Free Britannia

by **Bestbear** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:38 pm

I agree. It will not work next time, of course. Cast iron promises? Once bitten ......

Tone knows as well as anyone that voting for a party that is pro-European is no choice at all, when there is no one else to vote for. His point is therefore no point at all. I think a majority wants us out, and it is becoming ever larger as we watch the Euro's slow-motion implosion, and see our cash poured into the Eurodrain.

by **ScepticTone** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:08 pm

Bulldog wrote:
ScepticTone wrote:

60% of the British electorate voted for parties soundly committed to the EU in the 2010 general election....

UKIP got 40% of the vote did they?

No. They got 3% of the vote.

"Despite high hopes, Ukip did not pick up a single seat and managed just three per cent of the overall vote, with just over 900,000. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ority.html

by **Bestbear** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:20 pm

Do you take this to mean that only 3% of the electorate would vote to get out of the EU, given the chance? I suppose you do ......

by **ScepticTone** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:45 pm

Bestbear wrote:Do you take this to mean that only 3% of the electorate would vote to get out of the EU, given the chance? I suppose you do ......

No. I was just quoting the percentage of the vote UKIP picked up in the last General Election.

As TJ notes, we Brits tend not to vote for extremist parties when the outcome will directly affect them potentially, but more crucially, the British electorate don't think that membership of the EU is in any way interesting or relevant to their lives, merely a fact, like the sky, or trees, etc.

by **Bestbear** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:03 pm

But, given the chance, the people would vote to get out. As every poll demonstrates.

Which is the reason why our Europhile politicians of the three main parties will make damn sure they never get that chance.

I don't know why this is so. What do they know that we don't? And why don't they tell us? What arcane threats has "Brussels" made them privy to? It clearly isn't that they wish to uphold the national interest, and I don't like to think it is just because they may get their snouts in the Eurotrough one day. So what is it?

What do you, my fellow posters here, think explains this strange Euromyopia?

by **ScepticTone** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:38 pm

You're talking referenda again, BB. When you're not driving your car the wong way along motorways or trying to remember where your passport is, you have little else to think about. Unlike most people, who are far too busy & cogent, to bother going out to vote in a referendum which doesn't really interest them.

I wonder, if this were an issue in the USA, how many voters in a nationwide referendum, State by State, would vote for their State to withdraw from the Federation & go it alone?

Perhaps a crude analogy, given the completely different political & geographical system pertaining over there, but my point is roughly analogous.

by **Big Jake** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:33 am

ScepticTone wrote:I wonder, if this were an issue in the USA, how many voters in a nationwide referendum, State by State, would vote for their State to withdraw from the Federation & go it alone?

As to most matters, we haven't placed state identity over national identity in some 200 years. Rather than secede from the union it'd be simpler just to torch Washington and all the socialists therein and start over (or move to New Zealand).

ScepticTone wrote:Perhaps a crude analogy, given the completely different political & geographical system pertaining over there, but my point is roughly analogous.

It is a crude analogy especially for an Englishman but you must be tired. So you are EU citizen first, British second? How proud you must be (if expressions of pride are permitted by Brussels that is)

by **Bestbear** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:40 pm

ScepticTone wrote:You're talking referenda again, BB. When you're not driving your car the wong way along motorways or trying to remember where your passport is, you have little else to think about. Unlike most people, who are far too busy & cogent, to bother going out to vote in a referendum which doesn't really interest them.

I wonder, if this were an issue in the USA, how many voters in a nationwide referendum, State by State, would vote for their State to withdraw from the Federation & go it alone?

Perhaps a crude analogy, given the completely different political & geographical system pertaining over there, but my point is roughly analogous.

What is the point you art trying to make, dear Tone?

Your opening insult is best ignored, so I will ignore it. I hope it made you feel better.

There is no agitation, as far as I am aware, for any of the present States to withdraw from the Union, and really no equivalence between the US and the EU, much though you Eurofans might wish that it were so. The USA is different in two important ways: it has a viable currency; states' rights are such that any State in the Union has more soveriegn independence than us poor unfortunates in the EUSSR. Yours point is not "a crude analogy". It is not an analogy at all! :roll:

You really think the British care nothing about their independence? They can't be bothered? I was at the dentist today. I asked the only other member of the waiting room crowd how he would vote if we were to be offered an in/out referendum. It set him off, and took his mind off the forthcoming dentistry wonderfully! You should have heard him! It would have woken you up. Did he care? You bet he did. He almost had apoplexy! I would guess that you could ask anyone on the street and get much the same reaction, if they were informed at all about politics.

"Those beggers wont give us a referendum though, will they?" he ended. And the word he used was not "beggars".

by **T.J.** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:46 am

Bestbear wrote:There is no agitation, as far as I am aware, for any of the present States to withdraw from the Union, and really no equivalence between the US and the EU, much though you Eurofans might wish that it were so.

There are small movements in Alaska and Tejas, as well as a monarchical movement in the oppressed Kingdom of Hawai'i - but these are rather like Mebyon Kernow at their very strongest.

The issue is a curiously open legal situation, states have (of course) attempted to leave the Union before and it ended rather nastily when the wicked perfidious liar Mr. Lincoln responded by invading the newly independent states (N.B., the treaty by which George III granted independence gave it to the several states rather than their union, which was only really formed with the Constitution in 1788, so from the British perspective the sovereign entities are the states) and after his armies had massacred their way across the lands imposing military government...however, Pres. Jefferson Davis and the other leaders of the Confederacy were never placed before a court of law because the Union forces knew that there was a very high probability of acquittal on the basis that secession was perfectly legal and that the War of Northern Aggression was utterly illegal.

by **T.J.** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:50 am

Bestbear wrote:But, given the chance, the people would vote to get out. As every poll demonstrates.

I wish I shared your optimism. The British people are profoundly conservative in constitutional matters, and will usually vote for the status quo - this was the basis on which our only two national plebicites were won (staying in the European Communities and retaining simple plurality voting) for better or for worse.

If a referendum were to be called on the question of E.U. membership, I forsee a very harshly fought campaign with many lies and half-truths spread by both sides leading to a narrow margin...my suspicion is that it would be to stay put, unfortunately.

by **Big Jake** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:14 pm

Since the issue of state secession has reared it head I'll just add that this was a common debate among many Americans after the 2000 Presidential election. As good an explanation as I've read on the matter is here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/pr ... 41124.html

Immediately after the Revolutionary War states certainly saw themselves as more sovereign than a loosely formed union under the Articles of Confederation (much like what I see as the state of the EU now but with growing authority by mandate.) The Constitutional Convention of 1787 tried to settle the issue of sovereignty but just enough ambiguity was left so as to insure passage. Lincoln believed secession was illegal as do many legal scholars today and (certainly after federal troops were attacked at Fort Sumpter) believed the only way to "save" the union was to defeat the army of the secessionists.

Having said all of that, I assume Great Britain retains sovereignty in most matters (foreign and domestic), that conditions of membership in the EU are explicit as to the scope of membership and that any substantial changes in that scope (in whole or in part) are contingent solely upon approval of each member state.

I'm not aware of an "EU army" that would invade Great Britain is she elected to leave the union save for the one Uncle Tone might try to form.

by **T.J.** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:38 pm

Big Jake wrote:Having said all of that, I assume Great Britain retains sovereignty in most matters (foreign and domestic), that conditions of membership in the EU are explicit as to the scope of membership and that any substantial changes in that scope (in whole or in part) are contingent solely upon approval of each member state.

The matter was considered by the British courts a few years ago - working from memory which is a bit sketchy (not least because it all happened when I was in my late teens and so should have been paying attention to more important matters

)...

The U.K. Parliament passed an act which regulated the practice of U.K. fishing quotas being purchased by Spanish fishermen, this was found to be a violation of the Common Fisheries Policy and when challenged in court the ruling was that the U.K. Parliament agreed to constrain its sovereignty by the provisions of the European Communities Act and therefore the European law took precedence over the U.K. law.

The fundamental law governing the U.K. is the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which (stated shortly) is that Parliament may make any law it wishes except that it may not bind its successors and cannot be bound by its predecessors (whether any Act could be found to be ultra vires is complex). In the case above, the court ruled that parliamentary sovereignty was not diminished by the superiority of European law because should Parliament so decide, the European Communities Act could be repealled, which would restore the previous legal order - thus Parliament is not being bound by its predecessors in acquiescing to European supremacy, Parliament is merely choosing to accept that supremacy on an ongoing (revocable) basis.

Whether the E.U. would see it in the same way is uncertain (as it is uncertain what American federal law is on the question of secession)...but beyond a lot of wailing there isn't much which it would be able to do.

by **ScepticTone** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:53 pm

Big Jake wrote:Since the issue of state secession has reared it head I'll just add that this was a common debate among many Americans after the 2000 Presidential election. As good an explanation as I've read on the matter is here:I'm not aware of an "EU army" that would invade Great Britain is she elected to leave the union save for the one Uncle Tone might try to form. [/color]

FYI, from a personal point of view, I am definitely not in favour of an 'EU Army', as I think virtually all expenditure on armies, navies & airforces is a complete waste of our tax money, particularly on the obscenely bloated UK 'defence' forces, who basically do nothing except lie around on beaches in Cyprus or swan around in Germany living in free accommodation, wasting our money. Or sometimes go to the aid of obscure slimy dusky foreigners to support the Big Oil lobby, from a great distance & at considerable expense but no doubt great fun for themselves.

by **Bulldog** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:54 am

ScepticTone wrote:
FYI, from a personal point of view, I am definitely not in favour of an 'EU Army'.....

How about a "EU NHS"?

All those impoverished Greeks could come over here and get free treatment down to us.

Why not? Every other bastard seems to be doing it.

by **ScepticTone** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:27 pm

No, I don't think so.

by **Bulldog** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:00 pm

ScepticTone wrote:No, I don't think so.

Why not?

Combining your two favorite things (the NHS and the EU) into once massive, sprawling, state controlled, behemoth. Completely unaccountable to anyone, ruthlessly inefficient, hideously expensive, and yet, always, "FREE AT THE POINT OF USE"

What self respecting left-of-center statist Europhile could possibly object to that?

by **ScepticTone** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:36 pm

Me. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

by **Bulldog** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:14 pm

ScepticTone wrote:Me. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

Ain't it all.

by **ScepticTone** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:25 pm

Bulldog wrote:
ScepticTone wrote:Me. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

Ain't it all.

Well, no. It all depends on where you draw the line before it becomes absurd. The basic concept of most sensible things, like uniting Europe into a socio-economic-political whole to stop us constantly going to war against each other every few decades is basically sound. The euro currency experiment was overstepping the line, clearly, given that those of us who visited the poorer areas in southern Europe know how bad things were there in the 1970's & 80's, albeit charmingly bad & very cheap. Snide comments from foreigners whose homelands, towns & families have never been devastated by war instigated by others every few years, as an excuse to deride the concept EU are deplorable & obviously politically motivated by movers across the pond & from Russia.

However.....allowing the Greeks & the Irish & the Portuguese & Spaniards & many peasanty Frenchmen to buy motorcars & wear modern Western clothing & live in habitable accommodation on credit paid for by successful Northern European nations was clearly possibly not going to work, but it was worth the gamble, I think. Hindsight.

Hey! I could become an investment banker!

Gizza job.

by **Big Jake** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:13 am

ScepticTone wrote:, but it was worth the gamble, I think. Hindsight.

So how would the gamble have paid off? What would the scope of Uncle Tone's ideal version of a united EU look like? Aside from no military forces....

by **Bulldog** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:36 am

ScepticTone wrote:clearly possibly not going to work, but it was worth the gamble, I think.

LOL!

Of yes!

Absolutely worth it.

Ask any Greek.

I hope you're not a betting man Tone. Punting on things that are "clearly not going to work" is never worth the gamble.

by **T.J.** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:03 am

ScepticTone wrote:The basic concept of most sensible things, like uniting Europe into a socio-economic-political whole to stop us constantly going to war against each other every few decades is basically sound.

It's amazing how much sense the E.U. make if one has no sense of history.

Plus shackling different communities together worked so well in the former Yugoslavia...let's operate that model on a bigger scale.

Free Britannia

Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will listen

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Re: Thanks for the heads up though I doubt the US will liste

Who is online