Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

Strazdas wrote: »

Reading a few comments from EU based Brits in the Guardian comments today and they say the UK has done itself enormous reputational damage in the last three and a half years. Most continentals now regard the British as a bunch of hooligans and vandals, not just the UK politicians and the media, but the general population.

Did they ever think otherwise? I mean, I know lots of lovely English, Scottish, Welsh people and people who identify as British from Ulster, but if you were to ask me what my opinion of British people generally was, it is very poor. Maybe thats from a uniquely Irish perspective, but I think we have our view and we know what the British think of themselves, but I cant imagine they were particularly well liked outside of US, Oz and Canada.

The main change that I see is that peoples tolerance for British exceptionalism is coming to an end. Previously when a British person would say something like "we have the best educational system in the world" or "the NHS is a uniquely British system" others might have smiled and nodded polietly. Now they are being questioned on it.

On a more tangible level, the UK has lost all its former prestiege in the UN with the Diego Garcia/Chagos Islands debacle. And their handling of the Hong Kong / China issue showed just how weak and ineffectual they are diplomatically.

Luckily British exceptionalism means that they dont even see foreign opinions of themselves, so they can continue to live in their bubble.

Strazdas

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Did they ever think otherwise? I mean, I know lots of lovely English, Scottish, Welsh people and people who identify as British from Ulster, but if you were to ask me what my opinion of British people generally was, it is very poor. Maybe thats from a uniquely Irish perspective, but I think we have our view and we know what the British think of themselves, but I cant imagine they were particularly well liked outside of US, Oz and Canada.

The main change that I see is that peoples tolerance for British exceptionalism is coming to an end. Previously when a British person would say something like "we have the best educational system in the world" or "the NHS is a uniquely British system" others might have smiled and nodded polietly. Now they are being questioned on it.

On a more tangible level, the UK has lost all its former prestiege in the UN with the Diego Garcia/Chagos Islands debacle. And their handling of the Hong Kong / China issue showed just how weak and ineffectual they are diplomatically.

Luckily British exceptionalism means that they dont even see foreign opinions of themselves, so they can continue to live in their bubble.

One of the commenters was saying that English football hooligans and yobs on the Costa del Sol had been seen as an aberration and not at all in keeping with the generally positive image of the UK as a place of tolerance and fair play. But all of that has gone out of the window with rise of the very loud and opinionated "Leave voter".

listermint

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah but ... remember the effective equivalent of the Leaving Cert in the UK is the GCSE, for which there are the hundreds of thousands (even if less than the pro rata 500k) Even today, when most secondary school students in Ireland are expecting to stay in full-time education until they have at least one undergraduate degree, it's still considered perfectly normal in England to leave school once you've done your GCSEs. And most of those who do A-levels are happy to take just three.

We're back again to how our two countries place different values on education.

Sorry. How is the effective equivalent of the leaving cert GCSE?

The junior cert is the effective equivalent and children in Ireland can leave after that seeking apprenticeship or jobs or whatever. Same as they can in the UK . They don't because it appears there's more value put in further education.

Those language stats exams are extremely telling and there's no two ways about it. The figures are awful.


Don't dilute the education system by saying GCSE is the finishing exam it's not. If more kids are taking it as the finishing exam then it shows you just how bad things are.

20silkcut

Strazdas wrote: »

One of the commenters was saying that English football hooligans and yobs on the Costa del Sol had been seen as an aberration and not at all in keeping with the generally positive image of the UK as a place of tolerance and fair play. But all of that has gone out of the window with rise of the very loud and opinionated "Leave voter".

For those of us that remember the Heysel stadium disaster and it’s aftermath that was a real low point in the image of Brits abroad. I know it was a narrow band of British society that was responsible for that incident but football is a world game that in many ways reflects society. Much more than it does in this country. Many people form their opinions and knowledge of other countries through football.
That was a huge embarrassment and shameful incident in British history which really damaged the image of English abroad.
If anything the antics of the Brexit party this year in the European Parliament only confirms the stereotypes that formed after the hooligan era of the 80’s. And the fact that many of the current leaders of Britain today are of the same generation as the Heysel hooligans.

johnnyskeleton

Strazdas wrote: »

One of the commenters was saying that English football hooligans and yobs on the Costa del Sol had been seen as an aberration and not at all in keeping with the generally positive image of the UK as a place of tolerance and fair play. But all of that has gone out of the window with rise of the very loud and opinionated "Leave voter".

This is it. The British see themselves through the prism of the Somerset case and Charles Fox and the haughty notion that no man who sets foot on UK soil is a slave. This of course ignores the fact that while they didnt create the slave trade, nor were they the only colonial power to use it, they were the ones who made it a global and highly profitable trade.

Or on democracy about 3 years ago they started talking about Westminsiter being "the mother of all parliaments" as though anyone outside of Britain ever thought that. Pretty soon, it became common on sky news etc to start talking about the oldest democracy in the world in seemingly unironic tones (he UK being neither a democracy nor the oldest parliament in the world).

I mean, it takes some level of arrogance to proclaim themselves an exemplar of human rights when high on the menu is removing themselves from the European Convention on Human Rights.

And last but not least is the wonder that is London City. Or just "the City" as they would have it. When all that Russian oligarch money, Saudi wealth and Chinese government money is gone, and the tax havens no longer have access to the EU financial markets via Londons loose regulation, it will be interesting to see whether the narrative that London is so popular because it is stable and attracts international talent can survive

boring accountant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can't get over the fact that he thinks 400 million people should vote for the EU's trade commissioner.. One of 27 such votes.

Like wtf am I even reading here. It's absurd. "I will prioritize the export of cars and put huge tariffs on all non-EU makers." would win France, Italy, and Germany.

I never said the trade commissioner would be directly elected. I would have a directly elected president of the commission a la the USA who then selects their cabinet. Ideally over time it would create a two party system with smaller parties capable of supporting a coalition.

That would eliminate the possibility of a small number of large states deciding everything because Italy and German have very divergent interests as regards EU policy and their electorate have different value systems.

Besides. It’s not justifiable to deny democracy because you don’t like how people will vote.

lawred2

Not too many Western European nations stand accused of turning their own armed forces on their own citizens/subjects in the last 50 years either

lawred2

boring accountant wrote: »

I never said the trade commissioner would be directly elected. I would have a directly elected president of the commission a la the USA who then selects their cabinet. Ideally over time it would create a two party system with smaller parties capable of supporting a coalition.

That would eliminate the possibility of a small number of large states deciding everything because Italy and German have very divergent interests as regards EU policy and their electorate have different value systems.

Ideally it would create a two party system?

Sorry but what is ideal about that?

boring accountant

lawred2 wrote: »

Ideally it would create a two party system?

Sorry but what is ideal about that?

Two big tent parties would be the best way to adequately represent the divisions within the EU without smaller interests having outsized influence because of the necessity to form coalitions. Coalitions would still need to be possible to allow competition and prevent it becoming like the US, but they should play a smaller part than they do in most continental countries.

beggars_bush

lawred2 wrote: »

Not too many Western European nations stand accused of turning their own armed forces on their own citizens/subjects in the last 50 years either

Or interring them without trial

lawred2

boring accountant wrote: »

Two big tent parties would be the best way to adequately represent the divisions within the EU without smaller interests having outsized influence because of the necessity to form coalitions. Coalitions would still need to be possible to allow competition and prevent it becoming like the US, but they should play a smaller part than they do in most continental countries.

Just no.

All two party systems lead to is times of contradictory agendas.. ten years of deregulation followed by five years or undoing the deregulation. Adversarial zero sum gain nonsense.

I'm happy with consensus building with a steady rate of travel thanks.

Can't believe anyone holds up the two party system in the US as something to aspire to.

ancapailldorcha

boring accountant wrote: »

Two big tent parties would be the best way to adequately represent the divisions within the EU without smaller interests having outsized influence because of the necessity to form coalitions. Coalitions would still need to be possible to allow competition and prevent it becoming like the US, but they should play a smaller part than they do in most continental countries.

This has been disastrous in the UK and the US. I'm really struggling to understand how anyone can support implementing such a broken system. It's a dysfunctional relic from centuries ago. Let it die.

Strazdas

20silkcut wrote: »

For those of us that remember the Heysel stadium disaster and it’s aftermath that was a real low point in the image of Brits abroad. I know it was a narrow band of British society that was responsible for that incident but football is a world game that in many ways reflects society. Much more than it does in this country. Many people form their opinions and knowledge of other countries through football.
That was a huge embarrassment and shameful incident in British history which really damaged the image of English abroad.
If anything the antics of the Brexit party this year in the European Parliament only confirms the stereotypes that formed after the hooligan era of the 80’s. And the fact that many of the current leaders of Britain today are of the same generation as the Heysel hooligans.

They don't seem to either know or care that the constant hurling of insults at the EU ('the fourth Reich', 'the EUSSR' etc) is hugely debasing to themselves and portrays them in a terrible light. No other country in Europe talks about the EU in such insulting terms, not even Eurosceptic ones like Italy and Denmark. The debate in Britain is beyond toxic.

boring accountant

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This has been disastrous in the UK and the US. I'm really struggling to understand how anyone can support implementing such a broken system. It's a dysfunctional relic from centuries ago. Let it die.

In your view it’s broken. There is a view that it results in strong governments capable of getting things done.

20silkcut

boring accountant wrote: »

In your view it’s broken. There is a view that it results in strong governments capable of getting things done.

Historically, Strong governments and strong men = greater potential for war.

I’d take a thousand years of dithering weak governments .

boring accountant

lawred2 wrote: »

Just no.

All two party systems lead to is times of contradictory agendas.. ten years of deregulation followed by five years or undoing the deregulation. Adversarial zero sum gain nonsense.

I'm happy with consensus building with a steady rate of travel thanks.

Can't believe anyone holds up the two party system in the US as something to aspire to.

I prefer adversarial politics that adequately represents the divisions in society. I prefer a politics where rival parties try to compete rather than "build consensus". That's a recipe for stagnation, which is where the EU is currently.


Every now and again the system needs shaking up. Only direct election for the highest office is capable of providing that.

boring accountant

20silkcut wrote: »

Historically, Strong governments and strong men = greater potential for war.

I’d take a thousand years of dithering weak governments .

That's not what I meant by strong governments. I meant strong in terms of the ability to pass an agenda through whatever the lawmaking body is through control over the houses of parliament.

murphaph

boring accountant wrote: »

That's not what I meant by strong governments. I meant strong in terms of the ability to pass an agenda through whatever the lawmaking body is through control over the houses of parliament.

If you can't get your legislation passed through consensus then it's probably not great legislation.

CelticRambler

boring accountant wrote: »

I prefer adversarial politics that adequately represents the divisions in society. I prefer a politics where rival parties try to compete rather than "build consensus". That's a recipe for stagnation, which is where the EU is currently.

The divisions in society are not bi-polar, so a two-party system cannot represent all variations on the theme. What it does is force people to sign up for one of two tribes and then spend most of their energy trying to undermine the other. That is what causes stagnation - for examples: see France, the US, the UK.

The EU is not stagnant. It is evolving slowly in a way that has the support of the majority of its citizens across all (but one :rolleyes: ) of its members states, and despite the multiplicity of different parties.

CelticRambler

listermint wrote: »

Sorry. How is the effective equivalent of the leaving cert GCSE?

The junior cert is the effective equivalent and children in Ireland can leave after that seeking apprenticeship or jobs or whatever. Same as they can in the UK . They don't because it appears there's more value put in further education.

That's why I used the term "effective". The number of youngsters in Ireland who start secondary school thinking that they'll quit after the Junior Cert is minimal compared to the UK, where it's perfectly normal not just to plan to leave after doing GCSEs, but to still be citing them as part of your school-leaving qualifications five and ten years later.

Imreoir2

boring accountant wrote: »

That's not what I meant by strong governments. I meant strong in terms of the ability to pass an agenda through whatever the lawmaking body is through control over the houses of parliament.

Both the UK and US system allow minorities to take power and force through agendas that the people do not want. I prefer the European model that requires a broad coalition to form a government which is forced to respect general public opinion, not just playing to the narrow interests of their base.

Strazdas

20silkcut wrote: »

Historically, Strong governments and strong men = greater potential for war.

I’d take a thousand years of dithering weak governments .

Yes, the wars of the first half of the 20th Century were caused by 'black and white' politics.

'No need to compromise on anything when I'm in the right and you're wrong. Let's have a war to sort out the matter once and for all'.

ancapailldorcha

boring accountant wrote: »

In your view it’s broken. There is a view that it results in strong governments capable of getting things done.

Unrepresentative governments voted for by a minority. Hardly a mandate for stability given the state of the United Kingdom which is being riven by English, Scottish and Irish nationalism.

Strazdas

boring accountant wrote: »

That's not what I meant by strong governments. I meant strong in terms of the ability to pass an agenda through whatever the lawmaking body is through control over the houses of parliament.

Such a strong government can be very divisive. Is it purely a coincidence that every dictatorship in history, whether right wing or left wing, always had one party in government?

boring accountant

CelticRambler wrote: »

The divisions in society are not bi-polar, so a two-party system cannot represent all variations on the theme. What it does is force people to sign up for one of two tribes and then spend most of their energy trying to undermine the other. That is what causes stagnation - for examples: see France, the US, the UK.

The EU is not stagnant. It is evolving slowly in a way that has the support of the majority of its citizens across all (but one :rolleyes: ) of its members states, and despite the multiplicity of different parties.

The UK has been politically stagnant for 3 years because of a constitutional crisis caused by the Brexit vote and an insufficient majority in the HoC. Now that there is a strong majority government the stagnation is over and things will begin to move. For better or worse.



The US stagnates because it has a bicameral legislature - the system was specifically designed by the founders to be slow so as to prevent the accumulation of power by a single branch of government, something they were terrified of. An alternative EU system of government would be fit for purpose as it would be designed in the present day.

boring accountant

Strazdas wrote: »

Such a strong government can be very divisive. Is it purely a coincidence that every dictatorship in history, whether right wing or left wing, always had one party in government?

The UK has had several majority governments over the last few decades.

I don't agree that majority governments = dictatorship. I'm not sure many historians would agree either.

The Nazis rose to power in a system that had 40 different parties in the Reichstag.

boring accountant

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unrepresentative governments voted for by a minority. Hardly a mandate for stability given the state of the United Kingdom which is being riven by English, Scottish and Irish nationalism.

If PR were ever implemented do you think that would slow or hasten the breakup of the Union?

boring accountant

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Both the UK and US system allow minorities to take power and force through agendas that the people do not want. I prefer the European model that requires a broad coalition to form a government which is forced to respect general public opinion, not just playing to the narrow interests of their base.

That's a reasonable view. Personally, I don't believe the current problems facing the EU (trade, climate change, populism, technology) will be solved through the current system. The current commission is making some good noises in the right direction, but in order to really deliver the EU needs real leadership. So far the only real leader in the EU is Macron. Germany has a leadership vacuum at the moment. We can't be dependent on internal politics of France and Germany for leadership. I think for consistency of leadership there needs to be real leadership from the Commission itself, and the only way to achieve that is through direct elections.

hotmail.com

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Both the UK and US system allow minorities to take power and force through agendas that the people do not want. I prefer the European model that requires a broad coalition to form a government which is forced to respect general public opinion, not just playing to the narrow interests of their base.

The UK model doesn't allow for minorities to do much.

The executive has all the power in the UK. The parliament can only approve or reject laws and vote in motions of confidence.

And since we have a party political system with a whip system, the parliament doesn't have much influence.

Campaigners appearing on the radio or TV often have more influence than most backbenchers.

boring accountant

hotmail.com wrote: »

Campaigners appearing on the radio or TV often have more influence than most backbenchers.

Is this a bad thing? I think it's a good thing that people can have influence through nothing but exercising their freedom of speech.