Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Only for you lot, but as I say irrelevant.

Well, some of "our lot" live in the UK, you know.

But as I say, separate issue.

Corbyn just came out against TTIP, and Cameron just defended it.

Guess we know where the bread is buttered now. Reform my arse.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ireland is an island and is pro-EU, despite your Euroskeptic press buying out a lot of our media share over the last 25 years.

We're even further detached than you guys, I don't think being an island is the real reason. I'm not sure what it is really, aside from maybe a post Imperial hang up?

I think that is a big part of it, especially for the right-wing component of the Conservative Party, who are the reason that Cameron is on the renegotiation/referendum trail.

 Da Boss wrote:
notprop: Well, Ireland's interaction with the Brexit is a whole 'nother story (Good Friday Agreement, land border with the republic, our biggest trading partner and each other's biggest source of immigrants).

I was responding to the idea that the UK is euroskeptic because of being an island, pointing out that not all island nations in Europe are euroskeptic.

I suggested the post-Imperial thing as an alternate hypothesis, but that was a bit naughty alright - I apologize. I know it's a sore topic.

Not solely because of being an island, but it helps. It also helps that Britain has political, economic and military clout, unlike the other island members, of whom the only ones I can think off the top of my head are Ireland and Malta, to survive on its own.

so stupid, thinking of Cyprus.

A lot of people are frustrated by many elemetns of the EU:

The Waste - the vast saleries and expenses that are paid without any system of checks and balances. The uk parties are so conscious of these abuses that British MEPS actually have there accounts aduited -guess that too much to expect of the rest of tEurope?
The oh so special arrangement with France that forces the Parliment to be in to vastly expenisve building in different cities plus the stupedous travel /accomodation bills for this.
Taxpayers money pays for all this and year after year more money is demanded by the Eurocarats in luxury.

Lack of acountablility - not only do people feel that there is no interest in anything other than the "Brussels" agenda - when referendi are held - they are only respected if the "right" result is achieved - happened in France and other nations - if the right result is not achived then another refedum is held and again and again until they get their way

Enforcement of Laws - whilst H+S laws in particular are applied with rigour in the UK (sometimes verging on ZeaL) the same is simply not true of the rest of Europe.

 Deadshot wrote:

Well that's what I'm saying, UK MEP voter turnout is pathetic because the public doesn't care enough to turn up, so we get lackluster representation, plus our population is pretty small compared to Germany, France, even Italy, Spain, etc, so our section of the council is smaller as well. Plus the fact that the UK is 4 countries with 4 different views on things (Scotland wants to stay, England wants to leave, Northern Ireland is more interested in whether they leave or stay in the UK and Wales just wants the rules on human/animal relationships reformed).

To be honest, most people in EU don't really see electing EU representatives as important. It was always seen as something totally out of their hands, anyway.

But yeah, politicians like to blame EU for anything. It's such an easy target to hide their own incompetence.

The referendum point is untrue - when they hold the referendum again, you are voting on a new treaty which addresses the concerns of the electorate that decided to vote against.

The law enforcement thing is down to UK enforcement as you say- you guys could choose to relax on it.

The waste and lack of accountability I agree on though. Both would exist without Europe.

About the waste and lack of accountability, of course it's true.

It's also true that all countries do that for their national governments. And UK isn't exempted of those "little helpers".

Seriously, that argument is like saying "we must keep our childdren from going out because the rain wets". Well, the rain wets you as well but you still go out - I guess it's fine as long as we don't talk about it.

Now, if Cameron said " we must have accountability for all national parties from all members of the EU as well as for EU representatives", that would be a very good idea. Really.

 Da Boss wrote:
The referendum point is untrue - when they hold the referendum again, you are voting on a new treaty which addresses the concerns of the electorate that decided to vote against.

The law enforcement thing is down to UK enforcement as you say- you guys could choose to relax on it.

The waste and lack of accountability I agree on though. Both would exist without Europe.

If the Law was agreed and felt neccesary why would it not be enforced - surely its incumbent on other Eu nations to eother not vote for it or enforce it - again this is a ongoing issue with EU double standards abotu what is and is not enforced..

Waste is waste - to say it woud happen anyway is mad

Without Europe would we as a group of nations really spend 200 Million Euros a year on a "spare" parliment building simply to appease the French? They claim this s a legacy of the previous war/s - whereas most people not directly profting from it see it as total waste - including 85% of Euro MPs at the last vote (guess the rest are French) - if the Eu can't stop such flangrent abuses of thier own organisation - its esy to speculcate on what further more hidden corruption continues.

I'm absolutely fine with cutting waste in the EU - salaries and benefits for EU workers are often far too high, and the dual parliament thing is a farce.

Why is Cameron not pushing for these things as his reform agenda? He'd find widespread support within and outside of the UK if he did that.

I am all for opening the EU up to scrutiny and reducing waste. Which is why I find Cameron's "reforms" to be a joke. I do not want what he wants to be considered the "reform" we are all looking for when there are so many issues that really require looking at.

(Equally, I think the French get away with murder politically in Europe, mostly because they are awesome at diplomacy.)

 Deadshot wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
notprop: Well, Ireland's interaction with the Brexit is a whole 'nother story (Good Friday Agreement, land border with the republic, our biggest trading partner and each other's biggest source of immigrants).

I was responding to the idea that the UK is euroskeptic because of being an island, pointing out that not all island nations in Europe are euroskeptic.

I suggested the post-Imperial thing as an alternate hypothesis, but that was a bit naughty alright - I apologize. I know it's a sore topic.

Not solely because of being an island, but it helps. It also helps that Britain has political, economic and military clout, unlike the other island members, of whom the only ones I can think off the top of my head are Ireland and Malta, to survive on its own.

Britain has military clout? Maybe 200 years ago but now? Not really.

Just look at the Type 45 debacle to see what our armed forces have become. We have half the number of destroyers the Navy wanted, at over the cost the Navy wanted and the ships we do have all need to be refitted due to faulty generators which can lead to power loss of the whole ship (navigation, propulsion, weapons, everything).

Then there's the aircraft carrier mess where we still have no planes. Our army is effective and well trained but also too small to act independently.

Maybe if our MEP's turned up, we might have some sway.

I wonder if we're still ranked fairly low on the attendance list.

UKIP MEPs have a 65% attendance record. Which is pretty bad compared to most groupings.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
notprop: Well, Ireland's interaction with the Brexit is a whole 'nother story (Good Friday Agreement, land border with the republic, our biggest trading partner and each other's biggest source of immigrants).

I was responding to the idea that the UK is euroskeptic because of being an island, pointing out that not all island nations in Europe are euroskeptic.

I suggested the post-Imperial thing as an alternate hypothesis, but that was a bit naughty alright - I apologize. I know it's a sore topic.

Not solely because of being an island, but it helps. It also helps that Britain has political, economic and military clout, unlike the other island members, of whom the only ones I can think off the top of my head are Ireland and Malta, to survive on its own.

Britain has military clout? Maybe 200 years ago but now? Not really.

Just look at the Type 45 debacle to see what our armed forces have become. We have half the number of destroyers the Navy wanted, at over the cost the Navy wanted and the ships we do have all need to be refitted due to faulty generators which can lead to power loss of the whole ship (navigation, propulsion, weapons, everything).

Then there's the aircraft carrier mess where we still have no planes. Our army is effective and well trained but also too small to act independently.

We still have a fairly powerful army, a navy and airforce, compared to the lesser EU states, not to mention nuclear response if all gak truly hits the fan and sprays the walls. Plus, US support. Maybe not vs Germany or France but if they were forced to choose between UK and EU, I have confidence they'd make the right decision.

 Da Boss wrote:
It is to Cameron's credit (cringing as I say that) that he is allowing a referendum on Europe. And I don't think big moneyed interests will be able to do much about it if the public vote to leave. It will be a public statement of democracy.

“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.” - Mark Twain.

The UK is one of, if not the major military power of Europe, it's pretty decent for the money it spends on it's forces.

I mean, compared to the US everyone is crap, but that doesn't mean the UK isn't good when compared to it's neighbours.

One element that others don't have (except the French perhaps) is as much experience in warzones.

There is nothing that the Conservatives like more than to talk about Europe. Now, we all get to talk about Europe some more, and most certainly the Conservative eurosceptics were never going to approve of any deal that Cameron made. I'm fairly concerned that the media's obsession with 'EU bureaucrats stole our bananas' style stories will made what should be an easy vote to stay into something closer, even though the inner Chaos player in me likes the idea of a vote to leave triggering a second Independence referendum up here in Scotland. Watching worlds burn is at least heart-warming.

I'd just like to thank Mr Cameron tbh, he's managed to put literally every foot wrong since 2014, so we might get another chance to get away sooner than a lot of folk up here hoped for or expected.

Oh aye, sorry, we do still exist, and current polling isn't rosy for the yoons - Scots seem set to vote "In" by a solid majority, and support for independence goes above 50% when folk are asked to consider how they would vote in the event we vote "In" but England votes "Out" and takes us with them, which would happen even if "Out" wins by only a percentage point or two thanks to the population differential.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I'd just like to thank Mr Cameron tbh, he's managed to put literally every foot wrong since 2014, so we might get another chance to get away sooner than a lot of folk up here hoped for or expected.

Oh aye, sorry, we do still exist, and current polling isn't rosy for the yoons - Scots seem set to vote "In" by a solid majority, and support for independence goes above 50% when folk are asked to consider how they would vote in the event we vote "In" but England votes "Out" and takes us with them, which would happen even if "Out" wins by only a percentage point or two thanks to the population differential.

You are aware Scotland won't get another independence vote for at least another thirty to forty years, right? You might want to start thinking about where you think our nation should go with it's future on a current topic, as opposed to focusing on something been and gone. Scottish independence won't be an issue on the mainstream political agenda for most of either of our remaining lives, if necessarily ever again.

I wouldn't be so sure of that Ketara.

But we'll see. Perhaps the UK will continue to lurch forward as it has so far.

 Da Boss wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure of that Ketara.

But we'll see. Perhaps the UK will continue to lurch forward as it has so far.

No central political party wanted to support independence. They have the reason now of, 'We had a referendum five/ten/fifteen years ago which gave an answer' for not holding another one. Generally speaking, I'd agree with them as well. You can't hold referendums on breaking up the nation every ten years, it would be disastrous for confidence in the economy. Not to mention the ethical dubiousness of keeping on pushing for referendums on the same point until you get the answer you want.

It'll take a good few decades before any sort of independence movement can reasonably assert that another one is justified. The referendum wasn't held on the pretext of, 'Vote one way for independence, and the other way if you want to stay but want a fresh referendum every time the country goes through a foreign policy/treaty change'. It was stay/go. The vote was held. The people decided. End of story for the next few three or four decades. Democracy in action, yadda yadda.

At the risk of sounding like Cameron's stupid bloody 'all in it together' slogan, it's been decided that we're all part of the same country. Done and dusted. So we all need to figure out what direction we, collectively, wish our country to go. This whole EU thing is a big deal, and will affect our nation's future substantially.

I think the UK voting as a whole to leave the EU whilst Scotland itself voted to stay in would be legitimate grounds for another independence referendum.

Herzlos wrote:
“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.” - Mark Twain.

Tell that to Al Gore.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think the UK voting as a whole to leave the EU whilst Scotland itself voted to stay in would be legitimate grounds for another independence referendum.

Really? I disagree. Because I'm pretty sure there wasn't a 'Vote to stay but we should have a look at it again every time a new foreign policy is decided' option on the polling card. Do we have to have a new Scottish referendum every time we leave or enter a new international organisation? Or sign/leave a new treaty? What about when we declare war? Does the whole country have to stop and double check to see whether or not Scotland feels that now would be the moment to go?

You simply cannot run a country on that basis. At some point, you have to accept. There was a referendum. It didn't go the way you wanted. That sucks for you. Seriously. Everyone likes it when things go their way. I'm genuinely sorry the world is not ordered the way you want it to be(no sarcasm). God only knows I wish it worked like that for me.

But the fact remains that the people voted. Demanding that you get to have another say on it every time the government makes a substantial foreign policy gesture means you're effectively hamstringing government. You're saying they should never make one without consulting a Scottish referendum. There's really absolutely no mandate for giving Scotland that level of power/influence over the rest of the country, and I would be quite politically vocal about anyone who suggested that there should be.

 Deadshot wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
notprop: Well, Ireland's interaction with the Brexit is a whole 'nother story (Good Friday Agreement, land border with the republic, our biggest trading partner and each other's biggest source of immigrants).

I was responding to the idea that the UK is euroskeptic because of being an island, pointing out that not all island nations in Europe are euroskeptic.

I suggested the post-Imperial thing as an alternate hypothesis, but that was a bit naughty alright - I apologize. I know it's a sore topic.

Not solely because of being an island, but it helps. It also helps that Britain has political, economic and military clout, unlike the other island members, of whom the only ones I can think off the top of my head are Ireland and Malta, to survive on its own.

Britain has military clout? Maybe 200 years ago but now? Not really.

Just look at the Type 45 debacle to see what our armed forces have become. We have half the number of destroyers the Navy wanted, at over the cost the Navy wanted and the ships we do have all need to be refitted due to faulty generators which can lead to power loss of the whole ship (navigation, propulsion, weapons, everything).

Then there's the aircraft carrier mess where we still have no planes. Our army is effective and well trained but also too small to act independently.

We still have a fairly powerful army, a navy and airforce, compared to the lesser EU states, not to mention nuclear response if all gak truly hits the fan and sprays the walls. Plus, US support. Maybe not vs Germany or France but if they were forced to choose between UK and EU, I have confidence they'd make the right decision.

I seem to remember France and Germany not being too hot on the whole Iraq deal, whereas the UK joined up with the US in their invasion. Good thing the UK is always right about everything and us filthy continentals couldn't possibly ever have a valid point, eh?

I'm not too surprised. We are a rather important member, but not one of the founding members (we originally declined membership as we had a pretty solid empire, only that fell to pieces so we joined, with some limitations due to not being there from the start).

If we leave, we leave. If we don't, we don't. I think we should have a referendum so the people can decide. That's wishful thinking at it's best.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think the UK voting as a whole to leave the EU whilst Scotland itself voted to stay in would be legitimate grounds for another independence referendum.

If a third of Greater London wanted to stay in the EU when the rest of the country wanted out, would you suggest they could split away from the rest of the nation?

Because if 100% of voting age Scotts voted to stay in, that is pretty much the same kind of proportion of people within England who would be dictating things to the rest of the UK...

I think the way Germany and France don't play by the rules and expect others to, is a big issue. For example, immigration is a big issue here, asylum rules say that people should apply at the first safe country yet Germany simply waved a million in directly to their country shortcutting all processes. They're not refugees until they're processed, Germany has no clear idea who all these people are they've taken in. The claims that rejected applications will result in deportations is false - 'In 2013 the EU sent back just 39% of those refused asylum, the EU Commission says in its European Agenda on Migration.' sorry Germany, you have them now whether they're legitimate or not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34190359

The benefits thing seems like misdirection from Cameron, because he can't get a direct cap on migration. Yet here Europe insist we share our benefits system with everyone to follow equality laws. Our social system is one of the most generous in the world, when other countries in Europe provide so much social and healthcare freely as we do, then they can insist we share it equally.

The anti discrimination stuff is very dubious. Why are we bound by equality legislatiob while the French push through laws against Muslims wearing veils? And if it's about protecting their society or somesuch, that's just France getting special treatment in the manner that we're told Cameron can't have.

Nevertheless, Cameron's made a mess of this. Europe don't take us seriously that we'll leave, I think there's a poor grasp of the feelings of the public in the UK and its on then, not Cameron which the final decision lies.

I don't even know which way I'll vote, both sides are coming out with obfuscation and propaganda, scaremongering if we leave from one, and blind faith we'll be ok if we go alone from the other. There's no real debate or independent analysis that can be relied upon, maybe it can't be predicted because of the complexity of the economies involved. And the only reason we have this choice is because Cameron promised it in order to win the election.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think the UK voting as a whole to leave the EU whilst Scotland itself voted to stay in would be legitimate grounds for another independence referendum.

I didn't think there was going to be separate referendums for the regions.