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.

If the EU is such a huge bureaucracy how come it operates with a budget of 1% of the EU's GDP?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If the EU is such a huge bureaucracy how come it operates with a budget of 1% of the EU's GDP?

Obviously by stealing from UK's own treasury. After all, it's a given it's a corrupt organization. It's like the Mafia. Make UK great again and throw all those EU bureaucrats in jail!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


And as for the future? Britain did fine long before the EU rolled into town, I have no doubt it will continue to do fine...

Times change, Britain was well off in the last two hundred years off the back of an empire pre WWs. Those days are way gone. Realistically our economy was in absolute tatters in the period between the end of the 2nd World war and the early 80's. It's likely not a coincidence that things started improving after the EU became more integrated in the mid 80's.

A brief background can be read on Wikipedia:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#1945_to_2001

And as a point to note that even Winston Churchill called for a "kind of United States of Europe" in a speech at Zurich University.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:

Oh sure, and the campaign for Brexit was such a model for democracy. I mean, people blatantly lied to gain more people to their cause - and the most shocking was that they actually said it wasn't true or possible AFTER the results. And some people here tried to say it was normal. Well, to me, it's not and should never be.

Yeah, such a great victory for democracy, when the "victory" was made on such biased information or pure lies and where a lot of people voting for Brexit were regretting their choice - thus making the "victory" with such a low difference quite sour.

I guess your own politicians showed so much of their "integrity" that way.

Unfortunately the Democracy in the UK is a farce at the moment.

The first past the post system means a significant minority (30%) can give rise to a parliament with a majority.
You have policies and statements that are effectively meaningless because they are not ever held to account (the UK referendum showing this in it's extreme)
You have politicians can overspend the regulated amount per voting area and not be held to account (no new bi-election or police interest in the breach of regulations)
You have parties funded by rich organisations/individuals that have specific agendas they expect the parties to comply with (else they withdraw their funding)
You have a House of Lords (a second unelected parliament that can at least challenge legislation) being filled with friends of the individuals parties (with a strong concern that the more money they pay to the parties the more likely they will be made a lord)
And you have media system that the parties will fall over themselves to keep on side (the Tories being particularly influential/influenced in this area) - we only have to look at the phone hacking scandal and the farce of how things panned out.

 Sarouan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There's no buyer's remorse on my part for voting to leave. As far as I'm concerned, the EU is a corrupt racket, a menace to democracy...

That sounds more like a bias than actual knowledge of what EU really does.

EU isn't just a huge bureaucracy - it is necessary to use an administration when you goes to such a huge organization, but it alone will not work.

It seems like you forget EU is actually ruled by people from governments of the countries being part of it. And UK was one of them (technically, it still is right now). The main difference is that they have to agree with each other, and that means some of the usual tricks nationalists are so fond of don't work well when faced with the reality of working with other countries.

I would contend that that was the case pre-Lisbon. The EU has begun to evolve into a separate power base in it's own right since then however, as opposed to just being the sum of several representative parts. The Five EU Presidents now exert power and influence of their own which is not aligned to or derived from any one specific nation. Whilst they are still only one component of the whole that is the EU machine, they are a set of cogs which are ultimately answerable to themselves as opposed to any individual or collective electorate or government.

Oh sure, and the campaign for Brexit was such a model for democracy. I mean, people blatantly lied to gain more people to their cause - and the most shocking was that they actually said it wasn't true or possible AFTER the results. And some people here tried to say it was normal. Well, to me, it's not and should never be.

Yeah, such a great victory for democracy, when the "victory" was made on such biased information or pure lies and where a lot of people voting for Brexit were regretting their choice - thus making the "victory" with such a low difference quite sour.

I guess your own politicians showed so much of their "integrity" that way.

You're talking about the ones which declared WW3 was a week away should the EU choose to leave?

Please, that entire campaign was morass of lies and misinformation on both sides. It was frankly embarassing, and shouldn't be used as evidence for anything except how a campaign should /not be run.

Another case of forging your narrative from your own beliefs without actual arguments on that matter. UK is looking so fine right now, indeed. Remember, a glorious past doesn't mean the future is secured. Everyone thought the Roman Empire would be eternal at the time it was still there...we all know how it ended. Nations aren't eternal. Ireland is already stirring because of that mess. We'll see how much time UK's "unity" will last if they keep going like this, with that kind of misplaced arrogance.

There are many countries outside of the EU who do just fine, and many who did just fine before it existed. So not so much 'arrogance' as evidence based reasoning.

Not to mention that national unity is not the be all and end all. Nation sizes are not fixed affairs. If Scotland chooses to do their own thing, whilst I'd like them to stay, I'd wish them the very best and get on with things. A border line going up and people deciding to run their own affairs a bit closer to home is not a personal insult unless you choose to take it as one. Labelling people exercising self-determination as 'traitors' is the sort of distasteful activity better left to people of extreme and narrow-minded outlooks. Like Juncker.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If the EU is such a huge bureaucracy how come it operates with a budget of 1% of the EU's GDP?

Primarily by outsourcing most functions of Government to national governance. There's no EU army, welfare state, criminal judiciary, and so on. As it continues to absorb more of these responsibilities, this is likely to change, and indeed has done so. There's a reason the EU of today costs far more than the EU of 1980 (adjusted for inflation).

 Sarouan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There's no buyer's remorse on my part for voting to leave. As far as I'm concerned, the EU is a corrupt racket, a menace to democracy...

That sounds more like a bias than actual knowledge of what EU really does.

EU isn't just a huge bureaucracy - it is necessary to use an administration when you goes to such a huge organization, but it alone will not work.

It seems like you forget EU is actually ruled by people from governments of the countries being part of it. And UK was one of them (technically, it still is right now). The main difference is that they have to agree with each other, and that means some of the usual tricks nationalists are so fond of don't work well when faced with the reality of working with other countries. So that's why nationalists like to attack EU's administration; it's so convenient to have someone to blame for their own inability to solve things when they would be able to if they really wanted to.

Democracy is Europe's greatest gift to the world, and by its actions, the EU showed itself to be anti-European. It's demise can't come soon enough for me... It's disdain for ordinary voters is sickening...

Oh sure, and the campaign for Brexit was such a model for democracy. I mean, people blatantly lied to gain more people to their cause - and the most shocking was that they actually said it wasn't true or possible AFTER the results. And some people here tried to say it was normal. Well, to me, it's not and should never be.

Yeah, such a great victory for democracy, when the "victory" was made on such biased information or pure lies and where a lot of people voting for Brexit were regretting their choice - thus making the "victory" with such a low difference quite sour.

I guess your own politicians showed so much of their "integrity" that way.

The alignment between corporate interests, and the EU hierarchy during the referendum is further proof in my eyes that the UK made the right decision to leave...

And you think lobbies don't exist in UK? You should rather hunt your corrupt people in your country first before trying to give lessons to EU. Because, you know, that's your people you send to EU in the positions of power. So, maybe roots of corruption aren't exactly where you think they are...

And as for the future? Britain did fine long before the EU rolled into town, I have no doubt it will continue to do fine...

People should not underestimate this small island in the North Atlantic - it's heritage, it's knowledge, it's achievements in science, economics, literature, culture, et al, speak for themselves...

Another case of forging your narrative from your own beliefs without actual arguments on that matter. UK is looking so fine right now, indeed. Remember, a glorious past doesn't mean the future is secured. Everyone thought the Roman Empire would be eternal at the time it was still there...we all know how it ended. Nations aren't eternal. Ireland is already stirring because of that mess. We'll see how much time UK's "unity" will last if they keep going like this, with that kind of misplaced arrogance.

I was on the same side as Farage, and even I thought he was spouting horsegak most of the time...

And you still voted for his side. Mind you, no matter how you justify it, the results are still there. When people in Germany voted for That Man before the World War 2, they sure thought it was in their interest. And in the end, they suffer so much for that terrible price.

You may say it's not the same thing. And it's true. But the consequences of your choice will still be there. Voting for a side with so many obvious holes while knowing fully of the horsegak they were saying is, to me, one of the worst things to do as a human. Because it just shows you are not better than EU you decry so much.

Nationalism?

Before you accuse other people of being nationalists, you should look at what you're defending.

The EU has a flag, a national anthem, a parliament, and is committed to ever closer union. Logically, I can only conclude that the EU also wants to be a nation, all the signs are pointing to that, so it can't criticize Britain for exhibiting nationalist tendencies when the EU does exactly the same thing...

We all know that the EU has a shared currency, and we all know what the next logical step is...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


And as for the future? Britain did fine long before the EU rolled into town, I have no doubt it will continue to do fine...

Times change, Britain was well off in the last two hundred years off the back of an empire pre WWs. Those days are way gone. Realistically our economy was in absolute tatters in the period between the end of the 2nd World war and the early 80's. It's likely not a coincidence that things started improving after the EU became more integrated in the mid 80's.

A brief background can be read on Wikipedia:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#1945_to_2001

And as a point to note that even Winston Churchill called for a "kind of United States of Europe" in a speech at Zurich University.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:

Oh sure, and the campaign for Brexit was such a model for democracy. I mean, people blatantly lied to gain more people to their cause - and the most shocking was that they actually said it wasn't true or possible AFTER the results. And some people here tried to say it was normal. Well, to me, it's not and should never be.

Yeah, such a great victory for democracy, when the "victory" was made on such biased information or pure lies and where a lot of people voting for Brexit were regretting their choice - thus making the "victory" with such a low difference quite sour.

I guess your own politicians showed so much of their "integrity" that way.

Unfortunately the Democracy in the UK is a farce at the moment.

The first past the post system means a significant minority (30%) can give rise to a parliament with a majority.
You have policies and statements that are effectively meaningless because they are not ever held to account (the UK referendum showing this in it's extreme)
You have politicians can overspend the regulated amount per voting area and not be held to account (no new bi-election or police interest in the breach of regulations)
You have parties funded by rich organisations/individuals that have specific agendas they expect the parties to comply with (else they withdraw their funding)
You have a House of Lords (a second unelected parliament that can at least challenge legislation) being filled with friends of the individuals parties (with a strong concern that the more money they pay to the parties the more likely they will be made a lord)
And you have media system that the parties will fall over themselves to keep on side (the Tories being particularly influential/influenced in this area) - we only have to look at the phone hacking scandal and the farce of how things panned out.

I agree that the UK's democracy is not perfect, you'll get no argument from me, and I have called for the abolition of the House of Lords many a time on these pages. But our democracy can be changed if the British people so desire it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If the EU is such a huge bureaucracy how come it operates with a budget of 1% of the EU's GDP?

That's still one heck of a sum. We're not talking about loose change down the back of the sofa...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is a general point, and in no way attacking anybody on dakka...

I'm annoyed at the tone that been coming out of the remain side since June 23rd across the various remain supporting media outlets...

I know remain voters are hurt, angry, and bewildered at what happened, and I sympathize, because I've been there in 2014 when I was on the losing side...

I disagreed with the remain POV, but I always respected their right to believe in it and to listen to their views...

I never got into a slagging match or traded insults with anybody, because it was counter-productive...

Recently though, being branded a casual racist or an immigrant hater, or a UKIP supporter just because I voted leave, has started to annoy me...

Ii doesn't happen on here, but on other forums, and quite frankly, I'm going to stop wasting my time debating with those people, or reading Guardian opinion pieces, because I think they're just trolling people, now

I know it's bigger than your childrens' pocket money but in accounting terms it nearly counts as a rounding error. Hardly the sign of a massive bureaucracy. Consider that average government spending of EU governments is more like 40% of GDP.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I know it's bigger than your childrens' pocket money but in accounting terms it nearly counts as a rounding error. Hardly the sign of a massive bureaucracy. Consider that average government spending of EU governments is more like 40% of GDP.

True, but in these average countries, there's a direct link between the populace and the government...

At every political level, local council, MSP, MP, I know what powers they have, and who I'm dealing with, and if need be, I can drive to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, or pay a visit to the House of Commons to air grievances...

But when it comes to the EU, I have no idea of where that link is. My MEP has about as much power as as a dead parrot...

And having been to Brussels and seen the EU buildings, It's like a modern day Kremlin - I wouldn't know where to start...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I agree that the UK's democracy is not perfect, you'll get no argument from me, and I have called for the abolition of the House of Lords many a time on these pages. But our democracy can be changed if the British people so desire it...

But that's the point approximately 67% of the population did want a change, but it was the 33% who voted one way that had the say. I suspect with the upcoming boundary changes that this will be made worse by the Tories because they will want to entrench their world views even further. If it's a rigged game and have a government (Labour/Tory system) that will rig it further to stay in power then no version of democracy will change things. This is why our democracy is a farce and at best is a pseudo-democracy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


That's still one heck of a sum. We're not talking about loose change down the back of the sofa...

But relatively to the whole sum a tiny proportion and much more efficient overall because many countries pay into it. As a comparison the UK spends about 40% of its GDP on state expenditure.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
....
I'm annoyed at the tone that been coming out of the remain side since June 23rd across the various remain supporting media outlets...

I know remain voters are hurt, angry, and bewildered at what happened, and I sympathize, because I've been there in 2014 when I was on the losing side...

I disagreed with the remain POV, but I always respected their right to believe in it and to listen to their views...

I never got into a slagging match or traded insults with anybody, because it was counter-productive...

Recently though, being branded a casual racist or an immigrant hater, or a UKIP supporter just because I voted leave, has started to annoy me...

Ii doesn't happen on here, but on other forums, and quite frankly, I'm going to stop wasting my time debating with those people, or reading Guardian opinion pieces, because I think they're just trolling people, now

Since the 23rd I've heard Leave supporters complain that they are being attacked, however I'm not sure you quite understand exactly how Remain feel, despite being on the losing side of the Scottish referendum, there are many significant differences. For a start,

1. Whilst you lost, nothing actually changed, the status quo continued. That might have been disappointing for you, but you didn't have to face an uncertain future and some immediate financial repurcussions as a result of your loss.
2. You have hope for a further referendum in the future at some point, remain does not.
3. Whilst project fear was rampant, project abject lies was no where near as blatant
4. You didn't experience an upswing in racism directly attributable to the referendum straight afterwards
5. The closeness of the vote, and the lack of credible mandate is frustrating. 51.9% of 72.2% is impressive but it does mean that there is a huge chunk of the population that vehemently disagrees.
6. The SNP have sailed to an enormous electoral coup, salving nationalist sentiment somewhat.

So I'm afraid that you don't, and actually can't, understand how we feel. Not only did we lose, we feel that the vote was stolen, especially considering the outrageous racism and lies being used. It was despicable, and that rubs off on those who voted that way I'm afraid. In the eyes of many remain voters, those who voted leave maybe educated and reasonable, but they sided with racists and hate groups. It's tarnishing by association. It's the only time I've actually felt differently about some of my friends and colleagues.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


But when it comes to the EU, I have no idea of where that link is. My MEP has about as much power as as a dead parrot...

I'm assuming of course that you have spoken to your MEP in person and had a discussion on what their responsibilities are. In reality though very few MPs, Scottish MPs, local authority councillors have much 'power'. For the most part they are there to put forward and debate different issues and then on those issues that have a vote, vote on them. Everyone can't have 'the power'. It's a lack of engagement that isn't happening as the MEPs are meant to represent the populace but generally end up representing their party.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


And having been to Brussels and seen the EU buildings, It's like a modern day Kremlin - I wouldn't know where to start...

That seems a rather spurious reason not to like the EU, yes it has lots of buildings, so does the UK Government or a University or NATO?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I know it's bigger than your childrens' pocket money but in accounting terms it nearly counts as a rounding error. Hardly the sign of a massive bureaucracy. Consider that average government spending of EU governments is more like 40% of GDP.

True, but in these average countries, there's a direct link between the populace and the government...

At every political level, local council, MSP, MP, I know what powers they have, and who I'm dealing with, and if need be, I can drive to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, or pay a visit to the House of Commons to air grievances...

But when it comes to the EU, I have no idea of where that link is. My MEP has about as much power as as a dead parrot...

And having been to Brussels and seen the EU buildings, It's like a modern day Kremlin - I wouldn't know where to start...

How does all this make a 1:40 ratio of budget "Massive".

Supporting a side that is clearly including a lot of racist people has consequences. It's normal to question about that people who did that, because they couldn't be ignorant of what was behind the arguments made in public, and repeated many times. That it is annoying, I can understand perfectly. But those are the consequences of your choice. You can try to ignore them, but that doesn't make them disappear.

Because it is right to question you about this choice and why the racist comments came from the "Leave" side, while you fully took it in all awareness. You can't blame ignorance on that, and maybe that's why it's even worse you still supported this side while fully knowing what was said and told (or even done) by people from it at that time.

 Ketara wrote:

I would contend that that was the case pre-Lisbon. The EU has begun to evolve into a separate power base in it's own right since then however, as opposed to just being the sum of several representative parts. The Five EU Presidents now exert power and influence of their own which is not aligned to or derived from any one specific nation. Whilst they are still only one component of the whole that is the EU machine, they are a set of cogs which are ultimately answerable to themselves as opposed to any individual or collective electorate or government.

This is trying to paint something that isn't exactly true and you know it. People chosen to be in positions of power for EU management aren't coming from nowhere; they are clearly taken from the countries that made EU. Sure, they all have influences on their own and they may not agree with the current policy in their country, but trying to say they don't have ties or aren't influenced at all by them isn't accurate.

Not even talking about all the jobs that are sure not really put into light by UK medias, but are still there and still important for the EU to work properly.

By leaving EU, however, there is certainty that there won't any guy from the country leaving in that position of power. So, leaving to "protest" may sound like a good idea on paper, but it's not really a good one on long term, IMHO. You don't change things by leaving them.

You're talking about the ones which declared WW3 was a week away should the EU choose to leave?

Please, that entire campaign was morass of lies and misinformation on both sides. It was frankly embarassing, and shouldn't be used as evidence for anything except how a campaign should /not be run.

Both sides were horrible, let's be clear. And that's why I believe it would have been better to cancel the referendum, because it was clearly biased and not informing the people for something that would have consequences no matter what for the future of UK (and also EU).

So when someone says the EU is a threat to democracy but still fought to the last minute to say the referendum must be kept and then after the more than questionable results keep saying the referendum must be respected...I'm not so sure the threat is really on EU on that matter. That's my point about this really sad campaign. And I feel quite bad for all the UK people who were tricked in such a despicable way to vote for something they didn't really want, just for that a small minority can satisfy their own personnal ambitions/ego.

Calling for unity is a joke. UK is quite divided now, and we can see acts of racism coming in the great light and trying to say "it's not a big deal!". Well, it is. I believe some people on this topic don't really understand the amount of suffering they're willing to inflict on their fellow countrymen just because they can't grasp the consequences of their political choices.

There are many countries outside of the EU who do just fine, and many who did just fine before it existed. So not so much 'arrogance' as evidence based reasoning.

Not to mention that national unity is not the be all and end all. Nation sizes are not fixed affairs. If Scotland chooses to do their own thing, whilst I'd like them to stay, I'd wish them the very best and get on with things. A border line going up and people deciding to run their own affairs a bit closer to home is not a personal insult unless you choose to take it as one. Labelling people exercising self-determination as 'traitors' is the sort of distasteful activity better left to people of extreme and narrow-minded outlooks. Like Juncker.

Yes, that's a common statement nowadays. "We will be better alone" or "we don't need others to keep living". This right wing nationalism is quite spreading through a lot of countries, mainly because nothing is really done to counter the demagogy of some parties that don't care at all for people but just want to follow their own agenda.

Nations are indeed not fixed, but the trouble here is assuming everything will be fine no matter what because, look, we managed to survive so far. You who like history, you should know how easy it is for countries and people to rise and fall just because of apparently small things happening and not reacting properly to them.

I think you don't really understand that the people talking about traitors that are really bothering aren't those in the EU who are quite angry at the mess UK made, but those inside of UK, those who really felt betrayed by their fellow countrymen they don't understand anymore because of the horrible things that were said. To me, that's the real danger inside...and talking about "unity" inside UK now isn't just about Ireland or Scotland. But really the "Leave" and "Remain" sides.

 Sarouan wrote:

This is trying to paint something that isn't exactly true and you know it. People chosen to be in positions of power for EU management aren't coming from nowhere; they are clearly taken from the countries that made EU. Sure, they all have influences on their own and they may not agree with the current policy in their country, but trying to say they don't have ties or aren't influenced at all by them isn't accurate.

That's primarily because it wasn't what I said. Let me break it down differently.

In the earlier days, the policy of the EU was whatever the nations within the EU decided it was. If France had a priority/issue/desire (be it political, military, economic, or otherwise), that was expressed by France, through French employees/statesmen who happened to either work in the EU machine, or pull the strings to push it as an item on the agenda. The EU itself was not the originator of what went on that agenda.

These days, the EU has its own Central Bank. It has its own President. It has its own Foreign Secretary (if by a different title). The people who sit in these positions and propose legislation, initiatives, and policy do so for the good of the EU (collectively). Yes, they have to accommodate the national interests mentioned in the previous paragraph (which still very much exist), and yes, they are ultimately just one operator of the EU machine.

But the point is that previously, the EU was just the keyboard upon which national governments pushed the buttons. Now, its bureaucrats are one of the operators. And the primary goal of that operator (as evidenced by clear examination of the events of the last twenty years, the five presidents report, etc), is to increase the amount of time it gets to spend pushing the buttons on the machine, and reduce that of the other operators.

This has naturally entailed a burgeoning expenses cost and employee roster. The more responsibilities and power it has taken on, the higher the costs have grown. Yes, the cost is less than that of a national government. But that is because it has yet to assume anywhere near the responsibilities/power of a national government. The EU doesn't handle defence or economics. Yet. As it continues to acquire more power/responsibility, its costs will continue the trend, and continue to rise.

Not being directly responsible to an electorate however, the EU suffers the same financial bloat and wastage that any quango does with no real boss.

And I feel quite bad for all the UK people who were tricked in such a despicable way to vote for something they didn't really want, just for that a small minority can satisfy their own personnal ambitions/ego.

I find it mildly amusing that you assume that they were all 'tricked' (unlike yourself of course), in the same breath as you decry their ego. How do you know you are not the one that has been 'tricked'? How do you know that what Brexiteer politicians said is actually representative of the thoughts of most Brexiteers?

One of the most disgustingly egotistical things I have witnessed alongside the assumption all Brexiteers are uneducated racists is the parallel assumption that had they not all had the wool pulled over their eyes and seen the light, they'd have changed how they voted. It assumes that there was a 'correct' decision. That 50% of the country only voted the 'wrong' way because the poor fools couldn't see what was in their best interests, that they were all won over by Boris Johnson's sweet smiles and Gove's gentle cooing.

It's patronising, condescending, and odiously self-righteous.

Calling for unity is a joke. UK is quite divided now, and we can see acts of racism coming in the great light and trying to say "it's not a big deal!". Well, it is. I believe some people on this topic don't really understand the amount of suffering they're willing to inflict on their fellow countrymen just because they can't grasp the consequences of their political choices.

Or they do, and they disagree with you. Shocking concept, I know. Almost as heretical as the notion that the 'suffering' might not really be that extreme.

Yes, that's a common statement nowadays. "We will be better alone" or "we don't need others to keep living". This right wing nationalism is quite spreading through a lot of countries, mainly because nothing is really done to counter the demagogy of some parties that don't care at all for people but just want to follow their own agenda.

Is Japan run by right wing nationalists because they haven't joined the EU? Does Canada keep their economy afloat whilst apart from the EU by facist governance techniques?

Knowing that a country can survive and even flourish whilst separate from the EU isn't exactly a question of belief or nationalism here.

Nations are indeed not fixed, but the trouble here is assuming everything will be fine no matter what because, look, we managed to survive so far. You who like history, you should know how easy it is for countries and people to rise and fall just because of apparently small things happening and not reacting properly to them.

I know enough about history that to attempt to predict the future based upon it in anything bar the most vague generalities is a pointless exercise.

I think you don't really understand that the people talking about traitors that are really bothering aren't those in the EU who are quite angry at the mess UK made, but those inside of UK, those who really felt betrayed by their fellow countrymen they don't understand anymore because of the horrible things that were said. To me, that's the real danger inside...and talking about "unity" inside UK now isn't just about Ireland or Scotland. But really the "Leave" and "Remain" sides.

Frankly, I saw much the same reaction from much the same people when Cameron won the last election. Speaking as someone with a foot in both left and right wing political camps, the selfishness and inhumanity of the right wing is only matched by the staggeringly self-deceiving hypocrisy of your average liberal. 'Think as you like, so long as you think like us, because those are the right and just things to think. Or you're an intolerant racist/facist/nationalist/etcetc'.

 Ketara wrote:
I find it mildly amusing that you assume that they were all 'tricked' (unlike yourself of course), in the same breath as you decry their ego. How do you know you are not the one that has been 'tricked'? How do you know that what Brexiteer politicians said is actually representative of the thoughts of most Brexiteers?

One of the most disgustingly egotistical things I have witnessed alongside the assumption all Brexiteers are uneducated racists is the parallel assumption that had they not all had the wool pulled over their eyes and seen the light, they'd have changed how they voted. It assumes that there was a 'correct' decision. That 50% of the country only voted the 'wrong' way because the poor fools couldn't see what was in their best interests, that they were all won over by Boris Johnson's sweet smiles and Gove's gentle cooing.

It's patronising, condescending, and odiously self-righteous.

The ideas of democracy, sovereignty and independence were mere sprinkles on top of a sea of bile and racism. You might not have felt that, and it may not have been the reason you voted as you did, but the vast majority of your fellow leavers voted to get rid of immigrants.
You might not be racist, but you're on the same side as them, and you're defending their decision and attempting to legitimise it. It's why, for my part, I have a hard time accepting and trusting people who voted leave, even friends and family. Part of me sees a side to them that I am not happy with. Combined with the upsurge of Nationalism we are facing in this country, I feel that it is absolutely my duty to challenge and attack these ideas before they normalise and something worse comes of it.
I do not recognise Nationalism, however positively dressed up, as a legitimate political position. It divides people into us and them. Whether physical barriers exits or not, it creates devision, which leads to misunderstanding, fear, hatred and violence.

I genuinely fear for the UK. Not economically, as we'll probably be OK, but because I fear we are starting down a route that leads to a dark place.

I suspect that in 10 years we will be in about the same situation we are now, only somewhat worse off, politically and economically.

As for racism and nationalism, the Leave vote clearly was felt by a small number of racists and nationalists to legitimise their agenda, leading to an increase in hate crime before and an outbreak of more overt hate crime after the referendum. This impacted on Jewish and Muslim native UK citizens, and on white Christian Poles.

A big point of Leave was to reduce immigration. It probably can't, but if it did, where does that leave current "not properly British" (i.e. non-white, or non-Christian) citizens, and the couple of million white Euro citizens (Poles, French, Italians) who are likely to remain in the UK. What about other immigrants like my wife?

 r_squared wrote:

The ideas of democracy, sovereignty and independence were mere sprinkles on top of a sea of bile and racism. You might not have felt that, and it may not have been the reason you voted as you did, but the vast majority of your fellow leavers voted to get rid of immigrants.

Sorry, but no.

About 52% of the country voted to leave. I'll repeat that again. Fifty two percent. Mere sprinkles? Are you honestly asserting then, that the vast majority of that 52%, say 48% of the country, are merely racists? Really? You think so little of your countrymen that you reckon almost half of them are 'racist'? Absolutely preposterous. The claim is nothing more than ludicrous nonsense, and I'll dismiss it accordingly.

You might not be racist, but you're on the same side as them,

This is the thing. To paraphrase Rorshach, I'm not voting with them. They're voting with me.

You might find that some of them vote for the same political party as me. They might even enjoy the same cake as me occasionally. Both things mean as much as them voting the same way as me in a referendum. The concept of 'sides' here is simply feeding the absurd 'them and us' narrative propaganda distributed by politicians of both stripes throughout the entire campaign.

and you're defending their decision and attempting to legitimise it. It's why, for my part, I have a hard time accepting and trusting people who voted leave, even friends and family.

I'm attacking terrible logic and stating my reasons for voting the way I did. If you choose to interpret as somehow 'defending' people like Nick Griffin, then you're already splitting this into sides and being the most divisive person in the metaphorical room. It's like accusing all people who support the nationalisation of the trains as being intransigent Stalinists.

Combined with the upsurge of Nationalism we are facing in this country, I feel that it is absolutely my duty to challenge and attack these ideas before they normalise and something worse comes of it.
I do not recognise Nationalism, however positively dressed up, as a legitimate political position. It divides people into us and them. Whether physical barriers exits or not, it creates devision, which leads to misunderstanding, fear, hatred and violence.

Frankly, all I read here is that people voted differently to you for different reasons, and so you appear to have responded by splitting half the country into 'your' camp, and the rest into 'others'. That seems more like the sort of thing which promotes misunderstanding, fear, hatred, and violence to me. There's no room for compromise in your words, no understanding of the position of others. Just a tunnel vision with everyone who agrees with you labelled 'good people', and everyone else 'bad people'.

That, my friend, is the kind of thinking that genuinely leads to violence and strife.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I suspect that in 10 years we will be in about the same situation we are now, only somewhat worse off, politically and economically.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps it will be better than if we'd stayed in the EU, perhaps it will be worse than if we had.

More likely, we'll be better off in some regards, and worse in others. The world is constantly in flux, and all we can ever do is try and pick the best course of action at the time.

As for racism and nationalism, the Leave vote clearly was felt by a small number of racists and nationalists to legitimise their agenda, leading to an increase in hate crime before and an outbreak of more overt hate crime after the referendum. This impacted on Jewish and Muslim native UK citizens, and on white Christian Poles.

I have no doubt they will be squashed accordingly. There is no place for such things, and the relevant laws are on the books.

A big point of Leave was to reduce immigration. It probably can't, but if it did, where does that leave current "not properly British" (i.e. non-white, or non-Christian) citizens, and the couple of million white Euro citizens (Poles, French, Italians) who are likely to remain in the UK. What about other immigrants like my wife?

It leaves the European immigrants in the same position as every other immigrant to a country without a free trade agreement. That is to say, having to fill in a basic visa and needing a purpose for being in a country before applying for requisite citizenship if they meet the criteria. The rest of the world generally manages to make these systems operate without too much difficulty, much as they somehow manage to struggle on economically without being part of the Eurozone.

For those outside of the eurozone, they may find things actually get easier when it comes to getting visas approved in due time.

52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.

Amusingly, the BMA voted no to the the most recent contract, that was 37% against it, with 32ish% for, I recall Mr Hunt saying something along the lines of "not really a majority".

A little part of my dies every time someone tries to defend nationalism. It was a handy source of control for central powers in order to fulfill the large numbers of willing troops needed for wars. At least before the French revolutionaries and Bonaparte perfected the idea Europe had the sense to let professionals fight the petty squabbles caused by the glorious sovereign state system that people seem so eager to protect.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.

You know what? Fair point,

Amend my above statement to '37%', and 'one in three people' respectively. It doesn't change my view of the concept of a third of the country as being racists as ludicrous though.

Optio wrote:
A little part of my dies every time someone tries to defend nationalism. It was a handy source of control for central powers in order to fulfill the large numbers of willing troops needed for wars. At least before the French revolutionaries and Bonaparte perfected the idea Europe had the sense to let professionals fight the petty squabbles caused by the glorious sovereign state system that people seem so eager to protect.

Indeed. Soviet Supreme power for the future! Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but the chains of Britain and Europe! For too long have these nationalistic entities oppressed the masses!

 Ketara wrote:

Optio wrote:
A little part of my dies every time someone tries to defend nationalism. It was a handy source of control for central powers in order to fulfill the large numbers of willing troops needed for wars. At least before the French revolutionaries and Bonaparte perfected the idea Europe had the sense to let professionals fight the petty squabbles caused by the glorious sovereign state system that people seem so eager to protect.

Indeed. Soviet Supreme power for the future! Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but the chains of Britain and Europe! For too long have these nationalistic entities oppressed the masses!

Ah, my friend, you seem to have confused Liberalism and Nationalism together! The only thing condemning us to not have a Liberal Global order is this beast of called Nationalism. Sovietism well... shudder*

 Ketara wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.

You know what? Fair point,

Amend my above statement to '37%', and 'one in three people' respectively. It doesn't change my view of the concept of a third of the country as being racists as ludicrous though.

Based on what I've seen, it seems that about a third of the country is racist. Bearing in mind that there is a spectrum of racism between those who grumble about immigrants and occasionally nervously glance at black people, all the way up to Nick Griffin.
In fact I think you think to much of your fellow countrymen. Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it. There may have been huge strides in lots of areas, but its there, all the way from the bottom to the top in our people and institutions.

 r_squared wrote:
Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it.

I agree with you as it matches my own experience in England and its fixation with immigration but its extremely difficult to prove.

What is true though is that while Brexiters aren't racist, racists are Brexiters.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.

It's still a pretty good indicator of public opinion, though. If more people had bothered to vote, then perhaps we may have avoided "Brexit". More fool them if they didn't go and do it IMO.

 r_squared wrote:


Based on what I've seen, it seems that about a third of the country is racist. Bearing in mind that there is a spectrum of racism between those who grumble about immigrants and occasionally nervously glance at black people, all the way up to Nick Griffin.
In fact I think you think to much of your fellow countrymen. Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it. There may have been huge strides in lots of areas, but its there, all the way from the bottom to the top in our people and institutions.

Being pedantic I'd disagree that there are so many racists in the UK. Racism is prejudice based on someone's belief that their own race is superior and although there is small proportion of this in the Country I don't think it's present in a significant proportion of the populace. Most of arguments were over fear of losing jobs, or fear that the NHS is being overrun, or fear that our education system won't cope - this isn't racism because its fear, this is bigotry. There are significant numbers of bigoted people out there because of an irrational suspicion of a particular group (immigrants) of people which doesn't stack up when you look at the figures. There is no doubt that this issue 'won' it for the Leave vote (based on the massive shift of peoples opinions when they released the immigration figures a few weeks before).

The concern I have is that people are using it to justify more bigoted views (even in my only family). It seems to have shifted everyone who was very slightly to extremely immigration intolerant one step further to the right. So those very mildly bigoted have got a bit more because their views have been 'justified' by the referendum and this has happened across the board down to the extremely bigoted (and racist) people where they are using ever more aggressive tactics as they have been 'justified' by the vote.

 r_squared wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.

You know what? Fair point,

Amend my above statement to '37%', and 'one in three people' respectively. It doesn't change my view of the concept of a third of the country as being racists as ludicrous though.

Based on what I've seen, it seems that about a third of the country is racist. Bearing in mind that there is a spectrum of racism between those who grumble about immigrants and occasionally nervously glance at black people, all the way up to Nick Griffin.
In fact I think you think to much of your fellow countrymen. Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it. There may have been huge strides in lots of areas, but its there, all the way from the bottom to the top in our people and institutions.

A third of the country is racist? Based on your personal experience and anecdotal evidence?

C'mon, you're better than this.

I have you links to soild evidence of your claims, then I take back what I said, but one third of the country? I'm not believing that for a minute.

But I do admit there is a problem with racism and there is a small minority of racists, but not on the scale of a third of the population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.

It's still a pretty good indicator of public opinion, though. If more people had bothered to vote, then perhaps we may have avoided "Brexit". More fool them if they didn't go and do it IMO.

As I've said before, the Remain side had 40 years to make the case for Europe, but they failed. In this context, the number of voters is irrelevent IMO.

People simply didn't believe in Europe. Their argument was basically, the EU is a bit horsegak, but change is risky.

Not exactly a vote of confidence!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Optio wrote:
A little part of my dies every time someone tries to defend nationalism. It was a handy source of control for central powers in order to fulfill the large numbers of willing troops needed for wars. At least before the French revolutionaries and Bonaparte perfected the idea Europe had the sense to let professionals fight the petty squabbles caused by the glorious sovereign state system that people seem so eager to protect.

And yet, the EU is becoming increasingly nationalist in its outlook, but nobody bats an eyelid, because it's 'progressive.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I suspect that in 10 years we will be in about the same situation we are now, only somewhat worse off, politically and economically.

As for racism and nationalism, the Leave vote clearly was felt by a small number of racists and nationalists to legitimise their agenda, leading to an increase in hate crime before and an outbreak of more overt hate crime after the referendum. This impacted on Jewish and Muslim native UK citizens, and on white Christian Poles.

A big point of Leave was to reduce immigration. It probably can't, but if it did, where does that leave current "not properly British" (i.e. non-white, or non-Christian) citizens, and the couple of million white Euro citizens (Poles, French, Italians) who are likely to remain in the UK. What about other immigrants like my wife?

I've said it, and you said it yourself a few months back: even if we had voted to stay in the EU, there are deep rooted structural problems within the UK economy that badly need fixed.

Hell, I was reading in the financial websites that Britain's pension defecit is ONE TRILLION POUNDS!!

Sorry for the caps, but that number shocked me. But like I said, staying or leaving the EU would not have changed a penny of that.

The advantage of BREXIT is that it's forcing the government to take a long hard look at the UK economy. Some good may come of this...

Without getting into an argument about semantics, the British have always been racist, its just unfashionable to say so and people who point it out are often decried as "guardian reading lefties" .

Our history is replete with examples that survive into the 21st century, anyone who claims otherwise is simply ignoring the facts.

Eastern Europeans are just the latest victims of a trend that continues from the Irish, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Indians, and West Indian and Caribbean immigrants.

Every time we faced a wave of immigration, there was resistance and complaints of being swamped, and how England is no longer England etcetera.

The nation accepted immigration recognising the necessity for a strong economy, but it's people have grumbled and complained. The only difference is that this time the bloody government gave these people a voice and a chance to kick out the latest pariahs.

How different would our country have been if in the late 50s the Govt would have given the people a vote to halt West Indian immigration. Post war they were essential for the rebuilding of the UK and filled the unpleasant, unpopular but essential jobs we needed, just as Eastern Europeans are doing today.

Unfortunately for vote leave, their victory will always be tainted by this fact. There may have been those who held ideals of nationalism and sovereignty, which of themselves are dubiously debatable positives, but it was immigration, racism and bigotry that won this vote.
You'd have to try bloody hard to prove that it was a glorious vision of the future which swayed the people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
52% of the population that voted, voted to leave, not 52% of the population, 37% ish voted to leave.

You know what? Fair point,

Amend my above statement to '37%', and 'one in three people' respectively. It doesn't change my view of the concept of a third of the country as being racists as ludicrous though.

Based on what I've seen, it seems that about a third of the country is racist. Bearing in mind that there is a spectrum of racism between those who grumble about immigrants and occasionally nervously glance at black people, all the way up to Nick Griffin.
In fact I think you think to much of your fellow countrymen. Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it. There may have been huge strides in lots of areas, but its there, all the way from the bottom to the top in our people and institutions.

A third of the country is racist? Based on your personal experience and anecdotal evidence?

C'mon, you're better than this.

I have you links to soild evidence of your claims, then I take back what I said, but one third of the country? I'm not believing that for a minute.

But I do admit there is a problem with racism and there is a small minority of racists, but not on the scale of a third of the population.

...

As I said before, not all racism is frothing skinheads and bovva boots, there's a whole spectrum of racism as with any trait. I think a third of the population exhibiting racist or bigoted ideas or feelings is probably quite right in this context.

EDIT. Just as a little support for my argument that about a third of the UK is racist, this article adds some weight.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27599401

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_Kingdom

By our own admission, we're a third racist. It maybe a coincidence then that just over a third voted to Leave.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
.....

Hell, I was reading in the financial websites that Britain's pension defecit is ONE TRILLION POUNDS!!

Sorry for the caps, but that number shocked me. But like I said, staying or leaving the EU would not have changed a penny of that.

The advantage of BREXIT is that it's forcing the government to take a long hard look at the UK economy. Some good may come of this...

That is one positive, it is galling that the victims of cuts have for the last few decades been those in receipt of unemployment and disability benefits when the overwhelming majority of the budget for the DWP is pensions. The triple lock is unsustainable, and finally the Tories have recognised the fact and may do something about it.
Pensions and benefits for the elderly are effectively crippling the UK economy. To say nothing of the fact that those receiving the pensions, free TV licences, bus passes and heating allowances are the wealthiest and most pampered generation in history, the baby boomers.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As I've said before, the Remain side had 40 years to make the case for Europe, but they failed.

They did indeed but the UK has had a press that has been noticeably hostile to the EU for that time as well. 40 years of utter gak about the shape of carrots and 'Now Brussels will force us to do x!1!' fabrications seriously tainted public opinion. I wonder just how many people in the UK know how EU legislation is actually made? I would be amazed if it was over 5%.

One of the interesting things about the whole campaign was the depth of ignorance revealed even in myself who is pro-European and relatively well-informed about EU law and so on. I found out several important things I had been mistaken about. (Needless to say) the things I did not understand turned out to be based on lies by the Euro-sceptic press.

Optio wrote:
Ah, my friend, you seem to have confused Liberalism and Nationalism together! The only thing condemning us to not have a Liberal Global order is this beast of called Nationalism. Sovietism well... shudder*

That sounds like a trick of the oppressive running dog capitalists! All can tell that a global liberal order is nothing more than a new structure for nationalist fervour which believes itself superior to all alternatives!

r_squared wrote:
Based on what I've seen, it seems that about a third of the country is racist. Bearing in mind that there is a spectrum of racism between those who grumble about immigrants and occasionally nervously glance at black people, all the way up to Nick Griffin.
In fact I think you think to much of your fellow countrymen. Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it. There may have been huge strides in lots of areas, but its there, all the way from the bottom to the top in our people and institutions.

Silent Puffin? wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Britain is racist, and a large proportion of people are unthinkingly and reflexively racist and this referendum has polarised it.

I agree with you as it matches my own experience in England and its fixation with immigration but its extremely difficult to prove.

I disagree strongly with you gents. Sorry.

r_squared wrote:Without getting into an argument about semantics, the British have always been racist, its just unfashionable to say so and people who point it out are often decried as "guardian reading lefties" .

Our history is replete with examples that survive into the 21st century, anyone who claims otherwise is simply ignoring the facts.

Eastern Europeans are just the latest victims of a trend that continues from the Irish, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Indians, and West Indian and Caribbean immigrants.

Every time we faced a wave of immigration, there was resistance and complaints of being swamped, and how England is no longer England etcetera.

Biologically speaking, the entire world is 'technically' racist, including you, it's genetically programmed in to favour those who look like you. Beyond that basic level, historically, I really don't agree with you. Certainly, there's always been racism. You just need to look at the Daily Mail complaining about Jamaicans at the tail end of the 1950's or Oswald Mosley.

But the flip side of the coin is that you cannot ever meaningfully judge the past by contemporary standards, or vice versa. The social factors surrounding those issues in the 1940's and 1950's are completely eroded for the most part in today's world, and trying to ascribe contemporary social issues to those factors is like trying to judge King Herod by contemporary morals. Pointless.

EDIT. Just as a little support for my argument that about a third of the UK is racist, this article adds some weight.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27599401

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_Kingdom

By our own admission, we're a third racist. It maybe a coincidence then that just over a third voted to Leave.

That's actually one link, the second one references the first as its source.

Digging into it, it's a survey of 3,000 people where it asked them if they considered themselves 'very or a little prejudiced' against people of other races. No definition of prejudice was offered by those asking the question. The article itself states:-

But there were warnings about drawing conclusions from people's verdict on their own prejudices.
Sunder Katwala, director of the identity and integration think tank British Future, said it was a "difficult measure to use".
"People who said they were not at all prejudiced in 1983 often held quite tough views about race", he said.

Today, younger people "hold themselves to a much higher bar", he said.
"It's quite a complicated way of doing it and not a good way to track things over time."
Politics lecturer Dr Rob Ford, of the University of Manchester, added: "The problem is there is no definition of 'prejudice' offered in the question".

I would argue that having problems with immigration is not the same thing as being a racist, and this seems to be something that everyone claiming a third of Britain is racist is conflating.

To use an exaggerated example to illustrate my point. I have a boat with sufficient water for ten people. I have ten people on it. If an eleventh wishes to get on, and I refuse, am I being racist? The answer is no; I'm simply concerned for the resource available. This is a demonstration of how it is possible one can have a reason for excluding the presence of others for factors beyond, 'dey be forners'.

Now many people DO believe immigration places a strain upon the resources of the country that they can access. Whether this is true or not, it is possible to believe this to be case, and vote against immigration accordingly without being a racist, in the same way as with the water example above. But there can be other reasons too, for example, wage depression (something intrinsically linked to the presence of cheap foreign labour). One could be anti-immigration as a result of that. I could list more.

My point here, is that logically speaking, one can be against immigration without being a racist/bigot. The two are not the one and same.

Racism is to some degree inherent in humans due to our cognitive psychological make-up which leads to the formation of groups based on very little differentiation with consequent pro-in-group and anti-out-group prejudices.

The second factor is the clear triumph of white European cultural history since 1500, leading to the "white man's burden" and other such notions. While these ideas are contestable on many grounds, they still existed and influenced people.

Despite the above we don't have to act on our racist impulses.