Oh Dear - he's gone and trumped them all!

[RogerS]

I think that the lack of ability or IQ of the average voter to actually do any analysis of the issues so as to make an informed decision might have something to do with the result. Both here and in the States.

You may well be right there, however I know quite a few people with phDs who are a bit thick when it comes to some issues :roll:

So do I ! My neighbour is a PhD but when the commonsense smarts were being given out, I think he must have bunked off that day. He constantly keeps paying tradesmen all the money up front and then wonders why the jobs never get finished.

 

[RogerS]

I think that the lack of ability or IQ of the average voter to actually do any analysis of the issues so as to make an informed decision might have something to do with the result. Both here and in the States.

Something I've noticed in life is that even people who might struggle with academic qualifications still have a pretty fair idea about what is, and is not, in their best interests. I don't buy all this stuff about people being too thick to vote - it's just that their interests might not accord with the highly educated liberal elite's. If they can't vote, what other options do you leave them to express their opinions? Armed insurrection?

They are too thick to vote because they do not think or examine any further than what their preferred rag is telling them to do.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I think that the lack of ability or IQ of the average voter to actually do any analysis of the issues so as to make an informed decision might have something to do with the result. Both here and in the States.

Something I've noticed in life is that even people who might struggle with academic qualifications still have a pretty fair idea about what is, and is not, in their best interests. I don't buy all this stuff about people being too thick to vote - it's just that their interests might not accord with the highly educated liberal elite's. If they can't vote, what other options do you leave them to express their opinions? Armed insurrection?

They are too thick to vote because they do not think or examine any further than what their preferred rag is telling them to do.

Anybody else you'd like to exclude? People who are too old and might be senile, or too young to really understand the problems? People with dodgy clothes like ripped jeans or bomber jackets? People with the wrong accents?

 

[RossJarvis]

They are too thick to vote because they do not think or examine any further than what their preferred rag is telling them to do.

Approximately 5.5m people buy the Sun the Mail and the Mirror alone!!

I'm not sure how we'd be able to stop these guys getting into polling stations, would we need to ask everyone to bring along six months worth of copies of their daily read as proof?

 

[RossJarvis]

So do I ! My neighbour is a PhD but when the commonsense smarts were being given out, I think he must have bunked off that day. He constantly keeps paying tradesmen all the money up front and then wonders why the jobs never get finished.

Is he one of those super brainy boffs who wouldn't even know which way round to hold a screw-driver?

 

[RogerS]

Something I've noticed in life is that even people who might struggle with academic qualifications still have a pretty fair idea about what is, and is not, in their best interests. I don't buy all this stuff about people being too thick to vote - it's just that their interests might not accord with the highly educated liberal elite's. If they can't vote, what other options do you leave them to express their opinions? Armed insurrection?

They are too thick to vote because they do not think or examine any further than what their preferred rag is telling them to do.

Anybody else you'd like to exclude? People who are too old and might be senile, or too young to really understand the problems? People with dodgy clothes like ripped jeans or bomber jackets? People with the wrong accents?

Now you are just being silly.

 

[RogerS]

They are too thick to vote because they do not think or examine any further than what their preferred rag is telling them to do.

Approximately 5.5m people buy the Sun the Mail and the Mirror alone!!

I'm not sure how we'd be able to stop these guys getting into polling stations, would we need to ask everyone to bring along six months worth of copies of their daily read as proof?

I'm not sure what point you are making. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect someone voting to make an informed decision ? You can only get an informed decision if you consider all viewpoints carefully and then make your decision. Not because the Sun screams 'We wuz robbed' or similar.

 

[RossJarvis]

They are too thick to vote because they do not think or examine any further than what their preferred rag is telling them to do.

Approximately 5.5m people buy the Sun the Mail and the Mirror alone!!

I'm not sure how we'd be able to stop these guys getting into polling stations, would we need to ask everyone to bring along six months worth of copies of their daily read as proof?

I'm not sure what point you are making. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect someone voting to make an informed decision ? You can only get an informed decision if you consider all viewpoints carefully and then make your decision. Not because the Sun screams 'We wuz robbed' or similar.

I think the point I was trying to make is that it may be unreasonable to expect everyone to make an informed decision and that even those who do look into it may not make the "right" decision.

I'd agree that ideally anyone voting would be making their decision on carefully thought out "informed" grounds, but how do we legislate for that? In the past, voting was restricted to "educated landowning" types who were male. More recently for very good reasons, voting has been expanded to most adults. To follow your expectations would, it seems to me, require narrowing down those who are allowed to vote. Who would decide how we do that, on what grounds and how to implement it? I could see this leading to unfair discrimination against those who would be effected by the vote who would end up being unable to take part in the vote.

As it is, people under the age of 18 and other adults are already excluded and there seem to be good reasons to allow more people to vote, not less.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Now you are just being silly.

No more so than excluding people who read the 'wrong' newspaper.

As Ross pointed out, it's taken several centuries to extend the franchise to (almost) everybody over the age of 18. Quite a few choose not to cast their vote, even though entitled to do so - indeed, turnouts at some general elections have been worryingly low. That would tend to suggest that those who do vote care about the issues, and whilst their reasons for casting their vote may not accord with yours, or mine, or the 'liberal elite', they are still entitled to vote as they see fit. Anything less is not democracy, it's authoritarianism.

The turnout for the EU referendum was quite high (72%, from memory), as was turnout for the Scottish independence vote. When people think something matters, they do bother; when they think it won't make much difference, some don't. Once Westminster is sovereign again, it wouldn't surprise me if turnouts at general elections increased again, because people would feel that they could influence the country's political direction again, in the way they did in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

 

[Jacob]

....Once Westminster is sovereign again, ....

Westminster never has not been sovereign.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

....Once Westminster is sovereign again, ....

Westminster never has not been sovereign.

The UK has been ceding sovereignty to the EU since 1973, starting with control over our territorial waters for fishing. Each succeeding treaty (Maastricht, Lisbon, etc) ceded more, notwithstanding a few opt-outs here and there. The UK no longer has full control of agricultural policy, energy policy, immigration and border policy, business regulation and much else.

We've just had a great debate and a referendum about whether or not to repatriate that sovereignty or continue to cede more to Brussels. Surely you can't have missed it?

 

[RossJarvis]

Westminster never has not been sovereign.

Uh oh, I can hear the sirens of the grammar police approaching.

 

[Jacob]

....Once Westminster is sovereign again, ....

Westminster never has not been sovereign.

The UK has been ceding sovereignty to the EU since 1973, starting with control over our territorial waters for fishing. Each succeeding treaty (Maastricht, Lisbon, etc) ceded more, notwithstanding a few opt-outs here and there. The UK no longer has full control of agricultural policy, energy policy, immigration and border policy, business regulation and much else.

We've just had a great debate and a referendum about whether or not to repatriate that sovereignty or continue to cede more to Brussels. Surely you can't have missed it?

Every contract or agreement that anybody has with anybody, at every level, person to person, govt to govt, involves "ceding" sovereignty - life would be impossible without it.
In general these agreements are presumed to be worth the trade off.
It's not at all clear that we would better off without these various forms of contract with the EU.
In general civilisation itself depends on a wide "social contract" - limiting our freedom and specifying our obligations.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Just out of curiosity Jacob....do you personally think a federalist Europe is the right direction? This isn't a loaded question or leading in any way, I'm genuinely interested in the perspective because fundamentally this whole issue of sovereignty is really just the thin end of the federalist debate. (My mind isn't made up one way or another just yet which is why I'm always fishing for different views).

Do we think that Europe becoming like separate and yet con-joined States in the US is a good or bad thing economically, socially?

 

[RossJarvis]

Just out of curiosity Jacob....do you personally think a federalist Europe is the right direction? This isn't a loaded question or leading in any way, I'm genuinely interested in the perspective because fundamentally this whole issue of sovereignty is really just the thin end of the federalist debate. (My mind isn't made up one way or another just yet which is why I'm always fishing for different views).

Do we think that Europe becoming like separate and yet con-joined States in the US is a good or bad thing economically, socially?

Personally I could never see the difference in being shafted by a bunch of idiots in Westminster and being shafted by a bunch of idiots in Brussels or Strasbourg.

 

[RogerS]

Just out of curiosity Jacob....do you personally think a federalist Europe is the right direction? This isn't a loaded question or leading in any way, I'm genuinely interested in the perspective because fundamentally this whole issue of sovereignty is really just the thin end of the federalist debate. (My mind isn't made up one way or another just yet which is why I'm always fishing for different views).

Do we think that Europe becoming like separate and yet con-joined States in the US is a good or bad thing economically, socially?

Personally I could never see the difference in being shafted by a bunch of idiots in Westminster and being shafted by a bunch of idiots in Brussels or Strasbourg.

You can vote for the idiots in Westminster but not for the ones that really call the shots in Brussels and Strasbourg.

 

[RogerS]

Just digressing slightly into the practicalities of doing business/taking equipment abroad pre-EEC. The Great 'Carnet' game. A game for two teams. On one side is you. On the other side, all the various Customs officers of every single European country that you drive through en route to your destination carrying all that demo equipment in the boot of your car. In case some of you don't know how to play the Great 'carnet' game, the rules are very simple.

Rule 1 - Prior to leaving the UK you deposit a large sum of money with HMRC as security that you will actually be bringing back the equipment with you. You fill in a form detailing in minute detail what you are taking out. This is recorded on the Master form that you take with you and is checked at each point of entry and exit. In return you will get a box form and two sheets of paper per country being travelled through.

Rule 2 - As you leave the UK, you give up one of those pieces of paper and in return get a stamp in the box form.

Rule 3 - When you enter the next country on your route, you give up another piece of paper (the Entrance Form) and collect another stamp on the box form.

Rule 4 - As you leave that country, you give up another piece of paper (the Exit form) and collect another stamp.

And so on until finally

Last rule - you return to the UK and give up your last piece of paper and collect the last stamp.

You win if you have the correct number of stamps on the form as you get your money back.

Forfeits.

If you find that you don't have the correct number of pieces of paper (you did count them before you left the UK, didn't you ? DAMHIKT) then you lose.

If you have not detailed the equipment model numbers properly on the Master form then you will pay a forfeit, not get your form stamped and lose. Unless you manage to luckily find in an obscure serial number somewhere the exact number that the customs man is looking for (because you had to do a hot swap of a circuit board while you were away and the model number of the new board doesn't match that on the Master form DAMHIKT).

And that, my friends, is how you play the Great Carnet game.

Soon to be at a port near you.

 

[RossJarvis]

You can vote for the idiots in Westminster but not for the ones that really call the shots in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Good point, however I never seem to be able to vote for the correct idiots to get in

I've never really been able to get my head round which bunch of idiots run the EU, the voted in MEPs or the non voted technocrats.

I did notice however, when visiting the Brussels EU parliament building a few years back, that disabled access there was a hell of a lot worse than most places in the UK (hammer) so have never been sure whether all the complaints about over-regulation coming from the EU are justified.

 

[RobinBHM]

Just out of curiosity Jacob....do you personally think a federalist Europe is the right direction? This isn't a loaded question or leading in any way, I'm genuinely interested in the perspective because fundamentally this whole issue of sovereignty is really just the thin end of the federalist debate. (My mind isn't made up one way or another just yet which is why I'm always fishing for different views).

Do we think that Europe becoming like separate and yet con-joined States in the US is a good or bad thing economically, socially?

For me, the whole EU in /out debate has been about this, not about immigration

I think there are 3 issues: practical, economic and ideological:

practical: my gut felling is that as organisations become larger, they become less efficient, less flexible.

ideology: my fear is that as organisations grow those at the top will empire build, leading to mission creep changing the nature of the EU and becoming less accountable

economic: the Eurozone is not a success and I think the Euro is over valued given the economic issues that caused 5 of the 17 Eurozone countries to be baled out.

Clearly having common technical standards, single market trading etc can, and has been overall very successful, but it comes at a great cost.

The UK has never had any power to influence the European parliament, so whilst reform would have been a theoretical option, it was never a real possibility.

 

[Jacob]

Just out of curiosity Jacob....do you personally think a federalist Europe is the right direction? This isn't a loaded question or leading in any way, I'm genuinely interested in the perspective because fundamentally this whole issue of sovereignty is really just the thin end of the federalist debate. (My mind isn't made up one way or another just yet which is why I'm always fishing for different views).

Do we think that Europe becoming like separate and yet con-joined States in the US is a good or bad thing economically, socially?

It's easy to get waylaid by terms; "federalist" "union" "sovereignty" etc - non of them have a definitive simple meaning and the reality on the ground shifts steadily.
I think the sort of cooperation and common goals aspired to by the EU are interesting and as a group it should give more power over the quality of our lives. But just like most alliances; only as long as the going is good!
We also would have more power on the world stage.
Depends what the power is used for. It started as trade agreements (hence historic mistrust from the left) but evolved into a more social institution, if not quite "socialist" but concerned with quality of life, human rights etc. (hence mistrust from the right).
Interesting to compare "The Four Freedoms" of Roosevelt (very idealistic) and the EU (very prosaic and much about trade).
But the EU 4 freedoms does include a star feature; freedom of movement. This is a radical idea and very democratic, "democracy on the hoof". Without it the other 3 freedoms are just about privileges for trade - arguably keeping the workers captive in their own countries. Free movement of capital but not of people.

No wonder it's freedom of movement to be ditched first, if the interests of trade and business take precedence via Brexit - we would all lose by it, as individuals, and we could be turning our backs on something very progressive and constructive.