Monday, 1 June 2009

Throttling the Country

10 comments:

Newmania said...

Doesn`t work for me that one I find myself siding with the hairy and unattractive male for some reason.
Noticed 'Raedwald' cropping up in a Dark ages History the other day I had not heard of him previously. I think we have at least established the manner of your departing R

" He is the most favoured identification for the famous Sutton Hoo ship-burial."

Anonymous said...

Don't get upset if you are called a little Englander!

Anonymous said...

An interesting aside: the term "Little Englander" was first used to describe those who didn't want to expand the empire into Africa. Anyone who thought that it was not Britain's business to rule other people's countries or that it was not in our interest to throw money and lives away trying to teach civilisation to Africans was disparaged a Little Englander.

Anonymous said...

On the broad issue of our membership of the EU, I can only say that if there was a convincing argument in favour of our membership, someone would have made it by now. If there was a good reason why we should be in a European superstate, the politicians would have advanced the argument long ago. If the facts and figures suggested some calculable advantage to our membership of a United States of Europe, we would have seen them.

Instead, the pro-EU faction can only offer name-calling - just as the left, in general, has spent the last century and a half relying on abusive language to take the place of meaningful debate and coherent argument. The fact is that if the people of Europe were given a free vote, they would tear the EU up and flush it down the drain. The EU is an ideologically-driven programme created by political elites, predominantly left-wing and/or authoritarian, who think they know best and who see it as their mission to save the ignorant proles from their own stupidity (which is also pretty much the entire left-wing mission).

Europe's motto might as well be: "European integration: because you have no choice". Except, of course, we do have a choice for the time being and I, for one, look forward to using it on Thursday. If you want to force Europe onto the political agenda and if you want to make the Conservatives sit up and take notice, vote for UKIP on Thursday.

Raedwald said...

I favour King Anna for Sutton Hoo myself (or King Annah, as they have recently taken to calling him), the father of St. Sexburga.

I've often thought there was something quite atavistic in your make-up, Newms ;)

Anonymous said...

Anon 15:39

You seem to be adopting the same name calling and rubbishing of arguments that you accuse your opponents of.

There are plenty of good arguments for the EU (economic and political), not that you would recognise them as such. I am not asking that you agree with them - but the fact that you don't or they are put forward by left wingers doesn't invalidate them as arguments. And there are also plenty of opinion polls and actual votes by states joining the EU which disprove your assertion about its popularity elsewhere - in fact I supect that UKIP and all the parties opposing the EU will in overall terms achieve very little later this week.

In the meantime drop the platitudes - you will find that they convince no one other than the already convinced.

Raedwald said...

Yes, there are strong economic arguments for a single European market with open borders - but these never lead to a sound case for a single European State. A single market can be achieved without a single currency and without political union.

The main political argument for the EU seems to be that it's prevented war for sixty years. Nonsense, of course; that would be NATO.

Anonymous said...

You seem to be adopting the same name calling and rubbishing of arguments that you accuse your opponents of.
You're right. By asking for the pro-EU camp to produce concrete arguments instead of falling back on "You're a stupid Little Englander" I am, indeed, descending to name-calling.


There are plenty of good arguments for the EU (economic and political), not that you would recognise them as such.
Excellent argument: "I possess all the facts necessary to win this argument and could defeat you with ease through my superior logic, but I'm not going to. I could, though, if I wanted to". Yeah, that's an awesome argument you have there.

I am not asking that you agree with them
Before I can agree with your arguments, you actually have to present them. You are saying "There are arguments which I will not enunciate but they are good and you should agree with them. You should agree with them even though I will not tell you what they are. You should agree even though I, as an exponent of the EU, do not seem to be capable of naming them".

but the fact that you don't or they are put forward by left wingers doesn't invalidate them as arguments.
No, the fact that you won't actually articulate them (presumably because you're incapable of doing so) is what invalidates them. And the fact that you are assuming a priori that the EU is good even though you cannot explain why looks a lot like the old a priori leftist assumptions that a Marxist-socialist system was innately better than a free society even when the objective evidence suggested the reverse.

And there are also plenty of opinion polls and actual votes by states joining the EU which disprove your assertion about its popularity elsewhere
Then why does the pro-EU movement in the rest of Europe shit its pants at the prospect of a popular vote on the EU constitutional treaty? If everyone loves the EU, why are you so scared of letting people vote?

In the meantime drop the platitudes
Oh, the irony. It burns, it burns! You have the affrontery to talk about platitudes when your whole thesis revolves around saying that the EU is good over and over and over while refusing to provide so much as a scrap of evidence in support of your statements. Your whole post is one long platitude, replete with intellectual dishonesty and a worrying degree of ignorance.

You clearly don't realise, but everything you posted is simply more proof (were it needed) that European federalism is dogmatic and ideologically driven and is supported primarily by people who are too blind, too stupid or simply too obedient to question authority. If you can prove the advantages of the EU, do so; provide the objective reasons why I am wrong and I will join you. You, on the other hand, are so blind in your devotion to the EU that nothing anyone can say will ever change your mind - much like leftists and fundamentalists throughout history.

The essential difference between a Europhile and Eurosceptic: the sceptic can be won round to another point of view by the application of evidence and argument; the Europhile cannot because his support is not based on reason but on a visceral emotional commitment to a Pan-European Federation and on the demonisation of anyone who objects as a Little Englander.

Anonymous said...

So political unions have no impact on how people behave in military unions or in achieving economic unions - I'm not sure you can slice things up like that and say that the one doesn't influence the other - especially if the other parties may not be willing to play ball.

England's political unions with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland certainly have had an influence on the military and economic position - why don't you think that the same might not apply within the EU? Most of the single market legislation has come out of the EU political structures do you really think that it would have happened otherwise??

Anonymous said...

Anon 17:17

The only rebuttable arguments you put up in your original post were as follows:

"The fact is that if the people of Europe were given a free vote, they would tear the EU up and flush it down the drain."

I pointed out what the position on EU membership was in actual and opinion polls. Across Europe as a whole it is still strongly in favour. You referred to the Lisbon Treaty which is something else. The message from that is that most Europeans want to be in the EU but want the EU to be governed in a different manner from that proposed in the Treaty. So where are UKIP's constructive proposals in that regard (or the Tories for that matter) - bit difficult to do when you're naked in the conference chamber don't you agree?

"The EU is an ideologically-driven programme created by political elites, predominantly left-wing and/or authoritarian, who think they know best and who see it as their mission to save the ignorant proles from their own stupidity (which is also pretty much the entire left-wing mission)."

Well this just flies in the face of history - I think you will find that the driving forces behind the creation of the EU were the centre right parties of France and Germany - and our involvement started with Mr Heath. Now you may have some circular reasoning going on in your head that anything bad was created by the left so all those responsible for creating the EU are by definition of the left. But this is just not the case.

So two arguments put forward - two rebuttals. Everything else was just rhetoric on your behalf I'm afraid.


As for the Little Englander jibe - that was given in relation to the ridiculous posters and the previous arguments - if you believe that they represent a serious argument then you are misguided and just damaging your own goals. Even the vast majority of people who dislike the EU are capable of distinguishing it from the Nazis. If you want to debate on that level - we could easily discuss whether UKIP are the BNP in suits.

If you want to find serious arguments for the EU - they are there if you want to look for them.