Political Chatter

[Judah14]

Sinned. Likewise with HS2. This country is too small for HS trains and what is 22 mins, 31mins etc in time all for 38 billion sterling and more. Just need to improve current rail infrastructure with improved monitoring so more trains can run on same track. Despite our moans on Europe, their train system far exceeds ours and I have yet to hear a bad word form those who use them unlike ours.

Taiwan is a smaller country yet it has a fully functional high speed rail line for quite a while already.

[Sinned]

Interestingly there was an article in today's paper saying that Switzerland has withdrawn its EU application more than 20 years after its submission in 1992. Switzerland voted in December 1992 not to join the EU. Thomas Minder, an Independent MP said, ".... that only a few lunatics want to join the EU as it is today." Over half of Switzerland's exports go to the EU, it has over 120 bilateral agreements with the EU and its economy has boomed. So there is life outside the EU .... and it can be very good.

As for Taiwan, why has It a HS link. It doesn't look large enough. But looking at it only the west coast is developed and it looks ideal for it really.

[Orange Apple]

If you think you have never seen the country more divided, then you clearly don't remember the 1960s. We are actually less ideologically split now than we were then; but back then we did not have the 24/7 electronic propaganda machines reinforcing image over fact. And people seemed more willing to employ critical thinking, perhaps because we had actual journalism back then, and not one-sided, anger-inducing infotainment. But people still had the unfortunate tendency to boil complex issues down to simplistic slogans and respond, as in your case, thoughtlessly.

Thought-provoking statement.

I wonder if there's more controversy and division now, or we're just seeing it more clearly. Back in the 60s, you got a half hour of it on the evening news, and then went about your life for the other 23.5 hours. Today, we're bombarded with the news cycle, plus much of the information has not been vetted by the professional editors of the media. Not that these folks are all that effective, but today when I visit a web site I don't know if it's someone who I can respect or a kook who writes well.

I do think that no one would argue that this presidential primary season has been unique. I am not looking forward to the carnage between the party conventions and November. But one day we will look back on this in the same way we are looking back at the 60s and saying "remember the 2016 election".

[Stevie D]

Highly respected academic sets out the truth about Britain's relationship and status in the EU.

Michael Dougan is Professor of European Law at the University of Liverpool. In this short but very focussed lecture, he addresses the various key points, largely economic, which are crucial to the UK, both in terms of our current highly influential status within the EU, and what realistically is likely to happen if we leave the EU.

There is no 'spin' here, no party politicking, no media bickering and sensationalism, no banking or big business vested interests. He tells it like it is. And he is probably one of the most highly qualified people in the world to do so.

Listen and learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y

[dillon]

If you think you have never seen the country more divided, then you clearly don't remember the 1960s. We are actually less ideologically split now than we were then; but back then we did not have the 24/7 electronic propaganda machines reinforcing image over fact. And people seemed more willing to employ critical thinking, perhaps because we had actual journalism back then, and not one-sided, anger-inducing infotainment. But people still had the unfortunate tendency to boil complex issues down to simplistic slogans and respond, as in your case, thoughtlessly.

Thought-provoking statement.

I wonder if there's more controversy and division now, or we're just seeing it more clearly. Back in the 60s, you got a half hour of it on the evening news, and then went about your life for the other 23.5 hours. Today, we're bombarded with the news cycle, plus much of the information has not been vetted by the professional editors of the media. Not that these folks are all that effective, but today when I visit a web site I don't know if it's someone who I can respect or a kook who writes well.

I do think that no one would argue that this presidential primary season has been unique. I am not looking forward to the carnage between the party conventions and November. But one day we will look back on this in the same way we are looking back at the 60s and saying "remember the 2016 election".

I agree OA. I think we are so perpetually beseiged with media rhetoric crafted to invoke anger that it creates an addiction to that ill-defined image-borne rage. Honest journalism still exists, but you have to search for it. Media outlets like Fox News have totally abolished impartial reporting, and the "big three" networks dumb everything down to suit the level of intelligence for the audience to which they are advertising; just watch Good Morning America once, if you can manage to stand it. It makes me want to barf. It has no news that cannot be instantly sensationalized, nothing that doesn't shock you or induce some other emotional response. And presented by silly, smiling, bubbly bimboes and dashing, joking "mimboes". The days of presenting facts and context are gone; we don't get to ruminate issues and come to our own conclusions; the media does all that for us in their presentation; they program in our reactions. It astounds me as to how easily the viewer can be manipulated in their reaction to things based on the way it's presented to them.

The talking-head media is like an addiction to many. I have three sisters who cannot go more than an hour or two without turning on Fox News; very like an alcoholic reaching for that next drink. It's as if they are helpless without that constant reinforcement, shaping every issue as they wish to believe it exists, and not necessarily as it actually is; as if it is mentally painful to be denied that reinforcement, lest some non-compliant thought, some seed of doubt, might slip in. I'm not singling out conservatives with my focus on Fox - there are abundant rational and thoughtful conservatives; I enjoy debating them. It's just that Fox News is the undisputed master of media manipulation, and unapologetically so. You can tell which people are Fox junkies; they all use the same image-induced rhetoric, and cite the same half-story examples. Watching my sisters reminds me of when I managed a farm with sheep and goats. There is nothing as pitiful as one sheep penned alone; the animal has no idea what to do with itself. But when you put a second sheep in with the first, they will run in a circle, following each other, assured they are on the right path.

Instead of journalism, what we have largely now are clubs, support groups, and "flash 'n' trash" marketing. Not unlike the Skirt Cafe, in a way, except that the focus is removed from a principal topic and diffused across a vague, sweeping theme, and the assertion that the viewer/listener, and his country or his faith is being victimized by the other side, which consists of insidiously mislead dupes and moral weaklings. It is a realm where belief and image are coupled; figuratively bundled, stacked on pallets, and delivered as bulk packages to consumers who rarely try to sort through the merchandise they've been sold.

Media-driven belief requires constant renewal and revival, and so affords more marketing opportunity by the media outlet. It's a lot like a client I have who is a religious zealot. You get into her pickup to go look at a problem and she will have some radio preacher on full blast. She will lower the volume so you can discuss the farm problem, but before the conversation is finished, her hand will reach for the volume knob again and you will lose her attention to the radio preacher, and before long the "Amens" and "Halleujahs" start. Some folks are lost and directionless without the constant reinforcement of belief. With zealots of all stripes Belief = Truth, and facts are immaterial; they just get in the way, inconveniently. If facts are employed, only those favorable to a pre-disposed POV are relevant. The appearance of agreement with - or conflict with - their values is all that matters. Thought is not required; there's no need to search one's conscience or use logic; you're part of the team already.

That's the psychology being so effectively employed by Fox and various televangelist "news" networks; they use vocally inferred cynicism over news as a lever to shape the attitudes of their audience; the anchor-persons have that "shaking their head in disgust, sighing in dismissal" approach to presenting the news, not to mention their "analysis" of issues. That, on Fox, consists of two far-right commentators and one moderate...therefore making the moderate guest appear left-of-center. It marginalizes the entire process of academic analysis and boils every complex issue down to simple yes/no, right/wrong, black/white sides, based on the politics at work. Thoughtful analysis is the natural enemy of politics and religion; critical thinking is an annoyance to be squashed.

So forgive my pessimism about the future of the country, for the life span of my generation at least, but it's truly amazing and deeply disturbing to see how effective these media tools are. I see a brighter future however when I look at my very bright kids, but I wonder about the rest of that generation as well. Their social evolution is happening, and will progress, much to the chagrin of social conservatives, but I still want them to be able to sort fact from fantasy, to thresh the wheat from the chaff, regardless of which end of the spectrum it emerges. And I doubt that our education system is even allowed to teach those skills under today's political dominion.

The susceptibility that people have to propaganda posing as "news" makes me understand and actually appreciate the arcane rules for the Parties to derive their nominees, though they did not work this time for the GOP, and the need for the Electoral College. It certainly doesn't inspire faith in the intelligence of the electorate.

[Orange Apple]

You will not be surprised that I agree with what you said, as our outlook on things is closely matched. The one additional comment that came to mind was the fact that if there's no video, there's no news. And the converse is also true; if video exists, no matter how poor the quality, news will be invented to allow the media to use it. And if there's a really significant story - Orlando being the last one - the news outlets will feel compelled to switch into constant coverage, even though they said every fact that they had in the first five minutes, and there is absolutely nothing new to report, but the talking heads keep babbling because, well, it's important so we have to spend 100% of our air time covering it.

The susceptibility that people have to propaganda posing as "news" makes me understand and actually appreciate the arcane rules for the Parties to derive their nominees, though they did not work this time for the GOP, and the need for the Electoral College. It certainly doesn't inspire faith in the intelligence of the electorate.

This is the second time someone has mentioned the Electoral College to me recently as a potential savior in this upcoming election. I have never perceived it as the ultimate "safety net" and still do not. The Electoral College is a formality, and they are not going to take on any responsibility for trying to interpret the will of the people. My prediction is that this will be a very lopsided vote and no interpretation will be needed, but so far every one of my predictions about this primary season have been wrong.

[dillon]

I think the media-driven attitudes are set deeply in people, and that there is actually much less indecision than we are told. People are voting for the agenda, not the candidate, so the billions that are spent between now and November are all for a tiny sliver of the electorate, but mostly to make sure people are inspired to go to the polls. Anger is the key element in that. People vote because they hate one side or the other, not because they believe their side can make a marked difference in their day-to-day lives. So, I will predict more of what we have always had; another ugly, bloody fight, meaning huge profits for the media. So buy media stock now and sell it by November 1. And we now understand how critical state houses are compared to Congress...whoever controls state legislatures, establishes the composition of the House of Representatives through the process of redistricting (gerrymandering), and its demographics. If we consider the strength of incumbency in 2020, after which redistricting will occur, we can see what's at stake in 2016 and 2018.

[bobmoore]

What do you suppose lies in wait for a country in which free speech can be suppressed because someone is, or claims to be, offended? Under what principal can one person muzzle another because of personal preference? Who in their right mind thinks that there is some sort of legal right not to be offended? It is the one who is silenced who is truly offended. I suggest that those who cry and complain, especially anonymously, are the ones out of touch with reality, and catering to them is a slippery slope that can only lead to more suppression of any position or opinion that such people don't like.

[Judah14]

What do you suppose lies in wait for a country in which free speech can be suppressed because someone is, or claims to be, offended? Under what principal can one person muzzle another because of personal preference? Who in their right mind thinks that there is some sort of legal right not to be offended? It is the one who is silenced who is truly offended. I suggest that those who cry and complain, especially anonymously, are the ones out of touch with reality, and catering to them is a slippery slope that can only lead to more suppression of any position or opinion that such people don't like.

Simple solution to that: don't like, don't read.

[Sinned]

I thank you for the link bit Professor Dougan speaks as an academic from a legal point of view and describes the workings of the EU and I have learnt lots of things that I didn't know about the workings. BUT. He glosses over quite a lot and the fact is that although he paints quite a rosy picture, in the practical, as opposed to theoretical situation, the EU is failing, politically and economically. Greece has austerity measures imposed by the EU, mainly Germany contrary to democratically elected local leadership which is producing a virtually destitute population. Other East European counties with very poor economies being allowed to join the Euro when they are patently not ready for it, could be equally disastrous. On the issue of influence I would disagree with him in that because agreement is by majority vote our influence is very little at all and becomes even less with each country that joins. Just look at how Cameron's requirements for staying in were diluted throughout the intensive negotiations and the whole thing is now considered a farce. It would have been in the interests of the EU to have granted some concessions but Cameron couldn't even get half of what was wanted. It is being reported that what agreements he did come out with have as much validity as if they were written on the back of a fag packet. In terms of our attempts at influence at a high level on anything important to us is dismal. In terms of sovereignty he is stating the current position yet it cannot be denied that, even if we don't want to go that route, there is an increasing federalism, overtly discussed by some EU leaders, among the other western European nations that we will eventually have to face, either join or stand back. How far down he federalist route do we have to let the EU go before we make a decision - I don't want to be a member of a federalist union. We seem unable to influence that at all. So whilst I have learnt things it still doesn't change my mind, and you probably wouldn't have expected it to. In his mind it works but he is probably so far involved in the wood of the legal aspects that he can't see the elm forest being subsumed by Dutch Elm Disease. No, not everything is rosy in the EU and about half the country don't like what they see either. Let's just agree to disagree. Drains coffee, says farewell and will STILL vote OUT in the referendum.

[Ray]

I'm for remaining. I work in business, involving international trading. The UK has the third largest foreign direct investment of any country in the world. It created 85,000 jobs last year (source: UKTI). That's partly because we have great legal protections, a strong double tax treaty network, and a benign tax regime for corporates. It's also because we are a bridgehead into Europe. We leave the EU, we lose a big chunk of that FDI. That's a big hit to the economy. Additionally, we have more influence in Europe than without. It's the largest economy in the world; 504m people, 25% of global GDP. Our ability to negotiate trade agreements with other parts of the world (we still do big trade with them - but forget China - we sell more to the Netherlands) - would be fatally flawed outside the EU.

The EU is not perfect. It's flawed. So is the UK. However we have had a stable Europe for decades now. That's partly due to closer political, trading and socioeconomic ties. We like Europe. 30 million+ holidays were taken there last year. Would we throw all of that mutual history aside for perceived personal gain, abrogating our responsibility and commitment to our continent?

Not me. I'm unlikely to be affected by Brexit. I'm in a good place, financially. It's the poor working class that will be savaged, against their intuition, as the economy unravels. Watch too for divisions within the UK as Scotland votes remain and the bit to the south, England, votes to leave (Wales & Northern Ireland are on the cusp). Is that what we want? It's not what I want. I'm passionately a believer in the EU. We pay 0.6% of our GDP to the EU. That's half our foreign aid budget. It's tiny. Get over it.

Finally, if immigration / overcrowding is the issue, then turn the guns on families with more than two kids. They are equally to blame. What? Outraged at that? Then look seriously at the issue instead of sticking on a xenophobic hat.

Rant over. Well done if you got this far. I'm afraid for our country if we leave. Really worried.

[Orange Apple]

I'm afraid for our country if we leave. Really worried.

I'm afraid for our country if you leave.

[Kirbstone]

Ireland, Republic of, will stay and we don't look forward to the re-introduction of border controls with 'the North'. Also, my NHS pension is paid me in Sterling and I for one don't want to see that devalued, so for purely selfish reasons I don't want Brexit.

Despite our being committed to Europe, Britain remains by far our largest trading partner, so industry here is jittery about it all at the moment.

Tom

[Stevie D]

I totally concur with what Ray said in his earlier post here.

Leaving the EU would not make us happily independent; we would be in a real mess. Denying the economic and legal facts of EU membership is like denying climate change or evolution. So many people whom I've spoken to and who would have us leave the EU somehow seem to have this idealised image of a 19th century, top nation Great Britain, which they think we can return to. Sorry, but that's cloud cuckoo land. Having been a member of the European Economic Community (which became the EU) since 1973 has changed our relationships with Europe and the rest of the world permanently. The world has moved on, Britain has moved on.

If we leave, I'm fairly sure the following will happen:

There will be an instantaneous negative impact on the stock market; share prices will fall. We will head into an economic depression from which it will take years to recover. Unemployment will soar, pensions will be hit, poverty will ensue for many thousands of less-well-off people.

David Cameron's position as Prime Minister will become untenable and I think he will resign. In the short-term this will lead to a Conservative party leadership challenge and a new PM. In the medium and longer term the Conservative party will be so split that they may well not be able to command a majority in the House - disaffected MPs siding with the opposition in the division lobbies. The government could well founder and there would be an early General Election, perhaps putting a Labour government back in power. As a Labour supporter and voter, I would of course welcome this, but to achieve it through such political and economic turmoil could well be a Pyrrhic victory which is not worth the overall damage caused on all sides.

I think that Scotland will have another bid for independence and this time they will get it and then renegotiate to rejoin the EU themselves. I can't imagine that background exploration of this is not already going on. The break-up of the UK in this way will leave us politically, socially and culturally depleted.

And so - as has been said by others in this thread, I genuinely fear for our nation if we leave the EU. It is a huge risk and we have so much real stability and security to lose. Please don't vote that way.

Whatever the result turns out to be, in my opinion the idea of holding a referendum to decide such a complex issue as EU membership is a Bad Idea. Whatever the outcome, the feelings of the UK population as a whole will be damaged because the result is likely to be such a close call - perhaps 51% / 49% one way or the other. That leaves a huge minority of the UK voting population disaffected, perhaps in the worst case leading to strikes, demonstrations and civil unrest. Not good for anyone, whatever their political leanings.

[Sinned]

It has been said that if Scotland has a referendum and votes for independence then we, the rest will have to re-apply for membership as we would become a separate nation and thus may have to also join the euro as a condition of membership. No-one really knows as the situation hasn't arisen yet, but there may be something in the small print. Just as no-one knows what the real practical consequences would be of a Scottish exit, currency, industry, borders and yes, the EU and membership as Scotland being a new country may have to formally apply. Many scenarios as with Britexit but nothing definite. I suppose we will see when it happens.

My fear is that the result may be inconclusive, like 49%/51% either way and that would be terrible as there would be such a bad feeling on both sides. Really this referendum is a no-win situation when you think about it.