Okay so are those arguments no longer valid or have you flip-flopped for some other good reason?Originally Posted by RandBlade
Okay so are those arguments no longer valid or have you flip-flopped for some other good reason?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
LOL as far as bitching is concerned it hasn't even started yet, you do realise that right?
Is it the UK that gets the EU to re-write its immigration policy on the fly after a unilateral change in policy caused a continent-wide mess? No that'd be Germany.
Is it the UK that gets the EU Parliament to shut down, move the entire civil service and all Parliamentarians to move to Strasbourg for a week each month, and get the entire EU library of paperwork reprinted? At the cost of about £130 million and 10,200 tonnes of CO2? No that'd be France.
Is it the UK that has prevented any serious reforms to the CAP? No, France again.
Is it the UK that compelled diverse economies that had no credible reason to share a currency to do so leading to an economic disaster that has resulted in over 20% youth unemployment in the nations that adopted that failed policy? No, not us.
When the UK Prime Minister said he was calling an in/out referendum but he needed to renegotiate our relationship and get some reforms did we get serious reforms worth writing home about? No, you said we wouldn't and you were right.
The EU has been reforming for a long time in ways we have said are wrong yet it happens anyway and doesn't happen in a way we want it to. Yet we just go along with it and smile. Tony Blair gave away a large proportion of our rebate in exchange for reform of the CAP. The rebate has gone, the CAP was never reformed. UK Parliamentarians have not been tough enough in fighting for the UK taxpayer in a way that those like Schauble are perfectly in tune with fighting for the German taxpayer. Cameron was happy to sign a renegotiation that we all know and he must have known to be meaningless rather than fight for real reform. Gordon Brown slunk away signed the Lisbon treaty giving away lots of our vetos and giving the Eurozone a permanent QMV majority despite promises we'd have a vote first (which would have been voted down vetoing it).
If the UK votes Remain by a narrow margin after the intensity of Project Fear then we will have essentially put the UK "on probation". I fully expected a two-to-one majority for remain and to be in that two-to-one. Now I think it will be about 55/45 to Remain, just like the Scottish independence referendum result. From which the Scots have been the turbopowered squeeky wheels getting the grease.
I don't think the EU ever took credibly the notion we may want to leave and stop giving the billions of pounds a year we do to the EU project. After a near-miss of losing us we will have to be taken much more seriously. Any PM in the future would not get away with being so docile like Blair, Brown and Cameron as to sign a deal against the British interest. Just like France and Germany, we will fight for ourselves.
1 is less valid than it used to be. Last figures I'd seen was that the EU Single Market made up 57% of our exports. It's now 44% and falling fast.
2 and 3 are no longer valid. No proposals for improving trade in services have arisen. The renegotiation was worthless. In fact the renegotiation was worse than worthless as it showed that even with our membership on the line positive reform was not happening.
Plus the argument against membership was normally made by xenophobes like Farage whom I hate. After the renegotiation ended people like Gove came out of the closet and made some very good points and convincing points I was not aware of.
He likes them to give arguments that he then can dismiss.
Congratulations America
No I would prefer arguments that aren't clearly lies, like that voting in QMV on issues agreed in the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 is the reason there hasn't been a war since 1945.
Congratulations America
You know there is no chance in hell I will read that right?
Congratulations America
About the level of delusional hubris I'd expect from a Europhile like yourself and why you're going to lose either way June 24.
Twelve days untill you can make everything I ever said about your europhobia in this board true. Bye bye.
Congratulations America
In that case the positivity or lack thereof in the Remain side's messaging is more or less irrelevant to your decision.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No it's not. They could and should be able to make a positive case for all of 1-3. The lack of positivity gives zero reason to have confidence that there is a reason to be positive.
It is the lack of positivity on 2 & 3 that make them no longer valid. If positive arguments were being made there'd be a reason to have some confidence going forwards on those issues, the lack of even an attempted positive argument betrays a lack of confidence.
No it doesn't, not unless we're being strict pacifists and holding the imposed upon defender to be as full of blame for there being any fight as the other side. All you really need is an aggressor.
I doubt he does. But your comment is a straw man because it's not the EU (or the myriad overlapping companions and predecessors which did exist or still exist) which are the reason for the period of peace.Just so we all understand one another: are you implying that Europe has evolved beyond war and that, even if supranational entities like the EU were to be dissolved, there won't be another major war in the region ever again?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Exactly. If I thought we were evolved beyond war I'd want to abolish NATO, our military, our nuclear weapons etc - the true and expensive guarantors of peace.
Actually peace was quite cheap as the American budget paid for it.
Congratulations America
NATO made war inadvisable. The EU made war unthinkable. Inadvisable wars still occur.
Hope is the denial of reality
For most of Europe maybe. France and the UK actually pay our NATO budget commitments. If war was unthinkable we wouldn't have to.
Trident made war unthinkable.
Last I checked, countries with nuclear weapons still fight wars.
Hope is the denial of reality
That would explain the lack of warfare in the Western hemispher. . . wait, it doesn't. The Cold War and the monumental cost, in living memory, of the two world wars made warfare in Europe unthinkable and Russia has been demonstrating recently that even though the Cold War is over, the position of the European countries which use to war with frequency hasn't changed all that much. The idea that the EU (and the various conglomerate predecessors) made war unthinkable has less support than the "democries don't fight other democracies" thesis. It is possible that the same impulses and mechanisms which led to Europe forming the communities and organizations now exemplified by the EU (and the Council of Europe) are themselves direct causes of the lack of war. The sudden outbreak of sanity is something which has occurred more than once in Europe's past, with an impact that has lasted decades to over a century when it happens.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Name the last time a capitalist, western democracy invaded a nuclear power.
EDIT: Well said Fuzzy.
Small flaw with that logic. Ever heard of the Balkans? Last I heard, they suffered quite a bit in WWI and WWII. And they're an island of peace and stability, right?
You're also ignoring the fact that the EU was a major reason most of the European countries became democratic.
Nice of you to miss the point. What would stop nuclear France from fighting non-nuclear Germany? Or non-nuclear Germany from trying to annex Austria? The very fear of a resurgent Germany might have been sufficient to create conflict in Europe.
Hope is the denial of reality
Even if it was, it wasn't a reason we did though.
Certainly not the EU. NATO on the other hand would as an attack on Austria would be an attack on all NATO nations and Germany could never defeat the rest of NATO combined.Nice of you to miss the point. What would stop nuclear France from fighting non-nuclear Germany? Or non-nuclear Germany from trying to annex Austria? The very fear of a resurgent Germany might have been sufficient to create conflict in Europe.
When did Austria join NATO? I thought their relationship with NATO was limited to participation in the partnership for peace program. On the other hand Austria would probably be covered by the EU's CSDP.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Also ignoring the fact that America's NATO commitments were conditional on European unity, i.e. the creation of something like the EU.
Hope is the denial of reality
NATO was formed in 1949. The UK joined the EEC in 1973. How exactly did the USA demand British membership then?
This... is ironically myopic and self-centered.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No shit Sherlock, the question at hand is should the UK be in or out. Not whether the EU should exist at all, if other nations want to continue without us that will still be possible and might be even easier.
At first I thought the idea of a Brexit was insane nonsense. But I'm growing more sympathetic to the idea that a deep network of agreements regarding trade and movement of people would at least match most of the reasons I think staying within the EU is good for Britain and the EU. Obviously such a transition would likely be economic hell. But it doesn't have to be, depending on how it's done. And naturally it's up to voters to decide if they want to shoulder the cost of transition.
*shrug* I guess that makes sense if you imagine that the outcome of this referendum, esp. a Brexit, can't possibly have significant consequences down the line for the future of the EU and for stability in Europe.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Let me paraphrase Steely; I'm not up for throwing away the present deal for some perfect replacement that may or may not come about.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote