Swiss offer EU solution for Britain

mrginge

kabayiri wrote: »

It was a poor political instrument to achieve change IMO.

The opposite side of that is that it was a good political instrument to avoid change.

Which was the result those who formulated the question wanted and expected to see.

kabayiri

mrginge wrote: »

The opposite side of that is that it was a good political instrument to avoid change.

Which was the result those who formulated the question wanted and expected to see.

I feel there's an interesting point there, but I'm not quite sure I understand.

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

...
I know that brexiteers feel differently, because they're nervous that their sacred cow (immigration) would end up being a minority view (see UKIP).

I've said before that my work involves far more interaction with people outside the EU now than those within it.

We seem to forget that there is a lot of global ownership of UK companies now, a lot of it from outside the EU.

I follow a lot more closely what is happening in Indian politics for example.

At the same time, I read Juncker's latest address, and the same old language style sounds depressing.

He is not open to listening to the views of the individual citizens of Europe. He seems intent on pushing through an agenda driven largely from the centre.

The Brexit vote was an opportunity for the EU to sell itself, and it just didn't. All we got were fear tactics from Juncker and his colleagues.

mrginge

kabayiri wrote: »

I feel there's an interesting point there, but I'm not quite sure I understand.

If you want to maintain the status quo, your best bet is to have an alternative as ambiguous and open-ended as you can.

The question you ask is the key to *hopefully* delivering the outcome you want.

kabayiri

mrginge wrote: »

If you want to maintain the status quo, your best bet is to have an alternative as ambiguous and open-ended as you can.

The question you ask is the key to *hopefully* delivering the outcome you want.

I follow.

People are impatient to know what it all means, but then, we often expect instant results from our politicians.

Longer term, I think it's a big change in the psychology of our relationship with the EU. They are now just as free to pursue a course which is completely different to the UK.

mwpt

mrginge wrote: »

If you want to maintain the status quo, your best bet is to have an alternative as ambiguous and open-ended as you can.

I really don't think so (no surprise we disagree).

The Yes / No vote was an open invitation to express your dissatisfaction with life, a way to vote against the system, regardless of your understanding of the alternative. And let's be frank, people love to be disgruntled with their lot, in particular the Brits are cliched for being a bit moany (while not actually being unpleasant in character). So it was flawed from the start IMO.

Also, most people hold democracy on a pedestal, as if the concept itself were the the goal, rather than the outcomes. If you think about this for a bit, you'll see how wrong it is. Democracy evolved as a system to achieve good outcomes, but it is the outcomes that are important, not the system. If there is a better system which results in more people being better off over a period of time, then I'd ditch democracy instantly.

So far we haven't really discovered such a system but maybe in the future the AIs will take over and run things for us. My guess is that you find such a system repellent, whereas I would be riding my new hoverboard and enjoying life

mrginge

kabayiri wrote: »

I follow.

People are impatient to know what it all means, but then, we often expect instant results from our politicians.

Longer term, I think it's a big change in the psychology of our relationship with the EU. They are now just as free to pursue a course which is completely different to the UK.

Exactly. We should be pleased that juncker wants to integrate further because that puts more pressure on both sides to come up with a sensible resolution in a sensible timeframe.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

The EU may indeed be free to pursue its' own course.
However, it does increasingly appear that the desire for more federalism may already be doomed and it is being said more-frequently that the EU itself may split apart.
Which would render the proposed triggering
of Article 50 and associated talks somewhat moot.

Mr Juncker now has his chance to push for further EU integration, but even without Britain in the way, his success is in doubt. As he recognises, the EU’s federalists are facing an existential test. They have to prove Brussels’ usefulness or they will be forced into a pragmatic retreat (or worse, a disorderly breakup of the union). Their problem is that the EU doesn’t actually have the power to solve the region’s biggest problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/14/the-eus-federalists-are-sleepwalking-towards-defeat-britain-must/

This follows Mr Tusk's very recent acknowledgement of difficulties to be faced by the EU.

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

I really don't think so (no surprise we disagree).

The Yes / No vote was an open invitation to express your dissatisfaction with life, a way to vote against the system, regardless of your understanding of the alternative. And let's be frank, people love to be disgruntled with their lot, in particular the Brits are cliched for being a bit moany (while not actually being unpleasant in character). So it was flawed from the start IMO.

Protest votes generally don't really care what they are voting for, only what they are voting against.
If the govt had supported a leave position, then all those people who were dissatisfied with life would have blamed the UK govt instead of the EU and voted remain.

So you can't influence those people and it's a waste of time trying to.
If the govt thought that group was large enough to affect the result then they wouldn't have called the vote.

You work on those who can be influenced instead. The risk taken was that those borderline leavers could be persuaded to remain by a combination of uncertainty and cross party support.

The uncertainty was undermined by the fact that all the individual disparate reasons for leaving could be pulled together under the single issue of national sovereignty, which is *very* hard to counter.

The cross party support was wrecked by the previous burning of labour and lib dems after the Scottish referendum.

Malthusian

mwpt wrote: »

I really don't think so (no surprise we disagree).

The Yes / No vote was an open invitation to express your dissatisfaction with life, a way to vote against the system, regardless of your understanding of the alternative. And let's be frank, people love to be disgruntled with their lot, in particular the Brits are cliched for being a bit moany (while not actually being unpleasant in character). So it was flawed from the start IMO.

The problem with the idea that Brits voted Leave because they were dissatisfied with life / government / the country as a whole and /or because they love a good moan, is that if this were the case, the Scottish referendum would have seen a landside for independence.

The British voted Leave because they wanted to leave the EU - badly enough that it overcame the overwhelming advantage of the status quo option.