Political Crossfire Forums

[DSwain]

Eton wrote: The history of Britain is one of conflict as well. In anycase, so what? It's in the past! We want to do away with that sort of thing and work together not against each other.

Since when has multiple languages been a barrier for a state to exist. Belgium has three languages, Switzland has four, the Netherlands has three (not including English), Spain has at least three, the UK has three official languages not including Urdu/Polish etc spoken by large minorrity groups. As long as we can all communicate in one of the three working languages we can afford to have a million languages making up Europe.

I would also say that it is impossible to divorce politics from economics. It is the Green agenda in Europe that has dictated the EU's reluctance to embrace Genetically enhanced foods from America = Trade and politics linked.

It may also interest you to know that the idea of a united europe is far older than the concept of the nation state - which has been a miserable failure in terms of lives lost in defence of it.

Belgium is constantly on the verge of splitting (artificial polticial entity) as is Spain. Urdu and Polish are spoken but are not official languages so you're dissembling. I'm talking about a lingua franca. There are 21 official languages in the current EU - 21. Would it be English? French? German? Italian? They'd all be candidates. Maybe we'd have several official languages. But this shows one of the great weaknesses with a federal Europe and one of the great faults with a single currency. The reason that the United States of America works politically and economically is that if Joe in North Dakota can't get a job he can hook up the U-Haul and drive to where there are jobs, say in Oregon. Regardless of his educational background - whether he's a high school dropout or has a doctorate, he should be able to speak English. In Europe that simply is not the case. I speak French but is my French good enough for me to up stumps and move to Paris to do my current job? Not in a month of Sundays - I'd be a miserable plongeur (dishwasher). So, those pesky people - the ones you don't think deserve a say, Eton, would be left high and dry by shifts in the economy caused by a 'one size fits all' economic policy.

You can't just write off the past and people's identification with their nations just because you think it's outdated. People in Europe want to work together but they don't want to be European citizens as opposed to being Frenchmen, Italians, Latvians or Britons.

[angusrae]

DSwain wrote: Eton wrote: The history of Britain is one of conflict as well. In anycase, so what? It's in the past! We want to do away with that sort of thing and work together not against each other.

Since when has multiple languages been a barrier for a state to exist. Belgium has three languages, Switzland has four, the Netherlands has three (not including English), Spain has at least three, the UK has three official languages not including Urdu/Polish etc spoken by large minorrity groups. As long as we can all communicate in one of the three working languages we can afford to have a million languages making up Europe.

I would also say that it is impossible to divorce politics from economics. It is the Green agenda in Europe that has dictated the EU's reluctance to embrace Genetically enhanced foods from America = Trade and politics linked.

It may also interest you to know that the idea of a united europe is far older than the concept of the nation state - which has been a miserable failure in terms of lives lost in defence of it.

Belgium is constantly on the verge of splitting (artificial polticial entity) as is Spain. Urdu and Polish are spoken but are not official languages so you're dissembling. I'm talking about a lingua franca. There are 21 official languages in the current EU - 21. Would it be English? French? German? Italian? They'd all be candidates. Maybe we'd have several official languages. But this shows one of the great weaknesses with a federal Europe and one of the great faults with a single currency. The reason that the United States of America works politically and economically is that if Joe in North Dakota can't get a job he can hook up the U-Haul and drive to where there are jobs, say in Oregon. Regardless of his educational background - whether he's a high school dropout or has a doctorate, he should be able to speak English. In Europe that simply is not the case. I speak French but is my French good enough for me to up stumps and move to Paris to do my current job? Not in a month of Sundays - I'd be a miserable plongeur (dishwasher). So, those pesky people - the ones you don't think deserve a say, Eton, would be left high and dry by shifts in the economy caused by a 'one size fits all' economic policy[/u].

[u]You can't just write off the past and people's identification with their nations just because you think it's outdated. People in Europe want to work together but they don't want to be European citizens as opposed to being Frenchmen, Italians, Latvians or Britons.


The argument which you are using is both a unionist in black and nationalist in red

Is Britain not an artificial entity only coming into being in 1707 as a political entity

Replace French, Italians,Latvians and British with the English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish. and the argument is on a British level

We should all agree that Britain must choose either to split and then the nations states of the British Isles would have to choose how much they wish to integrate into Europe. Or remain a United Kingdom but we still need to choose if we should allow ourselves to be sleepwalked in or out of Europe by the whims of the political parties which we vote for. In Scotland the SNP have recognized that a mandate for Independence cannot be implied by winning a general/Scottish election and now propose a referendum The same should be true of the political parties at Westminster on the question of withdrawal or further integration with or from Europe.

[Eton]

I agree with much of what Angus said so I shaln't repeat it.

I would also add, that though there are 21 official languages in the EU, there are only THREE working languages - English, French, German. I think it is reasonable to expect everyone to be able to speak two of them. We have it easy since we already speak english, so what are you complaining about, nobody is asking you to speak Hungarian! (Which I do by the way, and German).

Also nobody is saying that we shouldn't identify with our 'nation' (though that is such a loaded concept), but just as you can be English and British, you can also be English and European.

[antonio62]

DSwain wrote: I think you may be right and it's quite possible that the SNP will be largest party at Holyrood - but is that a mandate for independence? I would argue that if/when the SNP and other pro-independence parties outpoll pro-Union parties then the Union would be under immense strain and it might be time to call it a day. However this current resurgence of the SNP is everything to do with the growing unpopularity of the Labour Party and nothing to do with a sudden hankering for Scotland to go its own way.

They would probably be able to force through a referendum on it. They may or may not win it.

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: DSwain wrote: Eton wrote: The history of Britain is one of conflict as well. In anycase, so what? It's in the past! We want to do away with that sort of thing and work together not against each other.

Since when has multiple languages been a barrier for a state to exist. Belgium has three languages, Switzland has four, the Netherlands has three (not including English), Spain has at least three, the UK has three official languages not including Urdu/Polish etc spoken by large minorrity groups. As long as we can all communicate in one of the three working languages we can afford to have a million languages making up Europe.

I would also say that it is impossible to divorce politics from economics. It is the Green agenda in Europe that has dictated the EU's reluctance to embrace Genetically enhanced foods from America = Trade and politics linked.

It may also interest you to know that the idea of a united europe is far older than the concept of the nation state - which has been a miserable failure in terms of lives lost in defence of it.

Belgium is constantly on the verge of splitting (artificial polticial entity) as is Spain. Urdu and Polish are spoken but are not official languages so you're dissembling. I'm talking about a lingua franca. There are 21 official languages in the current EU - 21. Would it be English? French? German? Italian? They'd all be candidates. Maybe we'd have several official languages. But this shows one of the great weaknesses with a federal Europe and one of the great faults with a single currency. The reason that the United States of America works politically and economically is that if Joe in North Dakota can't get a job he can hook up the U-Haul and drive to where there are jobs, say in Oregon. Regardless of his educational background - whether he's a high school dropout or has a doctorate, he should be able to speak English. In Europe that simply is not the case. I speak French but is my French good enough for me to up stumps and move to Paris to do my current job? Not in a month of Sundays - I'd be a miserable plongeur (dishwasher). So, those pesky people - the ones you don't think deserve a say, Eton, would be left high and dry by shifts in the economy caused by a 'one size fits all' economic policy[/u].

[u]You can't just write off the past and people's identification with their nations just because you think it's outdated. People in Europe want to work together but they don't want to be European citizens as opposed to being Frenchmen, Italians, Latvians or Britons.


The argument which you are using is both a unionist in black and nationalist in red

Is Britain not an artificial entity only coming into being in 1707 as a political entity

Replace French, Italians,Latvians and British with the English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish. and the argument is on a British level

We should all agree that Britain must choose either to split and then the nations states of the British Isles would have to choose how much they wish to integrate into Europe. Or remain a United Kingdom but we still need to choose if we should allow ourselves to be sleepwalked in or out of Europe by the whims of the political parties which we vote for. In Scotland the SNP have recognized that a mandate for Independence cannot be implied by winning a general/Scottish election and now propose a referendum The same should be true of the political parties at Westminster on the question of withdrawal or further integration with or from Europe.

Thank you for the helpful colour coding.

Can you with a straight face compare the United Kingdom with the hugely unpopular political project of a federal Europe? Our 300 year act of Union has performed well and continues to do so. Do you really think that being a supporter of the Union ought to entail de facto support of a European federal state?

As you will have seen from my prior posts about the Union - and the European Union - I say that it is for all of us, the people, to decide. If a majority of Scots opine for separation, then so be it. Likewise, if a majority of Britons plump for being in a European state, then so be it. Unlike Eton, I believe in listening to what people actually want as opposed to what political elites think we deserve.

[DSwain]

Eton wrote: I agree with much of what Angus said so I shaln't repeat it.

I would also add, that though there are 21 official languages in the EU, there are only THREE working languages - English, French, German. I think it is reasonable to expect everyone to be able to speak two of them. We have it easy since we already speak english, so what are you complaining about, nobody is asking you to speak Hungarian! (Which I do by the way, and German).

Also nobody is saying that we shouldn't identify with our 'nation' (though that is such a loaded concept), but just as you can be English and British, you can also be English and European.

Er no, you're wrong. There are 21 official languages in which the European Union works today. Check into the European Commission website and have a look.

http://europa.eu/

You'll see only twenty there right now, they're adding Gaelic this year.

Yet again, you are ignoring people and what people actually want. How about 55 million Italians? Or 40 million Spaniards? What about the Greek or the Hungarian who are not fluent in English, French or German - I presume that they are to be forgotten? One size fits all interest rate policy stuffing your business, Mr X of Athens? There are lots of jobs in Berlin - don't speak German? Tough.

Eton, if you speak languages other than English fluently, then good for you. Please spare a thought for those of your fellow human beings on this continent who do not. We are entitled to be consulted....

You've asked me to list my reasons against a federal European state - what are the tangible arguments in favour? And you speak a great deal about how the way of the future is regional blocs - please show me one example of a regional bloc aiming for political union as opposed to one dedicted to trade and commerce. One bloc. Anywhere.

(Angusrae - apologies for the creeping hijack of your thread!)

[angusrae]

The Act of Union 1707 was very unpopular in Scotland at the time but was push through using bribes by people with money and power at risk . The EU is unpopular know and is kept going by vested interests. So they can be compared on that level. Can we take comparisons and expo-late into the future will in 300 years some-one like me be advocating the break-up of a pan-european state and a Future DSwain arguing for it's survival. My point in my last post was that each position we each hold has validity but also have their roots in not only Internationalism but nationalism. We each have differing views I do,not share your view that the Union of 1707 has been successful a fact born out by the very existence of political parties opposed to that very union. However I fully accept the view which you hold has equal validity borne out by the existence of people and parties will to defend it. We disagree I think in one respect on Europe I wish Scotland and the other nations of the UK to choose their own paths in Europe closer integration or separation. You see the UK as the entity which should forge those paths. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where bounced into Europe on the backs of an English Majority and that policy is still a reserved matter. Just maybe Scotland and Wales would have chosen a different path if we had been separate nations in the 1970's

[mendosan]

The Act of union may have been unpopular with the "gangs" of noble men which ruled the scottish parliment when it was passed, but would there have been a Scots enlightenment without it? or would Scotland have remained a semi feudal backwater of Europe?

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: The Act of Union 1707 was very unpopular in Scotland at the time but was push through using bribes by people with money and power at risk . The EU is unpopular know and is kept going by vested interests. So they can be compared on that level. Can we take comparisons and expo-late into the future will in 300 years some-one like me be advocating the break-up of a pan-european state and a Future DSwain arguing for it's survival. My point in my last post was that each position we each hold has validity but also have their roots in not only Internationalism but nationalism. We each have differing views I do,not share your view that the Union of 1707 has been successful a fact born out by the very existence of political parties opposed to that very union. However I fully accept the view which you hold has equal validity borne out by the existence of people and parties will to defend it. We disagree I think in one respect on Europe I wish Scotland and the other nations of the UK to choose their own paths in Europe closer integration or separation. You see the UK as the entity which should forge those paths. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where bounced into Europe on the backs of an English Majority and that policy is still a reserved matter. Just maybe Scotland and Wales would have chosen a different path if we had been separate nations in the 1970's

Well the Act of Union hasn't done us that much harm, has it? The UK was the birthplace of industrialisation, the largest empire in world history and is the fifth largest global economy today. Now, the merits of some of these 'achievements' may be debatable (before I get clobbered for being an imperialist) - but I think it's churlish to typify this Union as being a failure. Has it ignored the wishes of some of its nations? Yes. But I don't think that's any reason to break it up, at least not yet.

The difference between 2006 and 1707 is that we now do have a say; we are educated and have access to information and can make choices. As I said, the moment that the people of Scotland opt for independence or the English or the Britons opt for the US of Europe, then so be it. But where we share common ground is that we resent the dictatorship of the elites. I have no problem with honest people (like Eton who doesn't disguise his position) who will advocate the end of nation states and a broad European political union. What makes me very angry is this sneaking loss of sovereignty we are suffering today. Why must Europe strive for ever closer union?

Your take on England bouncing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland into Europe is very interesting and does stand examination. Labour heartlands in the late 60s and early 70s were phlegmatically anti EEC. Of course, during the 80s the Scots and the Welsh found succour in Europe - not only in the form of direct aid but also in an idea of a workable social democratic model. I'd like to see it that the British people were bounced into the EEC. I happen to think we have gained an awful lot from membership; however we were not told the truth in 1973 nor in 1975. What was fronted to the British in the early 70s was an EEC which enabled free trade but had a few hangups in the form of butter mountains, beef mountains etc. Monetary union and political union simply were not mentioned - even though ministerial papers from 1971/2/3 were clear in foreseeing the future of an overtly political EEC.

[angusrae]

mendosan wrote: The Act of union may have been unpopular with the "gangs" of noble men which ruled the scottish parliment when it was passed, but would there have been a Scots enlightenment without it? or would Scotland have remained a semi feudal backwater of Europe?

Quite the opposite is true Medosan in fact it was the Gangs of Nobles who wished the Union in order to regain the losses sustained in the failed Darien Project. The ordinary man in the street was almost universal opposed to the Union of 1707. The Church of Scotland and Scotland's Legal Profession sought and gained significant concessions before dropping their opposition to the Act. Bribery was also used on some. As to the enlightenment Lowland Scotland had a greater degree of literacy than England and I happen to believe that the enlightenment would have happen sooner without the Act.

[angusrae]

This is how Scotland voted in 1975

http://www.alba.org.uk/referenda/eecref.html

This site also provide vast amounts of info on Scottish election results

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: This is how Scotland voted in 1975

http://www.alba.org.uk/referenda/eecref.html

This site also provide vast amounts of info on Scottish election results

Nice website, thanks.

Ahh - now I hear the dulcit tones of Sir Malcolm Rifkind talking on Radio 4 about the Grand Committee approach for English affairs at the Commons. What do you think of this Conservative idea on English MP's for English issues?

[angusrae]

Unless a Sewell motion is in effect I have no problems with English MPs and only English MPs voting on English matters.

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: Unless a Sewell motion is in effect I have no problems with English MPs and only English MPs voting on English matters.

I would absolutely agree with that.

[Eton]

DSwain, isn't it wonderful that any European citizen can see report notes or transcripts of meetings in Brussels in their own language! However, for the actual 'working' purposes it is agreed that English, French and German are enough since almost every citizen in Europe speaks at least one of these languages. Do not look on Europeans with the piss poor language example English people set, almost every one who has been to secondary school in Europe speaks a second language.

You imply that the elites who arranged the 1707 union were right to do so. Perhaps the elites today are also right about European unity.

Regarding English MPs voting on English matters. When that happens and the Tories get back in power that will be the end of the UK. Why? Let's face it, the Tories will never get more than one or two seats in Scotland or Wales ever again. If the Tories are back in power it will be because English voters put them there. Then we will have Scotland deciding its own affairs, England deciding its own affairs, but an English government governing the whole of the UK! It is OK if it is Labour because Labour is the only party with decent representation in Scotland, Wales, English cities and even English rural areas.

[DSwain]

Eton wrote: DSwain, isn't it wonderful that any European citizen can see report notes or transcripts of meetings in Brussels in their own language! However, for the actual 'working' purposes it is agreed that English, French and German are enough since almost every citizen in Europe speaks at least one of these languages. Do not look on Europeans with the piss poor language example English people set, almost every one who has been to secondary school in Europe speaks a second language.

You imply that the elites who arranged the 1707 union were right to do so. Perhaps the elites today are also right about European unity.

Regarding English MPs voting on English matters. When that happens and the Tories get back in power that will be the end of the UK. Why? Let's face it, the Tories will never get more than one or two seats in Scotland or Wales ever again. If the Tories are back in power it will be because English voters put them there. Then we will have Scotland deciding its own affairs, England deciding its own affairs, but an English government governing the whole of the UK! It is OK if it is Labour because Labour is the only party with decent representation in Scotland, Wales, English cities and even English rural areas.

I have no problem with the Commission working in 20 or 200 or 2000 languages. What it shows is that European unity is a chimera; that nations behave like nations when it suits them - and why not? President Chirac walks out of a speech because it's in English, the Germans and the French ignore the stability pact yet Ireland is penalised, Britain stays out of the Euro. These are the realities of politics in Europe - it's dirty old nationalism that makes us all tick and you can't wish that away or legislate against it.

You seem to have an extremely low opinion of your fellow men that you think political elites should take such decisions - which is odd as I take you as a humanist? Maybe I've read you wrong.

I was challenged on whether the Union has been a success, not on how it came about. As 1707 comes a long way before 1832, not a lot of people were being asked what they thought about very much. I'd hope that today in 2006 we'd be given a little more say about something as fundamental as poltical union. I've asked you about self-determination in another thread and on another subject, but the question rests here equally well - do you believe in self-determination? Do you believe that the people of the UK have as much right to decide on political union with Europe as do the people of Scotland for their place within the UK? I would be happy for Scotland to have a referendum on our Union and would abide by its results - would you do the same for a referendum on a Euro state?

As for the language question, you've dodged the main plank of my point. I am talking about people who may have a second language but who are not fluent enough to get by in their own profession in a foreign country. Being able to hold a conversation in a second language - which is the benchmark used by the EU for grading language proficiency - isn't enough for many jobs and professions. That means that your labour force will never be as flexible as in the United States. All you engender is bitterness and resentment among your practically monolingual citizenry in those parts of your Euro Wonderland that are left behind by Frankfurt imposed interest rates that favour the powerhouses like Germany and ignore the rest.

Re English and Scots MPs; all British & NI MPs would vote on matters affecting the United Kingdom and that are not subject to the devolved assemblies. So while the majority of the Government might well be composed of English MP's, it would still be British MP's voting in the divisions on UK legislation.

[Eton]

Have to pull you up on that last point.

Since British political parties are extremely self disciplined and any government automatically has an inbuilt majority in the commons the 'elective dictatorship' kicks in. It is extremely rare for governments to be defeated since they always offer their own MPs the carrot (patronage) or the stick (Whips). So you can imagine that if English voters put in a Tory government (God forbid), those English Tory MPs (for the Tories will never get more than 2-4 Scot/Welsh MPs) can enforce their policies on the whole of the UK. Then what is the point if the Scots and Welsh are outvoted by those madmen in the English Conservative party.

I am a Humanist - do you know what it means? (Not being rude). I'm also a nihilist which allows me to rise above such petty notions as national identity - and my word it is liberating to think of oneself as a man of the world.

If the peasants in our country had their way, we'd be back to the death penalty, NO taxes whatsoever, expulsion of all ethnic minorities etc etc. Arew these really the people you want to decide the future of our country?

[angusrae]

Eton wrote:
If the peasants in our country had their way, we'd be back to the death penalty, NO taxes whatsoever, expulsion of all ethnic minorities etc etc. Arew these really the people you want to decide the future of our country?

Which peasants are you referring too Eton. We elect people to govern we do not elect them to give up that power to another state without consulting us. The problem with the Act of union 1707 was that is was passed by the elite over the wishes of the many. However your point is well taken emotive issue sometimes are not suitable for referendums. However the fact that many people on all sides of the political spectrum are now very Euro-skeptic should tell you that

(A) Most people are inherently Xenophobic (Caused by Political and media Scaremongering)

(B) The EU is distrusted because the Elite of Europe are making a complete ****-up of running it

(C) People for the main part do not understand what it does and how it effects their everyday lives

(D) The EU is now a bureaucratic nightmare with enough red tape to wrap up the USS Nimitz as a Birthday present.

And if you have every had to wade through some of the edicts sent from Brussels you would wonder if the EU was set up to keep Paper Mills and Saw mills in business.

[DSwain]

Eton wrote: Have to pull you up on that last point.

Since British political parties are extremely self disciplined and any government automatically has an inbuilt majority in the commons the 'elective dictatorship' kicks in. It is extremely rare for governments to be defeated since they always offer their own MPs the carrot (patronage) or the stick (Whips). So you can imagine that if English voters put in a Tory government (God forbid), those English Tory MPs (for the Tories will never get more than 2-4 Scot/Welsh MPs) can enforce their policies on the whole of the UK. Then what is the point if the Scots and Welsh are outvoted by those madmen in the English Conservative party.

I am a Humanist - do you know what it means? (Not being rude). I'm also a nihilist which allows me to rise above such petty notions as national identity - and my word it is liberating to think of oneself as a man of the world.

If the peasants in our country had their way, we'd be back to the death penalty, NO taxes whatsoever, expulsion of all ethnic minorities etc etc. Arew these really the people you want to decide the future of our country?

I'm sure Tony Blair and the Labour whips would get a kick out of reading your post, Eton. A government with a majority of 66 still gets voted down on key planks of policy. And 16% of Scots electors casting votes in 2005 voted Conservative - I thought you were the great supporter of greater proportionality in government?

I know that humanism can differ depending on what brand of humanist you ask. I'd always considered one of the bases of humanism to be the belief in the inherent worth of people. Your nasty diatribe about 'peasants' suggests to me that you don't consider your fellow man to be worth more than a cheap line. I hope you were joking - please correct me if that's the case.

You've thrown up the red herring of capital punishment. I am not advocating government by focus group nor government by referendum. But there are some issues that are so vital that the public must have their say for the resultant action to have any legitimacy. The break up of the UK would be one such issue, political union in Europe another.

As I've made clear, I am pro Union and anti European political union. I would be happy to actively participate in campaigns on either issue, would fight my corner and would debate the issues until the polls opened. I would also respect the views of the majority - however wrong headed I might consider them to be. Would you?

[angusrae]

DSwain wrote:
I'm sure Tony Blair and the Labour whips would get a kick out of reading your post, Eton. A government with a majority of 66 still gets voted down on key planks of policy. And 16% of Scots electors casting votes in 2005 voted Conservative - I thought you were the great supporter of greater proportionality in government?



Which gained them 1 seat an excellent arguement for PR there DSwain
but that is a debate for another time. A Conservitive government in Westminster and a Labour or SNP led executive in Scotland would bring a whole level to party poltics in Britain.

Do you agree or Disagree everyone?