"I've Missed Two Appointments With...
Body & Soul1 min ago
John Major Live On Today Program Now !
Last Tory PM in favour of staying.
Answers
Well, he's not mincing his words, is he?
07:17 Fri 29th Apr 2016
He is astonishingly, the highest paid politician in the world!
http://
Isn't it interesting that many of the 'stayers' both organizations and individuals would suffer a loss if Brexit were to happen?
http://
Isn't it interesting that many of the 'stayers' both organizations and individuals would suffer a loss if Brexit were to happen?
Jim, //How free are "we", really? Again, it's that use of the word "we" that implies some sense of collective agreement, when the reality is anything but.//
The UK is never going to achieve absolute collective agreement – that would be impossible in any democracy - but I don’t see that as a reason to allow twenty-six foreign nations, where sheer numbers alone render it even more difficult to reach collective agreement, to demand our money and dictate our rules and laws.
//sometimes, we don't get our way, and the rules go against our choices. But we have some chance to amend them. Out, we have no such chance, ever.//
‘Out’ we won’t need to amend them. They won’t affect us.
//the only way to avoid the EU and its rules entirely is to turn our backs on it//
That’s nonsense. No one is suggesting we ‘avoid’ the EU. Everyone wants to trade – the members of the EU included - and whether we’re in or out, they will trade and we will trade because trading is in everyone’s best interests. I find your attitude weak, visionless, and defeatist.
The UK is never going to achieve absolute collective agreement – that would be impossible in any democracy - but I don’t see that as a reason to allow twenty-six foreign nations, where sheer numbers alone render it even more difficult to reach collective agreement, to demand our money and dictate our rules and laws.
//sometimes, we don't get our way, and the rules go against our choices. But we have some chance to amend them. Out, we have no such chance, ever.//
‘Out’ we won’t need to amend them. They won’t affect us.
//the only way to avoid the EU and its rules entirely is to turn our backs on it//
That’s nonsense. No one is suggesting we ‘avoid’ the EU. Everyone wants to trade – the members of the EU included - and whether we’re in or out, they will trade and we will trade because trading is in everyone’s best interests. I find your attitude weak, visionless, and defeatist.
"Out ... their rules won't affect us."
Yes they will, be it because we can't form a deal without accepting that some of the rules must still apply to us (as is the case for Norway, Switzerland etc.), or because dealing with the EU means dealing with its rules as a basis for how we trade with the body. One way or another, we will still be affected by the EU's rules; we just won't be able to affect them in the same way we can now.
As for defeatist, visionless and weak -- well, I might as well call yours idealist and misguided. It's certainly the latter; there is no sense in pretending that EU rules will simply stop applying in totality after Brexit. Is it the former as well? Yes, I think it is -- because it applies a completely unrealistic definition of freedom. For the purpose of my post, that is what I was trying to shatter. The freedom apparently granted by sovereignty is a hollow illusion, as we may very well be about to find out to our cost.
I prefer the term "realistic" to "defeatist". Weak? Well, possibly. But, again, I think you can also characterise it as accepting that, on multiple levels, I (and "we") don't always get what we want, but in the long run that's the point of life, no? Pretty pathetic to call someone weak because they are content to live in a world that is about more than what they want. And to "visionless"? No. I have a vision of a world that in the end moves towards more union, rather than less. From my point of view, the obsession with nationalistic sovereignty is a vision for moving in the wrong direction.
Yes they will, be it because we can't form a deal without accepting that some of the rules must still apply to us (as is the case for Norway, Switzerland etc.), or because dealing with the EU means dealing with its rules as a basis for how we trade with the body. One way or another, we will still be affected by the EU's rules; we just won't be able to affect them in the same way we can now.
As for defeatist, visionless and weak -- well, I might as well call yours idealist and misguided. It's certainly the latter; there is no sense in pretending that EU rules will simply stop applying in totality after Brexit. Is it the former as well? Yes, I think it is -- because it applies a completely unrealistic definition of freedom. For the purpose of my post, that is what I was trying to shatter. The freedom apparently granted by sovereignty is a hollow illusion, as we may very well be about to find out to our cost.
I prefer the term "realistic" to "defeatist". Weak? Well, possibly. But, again, I think you can also characterise it as accepting that, on multiple levels, I (and "we") don't always get what we want, but in the long run that's the point of life, no? Pretty pathetic to call someone weak because they are content to live in a world that is about more than what they want. And to "visionless"? No. I have a vision of a world that in the end moves towards more union, rather than less. From my point of view, the obsession with nationalistic sovereignty is a vision for moving in the wrong direction.
http://
2:10 in
Ok I listened to the article, and whilst admitting John Major is a good speaker I wasn't overly impressed with his arguments.
He starts with a speech which includes his opinions, that are debatable, and which I consider amounts to misinformation. He belittles opposing opinion as soundbites, and I don't spot how he shows support for the ones he holds; and it all seems to revolve around the usual strategy of spreading fear (even though later he seems reluctant to go down the "what if" route).
He claims the UK is still sovereign but misses the fact that we are not until the act is repealed. Sovereignty has been put to one side in the meanwhile. So claims to the contrary are disingenuous.
He makes a foolish comparison with N. Korea. as being an undiluted sovereignty, if we are interested in being one, completely ignoring the need for the comparison country to be democratic. I'm unsure how many that convinces. And I am surprised that a British politician would hold such a low opinion of democracy. He then states the usual opinion that one needs to share sovereignty in these times, when common sense tells you that making agreements towards common aims will do the job just as well.
He seems concerned about economic well being and diplomatic clout but it isn't clear that either will suffer. Especially in the medium and longer term. Simply an example of fear spreading.
John Humpheries was not always expressing himself well; thus allowing John Major to score unnecessarily. A typical example being when it was stated that we had been outvoted on 72 laws and claimed that was 72 to nothing, when apparently that was 72 losing votes from a larger number and we had been on the winning side of the vote in over 90% of the total votes made. Of course this means one loses around 10% of the time a law was passed and that we were obliged to enact when we disagreed with it. This was the point actually trying to be made.
John M then goes on about the courts sometimes rule in our favour. But that isn't the relevant point. The important thing is that it still overrules national law, so John M didn't answer the question. Then he goes on to point out that there are areas where the court doesn't apply, as if that made the rest of it ok.
He's happy about federalism occurring, and claims that we are going to be part of neither federalism nor Euro: but how can he say what will happen in the future after the referendum ?
And then more fear spreading. We export to the EU, implying we couldn't at the same advantage from outside; not that it matters, there is a whole world to take up the slack. He speaks of jobs and well being as if we'd have no job opportunity outside the EU. Of access to markets, again as if this would not be available outside. Of economic & diplomatic clout as if no one outside the EU is important or is heard. And gave the examples of Russian sanctions and saving the Kurds, as if a bunch of nations could not agree to act in unison without the EU straightjacket. And finally something about losing industries such as the car industry, again as if the UK couldn't start industries outside of the EU, car or otherwise.
He speaks well, but his opinions and arguments, once considered, are unconvincing.
2:10 in
Ok I listened to the article, and whilst admitting John Major is a good speaker I wasn't overly impressed with his arguments.
He starts with a speech which includes his opinions, that are debatable, and which I consider amounts to misinformation. He belittles opposing opinion as soundbites, and I don't spot how he shows support for the ones he holds; and it all seems to revolve around the usual strategy of spreading fear (even though later he seems reluctant to go down the "what if" route).
He claims the UK is still sovereign but misses the fact that we are not until the act is repealed. Sovereignty has been put to one side in the meanwhile. So claims to the contrary are disingenuous.
He makes a foolish comparison with N. Korea. as being an undiluted sovereignty, if we are interested in being one, completely ignoring the need for the comparison country to be democratic. I'm unsure how many that convinces. And I am surprised that a British politician would hold such a low opinion of democracy. He then states the usual opinion that one needs to share sovereignty in these times, when common sense tells you that making agreements towards common aims will do the job just as well.
He seems concerned about economic well being and diplomatic clout but it isn't clear that either will suffer. Especially in the medium and longer term. Simply an example of fear spreading.
John Humpheries was not always expressing himself well; thus allowing John Major to score unnecessarily. A typical example being when it was stated that we had been outvoted on 72 laws and claimed that was 72 to nothing, when apparently that was 72 losing votes from a larger number and we had been on the winning side of the vote in over 90% of the total votes made. Of course this means one loses around 10% of the time a law was passed and that we were obliged to enact when we disagreed with it. This was the point actually trying to be made.
John M then goes on about the courts sometimes rule in our favour. But that isn't the relevant point. The important thing is that it still overrules national law, so John M didn't answer the question. Then he goes on to point out that there are areas where the court doesn't apply, as if that made the rest of it ok.
He's happy about federalism occurring, and claims that we are going to be part of neither federalism nor Euro: but how can he say what will happen in the future after the referendum ?
And then more fear spreading. We export to the EU, implying we couldn't at the same advantage from outside; not that it matters, there is a whole world to take up the slack. He speaks of jobs and well being as if we'd have no job opportunity outside the EU. Of access to markets, again as if this would not be available outside. Of economic & diplomatic clout as if no one outside the EU is important or is heard. And gave the examples of Russian sanctions and saving the Kurds, as if a bunch of nations could not agree to act in unison without the EU straightjacket. And finally something about losing industries such as the car industry, again as if the UK couldn't start industries outside of the EU, car or otherwise.
He speaks well, but his opinions and arguments, once considered, are unconvincing.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.