UK & EU Politics Thread

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.

**Witzkatz**

Well said. And I think there's also something to be said about stuff like this deliberately being a governmental program by the state, as a sign of support, rather than something to be done by charitable organizations. Their work is to be lauded, of course, but I tend to think that it kind of shows a lack of either competence or will of the national or state governments when the needs of the poorest have to be taken care of by volunteers and NGOs .

**reds8n**

...

Spoiler:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43244088

MPs will get a 1.8% pay rise for 2018-19, taking their overall salary to £77,379 from 1 April, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said.

The salary for chairmen of Commons select committees will also increase by 1.8% to £15,509, which is added to their basic salary for being an MP.

It is a bigger increase on the 1.4% pay rise MPs got last year.

IPSA says it is in line with its policy of adjusting MPs' pay at the same rate as changes in the public sector wages.

Members of the Scottish Parliament were given a 0.6% pay rise to £62,149 a year in December.

**simonr1978**

r_squared wrote:
As a nation we are wealthy enough to provide crisis accommodation for those in need.

Not always. It's provided to a degree depending on satisfying certain criteria and in many cases councils are under little or no obligation to help out if you are not classed as vulnerable and/or are considered to have made yourself homeless, for example on release from prison unless something has been pre-arranged (not guaranteed) ex-prisoners are counted as making themselves homeless because of their convictions and can count on practically no government assistance whatsoever.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.

Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.

It's based on the premise that it's easier to vote out a government in London, than a government made up of 27 other nations and 400 million more people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

r_squared wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
.... but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.

This is another example of the problem you have specifically DINLT. I don't remember seeing anyone in these threads suggest the the EU enjoys "moral superiority" over the UK. Please provide a quote or something to support that statement, otherwise it suggests that you're actually arguing against an imagined position.

I'm referring to Remain supporters in the media and not to people on this forum.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Ally yourself with a side that's honest about screwing you over, or ally yourself with the side that pretends to be your friend, and then screws you over...

Which side is meant to be which? Because the leave side was anything but honest about screwing anyone over.

As for allying with Nick Clegg being a bad thing because of Tory cuts. What do you think is going to happen when the UK economy suffers due to Brexit? More austerity. You voted for cuts by voting for the option that would damage the UK economy.

We can vote out Conservative governments in this nation if we so choose. Conservative rule is not written into stone, but then again, in my lifetime, I've seen the Tories get votes by bribing people with right to buy, so maybe you have a point?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Somebody will probably be along to say that you can do the same with Britain, and I don't doubt it, but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.

Well, of course.

The ‘golden visa’ deal: ‘We have in effect been selling off British citizenship to the rich’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/04/golden-visa-immigration-deal-british-citizenship-home-office

Just about every country does it. The question is, what exactly has this to do with the issue at hand?

It makes the point that the EU is just as wretched at times as Britain is, so media hysterics about Britain being cast adrift are just that - hysterics.

**Herzlos**

welshhoppo wrote:
With the passing snow storm (that I saw none of, apart from the cold and wind) I have an open question that I'd like your opinions on.

In this day and age, should people have a fundamental right to abode?

There's been loads of things flying around the internet for homeless people to have shelter in the cold, and to supply them with warm food.

So, in this day and age, should we even have homeless people? Or should we all be neo-liberalist and not help out other people?

People should have a fundamental right to shelter. There's no reason anyone should be homeless beyond selfishness.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll be honest, I've never had any inclination to vote out the European parliament. I assume most are in the same position.

It would be nice if we could make our MEPs actually take part though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The average man in the street didn't vote Brexit over parliamentary accountability. All of the polling shows that immigration was front and centre.

**Kilkrazy**

The chief executive of York based builder Persimmon was recently given a bonus of over £100 million -- that's bonus not salary.

It would be enough to build and give a home to every single homeless person in York.

He received the bonus because Persimmon's share price has tripled in the past few years since the government introduced its much criticised "help to buy" scheme for first time buyers.

Half of Persimmons homes sold in 2016 were to "help to buy" customers, meaning the tax payer subsidised this chap's bonus.

Under the circumstances, I do not feel it is right that homeless people are freezing to death in churchyards and shop doorways in the 6th richest country in the world.

**Herzlos**

You wouldn't even need to give them a house each, I was thinking of something along the lines of a pod hotel. Everyone can get somewhere warm to sleep, a shower, charge a phone a d some hot food.

**Compel**

I know in America that the Salvation Army have come under a lot of criticism for their homeless shelters, particularly when it comes to, for example, LGBTQ homeless people (a group one would imagine would be quite likely to become homeless at a young age).

I wouldn't be surprised if the state in the UK isn't too different.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Herzlos wrote:
You wouldn't even need to give them a house each, I was thinking of something along the lines of a pod hotel. Everyone can get somewhere warm to sleep, a shower, charge a phone a d some hot food.

You'd just have to deal with the people going "they wouldn't be homeless if they didn't waste their money on phones!" and similar drivel.

**Steve steveson**

Two things need to be said about homeless in the UK.

1) Rough sleeping is the tip of the iceberg for homelessness and only represents a tiny part of the problem.

2) Rough sleeping generally is not an issue of lack of housing. It is much more complex. Most rough sleepers have very complex issues with addiction and mental health. It is not as simple as proving a bed. Most end up in and out of shelters and support for various reasons. Some struggle with the requirements to go clean (with support), some with the impact of mental health, some with the fact that shelters are full of people who have had difficult lives so do have high levels of violence and aggression, some have just been living in the street so long they struggle with not being on the street.

The first absolutely needs more house building and other things, the second is much more difficult to answer. First we need to address the way we treat addiction and mental health, both in the medically and socially.

**Herzlos**

I wholeheartedly agree. Providing accommodation is the easy half of the solution.

**jouso**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

jouso wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Somebody will probably be along to say that you can do the same with Britain, and I don't doubt it, but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.

Well, of course.

The ‘golden visa’ deal: ‘We have in effect been selling off British citizenship to the rich’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/04/golden-visa-immigration-deal-british-citizenship-home-office

Just about every country does it. The question is, what exactly has this to do with the issue at hand?

It makes the point that the EU is just as wretched at times as Britain is, so media hysterics about Britain being cast adrift are just that - hysterics.

Which no one has ever claimed. The EU is just one more system of checks and balances. Keeps the governments in check and at the same time is kept in check by those same governments.

I'm sure that if the EU attempted to regulate the rules under which individual countries hand residence permits and citizenship the cries of power-grabbing EU would be deafening.

**reds8n**

https://www.ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80

The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.

British and American negotiators secretly met in January for the first formal talks on a new air services deal, aiming to fill the gap created when Britain falls out of the EU-US open skies treaty after Brexit, according to people familiar with talks.

The talks were cut short after US negotiators offered only a standard bilateral agreement. Under its terms all main UK-based carriers would have reduced access to the US market because they would not meet the criteria for ownership and control.

One person attending the London meetings to “put Humpty Dumpty back together” said: “You can’t just scratch out ‘EU’ and put in ‘UK’.” A British official said it showed “the squeeze” London will face as it tries to reconstruct its international agreements after Brexit, even with close allies such as Washington.

Negotiators are confident of an eventual agreement to keep open the busy UK-US routes, which account for more than a third of current transatlantic flight traffic. But there are legal and political obstacles that could impede the two sides from reaching a deal in time to give legal certainty to airlines booking flights a year in advance.

“We have every confidence that the US and UK will sign a deal that is in everyone’s interests and that IAG will comply with the EU and UK ownership and control regulations post Brexit,” said International Airlines Group, which owns British Airways. Virgin Atlantic said it remained “assured that a new liberal agreement will be reached, allowing us to keep flying to all of our destinations in North America”.

Chris Grayling, UK transport secretary, declared in October that he was making “rapid progress” in reaching ambitious new airline agreements with the US and other international partners. According to FT estimates, the UK must renegotiate and replace about 65 international transport agreements after Brexit.

In its opening stance the US side rolled back valuable elements of the US-EU agreement, the most liberal open skies deal ever agreed by Washington. Its post-Brexit offer to the UK did not include membership of a joint committee on regulatory co-operation or special access to the Fly America programme, which allocates tickets for US government employees. Washington also asked for improved flying rights for US courier services such as FedEx.

The UK has also yet to formally offer the US access to overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, which were not included as part of the original US-EU deal, according to people familiar with the talks.

There are also potential issues over the continuation of antitrust exemptions, permitted by the US-EU open skies agreement, which allow airline alliances to set fares and share revenue, according to people familiar with talks.

The biggest sticking-point is a standard ownership clause in Washington’s bilateral aviation agreements that would exclude airlines from the deal if “substantial ownership and effective control” does not rest with US or UK nationals respectively. In effect it requires majority ownership by one of the two sides if an airline is to benefit.

London asked the US to adjust its long-held policy since it would exclude the three main British-based transatlantic carriers, which all fall short of the eligibility criteria. These are IAG, the owner of British Airways and Iberia; Virgin Atlantic; and Norwegian UK.

Sir Richard Branson owns 51 per cent of Virgin, making it majority UK-owned. But he is in the process of selling 31 per cent to Air France-KLM, which could complicate Virgin’s access rights to the US. US airline Delta owns the remaining stake.

The challenge is most acute for Willie Walsh, IAG chief executive, whose group must also clear the EU’s 50 per cent ownership threshold to avoid losing his European operating rights after Brexit, when UK nationals are no longer counted.

One senior EU official said the airline operator was heading for “a crunch”. “From the US point of view, there is not a single big airline that is UK-owned and controlled,” he said. “The Americans will play it hard. The mood has changed [against liberalisation], it’s the worst time to be negotiating.”

Andrew Charlton, an aviation consultant, said the negotiations with the US were likely to be “fraught with difficulties”.

“The EU has been arguing for a change to the ownership and control rule for decades but the US has never said yes. It’s been a sticking point forever. If the US has never bent before then why would they do it just for the UK?” he said, adding that such a change could set a big precedent.

British negotiators are hopeful the ownership issues can be addressed through a side agreement or memorandum of understanding giving airlines solid legal rights. But so far the US side has not gone beyond offering temporary “waivers”, on a case-by-case basis to airlines.

The UK’s EU membership also prevents the country from signing trade or aviation services agreements before the end of March 2019 when Britain is due to leave the bloc. The EU’s Brexit negotiators are insisting it seek permission for deals during any transition period.

British negotiators are hoping to convince partners such as the US to treat them as EU members during the transition period, so they do not automatically fall out of agreements during that period.

A senior UK government source said it was “nonsense to suggest that planes won’t fly between UK and US post-Brexit. Both sides have a strong interest in reaching an agreement and are very close to one.”

The US also played down fears of a looming crisis.

“Our shared aim with the United Kingdom is to ensure the smoothest possible transition in the transatlantic market,” said the state department. “Commercial aviation is key to the dynamic economic relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. Discussions are going well and, while specific dates are not set, we plan to meet again soon.”

**AdmiralHalsey**

You know, stuff like discussing the implications of this was curiously utterly absent from the actual Brexit vote...

**Kilkrazy**

Handwavium continues to be employed in fairly large amounts.

**A Town Called Malus**

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
You know, stuff like discussing the implications of this was curiously utterly absent from the actual Brexit vote...

Mmmmm. Just goes to show what happens when you give demagogues a free pulpit to stand on.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
You know, stuff like discussing the implications of this was curiously utterly absent from the actual Brexit vote...

Probably because people were rightly focused on the important stuff: liberty, sovereignty, border control etc etc

Open skies agreements, trade deals, business concerns etc etc are neither here nor there, because a gilded cage is still a prison...

As far as I'm concerned, and I make no apologies for saying this, but the EU is Europe's biggest threat. It's illiberal, it's insidious, and it's anti-democratic.

It's anti-European...

The parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
You know, stuff like discussing the implications of this was curiously utterly absent from the actual Brexit vote...

Mmmmm. Just goes to show what happens when you give demagogues a free pulpit to stand on.

I've long argued that Tony Blair should be done for war crimes.

**jouso**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.

Parliament is a sham, house of Lords is an oligarchy, the Supreme Court is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.

See? You can do that with every government above city council level, and still ring true.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

jouso wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.

Parliament is a sham, house of Lords is an oligarchy, the Supreme Court is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.

See? You can do that with every government above city council level, and still ring true.

If you think the House of Commons is on the same level as the European Parliament, then there's a bridge I want to sell you.

They're not even in the same league.

**Inquisitor Gideon**

Why is sovereignty still being thrown out as some sort of excuse? It means nothing in this day and age. If we could make like easier for all by throwing that antiquated idea under a bus we should. It's doing nothing but holding us as a country back. Even more so now due to brexit.

**Steve steveson**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
jouso wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.

Parliament is a sham, house of Lords is an oligarchy, the Supreme Court is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.

See? You can do that with every government above city council level, and still ring true.

If you think the House of Commons is on the same level as the European Parliament, then there's a bridge I want to sell you.

They're not even in the same league.

So we are back to insults and hand waving again? Come up with some evidence. If it’s so obvious that the EU is less accountable than the UK government surely it is easy to show how and why this is he case?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Why is sovereignty still being thrown out as some sort of excuse? It means nothing in this day and age. If we could make like easier for all by throwing that antiquated idea under a bus we should. It's doing nothing but holding us as a country back. Even more so now due to brexit.

Sovereignty may mean nothing to global corporations who would love nothing more than no borders, an endless flow of labour from pole to pole, and zero limits on the flow of goods and capital, but some of us still believe in nation states and governments being accountable to people who vote them in, and not to distant supra-national entities.

Something has been seriously bugging me for a while about the EU, I couldn't put my finger on it, and now I've found the answer.

Now, let me be clear that I'm not accusing my fellow Dakka members of this, but since 2016, the Remain supporting media has accused the Brexit side of being narrow minded nationalists, little Englanders etc etc

Nationalism in the light of Brexit has been seen as a disease. Now, here comes my point.

In his essay, Notes on Nationalism, George Orwell talks about transferred nationalism. E.g loyalty to a cause that goes beyond borders but is still nationalistic in nature. He gives 3 examples:

1. Catholics the world over traditionally supporting the authority of Rome.

2. Communists the world over looking to Moscow in the Cold War days.

3. Jews the world over supporting the state of Israel i.e. Zionism.

And to that list, you can add people all over Europe looking to the authority of Brussels...

I'll be honest and say that re-reading my old books does come in handy. No longer can Remain supporters accuse Brexit supporters of nationalist tendencies, and all the negative connotations that go with the word.

Turns out that EU supporters are just as nationalistic as the rest of us...

If anybody has a good argument to refute George Orwell's point, I'd like to hear it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
jouso wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.

Parliament is a sham, house of Lords is an oligarchy, the Supreme Court is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.

See? You can do that with every government above city council level, and still ring true.

If you think the House of Commons is on the same level as the European Parliament, then there's a bridge I want to sell you.

They're not even in the same league.

So we are back to insults and hand waving again? Come up with some evidence. If it’s so obvious that the EU is less accountable than the UK government surely it is easy to show how and why this is he case?

Evidence? The House of Commons proposes, repeals, and introduces legislation at its leisure. The EU parliament only rubber stamps what is put to it...

The surest test of the sovereignty and independence of any Parliament is the ability to be able to dissolve itself if it so chooses.

If the EU Parliament could be dissolved, Farage would have proposed that bill on day 1 of taking up his MEP role...

**Inquisitor Gideon**

In what way do you honestly think that national states and governments are more accountable than the supposed supra-national entities to the general people? They're just as distant and unassailable as each other. The only difference is if you're lucky, you may be able to see the building somewhere in your country. I mean come on, that is such a pathetic excuse.

**Witzkatz**

Turns out that EU supporters are just as nationalistic as the rest of us...

If anybody has a good argument to refute George Orwell's point, I'd like to hear it.

Again, I think you are overstating - in your own perception - the love of Europeans for the EU. People are not waving EU flags with tears in their eyes, they are not standing at home in front of the TV watching Juncker speak, with a trembling fist thinking of the glorious EU motherland, they are not going to EU rallies and teaching their kids Ode an die Freude on the flute.

I'm pretty sure most European's feelings towards the EU can be, overall, summarized as "Eh."

HOWEVER, it will still be regarded as better than the alternative of fighting for your own little piece of dirt in a globalized world with the US and China.

I feel like this has been said many, many times already in this thread, but really, creating imaginary exaggerated, dystopian patriotic support for glorious EU to feel better about sovereignity-regaining, utopian patriotic Brexit is getting a little stale. Especially if you go as far as bringing Orwell into this.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Witzkatz wrote:
Turns out that EU supporters are just as nationalistic as the rest of us...

If anybody has a good argument to refute George Orwell's point, I'd like to hear it.

Again, I think you are overstating - in your own perception - the love of Europeans for the EU. People are not waving EU flags with tears in their eyes, they are not standing at home in front of the TV watching Juncker speak, with a trembling fist thinking of the glorious EU motherland, they are not going to EU rallies and teaching their kids Ode an die Freude on the flute.

I'm pretty sure most European's feelings towards the EU can be, overall, summarized as "Eh." HOWEVER, it will still be regarded as better than the alternative of fighting for your own little piece of dirt in a globalized world with the US and China.

I feel like this has been said many, many times already in this thread, but really, creating imaginary exaggerated, dystopian patriotic support for glorious EU to feel better about sovereignity-regaining, utopian patriotic Brexit is getting a little stale. Especially if you go as far as bringing Orwell into this.

Look at what the EU has: a flag, an anthem, a currency, a foreign policy, a parliament, an expansionist policy, and most importantly, the desire to control and exercise violence on its own behalf, if necessary.

What do I mean by violence? Let me be clear that I'm not talking about massacring citizens across the EU if they don't like Juncker

I'm talking about authority and the state's right to control violence. For example, we all know that the authority of any nation rests on the ability of armed men and women to keep law and order.

This is exercised by the police, the army etc etc

We all have that in our countries Britain, USA, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc etc

Our nations wouldn't exist without it. Anarchy would prevail. Of course, we have the rule of law, so the police can't do what they want.

But this control over the use of violence is one of the most defining attributes of any nation state IMO.

The EU's desire to have this by way of a military force is characteristic of its transformation into a nation IMO. Add the above elements into this flag, anthem, currency etc etc

Then you have a nation state in all but name.

Therefore, IMO, I am correct to call the EU a nation state, and its supporters nationalists.

I'm calling a spade a spade here.

I

**Deadnight**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Probably because people were rightly focused on the important stuff: liberty, sovereignty, border control etc etc

Can I pay my taxes with 'sovereignty'? Can I pay my mortgage with 'sovereignty'? No? Then they can go ram it.

Regarding 'liberty' - I feel pretty free and liberal under the eu. I'm irish, Westminster has done more to try to curtail the rights and freedoms of the Irish than the European

And border controls - this old chestnut. The uk has control of their borders. They chose not to exercise it.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Open skies agreements, trade deals, business concerns etc etc are neither here nor there, because a gilded cage is still a prison...

Yes, the eu is a 'gilded cage' and they're coming to lock you up. We're all prisoners.

Eh, no.

Please. Your over the top hysteria has actually gone past the point of being cute and amusing. Now it's just baffling.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.

Oh come on, stop being a damned hypocrite.

The exact Same things can be said about Westminster. I didn't vote for May. I've never voted tory. I have no say in the House of Lords. And the old Etonian establishment and chumocracy is still a thing. And an unaccountable shadowy one at that.

And as an Irishman living in Scotland, it's quite annoying how all the desires and wishes my of the Scots continually get overridden by those fools down south. A situation that is only going to get worse unless brexit forces indyref 2, and then we can leave this malarkey behind.

**Compel**

EDIT: Bleh, never mind

**motyak**

DINLT you're changing tack from your last barely coherent ramble that isn't directed at any point here and is rather tilting against a windmill that you yourself made and called a giant to this new even worse windmill. Please don't put words and arguments in the mouths of the other people in this thread, it is incredibly rude. Take that last sentence in a mod voice

**Whirlwind**

Steve steveson wrote:
Two things need to be said about homeless in the UK.

1) Rough sleeping is the tip of the iceberg for homelessness and only represents a tiny part of the problem.

2) Rough sleeping generally is not an issue of lack of housing. It is much more complex. Most rough sleepers have very complex issues with addiction and mental health. It is not as simple as proving a bed. Most end up in and out of shelters and support for various reasons. Some struggle with the requirements to go clean (with support), some with the impact of mental health, some with the fact that shelters are full of people who have had difficult lives so do have high levels of violence and aggression, some have just been living in the street so long they struggle with not being on the street.

The first absolutely needs more house building and other things, the second is much more difficult to answer. First we need to address the way we treat addiction and mental health, both in the medically and socially.

Agreed, there are vastly more people in temporary accommodation or surfing sofas. The whole issue needs more thought. Support is only really provided now when you are homeless because of Tory austerity the funds to help local government support people before they get there has all but dried up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42427398

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Probably because people were rightly focused on the important stuff: liberty, sovereignty, border control etc etc

What does this actually mean. There's no argument here just sweeping generalisations without any reasoning for your statements.

How does being outside the EU improve out liberty. It could be easily argued that we gain more liberty by being in the EU because instead of being restricted to one country we get to live, work and play in any of the 28 countries, can change when we please and so forth. How is that less liberty than having to be monitored where you work, live and play which has to be approved and is restricted?

What does sovereignty mean? Does it mean we all have to get up in the morning a swear allegiance to a family that stabbed its way into power hundreds of years ago? That we hand the power back to a few who determine our every ability? That the nation state should be first and foremost in all our lives? Compare that to being in the EU where you are not bound by the ideals of any nation state you can move to one which more closely aligns with your aspirations and ideals. Does that not put the power back to the people rather because an individual gets to choose the life they want to live. Those with better standards will become more powerful and better represent the populace, rather than the few drive the populace to doing what they want?

Border control to me just reads "racism lite" (not that I am accusing you of that). But as a populace the only reason to have border control is to stop people from other countries coming here; determining people's future not from the choice they want to make but a view on that group of people as a whole.

The ECJ is a court not a political establishment. Our courts are not accountable to the populace either. That is mob rule. The courts interpret the laws of the land which are put in place by politicians both democratically elected in the EU and the UK. In some ways the UK is less democratic because the parliament is less representative of the voting populace's desires. On the other hand the EU having PR is much more proportional in comparison. I think you are confusing not being democratic with having a larger parliament because of the larger number of people the bloc represents. However I repeat the UK parliament is a lot less democratic than the EU's

Open skies agreements, trade deals, business concerns etc etc are neither here nor there, because a gilded cage is still a prison...

What about nuclear agreements that allow worldwide and European use of nuclear material to support medicine and similar. Are you willing to sacrifice cancer treatments, even xrays to avoid that gilded cage?

The only way you can avoid a gilded cage is to live in a cave and have nothing...

**jouso**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Witzkatz wrote:
Turns out that EU supporters are just as nationalistic as the rest of us...

If anybody has a good argument to refute George Orwell's point, I'd like to hear it.

Again, I think you are overstating - in your own perception - the love of Europeans for the EU. People are not waving EU flags with tears in their eyes, they are not standing at home in front of the TV watching Juncker speak, with a trembling fist thinking of the glorious EU motherland, they are not going to EU rallies and teaching their kids Ode an die Freude on the flute.

I'm pretty sure most European's feelings towards the EU can be, overall, summarized as "Eh." HOWEVER, it will still be regarded as better than the alternative of fighting for your own little piece of dirt in a globalized world with the US and China.

I feel like this has been said many, many times already in this thread, but really, creating imaginary exaggerated, dystopian patriotic support for glorious EU to feel better about sovereignity-regaining, utopian patriotic Brexit is getting a little stale. Especially if you go as far as bringing Orwell into this.

Look at what the ,EU has: a flag, an anthem, a currency, a foreign policy, a parliament, an expansionist policy and most importantly, the desire to control and exercise violence on its own behalf, if necessary.

Just about every supranational entity has a flag, quite a few have anthems. I suggest you look at this Twitter thread, there are some very colourful anthems there. They tend to have their own assemblies, too like the Andean Parliament or Central American Parliament.

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/967166196868141058?s=19

As per supranational currencies? CFA Franc has been around for longer than the euro.

Foreign policy? More often than not their very raison d'être is to present a united front to the world. Most if not all of them have varying degrees of alignment.

Military? The Organisation of African Countries has been doing that for decades.... But the prime example is the UN who has engaged in military operations (or peace campaigns in UN-speak) ever since there was a UN.

Just recently saw the siege of gadotville, an interesting Netflix film about an almost forgotten Irish operation in the Congo