Brexit

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Brexit

Postby LBS » 25 Jun 2016, 12:13

Senlac wrote:I have not bothered for many years to await the result of any political event. But I did tonight. Happy days. I feel British again. With all respect to the 48% of Brits that held the contrary view. Let's do this together. We are can really show how that name Great Britain was earned.


This one sort of made me wince...

Should we warn India, United States, Honduras, Jamaica, West-Africa, South-Africa, Canada, Nigeria, Australia, Iran, Pakistan, Ireland, Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, Palestine etc. etc. that they are going to "feel British again"? Because you might have some rosy, nostalgic feelings about how 'Britain was Great' and now will become 'great again', but here's your reality to how that name was made.
User avatar
LBS
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 16 Sep 2011, 21:35
Location: The Netherlands
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1300)
All-game rating: (1388)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Brexit

Postby super_dipsy » 25 Jun 2016, 13:38

rd45 wrote:
super_dipsy wrote:
joe92 wrote:Here's hoping she does live long enough to see how her very existence as a Monarch is ruining the lives of millions.

Gosh. I know there are people who don't like the fact that we have a monarch in the UK, but I don't think I have ever heard the idea that the monarchy is ruining the lives of millions :shock:

No disrespect, but if this is really the first time you've heard that monarchy is bad for you, then you need to start talking to some different people. Read some history - start at 1066 & work your way forward. We're still living with the consequences.

Sorry for the confusion, I could have done a better job of the language there! The comment about the current queen and when I said 'the monarchy' I meant QE2. I am struggling to see how the woman is ruining the lives of millions as suggested.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12082
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Brexit

Postby Malevolence » 25 Jun 2016, 16:33

LBS wrote:
Senlac wrote:I have not bothered for many years to await the result of any political event. But I did tonight. Happy days. I feel British again. With all respect to the 48% of Brits that held the contrary view. Let's do this together. We are can really show how that name Great Britain was earned.


This one sort of made me wince...

Should we warn India, United States, Honduras, Jamaica, West-Africa, South-Africa, Canada, Nigeria, Australia, Iran, Pakistan, Ireland, Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, Palestine etc. etc. that they are going to "feel British again"? Because you might have some rosy, nostalgic feelings about how 'Britain was Great' and now will become 'great again', but here's your reality to how that name was made.


I don't think anyone is particularly concerned that Britain will be problematic in that way. The entire world is panicking because Britain is moving in the opposite direction, towards irrelevance, rather than global hegemony. The only person happy today is Putin, who sees the opportunity to split the EU and advance his revisionist agenda.

That being said, I do hope we can keep the make america great again crowd out of the white house and seats for years to come.
Creator of 1939, Superpowers, Future of the World, Fate of the World, Fantasy CYOC, Outbreak, History of the World, Italian Renaissance Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Inheritors
User avatar
Malevolence
 
Posts: 7585
Joined: 20 May 2011, 22:01
Location: Washington, DC
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1049)
All-game rating: (1031)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Brexit

Postby Malevolence » 25 Jun 2016, 16:37

And just to confirm, I don't believe America seeks to 'feel British again'. ;)

@super- I've heard the 'Americans were the original Brexiteers'' argument many times. I still don't buy it. The US left an empire and fought a war to do it. It had no control over the policies that affected it within the British Empire. (eventually, the American colonists got one rep. Not enough to make progress) Britain, in the EU (almost said has) HAD significant representation as one of the Big 3 Euro countries. It continued to hold the balance as it had always done between France and Germany and maintained a position of global power.

Lastly, no way you can justify a UNSC seat for the nuclear Kingdom of England and Wales. Time for someone else to step us. [or perhaps someones, India, Germany, Japan, Italy, Brazil, Turkey?]
Creator of 1939, Superpowers, Future of the World, Fate of the World, Fantasy CYOC, Outbreak, History of the World, Italian Renaissance Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Inheritors
User avatar
Malevolence
 
Posts: 7585
Joined: 20 May 2011, 22:01
Location: Washington, DC
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1049)
All-game rating: (1031)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Brexit

Postby joe92 » 25 Jun 2016, 18:01

super_dipsy wrote:
rd45 wrote:
super_dipsy wrote:Gosh. I know there are people who don't like the fact that we have a monarch in the UK, but I don't think I have ever heard the idea that the monarchy is ruining the lives of millions :shock:

No disrespect, but if this is really the first time you've heard that monarchy is bad for you, then you need to start talking to some different people. Read some history - start at 1066 & work your way forward. We're still living with the consequences.

Sorry for the confusion, I could have done a better job of the language there! The comment about the current queen and when I said 'the monarchy' I meant QE2. I am struggling to see how the woman is ruining the lives of millions as suggested.

Quite simply because she represents the Monarchy. She is the figurehead of unelected, hereditary privilege, the epitome of a class based society that is shafting the working class over and over and over again. How can we expect to fix the insidious corrupt nature of this country while she reigns? While anyone "reigns"? We have the most inequitable land ownership in the world. Almost a quarter of Scotland is owned by a dozen or so families as their hunting playgrounds - they own more land in Scotland than there is public land. We can't rightfully correct that and allow entrepreneurial young farmers to start making proper use of the land and be properly rewarded for it while the Duchy of Cornwall exists. The Royal Family will (and probably have already, but secrecy laws prevent us from knowing) veto any bill which harms the landed gentry's ability to hoard these vast swaths of land they don't use.

I could go on with other reasons but simply put I'm tired of making the same logical arguments to Royalists, though I'm not saying you are one. If you're interested it wouldn't take much research to find out how much having a Monarchy is harming the prospects of millions in this country, and as the top of the Monarchy Queen Elizabeth is directly responsible for that. Just as Cameron is directly responsible for the referendum loss.

Somewhere over the past decades some extremely smart PR team for the Monarchy had the bright idea of equating being British to supporting the Monarchy. There's no reason for it. No logic. But they managed to convince the very people who are harmed most by having a Monarchy to support it without question, and to challenge that is to challenge what it is to be British.

rd45 wrote:
joe92 wrote:Here's hoping she does live long enough to see how her very existence as a Monarch is ruining the lives of millions.

Joe, she's known that for decades. It's just that she doesn't give a fuck.

Probably. Who know's, if William and Kate are as "normal" as the PR machines claim they are they'll have the good sense to dissolve the Monarchy when Will takes the throne? We'd be so lucky....
Designer: Emergence, Modern Extended
GM'ing: Nothing

Platinum Classicist

Taking a break
User avatar
joe92
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 00:26
Location: Leeds, GB
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1106)
All-game rating: (1721)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Brexit

Postby PeytonManThing » 25 Jun 2016, 18:33

I don’t have days to write you something good, so this isn’t going to be a super well organized result, but more of a compilation of sources that prove my major points that: 1) the European Union would eventually become the nation, and nations, such as England, would become states, in a very similar way to how the United States works; and 2) that one of the ways you can see that is from the EU trumping member State laws, or dictating goals member States must achieve or be fined.
This quote comes from an article by Troy Eid, titled: “The European Union: A Brief Introduction,” from 2002. You can find it on Westlaw with this “31-MAY Colo. Law. 9.”
“In terms of political and cultural philosophy, the EU aspires to be greater than the sum of it parts. In this context, “Europe,” “the Union,” or even “the Acquis” are sometimes used broadly to mean the ongoing process of “Europeanization”: the creation of a shared European identity that augments (and one day, some argue, might even transcend) nationalism. Viewed from this perspective, the EU strives to be an entirely new mechanism, developed as a direct response to the ravages of World War II, for major European nations to yield some of their sovereignty to a single political and economic union as a means of preventing future wars. Under this last definition, and in contrast to the UN (founded in 1944, the same year Monnet began sharing his dream), it is not enough for the same old European nation-states to develop shared political institutions for collective security. The traditional balance-of-powers arrangements had led repeatedly to wars that left much of Europe devastated.4 Instead, the fundamental nature of those nation-states had to change. Therefore, today, the most zealous supporters of the EU assure others that they are Europeans first and Italians, Spaniards, or Germans second.”
This, while merely a secondary source, shows I am not making up this idea that the EU is designed to be the Nation with member States really being more like member states (losing the capital S because they’re not sovereign, but subservient).
The author goes on to cite a specific example: “Recently, while visiting the home of a senior Danish diplomat living in Brussels and serving on the staff of the European Commission (see below), this author experienced this attitude firsthand. The diplomat and his Danish wife were raising their young children to speak English and French, but not Danish. “English and French are the languages of Europe,” the diplomat stated. “We are from Denmark but our children will be Europeans.” He might have added German or Spanish to the list of languages, but the point was made: allegiance to Europe may someday, for some people, trump nationality.”
Again, this shows that it is very much intentional, especially on the part of those working in the EU government, that the EU should be a ruling nation. British people absolutely have every right to reject this, and vote for their own sovereignty. Globalism is wrong because what is right for the Danish may not be right for the British, but having that has people from both groups making law that would universally apply to both groups interferes with both group’s abilities to order society the way they see fit.
You might argue that if there’s disagreement then the UK could simply veto the law and member state laws would govern, but you would be wrong for two reasons, which I will get into more later, suffice for here that “at least some aspects of a rejected treaty may later re-emerge through European policy decisions made by EU officials in Brussels.” The EU government can have non-democratically elected officials that are not beholden to the citizens of member states create laws that were specifically rejected when proposed in a treaty. The other reason that argument is wrong is that even if the UK agrees today, it doesn’t mean they agree tomorrow, but tomorrow they can’t do anything to withdraw their agreement, except leave entirely, it appears to me.
How can you tell me this doesn’t sound like the start of the creation of federal government? “The European Single Act, together with the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht (see below), established the phased-in process for full Economic and Monetary Union (“EMU”), including coordinated national economic policies; the creation of a centralized European banking structure and financial markets; harmonized trade duties and tariffs for EU members; and a European single currency, the Euro. On January 1, 1999, the Euro became the single currency for eleven EU member states tied to a common exchange system.” And: “Treaty of Maastricht (1992) Besides continuing the EMU process, the Maastricht Treaty established “the Three Pillars,” an architecture for the future development of the EU:
1. Pillar One incorporates founding treaties and sets out institutional requirements for the EMU. It also empowers EU institutions to pass laws and regulations in various areas, including the environment, education, and research. Unlike Pillars Two and Three, Pillar One operates through EU supra-national institutions instead of through inter-governmental co-operation.
2. Pillar Two establishes the CFSP. This pillar is designed to enable the EU to take joint action in foreign and security affairs.
3. Pillar Three creates the Justice and Home Affairs policy, dealing with asylum, immigration, judicial cooperation, drug control and interdiction, and customs and police cooperation.
What is really key here is that “Pillar one operates through Eu supra-national institutions” and not “inter-governmental co-operation.” So with regards to “various areas” including “the environment, education and research,” the EU can pass laws that trump member state laws and you can just deal with it.
It’s also important to note that, while the European Council is the most powerful body, and is composed of the heads of states, and most decisions require unanimity, that that still isn’t a particularly democratic system. The British people have no direct say. If their head of state votes in favor of it, they could kick him or her out, but it wouldn’t change the result. The Treaty would still be binding. And as I’ve said before, I do not know of a way in which a member state can revoke its agreement to a treaty at a later date without penalty. If you know of a way, enlighten me

Okay this is taking way too long, and I have work to do, I will work on this more later.
Peyton Manning = GOAT

Classicists Gold
PeytonManThing
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 26 Jul 2013, 22:45
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1540)
All-game rating: (1561)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Brexit

Postby rd45 » 25 Jun 2016, 18:49

joe92 wrote: if William and Kate are as "normal" as the PR machines claim they are they'll have the good sense to dissolve the Monarchy when Will takes the throne?

People with power & privilege rarely give it up willingly. We're going to have to take it off them.

If there's a good side to any of this... it's the challenge that it poses to the idea that meekly accepting the status quo is some intrinsic part of the British national character. Most countries found the good sense to depose or decapitate their monarchs centuries before the 1000-year anniversary of their original installation. Not here, unfortunately, allegedly because we're all still prepared to put up bunting & tug our forelocks rather than ask serious constitutional questions. That's always been bollocks, but it's much more obviously so now, after such an unmistakable up-yours. For class reasons, I strongly identify with the instinct to tell them all to go & fuck themselves - albeit for political & pragmatic reasons I wish it hadn't happened on this particular issue.

But now that it has - we all get to decide what happens from here on. We've just got shot of one patrician tosser from No.10 - the last thing we need now is his old school chum to resume service as per normal. Things can change, evidently. All sorts of things can change if this can.
User avatar
rd45
 
Posts: 350
Joined: 13 Oct 2014, 15:41
Location: tethered to the logic of homo sapien
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1302
All-game rating: 1329
Timezone: GMT

Re: Brexit

Postby joe92 » 25 Jun 2016, 19:01

Peyton, I'm guessing you're from the older generation? You told me you're American and that absolutely doesn't absolve you of an opinion, but there is something I don't think you understand.

We young Brits, well most of (75% apparently), do identify as Europeans before Brits. I know I do and most of my friends do. This vote while not only illogical in my mind, is extremely saddening. Nationalism, one of the worst things in the world, has trumped unionism. I'll live with it, and do my small part to work and make Britain as strong as it can be after we leave, but I'm not happy with the result. I'm not happy that we're shunning our European countrymen when as the second most influential country in the union we could have worked to change some of the negative aspects that you are talking about.

rd45 wrote:
joe92 wrote: if William and Kate are as "normal" as the PR machines claim they are they'll have the good sense to dissolve the Monarchy when Will takes the throne?

People with power & privilege rarely give it up willingly. We're going to have to take it off them.

If there's a good side to any of this... it's the challenge that it poses to the idea that meekly accepting the status quo is some intrinsic part of the British national character. Most countries found the good sense to depose or decapitate their monarchs centuries before the 1000-year anniversary of their original installation. Not here, unfortunately, allegedly because we're all still prepared to put up bunting & tug our forelocks rather than ask serious constitutional questions. That's always been bollocks, but it's much more obviously so now, after such an unmistakable up-yours. For class reasons, I strongly identify with the instinct to tell them all to go & fuck themselves - albeit for political & pragmatic reasons I wish it hadn't happened on this particular issue.

But now that it has - we all get to decide what happens from here on. We've just got shot of one patrician tosser from No.10 - the last thing we need now is his old school chum to resume service as per normal. Things can change, evidently. All sorts of things can change if this can.

I really hope you're right. So many when asked about the Monarchy just meekly, as you so rightly put it, abstain from giving an opinion. Maybe if they realise change can happen they'll start thinking about things in more depth. And the last thing the Monarchy needs is for people to start thinking critically about it...
Designer: Emergence, Modern Extended
GM'ing: Nothing

Platinum Classicist

Taking a break
User avatar
joe92
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 00:26
Location: Leeds, GB
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1106)
All-game rating: (1721)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Brexit

Postby PeytonManThing » 25 Jun 2016, 19:20

I'm 25 years old, and I do not believe nationalism is an evil. I believe nation states exist for a reason a global government would not work. Different groups of people and different cultures require different laws for their societies to reflect their needs and desires. If Saudi Arabians decided the laws of the US I would go to war to stop it, and if the US were to decide the laws of Middle Eastern countries - well we don't even need to speculate as to the results of that. In that sense of nationalism - that a group of people can be proud of their culture and themselves and want to control their own society without interference from others - which is a totally separate view from the warmongering that led to the formation of the EU - that form of nationalism is very important.
Maybe young Brits would prefer that everyone I'm Europe has a say in every one else's affairs. I don't know. And maybe Europeans share enough values that that could work. I don't know, I'm not a European. But clearly most English people (by a lot when excluding Ireland and Scotland) don't think so. They want to keep their British identity, and that is NOT evil. It isn't going to cause war or economic collapse or make relations between England and the rest of Europe collapse, like I've heard. That's just fear mongering.
Peyton Manning = GOAT

Classicists Gold
PeytonManThing
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 26 Jul 2013, 22:45
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1540)
All-game rating: (1561)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Brexit

Postby rd45 » 25 Jun 2016, 19:51

PeytonManThing wrote:I'm 25 years old, and I do not believe nationalism is an evil. I believe nation states exist for a reason a global government would not work. Different groups of people and different cultures require different laws for their societies to reflect their needs and desires. If Saudi Arabians decided the laws of the US I would go to war to stop it, and if the US were to decide the laws of Middle Eastern countries - well we don't even need to speculate as to the results of that. In that sense of nationalism - that a group of people can be proud of their culture and themselves and want to control their own society without interference from others - which is a totally separate view from the warmongering that led to the formation of the EU - that form of nationalism is very important.
Maybe young Brits would prefer that everyone I'm Europe has a say in every one else's affairs. I don't know. And maybe Europeans share enough values that that could work. I don't know, I'm not a European. But clearly most English people (by a lot when excluding Ireland and Scotland) don't think so. They want to keep their British identity, and that is NOT evil. It isn't going to cause war or economic collapse or make relations between England and the rest of Europe collapse, like I've heard. That's just fear mongering.

PMT, I didn't know who your longer post above was aimed at until I saw the chatbox on the home page & then put 2 + 2 together.

No-one (at least: no-one that you need to take seriously & compose a long message like that to prove them wrong) believes that the UK hadn't foregone a certain amount of sovereignty as the price of being part of the EU. Everyone knows that. It's not an idea that you need to prove. The debate is only about whether that price was or wasn't worth paying.

The whole nationalism/sovereignty thing maybe looks different in the US. Different culture, different history, different priorities. Here, the idea of a nation or a nationality or nationalism itself is (for many people) fairly nuanced. We're all (at least: we remainers are all) fairly comfortable with multiple allegiances at different levels. Being European is in no way contradictory to being British or being whatever else your identity resides in. It's not a problem.

Greek people had a different experience fairly recently. Their experience of melding their Greek identity with their European identity has been fairly traumatic. For British people, not so much. Until this whole referendum campaign got going, it really wasn't that big a deal in the public discourse to have those multiple levels of identity or loyalty or sovereignty. That's changed now.
Last edited by rd45 on 25 Jun 2016, 19:56, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
rd45
 
Posts: 350
Joined: 13 Oct 2014, 15:41
Location: tethered to the logic of homo sapien
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1302
All-game rating: 1329
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests