Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

FUCK YES LET'S LEAVE GET HYPE YEY

Casual yes, let's leave and get independence done with

Meh, probably just scribble all over my vote ballot to spite tryhards

Casual no, let's remain and get integration done with

FUCK NO LET'S REMAIN GET CALM YEY

[TheDarkStar]

This thread is like maximum LW.

Also, why does the UK want to leave the EU so much? It's never been entirely clear to me.

[notquitethere]

Well, old style xenophobes want out because they think it might mean less foreigners. A lot of people are concerned about the loss of power to unaccountable Belgium technocrats. There's also a big debate over whether it's costly or not: Britain is a net contributer to the EU budget, but also benefits greatly from it's trade agreements.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: ease of scroll (click to show/hide)

This thread is like maximum LW.

PURE DISTILLED

Also, why does the UK want to leave the EU so much? It's never been entirely clear to me.

We entered a free trade agreement and got loads of people ceaselessly trying to gouge out our sovereignty and turn us into a province. Our free trade agreements were not exactly the most beneficial either, hence why the coastal towns are absolutely livid over the EU because one of our own MPs gave away our fishing rights and completely fucked our fish stocks into oblivion illegally in the name of the EU. Culturally as well I suppose the UK has always been opposed to unification with the continent since its national founding, notably with Churchill being in favour of some European unification on the continent as long as the UK was not included.
This is the absolute base of it all, the United Kingdom did not enter a political union, it entered a free trade agreement. We've been quite shafted because all of our leaders in every single ruling and opposition party has been from Oxbridge (pro-EU academia) and has in turn been pro-EU, leading to that glorious situation where we have the option to vote for a pro-EU leader and a pro-EU leader or the protest pro-EU vote.

It has gotten to the point where our largest eurosceptic party is led by a pro-EU Minister, meaning our prime minister and de facto head of state is pro-EU. Our exit negotiations would be conducted by a minister who is pro-EU, our current negotiations have been conducted by a man who is pro-EU, our independence referendum dates have been set by a minister who is pro-EU, our independence campaign has been officially selected by pro-EU ministers whose limitations have been set by pro-EU ministers (most appallingly when our pro-EU Prime Minister called for legally binding limitations against MPs voicing their opinion on the referendum either side, then did so himself and brought the most powerful minister onto his side in addition to using state funds to print pro-EU leaflets to distribute to every household whilst also managing the limitations to campaign spending on the official and unofficial leave campaigns), most of our media is pro-EU (EU grants are coincidence) and most of our Universities are pro-EU (EU grants are coincidence). Quite recently 3 dozen company heads in the UK as well as a mayoral candidate talking about housing have all gone and said that the whole British economy would be put at risk with independence, yet no one, not even the eurosceptic media have mentioned how much they have profited from EU lobbying for contracts :/
I don't want to be subjected to the experiment of the Commission but the affiliated factions in the UK are rather determined on giving the British no choice in the matter, it is only through so much effort that we have forced Cameron into this corner and even so he's done his best to stack everything against us on this. The more we stay within the European Union the more sovereignty we shall lose, and our MPs and PMs have a frightening tendency to quietly keep giving away our rights to the Commission. If we wish to remain an independent country we are fast running out of time.

Oh, and from a personal Londonistan point of view, it is for the best of London and the best of Europe that Europe does not regulate London and London does not regulate Europe. I can't think of a worse situation than that.

Well, old style xenophobes want out because they think it might mean less foreigners. A lot of people our concerned about the loss of power to unaccountable Belgium technocrats. There's also a big debate over whether it's costly or not: Britain is a net contributer to the EU budget, but also benefits greatly from it's trade agreements.

Addressing these points in three, the European Union attacks everyone who doesn't oppose destroying national borders as racist old style xenophobes, and now they have migration in the annual rates of millions and are speaking of it by the daily rate because they have no plans of stopping this.
I would rather selective migration from the Commonwealth, people from whom we have common history, culture and language than an open door to anyone who can journey to the Schengen area.
It does not make sense from a humanitarian point of view because our aid budget has already helped more than the European borderless zone has, and that's without subjecting ourselves to mass sexual assault or terrorist attacks, goodness we have enough trouble trying to stop Britons from flying abroad to Syria without making it easy for them to come back home. So that's a no on humanitarian and security grounds.
From an economic point of view it does not make sense to have no selective capability on migrants as you cannot for example, choose priority over those who already have relations within the UK in the Commonwealth who need little training to adapt to British standards (we have courses specifically for Indian doctors to adapt to British medical customs and standards for example), cannot choose for skilled labourers over unskilled ones (who will not likely find employment in the high-skills job market of the UK and large quantities of unemployed young men who do not speak the local language goes down as well as Germany and Sweden), and to get them to the same standard the British labour market requires would require years of training assuming one already proficient and literate with the English language which defeats the point of trying to gain economic gain from them, requiring generations - displacing the already dwindling British. Funny example (or sad?) brought up is how the Cockney are dead and gone and aren't coming back just because Labour wanted to divorce themselves from the working class vote. Pro-EU party, that Labour party. That's a no on the economic and cultural grounds.
Then from the political point of view it makes little sense after the likes of Merkel and Cameron have even said multiculturalism failed to then nevertheless continue the same policies, decreasing our tax base further. Why would we rather have no ability to select for the capable over incapable or discriminate in favour of the Commonwealth over the European Union, at the time when we are cutting our own defence budget and social services? Why are we too paying for the upkeep of foreign countries' citizens with whom we have no relation? Why is it when our own infrastructure is straining under its burgeoning population we are expected to take in all the migrants the Commission invited at our expense simply because the Commission bit off more than they could chew and have no intention of taking responsibility? From the political point and tax point of view that is a no. I'd rather keep to my own foreigners in numbers that did not collapse Parliament and actually enriched the UK than with Berlin bants :P

As an aside I think I'll keep the thing with the loss of power to unaccountable technocrats last as it's most significant.

The EU is costly as all hell and we don't benefit enough from their free trade agreements, least of all when we became the financial headquarter of the world without. We've conducted independent negotiations in spite of the EU demanding they represent us for us, we've conducted our own currency despite the EU demanding control of our central bank for us, we've built our success rejecting the Commission's attempts to regulate our finances and gain control over our country and we've profited greatly from it whilst southern Europe have been absolutely shafted in favour of Frankfurt and Brussels. The majority of our trade is with the rest of the world and when it comes to Europe I am willing to bet that the Commission would not date risk provoking an industrial revolt by blocking off access to the British market. The very one-sided nature of our trade means with control over our own tariff rates we could just set it to zero and enjoy the benefits of a free market, our trade with BRICs, MINT and Commonwealth is growing far faster because those economies are growing far faster - most importantly, our exports to them. My favourite one is Nigeria, firstly because they are best country, secondly because our trade with them has grown faster than our trade with either France, Netherlands or Germany, and we have zero trade deals with Nigeria
I have heard the argument that we should stay within the European Union in order to lobby the Commission into forcing free market policies across all of the European Continent, which would certainly profit London greatly. It would also slaughter the European Continent's industry, which from a political point of view would be very short sighted, as poor Europe is a poor partner and influence goes both ways - our free market support could very well be lobbied into being more in line with EU regulations. I find the risk is far too severe to be worth taking, I find the EU's influence too powerful not to assume London shekel wizards would not merely become Commission shekel wizards if given enough incentive :P
There is also the issue on how negotiation and leverage works. Giving our economic power to the EU to negotiate will not be used to represent British interests, it will be used to represent the Commission. We paid £17.8B to the European Union last year. Thanks to Maggie we get some of those shekels back (I now realize more than ever that she bought us this valuable time to resist dissolution), reducing that bill by £4.9B. What do we get out of that money? Some of that money is graciously gifted back to British public institutions and private companies, resulting in public institutions and private companies who of course become pro-EU and not pro-UK. Our own shekels are used against us! Oh piteous woe! This is most damaging especially for institutions like Universities or the BBC, which are supposed to be politically impartial and are given special rights in order to outgun their commercial rivals when it comes to public influence and dissemination of information. So what happens when they receive large gifts without disclosure from the Commission?
Then the rest of the money goes towards spending for projects for which they will be thanked and for they will they gain leverage to be used in gaining preferable negotiations. It's not exactly a revolutionary idea to use our own money for our own negotiations, we're already doing it and we've been doing it since the first Britbong started throwing gold and silver at Portuguese merchants xD

When it comes to giving power away to unaccountable technocrats this is a great worry. I'm very tired so I'll maybe continue this later if anyone cares but I don't think it's right that one small group like the ESI can make their wishes into policy for a whole continent of people without anyone in the continent getting a say in how their own lives are being run. Democracy is not an exercise in choosing management, it's an exercise in choosing leaders.

[Aklyon]

It sounds like you over there on the britlands would be doing much better if you didn't have a crazy person as the prime minister.

[Loud Whispers]

It sounds like you over there on the britlands would be doing much better if you didn't have a crazy person as the prime minister.

Our ruling eurosceptic party is led by a man who is pro-EU and his likely successor is pro-EU.

I think we're a bit fubard when it comes to choosing our own leaders right now :/

And consider the most likely person who could take over our ruling eurosceptic party who isn't pro-EU

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

We literally can't get off of Mr. Bones' wild ride. That's of course assuming our pro-EU opposition leader doesn't win.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

WE CAN'T GET OFF THIS WILD RIDE

THEY'RE ALL CRAZY

You can see why I am determined to take most any measure as close as possible into British hands as possible.

[Grim Portent]

Oddly enough Corbyn used to be anti-EU, and has been accused of switching to pro-EU rhetoric since becoming Labour leader to avoid intra-party conflict.

[Baffler]

Heh, it's looking like Boris then. You know you want to. Become one with the Tube strikes.

[Helgoland]

You can see why I am determined to take most any measure as close as possible into British hands as possible.

For the first time I sort of understand where you're coming from. But see it this way: If we create a properly democratic and transparent EU, your crazy English leaders won't be able to fuck up so badly any more!

[Aklyon]

But if you do that, would that make you more democratic than the us, or just a more transparent, more-confusing version on a different continent?

[Helgoland]

Just... different, really. In some sense the US is incredibly democratic, if you consider local communities as the elemental political building block rather than groups with common interests that are geographically dispersed. In another sense the European model is more democratic because it allows smaller groups to be heard more easily, at the cost of giving political organizations much more power.

I think they're not really comparable though - and never will be - simply because the societal differences behind the political ones are much too big.

[Loud Whispers]

Oddly enough Corbyn used to be anti-EU, and has been accused of switching to pro-EU rhetoric since becoming Labour leader to avoid intra-party conflict.

But he provoked intra-party conflict by refusing to tone down his pro-EU rhetoric, who is accusing him of having switched to avoid intra-party conflict? Well, to be fair it seems Corbyn can't open a window or peel an orange without provoking intra-party conflict. Labour party really needs some help, they've been in better shape

Heh, it's looking like Boris then. You know you want to. Become one with the Tube strikes.

Spoiler: One thing to note is that the selection process is confusing, arbitrary and prone to banter. (click to show/hide)

 For example the Tory selection process involves all the Tory MPs picking out two candidates with their criteria being (???) and their decision making process being (???) and their nomination criteria being (???!!?!?) to be decided upon by the Tory MPs again. (I was talking to one bloke considering becoming an MP who in turn was talking to some guy who was an MP and he said this selection process is largely the reason why it's very hard to become a high-ranking Tory MP and not be a very rich/high class/intellectually elite shoescrub because the ones already there always pick their m8s. So basically if you want to be an MP as a career choice, join labour if you can avoid the purge).
Winner of this process becomes leader. Unless they just immediately narrowed the field to one candidate who becomes elected leader because no one else was chosen. Or multiple nominees are received at which point the MPs hold a ballot on Tuesday (it has to be Tuesday) at which point the nominee with the lowest vote is eliminated and subsequent ballots are held every Thursday or Tuesday until only two nominees remain, at which point the wider membership of the Tory party (regular Joe bloggses registered as conservatives) hold a postal ballot vote for which nominee they hate the least. That nominee becomes leader.
The other big one being the labour party for example used to have a weighted voting electoral college system between the MPs, Socialist/Union members and general members, but Newlabs angry that David Miliband lost to his brother Ed Miliband due to powerful Union support (which resulted in a candidate popular with the public losing to a candidate unpopular with the public, resulting in a landslide defeat) triggered a change in the rules which meant all votes were equal. What was supposed to happen was the public would choose a candidate popular with the public and cancel out the influence of the trade unions, but what happened was it devolved into attempts to purge Green party entryists and other leftists from the Labour party whilst the labour unions gained MORE influence - and the party picked a candidate popular to an even narrower band of socialist society that began then purging Newlab leftists, entering the next cycle of purge. But first to even get to that new point you'd have to be nominated by 15% of the Party's MPs with AV voting until the top candidate is declared victor and elected leader.

The general elections in which we pick our MPs is sane and simple. Yet I am convinced the party election process is how we turn sane MPs into insane PMs.

For the first time I sort of understand where you're coming from. But see it this way: If we create a properly democratic and transparent EU, your crazy English leaders won't be able to fuck up so badly any more!

Spoiler: Haha, one of the worst mistakes the crazy British leaders have made though was giving away so much power to EU leaders in the first place (click to show/hide)

My confidence in EU leaders is far less given how the British have sorted out the current economic crisis better (no Eurozone crisis scrubs), the humanitarian crisis better (dear god what are they doing) and are at least competent shekel wizards (rely too much on debt and sterling magic but are at least diversifying in more ways than one). I'd also consider them the greater threat if I didn't have more influence over Brit than Brus - I don't think being ruled by people who don't live on the same land as you is wise because they fuck everything up and never live with the consequences. Tony the Blood God aside, creating a democratic and transparent EU would require eliminating the last of the British nation which I wouldn't want to do unless our leaders went unbearably crazy (it's a fell world truly if that was the case) and there is something inherently insane in trusting that the unaccountable people will want to make themselves accountable because... Well, what mechanisms do we have to force them to give away power? So far they have been accruing mechanisms to gain power, but not release it. Too worrying imo. I have very little influence over an aloof multi-millionaire living abroad with supremacy over my law who I can't even speak to without babel fish or interpretive dance.
Maybe if EU leaders understood British shekel wizardry; if they could prove themselves as great successes then over time everyone would warm up to them irregardless of old loyalties - create prosperity and most people will stop caring about this and that after enough time. Even I would! Alas, no. They have failed before my eyes harder than I find British parties have, considering our two largest parties are currently in their own civil wars that should show you how little I trust in their leadership. How can one thinktank's wishes be made policy for a continent with so little thought? Tonylab to his credit at the very least didn't posit policies that were existential threats to governance (though perhaps not for a lack of trying).

Though that is an interesting thought. Thinking about what it would take for me to support the EU...
Hmmm....
I suppose the default would be copious quantities of cash gifts and our own Obama superstar President along with continental elections that actually elect the executives (or have the Parliament be the legislative branch). Loose up on integration, regulation, move towards the common foreign policy without direct administration or assumption of military and security or border control, and then begin integrating those last three once North Africa and the ME have been stabilized. Oh, and Britain would have to be beyond hopelessness ;D
As a long-term goal, have one official language. Start off just having it be spoken in the law courts alongside other recognized languages (with interpreters) but start teaching schools all this one language and I suppose all the other languages would get screwed but... Well, you can't have a functional nation state without it being a functional nation state. French, English, German, any one of them over generations would probably do the most to unify everything.
On that last ranty note I don't really get the fondness for integration and it's not just because I don't understand Dutch (those bloody subtitles could be completely wrong and I'd be none the wiser) but why do Yuropoors want this great hegemony over everything, why isn't free trade enough? I don't even get the argument that a strong EU wards off American dominance because the USA is currently arguing that the UK should stay within the EU to preserve American influence in Europe. What

Really you don't need that much power to get shit done

[Helgoland]

creating a democratic and transparent EU would require eliminating the last of the British nation

Wait, what? Imagine the current EU, just with the Commissars elected by parliament and the parliament elected by the European people in a more equal process than the current one. How does that take away from Britishness?

I suppose the default would be copious quantities of cash gifts and our own Obama superstar President along with continental elections that actually elect the executives (or have the Parliament be the legislative branch). Loose up on integration, regulation, move towards the common foreign policy without direct administration or assumption of military and security or border control, and then begin integrating those last three once North Africa and the ME have been stabilized.

That... doesn't sound like it's too far away from what I'd like to see - epecially the bit about Parliament getting some actual power. Hm, moving towards a common foreign policy goal is difficult without force to back it up, no? How would you feel about an EU border control agency and an EU military coexisting with the national ones? It would necessarily entail some sharing of sovereignity - can't have border control without being allowed near the boders - but that ought to be a small sacrifice to make.

As a long-term goal, have one official language. Start off just having it be spoken in the law courts alongside other recognized languages (with interpreters) but start teaching schools all this one language and I suppose all the other languages would get screwed but... Well, you can't have a functional nation state without it being a functional nation state.

Why?

Seriously, why? This would be one of the few things that would turn me into an anti-EU fanatic pretty much immediately. One language means eradicating a shit-ton of national culture, and practically erasing the various national identities. Having one common administrative language would be a boon - and English is a clear favorite there - but why should that administrative language have to be the only one in use? Lots of states work fine with multiple languages - look at Switzerland. This sounds like an anti-EU fearmonger's scare scenario. I never would've expected you to call such a thing desirable.

why do Yuropoors want this great hegemony over everything, why isn't free trade enough?

I think it's mostly the trauma from hundreds of years of land warfare. The best way to make sure that the French don't invade is to live in the same country as them, and the same logic goes for the Germans, the Polish, the Italians...
Plus it just doesn't make sense that I should have to obey potentially radically different laws just because I stepped ten meters to the left. Integration just makes sense if you live in a border area - it's not about gaining power over your neighbors, it's about co-ordinating with them so everyone gets along better.

Really you don't need that much power to get shit done

You need the power to tell a small group 'Well, we know you've got special interests, and we've tried to take them into account, but this is the best we can manage. Now you'll have to bite the bullet and go along with what everyone agreed on.'

And you need the power to kick them in the teeth if they're being a dick and refuse to cooperate.

[Grim Portent]

Oddly enough Corbyn used to be anti-EU, and has been accused of switching to pro-EU rhetoric since becoming Labour leader to avoid intra-party conflict.

But he provoked intra-party conflict by refusing to tone down his pro-EU rhetoric, who is accusing him of having switched to avoid intra-party conflict? Well, to be fair it seems Corbyn can't open a window or peel an orange without provoking intra-party conflict. Labour party really needs some help, they've been in better shape

It's meant to be some Labour Eurosceptics that are critical of the shift in his tone. Can't find the original article I read it in, but here's a few links to do with the topic.

First a bit of basic history on his political record regarding the EU.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-is-making-a-big-speech-saying-we-should-remain-in-the-eu-heres-all-the-times-he-said-the-eu-was-bad-2016-4

Some more bits and pieces of his opinions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35743994

Most of this next link is irrelevant, but it has two quoted passages at the top from some Labour something or others disapproving of Corbyn shifting gear for the sake of party unity.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/14/corbyn-speech-eu-referendum-poll-shows-corbyn-more-trusted-on-europe-than-cameron-politics-live

I feel this excerpt gives a decent insight to Corbyn's personal position by the way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36039925

Asked why he had been converted to the EU cause, after speaking against it so many times in the past and voting to come out in the 1975 referendum, he said the Labour Party and trade unions had "overwhelmingly" decided to back EU membership "and that's the party I lead and that's the position I am putting forward."

The phrasing there certainly gives the impression he's just going with the party majority rather than his own opinions. Kind of a spineless thing to do really, but then Corbyn probably wants to be able to at least pretend the Labour party doesn't have a big gaping split in it right now.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: scrollllll (click to show/hide)

Wait, what? Imagine the current EU, just with the Commissars elected by parliament and the parliament elected by the European people in a more equal process than the current one. How does that take away from Britishness?

Supremacy over British parliament, the end of the monarchy, the end of British sovereignty and independence. This would be the end of Great Britain, "Britishness" I imagine would persist for as long as the British did and held it worthy of keeping. "Ever-closer-integration" will not become "oh yeah have your countries back loljk"

That... doesn't sound like it's too far away from what I'd like to see - epecially the bit about Parliament getting some actual power.

Well, there's some surprising common accord. I think for me the issue is all the things I would like to see depend upon the will of the Commission to relinquish all the power that has enriched them when the general trend is gain more power, not repatriate them.

Hm, moving towards a common foreign policy goal is difficult without force to back it up, no? How would you feel about an EU border control agency and an EU military coexisting with the national ones? It would necessarily entail some sharing of sovereignity - can't have border control without being allowed near the boders - but that ought to be a small sacrifice to make.

1. It depends upon who you need the force to back up against. On the internal front with enough economic, intellectual and political dominance that need not be a worry at all, and for foreign nations the sheer wealth and cultural influence of it would be enough to need not have costly American-style interventions. Besides naval and aerial patrols, maybe a exercises to spook Russia a bit, you really wouldn't need much. The EU could be as China, a big powerful blob making money and maintaining stability, whose biggest concern is halting interference not in succeeding in interfering. Providing the EU stopped trying to kill itself it would actually be the BIGGEST blob on the world stage (in terms of voice), and wealthiest blob. Maintaining such prosperous blobbiness wouldn't be too hard and expensive wars would risk that. Consider that the biggest rivals to the EU superstate would be China and the USA and military confrontation with either would end poorly for everyone. Money wars are far more feasible and can be constructive (or at least, more than destructive).
2. Coexistence is already the current status quo; in accordance with the current status quo all that would need be done is continual cooperation, exercises until the militaries are proficient enough to unify. Border situation is more retarded but I'm sure not being retarded would be rather easy to do, simply by actually enforcing the external border or else stop whinging everytime a "province" sets up "not border checks". Which is pretty much the same as we see now, and I only oppose because the previous conditions have not been satisfied.
3. Not sharing of sovereignty, erasure and redefining into one Eunited states of Europe, by the time we'd get to common fiscal policy this would not really be of serious concern.

As a long-term goal, have one official language. Start off just having it be spoken in the law courts alongside other recognized languages (with interpreters) but start teaching schools all this one language and I suppose all the other languages would get screwed but... Well, you can't have a functional nation state without it being a functional nation state.

Why?
Seriously, why? This would be one of the few things that would turn me into an anti-EU fanatic pretty much immediately. One language means eradicating a shit-ton of national culture, and practically erasing the various national identities. Having one common administrative language would be a boon - and English is a clear favorite there - but why should that administrative language have to be the only one in use? Lots of states work fine with multiple languages - look at Switzerland. This sounds like an anti-EU fearmonger's scare scenario. I never would've expected you to call such a thing desirable.

Well this is new. If you aren't willing to sacrifice a shit ton of national culture or willing to erase a few of the various national identities why would you be willing to support the EU, which will necessitate sacrificing a shit ton of national culture and erasing various national identities? It need not be just one language at first (or at all), but just teaching common language standards across the EU (French, English, German and Spanish in addition to native languages would strike a good compromise and given enough time will gradually gain dominance and do more good to unifying Europe in function and spirit). You will have to enforce uniform customs and as the Commission phrases it, "European values" starting from education - which is one of their goals. I'd be happy with this if the UK wasn't in this (or if my prerequisites were fulfilled) because there'd be no point in a dysfunctional and disunited EU and language barriers will be one of the biggest obstacles to that and nationalism will be the biggest. Consider that the Visegrad group and the British Isles' defiance of the EU commission is because there are still significantly large numbers of people in those countries who want to preserve their nation states because it is theirs, made by they of common national identity. You won't be able to enforce supremacy of law and gain their administrative branches' loyalty without first removing their old loyalty and enforcing anew the EU as its replacement. Consider the only other state entity to have ever managed to rule over Europe for an extended period of time; the Roman Empire. When they invaded the Gauls, the Celts, the Iberians, Ionians and so on - Greek was already the lingua franca amongst the merchants and that made subsequent administration possible over so many people.
The real ideal would be to push for cosmopolitanism and globalism, pushing for one global community (or until the world gets less fucked, one european community whose "europeanness" is divorced from its roots but in doing so entrenches itself and will in time, do so with roots anew). This is a natural process that has already begun with the ending of most nation states. Germany is not concerned with being German, France not with being French, Sweden not with being Swedish - yet Poland is concerned with being Polish and so opposes the EU. The UK is odd in that it is already quite cosmopolitan but opposes the EU, our cosmopolitan nature comes from the Commonwealth and not a rootless atomized mass though so that makes sense - we're still preserving something. I think it's rather notable that both London and Paris have some of the highest concentrations of migrants in all of Europe, yet London where the English are minority flies overwhelmingly British flags over EU flags whilst Paris where French Parisians are the overwhelming majority fly overwhelmingly more EU flags than French flags. It's good strategy, and it's the one that would cement the EU as more than an experiment - but instead an enduring civilization.
Perhaps you're imagining I'm suggesting some tyrannical word bureau that outlaws all deviant languages, rather it's more about supporting common languages and working towards everyone having common tongue and making all the people of the EU have far more similarities than differences. If you're concerned with preserving national culture you wouldn't be against nation-states and in favour of a globalist pan-national state, if you're in favour of a globalist pan-national state why would you half-arse it to dysfunction, so both globalists and nationalists are unhappy?

Thing is, if you build a prosperous and functioning state over time people will grow to cherish it. If you half-arse this all the national culture Europe has already lost will be lost for no gain, lost in vain and I hate wasted effort. What would perhaps be most heartbreaking for me would be for the UK's bid for independence to fail as if we lose this I don't think we're getting another chance at it, and that will mean the best bet for the UK to be prosperous will be to help the EU prosper. A lot of sacrifices would have to be made, Britain itself... There wouldn't really be any choice in the matter unless we all decided a Europe where everyone loses is preferable, all the strife has to be worth something and London can weather change well even if the land around will not... Though it is immensely uncomfortable for me to even envisage working towards the EU's profit it would become necessary, even if it means personally hammering the nails in the United Kingdom's coffin. If we lose this we are permanently docked into the EU in accordance to Cameron's wishes and Euroscepticism will decrease with each generation due to our academia's support. Even if we succeed our negotiations will be conducted last-minute by Cameron who has not even planned for this eventuality and could just as well bullshit us into being de facto an EU state. So much can go wrong and so much will have to be fought for whether we win or lose, in light of a defeat culture seems a meaningless casualty on the list of all things that must end.

Now that does seem terribly fatalistic... I pray I never in my life will have to write an eulogy for these isles but if the political situation is hopeless then there seems no reason at all not to be proactive in building something new for future generations to respect and enrich themselves with. I don't want barren ash.

why do Yuropoors want this great hegemony over everything, why isn't free trade enough?

I think it's mostly the trauma from hundreds of years of land warfare. The best way to make sure that the French don't invade is to live in the same country as them, and the same logic goes for the Germans, the Polish, the Italians...

The best way to make sure that Islamists don't blow up my city is to live in the same Ummah as them but that completely defeats the point of fighting to keep independence.
I'm dyin m8
The best way to make sure that the French don't invade your country is to be on friendly terms, seek economic interdependence and cooperation so that invasions become actually impossible without automatic self-destruction and if you want to be Swiss about it, keep a military on standby just in case. Seriously how do you come up with this idea when Switzerland is your neighbour. Just fuck my shit up fam, Europeans are so traumatized from the notion of previous generations dying to defend their countries that they gave away those countries they didn't die for.
This is what they teach in schools. Every week there's another git on my tele smiling ear to ear saying if we don't have the EU France will nuke London, that instead of facing the spectre of this great war not on the horizon we need the European Union to restrain the martial bloodlust of Belgium and so we should just surrender everything now to stop fictional warlords from taking our surrender by force.

Plus it just doesn't make sense that I should have to obey potentially radically different laws just because I stepped ten meters to the left. Integration just makes sense if you live in a border area - it's not about gaining power over your neighbors, it's about co-ordinating with them so everyone gets along better.

Gaining control over their law courts just so your citizens don't have to follow the local law of foreign nations is a lot of power gained, least of all because you're doing something that is convenient for some on the borders and using it to justify control of a continent's people. By erasing the radical differences between peoples you do just that - erase the differences between them.
I get it from a state building point of view but to have done all this over convenience is so horrifying that it must not be true; building the one state at least is a thing that could be worth it.

Really you don't need that much power to get shit done

You need the power to tell a small group 'Well, we know you've got special interests, and we've tried to take them into account, but this is the best we can manage. Now you'll have to bite the bullet and go along with what everyone agreed on.'
And you need the power to kick them in the teeth if they're being a dick and refuse to cooperate.

it's not about gaining power over your neighbors, it's about co-ordinating with them so everyone gets along better.

And you need the power to kick them in the teeth if they're being a dick and refuse to cooperate.

Couldn't resist it
Don't take my qmining as more than banter

Seriously though when you've got legal and economic control that's more than enough, when you've got fiscal control everything's in your control already. When you're talking military power then that's not how you negotiate, gunboat diplomacy in a nuclear world does not a safe europe make. Also the EU would need advisors and think tanks that aren't planning to make Europeans getting blown up a regular occurrence, ffs esi.
I stand by "you really don't need that much power to get shit done." Consider how much more powerful China is than Great Britain, yet with more efficient use of less resources (and more versatile resources) Great Britain is more capable of force projection. Well, given China's recent militiarization I doubt we'll be able to keep those bragging rights for more than maybe four or five years (maybe they already have but haven't had the opportunity to show it?). But then look at China again; with vast resources AND efficient application of them, they are capable of making all of East Asia and North America scared without having actually committed any soldiers to teeth kicking, or having even actually developed force projection capabilities. The very notion of developing capability is a meaningful threat enough on top of actual capability (albeit you have to show ability to deliver at some point, hence whacky Russian adventures in everywhere or American history in general).

Maybe someone should tell Asia they just need to give their countries to the People's Republic, that way China won't dominate them by military force, only control their country

It's meant to be some Labour Eurosceptics that are critical of the shift in his tone. Can't find the original article I read it in, but here's a few links to do with the topic.

Shitehoc I thought they were purged

The phrasing there certainly gives the impression he's just going with the party majority rather than his own opinions. Kind of a spineless thing to do really, but then Corbyn probably wants to be able to at least pretend the Labour party doesn't have a big gaping split in it right now.

Diplomatic speak for "please no more controversies"
Smart thing to do, being a spineless jelly is not threatening to anyone. Amusingly on the topic of politicians and dubious affiliations with unknown EU stances one of the first responses from the remain campaign was that Boris Johnson was actually pro-EU and only leading the leave campaign in a bid for Tory leadership and personal advancement. Now that's plausible but Boris Johnson being pretty eurosceptic all this time whilst Cameron slagged him for it suggests he's genuine on that, yet all the same Boris Johnson's campaign was chosen as the official leave EU campaign over others by the electoral commission, others for whom there could be no doubts they are pro-UK. I cannot accept this though, as I imagine if he really was pro-EU announcing it instead of sabotaging the campaign from within *just enough* would be a far more profitable move (and you wouldn't want to pick someone like Boris who'd be a positive impact to conduct such shenanigery either). Plus I think it'd be a bit much to have the Commission, the US President, our own Prime Minister, our Chancellor and even the leader of our own Leave campaign against us, I believe fate cannot truly be that stacked against honest endeavour xD
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/
FT poll poll is showing pretty neck and neck, notably it's showing the stay campaign as having gained a 2% lead when it used to be the leave campaign leading. The polls could be more bullshit than the general election ones but you do wonder...

For those who don't know David Cameron spent the better part of 2015 and 2016 trying to keep our pro-UK politicians quiet to not influence the election in the wrong direction. Well and then he used state funds to send a pro-EU leaflet to every household at the cost of £9M for the leaflets alone. That is more than the entire Leave Campaign's maximum legal campaign budget as set by the Electoral Commission.
The PM said the government was "not neutral" and backed remaining in the EU and it was right to explain why.

For those who are pro-UK there is a certain despair in our opposing faction having limitless access to funds and no legal restrictions
They outspent our side's entire total campaign budget without actually using any of their campaign funds delivering leaflets to every single household in the UK

My lights are dead inside but I'm still working

[Helgoland]

Well this is new. If you aren't willing to sacrifice a shit ton of national culture or willing to erase a few of the various national identities why would you be willing to support the EU, which will necessitate sacrificing a shit ton of national culture and erasing various national identities?

I guess I just don't think common administration necessarily means erasing local culture - again, look at the Swiss. Or hell, look at Germany! Maybe this is why I'm more optimistic than you in this regard - I've lived in a heavily federalized country all my life, much more heavily federalized than Great Britain. Bavaria has been ruled from Berlin for what, 150 years or so by now? They're still wearing Dirndls and drinking Weißbier. And in Cologne there's still Carnival, Kölsch, and Köbesse. Up North they still burn great heaps of trimmings each Easter, just like their forebears did even before the area became Christian. And in the East they also follow their ancient traditions, lighting foreigners on fire and muttering about how a dictatorship wouldn't be all that bad. And Berlin can't do shit about it - and it doesn't want to, either.
I don't see why things would have to be different on an EU level.

Supremacy over British parliament, the end of the monarchy, the end of British sovereignty and independence. This would be the end of Great Britain, "Britishness" I imagine would persist for as long as the British did and held it worthy of keeping.

Supremacy over British parliament - sure, that's sort of a given, but shouldn't be too bad if it's another parliament that's exercising that supremacy. End of British sovereignity and independence? Well yeah. End of the monarchy? Why should the EU depose the Queen?

What really gets me about this is: Are you really attached to the English state, as opposed to the English nation? Because all you're saying is that the English state would dissolve, yet you freely talk about the English nation living on...

The best way to make sure that the French don't invade your country is to be on friendly terms, seek economic interdependence and cooperation so that invasions become actually impossible without automatic self-destruction and if you want to be Swiss about it, keep a military on standby just in case.

Well, before WWI quite a few people considered the economic interdependence of the European states big enough to prevent big wars. They were wrong. Who says that we're right when we claim the same thing? Just look at Russia - there you can see without trouble that politics still trump economics.
The other big danger is: What if France elects an irrational leader who does not see those benefits? Or, God forbid, my countrymen do? Especially in an economic downturn, where those benefits are less pronounced, this is a real possibility. And in such a situation the old saying 'Blood is thicker than water' holds true: Friendship can wither, so it's better to be brothers than just friends.
And where ideals and political views are concerned, the (EU) European nations are pretty similar already, so living under the same roof would hardly be a burden. It would be different with, let's say, Russia - that's why I'm not advocating the integration of that country, at least not to the same degree. But where's the fundamental gap between a German dude and a Frenchman?

it's not about gaining power over your neighbors, it's about co-ordinating with them so everyone gets along better.

And you need the power to kick them in the teeth if they're being a dick and refuse to cooperate.

Couldn't resist it
Don't take my qmining as more than banter

Well, it's equally important to me that it's possible to kick my country in the teeth as well - I thought that was a given. Again: I find the idea of one country dominating its neighbors to be abhorrent.