You’re disappointed by a successful response to a deadly accident, because it might have political consequences that you disagree with?
Doesn’t that seem a bit wrong?
Wait? really?
I was waiting for the punchline.
If that was a serious comment then man… I want what you’re smoking!
As an ex-pat American refugee in the UK this all depresses me tremendously. But with the architecture, castles, countryside and glorious unrestricted footpaths (not to mention absence of mouth-breathing gun fetishists) I’ll continue to grit my teeth, be nice to foreigners (like me) and try to continue enjoying the great things in Britain. But if a UK passport will not allow me to live and work in, say, Denmark in future I will be gutted.
4 Likes
If I was to cite a single incident of a black guy doing something wrong as evidence that blacks were evil I think I would rightly be taken to task, and yet this approach seems perfectly fair game when applied to UKIP. Yes, it is easy to find unattractive behaviour amongst UKIP councillors, but is it really the case that they have a monopoly on bad behaviour? Nothing at all done by Labour, Conservative or LibDem councillors is comparable?
Why is it not possible to appreciate that someone might have an alternate political point of view without immediately resorting to labelling them, and all their associates, as evil?
1 Like
Meh, you wish. A simple example: common currency requires a central bank; a central bank requires monetary instruments that can redistribute monetary pressure between poor and rich areas; these monetary instruments inevitably interact with tax systems, which means you have to agree (and periodically review) a common tax system… which is going to be hard to achieve on its own, let alone with insiders like UK and Poland actively fighting it. The next 10 years are critical for the Euro and for competing views of what the EU should be (loose common market vs highly-integrated federation); UK leaving the project altogether would tilt the balance in favour of deep integration and stronger common institutions.
No, I’m “disappointed” by the accident as a whole AND its political consequences. Loss of life: bad. Emergency response: good. Political outcomes: bad. Overall: bad news. Not unlike 9/11, for example.
Also, even though I’ve been here 6 years I still haven’t quite figured out the general disposition towards the USA. It seems to be a mish-mash of comradery, mis-perception with a healthy dollop of chip-on-shoulder. Even though I’ve met Brits who have seen way more of America than I have it seems most think of the USA as being a two-headed being composed of NYC and Florida. I’d say the shared language is the main motivator as most people are loathe to learn a 2nd language. Even though you can damn near throw a rock and hit the continent from where I’m at it’s surprising how few Brits ever step foot in Europe. Class issues aside, I guess it’s the universal “cosmopolitanism” thing - Brits who travel to France, Spain and beyond all the time probably favour the EU whereas the homebodies might just prefer that the “weird language speakers” all just go away.
This part might get me in trouble - in my view, Brits have far less of a work ethic than Americans. This isn’t all bad because I too think it’s stupid to work yourself to death for the man, but sick-day culture here is well-documented and, again, though I am a supporter of welfare and benefits, there is ample gorging at the trough here. As such I think some Brits “project” onto the ‘invading foreigners’ trying to label THEM as the scroungers when such Brit’s actual motivation is to keep the scrounging for themselves. I don’t at all mind paying taxes to help the down-and-out. Shit, I don’t even care much if they ARE scrounging. It’s nothing compared to the parasites at the top. But what does bother me is seeing lilly-white, sub-working-class Brits with 5 kids vote UKIP to keep ‘the awful foreign leeches’ out.
3 Likes
I do get your point of view, but I’m personally very much against dividing communities. We’re trying to unite the whole of Europe, what’s the point of dividing our own backyard? Besides, until the West Lothian question is addressed, Scotland is actually punching very much above its weight on each and every subject tabled in Westminster. Scotland is actually ruling England by proxy, these days – the Labour years were dominated by Scottish politicians brokering fantastic deals for Scotland, and even the current crop of buffoons could not rule without key support from the MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey (one Mr. Alexander).
Throwing all this away just to feed a small-minded, XIX-century nationalistic mindset… I think it would be very short-sighted.
British people are not negative about everything the EU does: 54% think free movement rules are good for tourism against 6% who think the reverse.
Why no one is talking about the 6% who thinks free movement rules are bad for tourism?
That´s mental!!
4 Likes
Don’t we all? 
Although it has to be said, they also have their own troubles these days (PirateBay convictions, Assange, inner-city riots, growing casual racism, etc).
1 Like
Why would they? Aren’t they a separate entity within the United Kingdom?
I’m said that it has come to this. I always hoped that the long British history of peaceful democratization and strong stand on liberal values ( compared with many continental traditions, that is) could have been a tremendous boon to the political process in the EU.
Unfortunately, the UK never saw the EU as something they could contribute to.
Perhaps it would be indeed better for all concerned if we cut those ties and let them get even more cosier with the United States as they are now. I mean, they have so much in common with each other, like socialized medicine, strict gun control, an abhorrence for the nanny state and sane politicians.
2 Likes
It’s entirely possible, it’s just not necessary in this case.
1 Like
Terrifyingly the most cohesive argument I’ve heard is to do away with the European Convention on Human Rights. Middle class right wing voters see human rights as an inconvenience, in the same way as health and safety and political correctness.
I’ve seen a few comment sections on ring-wing leaning newspaper websites (and no, I’m not even talking the DM) that chill me to the bone. The kind of people that consider innocent before being proven guilty an annoyingly prohibitive policy that gets in the way of torturing terror suspects.
Many of the racists that support the UKIP think that without these laws we could kick everyone who isn’t of the aryan super race into the sea. What they seem completely oblivious to is how much they personally rely on that same act to live in a vaguely civilised country.
5 Likes
You’re kidding right? You’re talking about the country which historically was responsible for:
- causing the Sepoy revolts (due to treating their Muslim/Hindu native soldiers’ religious concerns with contempt).
- the Opium wars (lets get a country hooked on drugs so we can buy tea cheaper - no, we don’t need to care about what their government says).
- the East-India company (we’re not exploiting our colonies quickly enough - lets form a corrupt cartel to exploit them faster).
- dissolving the ~500 year old Parliament of Ireland via (heavily documented) bribery in 1800.
- endorsing slavery (technically mandatory indentured servitude) for Irish who could not speak English from the time of the Cromwellian plantations right up to the abolition of slavery.
- still lacks a written constitution (one of a handful of countries in the world).
That’s just what came to mind instantly - Britain as a historic bastion of liberal values and peaceful democratization is a bit off. It’s only in the fairly recent past that it has started to care about it.
Unfortunately, I suspect pruning of historical syllabi in the UK contributes to the “Rule Britannia” sentiment and the dissonance between how the UK sees itself historically and how the rest of the world does.
1 Like
It also doesn’t ‘feel’ like a liberal country. It’s not that rare for someone to start mouthing off some racist shit, assuming you’ll be totally cool with it cause you’re white.
We’re probably more liberal than our counterparts on the other side of the pond (who have a choice between a conservative party, and a very conservative party), but as part of Europe we’re the stuffy old granddad making everyone cringe at the dinner table.
Things like the NHS probably cloud that perspective - but if we’d had the same healthcare system as the US and tried to bring in something like the NHS today, we’d face the exact same problems.
3 Likes
There are coherent arguments:
- The huge power of unelected eurocrats.
- Inordinately complicated european structures (I spent a couple of hours once trying to understand what all the various branches are supposed to do. I don’t feel enlightened).
- Distinct lack of accountability (coupled with point 1).
- It’s supposed there are quite strong cultural differences between governments in “old” Europe and those of the UK (I actually read some French laws last week out of necessity, it’s fascinating just how much the French state seek to control seemingly everything).
- Top down laws imposed from the central bureaucracy (this is very much a double edge sword - the ECHR is IMO one of the big positives that some people seem opposed to).
- …
Notice, these have nothing to do with europe per se, but to do with european governance.
I personally am a huge europhile; I very much identify as a European first and it saddens me that European project is breaking because politicians. That said, I have much sympathy with the points above, but they are rarely discussed in favour of immigration.
1 Like
I don’t see evidence of racism in the Yes campaign for Scottish independence. Many activists were not born in Scotland. I’ve personally met English, Polish, Pakistani, American, Irish and French.
It’s not a campaign against English people, or non-Scots, it’s a campaign against the present system of government. One of the policies for an independent Scotland will be to allow MORE immigration.
Most Scots want to stay in the EU. If we vote no, the rest of the UK may drag us out of it.
1 Like
This is a pretty shabby piece from Cory. I’m a Conservative, but I know people from lots of political parties who have varying degrees of principled objection to the European Union in its current form. Trying to pretend that those concerns are somehow a proxy for bigotry is really disingenuous. It’s worth remembering that, until quite recently, opposition to the European project was primarily led by the left in politics, not the right.
My main concern, FWIW, is that the level of decisionmaking that currently takes place in Europe is incompatible with the level of democracy that’s there. The commission is a corporatist nightmare, and even the federalist solutions to that problem, of increasing the power of the European parliament and a directly-elected president just won’t work in the absence of a shared demos and community of interests for that democracy to rest on. There is so little quality journalism anywhere, for example, of the detail of EU decision-making, in any Member state, that its really rare to see MEPs held firmly to account. Much of what there is is paid for by the European Commission itself, or heavily influenced by the NGOs it also funds.
I don’t think that my objections are particularly right wing. People of the left should be just as concerned about the EU’s cosy relationship to big corporate interests, who are exploit opaque decisionmaking and unaccountable decisionmakers very effectively indeed.
Trying to pretend that everyone who doesn’t like the EU is some sort of racist bigot is to ignore serious and legitimate concerns about democracy and decisionmaking.
1 Like
So a majority of British citizens look unfavourably on Europe, while a majority of EU citizens look unfavourably on Britain, and the takeaway from this is that Britain is bad. Hmm.
