Brexit matters

[RT4038]

Are you really writing this stuff???

This is comedy gold.

It is exceptional - like nowhere else in Europe.

 

[Doppelganger]

It is exceptional - like nowhere else in Europe.

"Like nowhere else", thank God.

I think you need to stay on your insular island and let the rest of us get on with it.

 

[Gloster]

If you're not proud to be British...

You are making a very large assumption if that is the only conclusion you draw from what I wrote.

Should have moved to EU Europe when you could.

Well, yes, I would have done if I hadn’t become seriously ill at just the wrong moment. I remain deeply thankful to the NHS for what they did for me, but I would still head abroad if I was well enough.

 

[DerekC]

It is exceptional - like nowhere else in Europe.

I am not even sure what "exceptional" means in this context. Every European country is different from every other in geography, history and culture - and yet a huge amount of the history is shared and there are very strong cultural threads and links running across the continent. And the citizens of every European country that I have been to and worked in are proud to live there and conscious of its good points - and often prepared to admit and, once you get to know them, apologise for its bad points. So what's exceptional about the UK? I am proud to be a citizen and conscious of our good points but have been aware since I was in my teens (which is a long time ago) of our bad points - like involvement in slavery and the considerable downside of the British Empire. So I when meeting other Europeans (and everyone else too) I do it on the basis of equality and try to look for shared understanding - not some feeling of innate superiority and entitlement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2022 ==

The traditional, ‘We’re British. We survived the Blitz. We can take it.’ Usually followed with an increasing Churchillian voice and mutterings about Spitfires, the White Cliffs of Dover, seeing off Johnny Foreigner, etc. Too many people in this country are harking back to past glories achieved by others and somehow feel that that means they can meet any challenge with a stiff upper lip (and shouting louder at foreigners). There are plenty of things in our recent past for Brits to be proud of, but you must deal with new problems with new solutions, not saying, ‘Well, that’s how we beat the Luftwaffe’. End of rant.

Anyone who believes the "we muddled through by having Braver Pilots and Superior Spitfires" myth of the Battle of Britain should read "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay. We had brave pilots and brilliantly designed aircraft but so did the Luftwaffe. We won because Britain had a coherent strategy and an excellent, properly integrated system of air defence with built-in redundancy and resilience. The only real element of luck was that Dowding, the architect and commander of the system, wasn't pushed out by the politically ambitious but less competent Leigh Mallory until after the critical phase was over.

 

[Enthusiast]

Secondly, do you not think a Pole knows where they live? Probably a Brit knows better though, rig

Speak to somebody from Dundee and they will tell you Inverness is in the North. But speak to someone from Thurso....

 

[Gloster]

Anyone who believes the "we muddled through by having Braver Pilots and Superior Spitfires" myth of the Battle of Britain should read "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay. We had brave pilots and brilliantly designed aircraft but so did the Luftwaffe. We won because Britain had a coherent strategy and an excellent, properly integrated system of air defence with built-in redundancy and resilience. The only real element of luck was that Dowding, the architect and commander of the system, wasn't pushed out by the politically ambitious but less competent Leigh Mallory until after the critical phase was over.

My opinion on this is that we won because the Germans didn’t: they were attacking and if they didn’t succeed in wrecking the air-defences sufficiently for them to launch a seaborne invasion, they would have lost that battle. There may have been reasonable grounds for pushing various myths at the time, but we should have been able to come to a more nuanced understanding since: it doesn’t take away the glory of those who earned it. However, for example, the myth that it was entirely won by imperturbable English public schoolboys in Spitfires who laughed in the face of danger is still widespread.

I also think that the importance of Keith Park is still underestimated. He has been likened to Jellicoe: the only man who could have lost the war in a day.

 

[Doppelganger]

Speak to somebody from Dundee and they will tell you Inverness is in the North. But speak to someone from Thurso....

So more of a British perspective...

 

[Gostav]

The traditional, ‘We’re British. We survived the Blitz. We can take it.’ Usually followed with an increasing Churchillian voice and mutterings about Spitfires, the White Cliffs of Dover, seeing off Johnny Foreigner, etc. Too many people in this country are harking back to past glories achieved by others and somehow feel that that means they can meet any challenge with a stiff upper lip (and shouting louder at foreigners). There are plenty of things in our recent past for Brits to be proud of, but you must deal with new problems with new solutions, not saying, ‘Well, that’s how we beat the Luftwaffe’. End of rant.

Patriotism is a good thing, but it can only be sustainably exert the power on an adequate material basis (resources, industry, agriculture, trade). Only by a strong industry, produced far more planes and other military equipments than the Germans, and cooperating with patriotic youths and strongs, Britain can win. When all material advantages are gone, people quickly become suspicious of them.

 

[Doppelganger]

Patriotism is a good thing, but it can only be sustainably exert the power on an adequate material basis (resources, industry, agriculture, trade). Only by a strong industry, produced far more planes and other military equipments than the Germans, and cooperating with patriotic youths and strongs, Britain can win. When all material advantages are gone, people quickly become suspicious of them.

And we have come full circle.

Britain's WW2 might is all that matters in the modern world.

2 World Wars and 1 World Cup! That's right isn't it?

 

[Enthusiast]

So more of a British perspective...

No. Simply an illustration that it is a matter of perspective. If a "British" perspective troubles you so much, substitute Trondheim for Dundee, Bodo for Inverness and Tromso for Thurso.

 

[E27007]

Not sure what you trying to say because that sentence doesn't make sense. Anyhow most figures say that there were twice as many people taking advantage of FOM from outside the UK as those from within.

FoM is a serious issue affecting the future of the Eu, tensions were not just the UK. observe France and Germany: witness the the near-election of Marine Le Penn to the Presidency, and public criticism concerning Merkel.
Schengen Accord: France has threatened to leave Schengen several times on the grounds of controlling immigration.
In the future, those States exercising opt-out rights for Schengen will be subjected to Eu methods to rescind.
FoM is a core of the Great Shrine which is EU Law, and those Schengen neutral States, ie those not a signatory to Schengen, or in possession of an opt-out , like it or not, will be forced to implement Scherngen when the Eu Commission chooses.

 

[RT4038]

"Like nowhere else", thank God.

I understand that when someone voluntarily leaves a club/relationship that the members remaining feel rejected and even betrayed. Human emotion. Possibly even a hint of jealousy because of their circumstances the opportunity is not available to them? May be even pity or anger.

I think you need to stay on your insular island and let the rest of us get on with it.

Funnily enough, there are lots of people on the insular island who feel the same as you. Friends, trading partners - certainly. Integral part of 'the rest of us' - no.

You are making a very large assumption if that is the only conclusion you draw from what I wrote.



Well, yes, I would have done if I hadn’t become seriously ill at just the wrong moment. I remain deeply thankful to the NHS for what they did for me, but I would still head abroad if I was well enough.

I wasn't really sure what the point of what you wrote was?

That was a bit of bad luck then. Always best to go and live where you are going to be happy.

I am not even sure what "exceptional" means in this context. Every European country is different from every other in geography, history and culture - and yet a huge amount of the history is shared and there are very strong cultural threads and links running across the continent. And the citizens of every European country that I have been to and worked in are proud to live there and conscious of its good points - and often prepared to admit and, once you get to know them, apologise for its bad points. So what's exceptional about the UK? I am proud to be a citizen and conscious of our good points but have been aware since I was in my teens (which is a long time ago) of our bad points - like involvement in slavery and the considerable downside of the British Empire. So I when meeting other Europeans (and everyone else too) I do it on the basis of equality and try to look for shared understanding - not some feeling of innate superiority and entitlement.

Quite. Exceptional as in different. Exceptionally good at some things, and exceptionally bad at others, with plenty of exceptionally ordinary in the middle. The whole 'innate superiority and entitlement' thing is a bit of our culture and national character (caricatured and blown out of proportion in jest), like it or not. When meeting other Europeans (and everyone else too) just be you - no need to be worrying about apologising. Others are just different, not better or worse, with just as many good or bad points.

 

[reddragon]

The traditional, ‘We’re British. We survived the Blitz. We can take it.’ Usually followed with an increasing Churchillian voice and mutterings about Spitfires, the White Cliffs of Dover, seeing off Johnny Foreigner, etc. Too many people in this country are harking back to past glories achieved by others and somehow feel that that means they can meet any challenge with a stiff upper lip (and shouting louder at foreigners). There are plenty of things in our recent past for Brits to be proud of, but you must deal with new problems with new solutions, not saying, ‘Well, that’s how we beat the Luftwaffe’. End of rant.

Isn't that what Putin is saying at the moment, ref past victories?

"Like nowhere else", thank God.

I think you need to stay on your insular island and let the rest of us get on with it.

Can we now fit all the Brexiteers who still believe it was a good idea on Canvey Island with their on site gas & oil supplies to also continue climate change denial whilst the rest of us move on & return to common sense?


I am proud to be English but I am not proud of the current disastrous mess that Britain has got itself into and the fools who think it's a good idea!

Every EU and other worldly country is unique. Having travelled & spent time living and working in many countries, I would not put the UK as particularly special, unique and indeed not the best.

 

[Dent]

I understand that when someone voluntarily leaves a club/relationship that the members remaining feel rejected and even betrayed. Human emotion. Possibly even a hint of jealousy because of their circumstances the opportunity is not available to them? May be even pity or anger.

Why on earth would the harm Britain is suffering because of Brexit cause jealousy in those who are lucky enough not to be similarly suffering?

 

[reddragon]

Why on earth would the harm Britain is suffering because of Brexit cause jealousy in those who are lucky enough not to be similarly suffering?

As I said before, the EU friends I spoke to pity Britain and speak widely of those of us applying for EU passports to escape.

Huge surge in Britons applying for non-UK passports

More than 350,000 UK citizens have opted to apply for post-Brexit insurance policy since 2016

www.theguardian.com

Huge surge in Britons applying for non-UK passports​

This was 2 years ago before it got really bad!

 

[RT4038]

Every EU and other worldly country is unique. Having travelled & spent time living and working in many countries, I would not put the UK as particularly special, unique and indeed not the best.

This is obviously a subjective opinion. I have also lived and worked in other countries, but have come to the conclusion that all have their good and bad points and the individual has to decide which one of the available combinations they like best.

 

[reddragon]

This is obviously a subjective opinion. I have also lived and worked in other countries, but have come to the conclusion that all have their good and bad points and the individual has to decide which one of the available combinations they like best.

So are you therefore admitting that the UK is not special or better, just has a certain mix of combinations that some like and that other countries in the EU might actually be better than the UK in many aspects and in partnership offer a better balance?

 

[RT4038]

So are you therefore admitting that the UK is not special or better, just has a certain mix of combinations that some like and that other countries in the EU might actually be better than the UK in many aspects and in partnership offer a better balance?

Not at all. It is special with its mix of combinations and, in my opinion (and that is considering my priorities in life), better than any other EU country. However, other EU countries might have a combination that other people may have the opinion are better. That is their prerogative. There are also other countries outside the EU which in my opinion, with a different mix of combinations, are as good as the UK. But the UK doesn't need to be in an ever closer political union with them, or change to reduce the differences between them, or allow virtually unlimited immigration from them.

 

[najaB]

Not at all. It is special with its mix of combinations and, in my opinion, better than any other EU country.

That is an important distinction. "I think X is better than Y" is a substantially different from "X is better than Y".

The latter requires evidence to back it up, the former does not.

 

[reddragon]

Not at all. It is special with its mix of combinations and, in my opinion (and that is considering my priorities in life), better than any other EU country. However, other EU countries might have a combination that other people may have the opinion are better. That is their prerogative. There are also other countries outside the EU which in my opinion, with a different mix of combinations, are as good as the UK. But the UK doesn't need to be in an ever closer political union with them, or change to reduce the differences between them, or allow virtually unlimited immigration from them.

I'd be fascinated to know what countries match the UK! I bet they all speak English.

 

[johncrossley]

I'd be fascinated to know what countries match the UK! I bet they all speak English.

About 15 years ago I used to have long debates about the EU with someone at work, when Euroscepticism was still relatively niche, other than within the Tory party. He emigrated to New Zealand.

 

[RT4038]

That is an important distinction. "I think X is better than Y" is a substantially different from "X is better than Y".

The latter requires evidence to back it up, the former does not.

Quite right. It is not, cannot be, a technical distinction, because everyone has different priorities in life. I may like country X because that is where my wife comes from, which completely clouds my thinking, whereas you may prefer country Y because you've had lots of good holidays there. Someone else likes Z because they have worked there, enjoyed it, and can forget the baggage from their birth country, whereas I hate Z because of some of the rules and Marmite is unavailable. Country V is really good to live in because I have a skill that they are particularly short of - consequently there is a good standard of living compared to someone born there. The list is almost endless, with healthcare, pensions, language, political systems, administration etc etc all having a bearing. It is almost impossible to be objective, because so many of the huge quantity of parameters are difficult to define properly.

 

[TwoYellas]

I think there are benefits to EU membership but also some undemocratic elements. My view is we would have been better 'in'. Diem25 have the right idea wanting to build on the positives the EU brings and to further democratize it.

Has anyone else heard of the Diem25 movement?

 

[JamesT]

I think there are benefits to EU membership but also some undemocratic elements. My view is we would have been better 'in'. Diem25 have the right idea wanting to build on the positives the EU brings and to further democratize it.

Has anyone else heard of the Diem25 movement?

I've never heard of them before, but it looks very much a standard Green wishlist.
I'm not sure that adding multiple layers of Citizens' Assemblies does much for adding democracy. It seems to come down to a belief that we're not taking action on environmental issues in the way that they'd like because our politicians are all corrupt and beholden to big industry. Selecting a random group of people and explaining the facts is thus obviously going to turn out differently.
What this seems to miss is these assemblies don't have the same responsibilities that elected politicians do. An Assembly can recommend vast amounts of spending and won't have to worry about how to pay for it, whereas a politician needs to balance competing interests or they may well not be re-elected.
I think expecting significant change in the EU is naive. Cameron tried to get some limited changes, mostly failed and look how that ended up...

 

[RT4038]

I think there are benefits to EU membership but also some undemocratic elements. My view is we would have been better 'in'. Diem25 have the right idea wanting to build on the positives the EU brings and to further democratize it.

Has anyone else heard of the Diem25 movement?

Of course there are benefits, to some people more than others, not that the 'Remain' camp did much to sell them, but they were not really that visible/ tangible. As far as democratising the EU further - this is a bit of a red herring. Depends how much sovereignty is valued; how much grinding down to be the same as the others; how much acceptance of the hegemony of the most economically powerful member. One member felt that inward FoM disproportionately negatively affected them. Many other members were either ambivalent or benefitted from FoM, so were unconcerned about this effect on one member (or felt that the outward retirees / well heeled FOMers the other way were an equal balance - which it wasn't). One member felt that the others were ganging up on them with regard to regulating their financial market, by far the largest in the group, possibly in order to gain an advantage for themselves. There was no mechanism to protect one member against a [loose] gang of others, because that is what can happen in a democratic club. So that member went for leaving the club.
Looking at Diem25, can't really see anything that would address those issues!

 

[najaB]

Of course there are benefits, to some people more than others, not that the 'Remain' camp did much to sell them, but they were not really that visible/ tangible.

The main issue is that the official Remain campaign wasn't prepared to lie as much as the Leave campaign was. Yes, there were exaggerations on both side, but several prominent Leave proponents are on record as admitting that they said what they needed to in order to get people to vote Leave without any intention of following through.

 

[RT4038]

The main issue is that the official Remain campaign wasn't prepared to lie as much as the Leave campaign was. Yes, there were exaggerations on both side, but several prominent Leave proponents are on record as admitting that they said what they needed to in order to get people to vote Leave without any intention of following through.

I would suggest that the main issue was that the Remain camp didn't have a lot tangible to sell in the first place, almost suggesting that they weren't really convinced themselves! It is, of course, more difficult to argue for the status quo, rather than change. What they couldn't do was offer immigration control or control of Directives etc, or point to something or things that were so good that these downsides could be overlooked.

 

[AM9]

I would suggest that the main issue was that the Remain camp didn't have a lot tangible to sell in the first place, almost suggesting that they weren't really convinced themselves! It is, of course, more difficult to argue for the status quo, rather than change. What they couldn't do was offer immigration control or control of Directives etc, or point to something or things that were so good that these downsides could be overlooked.

Part of the problem there is that the benefits have only become visible since they were removed. That process will probably be more visible after the current energy and CoL crises are over.

 

[Enthusiast]

...several prominent Leave proponents are on record as admitting that they said what they needed to in order to get people to vote Leave without any intention of following through.

Welcome to the world of politics. Politicians of all persuasions say what they need to in order to get people to vote for whatever it is they are campaigning for. If you just accept that all politicians do that (and worse) you'll never be disappointed. Quite honestly, anybody who cast their vote in the referendum based on what politicians told them needs their bumps felt.

 

[edwin_m]

I would suggest that the main issue was that the Remain camp didn't have a lot tangible to sell in the first place, almost suggesting that they weren't really convinced themselves! It is, of course, more difficult to argue for the status quo, rather than change. What they couldn't do was offer immigration control or control of Directives etc, or point to something or things that were so good that these downsides could be overlooked.

They could certainly have offered things if they'd put their collective minds to it, by exploiting the existing powers that weren't used such as the ability to deny free movement on various grounds. All part of the general assumption in the remain campaign (if it can be called that) that they would win by default.

Welcome to the world of politics. Politicians of all persuasions say what they need to in order to get people to vote for whatever it is they are campaigning for. If you just accept that all politicians do that (and worse) you'll never be disappointed. Quite honestly, anybody who cast their vote in the referendum based on what politicians told them needs their bumps felt.

There's a difference between making "promises" that may not be kept, and making proveable false statements about facts (such as the figure on the bus, officially criticised by the statistics authority, and the claim that the UK could not stop Turkey joining the EU). Claims have been made that the Leave campaign lied deliberately to sidetrack the remain campaign into calling them out rather than making their own arguments.