[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

There really isn't anything, it's just a myth to encourage scaremongering

Every time I ask somebody why do you want to leave Europe/what is so bad about being part of Europe they can't actually tell me. Apart from the classic "stealing our jobs/benefits" lines

Do you really think our leaders would hand over our (read: their) power to other people/countries

BID0 » Wed May 28, 2014 2:45 pm wrote:There really isn't anything, it's just a myth to encourage scaremongering

Every time I ask somebody why do you want to leave Europe/what is so bad about being part of Europe they can't actually tell me. Apart from the classic "stealing our jobs/benefits" lines

Do you really think our leaders would hand over our (read: their) power to other people/countries

Well if you buy the immigration from anywhere in Europe regardless of skill is bad then the legislation that allows that is bad. I personally don't agree but whatever.

If we do end up getting a referendum it will be interesting to see which way the chips fall, I think it's far from certain that we will leave.

But aren't Ukip MEPs in Strasbourg and Brussels there to expose the workings of the European parliament, and aren't their expenses funnelled into promoting the party's message that the UK should get out of the EU? Sked giggles. "Oh, that's nonsense," he says.

I'm bored, so lets try for so low hanging fruit

Cal » Wed May 28, 2014 9:08 am wrote:If you think it's fine for nation states to be denuded of their individuality by the EU, that's fine

An examples of these? Say....3?

- but millions of people across the EU disagree and would prefer to preserve the integrity of their national identity (me included).

Not really. You can't say why everyone voted for UKIP et al on one hand and on the other say you only voted for them on one issue that's not (apprently) representative of the whole . Come on, we've spoken about internal consistency before. Maybe everyone in the UK who voted (bar you obviously) UKIP favors decriminalizing handguns and/or is against equality for gay people.

I don't want this incredible nation to be swamped by the bland homogeneity of the EU superstate;

And not a single example of when this is the case. Just scare mongering

I want to feel that every country across Europe has its own very individual identity

Like - German's "Hard working and OK to be on the train with" and Romanians "Oh lordy they're in my carriage talking funny. I hope they don't move next door to me"

If you don't feel that every country in Europe doesn't feel different, you've never ever been there.

those differences mean such a lot to such a huge number of people

Oh good. At least you can't argue the divisive label any more.

- language, culture, history, all are so important in defining who we are what our place is, both in Europe and the world.

And not one of those is changing.

Although you have to admire the bold faced cheek of the attempt at "I love foreigner people. I want use to remain special and unique, because we're all so brilliant. You know...as long they stay well away from me and don't try to interact"

Nothing at all to do with the 'bloody foreigners!'; everything to do with preserving the differences that together create a rich and diverse collection of nation states.

You've pretty much given the textbook example of the "bloody foreigner". You don't know what's happened, you've no evidence of it happening, but if/when it happens it'll be bad and it'll because of all those foreigners

You know what's interesting in your bile filled bilge? It's always foreign forcing themselves on us. There's no consideration for the (vast) majority of people who vote for Pro-EU/Intergration/Not being Xenophobic/Racist parties inviting them over. It's a maelovent force taken action against the middle class white man.

Cal » Wed May 28, 2014 10:08 am wrote:

PCCD » Tue May 27, 2014 5:17 pm wrote:

Qikz » Tue May 27, 2014 4:46 pm wrote:

a stealth plan to bring about 'ever closer integration' (social, economic and political), to erase national borders ('open borders'), to subsume national governments in favour of central rule from within the EU itself, etc.

I don't understand why removing national borders is a bad thing. We're all the same species and we're all from the same planet. Why the hell is there borders in the first place? They're a manmade concept and in the light of things shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Those imaginary lines have caused the deaths of billions of our species since it's creation.

But, but foreigners! They wouldn't be local or anything

That simply is NOT the argument, and restating it time and again won't make it so. If you think it's fine for nation states to be denuded of their individuality by the EU, that's fine - but millions of people across the EU disagree and would prefer to preserve the integrity of their national identity (me included). I really enjoy being British, being English, with all the richness of our cultural heritage that that represents. I don't want this incredible nation to be swamped by the bland homogeneity of the EU superstate; I want to feel that every country across Europe has its own very individual identity - those differences mean such a lot to such a huge number of people - language, culture, history, all are so important in defining who we are what our place is, both in Europe and the world.

Nothing at all to do with the 'bloody foreigners!'; everything to do with preserving the differences that together create a rich and diverse collection of nation states.

I agree but think we should take it back even further. For instance, I don’t ever remember having a vote on whether Bristol should be a part of England and/or the UK. Hundreds of years of the unelected monarch and House of Lords imposing their South East laws on us. And do the BBC report on it? Nope, they are happy with the UK gravy train and simply refuse to support the pro-Bristol campaign.

It is not a simple hatred of the other parts of England on my part. I like to visit the other places, but why would we want to risk the heritage, customs, language and culture of Bristol but having an open door to the other cities? As it stands we are forced to allow in people from Gloucester and Bath which is bad enough, but we are at risk of millions flooding into the city from places like London, Manchester, Birmingham and Coventry.

Our proud Bristolian history is at risk of becoming a bland homogenised UK superstate and despite the election of a pro-Bristol mayor (George Ferguson, the leader of Bristol 1st) the MSM just sneer at the people that just want to be able to feel proud to be Bristolian rather than just members of a largely undemocratic UK.

But I'd heard that 94.5% of all crime in the UK is committed by gangs of Bristolians.

Rex Kramer » Wed May 28, 2014 3:54 pm wrote:But I'd heard that 94.5% of all crime in the UK is committed by gangs of Bristolians.

That's what the MSM want you to think, but it is actually Exeter that causes the problems. The madness of UK policy of letting people from Exeter move to any part of the country that they want.

From what I've heard about Bristol, from those who attended Uni there, you're welcome to it.

Also from that article UKIP article:

"I spent two hours trying to explain to him [Farage] the difference between 'it's' with an apostrophe and 'its' without and he just flounced out the office saying, 'I just don't understand words.'"

and

"I remember one that said, 'I'm very glad your candidate [Farage] believes in education, but until he learns to spell it, I'm not voting for him.'"

lex-man » Wed May 28, 2014 4:22 pm wrote:From what I've heard about Bristol, from those who attended Uni there, you're welcome to it.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-G ... n6A4lOAl8M

Of course, votes like that just mean even more of the other cities population will move here for the benefits. Workshy and lazy scroungers coming here to take our jobs.

Now I have to say that this idea of national identity does fascinate me (it's pretty much what my dissertation focus is) and I believe the line of thought Cal subscribes to is quite revealing. Something I've been noting over the last 9 months where I've been meeting people from all over Europe is how powerful the island mentality of the UK is. Even myself and other wishy-washy lefty bastards I know don't fully consider ourselves European (the way we even say that "we'll go travelling in Europe" is indicative of this) but just about every other person I've met does consider themselves that. But it doesn't impact on their national identity, they still just as strongly identify as being Austrian, Polish, Finnish, German, French, Bulgarian, Lithuanian etc.

In particular what I'm fascinated by is what does British national identity even mean? You can break it down further into English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh, and then from there you'll get people that instead subscribe to a more specific location (I know Moggy was kinda taking the piss, but Bristolian is a valid example). Is there such a thing as a definite idea of British identity that doesn't involve making lame jokes about tea or queueing? Personally I think it's a little ironic that Cal is all about preserving individual national identities (which apparently the EU want to erode) but in doing so is subjecting an island of unique identities to some broad, sweeping generalisations.

I'm referred to as "my Welsh friend" by some friends of mine. But I don't identify as that despite speaking the language and knowing a decent amount of the culture and heritage, and plenty of people have remarked that my accent is not particularly strong (it comes and goes), so I'm intrigued to know how British identity can even be a thing.

I'm not really expecting answers to this (was it even a question?) but it's a subject matter I take great interest in.

Moggy » Wed May 28, 2014 4:33 pm wrote:

lex-man » Wed May 28, 2014 4:22 pm wrote:From what I've heard about Bristol, from those who attended Uni there, you're welcome to it.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-G ... n6A4lOAl8M

Of course, votes like that just mean even more of the other cities population will move here for the benefits. Workshy and lazy scroungers coming here to take our jobs.

This whole poll was clearly pro Bristol propaganda designed to increase the popularity of the break away movement. You'd be nothing without the rest of us, admit it.

Cal really does confuse me, evangelising a party which hates him. It's like when you see the odd black or Indian in UKIP, who join because they dislike other minority races or homosexuals.

A banker, a tabloid reader and a Romanian sit at next to a cake. The banker eats 99% of the cake and tells the tabloid reader "Watch out for that Romanian, he's after your cake".

Banjo » Wed May 28, 2014 4:42 pm wrote:Now I have to say that this idea of national identity does fascinate me (it's pretty much what my dissertation focus is) and I believe the line of thought Cal subscribes to is quite revealing. Something I've been noting over the last 9 months where I've been meeting people from all over Europe is how powerful the island mentality of the UK is. Even myself and other wishy-washy lefty bastards I know don't fully consider ourselves European (the way we even say that "we'll go travelling in Europe" is indicative of this) but just about every other person I've met does consider themselves that. But it doesn't impact on their national identity, they still just as strongly identify as being Austrian, Polish, Finnish, German, French, Bulgarian, Lithuanian etc.

In particular what I'm fascinated by is what does British national identity even mean? You can break it down further into English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh, and then from there you'll get people that instead subscribe to a more specific location (I know Moggy was kinda taking the piss, but Bristolian is a valid example). Is there such a thing as a definite idea of British identity that doesn't involve making lame jokes about tea or queueing? Personally I think it's a little ironic that Cal is all about preserving individual national identities (which apparently the EU want to erode) but in doing so is subjecting an island of unique identities to some broad, sweeping generalisations.

I'm referred to as "my Welsh friend" by some friends of mine. But I don't identify as that despite speaking the language and knowing a decent amount of the culture and heritage, and plenty of people have remarked that my accent is not particularly strong (it comes and goes), so I'm intrigued to know how British identity can even be a thing.

I'm not really expecting answers to this (was it even a question?) but it's a subject matter I take great interest in.

Well the Cornish and folks of Yorkshire have their own identity, or at least think they do.

I agree with the sentiment about not feeling European, even though I am a lefty and broadly support the idea of the EU if not the implementation. I often say that I am going to Europe when travelling across the channel.

I'm from London and more and more I think that I am part of a separate country. This stems from meeting with people outside of London who view it as totally different from everywhere else in the UK because of the high portion of 'non-English' people living there. I am often told that they could not live in London as they would not be able to get the things that they want in London, although they never seem to be able to quite work out what those things are. Also I am told that there are a large number of 'English' people moving out of London because they can't stand what it has become. Although on this forum the majority of people seem to hold similar views to myself and live outside London so maybe it isn't so different out in the 'wilderness'. So I guess to an extent I think that London has it's own identity, in fact in probably has a load depending on the way you cut it but those are mostly just sweeping generalizations.

Banjo wrote:Now I have to say that this idea of national identity does fascinate me (it's pretty much what my dissertation focus is) and I believe the line of thought Cal subscribes to is quite revealing. Something I've been noting over the last 9 months where I've been meeting people from all over Europe is how powerful the island mentality of the UK is. Even myself and other wishy-washy lefty bastards I know don't fully consider ourselves European (the way we even say that "we'll go travelling in Europe" is indicative of this) but just about every other person I've met does consider themselves that. But it doesn't impact on their national identity, they still just as strongly identify as being Austrian, Polish, Finnish, German, French, Bulgarian, Lithuanian etc.

In particular what I'm fascinated by is what does British national identity even mean? You can break it down further into English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh, and then from there you'll get people that instead subscribe to a more specific location (I know Moggy was kinda taking the piss, but Bristolian is a valid example). Is there such a thing as a definite idea of British identity that doesn't involve making lame jokes about tea or queueing? Personally I think it's a little ironic that Cal is all about preserving individual national identities (which apparently the EU want to erode) but in doing so is subjecting an island of unique identities to some broad, sweeping generalisations.

I'm referred to as "my Welsh friend" by some friends of mine. But I don't identify as that despite speaking the language and knowing a decent amount of the culture and heritage, and plenty of people have remarked that my accent is not particularly strong (it comes and goes), so I'm intrigued to know how British identity can even be a thing.

I'm not really expecting answers to this (was it even a question?) but it's a subject matter I take great interest in.

The problem is that most people that care about national identity seem to be solely focused on projecting it on to others (e.g. Like your friends call you Welshie)

It's often about defining others as not part of your perceived identity as well e.g. That chap, I want to say UKIP but cant recall, who could not accept the fact Mo Farah was British. No idea why it mattered so much to him, but Mo Farah for whatever reason (and we all know what it is) just shouldn't be called British in his opinion. Oddly enough the only comparison I can think of is gay marraige. People will insist they're not homophobic, but at the same time be against gay marraige because it degenerates the institution somehow. Those people are not like us, how dare they pretend to be

And it's the perceived identity that mattters, especially when cultural idenity can change over time.

You asked every person in Britain what 'British identity' is and I bet the majority would not be what Kippers say. But that's not what Kippers will be trying to defend/re-assert.

Moggy ( I think) posted a picture of Kipper MEPs and voting records - notice anything?

Cal actually admitted it when he agreed UKIP want regressive policies. They dont want to preserve what British means to the British.

They want to rewind to what British means to them. After all Mo Farah isnt really British. Why should his opinion matter?

Sorry for string of thoughts - on the ipad

(Something that occured to me - Cal I assume you expect Mr and Mrs Farrage to divorce then? Their diluting their national identities by being married...and oh got think of the poor confused, identity muddled children )

Fatal Exception wrote:Cal really does confuse me, evangelising a party which hates him. It's like when you see the odd black or Indian in UKIP, who join because they dislike other minority races or homosexuals.

A banker, a tabloid reader and a Romanian sit at next to a cake. The banker eats 99% of the cake and tells the tabloid reader "Watch out for that Romanian, he's after your cake".

Where did you get thar from? It's far too clever for you..,

I'll concede that national identity's a thing but I fail to see why people are so concerned with it being changed. All it really boils down to is the stuff you grew up with, if anything it's something you should outgrow as you come to develop your own personality once you get choice in what you watch, read, believe etc
When it comes down to it any attempt at defining a National Identity is ultimately going to be stereotyping anyway, a needless exercise at putting people into boxes.

Hexx » Wed May 28, 2014 5:11 pm wrote:

Banjo wrote:Now I have to say that this idea of national identity does fascinate me (it's pretty much what my dissertation focus is) and I believe the line of thought Cal subscribes to is quite revealing. Something I've been noting over the last 9 months where I've been meeting people from all over Europe is how powerful the island mentality of the UK is. Even myself and other wishy-washy lefty bastards I know don't fully consider ourselves European (the way we even say that "we'll go travelling in Europe" is indicative of this) but just about every other person I've met does consider themselves that. But it doesn't impact on their national identity, they still just as strongly identify as being Austrian, Polish, Finnish, German, French, Bulgarian, Lithuanian etc.

In particular what I'm fascinated by is what does British national identity even mean? You can break it down further into English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh, and then from there you'll get people that instead subscribe to a more specific location (I know Moggy was kinda taking the piss, but Bristolian is a valid example). Is there such a thing as a definite idea of British identity that doesn't involve making lame jokes about tea or queueing? Personally I think it's a little ironic that Cal is all about preserving individual national identities (which apparently the EU want to erode) but in doing so is subjecting an island of unique identities to some broad, sweeping generalisations.

I'm referred to as "my Welsh friend" by some friends of mine. But I don't identify as that despite speaking the language and knowing a decent amount of the culture and heritage, and plenty of people have remarked that my accent is not particularly strong (it comes and goes), so I'm intrigued to know how British identity can even be a thing.

I'm not really expecting answers to this (was it even a question?) but it's a subject matter I take great interest in.

The problem is that most people that care about national identity seem to be solely focused on projecting it on to others (e.g. Like your friends call you Welshie)

It's often about defining others as not part of your perceived identity as well e.g. That chap, I want to say UKIP but cant recall, who could not accept the fact Mo Farah was British. No idea why it mattered so much to him, but Mo Farah for whatever reason (and we all know what it is) just shouldn't be called British in his opinion. Oddly enough the only comparison I can think of is gay marraige. People will insist they're not homophobic, but at the same time be against gay marraige because it degenerates the institution somehow. Those people are not like us, how dare they pretend to be

And it's the perceived identity that mattters, especially when cultural idenity can change over time.

You asked every person in Britain what 'British identity' is and I bet the majority would not be what Kippers say. But that's not what Kippers will be trying to defend/re-assert.

Moggy ( I think) posted a picture of Kipper MEPs and voting records - notice anything?

Cal actually admitted it when he agreed UKIP want regressive policies. They dont want to preserve what British means to the British.

They want to rewind to what British means to them. After all Mo Farah isnt really British. Why should his opinion matter?

Sorry for string of thoughts - on the ipad

(Something that occured to me - Cal I assume you expect Mr and Mrs Farrage to divorce then? Their diluting their national identities by being married...and oh got think of the poor confused, identity muddled children )

Do you think that national identity is always a negative thing then? It seems to me that by your definition it just exists to encourage racism.

Hexx » Wed May 28, 2014 4:12 pm wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:Cal really does confuse me, evangelising a party which hates him. It's like when you see the odd black or Indian in UKIP, who join because they dislike other minority races or homosexuals.

A banker, a tabloid reader and a Romanian sit at next to a cake. The banker eats 99% of the cake and tells the tabloid reader "Watch out for that Romanian, he's after your cake".

Where did you get thar from? It's far too clever for you..,

"Sit at next to a cake" is too clever for FE?

There's at least two words missing

Hexx » Wed May 28, 2014 5:11 pm wrote:

Banjo wrote:Now I have to say that this idea of national identity does fascinate me (it's pretty much what my dissertation focus is) and I believe the line of thought Cal subscribes to is quite revealing. Something I've been noting over the last 9 months where I've been meeting people from all over Europe is how powerful the island mentality of the UK is. Even myself and other wishy-washy lefty bastards I know don't fully consider ourselves European (the way we even say that "we'll go travelling in Europe" is indicative of this) but just about every other person I've met does consider themselves that. But it doesn't impact on their national identity, they still just as strongly identify as being Austrian, Polish, Finnish, German, French, Bulgarian, Lithuanian etc.

In particular what I'm fascinated by is what does British national identity even mean? You can break it down further into English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh, and then from there you'll get people that instead subscribe to a more specific location (I know Moggy was kinda taking the piss, but Bristolian is a valid example). Is there such a thing as a definite idea of British identity that doesn't involve making lame jokes about tea or queueing? Personally I think it's a little ironic that Cal is all about preserving individual national identities (which apparently the EU want to erode) but in doing so is subjecting an island of unique identities to some broad, sweeping generalisations.

I'm referred to as "my Welsh friend" by some friends of mine. But I don't identify as that despite speaking the language and knowing a decent amount of the culture and heritage, and plenty of people have remarked that my accent is not particularly strong (it comes and goes), so I'm intrigued to know how British identity can even be a thing.

I'm not really expecting answers to this (was it even a question?) but it's a subject matter I take great interest in.

The problem is that most people that care about national identity seem to be solely focused on projecting it on to others (e.g. Like your friends call you Welshie)

It's often about defining others as not part of your perceived identity as well e.g. That chap, I want to say UKIP but cant recall, who could not accept the fact Mo Farah was British. No idea why it mattered so much to him, but Mo Farah for whatever reason (and we all know what it is) just shouldn't be called British in his opinion. Oddly enough the only comparison I can think of is gay marraige. People will insist they're not homophobic, but at the same time be against gay marraige because it degenerates the institution somehow. Those people are not like us, how dare they pretend to be

And it's the perceived identity that mattters, especially when cultural idenity can change over time.

You asked every person in Britain what 'British identity' is and I bet the majority would not be what Kippers say. But that's not what Kippers will be trying to defend/re-assert.

Moggy ( I think) posted a picture of Kipper MEPs and voting records - notice anything?

Cal actually admitted it when he agreed UKIP want regressive policies. They dont want to preserve what British means to the British.

They want to rewind to what British means to them. After all Mo Farah isnt really British. Why should his opinion matter?

Sorry for string of thoughts - on the ipad

(Something that occured to me - Cal I assume you expect Mr and Mrs Farrage to divorce then? Their diluting their national identities by being married...and oh got think of the poor confused, identity muddled children )

It was a UKIP guy that can't accept Mo Farah as British. I'll even post a right wing story about it so Cal can't moan about lefties.

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/news/article ... dates.html

Irene Demova » Wed May 28, 2014 5:24 pm wrote:

Hexx » Wed May 28, 2014 4:12 pm wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:Cal really does confuse me, evangelising a party which hates him. It's like when you see the odd black or Indian in UKIP, who join because they dislike other minority races or homosexuals.

A banker, a tabloid reader and a Romanian sit at next to a cake. The banker eats 99% of the cake and tells the tabloid reader "Watch out for that Romanian, he's after your cake".

Where did you get thar from? It's far too clever for you..,

"Sit at next to a cake" is too clever for FE?

There's at least two words missing

Stole it from a facebook comment and strawberry floated up all the spelling and grammar