Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Europe
Sept 6, 2017 6:40:03 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 6:40:03 GMT -5
Is an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe realistic any more?
|
|
|
Europe
Sept 6, 2017 6:49:15 GMT -5
Post by ahinton on Sept 6, 2017 6:49:15 GMT -5
Is an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe realistic any more? It's hard to tell, but the threat of increasing waves of nationalism there seem now to have been exaggerated and what's more important in any case is that Europe does not take the road to further disunity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Europe
Sept 6, 2017 23:53:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 23:53:41 GMT -5
Well, Migration Matters, ahinton! ' The Times' thunders that a leaked blueprint for Britain’s future immigration system leaves much to be desired. Reform is needed, but an extreme clampdown would damage the UK economy. Nevertheless, the road is clear. Europe is becoming increasingly disunited in the twenty-first century. An ever closer union of the peoples of Europe may be a distant dream, but where are its advocates, ahinton, in an age of xenophobic nationalism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Europe
Sept 8, 2017 6:06:43 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 6:06:43 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 1:03:49 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 1:03:49 GMT -5
Good morning, once again, to all those living in the European Union (EU), and beyond! I trust that all is well with all of you this Thursday morning! If I may address the question in the opening post, Uncle Henry: "Is an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe realistic any more?" Probably not! The London ' Times' leads today with some editorial comment on grandstanding Juncker. ' The Times' thunders that the leadership of the EU needs solutions to urgent problems, not fantasies. What do you reckon, Uncle Henry?
|
|
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 2:33:23 GMT -5
Post by Uncle Henry on Sept 14, 2017 2:33:23 GMT -5
Improvement: "not ruled by any one." Villages will be the natural thing will not they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 2:36:22 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 2:36:22 GMT -5
Cities like London have a lot of culture, Uncle Henry, and things to do! Villages, even in remote Tasmania, may seem a little boring in comparison?
|
|
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 3:06:12 GMT -5
Post by ahinton on Sept 14, 2017 3:06:12 GMT -5
Improvement: "not ruled by any one." Villages will be the natural thing will not they? Villages already exist but cannot possibly accommodate most of the population which will probably approach 10bn during our lifetimes.
|
|
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 3:09:09 GMT -5
Post by ahinton on Sept 14, 2017 3:09:09 GMT -5
Well, Migration Matters, ahinton! ' The Times' thunders that a leaked blueprint for Britain’s future immigration system leaves much to be desired. Reform is needed, but an extreme clampdown would damage the UK economy. Nevertheless, the road is clear. Europe is becoming increasingly disunited in the twenty-first century. An ever closer union of the peoples of Europe may be a distant dream, but where are its advocates, ahinton, in an age of xenophobic nationalism? Xenophobic nationalism has mercifully been shown to be rather less widespread in western Europe than was feared before the recent elections in France, Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. I agree, however, that Europe needs to reform itself so that there is greater unity between its states as well as absorbing into EU other European states over time when their economies qualify them for membership. Were immigration to UK to be drastically curtailed, many public services (some of which are already stretched to breaking point) would suffer and such a move would also strengthen the resolve of banks and other financial institutions, as well as major companies, to consider relocating their operations elsewhere in EU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 3:29:10 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 3:29:10 GMT -5
Against the will of the people(s), Alistair?
|
|
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 5:50:28 GMT -5
Post by ahinton on Sept 14, 2017 5:50:28 GMT -5
Against the will of the people(s), Alistair? But what is the "will of the people" - and which people? That phrase continues to be bandied about by those who support Brexit but it is utterly misleading. Consider the following. There was no genuine justifiable reason for UK's continuing membership of EU to be raised in the first place and only one UK political party did so in its 2015 General Election manifesto. Even then, as that particular party won that election, if it nevertheless remained determined that the matter be considered, it should have ensured that it was debated and voted on in both houses of Parliament rather than subjected to referendum; after all, MPs in the lower house are the people for whom the electorate votes and taxpayers pay in order that they be represented, so why duck this particular issue (especially as it is of such historical significance) and pass it on to that electorate to decide? Were a government to have Parliament reconsider the introduction of the death penalty, for example, it would hardly put that out to plebiscite! Having taken that foolhardy step, thereby shirking its responsibilities, it assumed that the Remain side would win but then took it upon itself to fund a campaign for UK to remain within EU at almost £10m of taxpayers' expense when, morally, it ought to have taken a step back and let the electorate decide; this was grossly inconsistent. Taking sides in the matter was rather like trying to have its cake and eating it. The campaign as a whole was highly acrimonious and shot through with so much misinformation that it was nigh on impossible for the electorate to make an intelligent and appropriately informed decision. The government insisted on a simple majority for the result which could thereby have been decided by a single voter; it also set a mere 60% turnout for that result to be validated and, although actual turnout was more than 70%, a turnout of less than 75% ought to have been required for the result to be validated. Neither the government nor the opposition advised the public that the referendum was (as referenda usually are) advisory only; had this been clarified at the outset, the public would likely have discredited the referendum process altogether. No account was taken of the position of the four parts of UK in this and the result in which England voted to leave by a small majority, Wales voted the same way by an even smaller majority, Northern Ireland voted to remain by a small majority and Scotland voted the same way by a larger majority, so there was inconsistency within the UK on a matter that concerned UK in its entirety. The legality of the referendum, its outcome and the triggering of Article 50 have all been subject to challenge, not least on the grounds that neither ex-pats or 16/17-year olds were permitted to vote; a case on the last of these recently passed its first stage successfully and so the entire process might yet be forced to grind to a halt. Anyway, enough of all that; the crucial matter here in respect of your question is that "the people" were given insufficient opportunity to figure out what their "will" might be on this and were hoodwinked during the campaign so badly that said campaign effectively interfered with the assertion of that "will" and undermined its validity. On top of all of this, only some 37% of the UK electorate voted in favour of UK leaving EU and none of EU's other 27 member states favoured this at all. What a mess!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 5:58:13 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 5:58:13 GMT -5
The minority is always right, Alistair, at least according to Ibsen's Enemy of the People!
|
|
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 6:10:30 GMT -5
Post by ahinton on Sept 14, 2017 6:10:30 GMT -5
The minority is always right, Alistair, at least according to Ibsen's Enemy of the People! But I'm not sure that Ibsen himself was right about that in every context and instance! The problem with the UK/EU referendum is, as I mentioned above, that so many who voted in it had scant means of knowing whether or not they were right in voting as they did!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 6:52:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 6:52:41 GMT -5
I did not really know what I was voting for, Alistair, even though I voted to remain within the European Union, as I publicly announced at the time. A lot of people obviously used the referendum as a protest vote against David Cameron and a perceived European elite, but that critique is still valid. We could do a lot better, and sometimes that means tearing things apart so that you can start again from scratch, so to speak. Whatever, it seems only democratic to accept the chosen will of the people. The wisdom of crowds, Alistair?
|
|
|
Europe
Sept 14, 2017 6:59:09 GMT -5
Post by ahinton on Sept 14, 2017 6:59:09 GMT -5
I did not really know what I was voting for, Alistair, even though I voted to remain within the European Union, as I publicly announced at the time. A lot of people obviously used the referendum as a protest vote against David Cameron and a perceived European elite, but that critique is still valid. We could do a lot better, and sometimes that means tearing things apart so that you can start again from scratch, so to speak. Whatever, it seems only democratic to accept the chosen will of the people. The wisdom of crowds, Alistair? 37% of only those people who were entitled to vote? No, there are far too many shortcomings of this entire business and they're now being paralleled by the utter incompetence and procrastination of those on the UK side supposedly conducting the "negotiations". I do agree about the protest vote thing, though; all the more reason why, if the issue were to be addressed at all, it should have been done in Parliament.
|
|