This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
  Hrolf The Ganger  22 Jun 16 2.50pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Well personally I believe strongly in the Great Spaghetti Monster in the sky. I certainly find it equally reasonable as any other deity. But I suspect that's an argument for a different thread. No one is denying that the ultimate aim of some of both contemporaries and the original founders of the EU was a Federal European state. My argument would be that I don't believe it will involve the UK unless the UK electorate at some later point indicate they are willing to give up that sovereignty. And I don't see that happening. Nor do I see any UK government trying to allow it via a backdoor. Edited by OknotOK (22 Jun 2016 2.44pm) But as you have seen this time around, people are understandably ignorant in these matters and easily persuaded with promises of personal gain. I think we will move slowly there then hand over our sovereignty as meekly as a lamb when time is right. I believe we are putting ourselves on an irreversible path to the end by voting remain tomorrow. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (22 Jun 2016 2.53pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 22 Jun 16 2.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
But as you have seen this time around, people are understandably ignorant in these matters and easily persuaded with promises of personal gain. I think we will move slowly there then hand over our sovereignty as meekly as a lamb when time is right. I believe we are putting ourself on an irreversible path to the end by voting remain tomorrow. No it's not - that is your belief, and that's fair enough, but expecting people to make a decision based on a vague prediction of what the EU will look like in 160 years seems silly.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 22 Jun 16 2.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
No it's not - that is your belief, and that's fair enough, but expecting people to make a decision based on a vague prediction of what the EU will look like in 160 years seems silly. It's hardly vague and I believe that our destiny as a country in the imaginable future is way more important than some temporary dip in the stock market or some trade deal.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
tome  Inner Tantalus Time. 22 Jun 16 3.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Well personally I believe strongly in the Great Spaghetti Monster in the sky. I certainly find it equally reasonable as any other deity. But I suspect that's an argument for a different thread. No one is denying that the ultimate aim of some of both contemporaries and the original founders of the EU was a Federal European state. My argument would be that I don't believe it will involve the UK unless the UK electorate at some later point indicate they are willing to give up that sovereignty. And I don't see that happening. Nor do I see any UK government trying to allow it via a backdoor. Edited by OknotOK (22 Jun 2016 2.44pm) It's curious that this is a bogeyman anyway, even if there was a USE in 160 years, why would than necessarily be a bad thing? Frankly I think a lot of the debate about migration is a proxy for a concern with individual identity and behaviour when plenty is changing. There is a certainty about interacting with people we know which is stymied by those that we don't - and that's exacerbated when additional - usually visual - differences are taken into account. I reckon that politicians and big businesses are making decisions based on the idea that through exposing the country to greater change and challenge, we will create an environment to be globally competitive. The notion of sovereignty often cited by Leave seems to be a call for comfort, to swaddle in our own certainties. That swaddling is risky for the nation as a whole, even though it's appealingly comfortable. I think Remain is the hard choice in those terms, but leave will be the hard choice in reality as the country has to figure out many things alone that it had previously had plenty of partners to help with. That will cost a lot of time and money.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 22 Jun 16 3.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Well personally I believe strongly in the Great Spaghetti Monster in the sky. I certainly find it equally reasonable as any other deity. But I suspect that's an argument for a different thread. No one is denying that the ultimate aim of some of both contemporaries and the original founders of the EU was a Federal European state. My argument would be that I don't believe it will involve the UK unless the UK electorate at some later point indicate they are willing to give up that sovereignty. And I don't see that happening. Nor do I see any UK government trying to allow it via a backdoor. Edited by OknotOK (22 Jun 2016 2.44pm) The biggest single erosion of sovereignty, the Maastricht Treaty, was implemented without any reference to the electorate whatsoever. I can't share your confidence that any future milestone incursions would be out to the popular vote, either.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 22 Jun 16 3.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It's hardly vague and I believe that our destiny as a country in the imaginable future is way more important than some temporary dip in the stock market or some trade deal. Of course it's vague - nobody can predict with any accuracy what the country, or the EU, will look like in 160 years - you can guess, and even make logical predictions, but ultimately there are so many variables across such a time period, that you'll never have any idea - that's not a sensible means to make your decision.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 22 Jun 16 3.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by tome
It's curious that this is a bogeyman anyway, even if there was a USE in 160 years, why would than necessarily be a bad thing? Frankly I think a lot of the debate about migration is a proxy for a concern with individual identity and behaviour when plenty is changing. There is a certainty about interacting with people we know which is stymied by those that we don't - and that's exacerbated when additional - usually visual - differences are taken into account. I reckon that politicians and big businesses are making decisions based on the idea that through exposing the country to greater change and challenge, we will create an environment to be globally competitive. The notion of sovereignty often cited by Leave seems to be a call for comfort, to swaddle in our own certainties. That swaddling is risky for the nation as a whole, even though it's appealingly comfortable. I think Remain is the hard choice in those terms, but leave will be the hard choice in reality as the country has to figure out many things alone that it had previously had plenty of partners to help with. That will cost a lot of time and money. Because the interests of Britain would be sacrificial relative to the Union, the bigger players in the union or the government of the union. See how politics in Britain and Europe works now and then imagine that in a USE.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 22 Jun 16 3.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Of course it's vague - nobody can predict with any accuracy what the country, or the EU, will look like in 160 years - you can guess, and even make logical predictions, but ultimately there are so many variables across such a time period, that you'll never have any idea - that's not a sensible means to make your decision. It's a lot more than a guess. The time frame is is not so predictable but the eventuality of a USE is. What other outcome would you expect based on the last 40 years?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 22 Jun 16 3.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It's a lot more than a guess. The time frame is is not so predictable but the eventuality of a USE is. What other outcome would you expect based on the last 40 years? I don't know, I can't say I've given it a great deal of thought. But as posted above, I struggle to see how a USE could be achieved without further opportunities to say no.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
black eagle.  south croydon. 22 Jun 16 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I'm voting remain,for me if we vote out it's gonna take ages adjust being on our own and I'll be worried about jobs and the economy going ski wif.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 22 Jun 16 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
I don't know, I can't say I've given it a great deal of thought. But as posted above, I struggle to see how a USE could be achieved without further opportunities to say no. We are only having this referendum to settle Tory infighting. When have we ever been consulted on any other decisions? This might be our last chance to effect the future of Britain and indeed Europe.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| black eagle. south croydon. 22 Jun 16 3.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.