May's "ordinary working people"?

[pastoralguy]

harsh

But, alas, true. The Lib Dems are as irrelevant as Labour are rapidly becoming.

[french frank]

but I disagree with your view that it was wrong to hold a referendum on Europe at all. It seemed to me that there had been a growing pressure, over a number of years, for such a vote which simply would have continued. The European elections in 2014 were a tell-tale sign, with UKIP coming first on a PR vote explicitly about Europe.

This is a fine, practical, political sentiment. But for people such as me (if there are any others) the ideals of the EU are a great civilising factor. A Europe where national borders are recognised as having less and less importance, an ethic of 'one for all' in matters such as the environment, the enshrining of individual rights in law, a supranational tier that citizens can appeal to, this seems the right way to go.

On the other hand, the invocation of 'democracy', of Britain First, of wanting the ultimate power to choose how we make decisions for ourselves (and a 'bring back hanging referendum') seems to be the rallying cry of populists. In a mature democracy we should be able to elect representatives who take a wider view, and allow them to decide matters which individuals can only judge as far as they affect them as individuals.

[ardcarp]

In a mature democracy we should be able to elect representatives who take a wider view, and allow them to decide matters which individuals can only judge as far as they affect them as individuals.

People like us? :biggrin:

[Lat-Literal]

That’s very similar to what I said yesterday (work not service). Are you referring to me? What’s the meaning of your comment?

I hadn't noticed.

It must be a coincidence.

I have never voted a party into government at any level.

If only 95% plus of the Scots could say the same (which they can't), they might have good reason to bleat.

No....make that 98% that can't.

Lib/SDP/SLD/LD - 1983-2005 and Green - 2010 and 2015

(with a few variations for local councils)

I need to clarify I didn't vote as such in the 1975 referendum as I was 12 but my parents who were anti voted one for and one against to include the wishes of the next generation.
So in effect I did vote by proxy - the one time that "my" vote delivered the result I wanted, then 1991-2016 the European machine took that chosen result away as it "knew better".

[french frank]

People like us? :biggrin:

MPs are 'people like us'. What they become and how they act is another issue. There, but for the grace of God, go we …

[Beef Oven!]

This is a fine, practical, political sentiment. But for people such as me (if there are any others) the ideals of the EU are a great civilising factor. A Europe where national borders are recognised as having less and less importance, an ethic of 'one for all' in matters such as the environment, the enshrining of individual rights in law, a supranational tier that citizens can appeal to, this seems the right way to go.

What’s the problem with national borders?
An ethos of mutuality on environmental issues can be achieved without the EU, if Europeans want it.
Enshrining of individual rights don’t require a political union.
The UK has a supreme court, others can have the same without the EU.

On the other hand, the invocation of 'democracy', of Britain First, of wanting the ultimate power to choose how we make decisions for ourselves

You shouldn’t be surprised that most people want to be in control of their lives, rather than having others decide for them

(and a 'bring back hanging referendum') seems to be the rallying cry of populists

.

Actually the arguments have been cogent and I personally don’t recall the issue of bringing back hanging.

In a mature democracy we should be able to elect representatives who take a wider view, and allow them to decide matters which individuals can only judge as far as they affect them as individuals.

An elite knows better?

[french frank]

What’s the problem with national borders?

They have to be defended, and are frequently extended to the detriment of others. Why spend money on that rather than on creating a world with no 'inviolable' national borders?

An ethos of mutuality on environmental issues can be achieved without the EU, if Europeans want it.
Enshrining of individual rights don’t require a political union.
The UK has a supreme court, others can have the same without the EU.

Left to each individual nation there is no incentive to care about 'others', or the common good; but environmental problems, for instance, don't recognise national boundaries. Given the current government's commitment to the environment and people's rights, thank you, I prefer the EU: I think they're more effective. It does depend on how important you think such issues are, of course.

You shouldn’t be surprised that most people want to be in control of their lives, rather than having others decide for them

It's an illusion to think this gives 'the people' any control over their lives!

Actually the arguments have been cogent and I personally don’t recall the issue of bringing back hanging.

When it comes to populism, arguments don't count, as we saw in the referendum 'debate'. The point is once you accept the principle of politically binding referendums, according to aeolium's argument, you have to concede referendums on whatever 'the people' want to have a referendum about - and stick to the result because that's 'democracy'. We had moved beyond mob rule.

An elite knows better?

All MPs are not an elite other than in the etymological sense.

[ahinton]

What’s the problem with national borders?

Not much, provided that they are not used primarily for the purpose of keeping people out (and, in certain cases, keeping people in); if, for example, Scotland achieves independence from the remainder of UK, there will be a national border as indeed there is now, but one would certainly hope that it will not become any kind of a barrier to English, Welsh and NI people, especially as the free movement of people advocated by EU is something that Scotland largely endorses.

You shouldn’t be surprised that most people want to be in control of their lives, rather than having others decide for them

Which "others", though? I assume you to imply EU authorities but individual UK people's ability to be in control of any aspects of their lives is hardly likely to change materially if UK leaves EU; UK will still have a government, laws, &c.

I personally don’t recall the issue of bringing back hanging

Nor do I but, if anyone was daft enough to try it, it would at least be debated and voted against in Parliament rather than subjected to a referendum (and, in any case, it would almost certainly be "capital punishment" rather than "hanging" per se); mention of this reminds me of that Q. & A. of old that runs Q. "what do you think about the reintroduction of capital punishment?" and A. "depends who owns the capital and who's to do the punishing"...

My coat's getting rather threadbare these days.

Anyway, in a bid to return to the topic, who are these "ordinary working people"? what about people, "ordinary" or otherwise, who are not working for any reason (no need to work, can't get work, retired from work, &c.)? and why in any case are they "May's", especially since none of them voted for her as Prime Minister?

[Beef Oven!]

They have to be defended, and are frequently extended to the detriment of others. Why spend money on that rather than on creating a world with no 'inviolable' national borders?
Left to each individual nation there is no incentive to care about 'others', or the common good; but environmental problems, for instance, don't recognise national boundaries. Given the current government's commitment to the environment and people's rights, thank you, I prefer the EU: I think they're more effective. It does depend on how important you think such issues are, of course.
It's an illusion to think this gives 'the people' any control over their lives!
When it comes to populism, arguments don't count, as we saw in the referendum 'debate'. The point is once you accept the principle of politically binding referendums, according to aeolium's argument, you have to concede referendums on whatever 'the people' want to have a referendum about - and stick to the result because that's 'democracy'. We had moved beyond mob rule.
All MPs are not an elite other than in the etymological sense.

Your view of the EU is an illusion.

[ahinton]

Your view of the EU is an illusion.

FF mentioned EU only once in passing in that 178-word quote. That said, how can you be so certain that her view of EU is any more illusory than hers or anyone else's of a perceived post-EU UK?

What specific additional controls over individuals UK people's lives do you imagine will be provided to those individuals as a direct consequence of UK leaving EU, if it does so?

[Richard Barrett]

They have to be defended, and are frequently extended to the detriment of others. Why spend money on that rather than on creating a world with no 'inviolable' national borders? (...) Left to each individual nation there is no incentive to care about 'others', or the common good; but environmental problems, for instance, don't recognise national boundaries. (...) It's an illusion to think this gives 'the people' any control over their lives!

We'll make a Trotskyist of you yet! :laugh:

[french frank]

Your view of the EU is an illusion.

You are so niggardly with your responses to others that you make it hardly worth their while to construct a response to you :smiley:.

[french frank]

We'll make a Trotskyist of you yet! :laugh:

Damn. Rumbled :laugh:

[Beef Oven!]

You are so niggardly with your responses to others that you make it hardly worth their while to construct a response to you :smiley:.

I thought that you might say something like that. Even when I set out my thoughts in reply in detail, you are so inflexible with the same rigid response I wonder why I bothered. :sadface:

[french frank]

I thought that you might say something like that. Even when I set out my thoughts in reply in detail, you are so inflexible with the same rigid response I wonder why I bothered. :sadface:

You're as unlikely to persuade me as I am to persuade you. Trying to introduce new ideas might get different responses.

I see it this way: that the EU has its advantages and its flaws. On the whole, we make up our minds about it on the basis of the importance we give to the various aspects. I am overwhelmingly more in favour of all the good points; the flaws are recognised, they may be intractable but I would sooner put up with them than lose what I value. I am not a nationalist and never will be.

Reasoned argument will not make me downgrade those points that I care about and value what I care less about.