Imminent demise of the European Union Youth Orchestra..

[Lat-Literal]

Oh dear. I'm sad enough already about the state of our country and reading the above makes me feel even worse. I could hardly believe that "EU intransigence" was being trotted out as a serious point. Who caused this unnecessary, time- and energy-wasting confrontation? I know there are good leftwing and anti-bureacracy reasons for being against the EU but for the most part it was the primitive nationalism of UKIP and rightwing tabloids that whipped up propaganda against Europe as a scapegoat for voters to blame for deficiencies in their life. I have heard the view expressed from France that it was the cautionary examples of Brexit and Trump that actually deterred many French voters from going down a similar road.

I'm 68 and and have always liked being English but have never been more depressed about my country. I'm afraid I cannot summon up very much "positivity" about the future. It seems the best they can offer is bodging and blustering away in an attempt to make the best of a bad job. I'm off to Germany again tomorrow visiting my wife's family for a few days (Ryanair willing) and am dreading having to spend half the time discussing the Brexit fiasco. I have spent all my working life as an English teacher in Germany and German teacher in England trying to foster better relations with our European neighbours. All this is being thrown out (along with the Youth Orchestra) as part of a futile quest for some vague kind of "national sovereignty", which, even if definable or desirable, is certainly not achievable, especially not by the mediocre politicians currently in charge, led by a PM who still can't say that she actually believes that the policy she is implementing is in the best interests of our country. With anti-European feelings rife, I probably wouldn't even have a job as language teacher nowadays with language teaching rapidly losing critical mass in schools and universities and probably in terminal decline. I met an old A Level student of mine the other day who could no longer find full-time work as a German teacher and has retrained to teach English.

My German-born wife, having long ago let her German passport lapse, has been British since 1976 and been quite happy as such - - until now being told she is not a European citizen after all. She applied for a German passport a year ago. So heavy is the demand for German citizenship from the UK (we were told that applications increased from 30 a week to 30 a day after the referendum) that we have still not had the application processed. It is not only the EU members of the Youth Orchestra who will be quitting UK. Our children (now mid thirties) who were brought up bilingually and in a pro-European spirit are also deeply disappointed with the prevailing mood (like most of their age group) and also want to apply for German citizenship.

Please excuse the rant. I took the dangled bait and will now go back to tending my garden.

An interesting read. I don't have any passport myself so I do not see a passport as defining me as a citizen. I am still awaiting a reply from Nick Clegg about the impact of recent developments on his mother, as he cited twice, in contrast to the impact on her of moving to this country long before Britain ever became a member of the EEC. I will never receive a reply as in essence there is absolutely no difference. I don't know about changes in modern language courses but if they are significant I am surprised. Broadly, I don't detect any negative sentiment towards people who reside in other parts of Europe. My main question concerns the music opportunities provided by membership of the EU. It is in this context that the one-off example of the EUYO sits and I have yet to hear concrete examples. The EUYO is not being thrown out. It is choosing to run because it was only saved by the personal intervention of Jean-Claude Juncker who was able to bend the EU's own rules. The organizers know that he will not be backing Britain but neither did his Nazi father-in-law.

[Barbirollians]

Exactly vinteuil - the reason Brexiteers are lashing out is that so much of what was warned about before the referendum is coming true - the Tories seem close to imploding and I suspect Corbyn will be like Canute when it comes to preventing Labour members demanding a second referendum when the disaster this is going to be comes clearer .

[DracoM]

100%

I fear David Cameron dealt a worse, IMO more fundamental wound on the UK than Blair ever did over Iraq. The consequences both internal and external will be permanent. From Iraq, we could disengage. From Brexit, we can't.

As with gurnemanz above, I have watched with horror over the last two years the peicemeal and accelerating dismantlement of much of what i took to be the UK's values and identity. Much of my life has revolved around such values, and now, starting with Thatcher, incremental unpicking has more or less left in fragments a heritage I thought useful and liberal in the best sense. IMO, we have been betrayed, we have been allowed to betray ourselves by rank ignorance and blind, un-briefed prejudice.

IMO, there IS no way back. Brexiteers have deceived themselves, AND the electorate / the young, and in the process, IMO, we have dragged our children and grandchildren ever closer to the Slough of Despond. In March 2019, they will have to wade into it and try to survive.

I am ashamed.

[french frank]

I don't have any passport myself

Say no more, Lat.

[Lat-Literal]

One thing is clear - the imminent demise of the EUYO referred to in the title of this thread was unduly pessimistic.

[french frank]

One thing is clear - the imminent demise of the EUYO referred to in the title of this thread was unduly pessimistic.

That was 18 months ago and provoked huge protests to the EU commission - at which point, as you stated, Juncker stepped in personally. As with many such matters, it was never intended to axe the orchestra: it became potential collateral damage as a result of another decision.

[Lat-Literal]

That was 18 months ago and provoked huge protests to the EU commission - at which point, as you stated, Juncker stepped in personally. As with many such matters, it was never intended to axe the orchestra: it became potential collateral damage as a result of another decision.

Yes.

A reasonably happy outcome, though, doesn't validate the process.

http://www.lorddavidowen.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/8.10.17PRESS-RELEASE.pdf

[french frank]

http://www.lorddavidowen.co.uk/wp-co...SS-RELEASE.pdf

Not exactly an unbiased statement!

[Lat-Literal]

Not exactly an unbiased statement!

Accepted.

Much is made in these affairs of relations between Britain and Germany not without good reason.

My personal belief is that if there was an option for a bilateral agreement between the two countries, you could spend a week going up and down this country and not find one person who would be against it. Ditto, probably, France etc. That, approximately, is the true position on the widespread sentiment towards individual European countries - and their citizens.

[french frank]

Lat, I get the vague feeling - and perhaps this should be in a PM rather than cluttering up the board - that you start with a prejudice and then look for the evidence to back it up, whereas a philosophical approach would be to consider the evidence first and then form an opinion. You are still seeking information, although your mind is made up.

And when you say:

The EUYO is not being thrown out. It is choosing to run because it was only saved by the personal intervention of Jean-Claude Juncker who was able to bend the EU's own rules.

The orchestra explains very clearly that it is leaving the UK because it is an EU body, funded by the EU, and it's a nonsense for it to remain in a country which, in line with what approximately 37% of the electorate and 25% of the population wishes, will no longer be a member of the EU.

[DracoM]

[Lat-Literal]

Lat, I get the vague feeling - and perhaps this should be in a PM rather than cluttering up the board - that you start with a prejudice and then look for the evidence to back it up, whereas a philosophical approach would be to consider the evidence first and then form an opinion. You are still seeking information, although your mind is made up.

And when you say:



The orchestra explains very clearly that it is leaving the UK because it is an EU body, funded by the EU, and it's a nonsense for it to remain in a country which, in line with what approximately 37% of the electorate and 25% of the population wishes, will no longer be a member of the EU.

Quite the opposite. As stated, my position on the referendum was closer to abstention than any other poster, based upon the arguments put forward. Unlike any other poster, I have changed my position from the one I tentatively held when voting in the referendum. I have never suggested, unlike any other poster, that the outcome is devastating - or wonderful. If you check back, my idealistic position was a return to a Western European EEC with modifications or the division of the EU with modifications into a West and East. Not that I think that even that would have been a golden answer. Surely a prejudice is more likely to arise among those who have only ever contemplated acceptance of one way. My position is that, on balance, we need to move forward on the basis of what was decided. Some say that there is no scope there in their minds for any positivity. That is up to them and so too the right of anyone to verbalize opposition from now until the end of time even with the hope that there might be a complete reversal of the process. The greater likelihood is that the process will not be reversed. In that light, commonly stated notions about moving towards a cliff edge need to be addressed to prevent that from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Additionally, one might look at who is asking the questions. I am asking questions on this thread that at this time have not been answered. Questions that are loaded may perhaps reveal a prejudice but the questions I have raised are open questions. For example, "what are the true additional opportunities for musicians with Britain in as opposed to out of the EU?" In contrast, much of what has been said, while it can be respected for being genuinely and personally felt, is not supported with hard evidence. No surveys have suggested that there is widespread dislike of, let alone antagonism towards, other European countries; it is premature to assume any detailed arrangements that will be made for, by and in 2019; and there is nothing to suggest that we can possibly know what the future holds for future generations any more than that could ever have been known in the past. History suggests that much may well depend more on the capacity for innovation than any short term structural arrangements. As for the referendum itself, that has been gone over time and again.

I could ask more questions. For example, french frank, I genuinely don't know quite why you and many other people hold to your view of the EU in the light of the many changes that have occurred. I wonder in what circumstances, if any, that would or could no longer stick. For example, let us say that sometime in the mid 2020s there is a half decent British Government of some sort in a Brexited Britain. You can decide what sort of Government it might ideally be for you. It's not extreme and it is doing its best. And one looks across the Channel at that time. One sees that the Front National are in power in France; the Christian Democrats have formed a coalition with AfD with the latter now the biggest party in Germany; the Dutch have chosen Wilders; the Hungarians have elected actual fascists, not without pride; the Greeks have gone Communist in despair; and a self-confessed clown with very right wing leanings is the new Italian President. All of these developments are reflected in the composition of the EU bodies. Now, of course, it may not happen. It probably won't happen. But what if it did? Would we still be better off in the EU? Do you think at that point it would be a battle that could be won with sheer reason and liberal democracy?

No doubt Britain would be blamed for encouraging it all, although currently we are told that it is a reaction against the British position which has delivered Macron and similar others. But would the Stagiaire and the Erasmus and a picture of a Europe in harmony with Brandt or Schmidt or Kohl at the German pivot still hold sway, sound tracked by Kraftwerk on a streamlined autobahn and the collected works of Bach? Or would that ideal fade into the emerging darkness with the thought "thank God our grandchildren are not in bed with that"?

[french frank]

I could ask more questions. For example, french frank, I genuinely don't know quite why you and many other people hold to your view of the EU in the light of the many changes that have occurred.

Changes are not necessarily bad. I hold to my views because the ideals of the EU seem to me to be self evidently intact. The reason why we haven't seen the rise in an extreme right-wing here is because we don't have PR - but I have never believed that an electoral system should be tailored to keep out the people one disagrees with. Democracy is something which we put up with - for better or worse.

But, in the interests of Ideas & Theory (I'm interested in psychology here): You wrote to Nick Clegg to query a point that he made about his mother which you appear not to have bought (no difference at all between two points that he made, whereas he didn't see a similarity?)

How many pronouncements on the other side of the Great Debate did you question, and who did you write to among the leading proponents to answer your question?

[Lat-Literal]

Changes are not necessarily bad. I hold to my views because the ideals of the EU seem to me to be self evidently intact. The reason why we haven't seen the rise in an extreme right-wing here is because we don't have PR - but I have never believed that an electoral system should be tailored to keep out the people one disagrees with. Democracy is something which we put up with - for better or worse.

But, in the interests of Ideas & Theory (I'm interested in psychology here): You wrote to Nick Clegg to query a point that he made about his mother which you appear not to have bought (no difference at all between two points that he made, whereas he didn't see a similarity?)

How many pronouncements on the other side of the Great Debate did you question, and who did you write to among the leading proponents to answer your question?

Yes I did - and he didn't reply.

I have waves of this sort of thing. I wrote to Alex Salmond when he was denouncing the "English" British Empire to ask how he felt about the disproportionately high number of Scottish people in the building of the British Empire, their exceptionally high achievements in that sphere, and any perceived contrasts with the failed Scottish enterprise of 1698 in Darien, a central American wilderness chosen as Scotland's gateway to the new world, to bring riches and power while guaranteeing Scottish independence. He also didn't reply.

I have had helpful correspondence with Caroline Lucas on why the Greens say so little about the Green Belt and National Parks. There was also extensive correspondence with Patrick Harvie on the dangers of selling out on fracking to deliver Scottish independence. Unhelpful at the time, I see that there will not now be any fracking in Scotland. And I have had correspondence with my local MP Chris Philp who could just be the surprise candidate in a Tory leadership election. I found his replies constructive although he was unable to get information out of HMT on the amount the Government spends on media advertising. More recently, FoI requests from me to six Departments have produced something of an answer.

I did not write to anyone on the Brexit side during the referendum campaign and I didn't write to anyone on the EU side other than Nick Clegg. There were moments of objection - the Farage poster and the NHS bus. However, my emphasis was on tackling obvious falsehoods. The first was simply in bad taste and the second was only revealed to be a lie on the morning after the result. In the first half of the campaign, I wrote extensively to people I knew who were unequivocally for leaving the EU with all of the reasons why I thought, on balance, remain was best. These e-mails included many issues which had been dismissed by them and much of the media such as difficulties with the Northern Ireland border. They have since been proven to be significant but they were all airily dismissed. Equally, I considered the possibility of an electronic border and assessed it to be an effective solution.

Halfway through the campaign, I decided to abstain. Rationally, the existing position seemed unsustainable given that to have no management of immigration made about as much sense as not having a fence up at Glastonbury or unlimited access to one's own house. Then a day or two before, I decided that I would vote for our ongoing membership. I was worried that if the vote went for Brexit, we could end up with what seemed to me to be a UKIP agenda of privatization and tax havens and I'd feel partially to blame. It has since become clear that such a possibility which was put forward on the EU side was never a probability. If anything, it looks like we may have the most left wing government of all time.

Not quite knowing whether I was in the realms of fantasy, I had posted comments on forums about the possible opportunity under Brexit for a new British Social Democratic Party. This, almost the antithesis of New Labour, would be along 1960s German and Scandinavian lines. However, it would have a broader sense of internationalism than those parties had while crucially not being constrained by the EU's wholesale adherence to global business. I now believe the thinking is realistic and it might naturally emerge in the next decade.

[french frank]

I did not write to anyone on the Brexit side during the referendum campaign and I didn't write to anyone on the EU side other than Nick Clegg.

There were moments of objection - the Farage poster and the NHS bus. However, my emphasis was on tackling obvious falsehoods. The first was simply in bad taste and the second was only revealed to be a lie on the morning after the result.

"I don't want anyone to vote in this referendum on the basis of Turkey joining [the EU], because it’s not going to happen, just like the European army is not going to happen, or the 350 million isn’t true..." David Cameron, 19 June 2016

In the first half of the campaign, I wrote extensively to people I knew who were unequivocally for leaving the EU with all of the reasons why I thought, on balance, remain was best. These e-mails included many issues which had been dismissed by them and much of the media such as difficulties with the Northern Ireland border. They have since been proven to be significant but they were all airily dismissed.

Yes. Dismissed as much else was dismissed.

Then a day or two before, I decided that I would vote for our ongoing membership. I was worried that if the vote went for Brexit, we could end up with what seemed to me to be a UKIP agenda of privatization and tax havens and I'd feel partially to blame. It has since become clear that such a possibility which was put forward on the EU side was never a probability.

It seems to me that the "EU side" was concerned about about our membership of the EU, not the possibility of a UKIP economic agenda. It was Philip Hammond, in January 2017, who brought up the 'tax haven' status for the UK - long after the referendum had taken place - as a post-Brexit possibility.