Merged Now What?

[catsmate]

Further, I wonder if we are not before yet another important dropping of blinders. The US was able for 75 years after founding to consider non-whites as less than human, and took until the early 20th century to give women the vote. Each of these two changes is based on a growing understanding of the nature of equality.

Though each succeeding step seems to be quicker.

<snip>That said, I also support the EU concept of devolution, pushing management of issues that affect local and regional communities to that level.

Further, I support any breakaway EU region; say, Scotland or Catalonia. But my take on that is that it is a move toward the EU I'd like to see post-nation-states; i.e., a Europe of regions and perhaps large cities (e.g., London) as political units. That is, as the EU goes federal, it also goes local far more.

Ah, a mix of the ten-state and thousand-state models, my favoured option also.

 

[Belz...]

The idea that the EU costs us money is silly. Every economic argument is in favour of staying in the EU.

That seems generally true, which is why it wasn't among my reasons.

The immigration argument was a nonsense and for a while amounted to 'oooh scary Turks are coming to get you'. We also had the blatant dishonesty of politicians telling us they wanted to take back control of the borders while pretending to be in favour of immigration while standing alongside people who are one step away from shouting 'send them back' and then others lying that somehow being in the EU stops us bringing in skilled non-EU immigrants.

I don't think this represents the general stance on immigration, and certainly not mine. Immigration takes on several forms, and wanting one form and not another is neither nonsensical nor xenophobic. Nobody suggested shutting down the borders.

The EU is un-democratic argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny because the UK is just as undemocratic if you apply the same principles

Not from my perspective, as discussed earlier.

Because despite everything, anyone with any sense (even it seems some of the Leave campaigners) KNOW that it isn't a good idea to leave the EU

Ah, and you were being so reasonable right up to that. Now everyone who disagrees with you, again, just doesn't have any sense.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Equality, maybe at some point. But do they all want to live in the same house?

But we won't, not really. (I identify as European.) Notice how even today in the US, two centuries on, one can tell the difference between a Texan and a Minnesotan, or similar. There are still regional differences in food, music, language (accent, word choices, even syntax), dress, and all manner of little things.

Taking your point in another sense, I agree it is not the case that the vast majority of Europeans are thinking in anything more than in local terms, just like the rest of the planet, and are not rushing to make a United States of Europe.

Which brings us to another question, which is what the role might be of opinion leaders to bring the rest of society along to another viewpoint. After all, it would appear even pre-Independence American colonists were by and large reluctant to make a change, and needed some convincing by the 'elite.' IOW, there is a role for those who shape opinion in ways that may serve the general interest, but prior to that interest being well understood. Legit or not?

 

[Belz...]

So to continue on this roll, would you agree that the Leave campaign really should have had at least a plan that said whether 'Leave the EU' meant 'join the EEA' or 'leave completely'?

No, I haven't changed my mind about that, because they weren't at that stage yet before the vote took place.

 

[Belz...]

But we won't, not really. (I identify as European.)

Sorry to focus on this, but are you European or not? I don't "identify" as Canadian; it's not for me to decide, as I was born there and have citizenship. I don't identify as European because it would contradict reality.

Taking your point in another sense, I agree it is not the case that the vast majority of Europeans are thinking in anything more than in local terms, just like the rest of the planet, and are not rushing to make a United States of Europe.

Yeah I wonder if devolved governments and confederations aren't preferable in the long term. What's preventing war in the modern era is the increased role of diplomacy following WWII and the presence of nukes, not, I believe, larger states.

 

[Francesca R]

Just because something doesn't happen doesn't necessarily mean its a lie.

Promising you will do something and then dumping that promise even though the circumstances in which you said you would do the thing have actually transpired . . . Is a lie.

It's baffling how many remain supporters want to twist and squirm rather than face this. Conceding that very prominent remain campaigners in the government lied does not alter the calculus of whether remain was the best option.

IMO it would enhance the credibility of the relevant folks' posts though.

 

[Darat]

I would hazard a guess you are not so willing to wait and see if more money gets spent on the NHS before branding that a lie. Give it time, at some point in the future the NHS budget is quite likely to be a hundred million or so a week higher isn't it?

Maybe you shouldn't brand that as a lie.

The lie was that the money no longer going to the EU would now be spent on the NHS.

 

[Francesca R]

Well I agree that was a lie.

 

[Craig B]

Sorry to focus on this, but are you European or not? I don't "identify" as Canadian; it's not for me to decide, as I was born there and have citizenship. I don't identify as European because it would contradict reality.

No, reality is more complex than that. A Scottish or English or Welsh person has at least three "Canadas" to choose from, with which he or she may "identify". The individual country, e.g. England; the United Kingdom, or the European Union. In a very strong and relevant sense, it is for the individual to decide in such cases. The level at which one possesses a passport is not necessarily the level at which one identifies.

That can be very significant. In the late 1980s various peoples; e.g. Lithuanians, Ukrainians; decided no longer to identify themselves as "Soviet". The result was that a huge empire quietly but promptly fell to pieces.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, I haven't changed my mind about that, because they weren't at that stage yet before the vote took place.

I can't understand this at all. You are asking people to vote for something but aren't willing to tell them what it is? This just seems fundamentally dishonest.

And we absolutely are at that stage because the next step is negotiating and we don't have a negotiating position because its not clear what people actually voted for.

 

[Francesca R]

I can't understand this at all. You are asking people to vote for something but aren't willing to tell them what it is? This just seems fundamentally dishonest.

Leave was much more about asking people to vote against something IMO.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Promising you will do something and then dumping that promise even though the circumstances in which you said you would do the thing have actually transpired . . . Is a lie.

It's baffling how many remain supporters want to twist and squirm rather than face this. Conceding that very prominent remain campaigners in the government lied does not alter the calculus of whether remain was the best option.

IMO it would enhance the credibility of the relevant folks' posts though.

Because equivocating the two campaigns in terms of honesty does nothing to enhance the credibility of an argument or arguer either.

There was plenty of criticism of Osbourne and Cameron for their campaign. Even from within the campaign. They were exaggerating and scaremongering just as they did in the Indyref.

It wasn't in the same league as the dishonesty of the Leave campaign however. Not even close.

 

[Spanx]

Leave was much more about asking people to vote against something IMO.

That's true, and the subject was the EU.

But was it all of it, some of it, or none of it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sorry to focus on this, but are you European or not?

I disagree with your line of reasoning but to answer your question, Yes (assuming he is a citizen of an EU country). All citizens of EU countries are considered EU citizens and conferred rights by the EU as a result. We carry EU passports. We are Europeans.

This was quite an important consideration during the Indyref in Scotland as the idea that declaring independence could somehow revoke your EU citizenship was a controversial one.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Leave was much more about asking people to vote against something IMO.

In some ways yes but they were voting FOR an action. That action was 'leaving the EU' the problem is nobody actually could explain or agree what 'leaving the EU' meant.

I think that alone is probably a good argument for a second referendum although it might not actually be practical to do that.

For people to argue about lack of democracy in the EU and then defend this referendum or the fact that Tory party members can now vote to decide what 'leave the EU' means seems ridiculous to me.

 

[GlennB]

Meanwhile Leadsom seems to have cocked-up mightily. Her (recorded) comments about how being a mother made her a better candidate than May was reported by The Times, at which point Leadsom went ballistic accusing them of "gutter journalism" and that she'd said the exact opposite of The Times' claims. The Guardian report on the palaver.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Meanwhile Leadsom seems to have cocked-up mightily. Her (recorded) comments about how being a mother made her a better candidate than May was reported by The Times, at which point Leadsom went ballistic accusing them of "gutter journalism" and that she'd said the exact opposite of The Times' claims. The Guardian report on the palaver.

I find it amusing that of all the nasty things the Tories represent this rather benign comment seems to be beyond the pale for some.

Its perfectly OK to condemn Syrians to being bombed out of their homes into refugee camps but god forbid you suggest that being a mother is somehow better than not being one.

 

[Francesca R]

In some ways yes but they were voting FOR an action. That action was 'leaving the EU' the problem is nobody actually could explain or agree what 'leaving the EU' meant.

I think that alone is probably a good argument for a second referendum

I think it is a good argument for not having a referendum in the first place. There are similar arguments for not having an indyref. But these arguments are now moot.

As for a second referendum as I said before there is a decent likelihood IMO that that produces a bigger leave vote.

 

[Francesca R]

It wasn't in the same league as the dishonesty of the Leave campaign however.

Not in dispute, not from me anyway. Glad you agree the remain campaign was dishonest.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think it is a good argument for not having a referendum in the first place. There are similar arguments for not having an indyref. But these arguments are now moot.

As for a second referendum as I said before there is a decent likelihood IMO that that produces a bigger leave vote.

I think the Indyref was at least fairly clear in what those proposing it wanted. Whether they were able to deliver it all was a different question maybe but their negotiating position was fairly clearly spelled out. Same can't be said for Leave.

if a second referendum delivered a bigger leave vote then so be it. I personally doubt that a majority would have voted for a EEA option if that was spelled out in the first place and I have a feeling it wouldn't get it now so if that's what we end up with I think pretty much everyone will feel rightly pissed off - Leave or Remain.

Of course even if we decided to Remain now, some of the damage has already been done thanks to DC's recklessness in having the damn vote at all.