UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Will wrote: " I would agree that the Remain lobby ran a pretty weak campaign for what should have been a pretty straight-forward decision."I think that a further complication is that a number of the EU's "visions" would have been toxic to the Remain campaign. For example, further federalisation and a two-tier Europe based around the Euro.
David wrote: "Similarly, I - like many others, I suspect - voted leave in spite of the leave campaign, not because of it.In fact, I decided several decades ago that if I ever got the chance, I would vote leave, and nothing in the intervening years ever gave me cause to change my mind. .."
That was one of the remain campaign's biggest disadvantages, so many of us had lived in the EU for so long and had been sickened by it
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "I think that a further complication is that a number of the EU's "visions" would have been toxic to the Remain campaign. For example, further federalisation and a two-tier Europe based around the Euro. ..."Yes, and the euro issue caused the remain campaign other problems in that many of their 'experts' had also recommended we joined the euro and threatened dire consequences if we didn't
Jim wrote: "David wrote: "Similarly, I - like many others, I suspect - voted leave in spite of the leave campaign, not because of it.In fact, I decided several decades ago that if I ever got the chance, I wo...
That was one of the remain campaign's biggest disadvantages, so many of us had lived in the EU for so long and had been sickened by it "
that's fair enough Jim, but in 30 years time if any of us are still here to experience it, I'm reasonably sure the generations that succeed us will have been sickened by the UK going it alone and only sinking. The sovereignty we have supposedly just delivered will not empower us as individuals in any meaningful way. We may well have sunk just the same if we remained in the EU, but we have severe problems and I don't think we are equipped as a nation to deal with them.
No European military for, the Remainers told us.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europ...
Yeah, right.
it won't happen Geoff. The EU showed how unable it is to reach accord on strategic matters with Ukraine
Marc wrote: "it won't happen Geoff. The EU showed how unable it is to reach accord on strategic matters with Ukraine"the danger is that it manages to screw NATO whilst providing no viable alternative
Jim wrote: "That was one of the remain campaign's biggest disadvantages, so many of us had lived in the EU for so long and had been sickened by it."That's true. So much so, that often it seemed the Remain view presented staying in as the least worse of the options, rather than as a good thing in and of itself.
Marc wrote: "that's fair enough Jim, but in 30 years time if any of us are still here to experience it, I'm reasonably sure the generations that succeed us will have been sickened by the UK going it alone and only sinking. ..."In thirty years time I very much doubt whether the EU is here to be honest. It would mean the institution was nearly 90 years old. Pan-national governmental institutions rarely last that long unless they're subservient to the Nation State
Marc wrote: "it won't happen Geoff. The EU showed how unable it is to reach accord on strategic matters with Ukraine"Since when has failure prevented the EU from proceeding with one of its pet projects?
maybe but this one just wont come about
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "No European military for, the Remainers told us.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europ...
Yeah, right."
Don't worry. The UK will use its member state veto to stop any proposal for an EU army.
Oh, wait ... we can't have a veto if we're not a member state any more.
Worry.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "For example, further federalisation and a two-tier Europe based around the Euro."Don't worry. The UK will use its member state veto to stop any proposals for further federalisation ...
Oh wait ... we can't have a veto if we're not a member state any more.
I know Paddy Power are offering odds on the next presenters of Bake Off with the Chuckle Brothers at 500-1, but I doubt they'll offer on the likelihood of a EU army. But if they did, I'd be betting against
Will wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "No European military for, the Remainers told us.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europ...
Yeah, right."
Don't worry. The UK wil..."
But Will, you can't have it both ways. Many people voted Leave precisely because the EU propose things like a European army. If they didn't do those sorts of things, maybe we would still be in the EU
I would suggest that even if we were in, we would be lose due to qualified majority voting.
We need to get the facts straight. The EU is not proposing an EU army. Jean-Claude Juncker is saying that, in his view, the EU should work towards a common military force. Jean-Claude Juncker is not the EU. A common military force is no necessarily an army.In a democracy, anyone can say anything. And equally others can disagree with them. This is Juncker's point of view. It is not shared by all member states and there is no guarantee that it will happen.
While the UK was part of the EU, we had a strong say in EU policy, including a veto on some decisions. Defence policy is one of those areas where we have a veto. All member states have to agree (with some small exceptions).
We would lose that if we leave.
Back in 1998, then British PM Tony Blair and French president Jacques Chirac bilaterally endorsed the Petersberg tasks – a measure which broadened the circumstances in which the political union can take military action.In a joint statement on the matter, EU heads of state said that it was agreed that the EU:
"Must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so."
Source: thejournal.ie
Arguing that NATO was not enough because not all members of the transatlantic defence alliance are in the EU, Juncker said a common EU army would send important signals to the world.
“A joint EU army would show the world that there would never again be a war between EU countries,” Juncker told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper. “Such an army would also help us to form common foreign and security policies and allow Europe to take on responsibility in the world.”
Juncker said a common EU army could serve as a deterrent and would have been useful during the Ukraine crisis.
“With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighbouring state,” he said.
“One wouldn’t have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.”
Source - euractiv.com
Right, so Geoff's agreed that the EU isn't proposing an EU army.
the key word being 'credible'. Ain't gonna happen.Right now mighty Luxembourg are calling for Hungary to be thrown out the EU for its lack of media freedoms and other abuses of rights. Can't see the pair of them agreeing to cough up soldiers for a joint force.
Will wrote: "Don't worry. The UK will use its member state veto to stop any proposals for further federalisation ...Oh wait ... we can't have a veto if we're not a member state any more...."
we didn't have a veto anyway, the eurozone countries were already holding discussions to which we were not party and the EU was moving to inner core and outer periphery
"The EU is not proposing an EU army. Jean-Claude Juncker is saying that, in his view, the EU should work towards a common military force. Jean-Claude Juncker is not the EU. A common military force is no necessarily an army."With all due respect, Will, that's double-speak of the highest order!
And to address an earlier point, the Remain camp's message for the referendum was this: The EU is crap, but change is risky.
They deserved to lose for such a feeble message...
And another rant, Theresa May, by giving the go ahead to this new nuclear plant, has proven she's not up to it. Grammar schools, failure to take obesity seriously, and a craven surrender to EDF and the Chinese shows as always, that money comes before the British public as far as the Tories are concerned. One of these days, I'm going to tour the Home Counties to find out why people persist in voting for this mockery of a Conservative party.
you know the answer to that already. They feared a Labour-SNP 'left-wing' coalition and those who had flirted with UKIP returned to the bosom of the Tory Party. It's you lot they don't like
Marc wrote: "you know the answer to that already. They feared a Labour-SNP 'left-wing' coalition and those who had flirted with UKIP returned to the bosom of the Tory Party. It's you lot they don't like"that probably sums it up, and Corbyn pretty well guarantees that they'll stay solid tory
R.M.F wrote: "And to address an earlier point, the Remain camp's message for the referendum was this: The EU is crap, but change is risky."Well, not really. I don't recall anyone saying that. We get many benefits from the EU, but we have to recognise that it is a trade deal. That means that it won't be tailored exactly to our needs. Like all trade deals it is a negotiation between partners where each state allows the others a bit of give and take. That means that there will always be something about the EU that any one state doesn't entirely like, but we have stayed in it because the overall pluses far outweigh the minuses.
The other feature of a trade deal is that individual partners will sometimes ask the others for something that they want, like some form of military capability. If the other states agree then it happens. If they don't, it doesn't. Some policies, like defence, need unanimity which means that every single state has a veto. One vote against and it doesn't happen.
So one person calling for a military capability does not mean that it is official EU policy or that it is going to happen. If we don't have a veto we can't influence the decision, but all of the other 27 EU states will have to agree it. It's still highly unlikely.
The silly thing is that if we do leave the EU we will need to replace it with other trade deals, either multilaterally or bilaterally. And these trade deals will also have elements that we like and elements that we don't. That is the nature of negotiated trade deals. Everything that people disliked about the EU will come back and worse in the individual trade deals.
We will find it very hard - if not impossible - to come anywhere near the deal we already have with the EU with our negotiated opt-outs and rebate. We're in the EU but not in Schengen or the Euro.
you've entirely failed to mention the fact that because we're not in the euro we don't have any part in the discussions amongst the inner circle who can change things there to suit themselves whether we liked it or not.
The referendum had nothing to do with the Euro.
Marc wrote: "you know the answer to that already. They feared a Labour-SNP 'left-wing' coalition and those who had flirted with UKIP returned to the bosom of the Tory Party. It's you lot they don't like"The irony is that ideologically, with my libertarian leanings and disdain of central government, I'm probably more of a Conservative than most of their natural voters :)
Still, having succeeded in electing two non-Tories as Tory leader (Cameron and May) I suppose they could be forgiven for not knowing what a Conservative is!
Jim wrote: "Marc wrote: "you know the answer to that already. They feared a Labour-SNP 'left-wing' coalition and those who had flirted with UKIP returned to the bosom of the Tory Party. It's you lot they don't..."With Corbyn, boundary changes, the loss of Scotland, and Middle England's inherent suspicion of anything remotely left-wing, I cannot for the life of me see a Labour victory in 2020.
Will wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "And to address an earlier point, the Remain camp's message for the referendum was this: The EU is crap, but change is risky."Well, not really. I don't recall anyone saying that. We ..."
Fair enough, 'crap' was not the exact word that was used, but you get the gist for what I'm saying: there was no great enthusiasm for the EU, even on the remain side, and that lethargy culminated in a wishy washy, feeble campaign.
Remain had every advantage going. That they lost, well...the blame for that is to be found squarely at Remain's door.
R.M.F wrote: "With Corbyn, boundary changes, the loss of Scotland, and Middle England's inherent suspicion of anything remotely left-wing, I cannot for the life of me see a Labour victory in 2020. .."my fear is that we need an opposition party and we haven't got one
Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "With Corbyn, boundary changes, the loss of Scotland, and Middle England's inherent suspicion of anything remotely left-wing, I cannot for the life of me see a Labour victory in 2020. ..."The SNP do their best, but obviously, there is a glass ceiling of how many seats they can win.
They could do a deal with Labour, but in case you don't know, Scottish Labour despise the SNP - there is genuine hatred there.
And of course, they would rather ally with the Tories in Scotland, which they have done before, than strike a deal with the SNP.
Hey, what about a Cumbrian branch of the SNP? :)The north of England would probably get a better deal from Scotland than it would from London.
R.M.F wrote: "Jim wrote: "Marc wrote: "you know the answer to that already. They feared a Labour-SNP 'left-wing' coalition and those who had flirted with UKIP returned to the bosom of the Tory Party. It's you lo...With Corbyn, boundary changes, the loss of Scotland, and Middle England's inherent suspicion of anything remotely left-wing, I cannot for the life of me see a Labour victory in 2020. "
Or ever again
R.M.F wrote: "Hey, what about a Cumbrian branch of the SNP? :)The north of England would probably get a better deal from Scotland than it would from London."
The population is three times the size of the population of Scotland. If Scotland wants to join the North of England and move the capital to York fair enough.
Jim wrote: "my fear is that we need an opposition party and we haven't got one"
The last time we had a Labour Party that was in such disarray we got the Poll Tax.
Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "Hey, what about a Cumbrian branch of the SNP? :)The north of England would probably get a better deal from Scotland than it would from London."
The population is three times the si..."
I was referring to Cumbria and Northumberland, as well you know. :)
Alas, The people's republic of Yorkshire will have to be put on the back burner.
Jean-Claude Juncker, architect of Luxembourg's dodgy tax deals, has ZERO credibility on anything. The UK opposed his appointment, but our diplomatic efforts were unable to rally sufficient support for an alternative.All regulations in the UK are made by UK bureaucrats, even when they are choosing how to implement EU directives.
Leaving the EU will change nothing.
Our relationships with foreign countries will be managed by the diplomats who failed to block Juncker's appointment.
UK regulations will still be made by UK bureaucrats.
The only difference I can envisage is that people like Rupert Murdoch will find it easier to bend the UK government to their will.
R.M.F wrote: "I was referring to Cumbria and Northumberland, as well you know. :). ..."
Remember Northumberland is an integral part of the North east, looking to Newcastle, Durham etc, so really you'd have to take over all 2.6 million people from there.
Same as in Cumbria, the northern half looks east to Newcastle, the southern half to Manchester, Cumbria isn't really an Entity. The southern half looks more to Lancashire or Manchester.
The idea that South Cumbria would want to swap going to Preston, Blackpool or Manchester for major medical treatment for going to Glasgow or Edinburgh isn't even an option
It's probably that the North of England is a coherent an entity as Scotland
Have I mentioned the referendum that's happening here soon?Had a few conversations about global perspective lately.
Isolationism seems to be the knee jerk reaction from many countries.
I'm very disappointed that the uk seems to be withdrawing into not just countries but counties.
I don't think the UK is slipping into isolationism, in fact for some people we're breaking out of some sort of inward looking europe. Certainly most people I know feel stronger ties to places like Australia and Canada than they do to Europe.
Even for young people round here, Europe is just somewhere you go on holiday, because the weathers warm. You don't think of working there because they speak strange languages.
But they still have family in Australia, or they've got hopes of a job in the Gulf where they'll speak English
R.M.F wrote: "Remain had every advantage going. That they lost, well...the blame for that is to be found squarely at Remain's door."Did Remain have every advantage going? I don't think so.
Most of the trashy press came out for Leave.
The Leave argument ran a dishonest campaign, making wild claims that they could not keep.
Arguing for change is usually easier than arguing for the status quo.
Corbyn is a poor communicator.
The main advantage that Remain had was its evidence base, the facts and the support of just about every credible expert, business and nation state. But it most certainly didn't have all the advantages.
remain was in power. It banned the civil servants from doing what they should have done and started working on the future should leave win, it used taxpayers money to put out remain propaganda, it had the support of the majority of MPs and the BBC
ah, but it didn't have Boris Bloody Johnson...
Corbyn isn't a poor communicator, exactly. He's a very effective preacher to the choir, and he can justly claim that 60 percent or so of CURRENT Labour voters voted Remain. His problem, and that of his faction, is that they seem incapable of finding common ground with people who don't agree with them on every point. They respond with accusations of disloyalty, and dark threats of purges. Accusing the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party of being closet Tories ... it's neither true, nor productive.It was Bismarck who suggested that 'Politics is the art of the possible'.
The Corbynistas pursue the politics of the playground.
Jim wrote: "remain was in power. It banned the civil servants from doing what they should have done and started working on the future should leave win, it used taxpayers money to put out remain propaganda, it ..."Oh come on, Jim. The Government could not possibly have instructed civil servants to work on the UK leaving the EU before the vote because the Leave campaign's wild claims were (and are) impossible to implement.
And when the authorities did point out the errors in the Leave campaign (like the £350 million figure) the Leave lobby ignored the facts and carried on being dishonest. The Leave campaign didn't want the civil service to help them because that would have meant telling the truth.
The BBC did not support either side. It very carefully ran neutral articles, including its excellent claim checker. The fact that most of the fact checkers endorsed the Remain point of view was nothing to do with bias and everything to do with the facts. Sometimes honest and truthful reporting has to point out that something is a bad decision.
Remain had the support of most MPs - true. That's why we elect MPs. We ask them to represent us, to gather the facts and make decisions on our behalf. Remain had the support of the leaders of both the Labour and Conservative party. Just about every expert. Just about every other nation state. Just about every UK business.
They weren't ganging up on poor little Leave. They had looked at the facts and reached the only sensible conclusion. There is no logical reason for voting to leave - only emotional reasons. And when we dig into those emotional reasons we find that they are mostly based on hype and scare-mongering.
Will wrote: "Oh come on, Jim. The Government could not possibly have instructed civil servants to work on the UK leaving the EU before the vote because the Leave campaign's wild claims were (and are) impossible to implement. ..."Nonsense
Before every general election, the opposition, no matter how ridiculous, gets to talk with treasury team etc and the ground is prepared
This wasn't a general election. The Leave campaign wasn't the opposition. It wasn't even a political party. Its wild claims weren't a manifesto. The referendum is only advisory.Before the referendum, the Leave campaign were given access to Government statistics in the same way that the opposition would be given to access to the civil service before a general election. They chose to use very little of that statistical information - I think we all know why that was, don't we?
The civil service could not start work on leaving the EU for several key reasons. We didn't know (and still don't know) what kind of Brexit we are going to get. Some of the claims are clearly impossible to implement. How could anyone prepare for that?
And if the civil service had worked on the details of leaving during the referendum they would have concluded that it's a highly damaging thing to do - and the Leave campaign would not have wanted that to have become public.
For example, the civil service's estimate of the cost of leaving the EU was the £4,300 per family figure in the Treasury report. The Treasury report that the Leave campaign tried to bury.
The Leave campaign moaned about the limited civil service support, but they wouldn't have taken it if more had been on offer. When the facts go against you, your only recourse is to argue that "Britain has had enough of experts"
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
Similarly, I - like many others, I suspect - voted leave in spite of the leave campaign, not because of it.
In fact, I decided several decades ago that if I ever got the chance, I would vote leave, and nothing in the intervening years ever gave me cause to change my mind.