Brexit

[springlullaby]

What mystifies me is how the idea of a referendum was pitched to Cameron in the first place.

Historically, when asked its opinion in direct votes, the general public across Europe had already shown to be at best lukewarm about the whole idea of increasing European integration.
France, and the Netherlands both said no to the European Constitution, and that was back in 2005, well before the debt-crisis. AND a time when nationalist parties with anti-european discourse were still marginalized for their dubious nazi/fascist flavoring, and not being considered as legit, mainstream, even respectable political forces as there are now.

It was already clear back then that, if media/intellectuals/'elite' were in love with Europe and its vast (economic) prospects, the general populace of richer countries didn't like the idea of sharing reality with poorer ones.

[springlullaby]

I'm pro Europe because I think it's the better long term strategy for its countries which can no longer rely on their old, post-colonial privileges and are faced with asian giants, the Americas, URSS and a prospective arabian geopolitical block.

But then I'm kinda cheering on for independent UK to succeed too because facilitating migration of cheaper labor from poorer member countries is a clear design of the Shengen Agreement (instances of expressions such as "increasingly defiant electorate" to characterize the brit people in the WP paper are chilling).

I also think the UK being successful will be good for France, because french people will just loath to do it like those damn english, so the euroskeptical/nationalist party that's been registering record high popularity rates may actually be less threatening for our presidential election in 2017. France exiting the EU would just be plain bad. We don't have a Commonwealth.

[springlullaby]

right wing populist xenophobe

The problem with using the word xenophobia (as in bigotry against people from other countries) to characterize the driving force behind the right wing populist votes that are gaining momentum in the richer countries of the developed world is that it glosses over the legitimate concerns and realities that is at the root of the phenomenon: low qualified (even 'medium qualified') workers face the competitive stress of cheaper labor while having very little access to the opportunities offered by globalization/europe.

That's something right wing populism has understood, and that's exactly why it thrives.

In France, Marine Le Pen (whose father is the retired founder of her movement, and notoriously antisemitic) from the Nationalist Front never misses an opportunity to repeat that "we (she and her voters) are not racist". And she is telling the truth. The majority of her voters don't feel superior to their arab/chinese/whatev neighbor, they just don't want/fear/hate the competition.

(Conversely, the far leftist Melenchon who tried to harness this same electorate by demonizing xenophobia, and putting the blame on the rich people failed spectacularly in the legislative elections - right wing populist voters are not dirt poor, they are just privileged and under qualified at the same time).

That's why I feel sympathetic (though I don't think it is realistic: for the same competences and labour, a brit/french/american earns more than triple what a romanian/chinese/turc makes) toward the brit people who voted to leave the EU, though globalization is certainly 'inclusive', because money and the exploitation of people knows no color, race or religion, there is spunk in saying fuck (even self-interestedly) to the power in place and the seemingly inescapable laws of the machine.

I hope the UK finds an alternative and new route of development that can be copied the world over.
I hope it doesn't simply regress into delusive isolationism.

[springlullaby]

You may find this commentary interesting. Ian is the president of Eurasia Group, one of the major political risk commentators.

https://www.facebook.com/ianbremmer/vid ... 000569182/

That's an interesting perspective. If it comes to fruition, I believe it will be the first time western countries engage in large scale repressive measures against a non communist western country. Very post iron-curtain. Maybe the start of the implosion of capitalism Marx (Karl) has been waiting for.

It will also mean the total erosion of political power vs economical power because be mindful that Eurasia Group, a so called political risk r&d firm, is basically a pro free market lobby at an international level.

[springlullaby]

people seem to be looking for a forgotten golden age that never existed in the first place

Post WWII economic expansion was certainly a golden age for the western world.

[springlullaby]

Chilling don't you think, when governing bodies from the so called free world think referendums are their ennemies and would actively maneuver to quash them in the bud.

What does the west has to sell to the rest of the world beside the democratic ideal and freedom?

[springlullaby]

What about it, the word "sell"? "Selling an idea" is a common expression.

[springlullaby]

Lol yeah, right.

[springlullaby]

Disheartening then, perhaps? At least?

BTW, even if I'm pro-europe, I think the EU in its current manifestation has a very big lot of room for improvement.
In regard to the democratic process for exemple, most rich european countries are used to direct elections. But right now, while the nations have handed over legislative power to the EU in a number of domains, there is zero effort to engage more involvement and scrutiny from the general populace. The EU governing bodies feel like distant back kitchens that would like to remain this way. Hence the understandable claim about sovereignty.

There is also a terrible lack of cultural/ideological integration, not only because of existing differences, but due to and emphasized by the mercantile priorities of the project. If you were to ask an 'european' the question 'what europe is about?', they will be very hard pressed to come up with an answer beside 'free trade'. That just doesn't foster any sentiment of adhesion.

[springlullaby]

I don't think you have to believe the EU is perfect, democratic or even very good to realize that leaving was a dumb, dumb decision that hurts the very people who voted for it because of disinformation and false promises brought on by malfeasance of politicians who thought they could use something like this as a political pawn to shore up their right flank.

That's quite true, but perhaps sovereignty is worth it in their mind.
I mean, if you ask a russian guy or a chinese if they regret staying communist back then (even if individual choice wasn't involved to the least), the answer will probably be no.

I don't think the UK's prospects are quite as dire as some of the media are making them out to be right now. The US and the EU both have interest in keeping the UK in the loop if they don't want it to come under the russian/asian/arabian spheres of influence. And there is the strong internal, political pressure the EU is facing. I don't think it is realistic to expect democratic nations to swallow the one and only way of the EU pill for much longer. In the words of Machiavelli, you need to rule by fear and by love. The EU has done very little of the latter up until now. If it doesn't reform, it will fail, and in that sense, Brexit is a good thing for the EU.

And then I don't think it is realistic to expect corporations to abandon en masse either the 9th largest economy by GPD or the EU sans UK. Where would they go to? China? Ha. Good luck with protectionism over there.

Anyway, exciting times.

ps I think this article sum it up nicely http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/upsho ... later.html

[springlullaby]

Hurt their population, how?
The democratic deal is not there to guarantee anything but the usurpation of power from the masse by the few. That's what rights of the people means.
There is nothing vague about the democratic ideal. What is this misplaced cynicism and arrogance.
Is it practical to consult each individual on all topics? No. But if you think the masse is ignorant, you can only blame the elite for not doing their job at educating it.

And the Brexit situation was more of a choice between 'selling your car and your gazoline' or 'selling your car and your gazoline anyway'. Find the stronger incentive behind that.

[springlullaby]

But if you think the masse is ignorant, you can only blame the elite for not doing their job at educating it.

That takes someone special and you know it. This is an unfair statement.

Well, stupid and ignorant people exist. But you have to question the competitive advantage of intelligence and education if intelligent and educated people can't successfully make stupid and ignorant people do their biding.

[springlullaby]

Wait, did someone seriously just cite Machiavelli in a discussion of modern government? While making an argument about democracy? Now I've seen everything.

That's because your have seen very little, I'm afraid.
How dare JJ Rousseau (the philosopher, not the rapper) argue that Machiavelli was a republican (republican in the context of the Florentine Republic - sigh).

ps: alright, I don't really know that a rapper called JJ Rousseau actually exists.

[springlullaby]

You assume all intelligent and educated people are on the same side.

It is very difficult to educate self-interest/selfishness out of someone.

Because you can attribute an absolute moral value to selfishness/self-interest. Because intelligent and educated people aren't self-interested. Because intelligent and educated people on the 'right side' have never failed stupid and ignorant people.

A 62 yo technician votes leave because he has zero chance of finding a new job if he gets fired, and has approx 18 years of remaining life expectancy anyway.
A 24 yo graduate in marketing (with some german thrown in) vote stays because he wants larger and more long term horizons for job opportunities.
Who is self interested?
Of course, the 24 yo may find the 62 yo xenophobic, but the 62 yo may find the 24 yo naive.

The thing with the Brexit (and if it goes through) is now we'll see just to what degree the threat of job cut, austerity measures, etc prescribed by the EU under corporate pressure is rule by fear.

If corporations absolutely can't sustain their businesses in the UK if the labor doesn't get cheaper, and the investor's share doesn't get bigger, threats will be put to execution and the UK will enter into decades long recession from which it may never recover after the exit is finalized, leading to the EU benefiting from at least some of the relocated jobs.

If the threats are to some degree empty, there will be some noises and some negative repercussions, with photos of mad looking EU representatives speaking stern speech in the papers - it will last until the exit is finalized to keep the pressure during négociations. Then, when a deal is struck, the whole affair will be quietly ushered under the carpet with some last headlines emphasizing 'historical ties' and so on. And 10 years from now the younger generation of workers and voters won't even know Brexit was a thing. In meantime, current EU representatives will renegotiate with its own people because they want to stay in power.

I bet on the later.

[springlullaby]

Show me a serious scholarly article article arguing the Prince is satire

« Leur intérêt personnel est premièrement que le Peuple soit faible, misérable,

et qu'il ne puisse jamais leur résister. J'avoue que, supposant les sujets

toujours parfaitement soumis, l'intérêt du Prince serait alors que le peuple

fût puissant, afin que cette puissance étant la sienne le rendît redoutable

à ses voisins ; mais comme cet intérêt est secondaire et subordonné,

et que les deux suppositions sont incompatibles, il est naturel que les

Princes donnent toujours la préférence à la maxime qui leur est la plus

Immédiatement utile. C'est ce que Samuel représentait fortement aux

Hébreux ; c'est ce que Machiavel a fait voir avec évidence.

(...)En feignant de donner des leçons aux Rois, il en a donné de grandes aux peuples. Le Prince de Machiavel est le livre des républicains.

(...) Machiavel était un honnête homme et un bon citoyen ; mais, attaché à la maison de Médicis, il était forcé, dans l'oppression de sa patrie, de déguiser son amour pour la liberté. Le choix seul de son exécrable héros manifeste assez son intention secrète ; et I'opposition des maximes de son livre du Prince à celles de ses Discours sur Tite-Live, et de son Histoire de Florence, démontre que ce profond politique n'a eu jusqu'ici que des lecteurs superficiels ou corrompus.»

Cue argument about JJ Rousseau in the text not being a serious scholarly article.

[springlullaby]

Because it would go entirely against a little class I took titled 'the Prince and modern international relations'

Maybe you should take a course in critical thinking.

[springlullaby]

No, but perhaps English would be nice.

French too... roll eyes

But I will translate for you. Be free to check up an English version of the Social Contract for inaccuracies/more elegant language.

"His personal interest is foremost that the People remain weak, miserable, and that they should never be able to resist his. I confess that, supposing the subjects to be always perfectly submitted, the Prince's interest would then for the people to be powerful, so that this power which is his may render him formidable to his neighbors; but as this interest is secondary and subordinate, and as the two suppositions are incompatible, it is natural for the Prince to always prefer the maxime which is most immediately useful to them. It is what Samuel vividly represented to the Israelite; it is what Machiavel has shown with clarity.

(...)By feigning to teach lessons to Kings, he has given great ones to the people. The Prince by Machiavelli is the book of the republicans.

(...)Machiavel was a honest man and a good citizen; but, bonded to the Medici house, he was forced, in the oppression of his motherland, to disguise his love of liberty. The very choice of his detestable hero is manifestation enough of his secret intention; and the juxtaposition of his book The Prince to his Discourse on Titus Livy, and his History of Florence, demonstrates that this profound politician has up until now only had superficial or corrupt readers."

[springlullaby]

... omg. You know that The Prince was banned by the Pope Clement VIII because its central figure is an avatar of Cesare Borgia, enemy of the Medicis, right?

Looks to me you took a whole course without researching the source material.

[springlullaby]

Rousseau is saying that he thinks this thing about the Prince and then gives literally no textual reasons why that is true. That's called an appeal to authority, it's a logical fallacy and not an argument. Maybe you should take a class in critical thinking.

Oh, that's how you took your course. By superficial criticisms of the provided content without engaging in neither honest reading nor personal research. I hope your professor found you to be scum.

Right. I'm not interested in continuing a sterile exchange as you contribute nothing but empty argument found in mafia 101. This is not a mafia game, I'm sorry I hurt your ego by calling on your ignorance, it wasn't my intention. I'm sorry if I aggravated the situation by mocking your 'I took an economy class' comment: I do assure you that if you show sign of providing actually interesting conversation, I will bow to your authority.

[springlullaby]

Amazingly, none of that is an actual textual argument for why the Prince is satire either. Please try again.

Noise. Please try again.

Ok, can't resist.

[springlullaby]

I have asked you to make a textual argument, or show me an expert making a textual argument why the prince is satire. You are either unwilling or unable to do that. Pointing out that fact is not noise.

I have provide an expert making a textual argument why the prince is satire, but you are either incompetent or unwilling to comprehend it.

As I don't think you are actually incompetent, I must shine my brightest scumhunter's armor and prove to the people of the thread that I am not scum, even through there is no juridiction in the Beloved Country of GD that holds the burden of proof over me, and whereas I have already provided more textual argument than you have ever done in your, I admit it, successfully infuriating, minstrel's career.

In the short excerpt I have quoted, JayJay has made the following argument to sustain his view that The Prince is satire (a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn):

"... It is what Samuel vividly represented to the Israelite; it is what Machiavel has shown with clarity."

--> an analogical inference is drawn between The Prince who make his People miserable, and the prophecy of the false King's deeds (Saul) in [1 Samuel 8]. I will add that in Machiavelli's time the stories and parables of the Bible were not only deeply familiar to an intellectual elite, but to the larger population as well, making this a very likely inference. Indeed, due to the pervasiveness of the Christian religion, and the Bible being the primary source of literary references, it is much more likely that a middle-class merchant of the 16th c. would have recognized the figure of Saul in the description of The Prince than for a middle-class worker of our time to do so.

"The very choice of his detestable hero is manifestation enough of his secret intention..."

-->

historical context and evidence is provided. This one may be obscure because my excerpt is truncated. Further down the note, you will find this commentary: "The court of Rome sternly prohibited his book [The Prince]—of course it did! because that’s the court that the book most clearly portrays." Here Jayjay argues that The Prince subversive nature is evidenced by the Pope's ban. This argument is convincing when you examine the larger historical context and the author's life: 1. In the book, there is a plethora of instances where The Prince's actions can be directly paralleled to Cesare Borgia's historical life. The house of Borgia held papal power over Rome, and were ennemies of M's florentine homeland, therefore the hypothesis that the Court of Rome ban The Prince because it recognized in it the satirical portrait of Cesare is a compelling one. 2) The Prince was written after after M.'s imprisonment by the Medici after their return to power in Florence, to whom he was still subject. The motif of M's imprisonment was his betrayal to the Medici when the later were expelled from Florence and the Florentine republic was restored. Hence any republican "intention" M's had could only remain "secret".

"Discourse on Titus Livy, and his History of Florence, demonstrates that this profound politician has up until now only had superficial or corrupt readers"

--> Jayjay sustains his argument by referring to other writings from M in which his pro-republican sentiments are quite clear.

These are three textual arguments from an expert that I have provided.

Now, even though I did cross path with politics during the Italian Renaissance in the meander of my humble studies and have some familiarity with the subject, I don't claim to be a specialist and, ofc, you don't have to trust my judgement. However, I have to say that, well beyong Jayjay's take, the litterature on the subject is actually flores which make TSQ an academic snob who don't actually know anything but like to lord it over us, honest labourers of the working class who dedicate time and money to educate ourselves.

I shall also stress that I'm not blind to the fact that this entire discussion is deflection from TSQ's orignal sin which was a claim stating it was unheard of to use Machiavelli in the context of an argument about democracy. A clearly false statement that reveal his evil ways.

TL;DR TSQ is lame, vote springlullaby. I will stick it to the man with long, soul-crushing discourses and give you more candies than you currently have.

[springlullaby]

Mockery toward us earnest and honest people. That's all you'll ever get from the like of TSQ.

[springlullaby]

Ok, sorry TSQ. But I thought you were arguing for the heck of it and, you know, people being wrong on the internet.
I'm sincerely sorry if I have caused you to feel bad in anyway. It's sunday, and sunny in France. Happy week-end.

[springlullaby]

Ok, sorry TSQ. But I thought you were arguing for the heck of it and

I almost literally never do this.........

Lol, I thought you were making a point about 'the argument of reason never wins' or something, actually. Or a meta reading of the Prince.

Hence my mock populist speech.

I can never tell. Anyway, it's all good.

[springlullaby]

This is a trend that is occurring all around the world, in every community - the establishment consensus on these issues is slowly being eroded. I feel we're entering a new era of fear and scapegoating, where being insufficiently "native" in any given country is becoming more and more dangerous.

We entered the new era of fear and scapegoating back when Irak was invaded in 2003 because of arms of massive destruction - this was scapegoating era 2.0. Scapegoating era 1.0 being the cold ward.

Scholars who have pointed out the structural dependence of the economically capitalistic systems upon political imperialism abound. But hey, between socialism and capitalism, we all know what system lead to faster development.

Now is a matter of what you want to see succeed, what are your cores value. I personally believe in the democratic ideal, and social liberalism, both present in larger quantity in the so called free world. But to preserve that, you have to integrate your own people, even if it means coexisting with people who have missed the memo about making a distinction between terrorist and muslim of SE 2.0.

Because integration is not acceptance of their values as opposed to your own, it is a chance to convert them to your point of view.

[springlullaby]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/liv ... t-77205935
Interesting perspective. I still don't believe the EU has long term (political or economical) interest in making the UK fail but it is true that short term repercussions may sway popular opinion. It means the EU has interest in dragging out the exit process even if its leaders are waggling arms about 'fast exit'. It also means we'll see whether the brits who voted to leave are as fickle as some media make them out to be. Though frankly Le Monde and Le Figaro both quietly talking about the norwegian/swiss/canadian models and no risk of systemic choc make it abundantly clear where everyone stands.

It's also heartening to see Christopher Dembik of the Saxo Bank recognizing that in the last "15-20 years the EU hadn't functioned well, and hadn't been explained well", though of course he had to cap it off with "Europe needs more economic and fiscal integration".

What the EU needs is more cultural integration, an adhesion behind a common project that is not only economic. Because, as the popular expression goes and if you universalize it, people are not made of money.

About what this common project may be, I vaguely recall classes in secondary cycles about the EU being a way for peace after WWII. But this discourse needs to be renewed, because with the temporal distance the younger generation simply doesn't buy the looming specter of global conflict anymore and as such even if they are more likely to be pro-european, they vote less. There need to be a stronger emphasis put on the reality of the world now, and why the democratic ideal is a worthwhile one, and that needs to start with our own governments and leaders being exemplary.

[springlullaby]

Following my train of thought about the younger generation, an interesting conflict in interests that will very plausibly come into light is the following: if corporate interests believe they can obtain a better deal with a better turnout of the younger generation, they will punish the younger and more qualified in the labour market with job cuts, and let the older, less qualified workers - the very one who have voted against their interests - keep their privileges. Whether this is economically sustainable for them is up to their judgement, but if you consider the gap between the rich and the middle class, plus the fact that the younger people by definition enjoy lesser financial security, my prognosis is not good.

But then, UK's demography is older.

[springlullaby]

I'm not sure what you mean by the above, spring.

I was simply asking myself this question:
- assuming corporate interests resided in the brits voting to stay (as evidenced by threats of job cuts etc.)
- and knowing as we do that younger voters are more likely to be pro-europe as well as less likely to vote
what strategy could said interests adopt to increase younger voters turnout.

One of the possible answer would be to economically punish the younger electorate so that they develop discontentment toward the post-Brexit governance, and hence increase incentive for them to go to the voting booth to usher the later out.

Then I wondered whether it was economically sustainable for corporations to punish the younger, hypothetically more qualified and cheaper, labour. I would say it is since rich people are quite rich and could hypothetically sustain some degree of financial loss longer than the younger people on the labour market who are, by virtue of them being young, less financially secure than older working population.

Then I vaguely recalled that population pyramids in most western countries weren't very pyramidal, since people live longer, with fewer births. So it'd take more precise projection to see if my conjecture is even feasible.

[springlullaby]

Et in Arcadia ego (1627)

I dunno, I think that, given its faults, the fact homo sapiens sapiens has thrived from 222k yo ago to now is kind of amazing in itself.

[springlullaby]

I mean, I think corporations will make a lot of threats and what not, but ultimately they'll decide what to do on the basis of their bottom line. I don't think they're likely to engage in a mass conspiracy to punish younger voters more.

Yeh, I may be over paranoid about teh evil corporationz. Though their bottom lines is basically 'more'. But yeah, free competition etc.

[springlullaby]

I bellylaughed at this:
https://www.facebook.com/dom.beaven/pos ... 4690506086

Needs english subtitles

[springlullaby]

A question, why did you vote for 'remain'?

It seems to me, most people who voted to stay did it because: 'the opponent is lying', 'if we leave we'll burn', and 'racism'.

I can relate to that since the last time I voted I did it so the far right wouldn't win in France (I had to vote middle-right too). But comon, that's hardly the stuff dreams -or even momentary sugar-rushes - are made of.

Currently, the sum of European political propositions is basically made of 'that boyfriend you've really grown to despise, but can't leave since he makes you think you won't make it on your own, plus at least he owns a shitty car', and 'that douchebag with eye warts you wouldn't touch with a ten feet pole'.

True love.

[springlullaby]

Anyway, dear brit leavers, you've saved our 2017 presidential.

With the market volatility you'll surely endure until a deal is struck, there is very little reason french people won't want to wait and see before going batshit nationalist
You're taking it on the chin for the rest of us, thank you, you are true heroes.

[springlullaby]

I'm not. I'm part water, part rock, with a heart of mud, all of which is an incidence of dust sparked by electricity, and held together in the tangles of currents by despair and will.

But you are a polsci major.

[springlullaby]

For info, the main reason leave voters cite for their vote is "the principle that only our government should make decisions that affect us", which is a principle that I don't give a damn about.

I think this is because you are both mis-fortunate in not having known the last of the time of innocent ideals and privileged in having no experience of authoritarian regimes.

[springlullaby]

I think this is because you are both mis-fortunate in not having known the last of the time of innocent ideals and privileged in having no experience of authoritarian regimes.

??

There's nothing inherently authoritarian about having a government for multiple countries, any more than there is about having a government for one country.

In both cases, it is the responsibility of the people to elect representatives who will make good and fair decisions. But the system isn't wrong.

Because you are satisfied with the EU government as it currently is as your own government? You can't understand at all understand why people may not think it is not legitimate as their own government?

If the UK had voted to stay what do you think would have been the next time you'd be given a chance to think about what form of governance you want for the EU?

Oh, just to prove TSQ right http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2016/01/ROBERT/54465

[springlullaby]

Pretty soon she will start accusing you of not knowing how to think critically fenchurch, then she will start quoting irrelevant passages at you in French. Brace yourself.

Right, I remember now. You are the one who said that 'killing and eating animal' was a categorical imperative in Kantian philosophy.
To quote an eminent thinker of our time, Francis Lalanne, you not understanding what I'm saying does not necessarily mean that I'm the stupid one.

You are now set to 'ignore' because you are not only ignorant and dishonest but uninteresting as well

[springlullaby]

I value the employment rights I have that are enacted by the EU.

This one is us taking it on the chin for you. France just went through a month long national strike (at one point the ministry of environment had to authorize the use of 'strategic gazoline stocks' due to occupied refineries) because of of reforms on labour laws meant to facilitate the termination of employment brought on by EU directives. But really you break my heart by taking 'political risk consultants' seriously. It was ironic that the video you linked was filmed from Beijing. The business of these people in non-democratic countries is to facilitate the installation of corporate groups through corruption.

Bottom line, I trust them far more than I would ever trust a Tory government.

You shouldn't trust either tbh. But soon enough the leave voters will be disappointed about how little their leaders stick to their guns anyway.

[springlullaby]

What are you issues spring? I don't mean issues with any prior actions of the EU, but with it's fundamental structure and process. What would you change and why?

My understanding of public administration is not very deep but the first things that come to mind and which shock me are: parliament has no right of initiative, and are excluded from budgetary votes.

This seems to me almost purposefully designed to keep various political movements across Europe fractionated and irrelevant. I think giving parliement more power would means inciting more investment in the european elections, favorise the forging of alliances between political parties across europe, and involve people whose side lost the presidential elections.

Plus, from various tidbits I've read the Coreper, which elaborate directives for the Council to present, serves as a black room in which negotiations takes place with zero scrutiny. The problem is not that some initiative doesn't make the cut, but that no one actually know why these initiatives didn't make the cut since there is no public report.

Those are the things I'm aware of and have objection with.

As for an end goal to Europe, I think it has to become some sort of federal government long term.

Also it need a tv channel. And a cultural commission.

[springlullaby]

^edited: it's Coreper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee ... sentatives) Not coporer.

I hope it may. IRC JK Rowling tweeted something about 'using an hammer to fix something that's broken'. That's pointedly ignoring the fact that the core problem is the only choice that's ever been given to you is 'hammer or nothing'. *


If any of the keener commentator are correct, the brexit vote was an anti-establishment vote. One thing you can put absolute faith in is that the establishment wants to stay the establishment. Since I think we can still trust that a minima of democracy is taking place during national elections, and since we've come to the point the people (brit people no less, the supposedly practicals ones) are ready to grab the hammer, said establishment will have to give some and actually propose something else than 'hammer or nothing' to grab those anti-establishment votes.

What makes me even more optimistic is that corporate interests has zero to gain with the dislocation of the EU, because to the least it will create market volatility worse than what's happening to the UK right now. They bet on docility and 'remains', they lost. I trust self-interest to see it's time make, some hypocritical I'm sure, concessions.

So you see, I think we are at this rare conjecture where corporate and the people's interests are actually converging.

(Very interesting points have been made about how this false choice perverts the public discourse. For examples. 1)The topic of Islam: there has always been a strong tradition of laicité here in France - I personally think Islam is as dumb as Christianity in term of ideology, if not worse for women and totally for keeping hijab out of public school. But because of 'racist' vs 'good people' mentality instilled by propaganda, nothing can be said about how to integrate Islam (not the muslim) in France anymore and now even when Michel Onfray - a philosopher whose been a hardcore anti-religion atheist (I'm actually softer since I'm only anti-clerical) since 30 years ago - get on tv and emits the tiniest amount of skepticism about Islam, he has to fend off 20 minutes of near libel, and brandishes the books he has written as shield to prove that he is 'kosher'. Now, what that translates into in the voting booth is that the choice you get is either 'muslim are all terrorists' or 'a hijab is the same thing as a bikini, you fucking racist' which just makes me facepalm. 2) The concept of 'useful vote' which is basically saying 'if you vote for a movement that actually represents you but is not either one of the big two, you are committing the cardinal sin of spreading the voting base, and making the far right win. I had another digression in mind but forgot.)

[springlullaby]

Below post @Frenchchurch 206

Eh. The point is there isn't, and has never been, any discourse about how to reform european institutions in the polical proposal of the bigger european party. In france what we get is "Right: it's the EU that let all the immigrant in. If we're elected, we'll shake the table in Brussel and show who's boss!" or "Left: it's EU that makes make your additional hours obligatory, not us. If we're elected, we'll shake the table in Brussel and show who's boss!"

The only time people have got a say about Europe is the ultimatum referenda: 'do you want us or not!'

I wouldn't be too worried about UKIP being too efficient. Seeing how Marine Le Pen has severed ties with his fascist father, so that the later can lead away the true racists of that electorate, it's clear she's moving in position to be a legit contender (not just a dark horse). And if you think someone with 30 points in polls haven't gotten some deals offered to her behind the scene, I'd think you are naive.
.
Maybe brexit was a true surprise, but the siren song of becoming the establishment will take hold soon enough. And I don't think any of these people are Hitler caliber.

My question was whether you could see why people could reject the EU as a legitimate government. I can.

But to your question, no, the EU is not a legitimate government because the EU defines itself as an economic and political union. It never has undertaken the responsibility of being a government that holds itself responsable before its people.

[springlullaby]

That the parliament cannot initiate laws is a real pity but at least it has to consent to the budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of ... pean_Union

Last time I heard something about it was it being a contentious point in the Lisbon Treaty. My belief stand corrected. Thought the EU really needs better RP and more of it.

I also think the European parliament should stop commuting every 4 weeks for 4 days to Strasbourg. I just don't see any benefits in it. And yes Strasbourg is a beautiful city. France should be compensated by getting other institutions like the ECJ.

I first read that as you wanting France to get compensated for the environmental pollution caused by the flocks of oily politicians descending upon Strasbourg every 4 weeks and marring the view.

I agree that the European parliament is very fragmented. Mostly the only practicable majority is a grand coaliton between the center-left (S&D) and the center right (EPP). Maybe it could help to introduce an European-wide threshold of anything between 1 and 3 percent. That way parties who are unable to find partners in other countries would be unable to enter parliament.

I'm for diversity in the political offer but what I really wish for a stronger sense of bond between the people across europe, a sense that the people who voted for the same party as you in another country are your bros .

Springlullaby, I think you're overly conspicious of "corporate interests". Corporations aren't directed by one evil master. Hedge funds generally like uncertainity, while companies from the manufacturing industry don't. I also think policitics and economics often aren't a zero-sum game. If it's easier to lay off workers, companies might hire more in the first place and thereby reduce unemployment.

I don't think corporations are evil, they are just what they are because of the law of the market, and I do think the EU's economy is failing because it isn't competitive enough (mostly on fiscal issues and flexibility for entrepreneurship for smaller companies imo) and some reforms are necessary, but that doesn't mean I think social protection isn't good for humankind.

If the EU doesn't serve as a strong medium between the people and corporate interests through the democratic process, what you will get as an end game globally is a competition of which kind of regime can exploit its people for cheapest without popular uprising. I want China to align to western standards of welfare, because its people deserve it too, not the opposite. So yes, corporations have to know they can be shown the door too.

Also finance is a great invention, but fuck triple A's rating, really. After 2008 you have to pause and rethink about what to keep from a system which basically draws on the same peculiar human fascination that make people bet on dogs racing each other. (BTW, the UK is really weird about animals.)

Regarding the question whether it becomes easier to change the union after Britain leaves it: I don't see any difference in the short term. But in the medium and long term, it might be easier to change the treaties. The Remain campaign had effectively promised to block any further integration. Without the UK it's a bit easier. However there also isn't much agreement in the rest of Europe how reforms should look like.

I think it's human that people wants to belong. I think the way to do integration is to formulate an european identity. Not tell people they are racist if they want to know where their home would be.

[springlullaby]

I'm absolutely for a positive European identity. But how do you achieve that? Freedom of movement and Erasmus facilitiate the exchange of people and ideas. However the EU cannot dictate an identity.

The EU needs a common copyright law. There should be no more geoblocking in the EU. Licence agreements should define a language instead of a country. This might help to diminish the huge country bubbles which exist in the media today.

What are your proposals?

I totally think national identity is an engineering problem.
A bunch of slavers, and ex prison convicts got together and invented the american dream ex-nihilo.
The CPC created the notion that 'The Empire of the Middle' is a continuous entity throughout history. (One can argue that the bureaucratic system of the Mandarins is the staying feature of China through millenia, but it's certainly not cultural continuity.)

It's about how the mind shape history and geography to expose the common ground. And european nations with its celtic, roman, greek, christian, rennaissant, enlightement etc heritage has far more cultural common ground than China and its history of being conquered by outside rulers.

Once formulated, it is propagated by, well, propaganda through the medias and history book in classes.
I mean, in China, the first thing a preschool kid do when he arrives at school is to salute the red flag, well before he can comprehend the notion of nation in itself.
The exemple here is somewhat totalitarian, but you get the idea.

[springlullaby]

If these things are true, it makes me think Britain made the right decision.

I mean yes. Lies about things to cast them in the worst light typically have that effect.

That's basically what UKIP-like political movements do right. They have the smart to develop different discourses to target different audiences. But what you get on the other side is one and only discourse of 'if you vote them you're racist'.