The other issue with a referendum is a few days before it the sun or daily fail (or any other toilet tabloid for that matter) will print a scare story, then all the string vest types with opinions on everything and knowledge on nothing will yell 'feck Europe' and vote no. There are some people in this country, typically bnp voting low I.Q. types who would vote no even if Europe gave them free gold every week for life. The problem with democracy is that it puts massive and complicated decisions in the hands of people who are far from qualified to make them.
There are all sorts of people on both sides of the argument and yes you are right, plenty wont be qualified to make the decision even if there is a thorough and informed debate in addition to scare stories from both sides and this, as you say is a problem, but is there a democratic alternative?
Why not just tell the yanks that there is plenty of oil in Europe the sit back and watch them bomb the crap out of it...........problem solved
I really don't why people are bothering to debate an IN / OUT referendum.....................let's face it, you ain't going to get one anyway..... ........unless of course Niggle U-PIK Farrago becomes PM and he will have the UK out regardless...........(or will he.....?) What Camshafteroony came out with the other day is already being watered down by all the idiots around him....so dream on. We are just wasting our time talking about it. AL
What if i haven't got anything better to do ? I know lets have a revolution. That Stalin bloke was a jolly nice fella, lets have some of that. :wink:
Stalin didn't have a revolution.....he had a programme of getting rid of educated people and what he called undesirables...........not dis-similar to Adolf..... Lenin (not John) was the revolution man...... Unforunately or fortunately, depending how you look at it, the outcome of WW2 would have been much different for the UK if it wasn't for Stalin.....Adolf would have been in charge of the UK all in his effort to gain more land for Germany (Lebensraum)...... .....which is effectively what is happening very slowly in Europe anyway, just by another route. AL
...just read this on the DT: Going against the grain of most European press coverage of the Prime Minister's speech, which is hostile, the popular German newspaper (Bild), praises Britain for "once again making an extra sausage", or seeking an extra democratic advantage. "Crazy Brits. The Brits put Europe into a frenzy," the newspaper opines. "Most EU countries have tacitly agreed to build Europe above the heads of the people. Motto: The European project is simply too important for democratic participation. And then along comes this Cameron!" The German newspaper upbraids those who are seeking to kick Britain out of the EU and to lecture Britons on their national interest as defined by outsiders in Brussels or elsewhere on the continent. "Nice that the rest of the world knows better than the Brits do the interests of their country. "Some even speak of expulsion and want the friends of mint sauce and those who drive on the left completely out of the EU. "But dear Britons, please stay! You are so crazy. We need your opposition, your obstinacy rather than a united Europe. And above all, we love your quirky Royals! Your punk! Your sense of humour!" After Mr Cameron's speech, Angela Merkel the German Chancellor signalled she might help Britain reach a deal by saying she would be prepared to listen to Britain over its "wishes" for looser ties with the EU. Striking a very different position to France, Chancellor Merkel said she wants to see a "fair compromise" after David Cameron called for radical EU reforms before a public vote on Britain's membership.
I know but if i said Lenin and Trotsky it didn't have the same effect point wise as Stalin and his purges. Which were also largely aimed at the military hence why Hitler saw them as a target. And they were until 1942 when they got it together and the Germans got too strung out. Stalin was in a pact with Mr Hitler until the invasion, but he did nothing other than for his own advantage all the way through WW2. Berlin, the Polish uprising etc etc as prime examples. Personal advantage, a common politician trait still today. Off topic but a little story - My Grandfather was at El Alemein and wounded in his hip which meant he had a limp. He was made a storeman as a result and after the Africa campaign he was sent to the Western front just before Germany fell. There he was in logistics in and around the German prisoner compounds taking and storing weapeons etc. The Us and British high command issued them an order that if the Russians didn't stop at the agreed position in Berlin they were to re arm the Germans and fight alongside them to stop the Russian advance. No one for a minute beleived Stalin was a man to be trusted. Having said that i wouldn't have trusted George W to have our backs if it hit the fan in Iraq etc.
My grandfather was gassed at the Somme, then wounded at Gallipoli. His brother was killed at Ypres age 17. My grandfather always said "Never trust the Germans"...........even before WW2 he was saying it (not that I was there, you understand) and he continued to say it until he died in the late 60s......... .......he seemed to have them summed up quite well, I think. AL
Given the recent (as in today) north Korea missile situation, and the fact the Americans just love a good war, I think it would be incredibly foolish to get closer to the usa, in fact we should distance ourselves from them as much as possible. As its highly likely America will be either at war, or very close to it in 5 years with Russia and China backing n. Korea, the choice will be trade and work as closely as possible to neutral Europe or be billy no mates quietly going bankrupt in the corner. If you are unsure as to why north Korea is so relevant, check todays news.....
I think Iran is a festering sore that will come up again very soon and possibly more in focus than Korea who China will ultimately reign in for now. I think there is lots of posturing going on. A nation who's actions are largely driven by religous mis-representation of God's will (Iran) is never going to make rational decisions. Israel are likely going to be a hair trigger if pushed hard enough. Whether we are in the Eu or bossom buddies with Obama or not, i hope we stay well out of it. Would we have a budget deficit anywhere near what it is without Iraq and Afghan ? Lots of money not to mention lives spent there.
Ever since 1945, Britain has faced a great strategic dilemma at a fundamental level. The options are: A. to cultivate the "Special Relationship" with the USA and align ourselves with the American hegemony - we can call this the 51st State option. OR B. to join with the nations of Europe and build Europe as a major power in the world, economic political and military, with UK at the heart of it - we can call this the Europhile option. The ideal position is to have our cake and eat it by pursuing both options simultaneously. Since they are fundamentally incompatible, that is not sustainable for long. Tony Blair during his 10 years in office was brilliant at juggling events so as to keep both options open, a feat for which he receives little credit. The Eurosceptics are actually pursuing the 51st state option, but 50 years too late since America's star is on the wane at this stage. For UK to be completely isolated on all sides is so hopeless a prospect I do not even count it as an option, just a catastrophe. It seems to me Britain's long term interests are best served by carrying on having our cake and eating it for as long as we can get away with it (which may not be much longer), and when forced to choose at last going for Europe. And if we are in Europe, best it be whole-hearted and with commitment so we can lead the EU, not to be trailing along sulking reluctantly in the wake of others.
To be blunt, I don't GAF about any of it.... .........maybe I would prefer to be OUT completely; but none of the public in the UK (or anywhere else come to that) will have any effect whatsoever on what happens....... ...you only have to look at what happened in Ireland....... ....manipulate the 'question' and keep the public voting until the desired answer is reached..... ....that is what will occur in the UK. If anyone outside of Govmt and big business thinks that their 'opinion' is going to have any bearing on what takes place in Europe and the UK, they are seriously deluded. Mark my words......in a few years time when I have kicked the bucket, so I obviously won't give a sh*t; some of the younger people on here will say 'Old AL, he was right you know' (But then I don't even need to say ITYS anymore......I just give one of my 'looks'). AL
I don't really care if we stay in and have an influence in proportion to our input or get out, or have a trading relationship with 'Europe' through something like EFTA (Euro Free Trade Area). What I really don't want is the current situation, where we are expected to borrow a whole load of money we don't have and give it to Europe, but we don't have anything like the influence of, say, France (similar populations and financials). If we had a proper influence, if it looked like we could control our own destiny through our own Parliament, or through the Euro Parliament, I'd bet we would see a lot more satisfaction with Europe. As it is, it appears that we subsidise the Euro project and don't get a lot out of it. And please don't say 'peace in Europe' because that's a baseless argument.
The UK's total debt accumulated down the years is about £1,278 Billion. That is being added to at about £121 Billion per year = £2.3 Billion per week current deficit. The total defence spend is about £38 Billion per year. Most of that would be incurred regardless of Afghanistan. Roughly £4 Billion per year goes on the Afghan operations = £80 Million per week. So the answer is that without Afghan the accumulated debt would be only minutely smaller, and the current deficit would be slightly less. Of course without Afghan most likely other defence spend would have been cut less, and overall defence spend would thus be the same, so in that sense Afghan is not adding to the deficit at all.
I get the point but certainly if no Afghan/iraq etc meant soldiers or public sector workers still in a job i would take that personally. Look how grateful Libya are to the west. A safer place post Gadaffi, i think not. The whole region is less stable now than it was when he was there.
Yes, quite true. Tyrannical dictators who ruthlessly imprison, torture and murder anyone who opposes them do maintain great stability, sometimes total stasis for decades.
We can't have a referendum on Europe, because there are too many people like me who know naff all about it. There's no way I could make an informed opinion on the rights and wrongs of staying/leaving. I've read every word of this thread in the hope of learning something but I'm still none the wiser. What us thickos need is a basic grounding of what a unified Europe aims to achieve, what it has achieved so far, and what has failed up to now. All I can do is dodge about my daily life and take note of anything that has changed for me personally, and so far nothing much appears to have happened at all. For me, a unified Europe seems to be symbolised by the constant making of new laws and rules - not necessarily bad ones or good ones, just more. Personally I would rather each member country kept it's own identity, but the introduction of the euro has pretty much flattened all the borders for all time, and the cross-fertilization of cultures will make us all the same soon enough. But is that a good thing? Does a unified Europe make us safer? (it hasn't seemed to so far). Does it give us more cross-continental clout? What exactly is it supposed to be doing for us, and can we prove it's working?
