How should Britain vote in the EU referendum?

I'm not suggesting that "Britain r0x0rz" just that human rights within Britain have evolved in Britain without the need for external enforcement unlike on the continent which perhaps explains why there is a difference between Khen and I. I suppose if you want to look at the present then while the far right is gaining power and votes across the continent, Britain has zero far right MPs in Parliament (with our far right party getting 1,667 votes in the last General Election). An allegedly far right group in Germany got a quarter of the vote yesterday in Saxon Anhalt. So are we supposed to delegate our human rights to a continent that repeatedly tore itself apart violently and is electing the far right across the continent, or have confidence in ourselves to maintain our own human rights?

I trust ourselves, Khen apparently doesn't trust his own nation and his own nationals possibly for good reason. Do you not trust your own nation and nationals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Or the Romans?

---

Yeah! What have the Romans ever done for us?

Indeed. :D

This seems to be getting very Off Topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Yes.

---

You. . . seriously think the Spanish Empire was more enlightened and less brutal and oppressive than the British Empire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

You. . . seriously think the Spanish Empire was more enlightened and less brutal and oppressive than the British Empire?

---

Yes, which should tell you something about how bad the British Empire was.

Or how wrong you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Yes, which should tell you something about how bad the British Empire was.

---

It tells me how bad your "privileged white male" guilt-complex is.

Were I inclined to feel guilt over atrocities committed 100s of years before I was born, I might be inclined to simply pretend they never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'm not suggesting that "Britain r0x0rz" just that human rights within Britain have evolved in Britain without the need for external enforcement unlike on the continent which perhaps explains why there is a difference between Khen and I. I suppose if you want to look at the present then while the far right is gaining power and votes across the continent, Britain has zero far right MPs in Parliament (with our far right party getting 1,667 votes in the last General Election). An allegedly far right group in Germany got a quarter of the vote yesterday in Saxon Anhalt. So are we supposed to delegate our human rights to a continent that repeatedly tore itself apart violently and is electing the far right across the continent, or have confidence in ourselves to maintain our own human rights?

I trust ourselves, Khen apparently doesn't trust his own nation and his own nationals possibly for good reason. Do you not trust your own nation and nationals?

---

First of all, are you saying there is a law on the books preventing "far right" parties from gaining political power in the UK? Or is their current lack of power simply a matter of circumstance and a consequence of your particular electoral system of plurality voting that naturally maintains a system with two dominant parties?

Secondly, as far as I can tell, AfD belongs to the same ideological family of xenophobic ethnocentric nationalistic euroskeptic right-wing populists as eg the Sweden Democrats and UKIP, and their popular support is in line with the popular support for similar parties in similar European countries. To compare them to BNP for example is, I believe. not entirely accurate.

Thirdly, there are limits to my trust and I'd be a fool to act as if present trustworthiness is sufficient. If it were sufficient we would not need laws, we would not need constitutions and constitutional courts, we would not need conventions, we would not need treaties, we would not need watchdogs, we would not need whistleblowing laws and we would not need checks and balances on power. I don't trust my nation and its nationals and its institutions implicitly from now on to eternity and I believe it is prudent to have safeguards in place against the worst consequences of betrayed trust. As I see it, the EU, flawed and broken and distasteful though it may be in many ways, is one of those safeguards.

Firstly there is no law but either our electorate is better and/or our electoral system is better indeed. Good question as to which it is. I do believe our electoral system is better yes, I've said that for a long time haven't I?

Secondly I don't recall UKIP suggesting that migrants at Calais are shot. Even UKIP have only one MP in Parliament (and even he is a glorified independent who is barely on speaking terms with his own party leader).

I do not see the requirement for the EU as a safeguard. I find more our politics and history has far more in common with Australia, Canada, New Zealand or even the USA than Germany, France, Poland or Romania. None of the former require the EU as a safeguard and nor do we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Secondly I don't recall UKIP suggesting that migrants at Calais are shot.

---

From a Google search I found this:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/...07_228x479.jpg
Is this a UK border control officer?

I don't know, his vest says Police.

Though it's certainly not British policy to shoot people attempting to cross the border.

Even if they are threatening people?

Depends upon how serious the threat I suppose. I don't people the alternative suggestion was that people should be shot as a last resort if there was a threat to life otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't people the alternative suggestion was that people should be shot as a last resort if there was a threat to life otherwise.

---

I don't understand that sentence.

Sorry early morning after not much sleep. I don't believe the alternative suggestion [by AfD] what that people should [only] be shot as a lost resort if there was a threat to life otherwise [ie if not shooting causes a threat to life].

You are mistaken here is the actual quote:

Quote:

---

(...)Ich habe das Wort Schießbefehl nicht benutzt. Kein Polizist will auf einen Flüchtling schießen. Ich will das auch nicht. Aber zur Ultima Ratio gehört der Einsatz von Waffengewalt.

---

I have not used the word "orders to shoot". No policeman wants to shoot at a refugee . I do not want that, either. But at the Ultima Ratio includes the use of armed force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Firstly there is no law but either our electorate is better and/or our electoral system is better indeed. Good question as to which it is. I do believe our electoral system is better yes, I've said that for a long time haven't I?

---

And no doubt you'll be saying it right up until you get your own Trump.

But you know what? I don't need seatbelts, speed-limits, cameras and laws either because I'm a better driver than everyone else (which should be abundantly clear from the fact that I've never been in a dangerous car-accident).

Quote:

---

Secondly I don't recall UKIP suggesting that migrants at Calais are shot. Even UKIP have only one MP in Parliament (and even he is a glorified independent who is barely on speaking terms with his own party leader).

---

First of all, see EJ's correction. Secondly, see the prospective UKIP politician (later excluded for reasons of political hygiene) who said, among other disgusting things, that immigrants should be shot or gassed. Finally, while this is one situation where it's actually good to be behind the curve, there is no reason to believe your homegrown xenophobes won't catch up.

Quote:

---

I do not see the requirement for the EU as a safeguard. I find more our politics and history has far more in common with Australia, Canada, New Zealand or even the USA than Germany, France, Poland or Romania. None of the former require the EU as a safeguard and nor do we.

---

http://i.imgur.com/iWKad22.jpg

Okay seriously. First you point to your tainted record on abolition as evidence of enlightenment and civilisation. Then you pretend that your centuries of mistreatment of British subjects in India and Africa is evidence of British concern for safeguarding rights. And now you present, in defense of your awesomeness, cultural similarities with nations that have in modern times (as in recently and right now) been guilty of mistreating or outright fucking over its indigenous peoples as well as refugees, and with one nation that has a proud tradition of police brutality to supplement its favourite pastime of violating the rights of its own citizens through illegal monitoring programs (an improvement from interring them in special camps I guess although apparently there are those who'd like to try that with Muslim Americans) when it's not busy kidnapping people and torturing them.

Just... what are you doing man?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

And no doubt you'll be saying it right up until you get your own Trump.

But you know what? I don't need seatbelts, speed-limits, cameras and laws either because I'm a better driver than everyone else (which should be abundantly clear from the fact that I've never been in a dangerous car-accident).

---

If we elect Trump, we elect Trump. It's called democracy, I still believe in it, shame if you don't.

Quote:

---

First of all, see EJ's correction. Secondly, see the prospective UKIP politician (later excluded for reasons of political hygiene) who said, among other disgusting things, that immigrants should be shot or gassed. Finally, while this is one situation where it's actually good to be behind the curve, there is no reason to believe your homegrown xenophobes won't catch up.

---

They may do but not before the nations you want us to shackle our rights to have already been taken over by them at this rate. Did said UKIP politician get elected to Westminster? No, no UKIP prospective parliamentary candidate (as opposed to defector) has ever been elected to Parliament. Funny that.

Quote:

---

Okay seriously. First you point to your tainted record on abolition as evidence of enlightenment and civilisation. Then you pretend that your centuries of mistreatment of British subjects in India and Africa is evidence of British concern for safeguarding rights. And now you present, in defense of your awesomeness, cultural similarities with nations that have in modern times (as in recently and right now) been guilty of mistreating or outright fucking over its indigenous peoples as well as refugees, and with one nation that has a proud tradition of police brutality to supplement its favourite pastime of violating the rights of its own citizens through illegal monitoring programs (an improvement from interring them in special camps I guess although apparently there are those who'd like to try that with Muslim Americans) when it's not busy kidnapping people and torturing them.

Just... what are you doing man?

---

I stand by our record as being better than alternatives. I think we treated subjects better than was standard in that era as I said, compare how the Brits treated Indians with how the Spaniards treated Incans. Of course there were problems but we learnt from them, hindsight is 20-20 and to judge one culture with that from another era is odd. As for the other nations I mentioned, the same thing applies. All have evolved as products of their era. Neither a single one of those examples, nor the UK, has improved its human rights because of the EU or the ECHR (which is unrelated to the EU anyway) so the evolution and progress has happened by ourselves. So if you're pointing to historical problems that have since been fixed that demonstrates that we fix things ourselves and so do those other nations, it does not demonstrate the need for European Fascists to be involved.

So slap your own forehead, you've demonstrated nothing whatsoever.

Very droll Khen.

I'm starting to think Leave can and possibly should win it. Nobody seems to be willing or able to make a single positive case for staying in the EU other than "it will be bad if we leave" using dodgy claims made by the same so-called experts that said it would be bad if we didn't join the Euro (when the opposite was true); where is the positive case for remaining? Turnout could be key as the Leave vote seems more passionate and is made up of higher turnout demographics while the Remain side don't seem like they actually care too much one way or another.

Quote:

---

If we elect Trump, we elect Trump. It's called democracy, I still believe in it, shame if you don't.

---

This might be a little more convincing coming from someone that hasn't consistently argued that keeping Trump-like figures away from power was point in favour of FPTP as compared to PR, and indeed almost certain is the reason why parties like UKIP can only get a seat from an already sitting Tory changing sides where as on the continent far right parties end up forming coalition governments half the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I think we treated subjects better than was standard in that era as I said, compare how the Brits treated Indians with how the Spaniards treated Incans.

---

I think you have that the wrong way around. Native Americans subjects of the Spanish Empire were at least nominally protected by the law, even if that was a bit of a farce it was better than the situation in North America which is basically a centuries long litany of massacres by English, Dutch and French settlers against the local native population. That's before we get to the second empire, when the Brits get *really* nasty. Like, deliberately exterminating entire populations, starving others by continuing to allow the export of grain in the midst of major famines and waging wars with the express aim of addicting an entire continent to heroine nasty.

Quote:

---

I'm starting to think Leave can and possibly should win it. Nobody seems to be willing or able to make a single positive case for staying in the EU other than "it will be bad if we leave" using dodgy claims made by the same so-called experts that said it would be bad if we didn't join the Euro (when the opposite was true); where is the positive case for remaining?

---

It will be bad if we leave. This was the bullshit we got all through the Scottish independence referendum too. If someone is running, arms failing, towards a cliff while dousing themselves in petrol and holding a cigarette lighter in one hand it's not "scaremongering" and "negative campaigning" to point out that this behaviour is unlikely to end well. Furthermore, if one side is arguing for change and the other is simply arguing against change in favour of the status quo then the onus is on the side arguing for change that the change would be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

This might be a little more convincing coming from someone that hasn't consistently argued that keeping Trump-like figures away from power was point in favour of FPTP as compared to PR, and indeed almost certain is the reason why parties like UKIP can only get a seat from an already sitting Tory changing sides where as on the continent far right parties end up forming coalition governments half the time.

---

Because Trump-like figures are not the most popular figures yes. Changing the law to give seats to extremist losers that couldn't win an election is not something I'll support.

Them actually winning the election is a different matter though. If they win, they win.

Quote:

---

It will be bad if we leave. This was the bullshit we got all through the Scottish independence referendum too. If someone is running, arms failing, towards a cliff while dousing themselves in petrol and holding a cigarette lighter in one hand it's not "scaremongering" and "negative campaigning" to point out that this behaviour is unlikely to end well. Furthermore, if one side is arguing for change and the other is simply arguing against change in favour of the status quo then the onus is on the side arguing for change that the change would be a good thing.

---

Simply saying it will be bad does not make it so. The Scottish referendum was full of clear bullshit which was easy to refute either at the time, like that the pound would be a currency union (it's not, it's a national currency, if you want a currency union join the euro) or since like that Scotland was awash with liquid gold that would fund the country (despite the fact the North Sea has been in decline for a long time and with the collapse in the oil price it's not generating any revenue now).

The UK leaving the EU is not remotely comparable to running off a cliff with a lighter and petrol. The claims made so far have been so extreme as to become ironic. Like the claim that leaving the EU would increase terrorism risk or put national security at risk, both of which were absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Because Trump-like figures are not the most popular figures yes. Changing the law to give seats to extremist losers that couldn't win an election is not something I'll support.

Them actually winning the election is a different matter though. If they win, they win.

---

They aren't winning elections in France or whatever, either, so what are you even on about?

Quote:

---

The UK leaving the EU is not remotely comparable to running off a cliff with a lighter and petrol. The claims made so far have been so extreme as to become ironic. Like the claim that leaving the EU would increase terrorism risk or put national security at risk, both of which were absurd.

---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeI9zXMW0AA3_JH.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

They aren't winning elections in France or whatever, either, so what are you even on about?

---

AfD got a quarter of all the seats at a recent election, that's a party that makes UKIP look moderate.

Quote:

---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeI9zXMW0AA3_JH.jpg

---

Indeed it was a pretty pathetic claim that was laughable at the time and makes loons like her look like sages rather than loons. There's only so many times you can cry wolf.

Brussels is also an extremely segregated city that has mismanaged its security concerns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

AfD got a quarter of all the seats at a recent election, that's a party that makes UKIP look moderate.

---

AfD is remarkably similar to UKIP, and even commands a similar percentage of the popular vote.

Going around in circles but I think UKIP is bad enough and AfD are even worse. If you're OK with UKIP then so be it.

UKIP in our General Election last year: Distant third place by vote share, one out of 650 seats.
AfD in Saxony Anhalt last week: Second place (and closer to first than third), 24 out of 87 seats. They block even a "grand coalition" from having a majority of seats.

You're comparing a national election with a local election to state legislature,

The German federal structure is not like ours.