Every side of any political argument operate on the principle of “make (insert relevant nation/group) great again”. Its only what they measure that “greatness” against that varies.
But there’s a marked difference between appeals to national pride - encouraging protectionism and isolationism - and appeals to personal or collective wellbeing.
Long read but a good one. This is my kind of angry/crazy."The easiest course to achieve that goal is simply to demonize those with little power, wealth or possibility as stupid and racist: this is only happening because they are primitive and ignorant and hateful, not because they have any legitimate grievances or because I or my friends or my elite institutions have done anything wrong. "
It’s not bad. I agree that people of all races and genders have legit gripes against corrupt institutions that are failing everyone, and that it’s not as simple as saying “if you voted leave, you’re a racist xenophobe”. At the same time, I don’t see how anyone could look at the campaign the leave leaders ran and conclude that xenophobia isn’t a huge part of it. They’re asking the right questions but are pretty much as wrong as can be on the answers. Brexit and Donald Trump (yeah, he’ll win) are just going to make things worse. We’ve already seen the economy tank, and the Leave campaign leader reneg on one core promise which was instrumental in getting people to vote.
They were cactus in the 60s and 70s economically.It doesn't require balls, it requires a load of people going along with being promised stuff they ain't necessarily gonna get, whilst losing other valuable things in the process.Politics in general. Hopefully it goes well for them. Am I wrong to assume they were strong before joining EU anyway? Not old enough to really know.
Yes they were. For all people rubbish them. They gave us our system of government, our legal system, common law. They were the only bit of Europe left standing after the Germans swept through in ww11. They were kept out of what was then called “the common market” for years, which was the then EU trading block. They’ve done fine on their own in the past, they will be fine into the future.
They delivered some great music. Wasn’t all bad.
It doesn't require balls, it requires a load of people going along with being promised stuff they ain't necessarily gonna get, whilst losing other valuable things in the process.Atleast they hold the fate of their own country in their own hands now rather than being held to ransom and propping up ■■■■ insignificant countries who can't run a budget.Couldn’t disagree more - in this globalised world, national governments have relatively little control over economic matters. Much better to stay in regional blocs from where you can contribute to decisions that can make a difference. The £8.5b effective annual fee is pretty cost-effective for the benefits of regional cooperation, I would have thought.
I stand to be corrected here (YSBS?), but the regulations that Brits whinged about were mostly trivial rubbish like regulations on bananas and fireman’s poles. Oh, and immigration, of course…
I found the following video quite convincing. Most of what the guy talks about is backed up by facts which has been a difficult part of the debate to sort out. I’m sure there are good counter-arguments but I couldn’t find them and the televised debates were a bit of a debacle.
It makes some reasonable points, but of course he picks his ‘facts’ carefully.
Why did he use a percentage (59%) for all UK laws decided by Brussels, but a number (72) for the number of times a law has been imposed on the UK without their consent? Perhaps because there are 75,000 laws in the UK, so 72 is less than 0.1% (and that number 72 is since the '70s I think, so that’s making the unlikely assumption that all these laws still stand).
And he doesn’t say what any of these laws relate to, and assumes all laws are of equal weight. In agriculture, trade and the environment, the EU has a huge amount of sway. But these are areas where cooperation is beneficial to all, so the ability to standardise laws across a bloc of countries helps everyone.
I imagine the EU would have little say in areas like health, education and welfare, which is arguably what many people based a protest vote on (that’s only based on anecdotal evidence and I haven’t tested whether that idea stands up to greater scrutiny, but I’m sure it will come out soon).
There’s a fundamentalist democratic argument that any laws imposed on a country by an outside institution are unacceptable. That’s a noble ideal, to be sure, but I would argue that all democracies are compromised to some degree. I would also argue that the benefits of regional cooperation, and the ability for the UK to influence and contribute to laws that ‘impose’ on other countries, far outweigh that.
Also, he portrays the EC as some form of mysterious, unaccountable, unelected group - and then he just briefly mentions that the European Parliament has to accept or reject their changes. Isn’t that essentially the same thing that happens in any democracy? The unelected civil service drafts laws, and parliament then accepts or rejects them? It might be slightly more centralised in Europe, but that would only be because of the huge numbers of countries making it unwieldy to do anything else.
On a side note, I hate how newspapers in the UK are advocates, not reporters. The last five minutes aren’t facts at all, but speculation, exaggeration, and nationalism. Sounded like ‘Make Britain Great Again’.
His argument is that in a democracy if you dont agree with your lawmakers you can vote them out. There is no such option with the EU.
It doesn't require balls, it requires a load of people going along with being promised stuff they ain't necessarily gonna get, whilst losing other valuable things in the process.Atleast they hold the fate of their own country in their own hands now rather than being held to ransom and propping up ■■■■ insignificant countries who can't run a budget.Couldn’t disagree more - in this globalised world, national governments have relatively little control over economic matters. Much better to stay in regional blocs from where you can contribute to decisions that can make a difference. The £8.5b effective annual fee is pretty cost-effective for the benefits of regional cooperation, I would have thought.
I stand to be corrected here (YSBS?), but the regulations that Brits whinged about were mostly trivial rubbish like regulations on bananas and fireman’s poles. Oh, and immigration, of course…
I wouldn’t say that any of them are trivial but generally I would agree that they are geared toward positive improvements for Europe. I think Europe is weakened by the vote which was an unfortunate impact of the vote but I had to weigh up what I perceive as a benefit to the country against a benefit to the region. Fishing quotas is a hot topic but I don’t think that changes whether or not Britain is in or out.
All I can really offer is the concept of that the CAS is operating in a similar way to the EU. It seems straightforward and OK to sign up to until they come up with something that you fundamentally disagree with.
The other concept of course is that the public can vote out someone who does them wrong now.
I found the following video quite convincing. Most of what the guy talks about is backed up by facts which has been a difficult part of the debate to sort out. I’m sure there are good counter-arguments but I couldn’t find them and the televised debates were a bit of a debacle.
I think that video gets to the crux of why the older generation voted to leave. They didn’t get what they bargained for the first time. They were under the impression that they would still have sovereignty. They were wrong.
It goes to the same thing that’s happening here. People no longer believe in nor trust politicians to tell the truth.
It doesn't require balls, it requires a load of people going along with being promised stuff they ain't necessarily gonna get, whilst losing other valuable things in the process.Atleast they hold the fate of their own country in their own hands now rather than being held to ransom and propping up ■■■■ insignificant countries who can't run a budget.Couldn’t disagree more - in this globalised world, national governments have relatively little control over economic matters. Much better to stay in regional blocs from where you can contribute to decisions that can make a difference. The £8.5b effective annual fee is pretty cost-effective for the benefits of regional cooperation, I would have thought.
I stand to be corrected here (YSBS?), but the regulations that Brits whinged about were mostly trivial rubbish like regulations on bananas and fireman’s poles. Oh, and immigration, of course…
I found the following video quite convincing. Most of what the guy talks about is backed up by facts which has been a difficult part of the debate to sort out. I’m sure there are good counter-arguments but I couldn’t find them and the televised debates were a bit of a debacle.
It makes some reasonable points, but of course he picks his ‘facts’ carefully.
Why did he use a percentage (59%) for all UK laws decided by Brussels, but a number (72) for the number of times a law has been imposed on the UK without their consent? Perhaps because there are 75,000 laws in the UK, so 72 is less than 0.1% (and that number 72 is since the '70s I think, so that’s making the unlikely assumption that all these laws still stand).
And he doesn’t say what any of these laws relate to, and assumes all laws are of equal weight. In agriculture, trade and the environment, the EU has a huge amount of sway. But these are areas where cooperation is beneficial to all, so the ability to standardise laws across a bloc of countries helps everyone.
I imagine the EU would have little say in areas like health, education and welfare, which is arguably what many people based a protest vote on (that’s only based on anecdotal evidence and I haven’t tested whether that idea stands up to greater scrutiny, but I’m sure it will come out soon).
There’s a fundamentalist democratic argument that any laws imposed on a country by an outside institution are unacceptable. That’s a noble ideal, to be sure, but I would argue that all democracies are compromised to some degree. I would also argue that the benefits of regional cooperation, and the ability for the UK to influence and contribute to laws that ‘impose’ on other countries, far outweigh that.
Also, he portrays the EC as some form of mysterious, unaccountable, unelected group - and then he just briefly mentions that the European Parliament has to accept or reject their changes. Isn’t that essentially the same thing that happens in any democracy? The unelected civil service drafts laws, and parliament then accepts or rejects them? It might be slightly more centralised in Europe, but that would only be because of the huge numbers of countries making it unwieldy to do anything else.
On a side note, I hate how newspapers in the UK are advocates, not reporters. The last five minutes aren’t facts at all, but speculation, exaggeration, and nationalism. Sounded like ‘Make Britain Great Again’.
His argument is that in a democracy if you dont agree with your lawmakers you can vote them out. There is no such option with the EU.
Not if your lawmakers are the unelected civil service, which is what the unbolded part of that paragraph explained. It’s still the elected parliamentarians who have the final power.
It doesn't require balls, it requires a load of people going along with being promised stuff they ain't necessarily gonna get, whilst losing other valuable things in the process.Atleast they hold the fate of their own country in their own hands now rather than being held to ransom and propping up ■■■■ insignificant countries who can't run a budget.Couldn’t disagree more - in this globalised world, national governments have relatively little control over economic matters. Much better to stay in regional blocs from where you can contribute to decisions that can make a difference. The £8.5b effective annual fee is pretty cost-effective for the benefits of regional cooperation, I would have thought.
I stand to be corrected here (YSBS?), but the regulations that Brits whinged about were mostly trivial rubbish like regulations on bananas and fireman’s poles. Oh, and immigration, of course…
I found the following video quite convincing. Most of what the guy talks about is backed up by facts which has been a difficult part of the debate to sort out. I’m sure there are good counter-arguments but I couldn’t find them and the televised debates were a bit of a debacle.
It makes some reasonable points, but of course he picks his ‘facts’ carefully.
Why did he use a percentage (59%) for all UK laws decided by Brussels, but a number (72) for the number of times a law has been imposed on the UK without their consent? Perhaps because there are 75,000 laws in the UK, so 72 is less than 0.1% (and that number 72 is since the '70s I think, so that’s making the unlikely assumption that all these laws still stand).
And he doesn’t say what any of these laws relate to, and assumes all laws are of equal weight. In agriculture, trade and the environment, the EU has a huge amount of sway. But these are areas where cooperation is beneficial to all, so the ability to standardise laws across a bloc of countries helps everyone.
I imagine the EU would have little say in areas like health, education and welfare, which is arguably what many people based a protest vote on (that’s only based on anecdotal evidence and I haven’t tested whether that idea stands up to greater scrutiny, but I’m sure it will come out soon).
There’s a fundamentalist democratic argument that any laws imposed on a country by an outside institution are unacceptable. That’s a noble ideal, to be sure, but I would argue that all democracies are compromised to some degree. I would also argue that the benefits of regional cooperation, and the ability for the UK to influence and contribute to laws that ‘impose’ on other countries, far outweigh that.
Also, he portrays the EC as some form of mysterious, unaccountable, unelected group - and then he just briefly mentions that the European Parliament has to accept or reject their changes. Isn’t that essentially the same thing that happens in any democracy? The unelected civil service drafts laws, and parliament then accepts or rejects them? It might be slightly more centralised in Europe, but that would only be because of the huge numbers of countries making it unwieldy to do anything else.
On a side note, I hate how newspapers in the UK are advocates, not reporters. The last five minutes aren’t facts at all, but speculation, exaggeration, and nationalism. Sounded like ‘Make Britain Great Again’.
His argument is that in a democracy if you dont agree with your lawmakers you can vote them out. There is no such option with the EU.
Not if your lawmakers are the unelected civil service, which is what the unbolded part of that paragraph explained. It’s still the elected parliamentarians who have the final power.
Even if laws are made by civil servants and passed by politicians if you dont like the laws you vote the politician out. You cant do that in the European union. They are not voted in. None of them. Thats why he was talking about “No taxation without representation”, the catch cry of the American Revolution.
It is incorrect to state that EU laws are determined by unelected Brussels civil servants. All EU member governments get to vote on major legislation, with the big Four -including UK - having more votes that the rest. Unlike the UN Security Council, no one government has veto powers, although individual governments may elect to not join some EU treaties, as the UK has done. There are some subsidiary regulations settled by the Commissioners - who are nominated by EU Member governments- under Council accorded management of policy powers determined by the Council of Minsters.
This is not too different from the Australian system where subsidiary regulations do not go through Parliament.
The directly elected European Parliament has only limited powers and these in no way match those of the Council of Ministers.
At the bottom of the pile are the EU public servants, selected on merit and with some reflection of a balance of nationalities. All those UK citizens employed by the Commission will need to find new jobs.
Seems Corbyn is facing a bg struggle to hold on, I wonder if he will win?
It doesn't require balls, it requires a load of people going along with being promised stuff they ain't necessarily gonna get, whilst losing other valuable things in the process.Atleast they hold the fate of their own country in their own hands now rather than being held to ransom and propping up ■■■■ insignificant countries who can't run a budget.Couldn’t disagree more - in this globalised world, national governments have relatively little control over economic matters. Much better to stay in regional blocs from where you can contribute to decisions that can make a difference. The £8.5b effective annual fee is pretty cost-effective for the benefits of regional cooperation, I would have thought.
I stand to be corrected here (YSBS?), but the regulations that Brits whinged about were mostly trivial rubbish like regulations on bananas and fireman’s poles. Oh, and immigration, of course…
I found the following video quite convincing. Most of what the guy talks about is backed up by facts which has been a difficult part of the debate to sort out. I’m sure there are good counter-arguments but I couldn’t find them and the televised debates were a bit of a debacle.
It makes some reasonable points, but of course he picks his ‘facts’ carefully.
Why did he use a percentage (59%) for all UK laws decided by Brussels, but a number (72) for the number of times a law has been imposed on the UK without their consent? Perhaps because there are 75,000 laws in the UK, so 72 is less than 0.1% (and that number 72 is since the '70s I think, so that’s making the unlikely assumption that all these laws still stand).
And he doesn’t say what any of these laws relate to, and assumes all laws are of equal weight. In agriculture, trade and the environment, the EU has a huge amount of sway. But these are areas where cooperation is beneficial to all, so the ability to standardise laws across a bloc of countries helps everyone.
I imagine the EU would have little say in areas like health, education and welfare, which is arguably what many people based a protest vote on (that’s only based on anecdotal evidence and I haven’t tested whether that idea stands up to greater scrutiny, but I’m sure it will come out soon).
There’s a fundamentalist democratic argument that any laws imposed on a country by an outside institution are unacceptable. That’s a noble ideal, to be sure, but I would argue that all democracies are compromised to some degree. I would also argue that the benefits of regional cooperation, and the ability for the UK to influence and contribute to laws that ‘impose’ on other countries, far outweigh that.
Also, he portrays the EC as some form of mysterious, unaccountable, unelected group - and then he just briefly mentions that the European Parliament has to accept or reject their changes. Isn’t that essentially the same thing that happens in any democracy? The unelected civil service drafts laws, and parliament then accepts or rejects them? It might be slightly more centralised in Europe, but that would only be because of the huge numbers of countries making it unwieldy to do anything else.
On a side note, I hate how newspapers in the UK are advocates, not reporters. The last five minutes aren’t facts at all, but speculation, exaggeration, and nationalism. Sounded like ‘Make Britain Great Again’.
His argument is that in a democracy if you dont agree with your lawmakers you can vote them out. There is no such option with the EU.
Not if your lawmakers are the unelected civil service, which is what the unbolded part of that paragraph explained. It’s still the elected parliamentarians who have the final power.
Even if laws are made by civil servants and passed by politicians if you dont like the laws you vote the politician out. You cant do that in the European union. They are not voted in. None of them. Thats why he was talking about “No taxation without representation”, the catch cry of the American Revolution.
bigallan has explained it far better than I could, but there is a European Parliament, voted in - and out - by Europeans.
I should have added that most of the Commission administration and development of regulations is done through management committees comprising member state representatives nominated by by the Member governments. There are also wider consultative bodies. IMO and in my own experience it functions as a democratic body. The U.K has played an influential role in shaping EU rules, even if some of them are not always to its liking.
After the completion of Lisbon Treaty Article 50 secession processes, who is the UK going to blame when its traders and people face European imposed rules which it has had no hand in shaping?
How long until Australia has its own Trump/Sanders/Brexit moment/person?
How long until Australia has its own Trump/Sanders/Brexit moment/person?
That was Abbott.
How long until Australia has its own Trump/Sanders/Brexit moment/person?That was Abbott.
Pffffft
Nope
How long until Australia has its own Trump/Sanders/Brexit moment/person?That was Abbott.
Pffffft
Nope
Mr regressive on pretty much everything himself? Even after the weird interview about the “■■■■ happens” where he didn’t speak for ages and just kind of stood there shaking?
Ok, maybe not the same scale but the same scale isn’t going to happen here.
Won’t be long. Now that car manufacturing is on the way out, once everyone realises Australia doesn’t have an industrial sector any more and that those jobs are never coming back, the drums will start to beat a bit louder. Especially if iron and coal prices stay in the toilet in the medium/long term, as I expect they will, and a few consecutive global-warming-driven droughts ■■■■ over the farmers (and Reef tourism) again. An economy entirely revolving around baristas making coffee for property developers and property developers trying to sell baristas new 4-bedroom houses on treeless ex-paddocks west of Melton while approx three dozen billionaire casino and banking moguls eat caviar off the naked bodies of supermodels is not a recipe for a stable society.
Though I reckon the CLIVE PALMER EXPERIENCE might have discouraged a few of such a person’s likely supporters, for a little while at least.
How long until Australia has its own Trump/Sanders/Brexit moment/person?
Was thinking that yesterday. Best we can offer up is P Hanson this time around
Give it another 2 elections and we will have a legitimate option
How long until Australia has its own Trump/Sanders/Brexit moment/person?
I think we are having it. Some polls are showing 28% voting for parties other than the two majors. Something like 14% green 14% other.
It’s disenchantment with being told what’s best by people that have never had a job outside politics, and have never been in touch with the real world.