Kilkrazy wrote:

 Slaphead wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why people are so desperate to be part of the EU?

What is so wonderful, rosy and special that they want to be part of it no matter what?

Access to the common market, freedom of movement, a break with "Little Britain" thinking, appreciation of different cultures...

 Ketara wrote:
It is sadly, one of the few things I've observed over the years. One side labels the others smallminded xenophobic bigots with outdated world views, and their counterparts respond by calling them arrogant, selfish, narrowminded hypocrites.

And in all fairness, both are right for the most part.

I've started to feel somewhat fatigued with politics of late, it all just gets depressing if you spend too much time thinking or talking about it. So few people seem able to just have a relatively friendly impersonal chat about it, followed by a pint (metaphorical or literal). It always seems to just descend into mudslinging, and everyone seems to take it all so seriously this last few years.

As someone who subscribes to the British doctine of viewing people with fervent political beliefs the same way as you view people with fervent religious beliefs (i.e. with mild suspicion coupled with humour), it's all become quite exhausting.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Slaphead wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why people are so desperate to be part of the EU?

What is so wonderful, rosy and special that they want to be part of it no matter what?

Access to the common market, freedom of movement, a break with "Little Britain" thinking, appreciation of different cultures...

Common market and freedom of movement, fair enough, I'll give you those, but I'll have to disagree with you on Little Britain.

God knows my views on the Conservatives are well known on these pages

but to be fair to them, they are talking about global trade deals, a global outlook.

Compare and contrast that to Fortress Europe, and the EU's CAP protection racket that keeps African goods out of the EU or how hard it is for non-EU citizens to get the paperwork to live and work in the EU, even if you're a skilled trade or a doctor or dentist.

Both sides have their faults in this.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The UK government controls access for non-EU citizens, not the EU.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I also like debating on the forum. If I was to try and talk about it in real life, there would probably be stabbings, mugging X much consumption of alcohol. In fact my friend group would make an excellent joke.

"A Labour supporter, lib dem supporter, Green Party supporter, Tory Supporter, UKIP supporter, Plaid Supporter and a non voter all walk into a bar."

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I also like debating on the forum. If I was to try and talk about it in real life, there would probably be stabbings, mugging X much consumption of alcohol. In fact my friend group would make an excellent joke.

"A Labour supporter, lib dem supporter, Green Party supporter, Tory Supporter, UKIP supporter, Plaid Supporter and a non voter all walk into a bar."

I take it thats the punch line?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Spoiler:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Slaphead wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why people are so desperate to be part of the EU?

What is so wonderful, rosy and special that they want to be part of it no matter what?

Access to the common market, freedom of movement, a break with "Little Britain" thinking, appreciation of different cultures...

Common market and freedom of movement, fair enough, I'll give you those, but I'll have to disagree with you on Little Britain.

God knows my views on the Conservatives are well known on these pages

but to be fair to them, they are talking about global trade deals, a global outlook.

Compare and contrast that to Fortress Europe, and the EU's CAP protection racket that keeps African goods out of the EU or how hard it is for non-EU citizens to get the paperwork to live and work in the EU, even if you're a skilled trade or a doctor or dentist.

Both sides have their faults in this.

The UK government controls access for non-EU citizens, not the EU.

 SirDonlad wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Spoiler:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Slaphead wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why people are so desperate to be part of the EU?

What is so wonderful, rosy and special that they want to be part of it no matter what?

Access to the common market, freedom of movement, a break with "Little Britain" thinking, appreciation of different cultures...

Common market and freedom of movement, fair enough, I'll give you those, but I'll have to disagree with you on Little Britain.

God knows my views on the Conservatives are well known on these pages

but to be fair to them, they are talking about global trade deals, a global outlook.

Compare and contrast that to Fortress Europe, and the EU's CAP protection racket that keeps African goods out of the EU or how hard it is for non-EU citizens to get the paperwork to live and work in the EU, even if you're a skilled trade or a doctor or dentist.

Both sides have their faults in this.

The UK government controls access for non-EU citizens, not the EU.

The 'control' of access for EU citizens is actually non-existent - if you look into the forms 'required' to live/work here on the .gov site there is a provision that you do not need the form if you are an EU citizen because it defines a "qualified person" as "working, studying, self-employed, self-sufficient or looking for work or have a ‘family member’ who is a qualified person"
https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate

We may have an opt out of the shengen agreement, but we basically have it anyway!

 SirDonlad wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Spoiler:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Slaphead wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why people are so desperate to be part of the EU?

What is so wonderful, rosy and special that they want to be part of it no matter what?

Access to the common market, freedom of movement, a break with "Little Britain" thinking, appreciation of different cultures...

Common market and freedom of movement, fair enough, I'll give you those, but I'll have to disagree with you on Little Britain.

God knows my views on the Conservatives are well known on these pages

but to be fair to them, they are talking about global trade deals, a global outlook.

Compare and contrast that to Fortress Europe, and the EU's CAP protection racket that keeps African goods out of the EU or how hard it is for non-EU citizens to get the paperwork to live and work in the EU, even if you're a skilled trade or a doctor or dentist.

Both sides have their faults in this.

The UK government controls access for non-EU citizens, not the EU.

The 'control' of access for EU citizens is actually non-existent - if you look into the forms 'required' to live/work here on the .gov site there is a provision that you do not need the form if you are an EU citizen because it defines a "qualified person" as "working, studying, self-employed, self-sufficient or looking for work or have a ‘family member’ who is a qualified person"
https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate

We may have an opt out of the shengen agreement, but we basically have it anyway!

 Future War Cultist wrote:
But how can we adequately plan our civic amenities when we don't know how many people are going to emigrate to our country in a given time?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
But the two are not entirely unrelated. Political and electoral pressure forces governments to "do" something about immigration. If EU migration is sacrosanct and untouchable, then that leaves only non-EU migrants, and therefore they put much stricter measures on them than they would if we weren't required to have an open border with Europe.

We can only cope with a finite number of immigrants after all (let's call it 10). If the EU requires us to let as many EU citizens come here as want to, (let's say 7/10). Then we only have space for another 3 non EU migrants.

So the government disproportionately restricts non EU migration, because its all they can do. How is that fair? Why should Europeans get special treatment over say an American, Canadian, an Indian or Chinese?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
But how can we adequately plan our civic amenities when we don't know how many people are going to emigrate to our country in a given time?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
But the two are not entirely unrelated. Political and electoral pressure forces governments to "do" something about immigration. If EU migration is sacrosanct and untouchable, then that leaves only non-EU migrants, and therefore they put much stricter measures on them than they would if we weren't required to have an open border with Europe.

We can only cope with a finite number of immigrants after all (let's call it 10). If the EU requires us to let as many EU citizens come here as want to, (let's say 7/10). Then we only have space for another 3 non EU migrants.

So the government disproportionately restricts non EU migration, because its all they can do. How is that fair? Why should Europeans get special treatment over say an American, Canadian, an Indian or Chinese?

This is exactly what I wanted to say.

If we have to let in anybody from the EU, regardless of skills or qualifications, it limits the government's room to manouvere.

Like you say, if we allow, say, 10,000 extra people in, and 8000 of them have to come from the EU, then our ability to choose from the rest of the world is vastly reduced. And that's not border or immigration control in my book.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
But the two are not entirely unrelated. Political and electoral pressure forces governments to "do" something about immigration. If EU migration is sacrosanct and untouchable, then that leaves only non-EU migrants, and therefore they put much stricter measures on them than they would if we weren't required to have an open border with Europe.

We can only cope with a finite number of immigrants after all (let's call it 10). If the EU requires us to let as many EU citizens come here as want to, (let's say 7/10). Then we only have space for another 3 non EU migrants.

So the government disproportionately restricts non EU migration, because its all they can do. How is that fair? Why should Europeans get special treatment over say an American, Canadian, an Indian or Chinese?

This is exactly what I wanted to say.

If we have to let in anybody from the EU, regardless of skills or qualifications, it limits the government's room to manouvere.

Like you say, if we allow, say, 10,000 extra people in, and 8000 of them have to come from the EU, then our ability to choose from the rest of the world is vastly reduced. And that's not border or immigration control in my book.

This is only true if the government sets an artificial limit on the number of people allowed to enter the country.

PARIS – Little more than three months after the United Kingdom’s decision in June to leave the European Union, Brexit politics are careening out of control in the UK. An almost revolutionary – and very un-British – dynamic has taken hold, and, as British Prime Minister Theresa May indicated in her “Little Englander” speech at the Conservative Party conference this month, the UK is heading for a “hard Brexit.”
That outcome would run counter to British public opinion, which remains moderate on the question of fully breaking with the EU. According to a July BBC/ComRes poll, 66% of respondents considered “maintaining access to the single market” to be more important than restricting freedom of movement. In an ICM poll the same month, only 10% of respondents said they would prioritize ending free movement over maintaining access to the single market, while 30% viewed the two as equally important and 38% considered maintaining full access to the single market the priority.
Syrian War
Syria’s Shattered Mosaic

John Andrews views the country’s civil war in the context of the Middle East’s strategic disarray, assessing how Shlomo Ben-Ami, Christopher Hill, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and others think the outcome will reshape the region.

These findings will surprise only those who buy into the narrative that the West is confronting a large-scale xenophobic revolt against the elites. While the “Leave” camp certainly included many hard Brexiteers whose primary motivation was to end free movement, it also comprised people who believed Boris Johnson, the former London mayor and current foreign secretary, when he promised (as he still does) that the UK could have its cake and eat it.
In fact, despite Leave’s large faction of angry white working-class voters, middle-class trade-friendly Brexiteers, together with the “Remain” camp, constitute a clear majority of everyone who voted in the June referendum. Under normal circumstances, one would expect the government’s policy to reflect the majority’s preference, and to aim for a “soft Brexit.” Instead, a classic revolutionary pattern has emerged.
According to the Brexiteers, the people have spoken, and it is the government’s duty to deliver a “true” Brexit. But the government must overcome the spoilers, such as senior civil servants and the Remain majority in the House of Commons, who favor a Brexit in name only – a “false” version that could never deliver the benefits of the real thing.
In this revolutionary narrative, the worst elements of Europe’s political tradition have crowded out British pragmatism. What a majority of British voters want is considered irrelevant. With a hard Brexit, the Leave camp can avoid being seen by voters as the supplicant in negotiations with the EU – which it inevitably would be, no matter how often May denies it.
The EU will have the upper hand in negotiations for two simple reasons. First, the UK has more to lose economically. While other EU countries’ total exports to the UK are double what the UK exports to the rest of the bloc, its exports to the EU amount to three times more as a share of its GDP. Likewise, the UK has a services surplus, which matters far less to the rest of the EU than it does to Britain.
Second, just like the EU’s Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, any negotiated arrangement between the EU and the UK will have to be unanimously accepted by all EU member states. Thus, the negotiation will not really be between the UK and the EU, but rather among EU members. The UK, without a presence at those talks, will simply have to accept or reject whatever the EU offers. This would be true even if the UK pursued a prepackaged arrangement such as membership in the European Economic Area or the EU Customs Union; it will be all the more true if the UK seeks a “bespoke” deal, as May has indicated she will.
If British voters recognized their country’s weak negotiating position, the Brexiteers, who won the referendum on their promise to “take back control,” would face a political disaster. Walking away from substantive negotiations is the simplest way to avoid such an embarrassing unmasking.
Thus, politically, a hard Brexit is actually the soft option for the government. Economically, however, hard Brexit will come at a high price, which the UK will have to pay for years to come.

The only consolation is that Brexit’s revolutionary momentum may not be sustainable. Shortly after the Leave camp labeled bureaucrats in her Her Majesty’s Civil Service “enemies of the people” – a typical statement in the early stages of a revolution – pro-Brexit Foreign Trade Minister Liam Fox derided British exporters, calling them “too lazy and too fat” to succeed in his brave new free-trading Britain.
Such rhetoric is a symptom of desperation. It carries echoes of the declining years of the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev, when Marxist apologists insisted that there was nothing wrong with communism, except that humanity wasn’t yet mature enough for it. If developments continue at this pace, the revolutionary zeal we see among British politicians may burn itself out before “hard Brexit” is consummated.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hard BREXIT. Soft BREXIT - I honestly think it's another dodge, another technicality, another way to way to muddy the waters, and ultimately, another way to keep us in the EU, despite the referendum result.

That Nick Clegg is banging the drum on this should tell you everything you need to know.

We already have the remain side trying to get the courts to overturn the decision, and supporters of letting Parliament have a say were awfully quiet when Gordon Brown ignored parliament and signed the Lisbon Treaty....

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hard BREXIT. Soft BREXIT - I honestly think it's another dodge, another technicality, another way to way to muddy the waters, and ultimately, another way to keep us in the EU, despite the referendum result.

That Nick Clegg is banging the drum on this should tell you everything you need to know.

We already have the remain side trying to get the courts to overturn the decision, and supporters of letting Parliament have a say were awfully quiet when Gordon Brown ignored parliament and signed the Lisbon Treaty....

That in part is because Brown signing the treaty did not give it legal effect. It only became law when Parliament debated the treaty and approved it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7461918.stm

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Back to the point about democracy, though, now that we have confirmed that the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified only after a debate and assent by Parliament, perhaps you will see that May's threat to ignore the sovereignty of Parliament by triggering Brexit without a debate and assent is a serious change of the UK constitution.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
MPs have to represent everyone in their constituency, even those who do not vote or are unable to vote. If it is bad for their constituency as a whole to leave the EU, due to losing EU funding with no guarantee of it being replaced by funding from Westminster for example, then should they not do what is best for the majority of their constituents, even if it is not what those who voted in the referendum wanted?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Back to the point about democracy, though, now that we have confirmed that the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified only after a debate and assent by Parliament, perhaps you will see that May's threat to ignore the sovereignty of Parliament by triggering Brexit without a debate and assent is a serious change of the UK constitution.

We have a constitution? I've been looking for a copy of our 'unwritten' constitution for years.

I'm not having a go at you, and we've had this conversation before about constitutions, so we'll leave it at that.

But yes, I am worried. What May is doing is undemocratic. No argument from me, but the flip side is this:

72% of constituencies voted to leave. 72% of MPs want to stay.

The gap between the public and the rulers is miles apart. Something has to give, and I fear the end result could be civil unrest...

Men like Nick Clegg, would sell this country to the EU in a heartbeat. I know from reading Private Eye that the loudest supporters of the EU are also the same people who get money from the EU or have done so in the past...

I could respect people who want to stay in the EU out of principal, but so many of them have either worked for the EU or benefit from the EU.

I find it hard to trust them. I believe they would keep us in the EU at any price...

I fear the consequences from a disenfranchised population who already feel abandoned and ignored by the ballot box...