Apparently they see this as "the sort of thing that could happen to anyone". Not people you really want to spend too much time with.
Interesting comments on the rest of the thread. Better to be on the outside looking than the inside looking out for this one. Luckily the " liberal elite/global citizens of nowhere" of which I am a part are well enough qualified for fuck off elsewhere when we've had enough.
The comparisons to Frank Underwood — the fictional schemer-in-chief on "House of Cards" — came thick and fast.
I should read this, especially if it has a TV equivalent for Boris Johnson. The guy is a sleazy, philandering buffoon. Yes, so is Trump but The Donald hasn't fathered two children with different mistresses now has he?
LONDON — He spent nearly 20 years pushing for Britain to leave the European Union, and having succeeded in his aim, he is now taking his leave.
Nigel Farage, the politician who probably did more than any other to force the referendum on British membership in the European Union, resigned on Monday as leader of the right-wing populist U.K. Independence Party, saying “I’ve done my bit.”
...
Mr. Farage — brash, outspoken, loquacious and divisive, a commodities broker turned politician who loves widely striped suits and large glasses of beer — was probably not the man to lead the new party beyond its current limits. In a recent interview with the Financial Times over lunch, he consumed three pints of beer, half a bottle of wine and a glass of port.
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
Jun 30, 2016 - 3:01pm
R_P wrote:
...
I listened via radio to John Kerry's speech to the Aspen Ideas Festival on Tuesday. In discreet "diplo-speak", he said that if the political will in UK is to reverse the Brexit result, there are several effective ways to do so.
the good thing about the whole Brexit campaign is that it has made this inherent inconsistency in the EU more visible. In the end, I think it might be a good thing. A big step on the way to the EU finally manning up to what it wants to be.
Nicely said, this and your other post with the explanation you offered (which is pretty close to my own understanding of the problems).
So it is more than just about shadows and xenophobia. Who knew ?
the good thing about the whole Brexit campaign is that it has made this inherent inconsistency in the EU more visible. In the end, I think it might be a good thing. A big step on the way to the EU finally manning up to what it wants to be.
I'll admit that I don't know a lot about the EU. For me the EU is the following: - Easy travel - Euro - Trade agreements I like that. Everybody likes this.
More neutral things: - Being able to have a job or study in any nation within the EU - Free immigration within the EU - EU wide rights for a social income I am sligthly positive about this but many people don't like this
But also: - Subsidies for unprofitable industries - Increased taxes because the EU told us so - Boatloads of money towards Brussels - Helping nations and banks that have failed to act properly for years - Thousands of laws for things no real person cares about like laws for straight cucumbers and bend bananas You have to be a politician or a beneficiary to like this but generally people hate those things about the EU.
And things in the future like: - One army and police system - One political system to rule them all
Merkel and friends want an United States of Europe. You might call me a nationalist, but I would like to limit the EU to the things people generally like. Just the travel, the trade and the euro. I think my nation would benefit from a local=national political system instead of an Europe wide system. It has to do with factors like demography and democracy. It just works better and will be more efficient.
well, quite frankly, I think you are actually being too kind to the EU. I am not born in Europe, so I am something of an outsider. I also had the good fortune to teach English to the top civil servant (Staatssekretär) of one of the German states and he tried to explain (without much success admittedly) the EU to me.
Put simply, the EU is one of the most bizarre political constructions you are ever likely to see. It was born of WW2 and the tremendous horror of everything that happened in the 20th century. It initially succeeded, at French initiation, because it fit American plans in the context of the cold war: a clear contrast to the Soviet bloc and economically powerful, without actually threatening US hegemony. But it is built on inherent inconsistencies. It did not abolish the nation-state but enshrined it while simultaneously building a huge pan-European back-office to hold the thing together. We discussed back then (20 years ago) how this structure must inevitably favour a renaissance of regional identity at the cost of the larger nations (i.e. Scottish independence), which btw, neither of us saw as a bad thing. But this anticipated evolution did imply a weakening of the larger nation states (Germany, France, the UK) and a simultaneous liberation of regional interests, such as the Basques, but all within the umbrella of a wider European structure, which would slowly grow more dominant in the minds of European citizens.
Unfortunately it hasn't panned out that way. Instead we've seen increasing impoverishment of the periphery, increasing dominance of Germany (in the name of fiscal prudence) and growing tensions between the disaffected (the have-nots) and the clear beneficiaries (the haves) - primarily the Germans, who can export their goods at effectively lower prices.
Now, before everyone thinks this was a secret plan on the part of Germany to regain regional dominance, I'd like to say that Germany is not at all interested in dominating the region. It does dominate the region, de facto, thanks to its size and economic prowess, but it is not actually interested in this role in the slightest. I sincerely believe that the overtures recently made by the EU to the Ukraine, were sincere. It would even like to include Russia in the EU, were Russia more open, mainly because the EU views itself as a progression away from the nation state. The problem being, that it forgot to abolish the nation-state beforehand.
So, what we have is an entrenched bureaucratic structure in the background, a pile of elected national heads of states in the foreground, and a rough consensus that what they are all doing is a good thing, disturbed occasionally by the likes of Boris Johnson. It is rule by committee, saved only by the fact that most of the members of these committees have a common understanding of what is probably better for the Union.So far it has worked, more or less. Astonishingly. It might be inefficient, it might be lacking transparency and it might not have any direct accountability to the electorate, but so far it is working. The only explanation I have for its success, is that the Europeans actually want it to work. lord help us if that disappears.
The Brexit campaign was done by some people from the conservative party and the U.K. Independence party as far as I know. Maybe more people from other parties as well. There is not just one party with a certain opinion. So saying that the Brexit people fooled the British people is only partly true.
One can just as easily be fooled by multiple groups/parties working together in a coalition.
It's a stu;pid issue because even when they would unite to one party and promise such things: wouldn't you require to rule the country first before you make such promises? Also the armageddon, WWIII and complete economic destruction as promised by people from the Bremain group are not going to be there either. Are you going to complain about that too?
It's not uncommon for political campaigns to make promises that are unlikely to be kept (or tell lies altogether).
People usually complain when good things (as promised) are not going to happen, but it's unlikely that people are going to complain that something extremely bad didn't happen. That's pretty simple and normal. You're not going to complain at the end of the day that your car didn't break down again. That would be very silly.
As for prophecies about what will or will not happen I take them with a large grain of salt. It's easier (and more realistic) to compare the present with past promises than to present good or bad promises about the future.
I'll accept your charge that the EU has failed miserably when it comes to transparency. Unfortunately that is a result of it being too timid (ironically, for such a grand project) and leaving the public perception of EU politics firmly at national level. That is why Merkel, Schäuble, Hollande, etc. have such power and influence. Underneath them is admittedly a huge governing apparatus that very few people get a glimpse of. Which makes many people very suspicious of what they are actually up to. I believe the truth to lie in some kind of vast bureaucratic structure that is more or less Kafka-esque depending on your persuasion.
But isn't this ironic? That people of a more nationalist bent (like yourself) find the greatest failing in the EU to be something that is ultimately a product of concessions being made to the nationalist perspective when the structures were drawn up? But ultimately, I agree with you, if the EU is to survive this current crisis, it badly needs to install pan-European political parties and find some way of making the whole apparatus transparent and accountable to the body politic.
I'll admit that I don't know a lot about the EU. For me the EU is the following: - Easy travel - Euro - Trade agreements I like that. Everybody likes this.
More neutral things: - Being able to have a job or study in any nation within the EU - Free immigration within the EU - EU wide rights for a social income I am sligthly positive about this but many people don't like this
But also: - Subsidies for unprofitable industries - Increased taxes because the EU told us so - Boatloads of money towards Brussels - Helping nations and banks that have failed to act properly for years - Thousands of laws for things no real person cares about like laws for straight cucumbers and bend bananas You have to be a politician or a beneficiary to like this but generally people hate those things about the EU.
And things in the future like: - One army and police system - One political system to rule them all
Merkel and friends want an United States of Europe. You might call me a nationalist, but I would like to limit the EU to the things people generally like. Just the travel, the trade and the euro. I think my nation would benefit from a local=national political system instead of an Europe wide system. It has to do with factors like demography and democracy. It just works better and will be more efficient.
If we start from scratch you have to make a definition of a democracy.
Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly"
What's happening in the EU is that we are not able to be involved in decision making. We don't know what kind of decisions are made and their content is often (partly) secret. The representatives we voted for are not the people making decissions in the EU. The direction of the EU is not the direction of the majority of the european citizens, but the direction of an invisible group of lobbyists and politicians that have great power, but from unknown orrigin.
That's what's causing people to be cynical and sceptical about the EU. What do they want? Who are they serving? What's the direction and future of the EU? Why is the EU good for me? Do we need a multibillion bureaucratic monster for free travel, trade agreements and the euro currency? Can we do these kind of things without Brussels?
For example Tusk recoginizes these concerns and is pleading for a reformation and reorganisation of the EU to improve democracy and just do the things the people want. I like that. I think that's the correct step.
I'll accept your charge that the EU has failed miserably when it comes to transparency. Unfortunately that is a result of it being too timid (ironically, for such a grand project) and leaving the public perception of EU politics firmly at national level. That is why Merkel, Schäuble, Hollande, etc. have such power and influence. Underneath them is admittedly a huge governing apparatus that very few people get a glimpse of. Which makes many people very suspicious of what they are actually up to. I believe the truth to lie in some kind of vast bureaucratic structure that is more or less Kafka-esque depending on your persuasion.
But isn't this ironic? That people of a more nationalist bent (like yourself) find the greatest failing in the EU to be something that is ultimately a product of concessions being made to the nationalist perspective when the structures were drawn up? But ultimately, I agree with you, if the EU is to survive this current crisis, it badly needs to install pan-European political parties and find some way of making the whole apparatus transparent and accountable to the body politic.
ok, let's try and offload all of our preconceptions, proclivities, political allegiances and all the rest of the baggage and start from scratch:
what sort of a world are we wanting to live in?
You would think it wouldn't be too hard to find consensus on this, as most of us want to prosper, pursue liberty and happiness. At least you'd hope so. I think it is a foregone conclusion that we all want to be able to work, earn money, have dreams and at the very least the illusion that we can realise them. If this gets thwarted, people get pretty disaffected pretty quickly.
Now, given that we have never had it so good as we do today, why on earth is everyone so unhappy? Is it because of the growing realisation that our dreams (the American dream if you will) is becoming increasingly unrealistic for a lot of people? Is it because the dreams themselves have just got too wild because we measure ourselves now on mega-billionaires and reality TV show stars and feel like failures if we don't at least have a modicum of what they've got? Are we just living in the age of disconnect? Dominated by virtual dreams and phantoms and forgotten what it means to grow our own food and survive in nature?
One thing for sure is that the old political spectrum is proving pretty inadequate:
If we start from scratch you have to make a definition of a democracy.
Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly"
What's happening in the EU is that we are not able to be involved in decision making. We don't know what kind of decisions are made and their content is often (partly) secret. The representatives we voted for are not the people making decissions in the EU. The direction of the EU is not the direction of the majority of the european citizens, but the direction of an invisible group of lobbyists and politicians that have great power, but from unknown orrigin.
That's what's causing people to be cynical and sceptical about the EU. What do they want? Who are they serving? What's the direction and future of the EU? Why is the EU good for me? Do we need a multibillion bureaucratic monster for free travel, trade agreements and the euro currency? Can we do these kind of things without Brussels?
For example Tusk recoginizes these concerns and is pleading for a reformation and reorganisation of the EU to improve democracy and just do the things the people want. I like that. I think that's the correct step. (And calling every EU sceptical person a dangerous, xenofobic, uninformed, lower class, simple minded, anti-democratic populist rebel isn't helping either)
ok, let's try and offload all of our preconceptions, proclivities, political allegiances and all the rest of the baggage and start from scratch:
what sort of a world are we wanting to live in?
You would think it wouldn't be too hard to find consensus on this, as most of us want to prosper, pursue liberty and happiness. At least you'd hope so. I think it is a foregone conclusion that we all want to be able to work, earn money, have dreams and at the very least the illusion that we can realise them. If this gets thwarted, people get pretty disaffected pretty quickly.
Now, given that we have never had it so good as we do today, why on earth is everyone so unhappy? Is it because of the growing realisation that our dreams (the American dream if you will) is becoming increasingly unrealistic for a lot of people? Is it because the dreams themselves have just got too wild because we measure ourselves now on mega-billionaires and reality TV show stars and feel like failures if we don't at least have a modicum of what they've got? Are we just living in the age of disconnect? Dominated by virtual dreams and phantoms and forgotten what it means to grow our own food and survive in nature?
One thing for sure is that the old political spectrum is proving pretty inadequate:
