Brexit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonykay

I thought I detected just a hint of irony in Mr B's comments . . .

---

Not exactly irony, just a lack of hope. When i think about the problems facing the planet now and in the near future, all of them look to boil down to overpopulation, and i really struggle to see a way round it for us all as a unit. The only workable solution i see is to band together in groups and defend our resources, Brexit would satisfy this. The politicians are talking about how trade would suffer and that businesses would find it difficult, but in the long term the UK would have a strong base from which to legislate against population related threats if it were out of the EU. I don't think this unrest we're seeing is a minor blip, i think we're going to see more of the same just like with stock market problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr brightside

Not exactly irony, just a lack of hope. When i think about the problems facing the planet now and in the near future, all of them look to boil down to overpopulation, and i really struggle to see a way round it for us all as a unit. The only workable solution i see is to band together in groups and defend our resources, Brexit would satisfy this. The politicians are talking about how trade would suffer and that businesses would find it difficult, but in the long term the UK would have a strong base from which to legislate against population related threats if it were out of the EU. I don't think this unrest we're seeing is a minor blip, i think we're going to see more of the same just like with stock market problems.

---

I share your concern about overpopulation, but I don't think "band together in groups and defend our resources" is a solution. That can escalate, and at worst can provide a rather unpleasant solution to overpopulation (e.g. the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima were reduced in 1945) - and I don't think that is what you are advocating! Far better to try to co-operate to solve the world's problems. Note that prosperous countries tend to have the lowest population growth rates.

So my view is fairly close to Noel's:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

As an internationalist, I think we should stay in
As a believer in the free market, I think we should leave
As a pragmatist, we should stay in
Democratically I see arguments either way - the EU parliament is elected, but local issues have no way to be taken into account give the scale of the thing
Legally, I quite like having a legal framework that prevents power being misused by UK parliament. And things like the EU working time directive, and paternity leave are good examples of progressive policies
As a radical, we should leave and forge our own identity, rather than being one of the many

Which leads me to a mildly pro-European stance, but I wouldn't be offended if we decide to leave.

---

I don't imagine that the UK economy will crash if we leave, although there is likely to be a period of instability while we negotiate new trade deals, etc. But it just seems so small-minded to not want to play our part in solving Europe's problems. And leaving won't make any difference to the migration pressures.

I take the view that many of the EUs problems are down to the EU.
By leaving the EU, we may well put pressure on the EU to reform, can still work with them, can still cooperate where we have common ground - that is if they want us to.

Take the migrant issue.

I actually think we are not taking enough people in need from the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan.

If we didn't have the 300,000 largely economic migrants, we would have more resources to be able to take in more of those migrants that need it most.

Simple question.
The EU has been around since the 1950s and evolved and expanded. If it is such a good model, why hasn't it been replicated elsewhere in the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonykay

I share your concern about overpopulation, but I don't think "band together in groups and defend our resources" is a solution. That can escalate, and at worst can provide a rather unpleasant solution to overpopulation (e.g. the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima were reduced in 1945) .

---

Off topic but I'm curious why do you single out Dresden and Hiroshima as examples as population reduction wasn't the aim? (Dresden was a matter of collateral damage the main aim was to attack a strategic railhead), and with Hiroshima there is more than enough evidence to illustrate that the dropping of the atomic bomb saved both allied and Japanese lives which would have been significantly greater (and included women and children who were being armed with sharpened bamboo stakes) had an invasion had to take place to the Japanese Islands.

Surely a more illustrative example of unpleasant methods of intentional population reduction like for example the Concentration camps of the Nazi regime, the conduct of the imperial Japanese army towards inhabitants of the countries they occupied and those prisoners they took, or the liquidation of anyone who could be a threat to the spreading communist powers (whether that be Polish Officers at the start of the war, or White Russian Cossacks at the end of it as well as numerous other groups who may or may not have been a threat in reality)?

I realise being a grandson of a FEPOW captured in Hong Kong after some very hard fighting who was at many points left for dead (during combat which at points was so close involved strangling with his bare hands a Japanese soldier who'd ambushed him) , being battened down in the holds of sinking ships before breaking out and overpowering the guards left to take out any man who escaped, being left for days in a sea full of sharks until Chinese Fishermen picked them up (the Japanese then rounded them up afterwards), constantly being starved, being waterboarded and beaten, being stood to attention facing the sun for a whole day with no water, being left on a pile of bodies to be burnt after contracting cholera, and at the end of the war being forced to prepare mass graves ready for their liquidation I might have a coloured perception.

However my Grandad was never bitter to the Japanese people themselves (indeed took an interest in Japanese culture and art), only the state and their 'god'-emperor which brainwashed a people into believing that to surrender was dishonourable and made you sub human, and which would have been perfectly happy to brainwash and send their own people to their deaths fighting to maintain their 'honour' whilst many of those generals and politicians themselves did not do the 'honourable' thing after surrender.

So pardon me if it boils my p1ss when I see revisionist idiots who can't see both sides of the coin banging on about Hiroshima and Dresden whilst ignoring similar reciprocal actions and those which took place prior to this and not seeing it in the context of brainwashed nations lead by fanatical leaders doing terrible things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanT

Off topic but I'm curious why do you single out Dresden and Hiroshima as examples as population reduction wasn't the aim?

---

Simply because they are well-known examples of large numbers of people being killed within a short period of time. No other reason. So please don't assume "revisionist" or other motives from just two quoted examples. I wasn't "banging on" about anything. Would you have been happier if I had written "Coventry and Dresden" to ensure balance?

I'm glad your Grandad survived, and without bitterness. You referred to Nazi concentration camps: that's where three of my grandparents were killed (my boring English surname was adopted by my father after he settled in the UK). So I got my internationalism from my parents who wanted to be sure that nothing like that happened again. And where I definitely do agree with you is in our abhorrence of "brainwashed nations lead by fanatical leaders doing terrible things"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Simple question.
The EU has been around since the 1950s and evolved and expanded. If it is such a good model, why hasn't it been replicated elsewhere in the world?

---

Good question. I think it's because groups of nations are generally fixated on historical squabbles so it would take something monumental to bring about the political will. For Europe, WWI and WWII was the shared backdrop that made the countries of Europe focused on binding and lasting togetherness.

Another question:
What's the main motivation behind the various countries that have and would like to join the EU? Free money and EU grants (which I don't dispute they get), or access to the market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Another question:
What's the main motivation behind the various countries that have and would like to join the EU? Free money and EU grants (which I don't dispute they get), or access to the market?

---

It's a tough question really Noel and rather than answer it, I'll make a point about the expansion of the executive as I think that is relevant to why.

I think that the last 30+ years our society has changed hugely right across the western world.
If you look at the executives in all walks of life, they are shoring themselves up, creating more influence for each other, creating more pathways for each other.
Little power-bases.
They can give their reasons, but I doubt them.

Take Athletics.
It used to be largely amateur, became professional, but largely still reliant on a volunteer, amateur base and the AAA, the CAU etc. and still is.
Now we have an elite, professional executive that is largely detached from the grass roots.

A Professor at Birmingham University, by Jonathan Grix looked at this.
In this report on athletics, the Prof explains that many academics believe that the Britain has moved (since the 60s) from a form of Government to a form of Governance.
It's very interesting to read as the points made seem relevant to the Private Sector, Public Sector and fit with the EU Model as well.
Lots of "different actors" that make accountability difficult.

Athletics used to take most of it's revenue from below ie it's members, both elite and grass roots. It now takes most of it from above. Sponsors, UK Sport, Sport England.
So in order to sustain itself, it therefore has to meet the needs of those that sustain it rather than it's members.
At times it's members appear an inconvenience.
They tried the Buckner Report a few years ago, the members rejected it and they've come back again in 2015 with more of the same that the members had to fight to reject again.
(Some of which would have had an affect of fell running)
Remind you of the EU?
Referendum until you get the answer wanted.
No EU Constitution due to referenda, so we get the Lisbon Treaty, which was rejected until a new referendum was had.

In our governance we have added to our tiers of representation.
Town Councillor, County Councillor, MP.
Now we have Assembly MPs, MEPs.

The executive is getting bloated.

I think the EU is a symptom of that. They think they are forces for good. They think they have the answers and they self-promote what they do and it's difficult to question as you have no reall choice amongst the executive.
In the UK we have the PM, the bulk of the cabinet, the bulk of the opposition. We then have big business. The CBI, The Bank of England and even Obama.
It's no different abroad.
Any EU outers are largely painted like Farage or Galloway, as looney, cranky fringe parties.

Trump in the States is a symptom of this. The Americans don't normally have a choice really do they? Is Obama really any different? Just like Blair, Cameron - the politicians are media savvy spin machines.

Trump is the result of a frustrated population.

It will backfire. Maybe not enough and in time for the referendum. Or maybe the referendum will vote out and prove a catalyst for better Government for all.
I think we deserve better.

you should be in politics with a non-answer like that. :)

Interesting points tho'.

Well my answer is connected and so I had to get that in first.

I think the growing size of the EU is down to the executive of the EU drawing in the executive of the more recent members.

How many of the political class of these new member countries are now gaining income from the EU? We've seen many notable Brits such as Neil Kinnock, Mandelson, Patten, Roy Jenkins, Leon Brittain take high-profile jobs at the Commission and they are just the tip.
750+ MEPs, Commissioners and various non-jobs.
It's a nice little end of career earner for domestic politicians that have often fallen out of favour, one you could compare to the House of Lords.

It can be sold to the populations of Eastern Europe in particular on the basis of:
potential financial security that they stand to gain.
Perhaps general security that they felt they may gain as well.
freedom of movement.

Now the CBI - they can't all be wrong?