The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

6 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

not so sure with that one as the no vote was spearheaded by the populist Five Star Movement,  campaigning on a basis of a struggling economy and problems caused by tens of thousands of migrants arriving from Africa

It's not a nail in the EU coffin , but the undertaker is probably getting his tape measure ready

 

French Next ? ...... vive la revolution

 

I think he has ordered the wood already from a sustainable source,  obviously,

On a side note,  I don't think the Dutch will go for Wilders,  there are words removed and then there are words removed.  He would actually try and trow me out of Holland as well.   Hahahahahahahahaa.

The Dutch as a nation are just to good a people to do it.  

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

The Dutch as a nation are just to good a people to do it.  

We'll see. 

[StefanAVFC]

Been watching parts of the supreme court at work.

This Eadie bloke is shite.

[Awol]

54 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Bolded - disagree, it's a rising sentiment. Held by far more people than you'd think, even if they don't voice it.

So nationalism is rising and we (sorry, you) can tell that by the number of people who don't mention it?

Quote

Therefore I struggle to call the SNP nationalist, but at the same time, I wouldn't have a better word to describe them. My own dilemma

You struggle to call the Scottish National Party, nationalist.

On balance this may not have been your most insightful post.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Awol

[StefanAVFC]

17 minutes ago, Awol said:

So nationalism is rising and we (sorry, you) can tell that by the number of people who don't mention it?

Isn't that exactly the same as 'feelings' taking precedent over facts though? I mean, hate crimes reported are up, people are voting for nationalist parties more and more. You can't tell me that growing nationalism is more than "the fringe occupation of a minority so small in England they are outnumbered by the subscribers of Ferret Fanciers Weekly". That's a huge undersell of the problem. It isn't helped by certain MSM players labeling judges as 'enemies of the people' and stirring the pot up further.

17 minutes ago, Awol said:

You struggle to call the Scottish National Party, nationalist.

On balance this may not have been your most insightful post.

I even acknowledged the point got away from me.

I don't agree with all of what the SNP say or do, but they don't foster isolationism and stir up racial and cultural tensions like right wing nationalism does. Struggling to make my point. I guess my original assertion that nationalism is dangerous, should be specified to nationalism that is out to isolate and spread hate. That can be left or right but it seems to be focused around the right in this period of time.

My rambles today are mostly down to getting 2 hours sleep and not being able to formulate any coherent argument. I'm owning that and not running away.

FYI, I say what i say generally around nationalism because I'm against it in all forms (left, right, whatever). I made the mistake in not making that clear when talking about the SNP straight away. That was biased of me because they lean left.

I'm not nationalistic in the slightest and think nationalism, by bringing certain people together is actually more globally divisive which is damaging in an ever increasingly global world. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[sharkyvilla]

Am I being oversimplistic in saying that a lot of the problems in the continent would be solved if the EU just backed down on free movement of people?  When it was created freedom of movement was one of the EU's greatest strengths but since incorporating 100+ million more people into the union without adjusting any rules, it's become its biggest weakness, especially with the electorate.  

[StefanAVFC]

11 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Am I being oversimplistic in saying that a lot of the problems in the continent would be solved if the EU just backed down on free movement of people?  When it was created freedom of movement was one of the EU's greatest strengths but since incorporating 100+ million more people into the union without adjusting any rules, it's become its biggest weakness, especially with the electorate.  

I think it's too simplistic.

On a personal note, I'd hate the thought of pandering to people based on perception.

Two examples: Wakefield, 93% white British. Question time last week, people talking pretty much solely about immigration,

Clacton, first constituency to go UKIP. 2.3 EU migration rate in the 2011 census. How does that make any sense?

People are scared of a perception rather than reality.

Edited December 5, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[Awol]

15 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Am I being oversimplistic in saying that a lot of the problems in the continent would be solved if the EU just backed down on free movement of people?  When it was created freedom of movement was one of the EU's greatest strengths but since incorporating 100+ million more people into the union without adjusting any rules, it's become its biggest weakness, especially with the electorate.  

That's clearly right, but freedom of movement is fundamental to the construction of a country called Europe and therefore non-negotiable. 

By Brussels logic the answer to any and every problem is "more Europe", not less. If logic was involved they wouldn't be in this mess. 

EDIT: Although the biggest problem by far is the Euro, obviously. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Awol

[StefanAVFC]

FWIW I disagree with a shared currency.

[tonyh29]

30 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Am I being oversimplistic in saying that a lot of the problems in the continent would be solved if the EU just backed down on free movement of people?  When it was created freedom of movement was one of the EU's greatest strengths but since incorporating 100+ million more people into the union without adjusting any rules, it's become its biggest weakness, especially with the electorate.  

I kinda said the same thing before the referendum , in very simple terms I suspect they could have killed the revolt before it even began ... but now we get to see Merkel in the Bunker deciding when all is lost and it's time to ask her valet to pull the trigger

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

one thing I taken as a given is that you read every word of these threads fastidiously.

Ouch.
 

[TrentVilla]

18 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Ouch.
 

It was a compliment 

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I kinda said the same thing before the referendum , in very simple terms I suspect they could have killed the revolt before it even began ... but now we get to see Merkel in the Bunker deciding when all is lost and it's time to ask her valet to pull the trigger

Question is who will find her, us or the Red army!

[Enda]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

By Brussels logic the answer to any and every problem is "more Europe", not less. If logic was involved they wouldn't be in this mess. 

Sensationalist nonsense again, Awol.

The number of actual proto-federalists in Europe is a fraction of the size that the British media suggest. Article 5 is very explicit that the EU only has competence in areas agreed to by the member-states, and that it operates under the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. member-states deal with it unless they agree there are adequate economies of scale to dealing with it at the EU level.

"Brussels" and even "The EU" are not single entities. It's not some monolithic institution. Sure there's the Commission that is strongly pro-EU, but not much takes hold without consent of the Council, i.e. the heads of state of each member-state. The Council is where Thatcher gets her rebate, and Ireland says no to corporate tax reform, and Germany strikes a deal to get East Germany in, etc. It's precisely the place where national interests are put before European-wide causes and their meetings are held in, yep, Brussels.

Article 5 is a cornerstone of EU policymaking, very clear, and there for a reason. So let's have less of the nonsense that the EU is always looking for EU-wide solutions to problems.

[sharkyvilla]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I kinda said the same thing before the referendum , in very simple terms I suspect they could have killed the revolt before it even began ... but now we get to see Merkel in the Bunker deciding when all is lost and it's time to ask her valet to pull the trigger

Me too, up until about 6 months before the referendum I was pro-leaving just because logistically unlimited freedom of movement of low-skilled labour just doesn't make any sense to me considering the sheer number of people now involved.  Several factors changed my mind come voting day but even if we remained I would still have serious reservations about free movement (I actually thought the deal Cameron got wasn't as bad as people said at the time but still only a first step).  If they continue to ignore it then other countries will leave, or people will turn to alternatives that aren't very pretty.  They could quickly put an end to it, using our leave vote as the catalyst to bring in certain controls.

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

Sensationalist nonsense again, Awol.

The number of actual proto-federalists in Europe is a fraction of the size that the British media suggest. Article 5 is very explicit that the EU only has competence in areas agreed to by the member-states, and that it operates under the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. member-states deal with it unless they agree there are adequate economies of scale to dealing with it at the EU level.

"Brussels" and even "The EU" are not single entities. It's not some monolithic institution. Sure there's the Commission that is strongly pro-EU, but not much takes hold without consent of the Council, i.e. the heads of state of each member-state. The Council is where Thatcher gets her rebate, and Ireland says no to corporate tax reform, and Germany strikes a deal to get East Germany in, etc. It's precisely the place where national interests are put before European-wide causes and their meetings are held in, yep, Brussels.

Article 5 is a cornerstone of EU policymaking, very clear, and there for a reason. So let's have less of the nonsense that the EU is always looking for EU-wide solutions to problems.

Struggling to see how this is in anyway a relevant response to what you quote from AWOL. 

In the text you quoted he simply says the EU's response to problems is more Europe, i.e. More integration not less. 

That has been typically true and the direction of travel for a good number of years.

Yes there are exceptions and opt outs such as ours on the single currency but the point still stands, the collective solution offered by the EU to issues is ever great integration.

Only last week the EU's solution to the rising risk of Leave referendums in member states was to discourage governments from allowing them. How democratic.

[peterms]

2 hours ago, Enda said:

"Brussels" and even "The EU" are not single entities. It's not some monolithic institution. Sure there's the Commission that is strongly pro-EU, but not much takes hold without consent of the Council, i.e. the heads of state of each member-state. The Council is where Thatcher gets her rebate, and Ireland says no to corporate tax reform, and Germany strikes a deal to get East Germany in, etc. It's precisely the place where national interests are put before European-wide causes and their meetings are held in, yep, Brussels.

Article 5 is a cornerstone of EU policymaking, very clear, and there for a reason. So let's have less of the nonsense that the EU is always looking for EU-wide solutions to problems.

 

18 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Yes there are exceptions and opt outs such as ours on the single currency but the point still stands, the collective solution offered by the EU to issues is ever great integration.

Only last week the EU's solution to the rising risk of Leave referendums in member states was to discourage governments from allowing them. How democratic.

I think both points have some validity.  There is subsidiarity, and the ability of individual states to block things in certain circumstances.

It's also true that fhere is a very strong, centralising, technocrat tendency, which has become more evident in recent years.

The relative strength of these tendencies ebbs and flows, as you might expect.  A few months ago we were in a place where they were destroying Greece and trying to establish a European army.  In the last few weeks they are more concerned with holding the euro together, and starting to get at least a little concerned about whether the whole EU project is on a shoogly peg.  As we say in North Britain.

[snowychap]

57 minutes ago, peterms said:

As we say in North Britain.

That sounds like the wording from an oath of integration.

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That sounds like the wording from an oath of integration.

Will there be a Scottish version, I wonder.  I don't think I'll ever take that oath.  I can't abide the parochial nationalism.  Though I do like the whisky, beef, and fish.  And oats.  Raspberries too.

Hmmm.  Mackerel ceviche, grilled sirloin steak and chips with bearnaise sauce, raspberry cranachan, a glass of Islay malt.  Could do worse.

Of course if all these immigrants would pledge to share their national cuisine and share recipes, that would do for me.  Oath of integration in the form of recipes?

[Enda]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

Struggling to see how this is in anyway a relevant response to what you quote from AWOL. 

In the text you quoted he simply says the EU's response to problems is more Europe, i.e. More integration not less. 

That has been typically true and the direction of travel for a good number of years.

Sample selection.

You don't see all the times the EU decides "Nah, this is better left to the member states". It happens every day, but it doesn't make a juicy Telegraph/Daily Mail headline.

What you have left is only reporting on the issues that the EU does decide it could be useful, generating a perception that "the answer to any and every problem is 'more Europe', not less." Which is bollox. The Economist nails it when it mocks David Cameron and "his deal [that ensures] Britain will never become part of  European superstate that no one is trying to build."