retired_kris10nicole

they're used to being ruled, so it's no big change.

retired_navy0614

20 miles of water, an inferiority complex by no longer being a world power and "WE WON THE WAR, NO FRENCHIES OR KRAUTS BELITTLING US" mentality.

retired_srini_aug1

what Zaitsev said pretty much. Being an island seems to bring out a strange mentality

retired_jenn912010

Tbh we are still a world power, just. Trident + UN Security Council veto.

retired_princesspouty

20 miles of water, an inferiority complex by no longer being a world power and "WE WON THE WAR, NO FRENCHIES OR KRAUTS BELITTLING US" mentality. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Personally, I think it's actually a superiority complex, which is no less ridiculous.

retired_navy0614

20 miles of water, an inferiority complex by no longer being a world power and "WE WON THE WAR, NO FRENCHIES OR KRAUTS BELITTLING US" mentality. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Personally, I think it's actually a superiority complex, which is no less ridiculous. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's a strange bastardised sense of superiority, which is actually an inferiority - i.e. "we won the war" (********), aforementioned trident (heh, hardly independent mind you) and UN veto and a fear that if the EU becomes federal/more entrenched, England will be swallowed up completely and become the total non-entity Britain really is.

retired_senegalg

Oh no I wasn't picking up on the word revolution, just that he mentioned 'burkean' views - which I assumed was a reference to Edmund Burke - who is most known for his work on the French Revolution. Which is why I made the comparison. Did he mean a different Burke though?

Or are you saying he did mean Burke, and I'm talking rubbish anyway. If so I don't really agree, because rankean a nalogy would see 'ancien regime' = EU = "potential to be a pretty effective organisation" - which when speaking about the ancien regime, is just ******** - and so don't really see how Ranke is relavent. Unless Burke actually did loads of philosophy outside of French Revolution, which is what he meant, in which case I should shut up </BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of his reactions to the French Revolution and other writings were generally philosophical. He wrote a lot within Reflections on the Revolution in France about the so-called 'Glorious Revolution', the 'perfect constitution' and the reform movement. He believed in evolutionary change, basically.

retired_adrenalinejunki

worth mentioning the sheer amount of effort expended by the tabloid press, particularly the Mail/Express tag team from hell, but including Murdoch's lot too, to obfuscate the actual purpose of the EU via misleading stories. this has been going on for at least my entire lifetime, and some of the chestnuts (EU regulation on the curve of bananas!) have been around that long too (that one is a total lie btw, but they've still printed it 100+ times)

a lot of people who are vehemently anti-EU are RAGING against examples that have been completely fictionalised, or nightmare worst-case scenarios put across by the most biased writers in Britain.

Fitness Matt

The EU, you mean? And I'm not so sure it would win. </BLOCKQUOTE>

The Labour Party would be campaigning 'Yes', the Tory Party would have to campaign 'Yes' to be consistent, the LibDems would campaign 'Yes'. The largest party likely to campaign 'No' is UKIP - and they haven't got any money.

The newspapers, despite all their EU-bashing (which is just lazy journalism for the most part) are still businesses and will probably say vote 'Yes', however much they dress it up as a reluctant one to save their face. The only major paper that I can see saying 'No' is the Telegraph, and that's because I have absolutely no idea which way the Barclay Brothers are likely to tell the editor to go.

With an intensive 'Yes' campaign against what is bound to be a fairly puny 'No' campaign I can only see it going one way.

retired_senegalg

The EU, you mean? And I'm not so sure it would win. </BLOCKQUOTE>

The Labour Party would be campaigning 'Yes', the Tory Party would have to campaign 'Yes' to be consistent, the LibDems would campaign 'Yes'. The largest party likely to campaign 'No' is UKIP - and they haven't got any money.

The newspapers, despite all their EU-bashing (which is just lazy journalism for the most part) are still businesses and will probably say vote 'Yes', however much they dress it up as a reluctant one to save their face. The only major paper that I can see saying 'No' is the Telegraph, and that's because I have absolutely no idea which way the Barclay Brothers are likely to tell the editor to go.

With an intensive 'Yes' campaign against what is bound to be a fairly puny 'No' campaign I can only see it going one way. </BLOCKQUOTE>

and that all beautifully illustrates why referenda are often more plutocratic than democratic