I will make a more general point rather than an EU one.
In my view democracy is in an absolute crisis globally driven by short term thinking, a medi dominated in countries by wealthy businessmen with very specific self interested agenda and a 24 hour news cycle based on sound bites. Few politicians anymore (this is aimed at both sides) have any interest in long term politics , they are interested in keeping their position in power in their party through polls and then winning the next election. As such democracy is increasingly selling out countries futures for infividuals short term individual goals.
For politicians Decisions have therefore become populist, the truth doesn't matter , people have moved on to the next story already, winning today's news focuses them and most politicians are happy to keep going down the river as long as the waterfall is only reached after they have moved on.
Bureaucrats on the other hands are paid to be in their job, they don't need to make "popular" decisions to stay there, they don't need to appeal to the lowest common denominator and they don't need to make short term self interested decisions. If they want to make the right call they can.
It is why so many of the economic powerhouses, countries with the best infrastructure, etc have often been far from the most democratic. They could be genuine democracies but with a history of stable government but they have long term plans. On the other hand those that change the most, are the most political and the most populist are the ones that fail.
add to that the fact appointees can be experts in what they do, they can have properly researched it.
Letting elected politicians run economies and make cases on law would be a bit like letting them become generals in the army, letting Jeremy hunt start being a surgeon.
I am not saying democracy is wrong but putting all eggs in one basket is a real risk. Brit's in currently has checks to too much short term idiocy from our politicians provided by Europe due to the scandalous absence of an effective second chamber or other branches of government without it a prime minister and their government elected by in Cameron's case 1 in 6 of the population could run amock.
So in many ways I am far more comfortable with experts with no real vested interests driving the specifics of laws, the economy etc with the politicians setting the long term strategic goals and plans to drive the country where the people want to go, which is unfortunately very far away from what we have today.
Te other thing with democracy is this whole concept on national interest which kings invented to serve the interests of their whole wealth and power that we all fell for.
What Britain has is the individual interest of 60+ million people and national interest does not exist. The rich across Europe (indeed the world) share a common interest, the unemployed share a common interest, the young or old share a common interest and these interests are far more fundamental than the interests I have being born British or living in the UK.
But like religion , nationalism has created a tool to control the people, a strong emotive tool that allows them to be controlled.
despite the EU's countless flaws, I agree with this and am far from convinced around the arguments for Exit. The clincher for me though is that I think an exit result will certainly trigger another bloody referendum and a Yes vote and the break up of the U.K. I think it would be sad beyond words if that happened, for Scotland and England.Morning AC; yes bollocks to the FA Cup :-)
Securing peace is about a combination of dialogue and co-operation with military force. You seem to feel its merely down to the latter. 'Jaw jaw' can be just as effective as the threat of 'war-war'.
My answer to your question is ultimately, yes, as it will make Europe less stable and secure.
despite the EU's countless flaws, I agree with this and am far from convinced around the arguments for Exit. The clincher for me though is that I think an exit result will certainly trigger another bloody referendum and a Yes vote and the break up of the U.K. I think it would be sad beyond words if that happened, for Scotland and England.
Mostly just a career politician?After reading his wiki, so so
Hadn't you heard, Scotland's economy is based on whisky revenue not oil which is 'just a bonus' and it's importance was deviously spun by the No camp. Stu, the SNP will claim anything to achieve their aims irrespective of any of it being based on fact. Unfortunately they will base everything on rampant nationalism as some factions have done with the Exit campaign. And there are quite a few of us in Scotland that would vote yes to staying in the EU and No to an independent Scotland. Sadly, not enough to swing either vote IMO.I don't think the Scots have any real chance of going alone. They based all of their projections on an oil price over 5 times what it is now and shot down anyone questioning it as scaremongering.
Besides, I'm not sure if Scotland really does want to stay - it's maybe true of SNP supporters but that's far from everyone.
What you say is arguably true of China up to a point and when you see entire villages and towns being demolished to make way for new infrastructure projects it's certainly very impressive to see how they can get things done.
I guess you disagree with the aims of the pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong then?
The other examples of government by committee around the world are less positive than China, I'd suggest. The USSR and Eastern European countries up to the 80s, in common with China, all needed to invest a lot in monitoring their own populations to avoid insurgency, and had to carefully control the media, banning and blocking whatever outlets they could, where those outlets opposed the aims and set-up of the ruling committees. Democracy is a safety valve, and when people have no democratic say, then violence and rebellion become the only means to make changes.
Hopefully it wont be run from Brussels but as per your fine observation Blackpool as a candidate has so much going for it so why not indeed rule the Merkat from here.
A new promenade,three piers a tower with a lift,the winter gardens,the beach with it's fine golden sands,the donkey rides,the little stick of Blackpool rock the ecological marine life,the camaraderie the quality entertainment,the fun fair,the full English breakfasts,the Wurlitzer organ and the tea dance;
And so what pray tell does Brussels have to offer our magnificent sceptred isles save for the dummy spitting spite and venom
Bring back brown sea, air you can't safely breathe and white dog shit #nigelcanWell blue rather than brown seas and beaches that don't stink of shit for starters...
I'm not sure it was ever really like that. The most eye-opening read about post-war British politics is Richard Crossman's diaries. He was a leading member of the post-war Labour party and became a minister in the Wilson government, when that was elected in 1964. In the diaries, he describes his battles against his officials. He was no shrinking violet and was often described as a bully but he needed to be to avoid being swept along with the tide. In his first post, Housing & Local Government, his Permanent Secretary (who is the 'mandarin' who runs the department)i think we need to get back to where politicians set a general direction and expert mandarins set about delivering on that.
One thing is for sure London runs Britain for the interests of London but Brussells doesn't run Europe for the interests of Brussells.
Whatever Britain does it will be two groups with the interests of the south east and some large multinationals competing against each other for their interests and people over the country will jump on one side based on arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with what is good for them their families or their communities.
I have heard this statement that London runs Britain for the interests of London.
So please anyone tell me , what interests do the bureaucrats in Brussels run the EU for?