adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000 
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 28, 2020 9:11:46 GMT
(Broken quoting fixed, to enable your comments to be seen and replied to more easily) So I say don't estimate the draw of identity. Can you explain that to me, please? Are the French somehow "less French" for being part of the EU? YES How? How? So they're just somehow less distinguishable? How? Not "large majorities", no. 1972 - 53.5 - 46.5 1994 - 52.2 - 47.8 More recent polls have found up to 2/3 in favour of joining. euobserver.com/enlargement/9045...and let's not forget that Norway is a member of the single market through the EEA, so has most of the benefits that the UK has rejected and is leaving, so polls showing an apparent lack of enthusiasm to join are simply talking about a different thing to the UK's situation. norwaytoday.info/news/more-norwegians-favour-the-eu-and-the-eea/"30% want to join" - but more than 60% are happy with EEA membership. In another poll, it was an even split between those who did want membership and those who actively did not (no question asked about leaving the EEA). Remember, even Farage supported a "Norway-style" (which means EEA) future relationship in 2016. "Leaving the EU will have significant geopolitical and economic consequences. But we believe it is unrealistic to expect a clean break, immediately unravelling forty years of integration in a single step."www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2019/11/08/when-he-supported-norway-the-brexit-policy-farage-would-rathweb.archive.org/web/20160109172536/http://www.eureferendum.com:80/documents/flexcit.pdfHow? The government are currently saying exactly that, with the backing of a large swathe of the country in the December 2019 general election. I don't understand what you mean by that. Can you explain? Yes, they did. I already described the three main categories, as I see them. What are the "risks" of staying in? There are no risks. We would simply have continued as we were - trading successfully with other nations in the EU27 and beyond through the EU's trade deals. The UK had a permanent opt-out of Euro membership, negotiated during the Euro founding treaties. If ever the trade situation pushes the UK towards rejoining, then we will almost inevitably lose that. Sorry, but that is simply outright scaremongering. There are no serious attempts to form a single "United States of Europe", and there never have been. Not one single EU member wants it - yet every single member would have to agree to it. I think it's clear which side is winning. The vested interests are leading the hard-core swivel-eyed-loons by the nose, straight towards international isolationism. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is sleepwalking down a road to breaking up and being left as Little England. "They need us more than we need them" is as untrue today as it has been all along. |
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,384
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 28, 2020 9:18:42 GMT
I'm not sure why being 'proud' to be British is somehow worse than being proud to be French or proud to be Scottish. Somewhere above it was said that the French reason for being proud of being French was better than the British reason although I'm not sure what the British or French reasons are (apart from, 'that's where I'm from'). And the Scottish although proud to be Scots and not wanting to be 'ruled' from London are happy to be ruled from Brussels. I'm confused.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 28, 2020 9:32:04 GMT
I'm not sure why being 'proud' to be British is somehow worse than being proud to be French or proud to be Scottish. I freely admit to being confused as to how the location or circumstances of your birth are something to be proud of, anyway. It's not as if you had any great input into it...
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Oct 28, 2020 9:47:22 GMT
I'm not sure why being 'proud' to be British is somehow worse than being proud to be French or proud to be Scottish. I freely admit to being confused as to how the location or circumstances of your birth are something to be proud of, anyway. It's not as if you had any great input into it... There's nothing wrong with being proud to be British. I was, once. Hope to be so again one day. Pride and an established national identity do not preclude international cooperation. The Germans are hardly one and the same as the Spanish or Greek in culture and identity. It doesn't mean they can't operate decent trade agreements between each other.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 28, 2020 10:15:49 GMT
I freely admit to being confused as to how the location or circumstances of your birth are something to be proud of, anyway. It's not as if you had any great input into it... There's nothing wrong with being proud to be British. I was, once. Hope to be so again one day. Oh, indeed.  My point is merely that I happened to be born on this particular lump of damp rock off the northern coast of a particular continental landmass purely by accident. I had no say in that. Right now, the leadership of this country does not provide anything to be particularly proud of. The history of this country as a technological leader is one of fortunate accidents. This island just happened to be well placed for maritime leadership (building on the shoulders of the Vikings, particularly), and happened to be well endowed with particular natural resources that were important at a particular stage of mankind's technology. We used that maritime technology and experience to far less laudable purpose, and used the natural resources gained through that to help build the industrial revolution. Without the transatlantic slave trade, and without colonisation, the industrial revolution would simply never have happened in the way it did. There's a very strong argument that we should be nationally ashamed of that phase in our history, not inordinately proud of it. Other parts of the world were scientific and technical leaders before us, and others have supplanted us since. Some built those leaderships on similarly appalling phases of their history, too. <applause>
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Oct 28, 2020 10:43:45 GMT
I'm not sure why being 'proud' to be British is somehow worse than being proud to be French or proud to be Scottish. Somewhere above it was said that the French reason for being proud of being French was better than the British reason although I'm not sure what the British or French reasons are (apart from, 'that's where I'm from'). And the Scottish although proud to be Scots and not wanting to be 'ruled' from London are happy to be ruled from Brussels. I'm confused. If you think Britain was "ruled from Brussels", why did we bother having a national government for all these years? Why do none of the other EU-27 not think they are "ruled from Brussels"? This is a phrase from the Leave-EU/ press barons that has slipped unchallenged into national discourse but doesn't stand up to examination.
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 298 
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Oct 28, 2020 10:53:45 GMT
It is interesting that talk of identity naturally links for some of you above to whether or not you are allowed to feel proud (and what about).
My point above was more, in order to cooperate and do it well, individuals and nations, need to feel secure in who they are in the first place (but not necessarily proud of it, that is a separate discussion in my mind).
Therefore, I don't really see an inconsistency about say the Scottish position. Nor have I met many French people who say they are "proud" to be French but rightly or wrongly they exude a certainty on what they think that Frenchness is.
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 298
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Oct 28, 2020 11:12:31 GMT
It is interesting, while I do agree we should hold politicians to account. A part of me think that ends once the electorate strongly endorses that position. The conservative party are many things but were very clear on their brexit strategy/priorities and we collectively voted for that. I guess I see a distinction between saying "X is a problem, how are you going to fix it?" vs "X is happening because of Y, you made Y happen, it is your fault, how are you going to fix it". The latter utterly absolves the electorate which I don't think is fair on politicians. Does this analysis not disregard a big part of the picture though? Claiming that we collectively voted for the Conservatives because of their very clear Brexit strategy, is to me rather akin to saying that we voted for a slap in the face knowing what we were in for... but missing out that that was because the only alternative was a kick in the head. i.e. many people voted Conservative in 2019 principally (and reluctantly) because Jeremy Corbyn was regarded as any one/more of a danger to national security, antisemitic or tolerant thereof, or would herald a return to the 1970's economically speaking. Certainly many of my anti-brexit family voted for one or more of those reasons. I'm pretty sure the Tories would still win against Corbyn if there was an action replay today. That is still not one and the same as a strong endorsement for their Brexit strategy and priorities though, just a very unfortunate byproduct of avoiding something that we collectively perceived as even worse. We were asked to make a difficult choice at the election but characterising it as it as a choice between "slap in a face" vs "kick in the head" I do feel abdicate responsibility from the electorate. If the choices were that unpalatable, we would have seen a groundswell movement for change/new parties, etc. we have not. If someone genuinely felt that Jeremy Corbyn was such a threat to national safety given our country's existing structures (I think the reality is many simply did not like him and picked a reason that suited their sensibilities) and voted accordingly when the other party was saying very explicitly what they will do, then yes it must be taken as an endorsment or surely the whole nature of democracy starts to fail? On your other point, I will reflect more on that as you do raise good/interesting points. A significant majority shouldn't remove the ability to hold politicians to account. I guess what I am trying to say is how you hold them to account should acknowledge the electoral preference even if that differs to your own preferences. I'll ponder more on that.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,384
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 28, 2020 11:14:19 GMT
I'm not sure why being 'proud' to be British is somehow worse than being proud to be French or proud to be Scottish. Somewhere above it was said that the French reason for being proud of being French was better than the British reason although I'm not sure what the British or French reasons are (apart from, 'that's where I'm from'). And the Scottish although proud to be Scots and not wanting to be 'ruled' from London are happy to be ruled from Brussels. I'm confused. If you think Britain was "ruled from Brussels", why did we bother having a national government for all these years? Why do none of the other EU-27 not think they are "ruled from Brussels"? This is a phrase from the Leave-EU/ press barons that has slipped unchallenged into national discourse but doesn't stand up to examination. No, I'm saying Scotland wants separation from Britain because of the perception that some decisions about Scotland are made in London, but doesn't mind that a lot of decisions that effect Scotland are (and would continue to be if Scotland stays in the EU) made in Brussels, just seems a bit bizarre. If Scotland truly wants to be independent you would think they wouldn't be too keen on Brussels either.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 1,287
|
Post by james100 on Oct 28, 2020 11:25:15 GMT
I'm not sure why being 'proud' to be British is somehow worse than being proud to be French or proud to be Scottish. Somewhere above it was said that the French reason for being proud of being French was better than the British reason although I'm not sure what the British or French reasons are (apart from, 'that's where I'm from'). And the Scottish although proud to be Scots and not wanting to be 'ruled' from London are happy to be ruled from Brussels. I'm confused. If you think Britain was "ruled from Brussels", why did we bother having a national government for all these years? Why do none of the other EU-27 not think they are "ruled from Brussels"? This is a phrase from the Leave-EU/ press barons that has slipped unchallenged into national discourse but doesn't stand up to examination. "Ruled from Brussels" was just a trope necessary to underpin the let's take back control propaganda. Cunningly sidestepping the point that the UK always had control but either executed it poorly or chose not to exercise it at all (e.g. FoM restrictions imposed by everyone else when the Eastern European countries joined). And don't get me started on the mad idea that retrospective removal of rights to live and work in 27 other countries has anything to do with a liberty agenda...
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Oct 28, 2020 11:37:22 GMT
Does this analysis not disregard a big part of the picture though? Claiming that we collectively voted for the Conservatives because of their very clear Brexit strategy, is to me rather akin to saying that we voted for a slap in the face knowing what we were in for... but missing out that that was because the only alternative was a kick in the head. i.e. many people voted Conservative in 2019 principally (and reluctantly) because Jeremy Corbyn was regarded as any one/more of a danger to national security, antisemitic or tolerant thereof, or would herald a return to the 1970's economically speaking. Certainly many of my anti-brexit family voted for one or more of those reasons. I'm pretty sure the Tories would still win against Corbyn if there was an action replay today. That is still not one and the same as a strong endorsement for their Brexit strategy and priorities though, just a very unfortunate byproduct of avoiding something that we collectively perceived as even worse. We were asked to make a difficult choice at the election but characterising it as it as a choice between "slap in a face" vs "kick in the head" I do feel abdicate responsibility from the electorate. If the choices were that unpalatable, we would have seen a groundswell movement for change/new parties, etc. we have not. If someone genuinely felt that Jeremy Corbyn was such a threat to national safety given our country's existing structures (I think the reality is many simply did not like him and picked a reason that suited their sensibilities) and voted accordingly when the other party was saying very explicitly what they will do, then yes it must be taken as an endorsment or surely the whole nature of democracy starts to fail? On your other point, I will reflect more on that as you do raise good/interesting points. A significant majority shouldn't remove the ability to hold politicians to account. I guess what I am trying to say is how you hold them to account should acknowledge the electoral preference even if that differs to your own preferences. I'll ponder more on that. FPTP election system presents only the choice between the kick or the slap. There are no new parties because they have no chance of a seat in parliament. FPTP is a dead hand which stifles debate, blocks progress and seats the same old rogues villains and party stuffed suits over and over again.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,436
|
Post by registerme on Oct 28, 2020 11:46:59 GMT
starfished I think I probably agree with you more than I disagree with you, but even were that not the case, thank you, you've brought a fresh perspective to this discussion.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 28, 2020 11:49:45 GMT
It is interesting that talk of identity naturally links for some of you above to whether or not you are allowed to feel proud (and what about). Not "allowed to". Nobody can stop anybody feeling whatever they wish to feel. This seems to be very close to Theresa May's much-derided (and rightly so) "citizens of nowhere" guff. Why and how are my self-security and identity somehow tied to what it says on the front of my passport? That's all my nationality is, after all.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 28, 2020 11:55:50 GMT
FPTP election system presents only the choice between the kick or the slap. There are no new parties because they have no chance of a seat in parliament. FPTP is a dead hand which stifles debate, blocks progress and seats the same old rogues villains and party stuffed suits over and over again. Alternative way of looking at it: Every single local area in the UK has the most locally popular candidate directly representing its interests. The biggest problem with FPTP is in the voters' perception of how it works. "I'm voting for Boris". No, you aren't. You don't live within 150 miles of Uxbridge. You're voting for an idiot seat-warmer old Etonian party-yes-man who has been proven over the last few parliaments not to give the first toss about his constituents. Look, it's even got his name on the ballot paper next to where you just put your X... "I'm not voting for Corbyn". Correct, you aren't. You don't live within 150 miles of Islington North, either. And there's more than two candidates anyway... "Gitbreggzitduninnit"
The recent free school meals vote debacle had five Tory MPs voting with their consciences, against the party whip. One of them was the MP for Scunthorpe. Scunthorpe voted for a Tory MP. Just pause and let that sink in for a moment... Then look back at previous election results, and realise that in 2010 and 2015, adding the UKIP and BNP votes to the Conservative vote would have seen a Tory MP then, too, and it all becomes clearer... However, in the only three preceding general elections since that constituency was created, the Tories didn't even reach half of Labour's votes... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Oct 28, 2020 12:13:57 GMT
We were asked to make a difficult choice at the election but characterising it as it as a choice between "slap in a face" vs "kick in the head" I do feel abdicate responsibility from the electorate. If the choices were that unpalatable, we would have seen a groundswell movement for change/new parties, etc. we have not. I would personally argue that hundreds of thousands marching through the streets of London on several occasions was a groundswell movement for change, even if it was doomed to failure. Anyway, putting that aside, yes the electorate is responsible for the result of the election. I don't disagree with that. But, firstly that does not necessarily indicate support for any one single issue because of the varied range of reasons people vote for parties. Secondly, we then surely should be expecting them to deliver what they promised. You said before they were very clear on their Brexit strategy/priorities. Most of the specific complaints we have had here recently is where they deviate from that. Many many examples from the last few months, but perhaps the worst 2: 1) Claiming to have an 'oven ready' deal that subsequently is still not yet agreed with 2 months to go. 2) Putting forward a bill that both goes directly against the Brexit agreement that was part of what we voted for, and that also breaks international law. The electorate is not responsible for these problems, why wouldn't we want to hold them to account for it? I mean, crikey, even some of their own party and former PM's wanted to hold them to account for the 2nd one. edit: X'd with registerme . I should say I agree with that too re: fresh perspective. Despite my disagreements above, I do agree with much of what you have said in the last 24 hours and you've expressed it in an entirely reasonable way.
|
|
So I say don't estimate the draw of identity.Can you explain that to me, please?
