Seen On Another Forum

[Accumulator]

It all boils down to a simple choice - European Union or national democracy. The two are mutually exclusive.

I respect everyone's opinion (Peckris, David, Colin, Rob, everyone…), whether pro or anti. What I can't respect is the 'political elite' denying the population the chance to make their choice. The only conceivable grounds for denial, is the opinion that 'we' know better than 'you' and can't trust 'you' to make the correct decision. It's surely that simple?

Off my soapbox now…

1. We are not in the Euro, and never have been. That was our government's free choice. Personally I'm all in favour of that, as the Euro itself has been the biggest unmitigated disaster of the EU.

2. Speaking as a citizen of the oldest federated union in Europe (over more than 1000 years, Yorkshiremen and Cornishmen have not lost their individual identities), the EU is hardly the recipe for the feared 'loss of national identity'. Germans, French, Spanish, and Italians, are no less German, French, Spanish, or Italian through being members of the EU. Nor are they clamouring for independence from it, apart from their own equivalents of UKIP.

1. We both agree about the Euro then.

2. You misquote me. I didn't talk about loss of 'national identity' (whatever that is? Certainly rich material for a different debate on another day), I said national democracy. How could anyone argue that wasn't being eroded by the EU?

[Peckris]

It all boils down to a simple choice - European Union or national democracy. The two are mutually exclusive.

I respect everyone's opinion (Peckris, David, Colin, Rob, everyone…), whether pro or anti. What I can't respect is the 'political elite' denying the population the chance to make their choice. The only conceivable grounds for denial, is the opinion that 'we' know better than 'you' and can't trust 'you' to make the correct decision. It's surely that simple?

Off my soapbox now…

1. We are not in the Euro, and never have been. That was our government's free choice. Personally I'm all in favour of that, as the Euro itself has been the biggest unmitigated disaster of the EU.

2. Speaking as a citizen of the oldest federated union in Europe (over more than 1000 years, Yorkshiremen and Cornishmen have not lost their individual identities), the EU is hardly the recipe for the feared 'loss of national identity'. Germans, French, Spanish, and Italians, are no less German, French, Spanish, or Italian through being members of the EU. Nor are they clamouring for independence from it, apart from their own equivalents of UKIP.

1. We both agree about the Euro then.

2. You misquote me. I didn't talk about loss of 'national identity' (whatever that is? Certainly rich material for a different debate on another day), I said national democracy. How could anyone argue that wasn't being eroded by the EU?

Oh, you think you have democratic power, do you? You can choose what your taxes are spent on? You can curb the powers of a minority government elected by not much more than a third of the population? You can prevent the sell off of the GPO? You have even the tiniest influence on what happens in Afghanistan? You can prevent the DWP from causing such harassment of disabled people that some commit suicide? You can tell the American president "Hey, we don't have to jump to YOUR call, we're a free country"? You can stop Starbucks and McDonalds opening new branches on every high street?

That's just a few fr'instances off the top of my head. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'national democracy', but in the big wide world where America, China, yes and Russia too, and increasingly India, and the Gulf States, call the shots, how much real power do you think our government actually has? And at home, how much power do you really think YOU have against the politicians and mandarins of Whitehall? At least the EU forms a powerful enough bloc to enable European voices - united yet still independent - to still be heard in the world. Where do you think Britain would be outside it? Alone. Or the 51st state of the USA.

[Rob]

As I see it, the EU forms a powerful enough block to over-rule our politicians, but has no interests in promoting the aims or desires of the British public. Everything is subservient to the self-promoting Euro-politician who have Europe-wide aspirations instead of national ones. Same species of animal, just a bigger version.

[Peckris]

As I see it, the EU forms a powerful enough block to over-rule our politicians, but has no interests in promoting the aims or desires of the British public. Everything is subservient to the self-promoting Euro-politician who have Europe-wide aspirations instead of national ones. Same species of animal, just a bigger version.

We're never going to agree on this. It's just a shame - to me - that the wider British public seems to have had its natural insularity reinforced over the decades by outsiders such as the egregious Rupert who promote xenophobia.

[Rob]

As I see it, the EU forms a powerful enough block to over-rule our politicians, but has no interests in promoting the aims or desires of the British public. Everything is subservient to the self-promoting Euro-politician who have Europe-wide aspirations instead of national ones. Same species of animal, just a bigger version.

We're never going to agree on this. It's just a shame - to me - that the wider British public seems to have had its natural insularity reinforced over the decades by outsiders such as the egregious Rupert who promote xenophobia.

For once, he is not the main culprit in my eyes. The seeds of anti-European rhetoric were sown long before he became the owner of the gutter press. It goes back to the decision to join the Common Market, which in a short time morphed into the European Union. That is not what people signed up to.

At the moment we have a group of politicians that are self serving. The vast bulk of European citizens are nationals, not Europeans. The system cannot work until someone from Paris or Rome or wherever stands up and says that people elsewhere are being severely disadvantaged to the benefit of their home town/area/country(which should have been abolished by this point). It could even be argued that the same people in the best areas of the EU should be proactive in simultaneously lowering their own conditions whilst raising others'. It ain't going to work because nobody wants it.

[Peckris]

As I see it, the EU forms a powerful enough block to over-rule our politicians, but has no interests in promoting the aims or desires of the British public. Everything is subservient to the self-promoting Euro-politician who have Europe-wide aspirations instead of national ones. Same species of animal, just a bigger version.

We're never going to agree on this. It's just a shame - to me - that the wider British public seems to have had its natural insularity reinforced over the decades by outsiders such as the egregious Rupert who promote xenophobia.

For once, he is not the main culprit in my eyes. The seeds of anti-European rhetoric were sown long before he became the owner of the gutter press. It goes back to the decision to join the Common Market, which in a short time morphed into the European Union. That is not what people signed up to.

At the moment we have a group of politicians that are self serving. The vast bulk of European citizens are nationals, not Europeans. The system cannot work until someone from Paris or Rome or wherever stands up and says that people elsewhere are being severely disadvantaged to the benefit of their home town/area/country(which should have been abolished by this point). It could even be argued that the same people in the best areas of the EU should be proactive in simultaneously lowering their own conditions whilst raising others'. It ain't going to work because nobody wants it.

Exactly the same argument could be applied to the smug fat-cat inhabitants of the stockbroker belt, vis à vis places like Burnley or Teesside!

[Accumulator]

Exactly the same argument could be applied to the smug fat-cat inhabitants of the stockbroker belt, vis à vis places like Burnley or Teesside!

If you want to go down the stereotype road, how about the even smugger 'we know best', luvvy, trendy-lefty, Guardian-subscribed, liberals of Notting Hill with huge, often publicly funded (think BBC exec) salaries and fat bottomed pensions? Then we could talk about that multi-multi-millionaire socialist, Tony Blair….

Stereotypes don't work, there are good and bad examples of everything out there.

[Peckris]

Exactly the same argument could be applied to the smug fat-cat inhabitants of the stockbroker belt, vis à vis places like Burnley or Teesside!

If you want to go down the stereotype road, how about the even smugger 'we know best', luvvy, trendy-lefty, Guardian-subscribed, liberals of Notting Hill with huge, often publicly funded (think BBC exec) salaries and fat bottomed pensions? Then we could talk about that multi-multi-millionaire socialist, Tony Blair….

Stereotypes don't work, there are good and bad examples of everything out there.

Then you should, in all honesty, also apply that ethic to Rob's parallel argument to which I was responding.

[ChKy]

Very interesting discussion here... I certainly have a deja vu. All these thinks are discussed the same way here in Germany.

My home country gave his "powerfull currency" in exchange for the Euro. Most likely that was an accomodation to Western allies/Europe in exchange for the unification of Western & Eastern Germany. But hey... the Euro is FIAT MONEY, like the D-Mark was or the Swiss Franc, the US-Dollar and even your Pound. FIAT MONEY is a method for additional taxation via inflation, regardless the currencies name.

I heared about the plan to vote anew about the EU-membership of the United Kingdom. Some EU hostile groups embrace the vote in the UK. The say that Germany should follow that example. But the majority of the population has the opinion that the UK should leave the Union if the British population advocates that. Great Britain does mess up European politics anyways they say. The old British (splendid isolation) versus continental contrast again...

[Rob]

The problem for politicians of all countries is that giving the voter a choice is dangerous, because it may interfere with, or worse still ruin their vested interests. Democracy is a double edged sword, hence the reluctance to offer it. What is passed on one occasion may not be in everyone's best interests down the line. A periodic review is therefore in everyone's interest, whichever side of the fence you are on.

[Peckris]

The problem for politicians of all countries is that giving the voter a choice is dangerous, because it may interfere with, or worse still ruin their vested interests. Democracy is a double edged sword, hence the reluctance to offer it. What is passed on one occasion may not be in everyone's best interests down the line. A periodic review is therefore in everyone's interest, whichever side of the fence you are on.

It's said a majority of businessmen advocate staying in the EU as it's their biggest market.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Peckris

[Accumulator]

The problem for politicians of all countries is that giving the voter a choice is dangerous, because it may interfere with, or worse still ruin their vested interests. Democracy is a double edged sword, hence the reluctance to offer it. What is passed on one occasion may not be in everyone's best interests down the line. A periodic review is therefore in everyone's interest, whichever side of the fence you are on.

It's said a majority of businessmen advocate staying in the EU as it's their biggest market.

Rather than rely on hearsay, or ask only a subset of the population, why not give everyone the chance to decide? It's called 'one man/woman, one vote' or more succinctly, 'democracy'. An old fashioned idea, I know.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Accumulator

[ChKy]

A periodic review is therefore in everyone's interest, whichever side of the fence you are on.

Well... the outcome of the vote would be fixed. Entering and leaving the union periodicaly is not reliable.

Britains discharge out of the Union would have extensive consequences to my personal book project as well... Customs, visa, ect...

[Peckris]

The problem for politicians of all countries is that giving the voter a choice is dangerous, because it may interfere with, or worse still ruin their vested interests. Democracy is a double edged sword, hence the reluctance to offer it. What is passed on one occasion may not be in everyone's best interests down the line. A periodic review is therefore in everyone's interest, whichever side of the fence you are on.

It's said a majority of businessmen advocate staying in the EU as it's their biggest market.

Rather than rely on hearsay, or ask only a subset of the population, why not give everyone the chance to decide? It's called 'one man/woman, one vote' or more succinctly, 'democracy'. An old fashioned idea, I know.

I saw the interviews. Anyway, I'd rather put Britain's future prosperity in the hands of businessmen than a bunch of Daily Mail readers.

[Red Riley]

Rather than rely on hearsay, or ask only a subset of the population, why not give everyone the chance to decide? It's called 'one man/woman, one vote' or more succinctly, 'democracy'. An old fashioned idea, I know.

I don't mind referenda on any subject but I would like that everybody who intends to vote take an exam on the subject first just to make sure they know what they're talking about. Could be some surprises there...

And whilst talking about unelected bodies, can I have a vote on who becomes our next head of state?

[DaveG38]

Rather than rely on hearsay, or ask only a subset of the population, why not give everyone the chance to decide? It's called 'one man/woman, one vote' or more succinctly, 'democracy'. An old fashioned idea, I know.

I don't mind referenda on any subject but I would like that everybody who intends to vote take an exam on the subject first just to make sure they know what they're talking about. Could be some surprises there...

And whilst talking about unelected bodies, can I have a vote on who becomes our next head of state?

You mean you aren't looking forward to seeing Charles III coinage?

[Peckris]

Rather than rely on hearsay, or ask only a subset of the population, why not give everyone the chance to decide? It's called 'one man/woman, one vote' or more succinctly, 'democracy'. An old fashioned idea, I know.

I don't mind referenda on any subject but I would like that everybody who intends to vote take an exam on the subject first just to make sure they know what they're talking about. Could be some surprises there...

And whilst talking about unelected bodies, can I have a vote on who becomes our next head of state?

You mean you aren't looking forward to seeing Charles III coinage?

Oh, he won't be a Charles - they always change their name! (At least, George VI and Edward VII did, I'm not sure about George V - but who was? ). My bet is that Charlie-boy will be Fred the First, or possibly Camillum the First.

[DaveG38]

Rather than rely on hearsay, or ask only a subset of the population, why not give everyone the chance to decide? It's called 'one man/woman, one vote' or more succinctly, 'democracy'. An old fashioned idea, I know.

I don't mind referenda on any subject but I would like that everybody who intends to vote take an exam on the subject first just to make sure they know what they're talking about. Could be some surprises there...

And whilst talking about unelected bodies, can I have a vote on who becomes our next head of state?

You mean you aren't looking forward to seeing Charles III coinage?

Oh, he won't be a Charles - they always change their name! (At least, George VI and Edward VII did, I'm not sure about George V - but who was? ). My bet is that Charlie-boy will be Fred the First, or possibly Camillum the First.

Why not Wayne or Sean or Dean? That would do it for me.

[Accumulator]

Rather than rely on hearsay, or ask only a subset of the population, why not give everyone the chance to decide? It's called 'one man/woman, one vote' or more succinctly, 'democracy'. An old fashioned idea, I know.

I don't mind referenda on any subject but I would like that everybody who intends to vote take an exam on the subject first just to make sure they know what they're talking about. Could be some surprises there...

And whilst talking about unelected bodies, can I have a vote on who becomes our next head of state?

You mean you aren't looking forward to seeing Charles III coinage?

Oh, he won't be a Charles - they always change their name! (At least, George VI and Edward VII did, I'm not sure about George V - but who was? ). My bet is that Charlie-boy will be Fred the First, or possibly Camillum the First.

Why not Wayne or Sean or Dean? That would do it for me.

or for a modern twist on a classic name: Will.I.am

[Red Riley]

He is on record as saying he wants to be George VII which is one of his names apparently. Honestly, he's got as many names as the Very Silly candidate in Monty Python's election.

[RLC35]

He is on record as saying he wants to be George VII which is one of his names apparently. Honestly, he's got as many names as the Very Silly candidate in Monty Python's election.

Red,

George is one of Charles' names, and I also heard the same thing...that he wants to Crowned as George. There are rumors that he may "pass" in favor of his son...what do you think?

[Rob]

He is on record as saying he wants to be George VII which is one of his names apparently. Honestly, he's got as many names as the Very Silly candidate in Monty Python's election.

Red,

George is one of Charles' names, and I also heard the same thing...that he wants to Crowned as George. There are rumors that he may "pass" in favor of his son...what do you think?

Pass what? Wind?

That is not how it works. Charlie will just have to have a short reign, assuming he outlives his mum

[Peckris]

He is on record as saying he wants to be George VII which is one of his names apparently. Honestly, he's got as many names as the Very Silly candidate in Monty Python's election.

Red,

George is one of Charles' names, and I also heard the same thing...that he wants to Crowned as George. There are rumors that he may "pass" in favor of his son...what do you think?

Pass what? Wind?

That is not how it works. Charlie will just have to have a short reign, assuming he outlives his mum

Victoria 64 years.. Edward VII 9 years.. Elizabeth II 62 years and counting.. George VII ??.. I see a pattern here. Wonder what Wills will call himself? Katesman I?

[RLC35]

He is on record as saying he wants to be George VII which is one of his names apparently. Honestly, he's got as many names as the Very Silly candidate in Monty Python's election.

Red,

George is one of Charles' names, and I also heard the same thing...that he wants to Crowned as George. There are rumors that he may "pass" in favor of his son...what do you think?

Pass what? Wind?

That is not how it works. Charlie will just have to have a short reign, assuming he outlives his mum

Pass?...That is how it worked for Edward VIII..........

[Colin G.]

He is on record as saying he wants to be George VII which is one of his names apparently. Honestly, he's got as many names as the Very Silly candidate in Monty Python's election.

Red,

George is one of Charles' names, and I also heard the same thing...that he wants to Crowned as George. There are rumors that he may "pass" in favor of his son...what do you think?

Pass what? Wind?

That is not how it works. Charlie will just have to have a short reign, assuming he outlives his mum

Victoria 64 years.. Edward VII 9 years.. Elizabeth II 62 years and counting.. George VII ??.. I see a pattern here. Wonder what Wills will call himself? Katesman I?

I understand Wills is also contemplating calling himself George...