Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted: 

With an "Out of Europe" result, followed by a Scottich "Out of the UK" vote, the Conservatives would find themselves in Government in England/Wales/NI for the next 75 years..................

...........or am I being too pesemistic ?

I'm breaking my own rule (no politics in HiFi Forums) ... but if it kept the Conservatives out of power for 75 years it (loosing Scotland and leaving Europe) might just be a sacrifice worth making...   :-)

Eloise,

I think you might have mis-read my post. (I know it was full of spelling mistakes) but I was predicting the Conservatives being IN government for 75 years...............

I’d say that this THE VOTE and for certain people must vote assuming the result will stick. I posted a few minutes ago on this at the bottom of the previous page.

Don, the vote is just as important for those who want to Exit as for those who want to stay. It will be interesting to see if the Government falls if the vote is no. I would not want to bet that the Government will run to full term over this.

Interesting times ahead, I’d say.

ATB from George

Yes, Don. I listened to the PM's statement this afternoon and thought he set out the arguments well, including in the Q&A that followed. As you suggest, I think he use of the 'divorce' analogy was aimed very much at Boris and co.

Mike 

The Government certainly won't fall whatever the result because it was a Tory manifesto commitment to have a referendum, so they are only doing what they said they would do.  

The more interesting question is whether Cameron could survive an out vote.  Boris I suspect thinks he wouldn't - which is, I suspect, at the root of why he has decided to go with the out campaign.

best

David

David Hendon posted:

The Government certainly won't fall whatever the result because it was a Tory manifesto commitment to have a referendum, so they are only doing what they said they would do.  

The more interesting question is whether Cameron could survive an out vote.  Boris I suspect thinks he wouldn't - which is, I suspect, at the root of why he has decided to go with the out campaign.

best

David

Yes, I rather suspect Boris has shown his true colours with his decision to go with the Out campaign.

"What's best for Boris over the next 5 years" vice "What's best for the EU and the UK over the next 100 years"

I agree. A no vote wouldn't (or should I say shouldn't?) cause the government to fall.  This Government would have fulfilled its commitment to the electorate in holding an in/out referendum and would then be obliged to implement the result. Since Cameron has already announced that he will not serve another term - a point he reminded the House about this afternoon, enabling him to have another dig at Boris - I guess it likely he would relinquish the leadership and office of PM early.   Of course, the irony of a no vote for a new leader of the Conservative party is that the rest of this parliament would be likely consumed with negotiating the terms of exit and replacing much EU legislation with UK legislation.  Hardly a happy prospect, given that the other 27 member states would hold the trump cards.   

Interesting that we all refer to them as "Cameron" and "Boris", not "Cameron" and "Johnson" or "Dave" and "Boris".  Says something about their popular appeal.

best

David

David Hendon posted:

The Government certainly won't fall whatever the result because it was a Tory manifesto commitment to have a referendum, so they are only doing what they said they would do.  

The more interesting question is whether Cameron could survive an out vote.  Boris I suspect thinks he wouldn't - which is, I suspect, at the root of why he has decided to go with the out campaign.

As commented Cameron has already declared he won't stand for re-election regardless of the referendum outcome.

As for full term, to dissolve parliament early I believe there would need to be a 2/3 majority vote vote to dissolve the current parliament or a vote of no confidence in the government.  Alternatively there could be moves to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament act but that would need time to pass through the Lords, etc.

David Hendon posted:

Interesting that we all refer to them as "Cameron" and "Boris", not "Cameron" and "Johnson" or "Dave" and "Boris".  Says something about their popular appeal.

I thought it was Dave (or Cameron) and Bojo the Bafoon!

Looking at The Times today, there is a feeling in Europe that a No vote in the UK will galvanise the anti EU feeling in quite a few countries in Europe and this was a significant reason for hostility from the various countries PMs, they do not want problems at home.

Derek Wright posted:

Looking at The Times today, there is a feeling in Europe that a No vote in the UK will galvanise the anti EU feeling in quite a few countries in Europe and this was a significant reason for hostility from the various countries PMs, they do not want problems at home.

 

I think quite a lot of countries have populations not entirely signed up to the full European project of ever closer integration. I had some hopes our fence sitting and brinkmanship might cause that to be re-considered seriously by the major players-but France and Germany seems to plough on regardless.

This old gimmer was much happier when he thought of the EU as the Common Market, without the extended integration.

Bruce

I think those days are over when you could have a basic "Common Market" with simple regulations. Unfortunately for those who don't like it (and I see their point), a greater degree of harmonisation and integration becomes necessary at some point - our economic systems are so interdependent.

I'm sure you are right-I was just being misty eyed. I wonder if the whole EU superstate idea is too far though. It feels like that is what the big players want.

Bruce

Salvo, please don't think everyone has the same view. I believe passionately that the UK should remain part of the EU. Of course, it's far from perfect, but better in than out in my view. We are all stronger together. 

Cordiali saluti. 

Salvo, I can fully understand your response to that post.  The problem - the question - is we signed up for the European Economic Community (EEC) & we had a referendum that agreed to remain in that organisation in 1975. The problem today is that since 1975,  the EEC has changed into the European Union, a political union that is more of a European Federal State. I agree, like all EU countries, our politicians did agree to the various treaty changes over time.  The problem now is we have a huge amount of public dissatisfaction because EU laws & regulations control what many people believe is not in UK's best interest. This referendum is giving us all a chance to choose to stay in this EU or leave.   In my opinion neither choice is my choice,  I am disappointed with the small package that Cameron has bought for us to choose over & also disappointed that the other European countries have not had the vision to face the enviable move towards the same political dilemma as we have now in UK.    But the UK leaving the EU is just not fixing any problem for anyone.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Salvo, please don't think everyone has the same view. I believe passionately that the UK should remain part of the EU. Of course, it's far from perfect, but better in than out in my view. We are all stronger together. 

Cordiali saluti. 

Well its nice to know. The point is that looking from the outside, lots of us non UK nationals think that  the UK is always unhappy about something and strives to get better deals than other countries. I would like to remind all that Europe is not about politicians or simple financial issues; is about PEOPLE coming and staying togheter to avoid conflits and learn from each other. I do not get this feeling coming from the  UK. It seems that we (continent Europeans are only good for the wine, the holidays, the sunshine and things like that. I hate the way politics is done in Brussels like most of us, but from EUROPE I expect friendship, compassion, and willingness to fight work together for  better conditions for all of us,  not "what do I get out of this Europe for my country";  this is defeating to objective!!

Ciao

Mike-B posted:

Salvo, I can fully understand your response to that post.  The problem - the question - is we signed up for the European Economic Community (EEC) & we had a referendum that agreed to remain in that organisation in 1975. The problem today is that since 1975,  the EEC has changed into the European Union, a political union that is more of a European Federal State. I agree, like all EU countries, our politicians did agree to the various treaty changes over time.  The problem now is we have a huge amount of public dissatisfaction because EU laws & regulations control what many people believe is not in UK's best interest. This referendum is giving us all a chance to choose to stay in this EU or leave.   In my opinion neither choice is my choice,  I am disappointed with the small package that Cameron has bought for us to choose over & also disappointed that the other European countries have not had the vision to face the enviable move towards the same political dilemma as we have now in UK.    But the UK leaving the EU is just not fixing any problem for anyone.

+1 from me, good summary of my reservations but also my conclusion that we are better within than isolated.

Salvo posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Salvo, please don't think everyone has the same view. I believe passionately that the UK should remain part of the EU. Of course, it's far from perfect, but better in than out in my view. We are all stronger together. 

Cordiali saluti. 

Well its nice to know. The point is that looking from the outside, lots of us non UK nationals think that  the UK is always unhappy about something and strives to get better deals than other countries. I would like to remind all that Europe is not about politicians or simple financial issues; is about PEOPLE coming and staying togheter to avoid conflits and learn from each other. I do not get this feeling coming from the  UK. It seems that we (continent Europeans are only good for the wine, the holidays, the sunshine and things like that. I hate the way politics is done in Brussels like most of us, but from EUROPE I expect friendship, compassion, and willingness to fight work together for  better conditions for all of us,  not "what do I get out of this Europe for my country";  this is defeating to objective!!

Ciao

 

I think most British people would describe themselves as British (English/Welsh etc) first, and European second, if at all.

Most continental Europeans I think would do it the other way around?

This is historical, and geographical. We are an island nation physically and philosophically. Europe is a creation of contrived boundaries more than geological ones, and languages, ethnic groupings and cultural movements are far more fluid across those boundaries. Many of the borders are basically invisible. In Britain most people feel that across that narrow Calais gap is a foreign country. This outsider mentally has to be appreciated in the context of our relationship with Europe-and has been generally I think. No Euro for example.

Bruce

Hungryhalibut posted:

Salvo, please don't think everyone has the same view. I believe passionately that the UK should remain part of the EU. Of course, it's far from perfect, but better in than out in my view. We are all stronger together. 

Cordiali saluti. 

Same here. Nobody in this house, family or street shares this view. As for the 1945 reference, Salvo, please accept my apology on behalf of more reasonable people.

I have mixed feelings.

I have many friends, ex flying colleagues and ex business colleagues who come from many parts of Europe from Scandinavia and the Baltics to Greece, Bulgaria and Rommania. We can all see benefits of co-operating as a Eurpean-wide community. And we frequently discuss how things might be improved in Europe, much as we discuss with our own countrymen how matters might be improved within our own countries.

One thing we are agreed upon is that within our own countries its much easier to discuss, identify and implement good change and to revoke bad change. It's much quicker to implement change. In this respect, things need to change in Europe.

I had hoped that the MESSAGE Cameron was taking to the recent EU conferences was a list of changes to the EU which would benefit ALL of the EU and make it a fairer, more harmonious, stronger, more prosperous community, for ALL. Sadly, that wasn't the way he presented things and certainly not the way the media portrayed things. And his list, however it was portrayed was well short of the mark.

It's a shame really. The EU needs FUNDAMENTAL change - in its purpose, its constitution and in its Commission.

If, during the coming months I think that Britain and others within the EU can face up to the need for reform, and have the strength to strive for good and meaningful change, I shall vote for the UK to remain in the EU.

Don Atkinson posted:

I have mixed feelings.

I have many friends, ex flying colleagues and ex business colleagues who come from many parts of Europe from Scandinavia and the Baltics to Greece, Bulgaria and Rommania. We can all see benefits of co-operating as a Eurpean-wide community. And we frequently discuss how things might be improved in Europe, much as we discuss with our own countrymen how matters might be improved within our own countries.

One thing we are agreed upon is that within our own countries its much easier to discuss, identify and implement good change and to revoke bad change. It's much quicker to implement change. In this respect, things need to change in Europe.

I had hoped that the MESSAGE Cameron was taking to the recent EU conferences was a list of changes to the EU which would benefit ALL of the EU and make it a fairer, more harmonious, stronger, more prosperous community, for ALL. Sadly, that wasn't the way he presented things and certainly not the way the media portrayed things. And his list, however it was portrayed was well short of the mark.

It's a shame really. The EU needs FUNDAMENTAL change - in its purpose, its constitution and in its Commission.

If, during the coming months I think that Britain and others within the EU can face up to the need for reform, and have the strength to strive for good and meaningful change, I shall vote for the UK to remain in the EU.

Don, 

let me quote (from wikipedia, for simplicity) something that maybe gives a clue of where the idea of "Europe" had its birth. Surely the UK back in 1974 when they agreed to join "Europe" must have known where these ideals lead to. To me they were, and are supreme! I must also agree that not everybody since then has worked toward that idea of "Europe", and lately we are seeing the results.

"...Altiero Spinelli was born in Rome, and joined the Italian Communist Party (PCI) at an early age in order to oppose the regime of Benito Mussolini's National Fascist Party. Following his entry into radical journalism, he was arrested in 1927 and spent ten years in prison and a further six in confinement. During the war he was interned on the island of Ventotene (in the Gulf of Gaeta) along with some eight hundred other political opponents of the regime.^[1] During those years, he broke with the Italian Communist Party over Stalin's purges (resulting in him being ostracised by many of the other prisoners), but refused to compromise with the fascist regime, despite offers of early release.

In June 1941, well before the outcome of the war was safely predictable, Spinelli and fellow prisoner Ernesto Rossi completed the Ventotene Manifesto, eventually entitled Per un’Europa libera e unita ("For a Free and United Europe. A Draft Manifesto"), which argued that, if the fight against the fascist powers was successful, it would be in vain if it merely led to the re-establishment of the old European system of sovereign nation-states in shifting alliances. This would inevitably lead to war again. The document called for the establishment of a European federation by the democratic powers after the war. Because of a need for secrecy and a lack of proper materials at the time, the Manifesto was written on cigarette papers, concealed in the false bottom of a tin box and smuggled to the mainland by Ursula Hirschmann. It was then circulated through the Italian Resistance, and was later adopted as the programme of the Movimento Federalista Europeo, which Spinelli, Rossi and some 20 others established, as soon as they were able to leave their internment camp. The founding meeting was held in clandestinity in Milan on the 27/28 August 1943.

The Manifesto was widely circulated in other resistance movements towards the end of the war. Resistance leaders from several countries met clandestinely in Geneva in 1944, a meeting attended by Spinelli.

The Manifesto put forward proposals for creating a European federation of states, the primary aim of which was to tie European countries so closely together that they would no longer be able to go to war with one another. As in many European left-wing political circles, this sort of move towards federalist ideas was argued as a reaction to the destructive excesses of nationalism. The ideological underpinnings for a united Europe can thus be traced to the hostility of nationalism: "If a post war order is established in which each State retains its complete national sovereignty, the basis for a Third World War would still exist even after the Nazi attempt to establish the domination of the German race in Europe has been frustrated" (founding meeting of the MFE)…."

Salvo - you have resolved my dilemma on how to vote - I shall vote for out.

The last 12 years of my working life I had a European responsibility that involved meeting with and working with representatives of all European countries.

Each country and it's people had it's own unique way of dealing with problems, how to take advantage over other countries for their own benefit.

Trying to merge Europe  into one nation state will cause tremendous stress and frustration and lead to a European wide hatred and contempt for their neighbours be it at at town, village, tribal, ethnicity level.

Derek Wright posted:

Salvo - you have resolved my dilemma on how to vote - I shall vote for out.

The last 12 years of my working life I had a European responsibility that involved meeting with and working with representatives of all European countries.

Each country and it's people had it's own unique way of dealing with problems, how to take advantage over other countries for their own benefit.

Trying to merge Europe  into one nation state will cause tremendous stress and frustration and lead to a European wide hatred and contempt for their neighbours be it at at town, village, tribal, ethnicity level.

 

 

Well Derek,

I am glad I could help!!!

Derek Wright posted:

Salvo - you have resolved my dilemma on how to vote - I shall vote for out.

The last 12 years of my working life I had a European responsibility that involved meeting with and working with representatives of all European countries.

Each country and it's people had it's own unique way of dealing with problems, how to take advantage over other countries for their own benefit.

Trying to merge Europe  into one nation state will cause tremendous stress and frustration and lead to a European wide hatred and contempt for their neighbours be it at at town, village, tribal, ethnicity level.

 

 

I haven't had your experience of working with Europeans in collaborative work and it is depressing if every representative was simply seeking national advantage. However, I don't think the European project is centrally about creating a single nation state - the term used in Salvo's quote is a federation of states. It is indeed the latent - and not so latent - nationalism and xenophobia currently expressed by the far right across Europe that makes the project still vital and a necessary bulwark against hatred and contempt for fellow Europeans. 

Salvo posted:

Don, 

let me quote (from wikipedia, for simplicity) something that maybe gives a clue of where the idea of "Europe" had its birth. Surely the UK back in 1974 when they agreed to join "Europe" must have known where these ideals lead to. To me they were, and are supreme! I must also agree that not everybody since then has worked toward that idea of "Europe", and lately we are seeing the results.

 

 

Thank you Salvo for posting the extract from Wikipedia and your own observation above.

I think this identifies the very heart of our different positions.

I do not consider it necessary to create a "Single Nation Called Europe" the primary purpose of which is to stop  wars between European people. Allow me set aside the fact that this "ideal" was NOT the basis of the referendum that lead to the UK joining what then had been referred to as "The Common Market".

There are several examples of countries in Europe who since 1945 have been split asunder by internal war. And a few more who want to split, but on a more civilised basis. Not everybody is able to avoid strife and war just because they are "One Nation"

OTOH, I don't anticipate the UK, Eire, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or Japan going to war with one another in the foreseable future. It's probably worth remembering that Canada and the USA were at war not too long ago, but seem to get along with each other without reverting to "British North America"

More seriously, I re-itterate, a nation called "Europe" won't guarantee no-wars.

The EU can be MUCH more than an anti-war community. And it can achieve MUCH more than it currently does, even as a loose community based on common principles and economics.

Unfortunately I have to go flying now, but will be back later this evening to see how things are developing.