Well, we are both on the same page here, but expressing it slightly differently. My point was that most politicians seem first to look at election/re-election before any other considerations. Unifying the party happens as a result of all factions seeing where the votes lie and chasing that. Unification is the result of this, not the goal.
Not at all, I expressed no opinion as to the desirability of this scenario. You said that the UK has as much influence on other member states as they each have on the UK. This is a truism and yet is meaningless in the real world. When a decision is reached, the majority has more influence on the minority. Obviously. If the member states making up the majority always see eye-to-eye on an issue, such as a Federated Europe, then the minority states against it will always have less influence on this issue. If the difference in opinion concerns whether pasties made outside of Cornwall can be called "Cornish Pasties", that's one thing. However if the issue is a deal-breaker - such as a federated Europe, that is something else again. In my example, when France and Germany are aligned on issues, they effectively become a voting block. They have two votes and the UK has one. This is of course a form of democracy, majority rule, etc but saying that the UK has as much influence here as France, or Germany, is true only in an abstract fashion. Now you're going to say, "But yes, that is what democracy is all about." I know that, I am not railing against it, I am trying to point out the fallacy of the statement that the minority has as much influence as the majority. It's a nonsensical statement. I am sure that you are aware of how some power structures work here in the West. Sure, you can veto everything you like but will you get cooperation from other parties when you wish to put forward your own legislation? Bargaining takes place, you give ground on some issues so that you can hope to gain it elsewhere. It's call horse-trading and it takes place wherever there is the existence of a veto. No, I am complaining that your straw man is strewing bits of himself all over my garden.
Classic mis-direction. Take someone's point , belittle it don't actually address it and add/mix in some extreme and emotive issues, and away we go..... Perhaps we should have voted on slithering out of the primordial ooze and onto legs? We did not vote for that either.
The people have spoken but Pete and his mates are not listening because they know better. They know, with absolute certainty, that the Project must roll on. They cannot conceive that they might be wrong. Anyone who disagrees is either ill informed or incapable of understanding. The EU is coming off the rails but the political elites are incapable of seeing it because they have so much invested in it.
i like the idea of a general election, then leaving the politicians to get on with it. to many referendums and jack shit would get done. if they held a referendum on motorcycles being used on the road i wonder who would win.
America is staggeringly racist, odd when you consider it has almost no indigenous population at all. Mind you, come to that Farrage is a great and traditional British name, isn't it......
I wouldn't worry too much about it all. Pressures on resources are making themselves felt. The world is turning to the right. Superstition and religious fervour replaces rationality. Population is ever increasing and the world is getting hotter. Fuck it all and have a beer.
Yes, to keep you all in for when the grim dawn of realisation hits that once more Scotland has cut its nose off to spite its face. This time though, the cut will be fatal.
get a grip dude. would the rest of the world not want to do business. deep down i think a lot of people want to beleave its an anti English thing. bollox. just a chance for reform which i know and dont dare to deny it you want also. the nay sayers tell me it will cost me £1500 a year. less than what i spend on fags.
The people of the UK have never given their consent by referendum to our constitutional arrangements, electoral system, offices, laws, or treaties. Our consent, if any, has been by way of general elections only. You could take the view (A) that that inheriting all this from our forebears is acceptable, and there is no need for any of it to be legitimised by referendums. Or you could take the other view, (B) that the people ought to have a voice, a choice, and a vote on each matter, by way of a series of referendums. Either one of those views could be justified, as being at least a consistent position. I could be persuaded either way. What cannot be justified is regarding almost every matter in a long list as not justifying a referendum, but then picking just one item (the treaty of accession) and regarding that as uniquely requiring a referendum. That position is inconsistent, unreasonable and untenable. I am not persuaded by it - not even close. As it happens, the past 20 years have seen a series of momentous changes in the status quo (to name but four: the exclusion from the House of Lords of most hereditary peers; the passing of the Human Rights Act; the creation of the new Supreme Court; and the replacement of the Lord Chancellor by the Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary). None of these has had a referendum.
I fear I am old enough to have seen the world, or various parts of it, turn to the right and turn to the left again several times over. Seen it all before.
France and Germany are not monolithic blocs. Each has a spectrum of parties and politicians with a wide range of views. Each has governments which change from time to time. Each elects MEPs and Commissioners from various groupings. Your straw-man notion of everybody in France and Germany agreeing on something (anything) is sheer fantasy, and the same goes for Italy and other countries. In reality, any given proposition attracts both support and opposition from all parts of Europe.
Indeed. In every international institution (UN, NATO, Commonwealth, Council of Europe) there are processes of bargaining, horse-trading, negotiation, and persuasion. Every player has to get something out of a deal, or they won't agree to it - but rarely does anybody get everything they would like. That's life. So what? Are you somehow arguing that that fundamental aspect of the way human organisations work is a criticism of the EU? If so, it's a big stretch.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I certainly do not take anything for granted. Peace, prosperity, order and harmony are neither automatic nor guaranteed - they require effort and commitment. Given enough folly, selfishness and wickedness, even European nations could collapse into fragmented, warring chaos or brutal tyrannies. Just look at the ghastly recent examples of Bosnia and Serbia. The difference between us seems to be that I would prefer to postpone indefinitely disintegration, ruin and misery; whereas it seems to be implicit in your position that you would welcome it. But perhaps I have misunderstood you?
Well it appears that we may withdraw from the EU as Dave Etonian has spat his dummy and is threatening to bring the UK out. Nice to know he can threaten this in a fit of pique but isn't prepared to allow his fellow country men and women to have a say. Still having a far better education than I and a far more privileged up bringing I'm sure he must know far better than I and my fellow plebs.
You have misunderstood my position. My belief is that the current path the EU is embarked upon will inevitably lead to its disintegration due to the instability of the Euro without further political integration, to which I am opposed. This instability has been discussed for many years and was recognised even by Jacque Delors who assumed that the inevitable Euro crisis would trigger the desired political integration required to hold it all together. My preference is for free trade agreements between sovereign nations who make their own laws, and yes they do require effort and commitment. In that way we will avoid disintegration, ruin and misery that no one in their right mind would want. It is the hubris of the self serving elites at the centre of the EU Project that is driving it forward and not the will of the people of Europe.
The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I am a Libertarian at heart, centralised power is the enemy of Libertarianism and leads to Totalitarianism.
Pete, I think it's time for you to be told: Not all issues are created equal. The four momentous changes you refer to may have far reaching implications that will echo down through eternity but - the majority of voters don't care about these. Yes, I speak for the majority of voters. It's a talent I have. Maybe the electorate does care about them. It's possible. Do they care enough to vote Labour when they usually vote Tory (or vice versa), in order to achieve such goals? I doubt it but feel free to demonstrate who this is the case. Would the voters come out to vote in a referendum over these issues? Well, I would suggest that getting the electorate used to the idea of referendums shouldn't start with an issue that I doubt you'd see 25% of voters turn out for. On the other hand, a referendum on Europe - I bet you'd see turnouts that would put a General Election to shame. It isn't difficult to see that the issue of membership in the EU is one that has captured the electorate's interest, split parties and been a huge talking point in the media - even within biking forums. To suggest that membership in Europe is as trivial a matter as replacing the Lord Chancellor with a Lord Chief Justice is, frankly, out-of-touch with most people's realities.
