Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Awol said:

He'll rightly be told to Foxtrot Oscar by all but the Guardian and Economist.

 

If Richard Desmond, the channel islander Barclay brothers, U.S. national Ruper Murdoch and the non-domicile 4th Viscount Rothermere all tell me he's interfering and is a wrong 'un, that's good enough for me.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The State Department view is simple and was summed up by Henry Kissinger: "who do I call when I want to speak to Europe?"

The US has championed EU integration because they mostly think we can be just like them, a United States of Europe. They forget that people went to America to be Americans, it was a choice.

By contrast the 28 EU member states with their long histories, distinct languages, cultures and traditions are having a supranational structure imposed from above by a self styled elite. It is an unfortunate narrcissism of Americans to think everyone wants to be like them. 

As for their "concern" for the UK, they want us in the EU because we are their Trojan horse. Ask any American how they feel about pooling their sovereignty with say, Mexico, and the hypocrisy of any intervention is obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

If Richard Desmond, the channel islander Barclay brothers, U.S. national Ruper Murdoch and the non-domicile 4th Viscount Rothermere all tell me he's interfering and is a wrong 'un, that's good enough for me.

I reckon you could figure that out  without needing a newspaper telling you what to think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Awol said:

I reckon you could figure that out  without needing a newspaper telling you what to think.

You understand the point he's making though? You aren't blowing off steam in here about Rupert Murdoch's comments, ergo your outrage at 'foreign interference' is feigned. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Awol said:

The US has championed EU integration because they mostly think we can be just like them, a United States of Europe. They forget that people went to America to be Americans, it was a choice.

By contrast the 28 EU member states with their long histories, distinct languages, cultures and traditions are having a supranational structure imposed from above by a self styled elite. It is an unfortunate narrcissism of Americans to think everyone wants to be like them. 

As for their "concern" for the UK, they want us in the EU because we are their Trojan horse. Ask any American how they feel about pooling their sovereignty with say, Mexico, and the hypocrisy of any intervention is obvious.

I don't think that's a very good argument, really. A lot of what you've posted on this has been really interesting to me, but that...well, most Americans didn't "go to America to be American" - they were born there.

Also, I'm not really sure that your next comment is true, either. Some of the EU nations have shorter histories than the US -

Austria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia... and I don't see cultures and traditions being undermined by the EU, nor do I agree that there's a "supranational structure being imposed from above by a self styled elite".

We're not a trojan horse for the U.S. either, though we've often been something of a doormat/poodle for them. We probably would be more so if we left the EU.

You're right about them going yampy if anyone were to suggest they pooled with Mexico.

When the U.S. want to speak to Europe they call Angele Merkel, most likely. Though at other times it would be Hollande, or Cameron - whoever it's in their best interests to call. I don't suppose that would change whichever way we end up going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You understand the point he's making though? You aren't blowing off steam in here about Rupert Murdoch's comments, ergo your outrage at 'foreign interference' is feigned.

I think it's genuine...just, perhaps selective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

Also, I'm not really sure that your next comment is true, either. Some of the EU nations have shorter histories than the US - 

Austria ....Hungary

That will be an F for history for you  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

That will be an F for history for you  

 

Why? Austria split up from Hungary (Austria Hungary empire) in 1919, to become Austria as it is now, didn't it. Obviously ditto hungary. I know you're married to a Hungarian, and so bow to your closer understanding, but surely that's later than US Independence in 1776? and all the others are true, regardless. So my point is still valid.

edit wasn't Austria part of Prussia while the US was becoming Independent, or have I got that wrong, too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, blandy said:

Why? Austria split up from Hungary (Austria Hungary empire) in 1919, to become Austria as it is now, didn't it. Obviously ditto hungary. I know you're married to a Hungarian, and so bow to your closer understanding, but surely that's later than US Independence in 1776? and all the others are true, regardless. So my point is still valid.

edit wasn't Austria part of Prussia while the US was becoming Independent, or have I got that wrong, too?

Hungary had its first King in 1000 (Istvan or Stephen to you and I ) but the kingdom of Hungary began under Mattias around the 1300's

yeah it got various incarnations under the Ottomans , Hasburgs etc but you can't say that Hungary is younger than America in the way you can with something like Slovenia which came around after world war 1

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

You understand the point he's making though? You aren't blowing off steam in here about Rupert Murdoch's comments, ergo your outrage at 'foreign interference' is feigned. 

No it's not feigned and I'm well aware what I think, thanks.

The different media outlets are perfectly entitled to take an editorial stance one way or the other, whether that is for Remain like the Guardian, FT, Economist, Independent and BBC (although it shouldn't) or Leave, like the Murdoch titles, Telegraph, Mail and Express.

It's the free press, not an unbiased information service, otherwise we'd only need one paper - like Pravda. 

That is entirely different to the leader of another nation trying to influence the domestic political affairs of an ally through direct intervention. Were the shoe on the other foot Americans would rightly tell us to poke our opinions, in no uncertain terms.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I don't think that's a very good argument, really. A lot of what you've posted on this has been really interesting to me, but that...well, most Americans didn't "go to America to be American" - they were born there.

Also, I'm not really sure that your next comment is true, either. Some of the EU nations have shorter histories than the US -

Austria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia... and I don't see cultures and traditions being undermined by the EU, nor do I agree that there's a "supranational structure being imposed from above by a self styled elite".

We're not a trojan horse for the U.S. either, though we've often been something of a doormat/poodle for them. We probably would be more so if we left the EU.

You're right about them going yampy if anyone were to suggest they pooled with Mexico.

When the U.S. want to speak to Europe they call Angele Merkel, most likely. Though at other times it would be Hollande, or Cameron - whoever it's in their best interests to call. I don't suppose that would change whichever way we end up going.

I think it's clear what I was getting at, the USA was founded by immigrants on a set of common ideals, starting at year zero as it were in 1776. There was no historical back story of note, the polar opposite of Europe. 

Different configurations of European nations and empires have come and gone over time but the languages, tribes and cultures have evolved in place regardless of borders over millennia. By and large those groupings form the basis of the nation states that exist today, the reason why there is no European Demos, unlike in the US.

As for the elite top down project not existing, I would point to the various referenda on further integration such as the EU Constitution (France and others) that were simply ignored by the political elites as irrelevant.  The EU is a profoundly undemocratic, top-down project.  Democratic governance derives from the will of people and it's institutions must be built on consent and the popular will, not in spite of it.

On "who you gonna call?" I quoted Kissinger but it's an oft repeated line since from Foggy Bottom. Post WW2 they drove European integration forward because they figured it was the only way to avoid more war. Their analysis was wrong, what continental Europe needed was democratic government at the nation state level.

The idea that without the EU France and Germany would have at it again is nonsense. The EU crushes democracy, the very thing that is required to keep peace. If not, how did they manage to overturn the elected governments of Greece and Italy, installing unelected technocratic governments led by ex Goldman Sachs employees? You have to be wilfully blind not to see the threat the EU poses to democracy in Europe.

Another conceit that really boils my piss is the claim that the EU has guaranteed peace and security on the continent. That was NATO, underwritten by 500,000 US troops in West Germany. When the EU tried to sort out Bosnia without the US it led to the largest loss of life in Europe since WW2. Genocide. It took NATO to go in and fix it because the EU alone cocked things up completely. 

I'd further argue that EU hubris in Kiev led directly to the conflict today in Ukraine by threatening Russia's vital national security interests. Guaranteeing peace my arse, the EU can't even secure it's own borders! 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Awol said:

No it's not feigned and I'm well aware what I think, thanks.

The different media outlets are perfectly entitled to take an editorial stance one way or the other, whether that is for Remain like the Guardian, FT, Economist, Independent and BBC (although it shouldn't) or Leave, like the Murdoch titles, Telegraph, Mail and Express.

It's the free press, not an unbiased information service, otherwise we'd only need one paper - like Pravda. 

That is entirely different to the leader of another nation trying to influence the domestic political affairs of an ally through direct intervention. Were the shoe on the other foot Americans would rightly tell us to poke our opinions, in no uncertain terms.

This is bibble. 

Of course the President can give an opinion, it's entirely up to him. He gives opinions about the politics of other nations around the world literally every day. He has a voice just like every other powerful person around the world, and he's free to use it as he sees fit. Nobody has to listen to him if they don't want to. If he were threatening the country or proposing sanctions then it would be a problem. In fact, he's planning on visiting London next month on a stopover from a trip to Germany, at which point he will give a speech recommending Britain stays in the EU. That's it. 

British politicians recently debated banning Donald Trump from entering the country based on remarks he made in his primary campaign. We're more than happy to butt into their politics, and this is basically inevitable in a globalised world. 

I'm not sure what the point of the lesson on media ownership is - I haven't suggested that Murdoch can't express his opinion, of course he can, as he has done for decades. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

British politicians recently debated banning Donald Trump from entering the country based on remarks he made in his primary campaign. We're more than happy to butt into their politics, and this is basically inevitable in a globalised world. 

Wasn't that because thanks to those clever people on Twitter they had no choice ?

 

but that was about if he should be banned from entering the UK ( we already have such a ban list for race invitees after all ) so I'm not sure it's interfering in US politics ? we weren't telling anyone in the US we would prefer it if you voted for Sanders or whoever 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Wasn't that because thanks to those clever people on Twitter they had no choice ?

 

but that was about if he should be banned from entering the UK ( we already have such a ban list for race invitees after all ) so I'm not sure it's interfering in US politics ? we weren't telling anyone in the US we would prefer it if you voted for Sanders or whoever 

On the first part, yes, although they weren't obviously reluctant to discuss it. 

On the second, if you can't find a British politician opining on who they support in the primaries you aren't looking hard enough. They can't get enough of it - don't forget most of them (especially Labour politicians, I've lived with a couple) grew up watching The West Wing

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

U.S. President not to get involved in politics, but U.S. business man Ruper Murdoch is entitled to relentlessly push his opinion?

Bizarre.

 

meh when the most influential man on the planet , Russel Brand , was telling everyone to vote labour none of you had a problem ....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

On the first part, yes, although they weren't obviously reluctant to discuss it. 

On the second, if you can't find a British politician opining on who they support in the primaries you aren't looking hard enough. They can't get enough of it - don't forget most of them (especially Labour politicians, I've lived with a couple) grew up watching The West Wing

I genuinely don't know who Corbyn or Cameron are supporting if I'm honest , I do tend to read a fair bit of news but maybe not enough it seems ?

 

I thought the tactic was to stay out on the basis you don't want to have backed the loser ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tonyh29 said:

I genuinely don't know who Corbyn or Cameron are supporting if I'm honest , I do tend to read a fair bit of news but maybe not enough it seems ?

 

I thought the tactic was to stay out on the basis you don't want to have backed the loser ?

Sorry, yeah, I'm not talking about front-benchers. They don't give opinions, for the most part. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

U.S. President not to get involved in politics, but U.S. business man Ruper Murdoch is entitled to relentlessly push his opinion?

Bizarre.

 

Another fun thing you can do is imagine how valiantly St Boris of Rectitude would fight the temptation to trumpet his endorsement from the American president from the rooftops if the boot was on the other foot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is bibble. 

Of course the President can give an opinion, it's entirely up to him. He gives opinions about the politics of other nations around the world literally every day. He has a voice just like every other powerful person around the world, and he's free to use it as he sees fit. Nobody has to listen to him if they don't want to. If he were threatening the country or proposing sanctions then it would be a problem. In fact, he's planning on visiting London next month on a stopover from a trip to Germany, at which point he will give a speech recommending Britain stays in the EU. That's it. 

British politicians recently debated banning Donald Trump from entering the country based on remarks he made in his primary campaign. We're more than happy to butt into their politics, and this is basically inevitable in a globalised world. 

I'm not sure what the point of the lesson on media ownership is - I haven't suggested that Murdoch can't express his opinion, of course he can, as he has done for decades. 

No it's not bibble, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states very clearly the rules on non-interference in another nations internal affairs.  Article 41.1 if you wish to google.

Obama stating an opinion on the UK's EU membership from a platform in Washington is one thing, physically coming to the UK and doing it is a serious breach of diplomatic protocol. 

Tony already covered the Trump issue and why it's irrelevant, but as for the media ownership "lesson", you confused the rights of a free press with the breaking of established diplomatic protocol and used that to suggest I was feigning anger at the potential interference by Obama. 

I was simply trying to explain the difference, bizarre as that may seem to Chris.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â