[abbey road d enfer]

I'm not talking about real people with real countries; Korea, Indochine (Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia), Algeria, Rhodesia...they all deserved independance.

Are you suggesting the British are not real and/or that Britain is not real??

Cheers

Ian

Admittedly I haven't been clear. 
"Real" is in respect with the targetted objectives.
Not all Brits, not Britain, but the people who advocate Brexit are not rooted in reality.
What I mean is that GB has just the same potential of independance in the context of globalization as Corsica has in the context of the Mediterranean. At the end of the day Brexit would result in GB becoming a US colony.

[zamproject]

mmm...

What a movie !
As usual, politician as citizen have short memory.
UK, with few others build this "bureaucratic" system after WWII, most of the law are "suggested" from  lobbying (how many based at the city )
I see more and "undemocratic" system where UK don't have enough power as they wish on it any more.
UK (not only) always push to keep EU as exclusive business system  (no need for democracy whit that...), constantly excluding any social and cultural EU idea.

Easy to  attack "bureaucrats", we ALL build the system as it is now...
It's everybody's fault if it go wrong today.
You don't know the name and face of ppl running EU ? man it's your own job to know! You can't blame EU for that 
Hypocrite movie

Best
Zam

[zamproject]

At the end of the day Brexit would result in GB becoming a US colony.

Is not that already the case ? 
that's why I say somewhere here that we need more a USxit than a Bretxit...
And since that Obama take care of it

Dear UK citizen friend, you will be "le dindon de la farce"... unfortunately

Best
Zam

[abbey road d enfer]

At the end of the day Brexit would result in GB becoming a US colony.

Is not that already the case ? 

Not being a Brit, I think I'm not entitled to say so

[Script]

Bureaucrats? Hm. maybe, but I always thought it was more like this (but maybe I'm totally wrong):

EU parlamentarians are elected directly by "the people" in all EU countries. Problem is/has been that nobody seems to care. Just look at how many people actually vote when it comes to the EU parliament elections. A total disgrace. The result: only the very best politicians  of every country go to Bruxelles and that's why nobody knows them.

The EU commissionaries are nominated directly by the national governments of the EU countries (these governments have been elected directly by "the people"). Looking at local governments gives us an idea who the government is likely to nominate. Then let's look at how many people actually voted in the last national elections (i.e. all over the EU). Again a disgrace. The nominated commissionaries then have to proof to the EU parliament that they are qualified to perform the job before they get installed. Who were the parliamentarians again?

There are trends in the EU to not care about politics in general (resulting in vast groups of "the people" not being represented by their national governments) and this is directly reflected on the EU level. Said differently, people who are not interested in national politics will naturally be removed from EU politics., as it is designed as a supranational government.

So much for theory. And now reality:

It is true that the EU parliament has rather restricted rights for direct initiative. This has been criticised, and rightly so, I think. Parliamentarians do have some rights though (clearly misrepresented in that "feature documentary"), and even more so since 2010 , and 2014 (election of president). There even have been discussions to have EU parliamentarians elect the commissionaries directly. Britain has 73 of 751(?) EU parliamentarians. But who were those again? I think having national governments nominate candidates involves more "minds" and "people" and is thus more democratic than allowing only 73 people to decide (and who were those again?).

The influence of lobbying is worrying. But it is a problem not exclusive to the EU level.

Also, the lack of communication from the side of the EU commission has been criticised harshly. And rightly so.

And there are God knows how many public officials/officers, who earn a lot of money -- sure, nobody elected them. I'm not a huge fan of the public officer system anyway and I think this should be abolished -- both on national levels and on the EU level.

The only group of people, I think, who actually understod what the EU is, are far right-leaning and, worse even, right-wing extremists, and I feel they all want to hijack the system to establish a supranational European Reich with local hegemony . Oh, did I just give Brexit proponents another gun? Well, since Brexit has become a topic, Switzerland is very happy, cos a lot of money from Britain is flowing their direction 

[thermionic]

Putin, Trump and Murdoch are all pro-Brexit. I'm sure their reasoning is ideological, and nothing to do with self-interest... There are some really nice people who want Britain out of the EU...

[ruffrecords]

mmm...

What a movie !
As usual, politician as citizen have short memory.
UK, with few others build this "bureaucratic" system after WWII, most of the law are "suggested" from  lobbying (how many based at the city )
I see more and "undemocratic" system where UK don't have enough power as they wish on it any more.
UK (not only) always push to keep EU as exclusive business system  (no need for democracy whit that...), constantly excluding any social and cultural EU idea.

Easy to  attack "bureaucrats", we ALL build the system as it is now...
It's everybody's fault if it go wrong today.
You don't know the name and face of ppl running EU ? man it's your own job to know! You can't blame EU for that 
Hypocrite movie

Best
Zam

I agree it is everybody's fault if the EU is wrong today.  At least we have the opportunity to get out before it gets any worse.

Cheers

Ian

[s2udio]

I agree it is everybody's fault if the EU is wrong today.  At least we have the opportunity to get out before it gets any worse.

Absolutely.....
The EU is slowly becoming its intended elitist agenda of  a federal state of europe,as outlined and  drawn up 50-60yrs ago. It is all about central power and control over millions ,........one word comes to mind ,  Dictatorship and dumbing down .
This  elitist model is spreading worldwide, just hope the people wake from the political misinformation, especially the bogus
Trade argument, ......if we stay in the EU ....TTIP,  is around the corner.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is...you-9779688.html

Please understand what this means..........it may open your eyes.
Those in the USA, look close to home, similar agendas are in progress.

[Script]

Yeah, read any news article across the EU on TTIP and it should become clear that TTIP won't come as it is now. The EU commission is working hard towards changing some US hardliner suggestions, but not much response from them so far though.  Also I think that steps taken to prevent transnational companies from tax avoidance lead in the right direction.

No matter what form the final TTIP contract will take, EU parlamentarians are free to vote against it (how undemocratic is that and who were these people again?) and any EU member state too can easily vote against it (again undemocratic and what is the national government up to in the first place?).

I can't get tired enough of stressing that EU parlament elections are/have been the single most important elections in recent decades. But nobody seems to care . Local elections (city/town hall) take second place in importance. Elections of national governments rank as low as third place, cos all they do after all is administer and distribute tax payer money nationwide.

Here is something worth considering to make people more interested in politics
- soft approach: introduce direct democracy (ask the people directly as in Switzerland)
- hard approach: and/or make voting mandatory for all people (vote or get fined  so no more excuses!).
 

[rob_gould]

Trade argument, ......if we stay in the EU ....TTIP,  is around the corner.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is...you-9779688.html

Please understand what this means..........it may open your eyes.
Those in the USA, look close to home, similar agendas are in progress.

A bilateral trade agreement between the USA and an outside-the-eu-UK would contain clauses like ISDS just like TTIP does.  The very article you've linked describes a situation where a Swedish company is suing the German government through the terms of a trade agreement between those countries.

I agree that TTIP is extraordinarily frightening for Britain and all the countries in Europe that would be affected by it, but to conflate it with remaining as part of the EU to buoy up your argument for leaving the EU isn't fair or truthful.

[Matt Nolan]

- hard approach: and/or make voting mandatory for all people (vote or get fined  so no more excuses!).

I'm half joking when I say this, but I do wonder if this might be a great idea:
Voting is mandatory and it is included with an IQ test and some kind of MQ test (Morality Quotient). Votes are weighted according to the IQ and MQ results and added together to get the final result!

[DaveP]

make voting mandatory for all people

I believe this is the case in Australia.

DaveP

[zamproject]

I'm half joking when I say this, but I do wonder if this might be a great idea:
Voting is mandatory and it is included with an IQ test and some kind of MQ test (Morality Quotient). Votes are weighted according to the IQ and MQ results and added together to get the final result!

Man !!!
Who will define the IQ and MQ test, what will be the criteria
Morality and Intelligence is relative and only defined by a societies at a particular time in a particulars place, it's a moving concept.
I remember some government back in last century (araoud the 30'...), going just a little further with this kind of idea, which finally ended to terminate ppl who don't have the proper QI and MQ...

As french  "equalities" is a part of our "trinity" 
One human (citizen) one voice !!!,
I don't see how a system can be more "democratic", by defining (on whatever criteria you pick) different level of citizens with different right or weight in there voice.

So I prefer to take the joke part of you words.

Best
Zam

[Script]

I think he meant it as a joke -- he's British after all  . Either way, IQ and MQ are just other words for 'education' and 'ethics'. No real need to factor that in. BTW it might even be unfair, cos kids of rich people usually pass IQ tests better, cos they are members of 'prodigy club' or whatever. But I hope we agree that testing for IQ is a joke in itself. You can score mega-high in an IQ test and not know how to change a tyre on your car at the same time 

Personally, I'd prefer the soft approach. I think it's only fair to ask "the people" and give that decision weight. However, when making all people vote, the possible outcome might be scaring us or it may be surprising. It'll either show deficits (in education or ethics), and then everybody and the world will know what/who they are dealing with, or it'll show that the peole are not stupid or irresponsible at all (as is often claimed) and that they know exactly what they want. Give that weight and everybody will be happier and, let's hope, also better off. It's way better than driving people into moaning and not-voting because of dissatisfaction.

Either way, whether people are voting or not voting, in my humble opinion, every country gets just the kind of government (and results) they deserve 

As for Brexit. Why is it touted as the once-in-a-lifetime decision? The UK could have opted for leaving ten years ago. And they could just as well opt for deciding again in three years time. It's unprecedented anyway...

[ruffrecords]

As for Brexit. Why is it touted as the once-in-a-lifetime decision? The UK could have opted for leaving ten years ago. And they could just as well opt for deciding again in three years time. It's unprecedented anyway...

If it were that easy to get a referendum we would be having them all the time, believe me.

Cheers

Ian

[mattiasNYC]

- hard approach: and/or make voting mandatory for all people (vote or get fined  so no more excuses!).

I'm half joking when I say this, but I do wonder if this might be a great idea:
Voting is mandatory and it is included with an IQ test and some kind of MQ test (Morality Quotient). Votes are weighted according to the IQ and MQ results and added together to get the final result!

Well, IQ is certainly a valuable resource, but I would argue that there are things that are more important:

- Knowledge
- Compassion / Empathy
- Honesty
etc

So you can have pretty smart people that are egocentric and egotistic and will make decisions mostly in their own favor, and you can have smart people that while having intelligence lack knowledge on a lot of relevant topics because they just don't care about them. And conversely you can have compassionate educated people with an IQ "below par", and I would argue that they would make the better decisions.

There's absolutely no reason to believe that the masses will make worse decisions - in general, over time - for the masses, than a smaller elite with high-IQ or in possession of expert skills.

[Phrazemaster]

Interesting points Mattias!

It also comes down to humanity. Do we wish others to have say over our lives? Does might make right? Or assumed superiority? Human societal structures have become so complex with the exponential population growth. I'm afraid our sheer numbers guarantee a steady fresh supply of egotistical greedy people hungry for power and position. Somehow in our societies the cream most definitely does not rise to the top; the bottom feeders seem to reign supreme.

Now if we weren't so barbaric as to go around killing each other, we could create smaller micro societies with actual democracies. Living in harmony...

Kumbayah.

[DaveP]

The remoteness of government seems to be at the heart of this problem.

Even in a small country like Scotland, there will be people speaking Gaelic in the Isles that will have little in common with the government in Edinburgh.  Then there is the next level with the UK government in Westminster and the final level in Brussels.

If there is sufficient common interest for the component countries within the overall government it can work, as is shown by the federal system in the USA.  It does not help integration with so many languages in the EU, at least the US all speak English.

DaveP

[JohnRoberts]

The remoteness of government seems to be at the heart of this problem.

Even in a small country like Scotland, there will be people speaking Gaelic in the Isles that will have little in common with the government in Edinburgh.  Then there is the next level with the UK government in Westminster and the final level in Brussels.

If there is sufficient common interest for the component countries within the overall government it can work, as is shown by the federal system in the USA.  It does not help integration with so many languages in the EU, at least the US all speak English.

DaveP

While not literally applicable to the UE, a short characterization of the US system follows.

I will translate your common language to common culture... The US has always been a melting pot from numerous countries speaking multiple non-english languages, but generally new citizens become "americans" first, subordinating their previous national identity.

Regarding a powerful central government our constitution calls for limited central government with local government decision making performed locally, or not at all (power resides in the citizens).

There has long been tension between the strong and weak federal government advocates. As you might imagine the crony capitalists and ruling class, embrace a stronger central government allowing them to wield that increased government force to their advantage.   This debate is often characterized as "states rights" as the initial constitution spelled out specific authority for things the federal government could, expecting all unenumerated powers to naturally flow to states and individuals.

The 17th amendment (passed in 1913) called for the direct election of senators, prior to that senators were elected/appointed by state legislatures.  This shifts accountability and power away from the states.  (Not a good thing IMO).

More recently there have been proposals to change the electoral college, toward a more simple (popular) election system. This would likewise shift power toward (more liberal) populous cities and away from the (more conservative) flyover states.

I guess how you view this big government vs small government tension  depends on your personal perspective. You can probably guess how I feel about big government (and simple democracy).

JR

[micaddict]

RIP Jo Cox ...