So if Britain were Austria, Nick Griffin would be Home Secretary, Tommy Robinson would be Foreign Secretary and Trump's Twitter pal from Britain First would be Defence Secretary. I suppose 'No Surrender' is a defence policy of sorts.
And these people now have a veto on our Brexit deal. (In theory)
The Brexit deal is QMV isn't it?
If it was then Varadkar would have to get back in his box
That 6% for UKIP is their highest rating from any pollster since the general election. Overall the figures would give Tories 281 Labour 294 assuming 7 Labour gains from the SNP
So if Britain were Austria, Nick Griffin would be Home Secretary, Tommy Robinson would be Foreign Secretary and Trump's Twitter pal from Britain First would be Defence Secretary. I suppose 'No Surrender' is a defence policy of sorts.
And these people now have a veto on our Brexit deal. (In theory)
The Brexit deal is QMV isn't it?
If it was then Varadkar would have to get back in his box
I think you're wrong. I think EU leaders just see political capital in backing Varadkar.
I think if that happened it would cause utter chaos with the country ex the metropolitan areas going ballistic and labour losing it's working class vote
I see Project Fear Mark 2 is getting started.
There are three things to remember with democracy:
1) The people are always right (even when they are wrong). 2) The people will never admit they got it wrong (even when they got it wrong) 3) The people will always blame the Government when it goes wrong (even if it wasn't really the Government's fault).
Churchill's dictum on democracy remains valid but if we are going to hold the Will of the People as some totemic virtue to be eternally worshiped, let's not ignore its imperfections.
So if Britain were Austria, Nick Griffin would be Home Secretary, Tommy Robinson would be Foreign Secretary and Trump's Twitter pal from Britain First would be Defence Secretary. I suppose 'No Surrender' is a defence policy of sorts.
And these people now have a veto on our Brexit deal. (In theory)
The Brexit deal is QMV isn't it?
If it was then Varadkar would have to get back in his box
I think you're wrong. I think EU leaders just see political capital in backing Varadkar.
Yesterday when I was slagging off the PM of Luxembourg I was advised that he had a veto.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
So if Britain were Austria, Nick Griffin would be Home Secretary, Tommy Robinson would be Foreign Secretary and Trump's Twitter pal from Britain First would be Defence Secretary. I suppose 'No Surrender' is a defence policy of sorts.
And these people now have a veto on our Brexit deal. (In theory)
The Brexit deal is QMV isn't it?
If it was then Varadkar would have to get back in his box
I think you're wrong. I think EU leaders just see political capital in backing Varadkar.
Yesterday when I was slagging off the PM of Luxembourg I was advised that he had a veto.
There's two deals
1) The Exit/transition deal (such as on the divorce bill etc), that is conducted under QMV
2) Then there's the post Brexit (trade) deal, where countries do have vetoes.
So if Britain were Austria, Nick Griffin would be Home Secretary, Tommy Robinson would be Foreign Secretary and Trump's Twitter pal from Britain First would be Defence Secretary. I suppose 'No Surrender' is a defence policy of sorts.
And these people now have a veto on our Brexit deal. (In theory)
So if Britain were Austria, Nick Griffin would be Home Secretary, Tommy Robinson would be Foreign Secretary and Trump's Twitter pal from Britain First would be Defence Secretary. I suppose 'No Surrender' is a defence policy of sorts.
And these people now have a veto on our Brexit deal. (In theory)
The Brexit deal is QMV isn't it?
If it was then Varadkar would have to get back in his box
I think you're wrong. I think EU leaders just see political capital in backing Varadkar.
Yesterday when I was slagging off the PM of Luxembourg I was advised that he had a veto.
There's two deals
1) The Brexit deal (such as on the divorce bill etc), that is conducted under QMV
2) Then there's the post Brexit (trade) deal, where countries do have vetoes.
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. As you put it: "even I'd hesitate about abolishing all 28 countries that soon."
The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
If Nick P isn't a typical REMAIN voter then I'm not a typical LEAVE voter.
I voted LEAVE in sorrow more than anger because I like the idea of a European Union where individual countries pool aspects of their sovereignty and work together for the common good of all their citizens. Whether through NATO or other international agencies, Britain already cedes aspects of its sovereignty voluntarily.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
So if Britain were Austria, Nick Griffin would be Home Secretary, Tommy Robinson would be Foreign Secretary and Trump's Twitter pal from Britain First would be Defence Secretary. I suppose 'No Surrender' is a defence policy of sorts.
And these people now have a veto on our Brexit deal. (In theory)
Tbh, both Austrian governing parties are friendlier to Brexit than the previous government. Neither party is happy with the EU, so might not be bothered to see the Eurocrats defeated.
Surely not much in their interests to assist that defeat though?
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. As you put it: "even I'd hesitate about abolishing all 28 countries that soon."
The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
If Nick P isn't a typical REMAIN voter then I'm not a typical LEAVE voter.
I voted LEAVE in sorrow more than anger because I like the idea of a European Union where individual countries pool aspects of their sovereignty and work together for the common good of all their citizens. Whether through NATO or other international agencies, Britain already cedes aspects of its sovereignty voluntarily.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
That's a fair aspiration.
fanciful dream more like
Aspiration does tend to be used to mean something nice but unachievable.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
That 6% for UKIP is their highest rating from any pollster since the general election. Overall the figures would give Tories 281 Labour 294 assuming 7 Labour gains from the SNP
what do polls have to do to become discredited? Their record is worse than the Old Lady's
I am happy to be corrected on this, but I do get the impression that prior to World War 2 the obtaining of a 'place' at Oxbridge - as distinct from a Scholarship or Exhibition - did not require an applicant to excel academically to anything like the extent that has been required in recent decades.In that era Oxbridge appears to have been very largely a finishing school for public schoolboys - with the exception of the Scholars and Exhibitioners who often came from the grammar schools.
Yes, you just had to want to go, and have a rich daddy. The same is true more recently of public schools. Even some Etonians lament that the rich clots' places are now given to geeks and nerds.
Eton isn't just about an academic education or league tables. It's an organic community, and continuity is part of that
When I went to Cambridge from my state school, the Old Etonians I met were very smart indeed.
Eton, along with Harrow, Winchester and Westminster is considered to be one of the top 4 public schools (and Eton probably the most academic of those). So an Eton and Oxbridge education is considered the best you can have in the UK so it is no surprise so many with that background have become PM.
Isn't Harrow considered a bit of a dump these days? As tim, formerly of this parish, used to remark, you don't even have to pass an entrance exam. So it's the place for rich thickos.
My father went to Harrow as did Peel, Palmerston, Churchill, Baldwin, Nehru, King Hussein of Jordan, Benedict Cumberbatch and James Blunt and Billy Vunipola amongst others.
Academically it has never been as good as Eton, though better than Stowe (where my old housemaster is now headmaster) but it tends to beat Eton more often than not on the playing field.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
Well then tell me how it could have been achieved without more power accruing to the centre.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
Well then tell me how it could have been achieved without more power accruing to the centre.
How do you distinguish between the collective power of the other member states and the power of the EU institutions?
I think you're mistaken, if that remains the direction of travel. Labour will evolve with public opinion, because the leadership has no strong preference (that's why we're not really pinned down to anything) and the party is otherwise strongly Remain and if a "stop this disaster" meme grows in strength, the Tory rebels will take heart. Certainly the EU would be up for calling the whole thing off, and there has never been an EU law that the collective will of the Council of Ministers hasn't found a way round.
But it's only one poll for now.
An opinion poll doesn't carry constitutional weight.
I'm more concerned labour apparently have no policy other than going with the flow and switching to remain if public opinion evolves that way! I'm with guy verhofstadt, leading means more than following public will, it involves trying to lead it (I don't think his allies do this enough in practice, in fairness).
The tories not knowing what they want is more immediately pressing, but 'no preference, let's switch tack if the polls shift' is I would suggest a mite unsatisfactory on such a critical issue.
The golden rule of Brexit is that everything Remainers cheer ultimately hurts their cause.
Remainers cheering Labour on will be just another example of it.
Because the vote was so close, some Remainers think there's still a chance of going back to the status quo.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
Well then tell me how it could have been achieved without more power accruing to the centre.
I never said that. The ceding or harmonisation of some things was inevitable. How it went about it, and where, were not and were the critical factors, since this was a point about the reality of the EU vs it's dream; obviously those opposed to the dream woukd think all steps unacceptable.
You could get a lot lot closer before you even raise the possibility of an EU army for example - to the point some things could potentially never have come even as things got closer.
I think you're mistaken, if that remains the direction of travel. Labour will evolve with public opinion, because the leadership has no strong preference (that's why we're not really pinned down to anything) and the party is otherwise strongly Remain and if a "stop this disaster" meme grows in strength, the Tory rebels will take heart. Certainly the EU would be up for calling the whole thing off, and there has never been an EU law that the collective will of the Council of Ministers hasn't found a way round.
But it's only one poll for now.
An opinion poll doesn't carry constitutional weight.
I'm more concerned labour apparently have no policy other than going with the flow and switching to remain if public opinion evolves that way! I'm with guy verhofstadt, leading means more than following public will, it involves trying to lead it (I don't think his allies do this enough in practice, in fairness).
The tories not knowing what they want is more immediately pressing, but 'no preference, let's switch tack if the polls shift' is I would suggest a mite unsatisfactory on such a critical issue.
The golden rule of Brexit is that everything Remainers cheer ultimately hurts their cause.
Remainers cheering Labour on will be just another example of it.
Because the vote was so close, some Remainers think there's still a chance of going back to the status quo.
But, that ship has sailed.
The Remainers who are keeping the flame alive are not people who are afraid of closer integration. Brexit has re-energised the pro-European cause in a way that was inconceivable before 2016.
The longer Brexit goes on, the more it will be shown to be a dead end and the more attractive full-on EU membership will look.
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. As you put it: "even I'd hesitate about abolishing all 28 countries that soon."
The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
I do know Europe quite well. The serious federalists are in a minority at all levels. They're strongest in the Parliament, partly because a united Europe would need to give the Parliament a dominant role (Council of national ministers - what national ministers?). But they're weak where the decisions are made.
But I wouldn't call Eurosceptics mad - people on both sides resort to that rhetoric far too easily. i just disagree with them. (Incidentally, I opposed membership in 1975, for the reasons that Corbyn did at that point.)
I am happy to be corrected on this, but I do get the impression that prior to World War 2 the obtaining of a 'place' at Oxbridge - as distinct from a Scholarship or Exhibition - did not require an applicant to excel academically to anything like the extent that has been required in recent decades.In that era Oxbridge appears to have been very largely a finishing school for public schoolboys - with the exception of the Scholars and Exhibitioners who often came from the grammar schools.
Yes, you just had to want to go, and have a rich daddy. The same is true more recently of public schools. Even some Etonians lament that the rich clots' places are now given to geeks and nerds.
Eton isn't just about an academic education or league tables. It's an organic community, and continuity is part of that
When I went to Cambridge from my state school, the Old Etonians I met were very smart indeed.
Eton, along with Harrow, Winchester and Westminster is considered to be one of the top 4 public schools (and Eton probably the most academic of those). So an Eton and Oxbridge education is considered the best you can have in the UK so it is no surprise so many with that background have become PM.
Wrong. Simply wrong. You have a tediously definitive style when you don't know that of which you speak.
Winchester is the most academic - and that is a feeder for Cambridge*, the more academic university. Eton and Oxford students are ferociously bright but are trained in rhetoric and logic not academics. That's why you get so many politicians from Eton and Oxford and comparatively few from Winchester and Cambridge.
* it amuses me that when the Winchester/New and Eton/Kings links became too controversial they simply swapped - Eton is now a feeder to New and Winchester to Kings
Eton was 12th and Winchester 13th in the latest public school A Level league table.
I think you're mistaken, if that remains the direction of travel. Labour will evolve with public opinion, because the leadership has no strong preference (that's why we're not really pinned down to anything) and the party is otherwise strongly Remain and if a "stop this disaster" meme grows in strength, the Tory rebels will take heart. Certainly the EU would be up for calling the whole thing off, and there has never been an EU law that the collective will of the Council of Ministers hasn't found a way round.
But it's only one poll for now.
An opinion poll doesn't carry constitutional weight.
I'm more concerned labour apparently have no policy other than going with the flow and switching to remain if public opinion evolves that way! I'm with guy verhofstadt, leading means more than following public will, it involves trying to lead it (I don't think his allies do this enough in practice, in fairness).
The tories not knowing what they want is more immediately pressing, but 'no preference, let's switch tack if the polls shift' is I would suggest a mite unsatisfactory on such a critical issue.
The golden rule of Brexit is that everything Remainers cheer ultimately hurts their cause.
Remainers cheering Labour on will be just another example of it.
Because the vote was so close, some Remainers think there's still a chance of going back to the status quo.
But, that ship has sailed.
The Remainers who are keeping the flame alive are not people who are afraid of closer integration. Brexit has re-energised the pro-European cause in a way that was inconceivable before 2016.
The longer Brexit goes on, the more it will be shown to be a dead end and the more attractive full-on EU membership will look.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
Well then tell me how it could have been achieved without more power accruing to the centre.
I never said that. The ceding or harmonisation of some things was inevitable. How it went about it, and where, were not and were the critical factors, since this was a point about the reality of the EU vs it's dream; obviously those opposed to the dream woukd think all steps unacceptable.
You could get a lot lot closer before you even raise the possibility of an EU army for example - to the point some things could potentially never have come even as things got closer.
Too far too fast too poorly their problem.
You've left off "too unrealistic". Another failure for lebensraum?
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. ... The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
There isn't going to be a US of E in the next couple of years, and those people who are vocal about wanting it do not have the political power to put it into effect.
The likes of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard seem to think there's a sinister cabal of federalists secretly executing some decades-old masterplan, but I don't think it works like that. Though I can think of a couple of federalists who would love to join said cabal if it existed.
But it's enough that there are institutions set up whose driving force is towards integration, and enough powerful people who do want integration, for the EU to be fudging towards an average position that is less federal than the federalists want, but more integrated than the average Brit can stomach. And because integration is a process not an event, it sets a direction of travel - considering a hypothetical Britain where the Brexit vote had gone 52% Remain to 48% Leave, the country would have found itself even less of a "good fit" in 10-20 years' time than it is today, while simultaneously less able to extract itself because the ties would be even tighter.
I can't agree with those Europroject conspiracy theorists in the Leave camp, but there were a lot of Remain types who pooh-poohed the idea there was any danger of Britain getting entangled in a federal Europe - by accident or by design - and ridiculed those who suggested it. I think they were wrong to do so. If we'd been in the tradition of holding referendums on every treaty change from Maastricht onwards I don't know if I would have voted for Brexit - it's a tricky hypothetical since the shape and scope of the EU might be quite different - but without that kind of regular democratic mandate for changes in the relationship, I could see Britain getting sucked deeper into a euromorass without popular consent.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
Well then tell me how it could have been achieved without more power accruing to the centre.
I never said that. The ceding or harmonisation of some things was inevitable. How it went about it, and where, were not and were the critical factors, since this was a point about the reality of the EU vs it's dream; obviously those opposed to the dream woukd think all steps unacceptable.
You could get a lot lot closer before you even raise the possibility of an EU army for example - to the point some things could potentially never have come even as things got closer.
Too far too fast too poorly their problem.
Do you imagine that a Europe-wide democracy is feasible, in which the decision-makers are chosen by voters from the 28 counties and can be removed in elections? No, of course not. And look at what we have: unelected bureaucratic decision makers and a sham of a Parliament which is just a talking shop flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg.
I think you're mistaken, if that remains the direction of travel. Labour will evolve with public opinion, because the leadership has no strong preference (that's why we're not really pinned down to anything) and the party is otherwise strongly Remain and if a "stop this disaster" meme grows in strength, the Tory rebels will take heart. Certainly the EU would be up for calling the whole thing off, and there has never been an EU law that the collective will of the Council of Ministers hasn't found a way round.
But it's only one poll for now.
An opinion poll doesn't carry constitutional weight.
I'm more concerned labour apparently have no policy other than going with the flow and switching to remain if public opinion evolves that way! I'm with guy verhofstadt, leading means more than following public will, it involves trying to lead it (I don't think his allies do this enough in practice, in fairness).
The tories not knowing what they want is more immediately pressing, but 'no preference, let's switch tack if the polls shift' is I would suggest a mite unsatisfactory on such a critical issue.
The golden rule of Brexit is that everything Remainers cheer ultimately hurts their cause.
Remainers cheering Labour on will be just another example of it.
Because the vote was so close, some Remainers think there's still a chance of going back to the status quo.
But, that ship has sailed.
The Remainers who are keeping the flame alive are not people who are afraid of closer integration. Brexit has re-energised the pro-European cause in a way that was inconceivable before 2016.
The longer Brexit goes on, the more it will be shown to be a dead end and the more attractive full-on EU membership will look.
Tricky forming a coalition with those figures - 31% each for left and right, and 24% for the maverick 5* who are disliked by both left and right.
5* with support from Forza Italia and the Northern League the most likely new government
Worth remembering that the Italian system gives a boost to whoever comes first. So, they would only - in all likelihood - need one of the two.
However, I think you underestimate the personal animosity of the various personalities. Berlusconi calls Grillo and "idiot" and a "charlatan". While Grillo responds with his belief that people like Berlusconi are the ruin of Italy. I wouldn't bet on Berlusconi putting Grillo over the line.
Which leaves the Lega Nord. The problem is that the numbers simply might not work - they need to get 40% between them. And there is not much - other than vague Eurosceptiticism - that unites them.
The other thing to remember is that the Italian system is based on a perfect balance of powers between the two houses of the Italian parliament. And in the Senate, M5S + LN are likely to be well short.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
Well then tell me how it could have been achieved without more power accruing to the centre.
I never said that. The ceding or harmonisation of some things was inevitable. How it went about it, and where, were not and were the critical factors, since this was a point about the reality of the EU vs it's dream; obviously those opposed to the dream woukd think all steps unacceptable.
You could get a lot lot closer before you even raise the possibility of an EU army for example - to the point some things could potentially never have come even as things got closer.
Too far too fast too poorly their problem.
Do you imagine that a Europe-wide democracy is feasible, in which the decision-makers are chosen by voters from the 28 counties and can be removed in elections? No, of course not. And look at what we have: unelected bureaucratic decision makers and a sham of a Parliament which is just a talking shop flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg.
Democracies exist in larger bodies than the EU. Ones with more languages than the EU too.
Mind you, I wouldn't argue they've worked out particularly well there.
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. As you put it: "even I'd hesitate about abolishing all 28 countries that soon."
The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
I do know Europe quite well. The serious federalists are in a minority at all levels. They're strongest in the Parliament, partly because a united Europe would need to give the Parliament a dominant role (Council of national ministers - what national ministers?). But they're weak where the decisions are made.
But I wouldn't call Eurosceptics mad - people on both sides resort to that rhetoric far too easily. i just disagree with them. (Incidentally, I opposed membership in 1975, for the reasons that Corbyn did at that point.)
How very sporting of you not to call Eurosceptics mad, out loud.
Do you imagine that a Europe-wide democracy is feasible, in which the decision-makers are chosen by voters from the 28 counties and can be removed in elections? No, of course not. And look at what we have: unelected bureaucratic decision makers and a sham of a Parliament which is just a talking shop flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg.
I think it is a plausible argument that the EU's problem is that it simultaneously is not integrated tightly enough, while also integrated far too much - your complaint about the "sham talking shop" could be resolved either way.
Is there a fairy-tale like Goldilocks, but where the moral of the story is the reverse? Being in the middle isn't always "just right", though as a creature of compromise it is where the EU is always likely to lie. ("Falls between two stools" is the closest I can think of, but is an expression rather than a story.)
I am happy to be corrected on this, but I do get the impression that prior to World War 2 the obtaining of a 'place' at Oxbridge - as distinct from a Scholarship or Exhibition - did not require an applicant to excel academically to anything like the extent that has been required in recent decades.In that era Oxbridge appears to have been very largely a finishing school for public schoolboys - with the exception of the Scholars and Exhibitioners who often came from the grammar schools.
Yes, you just had to want to go, and have a rich daddy. The same is true more recently of public schools. Even some Etonians lament that the rich clots' places are now given to geeks and nerds.
Eton isn't just about an academic education or league tables. It's an organic community, and continuity is part of that
When I went to Cambridge from my state school, the Old Etonians I met were very smart indeed.
Eton, along with Harrow, Winchester and Westminster is considered to be one of the top 4 public schools (and Eton probably the most academic of those). So an Eton and Oxbridge education is considered the best you can have in the UK so it is no surprise so many with that background have become PM.
Wrong. Simply wrong. You have a tediously definitive style when you don't know that of which you speak.
Winchester is the most academic - and that is a feeder for Cambridge*, the more academic university. Eton and Oxford students are ferociously bright but are trained in rhetoric and logic not academics. That's why you get so many politicians from Eton and Oxford and comparatively few from Winchester and Cambridge.
* it amuses me that when the Winchester/New and Eton/Kings links became too controversial they simply swapped - Eton is now a feeder to New and Winchester to Kings
Eton was 12th and Winchester 13th in the latest public school A Level league table.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
Well then tell me how it could have been achieved without more power accruing to the centre.
I never said that. The ceding or harmonisation of some things was inevitable. How it went about it, and where, were not and were the critical factors, since this was a point about the reality of the EU vs it's dream; obviously those opposed to the dream woukd think all steps unacceptable.
You could get a lot lot closer before you even raise the possibility of an EU army for example - to the point some things could potentially never have come even as things got closer.
Too far too fast too poorly their problem.
Do you imagine that a Europe-wide democracy is feasible, in which the decision-makers are chosen by voters from the 28 counties and can be removed in elections? No, of course not. And look at what we have: unelected bureaucratic decision makers and a sham of a Parliament which is just a talking shop flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg.
Democracies exist in larger bodies than the EU. Ones with more languages than the EU too.
Mind you, I wouldn't argue they've worked out particularly well there.
Tricky forming a coalition with those figures - 31% each for left and right, and 24% for the maverick 5* who are disliked by both left and right.
5* with support from Forza Italia and the Northern League the most likely new government
Worth remembering that the Italian system gives a boost to whoever comes first. So, they would only - in all likelihood - need one of the two.
However, I think you underestimate the personal animosity of the various personalities. Berlusconi calls Grillo and "idiot" and a "charlatan". While Grillo responds with his belief that people like Berlusconi are the ruin of Italy. I wouldn't bet on Berlusconi putting Grillo over the line.
Which leaves the Lega Nord. The problem is that the numbers simply might not work - they need to get 40% between them. And there is not much - other than vague Eurosceptiticism - that unites them.
The other thing to remember is that the Italian system is based on a perfect balance of powers between the two houses of the Italian parliament. And in the Senate, M5S + LN are likely to be well short.
You have forgotten Grillo is no longer the 5* PM candidate, instead that is the young and charismatic 31 year old Luigi Di Maio who Berlusconi would far rather guide in office than have to deal with Renzi who he can't stand.
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. As you put it: "even I'd hesitate about abolishing all 28 countries that soon."
The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
I do know Europe quite well. The serious federalists are in a minority at all levels. They're strongest in the Parliament, partly because a united Europe would need to give the Parliament a dominant role (Council of national ministers - what national ministers?). But they're weak where the decisions are made.
But I wouldn't call Eurosceptics mad - people on both sides resort to that rhetoric far too easily. i just disagree with them. (Incidentally, I opposed membership in 1975, for the reasons that Corbyn did at that point.)
You don't know Europe any better than I do. I'm married to a European, and was educated at an international school. So let's leave the "I know it better than you" card at home, shall we?
It neither impresses nor convinces me. Just shows the weakness of your argument.
I'm afraid I think it's guff: the only level of debate taking place is the rate at which ever closer union should take place, not its destination, and at the moment an EU army and Eurozone budget are very much in vogue.
Eurosceptics have been saying this for years. And sneered at for it. The funny thing is that had the EU and the Remain camp demonstrably been able to show that the current levels of integration were "it", and there was no more to come - ever - we probably never would have left. But, they'd prefer to blame the Right-wing of the Tory party, and Dacre.
Morons.
On your final point, everyone knows Corbyn supports Leave, but perhaps others may be more skilled at cognitive dissonance than I am.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
Well then tell me how it could have been achieved without more power accruing to the centre.
I never said that. The ceding or harmonisation of some things was inevitable. How it went about it, and where, were not and were the critical factors, since this was a point about the reality of the EU vs it's dream; obviously those opposed to the dream woukd think all steps unacceptable.
You could get a lot lot closer before you even raise the possibility of an EU army for example - to the point some things could potentially never have come even as things got closer.
Too far too fast too poorly their problem.
Do you imagine that a Europe-wide democracy is feasible, in which the decision-makers are chosen by voters from the 28 counties and can be removed in elections? No, of course not. And look at what we have: unelected bureaucratic decision makers and a sham of a Parliament which is just a talking shop flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg.
+1
The EU has shown neither the willingness nor the ability to become a democracy in any meaningful sense.
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. ... The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
There isn't going to be a US of E in the next couple of years, and those people who are vocal about wanting it do not have the political power to put it into effect.
The likes of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard seem to think there's a sinister cabal of federalists secretly executing some decades-old masterplan, but I don't think it works like that. Though I can think of a couple of federalists who would love to join said cabal if it existed.
But it's enough that there are institutions set up whose driving force is towards integration, and enough powerful people who do want integration, for the EU to be fudging towards an average position that is less federal than the federalists want, but more integrated than the average Brit can stomach. And because integration is a process not an event, it sets a direction of travel - considering a hypothetical Britain where the Brexit vote had gone 52% Remain to 48% Leave, the country would have found itself even less of a "good fit" in 10-20 years' time than it is today, while simultaneously less able to extract itself because the ties would be even tighter.
ht onwards I don't know if I would have voted for Brexit - it's a tricky hypothetical since the shape and scope of the EU might be quite different - but without that kind of regular democratic mandate for changes in the relationship, I could see Britain getting sucked deeper into a euromorass without popular consent.
That's an excellent formulation, MBE, with which a veteran europhile like me can easily agree.
I remember the earnest debates between those of us who thought the EU states should remain small in number but with deepening ties whilst others thought ties should remain light but the number of states should be increased. In the event it both deepened and broadened, thus creating problems which came to a head in Brexit.
I regret that, but understand how the situation evolved. It looks like the EU will survive the crisis, and may even emerge stronger. I am less optimististic about the UK.
I am happy to be corrected on this, but I do get the impression that prior to World War 2 the obtaining of a 'place' at Oxbridge - as distinct from a Scholarship or Exhibition - did not require an applicant to excel academically to anything like the extent that has been required in recent decades.In that era Oxbridge appears to have been very largely a finishing school for public schoolboys - with the exception of the Scholars and Exhibitioners who often came from the grammar schools.
Yes, you just had to want to go, and have a rich daddy. The same is true more recently of public schools. Even some Etonians lament that the rich clots' places are now given to geeks and nerds.
Eton isn't just about an academic education or league tables. It's an organic community, and continuity is part of that
When I went to Cambridge from my state school, the Old Etonians I met were very smart indeed.
Eton, along with Harrow, Winchester and Westminster is considered to be one of the top 4 public schools (and Eton probably the most academic of those). So an Eton and Oxbridge education is considered the best you can have in the UK so it is no surprise so many with that background have become PM.
Wrong. Simply wrong. You have a tediously definitive style when you don't know that of which you speak.
Winchester is the most academic - and that is a feeder for Cambridge*, the more academic university. Eton and Oxford students are ferociously bright but are trained in rhetoric and logic not academics. That's why you get so many politicians from Eton and Oxford and comparatively few from Winchester and Cambridge.
* it amuses me that when the Winchester/New and Eton/Kings links became too controversial they simply swapped - Eton is now a feeder to New and Winchester to Kings
Eton was 12th and Winchester 13th in the latest public school A Level league table.
I think you're mistaken, if that remains the direction of travel. Labour will evolve with public opinion, because the leadership has no strong preference (that's why we're not really pinned down to anything) and the party is otherwise strongly Remain and if a "stop this disaster" meme grows in strength, the Tory rebels will take heart. Certainly the EU would be up for calling the whole thing off, and there has never been an EU law that the collective will of the Council of Ministers hasn't found a way round.
But it's only one poll for now.
An opinion poll doesn't carry constitutional weight.
I'm more concerned labour apparently have no policy other than going with the flow and switching to remain if public opinion evolves that way! I'm with guy verhofstadt, leading means more than following public will, it involves trying to lead it (I don't think his allies do this enough in practice, in fairness).
The tories not knowing what they want is more immediately pressing, but 'no preference, let's switch tack if the polls shift' is I would suggest a mite unsatisfactory on such a critical issue.
The golden rule of Brexit is that everything Remainers cheer ultimately hurts their cause.
Remainers cheering Labour on will be just another example of it.
Because the vote was so close, some Remainers think there's still a chance of going back to the status quo.
But, that ship has sailed.
The Remainers who are keeping the flame alive are not people who are afraid of closer integration. Brexit has re-energised the pro-European cause in a way that was inconceivable before 2016.
The longer Brexit goes on, the more it will be shown to be a dead end and the more attractive full-on EU membership will look.
I am happy to be corrected on this, but I do get the impression that prior to World War 2 the obtaining of a 'place' at Oxbridge - as distinct from a Scholarship or Exhibition - did not require an applicant to excel academically to anything like the extent that has been required in recent decades.In that era Oxbridge appears to have been very largely a finishing school for public schoolboys - with the exception of the Scholars and Exhibitioners who often came from the grammar schools.
Yes, you just had to want to go, and have a rich daddy. The same is true more recently of public schools. Even some Etonians lament that the rich clots' places are now given to geeks and nerds.
Eton isn't just about an academic education or league tables. It's an organic community, and continuity is part of that
When I went to Cambridge from my state school, the Old Etonians I met were very smart indeed.
Eton, along with Harrow, Winchester and Westminster is considered to be one of the top 4 public schools (and Eton probably the most academic of those). So an Eton and Oxbridge education is considered the best you can have in the UK so it is no surprise so many with that background have become PM.
Wrong. Simply wrong. You have a tediously definitive style when you don't know that of which you speak.
Winchester is the most academic - and that is a feeder for Cambridge*, the more academic university. Eton and Oxford students are ferociously bright but are trained in rhetoric and logic not academics. That's why you get so many politicians from Eton and Oxford and comparatively few from Winchester and Cambridge.
* it amuses me that when the Winchester/New and Eton/Kings links became too controversial they simply swapped - Eton is now a feeder to New and Winchester to Kings
Eton was 12th and Winchester 13th in the latest public school A Level league table.
Do you imagine that a Europe-wide democracy is feasible, in which the decision-makers are chosen by voters from the 28 counties and can be removed in elections? No, of course not. And look at what we have: unelected bureaucratic decision makers and a sham of a Parliament which is just a talking shop flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg.
I think it is a plausible argument that the EU's problem is that it simultaneously is not integrated tightly enough, while also integrated far too much - your complaint about the "sham talking shop" could be resolved either way.
Is there a fairy-tale like Goldilocks, but where the moral of the story is the reverse? Being in the middle isn't always "just right", though as a creature of compromise it is where the EU is always likely to lie. ("Falls between two stools" is the closest I can think of, but is an expression rather than a story.)
Do the peoples of Europe want ever closer union? When popular opinion has been tested in referendums in France, Holland, Ireland and the UK the answer has always come back "no".
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
Well then tell me how it could have been achieved without more power accruing to the centre.
I never said that. The ceding or harmonisation of some things was inevitable. How it went about it, and where, were not and were the critical factors, since this was a point about the reality of the EU vs it's dream; obviously those opposed to the dream woukd think all steps unacceptable.
You could get a lot lot closer before you even raise the possibility of an EU army for example - to the point some things could potentially never have come even as things got closer.
Too far too fast too poorly their problem.
Do you imagine that a Europe-wide democracy is feasible, in which the decision-makers are chosen by voters from the 28 counties and can be removed in elections? No, of course not. And look at what we have: unelected bureaucratic decision makers and a sham of a Parliament which is just a talking shop flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg.
Democracies exist in larger bodies than the EU. Ones with more languages than the EU too.
Mind you, I wouldn't argue they've worked out particularly well there.
A democracies now just means "not a publicly acknowledged dictatorship", so everywhere is a democracy.
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. ... The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
I can't agree with those Europroject conspiracy theorists in the Leave camp, but there were a lot of Remain types who pooh-poohed the idea there was any danger of Britain getting entangled in a federal Europe - by accident or by design - and ridiculed those who suggested it. I think they were wrong to do so. If we'd been in the tradition of holding referendums on every treaty change from Maastricht onwards I don't know if I would have voted for Brexit - it's a tricky hypothetical since the shape and scope of the EU might be quite different - but without that kind of regular democratic mandate for changes in the relationship, I could see Britain getting sucked deeper into a euromorass without popular consent.
Another fair comment. The political cultures in the EU and UK are just too different. Those differences had reached breaking point and, hitherto being largely unaddressed, with no serious and sustainable solution proposed to resolve them, broke in two.
Where I disagree with you slightly is on the last paragraph. First, I don't think it's a conspiracy - there is no conspiring going on in the EU; it's being done transparently, and in full view, by those that shape or have influence over the EU's agenda - but it is hugely played down in the UK, where pro-European politicians know it must be, precisely because of our political culture.
I think you're right to suggest that, if we'd had a vote on Lisbon and Maastricht, the shape of and level of support for our EU membership would have been different.
Once again, the europhiles in the UK were too narrow-minded to see that, and preferred to pull the wool over the eyes of British voters, ignore their concerns, sneer and laugh at their little-minded ignorance, and blame the Daily Mail instead.
I think you're mistaken, if that remains the direction of travel. Labour will evolve with public opinion, because the leadership has no strong preference (that's why we're not really pinned down to anything) and the party is otherwise strongly Remain and if a "stop this disaster" meme grows in strength, the Tory rebels will take heart. Certainly the EU would be up for calling the whole thing off, and there has never been an EU law that the collective will of the Council of Ministers hasn't found a way round.
But it's only one poll for now.
An opinion poll doesn't carry constitutional weight.
I'm more concerned labour apparently have no policy other than going with the flow and switching to remain if public opinion evolves that way! I'm with guy verhofstadt, leading means more than following public will, it involves trying to lead it (I don't think his allies do this enough in practice, in fairness).
The tories not knowing what they want is more immediately pressing, but 'no preference, let's switch tack if the polls shift' is I would suggest a mite unsatisfactory on such a critical issue.
The golden rule of Brexit is that everything Remainers cheer ultimately hurts their cause.
Remainers cheering Labour on will be just another example of it.
Because the vote was so close, some Remainers think there's still a chance of going back to the status quo.
But, that ship has sailed.
The Remainers who are keeping the flame alive are not people who are afraid of closer integration. Brexit has re-energised the pro-European cause in a way that was inconceivable before 2016.
The longer Brexit goes on, the more it will be shown to be a dead end and the more attractive full-on EU membership will look.
Gentle tip: I just ignore posts like these from you now. Just as I would a Jehovah's Witness coming to knock on my door.
Do you imagine that a Europe-wide democracy is feasible, in which the decision-makers are chosen by voters from the 28 counties and can be removed in elections? No, of course not. And look at what we have: unelected bureaucratic decision makers and a sham of a Parliament which is just a talking shop flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg.
I think it is a plausible argument that the EU's problem is that it simultaneously is not integrated tightly enough, while also integrated far too much - your complaint about the "sham talking shop" could be resolved either way.
Is there a fairy-tale like Goldilocks, but where the moral of the story is the reverse? Being in the middle isn't always "just right", though as a creature of compromise it is where the EU is always likely to lie. ("Falls between two stools" is the closest I can think of, but is an expression rather than a story.)
I am happy to be corrected on this, but I do get the impression that prior to World War 2 the obtaining of a 'place' at Oxbridge - as distinct from a Scholarship or Exhibition - did not require an applicant to excel academically to anything like the extent that has been required in recent decades.In that era Oxbridge appears to have been very largely a finishing school for public schoolboys - with the exception of the Scholars and Exhibitioners who often came from the grammar schools.
Yes, you just had to want to go, and have a rich daddy. The same is true more recently of public schools. Even some Etonians lament that the rich clots' places are now given to geeks and nerds.
Eton isn't just about an academic education or league tables. It's an organic community, and continuity is part of that
When I went to Cambridge from my state school, the Old Etonians I met were very smart indeed.
Eton, along with Harrow, Winchester and Westminster is considered to be one of the top 4 public schools (and Eton probably the most academic of those). So an Eton and Oxbridge education is considered the best you can have in the UK so it is no surprise so many with that background have become PM.
Wrong. Simply wrong. You have a tediously definitive style when you don't know that of which you speak.
Winchester is the most academic - and that is a feeder for Cambridge*, the more academic university. Eton and Oxford students are ferociously bright but are trained in rhetoric and logic not academics. That's why you get so many politicians from Eton and Oxford and comparatively few from Winchester and Cambridge.
* it amuses me that when the Winchester/New and Eton/Kings links became too controversial they simply swapped - Eton is now a feeder to New and Winchester to Kings
Eton was 12th and Winchester 13th in the latest public school A Level league table.
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. ... The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
I can't agree with those Europroject conspiracy theorists in the Leave camp, but there were a lot of Remain types who pooh-poohed the idea there was any danger of Britain getting entangled in a federal Europe - by accident or by design - and ridiculed those who suggested it. I think they were wrong to do so. If we'd been in the tradition of holding referendums on every treaty change from Maastricht onwards I don't know if I would have voted for Brexit - it's a tricky hypothetical since the shape and scope of the EU might be quite different - but without that kind of regular democratic mandate for changes in the relationship, I could see Britain getting sucked deeper into a euromorass without popular consent.
Another fair comment. The political cultures in the EU and UK are just too different. Those differences had reached breaking point and, hitherto being largely unaddressed, with no serious and sustainable solution proposed to resolve them, broke in two.
I think there's a sense from some that we already had our union to give us heft internationally, and didn't need a second one sticking its oar in. Theresa May explicitly said in her Lancaster House speech that she wanted an equal partnership between the UK and EU, and people spoke imperiously of a 'grand bargain'.
Ironically, it now looks more likely that withdrawal from the EU will break up the UK than vice versa. The EU is proving itself fit for purpose in the 21st century, while the UK is looking like a political Norma Desmond.
The notion of free trade, collaborative working and a single European voice on the world stage isn't unattractive to me but that's not what the EU became. It tried to become a country in its own right and became more interested in those making money than in people in general. The social, economic and cultural catastrophe of the Single Market convinced me the "idea" had lost its way - the EU could have achieved so much more by being so much less but like all institutions once it had power it wanted more.
That doesn't discredit or diminish the dream, only the reality.
The EU wanted more power from the word go. It was written into the 1957 Treaty of Rome: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
The form of that ever close union was not inevitable.
Well then tell me how it could have been achieved without more power accruing to the centre.
I never said that. The ceding or harmonisation of some things was inevitable. How it went about it, and where, were not and were the critical factors, since this was a point about the reality of the EU vs it's dream; obviously those opposed to the dream woukd think all steps unacceptable.
You could get a lot lot closer before you even raise the possibility of an EU army for example - to the point some things could potentially never have come even as things got closer.
Too far too fast too poorly their problem.
Do you imagine that a Europe-wide democracy is feasible, in which the decision-makers are chosen by voters from the 28 counties and can be removed in elections? No, of course not. And look at what we have: unelected bureaucratic decision makers and a sham of a Parliament which is just a talking shop flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg.
Democracies exist in larger bodies than the EU. Ones with more languages than the EU too.
Mind you, I wouldn't argue they've worked out particularly well there.
Why do so many accept the argument at face value that countries should amalgamate and merge into ever larger federal unions?
Because we're a bit scared of India, China and the US having the whip hand, is that it? Or because we're scared of another world war, is that it? Or because we think the unity of humanity is a nice idea, is that it?
They are all emotional positions. As are, to be fair, national independence movements. But there are no right or wrong answers. And nothing is inevitable.
The key thing that's required is that they command popular support, or else you have to rely upon varying levels of repression.
Talking of schools...Bit of a controversy going on at jezzas alma mater...The head there out of the blue has decided to change the name of the school which has been about for 100s years, dropping "grammar" from the title. I am told the alumni are not happy.
That's an excellent formulation, MBE, with which a veteran europhile like me can easily agree.
I remember the earnest debates between those of us who thought the EU states should remain small in number but with deepening ties whilst others thought ties should remain light but the number of states should be increased. In the event it both deepened and broadened, thus creating problems which came to a head in Brexit.
I regret that, but understand how the situation evolved. It looks like the EU will survive the crisis, and may even emerge stronger. I am less optimististic about the UK.
Cheers PtP.
The simultaneous broadening-cum-deepening thing is to me a classic sign of an accidentally arrived-at Eurofudge - not a suggestion of a dozen suited super-crats scheming some strategic vision for "Wot Urope shood look lyke in ten yeers". Will it last? Maybe, but I'm not sure if it will be the current structures that prove enduring. It's pretty clear that France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and a few others are tightly bound in a manner that would be harder and unlikelier than Brexit to disentangle. Perhaps rather less likely to unbind than the UK (or indeed, as a polity in its own right, Belgium itself!). But whether in the long run they form an inner core within the EU, or some organisation built on top of or parallel to the EU, or somehow manage to drag the rest of the EU with them, I dunno.
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. ... The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
I can't agree with those Europroject conspiracy theorists in the Leave camp, but there were a lot of Remain types who pooh-poohed the idea there was any danger of Britain getting entangled in a federal Europe - by accident or by design - and ridiculed those who suggested it. I think they were wrong to do so. If we'd been in the tradition of holding referendums on every treaty change from Maastricht onwards I don't know if I would have voted for Brexit - it's a tricky hypothetical since the shape and scope of the EU might be quite different - but without that kind of regular democratic mandate for changes in the relationship, I could see Britain getting sucked deeper into a euromorass without popular consent.
Another fair comment. The political cultures in the EU and UK are just too different. Those differences had reached breaking point and, hitherto being largely unaddressed, with no serious and sustainable solution proposed to resolve them, broke in two.
Ironically, it now looks more likely that withdrawal from the EU will break up the UK than vice versa. The EU is proving itself fit for purpose in the 21st century, while the UK is looking like a political Norma Desmond.
My goodness, that's an insulting argument.
Do you seriously think you're going to win over eurosceptics by insulting their country?
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. ... The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
I can't agree with those Europroject conspiracy theorists in the Leave camp, but there were a lot of Remain types who pooh-poohed the idea there was any danger of Britain getting entangled in a federal Europe - by accident or by design - and ridiculed those who suggested it. I think they were wrong to do so. If we'd been in the tradition of holding referendums on every treaty change from Maastricht onwards I don't know if I would have voted for Brexit - it's a tricky hypothetical since the shape and scope of the EU might be quite different - but without that kind of regular democratic mandate for changes in the relationship, I could see Britain getting sucked deeper into a euromorass without popular consent.
Another fair comment. The political cultures in the EU and UK are just too different. Those differences had reached breaking point and, hitherto being largely unaddressed, with no serious and sustainable solution proposed to resolve them, broke in two.
I think there's a sense from some that we already had our union to give us heft internationally, and didn't need a second one sticking its oar in. Theresa May explicitly said in her Lancaster House speech that she wanted an equal partnership between the UK and EU, and people spoke imperiously of a 'grand bargain'.
Ironically, it now looks more likely that withdrawal from the EU will break up the UK than vice versa. The EU is proving itself fit for purpose in the 21st century, while the UK is looking like a political Norma Desmond.
Completely wrong of course, the SNP lost almost half their seats in June, the DUP are still the largest party in NI and Wales voted Leave anyway like England.
Meanwhile Schulz's desire for a United States of Europe does not even have majority support in Germany let alone the non-Eurozone EU nations and Five*, which is sceptical about the Euro, leads polls for the Italian general election in May.
Do you seriously think you're going to win over eurosceptics by insulting their country?
Your views disgust me.
Does the UK look like a country that's ready to manage its decline in the 21st century? Instead, it's decided to embark on a decade long odyssey of economic vandalism and rejection of post-enlightenment values.
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. ... The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
I can't agree with those Europroject conspiracy theorists in the Leave camp, but there were a lot of Remain types who pooh-poohed the idea there was any danger of Britain getting entangled in a federal Europe - by accident or by design - and ridiculed those who suggested it. I think they were wrong to do so. If we'd been in the tradition of holding referendums on every treaty change from Maastricht onwards I don't know if I would have voted for Brexit - it's a tricky hypothetical since the shape and scope of the EU might be quite different - but without that kind of regular democratic mandate for changes in the relationship, I could see Britain getting sucked deeper into a euromorass without popular consent.
Another fair comment. The political cultures in the EU and UK are just too different. Those differences had reached breaking point and, hitherto being largely unaddressed, with no serious and sustainable solution proposed to resolve them, broke in two.
I think there's a sense from some that we already had our union to give us heft internationally, and didn't need a second one sticking its oar in. Theresa May explicitly said in her Lancaster House speech that she wanted an equal partnership between the UK and EU, and people spoke imperiously of a 'grand bargain'.
Ironically, it now looks more likely that withdrawal from the EU will break up the UK than vice versa. The EU is proving itself fit for purpose in the 21st century, while the UK is looking like a political Norma Desmond.
You fantasise that this will happen because you loathe your own nation.
Where I disagree with you slightly is on the last paragraph. First, I don't think it's a conspiracy - there is no conspiring going on in the EU; it's being done transparently, and in full view, by those that shape or have influence over the EU's agenda - but it is hugely played down in the UK, where pro-European politicians know it must be, precisely because of our political culture.
Ta Casino. I wouldn't have you down as a conspiracy theorist - that jibe wasn't directed at you, more at the fringes of the Leave campaign. I have extremely solid respect for you and other people who got off their backsides to pursue the Leave cause. Staying up for the results was one of the most remarkable, and happiest, moments of my life - and it dawned on me I hadn't done anything substantial to help out, for which I feel really quite guilty.
I do think we would sit in a more informed place if more Brits saw the kinds of discussions that take place on, say, politico.eu, or had read or watched a lot of the pro-Europe PR material (I don't want to stoop to calling it "propaganda") funded by the Commission, or had read any of the various manifestos and proposal papers that have been put out there (Verhofstadt has written a book called "United States of Europe", not as if this stuff is a mystery) ... if news reports had a few more bits about European politics that included translations of continental politicians debating the future of Europe ...
There is a huge gap between the UK and EU on this front. With perhaps the exception of the Lib Dems at their most euro-enthusiast, the debate here really doesn't include those federalist voices and it is easy to pretend they don't exist. There may be some young British eurofederalists rallying round the Remain cause these days, but the big-hitting politicians who want to "fight Brexit" are doing it behind the banner of "Let's not commit economic self-harm" rather than "SUPER-STATE NOW!".
The truth is that Guy Verhofstadt is not in a position to impose his personal vision of Europe, any more than Nick Clegg was able to impose his Europhilia on Britain, but nor is it a vision that is seen on the continental as completely outlandish and beyond the pale to propose. And if people agree part of the way, or that some of his or fellow-travellers' proposed solutions are necessary for Europe's problems, then some aspects of that vision come to fruition.
Do you seriously think you're going to win over eurosceptics by insulting their country?
Your views disgust me.
Does the UK look like a country that's ready to manage its decline in the 21st century? Instead, it's decided to embark on a decade long odyssey of economic vandalism and rejection of post-enlightenment values.
The UK declined in the 20th century with the end of Empire and adjusted under Thatcher and Blair, it is the EU which has still really yet failed to adjust to its relative decline in this century compared to Asia and the Far East. In fact the most economically successful nation in Europe is probably Switzerland which is never been in the Eurozone or the EU
Do you seriously think you're going to win over eurosceptics by insulting their country?
Your views disgust me.
Does the UK look like a country that's ready to manage its decline in the 21st century? Instead, it's decided to embark on a decade long odyssey of economic vandalism and rejection of post-enlightenment values.
You are going to be so disappointed when post Brexit UK looks pretty much like the pre-Brexit UK - just without a stage for Farage to strut on.....
Remain even had some poll leads over 10% pre referendum and still managed to lose
Exactly so. We are reverting to the status quo ante. Remember nobody expected leave to win.
They have won now though, which means Remain needs a lead of at least 20% to be pretty certain and even that would not be definitive
I don't think the leave side can run the same campaign again, and the remain side sure as heck won't. But another referendum isn't the most likely scenario. Parties will be watching the numbers and if they conclude that Brexit has become a risk to their position they'll find a way out of it. As I say, it's over. But don't expect an announcement any time soon.
Remain even had some poll leads over 10% pre referendum and still managed to lose
Exactly so. We are reverting to the status quo ante. Remember nobody expected leave to win.
They have won now though, which means Remain needs a lead of at least 20% to be pretty certain and even that would not be definitive
I don't think the leave side can run the same campaign again, and the remain side sure as heck won't. But another referendum isn't the most likely scenario. Parties will be watching the numbers and if they conclude that Brexit has become a risk to their position they'll find a way out of it. As I say, it's over. But don't expect an announcement any time soon.
They won't risk mass defections to UKIP by abandoning Brexit, at the moment it is actually UKIP who are up on their general election score by more than the LDs are
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. ... The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
I can't agree with those Europroject conspiracy theorists in the Leave camp, but there were a lot of Remain types who pooh-poohed the idea there was any danger of Britain getting entangled in a federal Europe - by accident or by design - and ridiculed those who suggested it. I think they were wrong to do so. If we'd been in the tradition of holding referendums on every treaty change from Maastricht onwards I don't know if I would have voted for Brexit - it's a tricky hypothetical since the shape and scope of the EU might be quite different - but without that kind of regular democratic mandate for changes in the relationship, I could see Britain getting sucked deeper into a euromorass without popular consent.
Another fair comment. The political cultures in the EU and UK are just too different. Those differences had reached breaking point and, hitherto being largely unaddressed, with no serious and sustainable solution proposed to resolve them, broke in two.
Ironically, it now looks more likely that withdrawal from the EU will break up the UK than vice versa. The EU is proving itself fit for purpose in the 21st century, while the UK is looking like a political Norma Desmond.
My goodness, that's an insulting argument.
Do you seriously think you're going to win over eurosceptics by insulting their country?
Your views disgust me.
Beneath your trading of insults there is nevertheless a serious observation that we have for the first time created a situation where there are potential upsides for any parts of the UK that might be minded to break away. Which is not to understate the disadvantages, or the powerful reasons for keeping the union together, but it is undeniable that a Brexit that isn't supported by majorities in Scotland or Northern Ireland makes our politics more complicated and tense. Whether this leads to anything may well depend heavily on how Brexit turns out.
Soft Brexit is the current sweet spot in British politics. Are the Tories really going to risk a hard Brexit? I hope not, but they haven't been their normal hard headed selves lately.
We both know Brexiters are referring to the EU federalists who drive the EU's agenda when they say that. ... The debate is only about tactics: what's the maximum politically sustainable rate at which "The Dream" should be pursued, to reach the inevitable destination.
The "mad" label put back on eurosceptics in the UK is political chaff designed to disorientate the average UK voter from honing in on the evidence, until it's too late.
I can't agree with those Europroject conspiracy theorists in the Leave camp, but there were a lot of Remain types who pooh-poohed the idea there was any danger of Britain getting entangled in a federal Europe - by accident or by design - and ridiculed those who suggested it. I think they were wrong to do so. If we'd been in the tradition of holding referendums on every treaty change from Maastricht onwards I don't know if I would have voted for Brexit - it's a tricky hypothetical since the shape and scope of the EU might be quite different - but without that kind of regular democratic mandate for changes in the relationship, I could see Britain getting sucked deeper into a euromorass without popular consent.
Another fair comment. The political cultures in the EU and UK are just too different. Those differences had reached breaking point and, hitherto being largely unaddressed, with no serious and sustainable solution proposed to resolve them, broke in two.
Ironically, it now looks more likely that withdrawal from the EU will break up the UK than vice versa. The EU is proving itself fit for purpose in the 21st century, while the UK is looking like a political Norma Desmond.
My goodness, that's an insulting argument.
Do you seriously think you're going to win over eurosceptics by insulting their country?
Your views disgust me.
Beneath your trading of insults there is nevertheless a serious observation that we have for the first time created a situation where there are potential upsides for any parts of the UK that might be minded to break away. Which is not to understate the disadvantages, or the powerful reasons for keeping the union together, but it is undeniable that a Brexit that isn't supported by majorities in Scotland or Northern Ireland makes our politics more complicated and tense. Whether this leads to anything may well depend heavily on how Brexit turns out.
Crucially, there seems to be a majority for the Union.
And no breakaway party seems to be in the position to call a poll.
Remain even had some poll leads over 10% pre referendum and still managed to lose
Exactly so. We are reverting to the status quo ante. Remember nobody expected leave to win.
They have won now though, which means Remain needs a lead of at least 20% to be pretty certain and even that would not be definitive
I don't think the leave side can run the same campaign again, and the remain side sure as heck won't. But another referendum isn't the most likely scenario. Parties will be watching the numbers and if they conclude that Brexit has become a risk to their position they'll find a way out of it. As I say, it's over. But don't expect an announcement any time soon.
They won't risk mass defections to UKIP by abandoning Brexit, at the moment it is actually UKIP who are up on their general election score by more than the LDs are
A UKIP resurgence would surprise me more than the turbulence in the wake of a Brexit reversal causing a serious political realignment, perhaps with an explicitly anti-EU faction of the Tories becoming a party in its own right.
Soft Brexit is the current sweet spot in British politics. Are the Tories really going to risk a hard Brexit? I hope not, but they haven't been their normal hard headed selves lately.
Soft Brexit is the current sweet spot in British politics. Are the Tories really going to risk a hard Brexit? I hope not, but they haven't been their normal hard headed selves lately.
Soft Brexit is the current sweet spot in British politics. Are the Tories really going to risk a hard Brexit? I hope not, but they haven't been their normal hard headed selves lately.
Remain even had some poll leads over 10% pre referendum and still managed to lose
Exactly so. We are reverting to the status quo ante. Remember nobody expected leave to win.
They have won now though, which means Remain needs a lead of at least 20% to be pretty certain and even that would not be definitive
I don't think the leave side can run the same campaign again, and the remain side sure as heck won't. But another referendum isn't the most likely scenario. Parties will be watching the numbers and if they conclude that Brexit has become a risk to their position they'll find a way out of it. As I say, it's over. But don't expect an announcement any time soon.
They won't risk mass defections to UKIP by abandoning Brexit, at the moment it is actually UKIP who are up on their general election score by more than the LDs are
A UKIP resurgence would surprise me more than the turbulence in the wake of a Brexit reversal causing a serious political realignment, perhaps with an explicitly anti-EU faction of the Tories becoming a party in its own right.
On tonight's Opinium UKIP are up over 4% since the general election, Labour up 1% and the Tories down 3% and the LDs down 1%
Remain even had some poll leads over 10% pre referendum and still managed to lose
Exactly so. We are reverting to the status quo ante. Remember nobody expected leave to win.
They have won now though, which means Remain needs a lead of at least 20% to be pretty certain and even that would not be definitive
I don't think the leave side can run the same campaign again, and the remain side sure as heck won't. But another referendum isn't the most likely scenario. Parties will be watching the numbers and if they conclude that Brexit has become a risk to their position they'll find a way out of it. As I say, it's over. But don't expect an announcement any time soon.
They won't risk mass defections to UKIP by abandoning Brexit, at the moment it is actually UKIP who are up on their general election score by more than the LDs are
A UKIP resurgence would surprise me more than the turbulence in the wake of a Brexit reversal causing a serious political realignment, perhaps with an explicitly anti-EU faction of the Tories becoming a party in its own right.
UKIP is finished, except as a bucket for the ultra-anti-Europeans to express an occasional protest. And these people were always a small minority. UKIP's wider role as a general protest party has been supplanted by Corbyn, at least so long as he is in opposition. A problem also for the LDs; their role as a protest party ended with the coalition, which played an underappreciated role in fuelling UKIP's rise.
Remain even had some poll leads over 10% pre referendum and still managed to lose
Exactly so. We are reverting to the status quo ante. Remember nobody expected leave to win.
They have won now though, which means Remain needs a lead of at least 20% to be pretty certain and even that would not be definitive
I don't think the leave side can run the same campaign again, and the remain side sure as heck won't. But another referendum isn't the most likely scenario. Parties will be watching the numbers and if they conclude that Brexit has become a risk to their position they'll find a way out of it. As I say, it's over. But don't expect an announcement any time soon.
They won't risk mass defections to UKIP by abandoning Brexit, at the moment it is actually UKIP who are up on their general election score by more than the LDs are
A UKIP resurgence would surprise me more than the turbulence in the wake of a Brexit reversal causing a serious political realignment, perhaps with an explicitly anti-EU faction of the Tories becoming a party in its own right.
An anti-EU Tory breakaway party would be great. It would allow the mainstream party to finally come to its senses. I don't think it will happen though - even the hard right aren't daft enough to do something quite so unlikely to work.
Remain even had some poll leads over 10% pre referendum and still managed to lose
Exactly so. We are reverting to the status quo ante. Remember nobody expected leave to win.
They have won now though, which means Remain needs a lead of at least 20% to be pretty certain and even that would not be definitive
I don't think the leave side can run the same campaign again, and the remain side sure as heck won't. But another referendum isn't the most likely scenario. Parties will be watching the numbers and if they conclude that Brexit has become a risk to their position they'll find a way out of it. As I say, it's over. But don't expect an announcement any time soon.
They won't risk mass defections to UKIP by abandoning Brexit, at the moment it is actually UKIP who are up on their general election score by more than the LDs are
A UKIP resurgence would surprise me more than the turbulence in the wake of a Brexit reversal causing a serious political realignment, perhaps with an explicitly anti-EU faction of the Tories becoming a party in its own right.
UKIP is finished, except as a bucket for the ultra-anti-Europeans to express an occasional protest. And these people were always a small minority. UKIP's wider role as a general protest party has been supplanted by Corbyn, at least so long as he is in opposition. A problem also for the LDs; their role as a protest party ended with the coalition, which played an underappreciated role in fuelling UKIP's rise.
What is it about buckets today? But I understand that the briefing will concentrate on ‘three buckets’ and what the UK should put in each. One bucket is for where the UK wants to do the same thing as the EU in the same way; another is where the UK wants to achieve the same thing as the EU but in a different way; and one for where the UK wants to do things completely differently. James Forsythe https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/unofficial-deadline-of-mid-january-for-working-out-uks-end-state-negotiating-position/
That's an excellent formulation, MBE, with which a veteran europhile like me can easily agree.
I remember the earnest debates between those of us who thought the EU states should remain small in number but with deepening ties whilst others thought ties should remain light but the number of states should be increased. In the event it both deepened and broadened, thus creating problems which came to a head in Brexit.
I regret that, but understand how the situation evolved. It looks like the EU will survive the crisis, and may even emerge stronger. I am less optimististic about the UK.
Cheers PtP.
The simultaneous broadening-cum-deepening thing is to me a classic sign of an accidentally arrived-at Eurofudge - not a suggestion of a dozen suited super-crats scheming some strategic vision for "Wot Urope shood look lyke in ten yeers". Will it last? Maybe, but I'm not sure if it will be the current structures that prove enduring. It's pretty clear that France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and a few others are tightly bound in a manner that would be harder and unlikelier than Brexit to disentangle. Perhaps rather less likely to unbind than the UK (or indeed, as a polity in its own right, Belgium itself!). But whether in the long run they form an inner core within the EU, or some organisation built on top of or parallel to the EU, or somehow manage to drag the rest of the EU with them, I dunno.
Well, that's how things happen in the real world. Many have devised road maps for the future of Europe/the USA/the World but in practice things evolve in the most unpredictable of ways.
I was deeply disappointed by the way in which the 'Europen Dream' panned out, but maybe it will all pan out OK in the end. I'm sorry the UK is unlikely to be part of it. I think it would have been all the better for our inclusion, but we chose otherwise.
Never mind. Perhaps my concerns about Brexit will be proved unfounded. I hope so.
I'd have thought Leavers would be a little reflective about the fact that, far from persuading the public to rally behind their banner, support seems to be flaking away.
St Paul's is first division rather than premier league like those 4, hence Osborne was dangled out of a window by his legs at the Bullingdon Club while at Oxford for being an oik.
St Paul's is first division rather than premier league like those 4, hence Osborne was dangled out of a window by his legs at the Bullingdon Club while at Oxford for being an oik.
No, it's at least the equal of Westminster.
Not in poshness it isn't. It attracts the offspring of top professionals, not royalty and the aristocracy like Eton, Harrow or Westminster
I'd have thought Leavers would be a little reflective about the fact that, far from persuading the public to rally behind their banner, support seems to be flaking away.
It seems not.
Give it time. They've got used to being able to claim the referendum result as the trump card.
I'd have thought Leavers would be a little reflective about the fact that, far from persuading the public to rally behind their banner, support seems to be flaking away.
It seems not.
Give it time. They've got used to being able to claim the referendum result as the trump card.
It's not a trump card. It is the reason why we're leaving.
I'd have thought Leavers would be a little reflective about the fact that, far from persuading the public to rally behind their banner, support seems to be flaking away.
It seems not.
Give it time. They've got used to being able to claim the referendum result as the trump card.
It's not a trump card. It is the reason why we're leaving.
Comments
There are three things to remember with democracy:
1) The people are always right (even when they are wrong).
2) The people will never admit they got it wrong (even when they got it wrong)
3) The people will always blame the Government when it goes wrong (even if it wasn't really the Government's fault).
Churchill's dictum on democracy remains valid but if we are going to hold the Will of the People as some totemic virtue to be eternally worshiped, let's not ignore its imperfections.
They've been on 6% with other pollsters since the election, twice with BMG and once with Survation.
1) The Exit/transition deal (such as on the divorce bill etc), that is conducted under QMV
2) Then there's the post Brexit (trade) deal, where countries do have vetoes.
Academically it has never been as good as Eton, though better than Stowe (where my old housemaster is now headmaster) but it tends to beat Eton more often than not on the playing field.
But, that ship has sailed.
You could get a lot lot closer before you even raise the possibility of an EU army for example - to the point some things could potentially never have come even as things got closer.
Too far too fast too poorly their problem.
https://twitter.com/MarchForTruth17/status/942103978783006720?s=17
The longer Brexit goes on, the more it will be shown to be a dead end and the more attractive full-on EU membership will look.
But I wouldn't call Eurosceptics mad - people on both sides resort to that rhetoric far too easily. i just disagree with them. (Incidentally, I opposed membership in 1975, for the reasons that Corbyn did at that point.)
https://www.best-schools.co.uk/uk-school-league-tables/a-level-passes/
Hugh Gaitskill, the last Wykehamist party leader, went to New College, Oxford.
And they all moved away from him on the bench.
The likes of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard seem to think there's a sinister cabal of federalists secretly executing some decades-old masterplan, but I don't think it works like that. Though I can think of a couple of federalists who would love to join said cabal if it existed.
But it's enough that there are institutions set up whose driving force is towards integration, and enough powerful people who do want integration, for the EU to be fudging towards an average position that is less federal than the federalists want, but more integrated than the average Brit can stomach. And because integration is a process not an event, it sets a direction of travel - considering a hypothetical Britain where the Brexit vote had gone 52% Remain to 48% Leave, the country would have found itself even less of a "good fit" in 10-20 years' time than it is today, while simultaneously less able to extract itself because the ties would be even tighter.
I can't agree with those Europroject conspiracy theorists in the Leave camp, but there were a lot of Remain types who pooh-poohed the idea there was any danger of Britain getting entangled in a federal Europe - by accident or by design - and ridiculed those who suggested it. I think they were wrong to do so. If we'd been in the tradition of holding referendums on every treaty change from Maastricht onwards I don't know if I would have voted for Brexit - it's a tricky hypothetical since the shape and scope of the EU might be quite different - but without that kind of regular democratic mandate for changes in the relationship, I could see Britain getting sucked deeper into a euromorass without popular consent.
And look at what we have: unelected bureaucratic decision makers and a sham of a Parliament which is just a talking shop flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg.
However, I think you underestimate the personal animosity of the various personalities. Berlusconi calls Grillo and "idiot" and a "charlatan". While Grillo responds with his belief that people like Berlusconi are the ruin of Italy. I wouldn't bet on Berlusconi putting Grillo over the line.
Which leaves the Lega Nord. The problem is that the numbers simply might not work - they need to get 40% between them. And there is not much - other than vague Eurosceptiticism -
that unites them.
The other thing to remember is that the Italian system is based on a perfect balance of powers between the two houses of the Italian parliament. And in the Senate, M5S + LN are likely to be well short.
Mind you, I wouldn't argue they've worked out particularly well there.
Is there a fairy-tale like Goldilocks, but where the moral of the story is the reverse? Being in the middle isn't always "just right", though as a creature of compromise it is where the EU is always likely to lie. ("Falls between two stools" is the closest I can think of, but is an expression rather than a story.)
https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/942144775985205253
https://twitter.com/AndrewCooper__/status/942147806164389888
Theresa May lost David Cameron's majority, cannot imagine where Lord Cooper picked up that line from.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Di_Maio
It neither impresses nor convinces me. Just shows the weakness of your argument.
I'm afraid I think it's guff: the only level of debate taking place is the rate at which ever closer union should take place, not its destination, and at the moment an EU army and Eurozone budget are very much in vogue.
Eurosceptics have been saying this for years. And sneered at for it. The funny thing is that had the EU and the Remain camp demonstrably been able to show that the current levels of integration were "it", and there was no more to come - ever - we probably never would have left. But, they'd prefer to blame the Right-wing of the Tory party, and Dacre.
Morons.
On your final point, everyone knows Corbyn supports Leave, but perhaps others may be more skilled at cognitive dissonance than I am.
The EU has shown neither the willingness nor the ability to become a democracy in any meaningful sense.
I remember the earnest debates between those of us who thought the EU states should remain small in number but with deepening ties whilst others thought ties should remain light but the number of states should be increased. In the event it both deepened and broadened, thus creating problems which came to a head in Brexit.
I regret that, but understand how the situation evolved. It looks like the EU will survive the crisis, and may even emerge stronger. I am less optimististic about the UK.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-latest-poll-remain-ten-points-leave-bmg-a8114406.html
Where was it that roger went to school again? ;-)
Where I disagree with you slightly is on the last paragraph. First, I don't think it's a conspiracy - there is no conspiring going on in the EU; it's being done transparently, and in full view, by those that shape or have influence over the EU's agenda - but it is hugely played down in the UK, where pro-European politicians know it must be, precisely because of our political culture.
I think you're right to suggest that, if we'd had a vote on Lisbon and Maastricht, the shape of and level of support for our EU membership would have been different.
Once again, the europhiles in the UK were too narrow-minded to see that, and preferred to pull the wool over the eyes of British voters, ignore their concerns, sneer and laugh at their little-minded ignorance, and blame the Daily Mail instead.
Morons.
Ironically, it now looks more likely that withdrawal from the EU will break up the UK than vice versa. The EU is proving itself fit for purpose in the 21st century, while the UK is looking like a political Norma Desmond.
Because we're a bit scared of India, China and the US having the whip hand, is that it? Or because we're scared of another world war, is that it? Or because we think the unity of humanity is a nice idea, is that it?
They are all emotional positions. As are, to be fair, national independence movements. But there are no right or wrong answers. And nothing is inevitable.
The key thing that's required is that they command popular support, or else you have to rely upon varying levels of repression.
The simultaneous broadening-cum-deepening thing is to me a classic sign of an accidentally arrived-at Eurofudge - not a suggestion of a dozen suited super-crats scheming some strategic vision for "Wot Urope shood look lyke in ten yeers". Will it last? Maybe, but I'm not sure if it will be the current structures that prove enduring. It's pretty clear that France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and a few others are tightly bound in a manner that would be harder and unlikelier than Brexit to disentangle. Perhaps rather less likely to unbind than the UK (or indeed, as a polity in its own right, Belgium itself!). But whether in the long run they form an inner core within the EU, or some organisation built on top of or parallel to the EU, or somehow manage to drag the rest of the EU with them, I dunno.
Do you seriously think you're going to win over eurosceptics by insulting their country?
Your views disgust me.
Meanwhile Schulz's desire for a United States of Europe does not even have majority support in Germany let alone the non-Eurozone EU nations and Five*, which is sceptical about the Euro, leads polls for the Italian general election in May.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/942152475896877056
I do think we would sit in a more informed place if more Brits saw the kinds of discussions that take place on, say, politico.eu, or had read or watched a lot of the pro-Europe PR material (I don't want to stoop to calling it "propaganda") funded by the Commission, or had read any of the various manifestos and proposal papers that have been put out there (Verhofstadt has written a book called "United States of Europe", not as if this stuff is a mystery) ... if news reports had a few more bits about European politics that included translations of continental politicians debating the future of Europe ...
There is a huge gap between the UK and EU on this front. With perhaps the exception of the Lib Dems at their most euro-enthusiast, the debate here really doesn't include those federalist voices and it is easy to pretend they don't exist. There may be some young British eurofederalists rallying round the Remain cause these days, but the big-hitting politicians who want to "fight Brexit" are doing it behind the banner of "Let's not commit economic self-harm" rather than "SUPER-STATE NOW!".
The truth is that Guy Verhofstadt is not in a position to impose his personal vision of Europe, any more than Nick Clegg was able to impose his Europhilia on Britain, but nor is it a vision that is seen on the continental as completely outlandish and beyond the pale to propose. And if people agree part of the way, or that some of his or fellow-travellers' proposed solutions are necessary for Europe's problems, then some aspects of that vision come to fruition.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/01/soft-brexit-policy-won-labour-votes-in-general-election-says-study
And no breakaway party seems to be in the position to call a poll.
But I understand that the briefing will concentrate on ‘three buckets’ and what the UK should put in each. One bucket is for where the UK wants to do the same thing as the EU in the same way; another is where the UK wants to achieve the same thing as the EU but in a different way; and one for where the UK wants to do things completely differently.
James Forsythe https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/unofficial-deadline-of-mid-january-for-working-out-uks-end-state-negotiating-position/
I was deeply disappointed by the way in which the 'Europen Dream' panned out, but maybe it will all pan out OK in the end. I'm sorry the UK is unlikely to be part of it. I think it would have been all the better for our inclusion, but we chose otherwise.
Never mind. Perhaps my concerns about Brexit will be proved unfounded. I hope so.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/7jzuyw/can_my_residential_landlord_charge_me_vat_on_my/
It seems not.
ButAnd they have the sense to drive on the left.Perhaps Cyprus and Malta, unless British Colonialism counts as dictatorship
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html