sounds kind off familiar. Europe in many ways is a great model defense/migration and economic. it's reform and a bit off back pedaling that's required. now obliviously we don't want the Germans making our famous pork pies, Brussels would be good for that. but do we really need Brussels telling us what shape they should to be. a bit simplistic but hey i'v had a dram.
oi. once you've ditched the flag pal, no more 'british' pork pies for you. you'll have to stick to the Scottish pie and thats it. deal with it.
But Switzerland (as well as every other country) is based upon exactly the sort of mutuality I describe. Each canton, in joining the Confederation, gives up a portion of its independence. Each canton gains exactly as much power and influence over the other cantons as they gain over it, to their mutual benefit. The same goes for the counties, departements, lander, etc of every nation just as for Europe as a whole. And it is a principle just about everybody approves of - you cannot be serious when you say you have never heard anyone in favour. If it were not so, there would be nothing but thousands upon thousands of tiny districts, each proudly independent, and no overarching structures at all.
Pete, I can't believe you have posted this. You're an intelligent guy, but you seem not to be able to see that the European question affects every aspect of our lives, yet we have never given our consent to be governed in this way. Since you raised the point, I would have more referenda. Technology is developed enough to enable national votes daily, if there was public demand for it. This idea that only MPs, MEPs, whatever, can know what's good for us is just patronising claptrap. I'm not attacking the man, just the point. Which is beneath you.
Hello? Anyone at home? We have never given our consent to having a King/Queen, a House of Lords, a House of Commons, a Supreme Court, a Prime Minister, or to having a United Kingdom at all; as I have pointed out but you inexplicably seem to have trouble grasping.
Following Pete's implacable argument, I now vote that the EU should be extended to the entire world. In this new organisation, the top 10 countries by population will replace the United Nations Security Council. They will essentially say how things are run. They are China, India, the USA, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia and Japan. In this way, Britain will have far more to gain as it becomes part of a greater whole, and will find its real position in the world as a country in 22nd place. The idea of regionalism will be dead and we will all be perfectly represented by countries with much bigger agendas than our own. The idea of the EU was patently ludicrous. Why would you want to limit an organisation based on a spurious subdivision of landmass? I feel confident that the appointees of Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh et al will decide wisely what should affect my little European enclave. I am looking forward to the entirety of my backwater government devolving completely to these greater powers who represent so many more people. Now aware of the total irrelevancy of my own nation, I feel so much more optimistic about the future.
Oddly enough, the combined share of the vote of the Conservative + Labour parties was significantly higher (sic) in the recent Euro election than it had been in the previous one, as it turned out. So no, it couldn't be said that the two party system lost - rather the two party system regained some of its previous losses.
You may jest Glidd, but you may also have hit the nail on the head. New World Order run by those who control the money ?
Yes, but the gap between them is closing making it less likely for either to gain an outright majority. Therefore the old pattern of a period of Labour in power followed by a period of Conservatives in power is weakened.
I may be jesting. I may be entirely serious, if you take the welfare of the majority of the planet's population into account. And I may be illustrating the fallacy of an argument that seeks to demonstrate that regionalism is a quaint idea that has no place in the modern world. Read it how you find it!
Pete, that's a ridiculous, probably fatuous argument. We were all born into one country or another. We were born into a national history that included such things as a monarch, the Houses of Parliament etc. We have to accept those parts of our nations government and we do WHILE THEY MAKE SENSE. When they stop making sense, those parts of our structure will be replaced. I'm still amazed that you can defend an almost feudal ideal that denies us any kind of control over who governs us. It's certainly not a socialist principle. Totalitarian is the closest I can get to it. And please, stop resorting to the lowest form of debate - attacking the man, not the argument. It's beneath you.
Well, supposing we haven't given our consent to these things. Are you suggesting that to ask for consent, to call these things into question in the 21st century would be ludicrous? Perhaps it would be a very good idea. How does your argument work exactly? We haven't given these things our consent, therefore, we should give nothing our consent. QED. This seems pretty spurious to me. It implies that we are constrained by history. What has up to now been the case must always be the case, since it has always been the case. Explain how you arrive at that logic. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the status quo recently, regarding the King/Queen, the House of Lords, the House of Commons, the Supreme Court or the PM. But yet there has been a change recently regarding the ceding of sovereignty to the EU over various issues. So to equate one with the other is to deliberately obfuscate this state of affairs. It is because of this cession of sovereignty that the people of the UK would like to have a referendum to have their say on the matter. What is so wrong about this?
Well, really, if you were to answer my questions as they come up, you'll find they don't seem to pile up on you. To assist you, my questions are sentences that end in a question mark. So, as long as an issue isn't top of the voters' agenda, it has no merit? The poor voter is incapable of juggling two important issues at the same time? And even if the voter is capable, he shouldn't be given the opportunity? (Those were questions, by the way.) We aren't discussing dozens of different votes, we are discussing the two large traditional voting blocks (left and right) being unable to vote on an issue that is clearly important to the electorate. The Europe issue doesn't fall squarely within centre-left or centre-right politics. Even if one of the major parties had withdrawal from Europe within their manifesto, many voters would still have to cross the right-left divide in order to register their opinion regarding Europe. And we aren't even being offered that unpalatable option. Some folks here feel intimated by your posting style, Pete, and accuse you of all sorts of elitist tendencies. Whilst I find you rather engaging and not intimidating in the slightest, I have to wonder about the elitism issue. That wasn't a question.
