Almost There! Hexus EU Referendum Straw Poll #2

[Noxvayl]

They are, they didn't vote to leave the EU they voted whether to accept the bailout conditions or not, something that wasn't a decision they could make, the only way not to be bound by the rules of a club is to leave the club and that's not what they voted for.

It's like refusing to accept that your bank just charged you £25 for that unauthorised overdraft, sure you can do that but ultimately you agreed to those terms when you opened the account and the only way out is to close the account, unfortunately you're still going to be paying that £25 charge.

They voted in a government that ran on the platform of either leaving the EU or getting their debt restructured, neither of which took place. Yanis Varoufakis was the head of those negotiations for the Greek government, as their finance minister, and tells an interesting story about how they went.

They will default on their debt, it is impossible for them to pay it back... The people are more than likely apathetic about the whole situation. Our referendum was not nearly as important as theirs, but ours is likely to cause a lot more problems.

[Corky34]

They voted in a government that ran on the platform of either leaving the EU or getting their debt restructured, neither of which took place. Yanis Varoufakis was the head of those negotiations for the Greek government, as their finance minister, and tells an interesting story about how they went.

You're going to need to provide some evidence that they ran on a platform of either leaving the EU or getting their debt restructured as everything I've found makes no mention of leaving the EU if they failed to restructure their debt, and it raises the question that if they weren't happy with the result why didn't they leave?

They will default on their debt, it is impossible for them to pay it back... The people are more than likely apathetic about the whole situation. Our referendum was not nearly as important as theirs, but ours is likely to cause a lot more problems.

Maybe they shouldn't have used creative accounting techniques so they could meet the fiscal criteria for joining the single currency, admittedly the European central bank or whoever should have checked the books but they probably didn't expect a country to cook the books in the hope that joining the single currency is going to sort out all their problems.

[Noxvayl]

You're going to need to provide some evidence that they ran on a platform of either leaving the EU or getting their debt restructured as everything I've found makes no mention of leaving the EU if they failed to restructure their debt, and it raises the question that if they weren't happy with the result why didn't they leave?



Maybe they shouldn't have used creative accounting techniques so they could meet the fiscal criteria for joining the single currency, admittedly the European central bank or whoever should have checked the books but they probably didn't expect a country to cook the books in the hope that joining the single currency is going to sort out all their problems.

Perhaps I am remembering incorrectly then...

The Greek government cooking the books goes back to Goldman Sachs... who should have ceased existing along with the Lehman Brothers in 2008.

[SeriousSam]

I decided I best check this thread to make sure I hadn't annoyed anyone else and then would leave it at that... but no, you blighters had to ask interesting questions !!!

In terms of humans being the "flaw" in the system I attach no sense of blame. That's not to say that I didn't previously, but having developed a better understanding of our "nature" I realised that it was both a waste of time and based on specious assumptions. We may have come a long way from scrabbling about on the plains of Tanzania, but we still have an awful long way to go. Especially in terms of understanding ourselves. This is not just true in terms of "scientific" knowledge, but also at a more personal level. So many of our decisions are subject to influence by subconscious bias we aren't aware of it is hardly surprising we have a propensity for chaos.

Anyway, the irony of the fit for purpose argument is that we may start with X and then invent Y, which based on current level of knowledge appears vastly superior. Consequently we swap to Y only to discover later that there were a whole host of issues which made it worse than X. Now sometimes that was because we really couldn't have foreseen the consequences, but other times we just leaped without really looking. Once you get into this in terms of governance it gets even more complicated because how the swap from X to Y was "managed" has a much greater effect on the consequences. It happened in the 1970s in regard to joining the EU (EEC as was) and is happening again today with leaving.

I don't necessarily like "democracy" as it exists both here and abroad currently. However, I accept that it is better than the alternatives, despite the benefit of "unity of purpose" which authoritarian regimes can bring. More importantly though I recognise that you have to strike a balance between having a system which suits the "identity" of the people within in, whilst evolving it into a better one. The consequence of this being that change has to incremental and gradual so that the majority can adjust.

A good example of this is reforming the House of Lords. A chamber full of peers who gained that position either by birth, political wrangling or faith is clearly an issue. However, throwing all that out in one go and having a fully elected house would not only cause chaos, but also runs the risk of creating greater problems. It is far better to move forward in stages so that you can both assess it's impact and avoid removing any positive aspects. Personally I find it reassuring that there are number of people in the Lords who have a great deal of experience across a variety of subjects critically examining government policy. Swapping that for a group of politically affiliated individuals with less real experience fills me a with a great deal of concern. However, I fully recognise change is sorely needed.

In this instance the problems start in that on the one hand some people conflate unelected with privileged and thus want to tear it all down. Then on the other side of the coin you have resist change at all costs, we've done this for 100s of years so why muck about with it. They are entrenched positions which it is very hard to shift people from them as the feel so strongly about it. Consequently trying to have a reasonable debate about the subject is nigh on impossible. It is also true for great many other subjects such as Climate Change, Immigration and so forth. As I see it a lot of it stems from the following;

1. Each of the entrenched sides shouts their position in an increasingly antagonistic fashion
2. Politicians / Celebrities wade in trying to score points and gain votes / fame, often pushing their own agenda
3. The media stoke up the tension as it gives them the opportunity to both create and abuse narratives which sell papers etc.

How we in the middle, who are willing to talk it out and come to sensible decisions to be enacted on reasonable time-frames, get a look in is a serious problem. Certainly in terms of leaving the EU I would argue that we need a somewhat bloody minded pragmatist in charge. Whether they voted remain or leave is an irrelevance, all that matters is that they are committed to sorting out a deal which doesn't completely shaft either the UK or Europeans. The latter continent is on a knife edge of it's own in terms of EU vs. Nations and Nations vs. Nations. We didn't cause those splits, as they were already there. However, getting out in an organised fashion is the best thing we can do to (a) avoid exacerbating the situation and (b) give them space to sort it out themselves without the UK as a distraction.

Done sensibly both the UK and Europe will be better off... conversely if we go at it emotively and with acrimony then everyone will be in the crapper. Well apart form those adept at making money during chaos.

p.s. In regards to the Patricians as described in Plato's Republic I have a worrying suspicion that being able to perform that task would necessitate ceasing to be human as we currently understand. So for me it's another case of the "Thomas Huxleys"

[Galant]

Posted this some time ago in another thread, thought it might be relevant:

...Democracy is the best not because it emphasises brilliance and capability of human beings but instead the reverse - it accounts for their persistent failings.

"I think most people [support democracy] for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true... The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so flawed that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.” C. S. Lewis

“I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a [supporter of democracy]. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe ... men to be so [flawed] that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows. That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe [in] an egalitarian world. ...we have found, as Lord Acton says, that 'all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality.” C. S. Lewis

[Phage]

I recognise that you have to strike a balance between having a system which suits the "identity" of the people within in, whilst evolving it into a better one. The consequence of this being that change has to incremental and gradual so that the majority can adjust.

Hmmmm not at all sure about this. How do you define 'identity' ?
If the majority are having to adjust - doesn't that contradict the democratic principle ?

A good example of this is reforming the House of Lords. A chamber full of peers who gained that position either by birth, political wrangling or faith is clearly an issue. However, throwing all that out in one go and having a fully elected house would not only cause chaos, but also runs the risk of creating greater problems.

Cause chaos ? Why ? Citation perhaps ? All change creates risk, but chaos ?
In fact there is perfectly good and working model we could use immediately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate

It is far better to move forward in stages so that you can both assess it's impact and avoid removing any positive aspects.

Sure. Reduces risk too.

Personally I find it reassuring that there are number of people in the Lords who have a great deal of experience across a variety of subjects critically examining government policy.

Ah, there we differ. I've met a few, and there are often not qualified, are not 'mainstream' and make their decsions based on prejudice, faith or other non-evidence means. They are certainly NOT represenational of the people or democracy or even expertise.

Swapping that for a group of politically affiliated individuals with less real experience fills me a with a great deal of concern. However, I fully recognise change is sorely needed.

Actually, you could vote for someone who does have the skills and experience required ? Rather than the motley collection of unrepresentative amateurs we have now.

In this instance the problems start in that on the one hand some people conflate unelected with privileged and thus want to tear it all down.

Actually no. I can see the point in that nearly all are indeed priveliged, the real point is that are not elected, not representaive and are often totally unqualified.

Then on the other side of the coin you have resist change at all costs, we've done this for 100s of years so why muck about with it. They are entrenched positions which it is very hard to shift people from them as the feel so strongly about it. Consequently trying to have a reasonable debate about the subject is nigh on impossible.

Not at all. One of the major parties has been campaigning for this reform for decades.

It is also true for great many other subjects such as Climate Change, Immigration and so forth. As I see it a lot of it stems from the following;

1. Each of the entrenched sides shouts their position in an increasingly antagonistic fashion
2. Politicians / Celebrities wade in trying to score points and gain votes / fame, often pushing their own agenda
3. The media stoke up the tension as it gives them the opportunity to both create and abuse narratives which sell papers etc.

1. On the web. Yes. In real life less so.
2. Errr no. Debate and representing the people in their constituencies is why they're there. They are supposed to stand up and speak on these issues.
3. Yep. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy/consume those outlets <cough>Murdoch</cough>

How we in the middle, who are willing to talk it out and come to sensible decisions to be enacted on reasonable time-frames, get a look in is a serious problem. Certainly in terms of leaving the EU I would argue that we need a somewhat bloody minded pragmatist in charge. Whether they voted remain or leave is an irrelevance, all that matters is that they are committed to sorting out a deal which doesn't completely shaft either the UK or Europeans. The latter continent is on a knife edge of it's own in terms of EU vs. Nations and Nations vs. Nations.

Yeah. Totally agree.

We didn't cause those splits, as they were already there.

Yes. But the UK just made them so much worse.

Done sensibly both the UK and Europe will be better off...

This statement is completely without foundation. All the evidence so far is that both will be much worse off.

conversely if we go at it emotively and with acrimony then everyone will be in the crapper.

Which was the entire basis and winning formula behind the Leave campaign.

Well apart form those adept at making money during chaos.

Yes indeed. But that was the known outcome of voting Leave.

[excalibur2]

Just thinking...... about the idea of a EU armed force and the need for the UK to be in it...well Germany on it's own 80 years ago was a armed super power which also had quite a few volunteers in the army from the occupied countries. But I suppose no one want Germany to re-arm like in WW2 in case the other EU countries can't control it.....just thinking.

[Phage]

Are you saying - Beware the rise of the Germans ? That they have a plan to take over the world again ?
Besides there is no risk of this EU Army. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36383211

[excalibur2]

Are you saying - Beware the rise of the Germans ? That they have a plan to take over the world again ?
Besides there is no risk of this EU Army. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36383211

Well I think Germany is afraid of itself and probably from the beginning of the idea of the EU in wanting to make sure it could never go back to the old days. And in the beginning, was hardly likely to be another threat to France as France (and the UK) had nuclear weapons But if Germany left the EU it could be a powerful country on it's own and wouldn't need military power but could dominate (well have a great influence) by economic power.

[Phage]

Is that a yes ?

[Noxvayl]

At least the Germans learnt their lesson, it seems the UK didn't and still has a big head...

[Phage]

Quite. Shameful pride.
In fact the Germans strongly support the EU, and immigration.

[excalibur2]

Is that a yes ?

Is that for me? Well it would need a German member to post about his country ...but my guess is:- the Germans of today are different to the older generation and one reason in the beginning of the EU to prevent any possible future European war wouldn't apply now. Does any country in Europe think the UK would start a war in Europe, afaik British troops for the last few hundred years (maybe longer) were used to help countries against aggression.

[Phage]

So your orignal statement was what ? That EU is guarded by the Uk against the Germans ?

[Saracen]

Quite. Shameful pride.
In fact the Germans strongly support the EU, and immigration.

I have quite a lot of German relatives, and so does my wife. From discussions with them, and with what they tell me friends, neighbours and colleagues say, the picture on that is mixed. The scale of recent immigration is causing, to say the least, tensions, and there is a growing sense of EU-scepticism.,

I'm not suggesting a referendum in Germany would vote to Leave. I don't think it would. But all polling data here suggested a few years ago we wouldn't either. My sense from relatives is that it's been growing, quite a bit, in Germany, at least among the population.

Whether it tails off, or continues to grow I've no idea. But the EU is certainly not universally loved in Germany. Recent immigration levels is part of it, not because they don't want immigration but because of the scale, speed and nature of it. Another major bone of contention is the impact of the Euro crisis and the sense, justified or otherwise, of funding profligate southern European states, especially Greece.

The danger, IMHO, is that if the German government, and EU hierarchy, do what successive governments here have done and either ignore these concerns or try to portray anyone holding them as racist, then euroscepticism and resentment will, just as here, grow. Who knows how far it'll grow in years to come?

[SeriousSam]

The "identity" of any nation is a reflection of both the people that are in it and the long history that brought them there. In the case of the UK that includes monarchy, christianity and common law. However, such things evolve over time. For example we are certainly less religious in the UK now, but also have a great deal many more faiths being practised. Consequently the system has had to evolve to take that into account. Furthermore the majority may set the "tone" of the government, but the ultimate responsibility of the latter is to ALL inhabitants. Consequently they have to strike a balance which reflects the wishes of the majority, but not at the expense of everyone else.

So is democracy merely "a country in which power is held by elected representatives" or "the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves" ?

Sudden change in a system always creates "chaos" as the components within it rearrange / adapt to the new circumstances. Perhaps chaos is too emotive a word as it covers a wide variety of outcomes. I'm certainly not suggesting that there would be rioting in the streets. However, to suggest that we could swap from one to the other in one fell swoop without any disruption, confusion etc. is wishful thinking. There is also the issue that uncertainty creates fear and people have a nasty habit of voting strangely when in the grip of that emotion.

I don't deny that there are those in the Lords who exhibit bias and so forth. That's why I want to see it reformed. However, I know from speaking to a number of people that work within government that there are those who do make a positive effort to discharge their responsibilities properly. It isn't an "all good" or "all bad" situation, so there is no need for radical change. Now you may disagree and that is your prerogative. You say I could vote for someone who is qualified etc. but do you really think that we'd end up with a sensible upper house in this country? Maybe in the future, but right now with our media etc. not a chance.

Both MPs and Lords are privileged in the sense that they hold a position of power. However, one is elected and the other currently is not. This can create a perception of "earned" for one and "entitled" in respect to the other (pun intended). The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that neither system guarantees quality. People tunnel vision onto the negative connotation of privileged and lose a sense of perspective. Neither the house of commons nor lords is entirely representative of the country and the same stands in terms of capacity to make sensible decisions. Yes we can, in some places, vote MPs out of office and are not in a position to do the same with Lords. However, as "electing" people is no guarantee of ability etc. changing the Lords system to that merely because the existing one offends the sensibilities of a section of the population is asinine. There are a whole host of other options we can and should look at to improve how it operates.

1. On the web and in real life, though it is certainly more prevalent on the former. However, if you consider the amount of time some people spend in "public" environs on the net the distinction is moot. It all has an effect.

2. Farage / Geldoff... and they are far from the only ones.

3. I do vote with my wallet, but it goes way beyond Murdoch. Media survives on advertising and as controversy and hyperbole sell better, guess what we end up with.

We didn't make the situation necessarily worse, more precipitated the need for it's resolution. Whether that will be worse than them festering on before being dealt with who know.

Finally I probably should have said "better off" in terms of the sliding scale of outcomes both for us and Europe. I may hope that in the long run things will work out better, but neither I nor anyone else has no way of knowing. Though the same is true had we voted remain...

Oh and both sides stand guilty of attempting to adversely manipulate people with emotion. To be blunt I've had better debates with drunks in pubs than the farce we just went through.