There are plenty of plans. I can think of at least 5 others ranging from EFTA + EEA through to a bespoke agreement with the EU.
Er, yes, but that's the problem. Your wife wants to move to the Orkneys, and you're not too sure. She says, "Look, there are 5 different things we could do when we get there! Let's set out and we can decide when we've arrived which one we do." Does this fill you with greater confidence than if she had a particular idea in mind?
Actually, it's worse. It's as if she said, "I know these great guys, they're called Fox and Farage and Galloway. They've got ideas for what we can do. Once we get there, some of them will decide."
Missing the point entirely that neither Farage, Galloway nor in all likelihood Fox will be making the decisions.
This is a spurious argument Nick. All the more so given that what you are actually suggesting instead is that you don't move and let Tusk, Merkel and Schulz decide where you shop, what you eat and when you are allowed to go to bed (to use your analogy).
Re Myth 1. If people expected a bad deal, you might have expected it to be " priced in" to the polling. Clearly it wasn't, as public opinion has shifted to Leave, in the aftermath.
Quite! However, one thing is undoubtedly true: Alastair Meeks (on this very unimportant! matter) has not shifted.
He's making a bit of a fool of himself IMHO, and just keeps digging.
Nah he just disagrees with you.
It's not just that, Richard Nabavi and David Herdson disagree with me and they have not, it's his repeated dismissiveness of the arguments of Leavers, often using emotive or patronising language, with the same tired old lines and his increasingly hysterical and touchy posts on here when he posts on the issue.
On the matter of the EU, his objectivity is totally compromised.
Two points:
1) The EU referendum is the big political betting story in the UK for the year ahead.
2) Every thread at present, including every thread about the other big political betting story of the moment, the US presidential election, gets derailed onto consideration about minutiae of the EU referendum. This is obviously what gets a large number of posters up in the morning.
The idea that I'm not going to express my views on the referendum in thread headers is ridiculous. It would be a complete dereliction of duty given what's going on at present.
I do not use thread headers as a vehicle to broadcast my personal opinions of the pros and cons of the referendum choice. That would be an abuse of position, bearing in mind I'm just some guy off of the internet. What I try to do is identify polling points for consideration, in just the same way as I try to do on other threads that I write about actual elections. On this thread, I've identified two.
People are welcome to disagree with those points if they so wish. The response of the true beLeavers to this thread has by and large been "but that can't possibly be right" without any further analysis. So be it: that's their choice. However, the extreme annoyance that some people express when I have the temerity to put forward points that challenge the consensus on the site says an awful lot more about them than it does about me.
If that's your position, despite everything I've written on this thread (carefully) and previously, then you are either wilfully misunderstanding me, or simply not listening, and it's a waste of my time engaging with you further in this debate.
I will stick to discussing other subjects with you on future, with enthusiasm, but on this you've just become too boring.
Re Myth 1. If people expected a bad deal, you might have expected it to be " priced in" to the polling. Clearly it wasn't, as public opinion has shifted to Leave, in the aftermath.
Quite! However, one thing is undoubtedly true: Alastair Meeks (on this very unimportant! matter) has not shifted.
He's making a bit of a fool of himself IMHO, and just keeps digging.
Nah he just disagrees with you.
It's not just that, Richard Nabavi and David Herdson disagree with me and they have not, it's his repeated dismissiveness of the arguments of Leavers, often using emotive or patronising language, with the same tired old lines and his increasingly hysterical and touchy posts on here when he posts on the issue.
On the matter of the EU, his objectivity is totally compromised.
No one on here is objective wrt the EU. Leavers arguments are universally "emotive" , which is understandable, and, when people stray into calling someone foolish, also a touch "patronising".
Ah, and there we have it.
I rest my case.
You clearly need the rest. I for one welcome Mr Meeks postings. Without him PB would descend into an echo chamber.
I'm fine, thank you.
I welcome him posting too, and don't even mind him arguing passionately for Remain. It's the tin-ear, repetitiveness and rudeness that worry me - it's very out of character.
Oh, the irony - and I'm not even a Meeks fan.
No, there is no irony.
I am open to respected well-argued positions: I commended DavidL's case for Remain and have explored Richard Nabavi's views respectively too.
I confess I sometimes blow a fuse, but who doesn't?
You don't think the leave arguments are repetitive then? I'm still waiting for the explanation of how the post-Brexit plan [sic] will work.
What will happen if the UK leaves is very simple. We once again become a self-governing nation state with Parliament sovereign. The elected government will make our laws and if the population don't like those laws then they will vote in a different government.
Ok - show me where my status as an ex-pat living in Spain will be completely unaffected and i may listen to you.
John Reid, then the Labour government’s health secretary, in 2004 offered GPs a deal that ended weekend and home visits. They could hardly believe it. He also leveraged their average pay to £100,000 a year. People said it would send thousands rushing to accident and emergency. The British Medical Association called the deal “a bit of a laugh”, and the King’s Fund later calculated it added £30bn in costs to the NHS with no appreciable benefit. But no one blamed the NHS. Everyone loved the NHS.
The attempt by Jeremy Hunt, today’s health secretary, to remedy part of Reid’s disastrous reform enjoys no such popularity. There is two-thirds support for the junior hospital doctors in their strike against weekend restructuring.
Ten of the 27 EU nations do not figure in our top 50 global trading partners.
Every EU nation, bar Ireland, that does figure in our top 50 global trading partners makes a stonking profit from the arrangement, which suggests that they are the ones who need a plan if things change.
Beyond that, what?
Border controls? Well, the Europeans are reinstating them at the drop of a hat.
As an independent nation we could presumably do the kind of things that Canada, Japan and Australia do by negotiating agreements as we see fit.
Our welfare system? Well, the public have constantly given their signal over reform.
Cameron has the brain of a plankton. Everyone knows that getting change at the EU takes 5+ years, decades even, and anything seen as fundamental change is more likely never to happen at all because someone like the Irish will have to have a referendum about it. He didn't need to go to the EU for some half-assed "renegotiation" in order to win the UK EU ref, the evidence from all the polls since time immemorial is that we won't vote to leave. Even the chaos of unrestricted immigration from Eastern Europe hasn't changed that; we're so indoctrinated with the idea that the EU is good for the economy. A quick attempt at "renegotiation" was doomed to fail, and cause ripples on the calm waters. Changing the EU and its rules is an admirable aim, but trying to do it on the eve of a referendum is madness.
So what was the motivation for Cameron to shoot himself so spectacularly in the foot? Where today the Times has the pathetic headline "Don't push us into Brexit - Cameron pleads with MEPs to save his Europe deal"! It's party politics. He's trying to satisfy a large group within his party, and losing sight of the bigger picture, which is a shame from someone who's been leading the country for 5 years and should have been able to remove his party blinkers by now.
Re Myth 1. If people expected a bad deal, you might have expected it to be " priced in" to the polling. Clearly it wasn't, as public opinion has shifted to Leave, in the aftermath.
Quite! However, one thing is undoubtedly true: Alastair Meeks (on this very unimportant! matter) has not shifted.
He's making a bit of a fool of himself IMHO, and just keeps digging.
Nah he just disagrees with you.
Ah, and there we have it.
I rest my case.
You clearly need the rest. I for one welcome Mr Meeks postings. Without him PB would descend into an echo chamber.
I'm fine, thank you.
I welcome him posting too, and don't even mind him arguing passionately for Remain. It's the tin-ear, repetitiveness and rudeness that worry me - it's very out of character.
Oh, the irony - and I'm not even a Meeks fan.
No, there is no irony.
I am open to respected well-argued positions: I commended DavidL's case for Remain and have explored Richard Nabavi's views respectively too.
I confess I sometimes blow a fuse, but who doesn't?
You don't think the leave arguments are repetitive then? I'm still waiting for the explanation of how the post-Brexit plan [sic] will work.
What will happen if the UK leaves is very simple. We once again become a self-governing nation state with Parliament sovereign. The elected government will make our laws and if the population don't like those laws then they will vote in a different government.
Ok - show me where my status as an ex-pat living in Spain will be completely unaffected and i may listen to you.
I have to be honest and say I'll be voting in the interests of the UK, as I see them, not in the interests of ex-pats in Spain. I think that if you go to live in a foreign country, you take your chances. You're welcome to return if it doesn't work out for you.
There are plenty of plans. I can think of at least 5 others ranging from EFTA + EEA through to a bespoke agreement with the EU.
Thank you - I'm not on here full-time. Unless you speak with some semblance of authority on behalf of a campaign it's all a bit speculative don't you think? My point remains that there is no definitive plan being put to the public by any of the 3/4 leave campaigns. There are lots like myself who need to know the implications - otherwise we opt for the status quo.
Flightpath reply... All the Outers have different notions of 'out'. Voting Out is just the start of the bickering not least since Leavers would have different notions as well. However I would have thought Leavers would trend towards the EEA and so given enough outers agreeing with that then really leaving is not much different to staying in and for myself I wonder what the fuss is about. Although if we do join the EEA then all the hard line EU haters would never be satisfied and just carry on ranting away as per usual. In or Out, nothing will change, our relationship with 'europe' will remain a vehicle for all those with chips on their shoulder .
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
Re Myth 1. If people expected a bad deal, you might have expected it to be " priced in" to the polling. Clearly it wasn't, as public opinion has shifted to Leave, in the aftermath.
Quite! However, one thing is undoubtedly true: Alastair Meeks (on this very unimportant! matter) has not shifted.
He's making a bit of a fool of himself IMHO, and just keeps digging.
Nah he just disagrees with you.
It's not just that, Richard Nabavi and David Herdson disagree with me and they have not, it's his repeated dismissiveness of the arguments of Leavers, often using emotive or patronising language, with the same tired old lines and his increasingly hysterical and touchy posts on here when he posts on the issue.
On the matter of the EU, his objectivity is totally compromised.
No one on here is objective wrt the EU. Leavers arguments are universally "emotive" , which is understandable, and, when people stray into calling someone foolish, also a touch "patronising".
Ah, and there we have it.
I rest my case.
You clearly need the rest. I for one welcome Mr Meeks postings. Without him PB would descend into an echo chamber.
I'm fine, thank you.
I welcome him posting too, and don't even mind him arguing passionately for Remain. It's the tin-ear, repetitiveness and rudeness that worry me - it's very out of character.
Oh, the irony - and I'm not even a Meeks fan.
No, there is no irony.
I am open to respected well-argued positions: I commended DavidL's case for Remain and have explored Richard Nabavi's views respectively too.
I confess I sometimes blow a fuse, but who doesn't?
You don't think the leave arguments are repetitive then? I'm still waiting for the explanation of how the post-Brexit plan [sic] will work.
What will happen if the UK leaves is very simple. We once again become a self-governing nation state with Parliament sovereign. The elected government will make our laws and if the population don't like those laws then they will vote in a different government.
Ok - show me where my status as an ex-pat living in Spain will be completely unaffected and i may listen to you.
Both Alastair's points seem reasonable (I only say seem because I have not looked at the polling in the detail he has). In fact both points are encouraging for me.
The first because it seems to me that, as pointed out below, even if people did expect Cameron to bring back a poor deal, the fact that the polls appear to have shifted markedly over the last couple of weeks would indicate to me that there was a disconnect between people's general expectations and their reaction to the specific failure that Cameron has achieved. Put simply, it is one thing to expect your politicians to be crap in a general fashion but quote another to have that rammed home quite so forcefully as Cameron has done.
The second is encouraging because I have never been comfortable with the linkage of immigration and the EU, however true it may or may not be, it has hobbled the LEAVE campaign badly by undermining the one certain route they could propose - EFTA membership - since this would not limit EU migration. As such I am far more comfortable with the debate being on the grounds of economics, good governance and sovereignty rather than migration.
Good morning all. I think most people have an instinctive understanding of how the EU's sclerotic decision making works - have you ever tried to get 28 people to agree about _anything_?
What's really pushed my buttons is that what Cameron brought back was nothing like his Bloomberg speech, was a mere ghost of the 'four key points' and yet he stood there like some fairground huckster trying to tell us it was fantastic and just the thing to sort out our place in Europe for a generation. I can't be alone. I didn't think he'd get much, but I didn't think he'd go all Tony Blair on me.
Fortunately, I take comfort that even if we vote remain, the EU will fuck it up in some way or other. It's a broken system that isn't fit for the 21st century. I give it twenty years tops.
I have to be honest and say I'll be voting in the interests of the UK, as I see them, not in the interests of ex-pats in Spain. I think that if you go to live in a foreign country, you take your chances. You're welcome to return if it doesn't work out for you.
Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen with rights which I expect my government to look after. I came here on the understanding that was the case and I'd have thought the Leave campaign would at least expect to consider the interests of all its citizens in its 'planning for the post-brexit future - depending on which of the 5/6 plans it finally agrees on [sic].
Flightpath reply... All the Outers have different notions of 'out'. Voting Out is just the start of the bickering not least since Leavers would have different notions as well. However I would have thought Leavers would trend towards the EEA and so given enough outers agreeing with that then really leaving is not much different to staying in and for myself I wonder what the fuss is about. Although if we do join the EEA then all the hard line EU haters would never be satisfied and just carry on ranting away as per usual. In or Out, nothing will change, our relationship with 'europe' will remain a vehicle for all those with chips on their shoulder .
The usual inane garbage from flighpath. Never was a man so utterly unqualified to comment on a subject and yet so determined to display his ignorance.
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
Are you telling me that my mother-in-law can stay?
Flightpath reply... All the Outers have different notions of 'out'. Voting Out is just the start of the bickering not least since Leavers would have different notions as well. However I would have thought Leavers would trend towards the EEA and so given enough outers agreeing with that then really leaving is not much different to staying in and for myself I wonder what the fuss is about. Although if we do join the EEA then all the hard line EU haters would never be satisfied and just carry on ranting away as per usual. In or Out, nothing will change, our relationship with 'europe' will remain a vehicle for all those with chips on their shoulder .
The usual inane garbage from flighpath. Never was a man so utterly unqualified to comment on a subject and yet so determined to display his ignorance.
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
Are you telling me that my mother-in-law can stay?
That's a serious issue for me.
If you saw four blokes attacking her in the street, would you help?
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
Are you telling me that my mother-in-law can stay?
That's a serious issue for me.
If you saw four blokes attacking her in the street, would you help?
They'd need all the help they can get; she's viscous.
Ten of the 27 EU nations do not figure in our top 50 global trading partners.
Every EU nation, bar Ireland, that does figure in our top 50 global trading partners makes a stonking profit from the arrangement, which suggests that they are the ones who need a plan if things change.
Beyond that, what?
Border controls? Well, the Europeans are reinstating them at the drop of a hat.
As an independent nation we could presumably do the kind of things that Canada, Japan and Australia do by negotiating agreements as we see fit.
Our welfare system? Well, the public have constantly given their signal over reform.
Mr. M, in Discourses on Livy (I think), Machiavelli opined that a confederacy could have a maximum membership of 4-6 states, on the basis that any more meant agreement was too difficult and power would shift from the states to the alliance as a third (as it were) party.
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
People vote on certainty not doubt.
I can't be certain I won't be killed when I drive home later today, but I can conclude that it's highly unlikely.
Since no-one, on either side of the Channel, is talking about the mass expulsion of each other's nationals, it's safe to assume it's not going to happen.
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
Are you telling me that my mother-in-law can stay?
Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen with rights which I expect my government to look after. I came here on the understanding that was the case and I'd have thought the Leave campaign would at least expect to consider the interests of all its citizens in its 'planning for the post-brexit future - depending on which of the 5/6 plans it finally agrees on [sic].
We all get one vote - if you don't get the answer you want, tough.
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
"Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen with rights which I expect my government to look after. I came here on the understanding that was the case and I'd have thought the Leave campaign would at least expect to consider the interests of all its citizens in its 'planning for the post-brexit future - depending on which of the 5/6 plans it finally agrees on"
Me me me me me me me.
Believe it or not, some of us are giving consideration to the interests of the UK, not just personal greed.
If I was acting entirely selfishly, like you, I'd be solid REMAIN. Like most people of my class and income. I do very well from the status quo. I sincerely expect a LEAVE vote to impact my personal wealth - negatively. I reckon the London property market would take a big medium term hit. My flat, my main asset, could decrease in value by a quarter or more.
That's quite serious.
But I have to think beyond my own personal wellbeing. I have to think about the kind of country I will bequeath to my daughter, and her friends. Is the EU heading in a direction that reassures me? No. This may be the only chance, in a generation, for us to escape a dangerously undemocratic quasi-superstate, which seeks to lock us in, forever, even as it tips towards decline, and chaos.
That's what gives me pause. But you go ahead and worry about YOU.
I can't see Leave or Remain making any difference to me, economically. So, it's fairly straightforward to consider the national interest.
[Snipped] The other point to make is that we don't actually have political union with democratic accountability to a very large extent - it is mostly arranged to suit national leaders sorting stuff out with the Commission. That's why I think the decisive change to genuine political union would come with electing the Commission President directly. He would then be de facto "leader of Europe" - which is why national leaders are suddenly not so keen. But that would create a European political demos to an extent that only marginally exists today - once we were debating whether we'd rather be led by a British leader with a different political view or a foreigner with attractive views, it would be a very different Europe, and a more interesting one.
But I'm aware it's a minority view!
That is an interesting thought. I disagree with you to this extent - the demos does not get created by electing a Commission President directly first. That happens when you have a European demos. See, for instance, how the US political structure developed. The fundamental problem with the EU is that it is top down. It centralises power to itself when what it ought to be doing is ensuring a balance of power to avoid any overmighty sovereign arrogating too much to itself. It is seeking to impose on people rather than responding to their wishes.
And this is a real problem because, however good and rational it may look on paper, if it is imposed on people against their wishes by people who think they know best and who will use whatever means to get what they think the people ought to want, it will not work. Too much of the EU is like this.
The growth in fringe and often unpleasant and extreme parties (of the left and right) should make EU leaders pause. That is a symptom of a dysfunction in the relationship between people and their governments. It is a symptom of something that has gone badly wrong in how the EU is being led and developed.
EU leaders and supporters should (on the whole) stop being so superior and condescending about the US and study a bit more carefully how the Founding Fathers approached the question of turning 13 separate states into one of the oldest and best functioning and enduring and democratic federal structures around. One thing they did was to start with the people and work our from there. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". Too much of the EU is stuff done by "them" to "us" behind our backs, without our consent, for our own good, whether we like it or not, and we're condescended to and lectured and lied to as well.
Larry Siedentop's "Democracy in Europe" is a pretty good start - and a very good read - for anyone interested in the topic. Written at a time when the EU Constitution was being debated but as timely as ever.
"Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen with rights which I expect my government to look after. I came here on the understanding that was the case and I'd have thought the Leave campaign would at least expect to consider the interests of all its citizens in its 'planning for the post-brexit future - depending on which of the 5/6 plans it finally agrees on"
Me me me me me me me.
Believe it or not, some of us are giving consideration to the interests of the UK, not just personal greed.
If I was acting entirely selfishly, like you, I'd be solid REMAIN. Like most people of my class and income. I do very well from the status quo. I sincerely expect a LEAVE vote to impact my personal wealth - negatively. I reckon the London property market would take a big medium term hit. My flat, my main asset, could decrease in value by a quarter or more.
That's quite serious.
But I have to think beyond my own personal wellbeing. I have to think about the kind of country I will bequeath to my daughter, and her friends. Is the EU heading in a direction that reassures me? No. This may be the only chance, in a generation, for us to escape a dangerously undemocratic quasi-superstate, which seeks to lock us in, forever, even as it tips towards decline, and chaos.
That's what gives me pause. But you go ahead and worry about YOU.
I can't see Leave or Remain making any difference to me, economically. So, it's fairly straightforward to consider the national interest.
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
People vote on certainty not doubt.
I can't be certain I won't be killed when I drive home later today, but I can conclude that it's highly unlikely.
Since no-one, on either side of the Channel, is talking about the mass expulsion of each other's nationals, it's safe to assume it's not going to happen.
I don't think that is the worry - many with property in Europe, temporary or permanent residents will have legitimate concerns about issues relating to healthcare, double taxation, property taxes and much much more all of which could be affected by Brexit. none of these are likely to affect me directly but could affect thousands of others. Most are British citizens.
"Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen with rights which I expect my government to look after. I came here on the understanding that was the case and I'd have thought the Leave campaign would at least expect to consider the interests of all its citizens in its 'planning for the post-brexit future - depending on which of the 5/6 plans it finally agrees on"
Me me me me me me me.
Believe it or not, some of us are giving consideration to the interests of the UK, not just personal greed.
If I was acting entirely selfishly, like you, I'd be solid REMAIN - like most people of my class and income.
I do very well from the status quo. I sincerely expect a LEAVE vote to impact my personal wealth - negatively. I reckon the London property market would take a big medium term hit. My flat, my main asset, could decrease in value by a quarter or more.
That's quite serious.
But I have to think beyond my own personal wellbeing. I have to think about the kind of country I will bequeath to my daughter, and her friends. Is the EU heading in a direction that reassures me? No. This may be the only chance, in a generation, for us to escape a dangerously undemocratic quasi-superstate, which seeks to lock us in, forever, even as it tips towards decline, and chaos.
That's what gives me pause. But you go ahead and worry about YOU.
You're just a saint and I'm sure his holiness will be reading the tread today and taking note.
"My flat, my main asset, could decrease in value by a quarter or more." So what? You have to live somewhere. The price drop only makes you poorer if you plan to eat it.
Just looking at these new employment figures, which seem to encouraging, I notice that there are nearly 9 million people of working age who are classed as economically inactive. That is an awful lot of people. Who, I wonder, are they and from where do they draw their income?
I guess a few are buccaneers of the alternative economy to quote Arthur Daley.
Re Myth 1. If people expected a bad deal, you might have expected it to be " priced in" to the polling. Clearly it wasn't, as public opinion has shifted to Leave, in the aftermath.
Quite! However, one thing is undoubtedly true: Alastair Meeks (on this very unimportant! matter) has not shifted.
He's making a bit of a fool of himself IMHO, and just keeps digging.
Nah he just disagrees with you.
...
On the matter of the EU, his objectivity is totally compromised.
Two points:
1) The EU referendum is the big political betting story in the UK for the year ahead.
2) Every thread at present, including every thread about the other big political betting story of the moment, the US presidential election, gets derailed onto consideration about minutiae of the EU referendum. This is obviously what gets a large number of posters up in the morning.
The idea that I'm not going to express my views on the referendum in thread headers is ridiculous. It would be a complete dereliction of duty given what's going on at present.
I do not use thread headers as a vehicle to broadcast my personal opinions of the pros and cons of the referendum choice. That would be an abuse of position, bearing in mind I'm just some guy off of the internet. What I try to do is identify polling points for consideration, in just the same way as I try to do on other threads that I write about actual elections. On this thread, I've identified two.
People are welcome to disagree with those points if they so wish. The response of the true beLeavers to this thread has by and large been "but that can't possibly be right" without any further analysis. So be it: that's their choice. However, the extreme annoyance that some people express when I have the temerity to put forward points that challenge the consensus on the site says an awful lot more about them than it does about me.
"dereliction of duty"???
WTF. Look in a mirror. See the words "pompous dork" tattooed on your forehead?
At the moment you are the internet equivalent of the guy in the office who farts in the lift every single morning. You're not a threat to human life, but you are quite deeply irritating. No doubt you get some furtive pleasure from your strange and daily crepitations, but others do not.
Boris Johnson holds the key to David Cameron’s hopes of winning the EU referendum, dramatic new research confirmed today.
One in three people say the Mayor of London will be “important” to them when they come to decide whether to vote In or Out, according to a poll by Ipsos MORI.
"Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen with rights which I expect my government to look after. I came here on the understanding that was the case and I'd have thought the Leave campaign would at least expect to consider the interests of all its citizens in its 'planning for the post-brexit future - depending on which of the 5/6 plans it finally agrees on"
Me me me me me me me.
Believe it or not, some of us are giving consideration to the interests of the UK, not just personal greed.
If I was acting entirely selfishly, like you, I'd be solid REMAIN - like most people of my class and income.
I do very well from the status quo. I sincerely expect a LEAVE vote to impact my personal wealth - negatively. I reckon the London property market would take a big medium term hit. My flat, my main asset, could decrease in value by a quarter or more.
That's quite serious.
But I have to think beyond my own personal wellbeing. I have to think about the kind of country I will bequeath to my daughter, and her friends. Is the EU heading in a direction that reassures me? No. This may be the only chance, in a generation, for us to escape a dangerously undemocratic quasi-superstate, which seeks to lock us in, forever, even as it tips towards decline, and chaos.
That's what gives me pause. But you go ahead and worry about YOU.
You're just a saint and I'm sure his holiness will be reading the tread today and taking note.
I believe his holiness deals very harshly with those who indulge in sarcasm.
I will likely vote Leave I think, but with reference to "myth 2" I am actually broadly in favour of eastern European immigration.
They work harder than most Brits, take far less for granted, don't expect something for nothing and are generally much more pleasant people in my experience.
The whole benefits thing for EU immigrants is such a side issue compared to us being sucked inexorably into a bureaucratic superstate
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
Are you telling me that my mother-in-law can stay?
That's a serious issue for me.
If you saw four blokes attacking her in the street, would you help?
They'd need all the help they can get; she's viscous.
There are plenty of plans. I can think of at least 5 others ranging from EFTA + EEA through to a bespoke agreement with the EU.
Er, yes, but that's the problem. Your wife wants to move to the Orkneys, and you're not too sure. She says, "Look, there are 5 different things we could do when we get there! Let's set out and we can decide when we've arrived which one we do." Does this fill you with greater confidence than if she had a particular idea in mind?
Actually, it's worse. It's as if she said, "I know these great guys, they're called Fox and Farage and Galloway. They've got ideas for what we can do. Once we get there, some of them will decide."
Agreed. Leave's big issue is not presenting a plausible and attractive option, though I know some individual Leave posters on here have done so. I'm thinking more of the official or semi-official Leave campaigns. The "pull" factor, if you will. There is plenty about the "push" factor. But there needs to more about the former. That is why, even though the "push" factors, for me, currently have greater significance, I expect Remain to win.
Dear me, I see Alastair has poked a digital stick into a virtual hornet's nest.
On Myth 1, I think it's premature to take a definite view. Not only is the deal not (quite) yet finalised, but more importantly we have just had a tsunami of negative media coverage. The polling therefore is rather like that which you get during other media-heavy periods. Quite often you see what looks at the time like a marked shift, but which subsides subsequently.
On Myth 2, Alastair is surely right that to say that the public don't see immigration and the EU as one and the same thing, but that's not the same as saying that they don't see them as closely linked at least in respect of one large component of immigration. For many people who will vote Leave, this will be a key reason, perhaps the dominant reason. For others - represented* here by posters such as Richard Tyndall or Sean Fear, and on the national stage by Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell - immigration is not a key issue in itself; their motivation is more related to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
Numerically, I would expect that concerns over immigration probably motivate more Leavers than any other issue (perhaps second would be a generalised concern over EU regulation). This is the concern of many ordinary people who are not necessarily politically engaged, whereas the more abstract argument over sovereignty is necessarily one for people who take an interest in political and constitutional matters. Obviously I'm simplifying here, but a broad-brush approach is sometimes necessary to understand the political dynamics; it seems to me that the most important group for the two campaigns to concentrate on is ordinary people who will be weighing up (perhaps not very systematically) economic risk versus immigration and regulation.
For this reason, I think immigration will continue to be a dominant theme in the campaigns. The much-derided and misunderstood intervention by Cameron on Calais the other day was an interesting example of that. Of course he wasn't trying to kid anyone that the problems in Calais have anything to do with our membership of the EU. He was trying (and I think succeeded) in doing the exact opposite; cornering the Leave side into indignantly pointing out that the problems in Calais have nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Job done.
I will likely vote Leave I think, but with reference to "myth 2" I am actually broadly in favour of eastern European immigration.
They work harder than most Brits, take far less for granted, don't expect something for nothing and are generally much more pleasant people in my experience.
If only we do a straight swap - Eastern Europeans for Scots.....
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
While I am also a great believer in leaving, Switzerland in 1800 did not have a demos, nor the United States in 1750. A demos can develop over time. Whether it does or doesn't is another matter all together.
The problems in Calais have everything to do with the EU. The migrants are camped around the tunnel because of Schengen. if Schengen didn't exist they'd be in Greece or Italy, stuck behind much more distant frontiers.
Again, the collpse in your IQ on this subject is quite remarkable.
I of course meant 'nothing to do with the UK's membership of the EU', as I made 100% clear in the preceding sentence.
You would have realised that if you weren't getting all emotional.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
"Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen with rights which I expect my government to look after. I came here on the understanding that was the case and I'd have thought the Leave campaign would at least expect to consider the interests of all its citizens in its 'planning for the post-brexit future - depending on which of the 5/6 plans it finally agrees on"
Me me me me me me me.
Believe it or not, some of us are giving consideration to the interests of the UK, not just personal greed.
If I was acting entirely selfishly, like you, I'd be solid REMAIN - like most people of my class and income.
I do very well from the status quo. I sincerely expect a LEAVE vote to impact my personal wealth - negatively. I reckon the London property market would take a big medium term hit. My flat, my main asset, could decrease in value by a quarter or more.
That's quite serious.
But I have to think beyond my own personal wellbeing. I have to think about the kind of country I will bequeath to my daughter, and her friends. Is the EU heading in a direction that reassures me? No. This may be the only chance, in a generation, for us to escape a dangerously undemocratic quasi-superstate, which seeks to lock us in, forever, even as it tips towards decline, and chaos.
That's what gives me pause. But you go ahead and worry about YOU.
You're just a saint and I'm sure his holiness will be reading the tread today and taking note.
I believe his holiness deals very harshly with those who indulge in sarcasm.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
Indeed! Good post and welcome. I said much the same below.
Sean F..I live in Italy and I would vote out..because it is better for the UK..I can move anywhere I choose..Brits have always been residents in Europe..just go and fill in the forms once a year or when you move..simple.The same would also apply in reverse to any UK citizens domiciled in the UK..Twas ever thus.
In the case of Brexit, I'm not expecting forcible transfers of populations between the UK and EU.
Are you telling me that my mother-in-law can stay?
That's a serious issue for me.
If you saw four blokes attacking her in the street, would you help?
They'd need all the help they can get; she's viscous.
"Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen with rights which I expect my government to look after. I came here on the understanding that was the case and I'd have thought the Leave campaign would at least expect to consider the interests of all its citizens in its 'planning for the post-brexit future - depending on which of the 5/6 plans it finally agrees on"
Me me me me me me me.
Believe it or not, some of us are giving consideration to the interests of the UK, not just personal greed.
If I was acting entirely selfishly, like you, I'd be solid REMAIN. Like most people of my class and income. I do very well from the status quo. I sincerely expect a LEAVE vote to impact my personal wealth - negatively. I reckon the London property market would take a big medium term hit. My flat, my main asset, could decrease in value by a quarter or more.
That's quite serious.
But I have to think beyond my own personal wellbeing. I have to think about the kind of country I will bequeath to my daughter, and her friends. Is the EU heading in a direction that reassures me? No. This may be the only chance, in a generation, for us to escape a dangerously undemocratic quasi-superstate, which seeks to lock us in, forever, even as it tips towards decline, and chaos.
That's what gives me pause. But you go ahead and worry about YOU.
I can't see Leave or Remain making any difference to me, economically. So, it's fairly straightforward to consider the national interest.
You expect? And by what knowledge or expertise do you anticipate this. Who is affected if by any chance you are wrong?
1931, the Conservatives win Sheffield Brightside. "And it's been a teeeerrrrrrriibbbbbble night for the Conserva - oh, hang on...."
The Labour choice of candidate in Sheffield will be interesting. Which lesson will they learn from Oldham - that they need a bright young grounded local, or that they'll win easily so they can have a Corbynite?
EDIT: and welcome to Viceroy, who may well wish to quit while he's ahead, having made such a pertinent debut
While I am also a great believer in leaving, Switzerland in 1800 did not have a demos, nor the United States in 1750. A demos can develop over time. Whether it does or doesn't is another matter all together.
That's an good point - it would be interesting to explore the factors which determine whether a demos develops. In the case of the US, perhaps an ideology of freedom?
I'm not completely convinced that the EU isn't developing its own demos, amongst people in the core countries. But not including the UK, that is for sure.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
While I am also a great believer in leaving, Switzerland in 1800 did not have a demos, nor the United States in 1750. A demos can develop over time. Whether it does or doesn't is another matter all together.
That's an good point - it would be interesting to explore the factors which determine whether a demos develops. In the case of the US, perhaps an ideology of freedom?
I'm not completely convinced that the EU isn't developing its own demos, amongst people in the core countries. But not including the UK, that is for sure.
A powerful common external enemy can create a Demos.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
"Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen with rights which I expect my government to look after. I came here on the understanding that was the case and I'd have thought the Leave campaign would at least expect to consider the interests of all its citizens in its 'planning for the post-brexit future - depending on which of the 5/6 plans it finally agrees on"
Me me me me me me me.
Believe it or not, some of us are giving consideration to the interests of the UK, not just personal greed.
If I was acting entirely selfishly, like you, I'd be solid REMAIN. Like most people of my class and income. I do very well from the status quo. I sincerely expect a LEAVE vote to impact my personal wealth - negatively. I reckon the London property market would take a big medium term hit. My flat, my main asset, could decrease in value by a quarter or more.
That's quite serious.
But I have to think beyond my own personal wellbeing. I have to think about the kind of country I will bequeath to my daughter, and her friends. Is the EU heading in a direction that reassures me? No. This may be the only chance, in a generation, for us to escape a dangerously undemocratic quasi-superstate, which seeks to lock us in, forever, even as it tips towards decline, and chaos.
That's what gives me pause. But you go ahead and worry about YOU.
I can't see Leave or Remain making any difference to me, economically. So, it's fairly straightforward to consider the national interest.
You expect? And by what knowledge or expertise do you anticipate this. Who is affected if by any chance you are wrong?
And you expect the EU not to gang up on the UK if it is in their future interest to do so? Who is affected if by any chance you are wrong?
One of these two positions has a solid track record.
Boris Johnson holds the key to David Cameron’s hopes of winning the EU referendum, dramatic new research confirmed today.
One in three people say the Mayor of London will be “important” to them when they come to decide whether to vote In or Out, according to a poll by Ipsos MORI.
REMAIN will probably be reassured by that poll, such is their panic now, even though it confirms a significant move to LEAVE.
It is all very reminiscent of indyref.
In the betting markets:
"73% OF bets placed on the referendum during David Cameron's trip to Brussels favour Brexit, according to Ladbrokes.
A run of bets at Ladbrokes, including several four figure wagers has brought the odds of a 'leave' outcome in to 15/8, from 2/1, with a 'remain' result still the favourite at 2/5."
The problems in Calais have everything to do with the EU. The migrants are camped around the tunnel because of Schengen. if Schengen didn't exist they'd be in Greece or Italy, stuck behind much more distant frontiers.
Again, the collpse in your IQ on this subject is quite remarkable.
I of course meant 'nothing to do with the UK's membership of the EU', as I made 100% clear in the preceding sentence.
You would have realised that if you weren't getting all emotional.
But you didn't say that. Your point was clear as mud. So either you have no clue about Schengen, or you have lost the ability to write lucidly on this subject. Either way, I am right. Your IQ drops, very curiously, when it comes to the EU referendum.
But I am breaking my vow by talking to you. I must to work.
I think you need a lie down first, if you can't understand that the sentence "Of course he wasn't trying to kid anyone that the problems in Calais have anything to do with our membership of the EU" refers to our membership of the EU.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
Welcome Viceroy and thank you for a thoughtful post......
...If you have the time, I'd be interested in a younger poster's thoughts on why their peers are rarely voting whilst us oldies are eating all the pies.....at their expense.....
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
A multi-national entity can work well enough, if people focus their loyalty on a dynasty, or a religion, or have a common external enemy.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
Arguably the First World War was caused by the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire rather than vice versa. The A H response to the Sarejevo murder was seen as a way of punishing Slavic nationalism.
There have been very sucessful Federal countries, with the USA, Australia and Canada obvious examples, but even within Europe we have examples in Germany etc.
The problems in Calais have everything to do with the EU. The migrants are camped around the tunnel because of Schengen. if Schengen didn't exist they'd be in Greece or Italy, stuck behind much more distant frontiers.
Again, the collpse in your IQ on this subject is quite remarkable.
I of course meant 'nothing to do with the UK's membership of the EU', as I made 100% clear in the preceding sentence.
You would have realised that if you weren't getting all emotional.
But you didn't say that. Your point was clear as mud. So either you have no clue about Schengen, or you have lost the ability to write lucidly on this subject. Either way, I am right. Your IQ drops, very curiously, when it comes to the EU referendum.
But I am breaking my vow by talking to you. I must to work.
I think you need a lie down first, if you can't understand that the sentence "Of course he wasn't trying to kid anyone that the problems in Calais have anything to do with our membership of the EU" refers to our membership of the EU.
While I am also a great believer in leaving, Switzerland in 1800 did not have a demos, nor the United States in 1750. A demos can develop over time. Whether it does or doesn't is another matter all together.
That's an good point - it would be interesting to explore the factors which determine whether a demos develops. In the case of the US, perhaps an ideology of freedom?
I'm not completely convinced that the EU isn't developing its own demos, amongst people in the core countries. But not including the UK, that is for sure.
I should have thought a common language and values held in common were prerequisites for a demos. That was certainly the case in what is now the USA at its founding and off the top of my head I cannot think of a state that has developed into a democracy without those two factors (granted regional languages may have survived, within a state but only with a common one on top).
If there is a demos building in EU core countries, then maybe I am wrong on the language front, but the shared values point stands, I think. It may explain why the UK can never be part of an integrated EU state, should never, as De Gaulle said, have been allowed to join, and should now stop pretending that it can.
The problems in Calais have everything to do with the EU. The migrants are camped around the tunnel because of Schengen. if Schengen didn't exist they'd be in Greece or Italy, stuck behind much more distant frontiers.
Again, the collpse in your IQ on this subject is quite remarkable.
I of course meant 'nothing to do with the UK's membership of the EU', as I made 100% clear in the preceding sentence.
You would have realised that if you weren't getting all emotional.
But you didn't say that. Your point was clear as mud. So either you have no clue about Schengen, or you have lost the ability to write lucidly on this subject. Either way, I am right. Your IQ drops, very curiously, when it comes to the EU referendum.
But I am breaking my vow by talking to you. I must to work.
I think you need a lie down first, if you can't understand that the sentence "Of course he wasn't trying to kid anyone that the problems in Calais have anything to do with our membership of the EU" refers to our membership of the EU.
Not business interests, for sure. GBP lowers on Brexit in the short-medium term due to uncertainty. As an exporter that's great news.
Hello, I am a long-time younger reader and thought I would post in response to something.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
That's an excellent post, please post more.
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
A multi-national entity can work well enough, if people focus their loyalty on a dynasty, or a religion, or have a common external enemy.
I do not see a common currency leading anywhere but to a confederation of some sort with a central political control. It's a question of how long. Whether this is good bad or indifferent is another discussion and in part would depend on the nature of this confederation or union.
Given IIRC you mainly trade in $, is your position based on your business interests or personal politics?
Brexit would probably benefit me personally, because as you say most of my income over the next five or six years is US $ denominated.
My position is based on what I think is best for the UK, and particularly because the alternatives either look worse (EEA) or are completely undeveloped and don't look practical. I agree with both of the general arguments about EU membership being damaging to our sovereignty and damaging because of the excessive level of EU immigration, but EEA membership looks worse and no other deal which would address both looks attainable.
Comments
https://twitter.com/stvharry/status/699871030572158976
This is a spurious argument Nick. All the more so given that what you are actually suggesting instead is that you don't move and let Tusk, Merkel and Schulz decide where you shop, what you eat and when you are allowed to go to bed (to use your analogy).
I will stick to discussing other subjects with you on future, with enthusiasm, but on this you've just become too boring.
Life's too short. Sorry.
Ten of the 27 EU nations do not figure in our top 50 global trading partners.
Every EU nation, bar Ireland, that does figure in our top 50 global trading partners makes a stonking profit from the arrangement, which suggests that they are the ones who need a plan if things change.
Beyond that, what?
Border controls? Well, the Europeans are reinstating them at the drop of a hat.
As an independent nation we could presumably do the kind of things that Canada, Japan and Australia do by negotiating agreements as we see fit.
Our welfare system? Well, the public have constantly given their signal over reform.
So what was the motivation for Cameron to shoot himself so spectacularly in the foot? Where today the Times has the pathetic headline "Don't push us into Brexit - Cameron pleads with MEPs to save his Europe deal"! It's party politics. He's trying to satisfy a large group within his party, and losing sight of the bigger picture, which is a shame from someone who's been leading the country for 5 years and should have been able to remove his party blinkers by now.
http://eureferendum.com/Flexcit.aspx
There are plenty of plans. I can think of at least 5 others ranging from EFTA + EEA through to a bespoke agreement with the EU.
Thank you - I'm not on here full-time. Unless you speak with some semblance of authority on behalf of a campaign it's all a bit speculative don't you think? My point remains that there is no definitive plan being put to the public by any of the 3/4 leave campaigns. There are lots like myself who need to know the implications - otherwise we opt for the status quo.
Flightpath reply...
All the Outers have different notions of 'out'. Voting Out is just the start of the bickering not least since Leavers would have different notions as well.
However I would have thought Leavers would trend towards the EEA and so given enough outers agreeing with that then really leaving is not much different to staying in and for myself I wonder what the fuss is about. Although if we do join the EEA then all the hard line EU haters would never be satisfied and just carry on ranting away as per usual. In or Out, nothing will change, our relationship with 'europe' will remain a vehicle for all those with chips on their shoulder .
Tighter than a tick in Nevada. Our new @CNN poll this AM shows @HillaryClinton and @BernieSanders deadlocked 48%-47%. We're Vegas bound!
What's really pushed my buttons is that what Cameron brought back was nothing like his Bloomberg speech, was a mere ghost of the 'four key points' and yet he stood there like some fairground huckster trying to tell us it was fantastic and just the thing to sort out our place in Europe for a generation. I can't be alone. I didn't think he'd get much, but I didn't think he'd go all Tony Blair on me.
Fortunately, I take comfort that even if we vote remain, the EU will fuck it up in some way or other. It's a broken system that isn't fit for the 21st century. I give it twenty years tops.
"Are we close to the crucial point in every crisis – sometimes known as the Minsky moment – when overconfidence flips into fear?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/12159982/There-will-be-another-crisis.-Its-just-a-question-of-when.html
Now, I don't know about Ben, but I haven't seen too much overconfidence around. Perhaps he hangs out on a different planet to the rest of us.
I have to be honest and say I'll be voting in the interests of the UK, as I see them, not in the interests of ex-pats in Spain. I think that if you go to live in a foreign country, you take your chances. You're welcome to return if it doesn't work out for you.
Fair enough - but I pay UK taxes and am still a UK citizen with rights which I expect my government to look after. I came here on the understanding that was the case and I'd have thought the Leave campaign would at least expect to consider the interests of all its citizens in its 'planning for the post-brexit future - depending on which of the 5/6 plans it finally agrees on [sic].
That's a serious issue for me.
And how much sugar is there in the entente cordiale ?
Don't you mean as an immigrant living in Spain?
Any name will do - makes no difference to me.
Glad to hear it. It makes a big difference to some.
I genuinely hope someone is listening to you. A poster here that rarely gets the recognition he deserves.
Since no-one, on either side of the Channel, is talking about the mass expulsion of each other's nationals, it's safe to assume it's not going to happen.
And this is a real problem because, however good and rational it may look on paper, if it is imposed on people against their wishes by people who think they know best and who will use whatever means to get what they think the people ought to want, it will not work. Too much of the EU is like this.
The growth in fringe and often unpleasant and extreme parties (of the left and right) should make EU leaders pause. That is a symptom of a dysfunction in the relationship between people and their governments. It is a symptom of something that has gone badly wrong in how the EU is being led and developed.
EU leaders and supporters should (on the whole) stop being so superior and condescending about the US and study a bit more carefully how the Founding Fathers approached the question of turning 13 separate states into one of the oldest and best functioning and enduring and democratic federal structures around. One thing they did was to start with the people and work our from there. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". Too much of the EU is stuff done by "them" to "us" behind our backs, without our consent, for our own good, whether we like it or not, and we're condescended to and lectured and lied to as well.
Larry Siedentop's "Democracy in Europe" is a pretty good start - and a very good read - for anyone interested in the topic. Written at a time when the EU Constitution was being debated but as timely as ever.
Boris Johnson will come off the EU fence on Friday, friends say - and "make everything abundantly clear". Praise the Lord.
I expect our position post Out as economically neutral.
So what? You have to live somewhere. The price drop only makes you poorer if you plan to eat it.
ONS
People working full-time up 387k on the year and people working part-time up 134k on the year https://t.co/3H42aGrQdm
The Sheffield by-election – likely to be like the Oldham West byelection | @lewis_baston https://t.co/pBj2bBSkwJ https://t.co/TuetCjBZ3r
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbac4n8WwAASKH6.jpg:large
Remain 51 (-4)
Leave 36 (nc)
Boris Johnson holds the key to David Cameron’s hopes of winning the EU referendum, dramatic new research confirmed today.
One in three people say the Mayor of London will be “important” to them when they come to decide whether to vote In or Out, according to a poll by Ipsos MORI.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-is-key-to-david-cameron-winning-eu-referendum-poll-reveals-a3182461.html
They work harder than most Brits, take far less for granted, don't expect something for nothing and are generally much more pleasant people in my experience.
The whole benefits thing for EU immigrants is such a side issue compared to us being sucked inexorably into a bureaucratic superstate
Arf!
On Myth 1, I think it's premature to take a definite view. Not only is the deal not (quite) yet finalised, but more importantly we have just had a tsunami of negative media coverage. The polling therefore is rather like that which you get during other media-heavy periods. Quite often you see what looks at the time like a marked shift, but which subsides subsequently.
On Myth 2, Alastair is surely right that to say that the public don't see immigration and the EU as one and the same thing, but that's not the same as saying that they don't see them as closely linked at least in respect of one large component of immigration. For many people who will vote Leave, this will be a key reason, perhaps the dominant reason. For others - represented* here by posters such as Richard Tyndall or Sean Fear, and on the national stage by Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell - immigration is not a key issue in itself; their motivation is more related to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
Numerically, I would expect that concerns over immigration probably motivate more Leavers than any other issue (perhaps second would be a generalised concern over EU regulation). This is the concern of many ordinary people who are not necessarily politically engaged, whereas the more abstract argument over sovereignty is necessarily one for people who take an interest in political and constitutional matters. Obviously I'm simplifying here, but a broad-brush approach is sometimes necessary to understand the political dynamics; it seems to me that the most important group for the two campaigns to concentrate on is ordinary people who will be weighing up (perhaps not very systematically) economic risk versus immigration and regulation.
For this reason, I think immigration will continue to be a dominant theme in the campaigns. The much-derided and misunderstood intervention by Cameron on Calais the other day was an interesting example of that. Of course he wasn't trying to kid anyone that the problems in Calais have anything to do with our membership of the EU. He was trying (and I think succeeded) in doing the exact opposite; cornering the Leave side into indignantly pointing out that the problems in Calais have nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Job done.
There will more more like that, on both sides.
* Apologies if I'm misrepresenting
Take an average of the regular polls about from that time, we can look at the mean movement from those till now. Then remap to the BES baseline.
I see some users are discussing the democracy problem in the European Union and a lot of talk about creating a European demos similar to how the United States was formed with the election of the Commission President. I feel this is misguided. I am a strong and long-time advocate of leaving, and rightly criticise the EU for a lack of democracy, but this is a problem that cannot be solved by simply electing posts in EU institutions.
Europe can never have democracy because it does not have a people, a demos. Introducing elections for EU posts does not create a demos, rather you need a demos to begin with in order to have a democracy. As we've seen in countless examples, but most recently Iraq and the former British and French Middle Eastern mandates, efforts to create an "Iraqi" or "Syrian" people have failed. There's no such thing. Hence why dictators have arisen to keep those states from disintegrating.
From the former Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - even modern Spain, Italy and Britain but to a lesser extent - politicians have attempted to create these states without first having a people. And it has failed.
England and Scotland share the same language, have shared monarchs and history for over 1,000 years and have been in a Union together for over 300 years yet that still didn't stop 45% of Scottish Britons voting for independence. If anybody seriously believes that electing either Martin Schultz or Jean-Claude Junker as President of the Commission will create a nation between different religions, different political views (conservativism in France is not the same as Britain for example) and different languages then can I have some of what you are having?
Good post.
I agree with your post. People must be willing to be part of something for it to become their identity.
You would have realised that if you weren't getting all emotional.
EDIT: and welcome to Viceroy, who may well wish to quit while he's ahead, having made such a pertinent debut
I'm not completely convinced that the EU isn't developing its own demos, amongst people in the core countries. But not including the UK, that is for sure.
Looking forward to more from you. May I ask your constituency and general GE vote preference?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35593224
Sources expect No 10 to start sharing details of Supreme Court sovereignty plan today
However, to play devil's advocate, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a good innings and was flattened only by the First World War. It's probably a good example of how a multinational entity can be made to work rather than an example of their inevitable failure.
One of these two positions has a solid track record.
A total flake. I'd never vote for him as Tory leader.
...If you have the time, I'd be interested in a younger poster's thoughts on why their peers are rarely voting whilst us oldies are eating all the pies.....at their expense.....
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-to-speak-at-cnd-rally-opposing-trident-replacement-a3182526.html
There have been very sucessful Federal countries, with the USA, Australia and Canada obvious examples, but even within Europe we have examples in Germany etc.
I don't agree with you here on Remain, obviously.
Odious tweet of the day by
"Editor-in-chief" of "Breitbart London" (whatever that is)
#ReasonsToLeaveTwitter https://t.co/lQem3S1l2j
If there is a demos building in EU core countries, then maybe I am wrong on the language front, but the shared values point stands, I think. It may explain why the UK can never be part of an integrated EU state, should never, as De Gaulle said, have been allowed to join, and should now stop pretending that it can.
What's the RT demographic for Russians?
My position is based on what I think is best for the UK, and particularly because the alternatives either look worse (EEA) or are completely undeveloped and don't look practical. I agree with both of the general arguments about EU membership being damaging to our sovereignty and damaging because of the excessive level of EU immigration, but EEA membership looks worse and no other deal which would address both looks attainable.
Should we stay or should we go? The @ft #Brexit poll-tracker is up & running, built by @tomp https://t.co/P3JjesSx6t https://t.co/ZVyCeLOeQC
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-pledges-to-publish-tax-return-after-nondom-status-row-a3182521.html