BREXIT – Merged Thread.

Well the French, Dutch and Irish rejected the European Constitution so the oligarchs did a bit of tinkering and brought it back as the Lisbon Treaty, which the Irish approved and the French and Dutch didn’t get a second vote, did they? The oligarchs will always win because they make up all the rules to suit purpose.

But that question will never need to be asked. Bit by bit the process moves the juggernaut forward and it will only be stopped by a fundemental breakdown of EU institutions, like the Euro. If we do vote to leave I have a feeling that the EU tanker might be holed below the water line and although initial attempts to plug the hole might succeed bit by bit it will get larger until the tanker eventually sinks, or mixing metaphors, the edifice crumbles.

Impressive mixing of the metaphors there in fact charlie :). There are two opposing views on the EU trajectory post UK departure…largely depending on how successful UK is post divorce. If we, as the Leave team believe, become the object of American, Chinese, Indian, Brazillian etc affection and are courted, feted and showered with many gifts then the danger will be that exit becomes an attractive option and the lashings holding the EU raft together will become very strained (see I can do metaphors too!).

On the other hand if, by leaving the larger entity, we see former EU partners actually become competitors and the national-level trade deals so much touted by Leave dont actually materialise or, more likely, dont materialise in a manner as favourable to the UK as hoped for. Then us kicking our heels wondering what went wrong as we sit lonely and unheralded off the coast of Europe will be a great benefit to the EU as an example of the dangers of pseudo-isolationism and the need for more, and quicker, integration not less.

I have actually been enjoying the Leave campaign so far as its appeal to certain elements I expected to have a galvanising effect on Europe ‘just in case’. I was hoping to see more concessions being offered to undermine Leave. It doesnt look to be happening though. So either the oligarchs dont actually believe we will leave (as I dont tbh) or they are quite happy with the gamble, believe they’re holding the high cards and they are waiting to see if we blink.

Rii,

in Libya, indeed, the UK and France LED the charge to create today’s failed state/ISIS breeding ground/international terrorist arms bazaar/mass immigration transit hub

Wasnt that the popular uprising against Gadaffi that led to the failed state Rii I recall us being late to the party and not stepping in til things really got nasty?. Unless you see the sinister hand of the DGSE and James Bond behind the scenes from the outset?. Aren’t you meant to be all for revolution…power to the people…..throw off your shackles and all that anyway?. Or is it just the west you dont like and shackles are fine as long as they arent American?.

The point is that the problems do not lie in Washington, but in London, and indeed the point holds more broadly: the real problems facing the UK, and which are animating anti-EU sentiment, do not lie in Brussels at all, but in London, with domestic configurations of political power and the interests thereby represented.

No Rii we had immigration issues well before the EU had a hand in things. The issues arent even really in Whitehall though I do understand your desire to make that the reality. The problem is detailed on this thread quite clearly…if it wasnt the half-witted diatribe against the US its the utter conviction, amongst even the articulate and pleasant, that the EU is johnny foreigner trying to stamp his jackboot on our green and pleasant land. Its very elementary xenophobia.

as such, the convenient punching bag that is the EU will probably have to go before the British (English) people are willing to seriously question their masters at home.

Interestingly I think you are close to the mark here, but, you’ve let your agenda dictate your conclusion. When the problem is xenophobia its very easy to make an external group the root cause of the problem. In this case its the EU…not even necessarily the people in other countries….rather its the perceived Rolex-wearing expense-accounted illuminati who sit around dark recesses in Brussels and plot ways to enslave the honest hard working people of Albion. They are the punch bag you note. If they were dispensed with those illuminati, the ‘real’ power behind the govt (nudge, nudge), would pop up in London and things would be all their fault instead. There’s always illuminati when you need to find a scapegoat.

“Barack Obama today declared the European Union is one of the ‘greatest achievements of modern times’ as he continued his blitz against Brexit.
Speaking in Germany on the latest leg of his farewell tour, the US President praised the EU for ending centuries of war in Europe.”

Well he has at least confirmed his status, in foreign policy, as one of the USA’s most illiterate Presidents.

Rii,
Well done on taking advantage of a serious debate to get in one more weighted blow for your anti-western agenda. Not a cheap and opportunistic move at all.

I was responding to a laughable screed that, amongst other things, attempted to absolve Britain of responsibility for its more recent foreign policy misadventures by pointing to the “special relationship” with the United States. The simple truth, however, is that Britain entered those conflicts of its own accord and for its own reasons, and that no particular arm-twisting from Washington was required (in Libya, indeed, the UK and France LED the charge to create today’s failed state/ISIS breeding ground/international terrorist arms bazaar/mass immigration transit hub). The point is that the problems do not lie in Washington, but in London, and indeed the point holds more broadly: the real problems facing the UK, and which are animating anti-EU sentiment, do not lie in Brussels at all, but in London, with domestic configurations of political power and the interests thereby represented. Of course, I am far too much a materialist to have much faith in the ability of reason and dialogue to persuade and to effect change; as such, the convenient punching bag that is the EU will probably have to go before the British (English) people are willing to seriously question their masters at home.

Well the French, Dutch and Irish rejected the European Constitution so the oligarchs did a bit of tinkering and brought it back as the Lisbon Treaty, which the Irish approved and the French and Dutch didn’t get a second vote, did they? The oligarchs will always win because they make up all the rules to suit purpose.

But that question will never need to be asked. Bit by bit the process moves the juggernaut forward and it will only be stopped by a fundemental breakdown of EU institutions, like the Euro. If we do vote to leave I have a feeling that the EU tanker might be holed below the water line and although initial attempts to plug the hole might succeed bit by bit it will get larger until the tanker eventually sinks, or mixing metaphors, the edifice crumbles.

Correct me if I am wrong but in the past decade the Irish, Danes and French were obliged to turn out for a re-match….

Taking the Irish example….is it a re-match Charlie?. The proposal was changed to make it more palatable to the Irish. Is that the EU overlords winning the vote or the Irish winning because their resolve forced the EU jackboots to change their proposal. Certainly the same question asked over again would have been defeated over again….which was the point.

I’m trying to contrive a slippery way in which the EU brass could make the question ‘do you want a federalised europe’ into something that a majority would agree to and I’m not getting there to be honest!.

[QUOTE=Jonesy;2308445 If the population is generally not supportive why would a second ballot return a different result than the first…..

.[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I am wrong but in the past decade the Irish, Danes and French were obliged to turn out for a re-match….

So there is a general acceptance that the groundswell of public opinion across Europe is anti Federalism…thats a good thing and it does trot with my personal observations. I’m not sure I understand the idea that if the populations of member states vote down further integration then the EU lords and masters will keep having votes. A recent observation is that organisations dont have votes until they are pretty sure they know the outcome will be in their favour. If the population is generally not supportive why would a second ballot return a different result than the first……theres no sign of a second vote in Scotland is there?. Same reason!.

If theres no support and nothing, like the example of the Euro itself, that is going to galvanise new support on the horizon I have to ask the question again. What is there to federalisation that makes it any more than Brussels fantasy football?. If it is fantasy nonsense then why does it command the attention it seems to?.

John,

As the saying goes ‘its all about the money’. Successful people tend to be quite bright….idealism, much as I love your romantic view of it, is always tempered by the need to feed the kids, replace the BMW and make sure that the Christmas bonuses get paid. Thats being flippant of course, but, the theory holds. People in general arent stupid and wont vote for something that threatens their lifestyle unless there is no other option. Witness the baseless ‘fears’ of the independence decision that tempered down to sensibility in the end and the last general election result that demonstrated the understanding that the finances have to be brought back into line before we can afford the luxury of another bout of Labour spending excess!.

Jonsey

You’re looking at Scottish independence as tho’ it is only a balance sheet that matters; that the Scots are concerned with how much is in the kitty before they decide to go their own way. Not so. Nations that pursue the goal of independence do so in thrall to an ideal – commonsense doesn’t come into it. History is stuffed full of such examples.

Independence is connected first to the heart, not to the wallet. It is a matter of the deepest emotion. Men have given life and treasure in pursuit and I admire that. Personally, I prefer the Scots to remain in the Union but, if a majority want it another way then I would support that. The reality of separation underlined by the contribution from the ‘bean counters’ and accountants comes later but, is still just a supporting feature to the main item.

Jonesy – I am in partial agreement. There is little enthusiasm across the EU but of course the other nations rarely get a chance to express their opinion at the ballot box and when they do and Brussels doesn’t like it the rules are tempered accordingly and a second vote takes place. So the enthusiasm is, as it ever has been, at political elite level where there is as much enthusiasm in most countries as in France. It is far from a Gaullist exclusivity.

John – no, true – which is to my mind their mistake. Your last sentence echoes my earlier comment. It will all end in tears for the remaining members, that’s for sure!!

The drive towards EU federalism might not loom large in the minds of the people as Jonesy comments but, when did that ever matter ?

If the French or the Germans have decided that federalism is the ultimate, worthwhile and achievable goal then that will be pursued irrespective and in complete defiance of the wishes of the people. They will simply be ignored and told to vote again.

See Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Italy. We have seen that nothing will be allowed to get in the way of the EU juggernaut rolling towards complete political union. Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann were clever but, not clever enough. They either did not understand or, did not want to understand or, knew but ignored the huge differences between the indolent, pastoral nature of the Southern EU countries and the more dynamic and energetic nature of the Northern ones.

Altho’ on the face of it, exactly similar in value there is a huge difference between the value of a German Euro and a Greek Euro. Question is: How do you bridge that difference ? Answer: You don’t because you can’t. So, primarily Germany and to a lesser extent France, and to an even lesser extent Britain, will continue to subsidise their less well off Southern neighbours.

At some time in the not-too-distant future, Germany will get fed up – despite the idiot in charge always trying to rally the troops – and decide to walk away. Or, the Euro disparity will become accepted in the interest of unity and the rich will always be called to support the poor. Then watch the party begin !

Those of us voting to leave the EU will be doing so for many and varied reasons. For me the key reason which is rarely given a mention here is that of the EU’s declared policy driving towards a federal superstate. This was not what we voted for in 1975 nor did we empower our governments to sign treaties strengthening the EU structures in pursuit of that ideal. I believe that such an ideal is a pipe dream and first the Euro and then the EU itself will collapse. But the damage done to its members en route will in some cases be irrepairable. I do not want to be a part of it.

Its an interesting point of view. The one question I’d ask though is, if you are predicating your entire view of this debate on the superstate question, have you looked at the apetite across Europe for a superstate or have you just assumed that all the other member states are champing at the bit to throw away their national governments and bend a knee toward Brussels?.

I can tell you with absolute conviction that there is no interest in a federal Europe in the Netherlands…having had that conversation with a hall full of Netherlanders…its not on the cards for any reason whatsoever…game over…the end. They dont want it. I’ve encountered that opinion with some frequency in (surprisingly) Belgium, Portugal and Germany as well. The French seem to be the only ones with a strong interest in political union and that seems to be from a belief it would leave them in the driving seat of the whole continent. A view not missed by the rest of the continent!.

There is an appreciation that the point of the Euro was an attempt to set Europe firmly on the path to political union. After all a joint currency without a single, unified, monetary policy would be conceivably a mess and, without union, a single policy would be a massively difficult vehicle to drive. We’ve now seen that a single currency without a single monetary policy IS in fact a mess and for the predicted reason. We stayed out as we knew that union wouldnt happen and the currency was never going to avoid the choppy waters its been in so long. Point is, if the Euro has failed to railroad member states into political union, what is there on the horizon that actually would be able to make it happen?. Especially in the face of so little interest. By extension….if political union is little more than a Gaullist fantasy is there any real reason to let it sway opinion that much?.

Rii,

Well done on taking advantage of a serious debate to get in one more weighted blow for your anti-western agenda. Not a cheap and opportunistic move at all.

Well put Charlie !

Those of us voting to leave the EU will be doing so for many and varied reasons. For me the key reason which is rarely given a mention here is that of the EU’s declared policy driving towards a federal superstate.

This was not what we voted for in 1975 nor did we empower our governments to sign treaties strengthening the EU structures in pursuit of that ideal. I believe that such an ideal is a pipe dream and first the Euro and then the EU itself will collapse. But the damage done to its members en route will in some cases be irrepairable. I do not want to be a part of it.

Most of the arguments being thrown around are a sideshow. All the puff about trade deals and queues just political sparring. The world has been trading for decades without trade deals and will continue to do so. And no one knows the detail of what life would be like after we left. And it will take years not months to negotiate our new relationships. Government predictions of how much worse off we might be are utterly meaningless, particularly given the Treasury’s singular inability to predict accurately a year ahead let alone a decade or two!!

I did read this online which seemed apt (I’ve cleaned parts up up for here) –
[I]Dear Mr Obama, shove your trade up where the sun doesn’t shine! We weren’t at the back of the queue when you needed us on operations, twice in Iraq, and then again in Afghanistan. I guess it’s only a ” special relationship ” when it suits America. If you need help in future, you can always call on Germany, winners of so many wars, or Italy, but only if you’re already winning before you invite them, and of course, the mighty French, but give them some notice, so they can get their military production running at full strength, by putting their white flag factories onto three shifts. Good luck with that.
Signed
BRITAIN

Oh, and just as a little P.S.
The last time you went to war without us, the Viet Cong handed you your butt on a plate

You have to laugh at sentiments like this, as if the UK was dragged into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya against its will and better judgment as a consequence of the ‘special relationship’, rather than having been an eager participant of its own accord in order to serve venal domestic political interests and to pretend to itself and others that the UK is still relevant in global affairs.

I think James Meek captured it best:

What began at some point in the 20th century as an unsavoury means to an end – trying to use American military might to leverage the waning British military, with the end of maximising British influence – floated loose of its original aim. Preserving the means became an end in itself. The goal of the British military establishment became to ingratiate itself with its US counterpart not for the sake of British interests but for the sake of British military prestige.

I’m always reminded of that line from Alan West about the QE carriers: “the Americans are very keen for us to have them.”

For me personally, as the vast majority of my chances of work in the UK are to do with my abilities and skills in speaking 7 languages, then I personally don’t want to leave the EU because I could then put my abilities to use and they could, in effect, be useful for things such as meetings, trade, organising events etc with other European countries that are part of the EU.

I also see the beneficial things that would, in the long run, be helpful to the UK… but I think in general thing whole referendum is more of a “oh now we can finally sweep out the foreigners and close our borders and they can never come back here to work or live” mindset – which really infuriates me.

Its almost as if people want us to have the same political setting as North Korea – you have a Government that rules you and have closed borders to the world that no one can enter without permission but you can’t leave without permission.

John,

It was, I believe, reported a few days ago that UK tax take from North Sea oil had dropped from £2bn last year to somewhere around £35mn this….owing to the precipitous decline in the price of a barrel and, again if memory serves, a helpful approach to the oil companies R&D taken by the powers that be. Suffice it to say that it takes no extra-sensory perception to see what that kind of decline, to a Scottish economy that would have been dependent….near future at least….on oil-revenue, would have been. It works like this basically John…£2bn down the tube is bad!. Sorry that is a bit patronising but it is a glaringly bloody obvious point!.

How is it intolerent to tell an idiot that he’s an idiot….notably if you have a great example of him acting like an idiot?!. Naturally common courtesy applies and some level of diplomacy is generally warranted but, in the specific case of a good friend who wont entertain a vehicle without a BMW badge, he’s a pillock and is often told such. I see no sane reason why wishing to open your eyes, open your mind and be prepared to learn from new experiences could be considered a ‘bad thing’. Most especially when the opposing response is the cro-magnon grunt ‘dont want to’. Education is a wonderful thing John people really do need to be told not to be afraid of it. See xenophobia I guess….theres that consistency of yours again.:applause:

Fun though this has been I think its gone a long way to prove my point. Certainly I’m happy I’ve no further points to make here, so, I guess we leave it with the clear appreciation that come polling day we will not be ticking the same box!. Cheers John.

Jonesy,

You take too much upon yourself. Making wild forecasts is a dubious business. Scotland, outside the Union may well prosper just like Britain outside the EU. They might not but, at least they will be in full charge of their national future; for better or worse. Who says that a Scottish withdrawal would be a reckless act ? Do you have access to some privileged information denied to the rest us ?

Your strictures about the type of person who would restrict themselves to certain well known brands displays an intolerance that is frankly, chilling.

All human vices taken to an extreme become intolerable. Human vices such as greed, envy, pride, intolerance, xenophobia etc, in normal doses are a part of human nature and likely to be around for a long time. When people that you associate with get to know your rather unforgiving moral boundaries, they will be less than honest in their dealings with you for fear of some spoken or unspoken condemnation.

Unbridled greed can be a force for good in that it acts as an encouragement to create wealth. Similarly pride can engender a concern for one’s environment, for one’s appearance, and a concern for items and artefacts of outstanding beauty, age and status.

Relax a little and try to be more tolerant. That is not intended to be patronising but a comment that interprets your attitudes as being excessively harsh.

John,

I sidestepped nothing…I’m just not giving you, I suspect, one more opportunity to list a litany of faults which, like the fees argument, is largely spurious. My point here, as witnessed by the earlier wonderfully evocative piece that only seems to have missed out the gleeful old ‘cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys’ line for Dads Army stereotypes, is that the ills of the EU, many though they are, are not the issue they are the excuse.

The response would be the same, from the same people, if the EU was run like the Japanese rail system. The issue is simple xenophobia and, no, I dont mean the darker extreme of that. There is an old joke that says “I’m not racist…I hate everyone equally’ to some that is not sad humour its genuine aspiration. Should those people be pilloried?. Personally I’d say yes they should. Much the same as I pillory those I know who will only buy and drive BMW’s….much the same as I laugh at those who only drink Starbucks…anyone who deliberately limits their own frame of reference through stubborn ignorance deserves little else. At very least they make their own opinions valueless and dismissable.

Making observations on sidestepping though it is noteworthy you didnt touch the point about Scotland being safer, and with greater opportunity to prosper, in the wider union. It is illustrative that you would be supportive of a reckless act that would jeopardise that smaller states future. You are consistent if nothing else John I’ll give you that!.

Jonesy

We can argue ’til the cows arrive about the origins of the English particularly. English is an ethnicity – British is a nationality and never the twain shall meet. If you’re happy with your melting pot argument, that is ok with me. It isn’t my prime concern. I am English and I know the story of my ancestors arrival in these islands just as I know the back of my hand, I imbibed the story at my primary school where it was taught as a vital part of our early education.

I note that you sidestepped my question to you about the alleged benefits attached to EU membership and if it is all so wonderful, why, after forty or so years we’re still complaining and, according to another contributor, not just the British.

As for your comments about the Scots; if a majority want independence, I hope they get it. Self determination is a cardinal principle of the United Nations but for some it appears to be rather conditional.

Because someone prefers the company and society of their fellow countrymen to perhaps the exclusion of other people from other countries are they to be pilloried ? Excoriated ? Condemned? Ostracized ? No, of course not. But, you and I both know that you, when you refer to xenophobia, you are referring to something darker and more sinister. But then, I think that you would make that connection because of the nature of your political beliefs.

Jonesy,

We’ve had over 40 years of EU propaganda and still there is vast unease at our continuing membership; that is why we’re holding a referendum. Tell me what is good about membership and why we should be gratefully accepting. Don’t talk to me about xenophobia, especially not in a scornful fashion. Xenophobia is a natural condition and should not automatically be linked with ignorance.

You might not like to accept it; you might choose not to believe it but, we the British are vastly different to Continental Europe. Our outlook is outward and international. After four centuries of world pre-eminence we are constitutionally incapable of being what amounts to a client state of the EU or anyone else. We are made to ‘paddle our own canoe’ forming partnerships and alliances around the world and not subject to the control of an undemocratic, un-elected, corrupt European elite who believe that we owe them a favour rather than the other way around.

I think that I understand your politics – each to his own. We as a nation thrived before the EU; we will thrive after. Mr Carney and Mr. Hawking are probably worthy people but, they are not necessarily correct in their political views anymore than I am about mine. I well remember the furore about membership of the Euro. All kinds of hell and damnation would attend upon the British people if we refused to join. The fuss went on for months. What eventually happened ? The results is in front of you. We prospered outside and the rest of the EU bar Germany are now in dire straits.

John,

Xenophobia is to be scorned by definition….it is an ignorant condition. We the British are the end product of a couple of thousand years of invasions in and out….our DNA, apart from the minority of purebred Celt, is a blend of Germanic, Norman, Roman and several flavours of Scandinavian and thats just those of us who favour the paler shades!. We are absolutely NO different from those people we share a direct DNA heritage with. I’m not sure how its possible in this day and age for that not to be glaringly obvious!.

Myself?. I’m from Liverpool by birth so, perhaps, I’m just more used to the melting pot concept than others, but, half of my team are based in Germany and I have, alongside the locals, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, Germans, Belgians and a few others knocking around between UK and Germany. Thats as well as a few lads from the ‘anglosphere’ Kiwi’s, Aussies etc.

Now weve covered the genetic issue, so, if ‘British’ is a condition that defines us then it is in our values…..tolerance, fairness, application, resolve, decency. That being the case I can take you to estates back up on Merseyside where the sole ambition of the young is to inherit their parents council house!. Those values….nowhere to be seen….I see more ‘Britishness’, as I recognise the meaning of the term, in my lads every day….whether they were born in Brussels, Melbourne, Manchester or Stuttgart. We go out socially…we all drink heavily and eat heartily….and like it….we all laugh at pretty much the same things….or each other when there is a cultural difference….and we are stronger for it. That scales up. We dont need to be politically integrated….we dont need to be closer than we are to Europe….but we do need to be in there and with a full voice.

Its amusing really that a short while back we were all sneering at the Scots for their perceived pride and wilful ignorance in wishing to go it alone with independence. So many could see what the objective reality was. Given the fall off of oil prices god alone knows where the jocks would be now if they had split off. Now we have people who panned the Scots back then who’re clamouring to try and make exactly the same mistake the Scots swerved!. You couldnt write it with a straight face!.