I thought when Boris said that the EU only listens when a country says 'no' was a search for a third 'Boris' way, which is why Cameron was so emphatic about this being a one time only vote. I thought Boris' idea was we vote out, he gets the top job, and then says 'we voted no, so those Europeans will now listen to me the new leader, and I will negotiate a third and better way'. I read it all as Boris trying to be equivocal.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
The ECSC may have been eventually absorbed into the EU but it's a completely different entity altogether and not one whose successes the modern day EU can lay any claim to.
If the EU is so great, why do its supporters have to rely on the most desperate straw grasping to justify it? I really wish the EU and its supporters would stop laying claim to being the only thing standing in the way of World War 3. The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round.
Because you say so?
I'd say it depends on whose opinion on the subject you choose to read and believe.
Both sides of the argument have valid points.
Exactly. Fiiish is doing precisely what he accuses Prague of.
And he still hasn't answered my question, so I would put more faith in his opinions if he didn't just swerve the tough ones.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
The ECSC may have been eventually absorbed into the EU but it's a completely different entity altogether and not one whose successes the modern day EU can lay any claim to.
If the EU is so great, why do its supporters have to rely on the most desperate straw grasping to justify it? I really wish the EU and its supporters would stop laying claim to being the only thing standing in the way of World War 3. The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round.
Because you say so?
I'd say it depends on whose opinion on the subject you choose to read and believe.
Both sides of the argument have valid points.
Exactly. Fiiish is doing precisely what he accuses Prague of.
And he still hasn't answered my question, so I would put more faith in his opinions if he didn't just swerve the tough ones.
Still waiting for Braydex's evidence too...
I'll be honest and say that I've read very little in the way of factual evidence as neither side actually know what is going to happen.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
The ECSC may have been eventually absorbed into the EU but it's a completely different entity altogether and not one whose successes the modern day EU can lay any claim to.
If the EU is so great, why do its supporters have to rely on the most desperate straw grasping to justify it? I really wish the EU and its supporters would stop laying claim to being the only thing standing in the way of World War 3. The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round.
Because you say so?
I'd say it depends on whose opinion on the subject you choose to read and believe.
Both sides of the argument have valid points.
Exactly. Fiiish is doing precisely what he accuses Prague of.
And he still hasn't answered my question, so I would put more faith in his opinions if he didn't just swerve the tough ones.
Still waiting for Braydex's evidence too...
Except no one seriously argues that the EU has been the source of peace for 70 years except the EU's propaganda division. Academics, historians and other respected sources do not credit the EU with being the main reason peace in Europe has prevailed and some have even accused the EU as endangering peace, such as the EU's actions regarding Ukraine.
Not sure if it is really fair to accuse me of swerving tough opinions if I either don't see your post or don't reply in a matter of hours.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
The ECSC may have been eventually absorbed into the EU but it's a completely different entity altogether and not one whose successes the modern day EU can lay any claim to.
If the EU is so great, why do its supporters have to rely on the most desperate straw grasping to justify it? I really wish the EU and its supporters would stop laying claim to being the only thing standing in the way of World War 3. The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round.
Because you say so?
I'd say it depends on whose opinion on the subject you choose to read and believe.
Both sides of the argument have valid points.
Exactly. Fiiish is doing precisely what he accuses Prague of.
And he still hasn't answered my question, so I would put more faith in his opinions if he didn't just swerve the tough ones.
Still waiting for Braydex's evidence too...
Except no one seriously argues that the EU has been the source of peace for 70 years except the EU's propaganda division. Academics, historians and other respected sources do not credit the EU with being the main reason peace in Europe has prevailed and some have even accused the EU as endangering peace, such as the EU's actions regarding Ukraine.
Not sure if it is really fair to accuse me of swerving tough opinions if I either don't see your post or don't reply in a matter of hours.
And, in fairness @Fiiish and I are too busy having our EEA debate.
I think that tomorrow we'll be on to the minutiae of derogations....
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
The ECSC may have been eventually absorbed into the EU but it's a completely different entity altogether and not one whose successes the modern day EU can lay any claim to.
If the EU is so great, why do its supporters have to rely on the most desperate straw grasping to justify it? I really wish the EU and its supporters would stop laying claim to being the only thing standing in the way of World War 3. The EU is able to succeed because Europe is peaceful, not the other way round.
Because you say so?
I'd say it depends on whose opinion on the subject you choose to read and believe.
Both sides of the argument have valid points.
Exactly. Fiiish is doing precisely what he accuses Prague of.
And he still hasn't answered my question, so I would put more faith in his opinions if he didn't just swerve the tough ones.
Still waiting for Braydex's evidence too...
Except no one seriously argues that the EU has been the source of peace for 70 years except the EU's propaganda division. Academics, historians and other respected sources do not credit the EU with being the main reason peace in Europe has prevailed and some have even accused the EU as endangering peace, such as the EU's actions regarding Ukraine.
Not sure if it is really fair to accuse me of swerving tough opinions if I either don't see your post or don't reply in a matter of hours.
And, in fairness @Fiiish and I are too busy having our EEA debate.
I think that tomorrow we'll be on to the minutiae of derogations....
I asked about the EEA though...
And there you go again; "No one seriously argues...". I have heard plenty of people proffer that opinion, but because it does no tally with yours, apparently it's not serious? You then go on to use the words "main reason", which would indicate to me that these academics and historians you tell us about do consider it to be "A" reason, even if it is not the main one, in which case surely it does deserve to be taken seriously, as you have already stated that we should listen to these people?
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
From the same speech
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Quite. You don't think Brits have anything in common with Bulgarians, right? I do. That's where we differ I suppose. But then I played a small role in bringing a Bulgarian player to Charlton who became a legend. Did you know that 18,000 Brits now call Bulgaria home? There are 65k Bulgarians in the UK. It means that relatively Brits form a much bigger % of the population in Bulgaria than vice-versa. So it ain't just me.
File under #justsayin
Are you making those assumptions that you accuse everyone else of making and basing their opinion on, before rubbishing them with your own assumptions?
Never mentioned Bulgarians, but you knew that and completely disregarded it to suit your argument/assumptions
Did you know that birds need gravity to swallow? No? That's where we possibly differ.
File it under #whocares
I just wanted to use the 18k Brits settled in Bulgaria ( which staggered me when I found out earlier this week) as an example of what Churchill aspired to on our behalf.
I thought when Boris said that the EU only listens when a country says 'no' was a search for a third 'Boris' way, which is why Cameron was so emphatic about this being a one time only vote. I thought Boris' idea was we vote out, he gets the top job, and then says 'we voted no, so those Europeans will now listen to me the new leader, and I will negotiate a third and better way'. I read it all as Boris trying to be equivocal.
Not sure that would fly. The question on the ballot paper is black and white, in or out. Whatever Boris imagines in his head is quite a different thing.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
From the same speech
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Quite. You don't think Brits have anything in common with Bulgarians, right? I do. That's where we differ I suppose. But then I played a small role in bringing a Bulgarian player to Charlton who became a legend. Did you know that 18,000 Brits now call Bulgaria home? There are 65k Bulgarians in the UK. It means that relatively Brits form a much bigger % of the population in Bulgaria than vice-versa. So it ain't just me.
File under #justsayin
Are you making those assumptions that you accuse everyone else of making and basing their opinion on, before rubbishing them with your own assumptions?
Never mentioned Bulgarians, but you knew that and completely disregarded it to suit your argument/assumptions
Did you know that birds need gravity to swallow? No? That's where we possibly differ.
File it under #whocares
I just wanted to use the 18k Brits settled in Bulgaria ( which staggered me when I found out earlier this week) as an example of what Churchill aspired to on our behalf.
Fair enough.
One thing, though, Churchill may have aspired to it on behalf of the population at the time but not for today's population and certainly not when taking in to account how the EU has changed.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
From the same speech
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Quite. You don't think Brits have anything in common with Bulgarians, right? I do. That's where we differ I suppose. But then I played a small role in bringing a Bulgarian player to Charlton who became a legend. Did you know that 18,000 Brits now call Bulgaria home? There are 65k Bulgarians in the UK. It means that relatively Brits form a much bigger % of the population in Bulgaria than vice-versa. So it ain't just me.
File under #justsayin
Are you making those assumptions that you accuse everyone else of making and basing their opinion on, before rubbishing them with your own assumptions?
Never mentioned Bulgarians, but you knew that and completely disregarded it to suit your argument/assumptions
Did you know that birds need gravity to swallow? No? That's where we possibly differ.
File it under #whocares
I just wanted to use the 18k Brits settled in Bulgaria ( which staggered me when I found out earlier this week) as an example of what Churchill aspired to on our behalf.
Fair enough.
One thing, though, Churchill may have aspired to it on behalf of the population at the time but not for today's population and certainly not when taking in to account how the EU has changed.
You missed out "one of the following" there BBW...
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
From the same speech
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Quite. You don't think Brits have anything in common with Bulgarians, right? I do. That's where we differ I suppose. But then I played a small role in bringing a Bulgarian player to Charlton who became a legend. Did you know that 18,000 Brits now call Bulgaria home? There are 65k Bulgarians in the UK. It means that relatively Brits form a much bigger % of the population in Bulgaria than vice-versa. So it ain't just me.
File under #justsayin
Are you making those assumptions that you accuse everyone else of making and basing their opinion on, before rubbishing them with your own assumptions?
Never mentioned Bulgarians, but you knew that and completely disregarded it to suit your argument/assumptions
Did you know that birds need gravity to swallow? No? That's where we possibly differ.
File it under #whocares
I just wanted to use the 18k Brits settled in Bulgaria ( which staggered me when I found out earlier this week) as an example of what Churchill aspired to on our behalf.
Fair enough.
One thing, though, Churchill may have aspired to it on behalf of the population at the time but not for today's population and certainly not when taking in to account how the EU has changed.
You missed out "one of the following" there BBW...
How about looking forward. Just like the health warning on marketing material for investments "past performance is no indication of future performance".
We should vote out and help the collapse of the EU which Shengen is already causing and reconstitute it along the lines of the ASEAN trading block which can do everything the EU does except it allows countries to choose who they let in to meet gaps in the labour force.
We all need Europe to work as a free trading block with as little interference as possible from an undemocratic and unnecessary layer of supranational government, which rules out the EU as currently constituted. The chances of the UK sticking with the EU and getting the EU gravy train to dismantle itself from within has a chance of nought to zero.
I suspect that is what Boris has in mind but he can hardly state it as a policy and will live with the ridicule until the EU implodes.
You may be right about BoJo's motivation, though I think his main prize is closer to home.
I would be very surprised if a collapse of the EU would lead to the creation of a new trading bloc any time soon, the atmosphere of recrimination would be utterly toxic, given the huge economic impact (I'm not sure any of us really want to see the sort of crash that EU collapse would unleash). If the destruction of the EU was seen on the continent as the real reason that the UK would vote to leave, I would expect that any new trading bloc would regard the UK in much the same light as deGaulle did in the 1960s. In such a circumstance, do you really believe that Germany, which would lose hugely in financial terms, would trust the UK enough to want to have any closer arrangement than it has with Australia?
Also, I'm not actually sure that ASEAN are doing such a good job about choosing who they let in. There is a huge issue about refugees and migrants travelling between the nations without any papers (e.g. unregistered Indonesians working in Malaysia).
If your concern with the UK position is that it cannot get the EU to dismantle a "gravy train", the answer is simple, vote according to your beliefs. If the UK leaves, it should follow the Swiss model and negotiate bilateral deals, where necessary, on trade issues with the EU.
I will vote to remain in, because I disagree with your premise that the UK cannot help change the EU. However, I would like to see the UK try, for a change, a less semi-detached approach. There are really excellent UK politicians, diplomats, etc. who could really make their mark, if only UK governments were prepared to punch to their weight...
We will agree to disagree.
You believe that you can change the EU by "punching your weight". That works with two protagonists, but even Mike Tyson would get rolled over in a 1 v 27 contest. A treaty change and nothing else will reconstruct the EU as a trading block and that is never going happen without it being forced to do so. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
As regards the rest of Europe ganging up on us, i would say you underestimate the power of self interest.
Blimey @Fiiish, history isn't my strong point, but even I recognised that straight away as a reference to the European Coal and Steel Community. 70 years was slightly over-egging it, it's 65 officially.
"Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can."
- Winston Churchill, 19.9.46
From the same speech
"We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world."
Hmmmmmmmm.
...........and another one:
"There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings "
Quite. You don't think Brits have anything in common with Bulgarians, right? I do. That's where we differ I suppose. But then I played a small role in bringing a Bulgarian player to Charlton who became a legend. Did you know that 18,000 Brits now call Bulgaria home? There are 65k Bulgarians in the UK. It means that relatively Brits form a much bigger % of the population in Bulgaria than vice-versa. So it ain't just me.
File under #justsayin
Are you making those assumptions that you accuse everyone else of making and basing their opinion on, before rubbishing them with your own assumptions?
Never mentioned Bulgarians, but you knew that and completely disregarded it to suit your argument/assumptions
Did you know that birds need gravity to swallow? No? That's where we possibly differ.
File it under #whocares
I just wanted to use the 18k Brits settled in Bulgaria ( which staggered me when I found out earlier this week) as an example of what Churchill aspired to on our behalf.
Fair enough.
One thing, though, Churchill may have aspired to it on behalf of the population at the time but not for today's population and certainly not when taking in to account how the EU has changed.
You missed out "one of the following" there BBW...
How about looking forward. Just like the health warning on marketing material for investments "past performance is no indication of future performance".
We should vote out and help the collapse of the EU which Shengen is already causing and reconstitute it along the lines of the ASEAN trading block which can do everything the EU does except it allows countries to choose who they let in to meet gaps in the labour force.
We all need Europe to work as a free trading block with as little interference as possible from an undemocratic and unnecessary layer of supranational government, which rules out the EU as currently constituted. The chances of the UK sticking with the EU and getting the EU gravy train to dismantle itself from within has a chance of nought to zero.
I suspect that is what Boris has in mind but he can hardly state it as a policy and will live with the ridicule until the EU implodes.
You may be right about BoJo's motivation, though I think his main prize is closer to home.
I would be very surprised if a collapse of the EU would lead to the creation of a new trading bloc any time soon, the atmosphere of recrimination would be utterly toxic, given the huge economic impact (I'm not sure any of us really want to see the sort of crash that EU collapse would unleash). If the destruction of the EU was seen on the continent as the real reason that the UK would vote to leave, I would expect that any new trading bloc would regard the UK in much the same light as deGaulle did in the 1960s. In such a circumstance, do you really believe that Germany, which would lose hugely in financial terms, would trust the UK enough to want to have any closer arrangement than it has with Australia?
Also, I'm not actually sure that ASEAN are doing such a good job about choosing who they let in. There is a huge issue about refugees and migrants travelling between the nations without any papers (e.g. unregistered Indonesians working in Malaysia).
If your concern with the UK position is that it cannot get the EU to dismantle a "gravy train", the answer is simple, vote according to your beliefs. If the UK leaves, it should follow the Swiss model and negotiate bilateral deals, where necessary, on trade issues with the EU.
I will vote to remain in, because I disagree with your premise that the UK cannot help change the EU. However, I would like to see the UK try, for a change, a less semi-detached approach. There are really excellent UK politicians, diplomats, etc. who could really make their mark, if only UK governments were prepared to punch to their weight...
We will agree to disagree.
You believe that you can change the EU by "punching your weight". That works with two protagonists, but even Mike Tyson would get rolled over in a 1 v 27 contest. A treaty change and nothing else will reconstruct the EU as a trading block and that is never going happen without it being forced to do so. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
As regards the rest of Europe ganging up on us, i would say you underestimate the power of self interest.
Trust me, looking at the politicians over here, I fully appreciate the power of self-interest...
But the depressing thing about UK involvement in the EU, almost without exception, since the 1980s, is that there is a natural constituency in Europe of countries willing to work with the UK. It really is not a case that the other 27 countries are always ganging up against the UK.
Treaty change in the EU will only happen with consensus which, in effect, means that everyone has to compromise.
But I do agree that the reconstruction of the EU as a simple trading bloc will not happen. Even with the challenges it faces at the moment, and they are many, it is likely that the movement towards ever closer union will stall, rather than be unwound. If the UK follows the Swiss model of bilateral arrangements, it can, to a greater degree, pick and choose what it wants to involve itself in terms of trade, etc.
Interesting debate so far, has anyone changed their mind one way or another based on the discourse here ?
I've read a few times that the campaigns are trying to win over the large undecided middle ground but pretty much everyone I know has already decided one way or another and I don't think there are any arguments that could sway them.
Serious response to the "sovereignty, loss of" Brexit claim here.
"Never over-impressed by inconvenient detail, Mr Johnson is not alone in his confusion."
It's in the FT, so one to read and keep, before it disappears behind the paywall. This one might even trouble @Dippenhall :-)
Very well put article.
Our Parliament remains sovereign and always has been. All arrangements, be they ones with the EU or elsewhere are predicated on the notion of temporarily sacrificing a degree of sovereign power, which can be reclaimed at any time, almost at whim. China lost sovereignty of Hong Kong and the New Territories for 150 years, and then got it back a deal stuck to by Britain. Our Parliament is the big boss over our lives, maybe being in Europe softens some of the impact our Parliament might have on our lives. To be a bit surreal about this, maybe the question is how much personal sovereignty can each individual get from Parliament, rather than how much national sovereignty can the British Parliament get from Europe.
How about looking forward. Just like the health warning on marketing material for investments "past performance is no indication of future performance".
We should vote out and help the collapse of the EU which Shengen is already causing and reconstitute it along the lines of the ASEAN trading block which can do everything the EU does except it allows countries to choose who they let in to meet gaps in the labour force.
We all need Europe to work as a free trading block with as little interference as possible from an undemocratic and unnecessary layer of supranational government, which rules out the EU as currently constituted. The chances of the UK sticking with the EU and getting the EU gravy train to dismantle itself from within has a chance of nought to zero.
I suspect that is what Boris has in mind but he can hardly state it as a policy and will live with the ridicule until the EU implodes.
You may be right about BoJo's motivation, though I think his main prize is closer to home.
I would be very surprised if a collapse of the EU would lead to the creation of a new trading bloc any time soon, the atmosphere of recrimination would be utterly toxic, given the huge economic impact (I'm not sure any of us really want to see the sort of crash that EU collapse would unleash). If the destruction of the EU was seen on the continent as the real reason that the UK would vote to leave, I would expect that any new trading bloc would regard the UK in much the same light as deGaulle did in the 1960s. In such a circumstance, do you really believe that Germany, which would lose hugely in financial terms, would trust the UK enough to want to have any closer arrangement than it has with Australia?
Also, I'm not actually sure that ASEAN are doing such a good job about choosing who they let in. There is a huge issue about refugees and migrants travelling between the nations without any papers (e.g. unregistered Indonesians working in Malaysia).
If your concern with the UK position is that it cannot get the EU to dismantle a "gravy train", the answer is simple, vote according to your beliefs. If the UK leaves, it should follow the Swiss model and negotiate bilateral deals, where necessary, on trade issues with the EU.
I will vote to remain in, because I disagree with your premise that the UK cannot help change the EU. However, I would like to see the UK try, for a change, a less semi-detached approach. There are really excellent UK politicians, diplomats, etc. who could really make their mark, if only UK governments were prepared to punch to their weight...
We will agree to disagree.
You believe that you can change the EU by "punching your weight". That works with two protagonists, but even Mike Tyson would get rolled over in a 1 v 27 contest. A treaty change and nothing else will reconstruct the EU as a trading block and that is never going happen without it being forced to do so. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
As regards the rest of Europe ganging up on us, i would say you underestimate the power of self interest.
This is why it is confusing. One Eurosceptic says we should remain the EEA, so be part of a 0-27 contest. Another (you) seems to assume (I may have misinterpreted your meaning, Dips) that it is ALWAYS "us" against all of "them", a third (Braydex) says three other nations are set to follow the UK. Another lives and works in France, so does appear to be exactly a turkey voting for Christmas. It's all a bit "Schrodinger's Immigrant" to me...
I know it's the Express but it does mention the Netherlands, Czech Republic and Serbian fears that their respective public would ramp up calls for an EU referendum if we were to leave.
I know it's the Express but it does mention the Netherlands, Czech Republic and Serbian fears that their respective public would ramp up calls for an EU referendum if we were to leave.
Far be it for me to stand up for The Express, but the Serbian PM was saying that the idea of joining the EU was less attractive than before - but that is, in part, due to wider issues that are affecting everyone (for Serbia, in particular, the reaction to the wave of migration is a big factor).
I know it's the Express but it does mention the Netherlands, Czech Republic and Serbian fears that their respective public would ramp up calls for an EU referendum if we were to leave.
OK since you mention CZ, this is one case where hopefully you accept I know my stuff. Here is a translation of what one of the main Czech papers said about this
"Sobotka’s comment about expecting a debate on leaving the EU led the European press to use the word “Czexit” for the first time, MFD said. Les Echos of France apparently did not understand that Sobotka was in fact warning against a Czech exit."
So trust me, the Czech PM is trying to be a good European here, and basically warning that the Brexit side is giving ammo to the populists. Which is quite different to suggesting that he himself would call a referendum. Any smart Czech will tell you that Russia is up to its tricks here, and Putin would absolutely love a Brexit, and indeed is doing all he can to make it happen. His actions in Syria can be seen in that context.
For the record, I am finding this thread extremely positive in terms of the facts and arguments being used, definitely some convincing stuff. I'm an on-the-fence Out at the moment but honestly if the vote was tomorrow I could easily find my pencil accidentally crossing the Remain box instead
For the record, I am finding this thread extremely positive in terms of the facts and arguments being used, definitely some convincing stuff. I'm an on-the-fence Out at the moment but honestly if the vote was tomorrow I could easily find my pencil accidentally crossing the Remain box instead
Great stuff guys, keep it up.
Agree, but feel we should merge the two threads, good stuff in both. Admin?
Serious response to the "sovereignty, loss of" Brexit claim here.
"Never over-impressed by inconvenient detail, Mr Johnson is not alone in his confusion."
It's in the FT, so one to read and keep, before it disappears behind the paywall. This one might even trouble @Dippenhall :-)
You'll have to do better than that @PragueAddick :-). I have never spoken about a return of sovereignty, its just a concept. Sovereignty denotes responsibility for citizens, control is about how that responsibility is discharged and who is accountable. The Queen is too busy to do it all herself so she delegates it to Parliament who then delegate some of it to Brussels. No, I talk about a return of control.
A bilateral agreement of the UK with one country represents a mutually agreed relationship. If the relationship changes then it can be amended or voided without any other country whose interests might be affected having any say in the matter.
A bilateral agreement with the EU is something entirely different. If our interests do not coincide with the EU's collective view on its members' interests, we can in practice do little to change it without the agreement of others. To get that agreement involves horse trading and exercising our sovereign power to give away something which is not in our interests to give up. Just because we can exercise sovereign power we would rather not be forced to, the author says what are the Brexit supporters moaning about? He either doesn't get it or doesn't want to get it.
I know it's the Express but it does mention the Netherlands, Czech Republic and Serbian fears that their respective public would ramp up calls for an EU referendum if we were to leave.
Serious response to the "sovereignty, loss of" Brexit claim here.
"Never over-impressed by inconvenient detail, Mr Johnson is not alone in his confusion."
It's in the FT, so one to read and keep, before it disappears behind the paywall. This one might even trouble @Dippenhall :-)
You'll have to do better than that @PragueAddick :-). I have never spoken about a return of sovereignty, its just a concept. Sovereignty denotes responsibility for citizens, control is about how that responsibility is discharged and who is accountable. The Queen is too busy to do it all herself so she delegates it to Parliament who then delegate some of it to Brussels. No, I talk about a return of control.
A bilateral agreement of the UK with one country represents a mutually agreed relationship. If the relationship changes then it can be amended or voided without any other country whose interests might be affected having any say in the matter.
A bilateral agreement with the EU is something entirely different. If our interests do not coincide with the EU's collective view on its members' interests, we can in practice do little to change it without the agreement of others. To get that agreement involves horse trading and exercising our sovereign power to give away something which is not in our interests to give up. Just because we can exercise sovereign power we would rather not be forced to, the author says what are the Brexit supporters moaning about? He either doesn't get it or doesn't want to get it.
But others have, and do talk of Sovereignty, hence the confusion with what a no vote actually entails. There are several hymn sheets all being sung from at the same time. You might be clear on what you are vocalising, but so are others who are warbling a totally different tune...
Comments
I thought Boris' idea was we vote out, he gets the top job, and then says 'we voted no, so those Europeans will now listen to me the new leader, and I will negotiate a third and better way'.
I read it all as Boris trying to be equivocal.
And he still hasn't answered my question, so I would put more faith in his opinions if he didn't just swerve the tough ones.
Still waiting for Braydex's evidence too...
Most arguments contain one of the following:
'I think'
'I believe'
'It may'
'It might'
'In my opinion'
All of the above should be taken with either a pinch of salt or with the express intention of researching them for oneself.
Not sure if it is really fair to accuse me of swerving tough opinions if I either don't see your post or don't reply in a matter of hours.
I think that tomorrow we'll be on to the minutiae of derogations....
And there you go again; "No one seriously argues...". I have heard plenty of people proffer that opinion, but because it does no tally with yours, apparently it's not serious? You then go on to use the words "main reason", which would indicate to me that these academics and historians you tell us about do consider it to be "A" reason, even if it is not the main one, in which case surely it does deserve to be taken seriously, as you have already stated that we should listen to these people?
One thing, though, Churchill may have aspired to it on behalf of the population at the time but not for today's population and certainly not when taking in to account how the EU has changed.
'I think'
'I believe'
'It may'
'It might'
'In my opinion'
It's fact
You believe that you can change the EU by "punching your weight". That works with two protagonists, but even Mike Tyson would get rolled over in a 1 v 27 contest. A treaty change and nothing else will reconstruct the EU as a trading block and that is never going happen without it being forced to do so. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
As regards the rest of Europe ganging up on us, i would say you underestimate the power of self interest.
'Us, and them'?
But the depressing thing about UK involvement in the EU, almost without exception, since the 1980s, is that there is a natural constituency in Europe of countries willing to work with the UK. It really is not a case that the other 27 countries are always ganging up against the UK.
Treaty change in the EU will only happen with consensus which, in effect, means that everyone has to compromise.
But I do agree that the reconstruction of the EU as a simple trading bloc will not happen. Even with the challenges it faces at the moment, and they are many, it is likely that the movement towards ever closer union will stall, rather than be unwound. If the UK follows the Swiss model of bilateral arrangements, it can, to a greater degree, pick and choose what it wants to involve itself in terms of trade, etc.
"Never over-impressed by inconvenient detail, Mr Johnson is not alone in his confusion."
It's in the FT, so one to read and keep, before it disappears behind the paywall. This one might even trouble @Dippenhall :-)
I've read a few times that the campaigns are trying to win over the large undecided middle ground but pretty much everyone I know has already decided one way or another and I don't think there are any arguments that could sway them.
Our Parliament remains sovereign and always has been.
All arrangements, be they ones with the EU or elsewhere are predicated on the notion of temporarily sacrificing a degree of sovereign power, which can be reclaimed at any time, almost at whim.
China lost sovereignty of Hong Kong and the New Territories for 150 years, and then got it back a deal stuck to by Britain.
Our Parliament is the big boss over our lives, maybe being in Europe softens some of the impact our Parliament might have on our lives.
To be a bit surreal about this, maybe the question is how much personal sovereignty can each individual get from Parliament, rather than how much national sovereignty can the British Parliament get from Europe.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/646796/Dutch-voters-in-out-EU-referendum-Brexit-contagion-fears-Brussels-Jean-Claude-Juncker
"Sobotka’s comment about expecting a debate on leaving the EU led the European press to use the word “Czexit” for the first time, MFD said. Les Echos of France apparently did not understand that Sobotka was in fact warning against a Czech exit."
So trust me, the Czech PM is trying to be a good European here, and basically warning that the Brexit side is giving ammo to the populists. Which is quite different to suggesting that he himself would call a referendum. Any smart Czech will tell you that Russia is up to its tricks here, and Putin would absolutely love a Brexit, and indeed is doing all he can to make it happen. His actions in Syria can be seen in that context.
Great stuff guys, keep it up.
A bilateral agreement of the UK with one country represents a mutually agreed relationship. If the relationship changes then it can be amended or voided without any other country whose interests might be affected having any say in the matter.
A bilateral agreement with the EU is something entirely different. If our interests do not coincide with the EU's collective view on its members' interests, we can in practice do little to change it without the agreement of others. To get that agreement involves horse trading and exercising our sovereign power to give away something which is not in our interests to give up. Just because we can exercise sovereign power we would rather not be forced to, the author says what are the Brexit supporters moaning about? He either doesn't get it or doesn't want to get it.