weight. In fact, born and bred Londoners are probably weighted down as they don't live in the trendy tourist areas
Now that IS unhinged.
Betting PostF1: I was sorely tempted to offer 4 tips, but went for 2 instead:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/australia-pre-qualifying-2017.html
It's just a conjecture, but its opposite effect was very apparent just before the 2015 elections (and was one of the reasons I was spectacularly negative on the LibDems).
I did, however, note that they are almost invariably expressed by people who make it abundantly clear that they are not genuine concerns, given their complete indifference to related problems, and who if any attempt had in fact been made to address a democratic deficit at an EU level would have been the very first to wet themselves in outrage at the purported assembly of a European superstate.
The complete bad faith of all too many Leavers who were very clear about what they did not want but utterly nihilistic and unable to express what they did in fact want is one of the reasons that Brexit is going to be so disastrous.
Whether or not it might have been a convenient argument to cover other, more fundamental, objections that some Leavers might have had, the fact remains that it was and is a convenient argument because it has so much validity.
I prefer the Antifrank of old. Can we have him back?
isam • Posts: 21,295 March 23
Taking the strain off @Fat_Steve for once! Will he and @MikeSmithson be coming along?
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1482283#Comment_1482283
My belief (although being only on the periphery of things in European meetings) was that 28 separate countries equals 28 different opinions. Gangs had to be formed and a system of swapsie ruled. We'll vote for this if you vote for us on other things.
Now this is seen was seen as a diplomatic and negotiating coup. It wasn't - it was schoolyard politics and often equally childish. The only way to run a European community which wants a finger in not just trade deals, but all political ideas was to unite as one country. That was and is the aim, and makes political sense. That's why politicians like it.
The tricky bit was the opinion of the voters in Europe. Hence the softly, softly catchee monkey scheme. You start with trade deals to entice, then you add the other political obligations when you can.
Some voters have no problem with this, but I've always found it dishonest. But it's seen as progressive and hence time is on their side.
The EU may cone clean when we leave, but it's a risky tactic. I suspect they'll eventually amalgamate and it will seem to have been a natural progression - which to some extent is true.
Most Leavers I know, and particularly those who recognized the validity of non-economic arguments in the assessment of whether to leave or stay, very explicitly acknowledge that those same non-economic arguments apply to the Scottish situation, albeit while recognizing that the potential economic hit for Scotland from independence is greater proportionately than the potential hit to the UK from Brexit.
Thus it could be entirely rational and consistent for someone who voted for Brexit on that basis to vote for Scotland to remain in the UK, while recognizing the validity of the decisions of those who choose independence based on a different weighting/assessment of the economic vs non-economic arguments.
It seems to me that there were three options to "cure" the democratic deficit: (1) make the EU a unitary state with the EU Parliament as the effective legislature for that state; (2) having a proper Federal structure - similar to the US model; or (3) continue keeping the nation states as the primary political unit with the EU being a mechanism for effective collaboration between member states.
The real issue has been that Britain has wanted (3) whereas other states and the EU Commission itself have wanted either (1) or (2) or an unhappy mishmash of the two, sometimes with a bit of (3) added in. That has proved an untenable fudge.
Personally, I have my doubts about whether you can effectively create a (1) by fiat from above let alone trying to create political structures through the back door of economics. But while I'm prepared to accept that some want the destruction of the EU and that this shows an element of bad faith, you should accept that some of those who say that they don't want (1) or don't think it right for Britain do so not because they want to destroy the EU but because they feel that (3) is a better way to go for all the countries concerned, not least because an effective and socially cohesive demos is more likely to succeed in a relatively smaller area, such as in a nation state rather than in something as large as a Continent.
If the EU wanted a Continental model, it had one in the US. But what has been striking about the EU's political development is how determinedly it has turned its back on learning anything from the US model.
NEW THREAD
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe,
RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common
action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe
Adrian Russell Ajao was birth name of Westminster attacker Khalid Masood, 52, police say.
NOT Adrian Elms.
labour partyunite union..https://order-order.com/2017/03/24/pro-len-unite-insider-sending-anti-semitic-tweets-to-gerard-coyne/
And there were many countries that did not have coherent demos when they were formed, and it only developed over time. I think the US would be one example of that, as was the United Kingdom itself.
Many states without coherent demos lasted some time before breaking up: Yugoslavia or the Austro-Hungarian Empire for example.