So what do you think current crises have to do with anything? There are always crises, all the time, and there always will be; this is what politics is about. Every government in every country has crises. Every international body (EU, NATO, UNO, etc) has crises. One of the main purposes of all organisations is to deal with crises. Every leader looks forward to having to deal with crises - that is why they seek office. During the 20th century Europe faced several crises which were vastly more important and more destructive than anything happening today. The kinds of crises we see nowadays are comparatively low-key.
I don't think it was a miscalculation. Promising a referendum was the only trick available to him to avoid a terminal split in his party. It is a gamble though. Provided the result is IN, the ultra-right wing will be shut up for a few years. But if the result were OUT, his party will split in pieces anyway, he will be out of office, and it will be somebody else's problem.
So..... If it all goes horribly wrong I guess the people will get the blame instead of the government There are many who don't have a clue whats it's all about but will follow the control of the media
I was going to give this an "agree" but the idea that the Outers are "ultra-right wing" is just false and campaigning on this premise will backfire. The tide is turning against the EU and it isn't little englanders, racists and xenophobes but ordinary people in the street who are fed up with the UK being dictated too by the unelected Commissioners of the EU.
What do you expect from an opinion column? He's not falsifying facts, he's not even reporting the news directly, he's offering his personal analysis of a particular aspect of it (an analysis which the reader may or may not accept), positing a premise on where we are now and from that extrapolating a hypothetical outcome where he believes we may end up. You can either agree or disagree. That's what opinion columns are: they're opinionated - conversation pieces, not reportage. Should newspapers not publish opinion columns unless they have been vetted by the Ministry of Truth?
The current crises indicate to the man in the street that the EU is struggling to maintain it's borders against uncontrolled immigration which threatens our western european way of life, even Sweden is rethinking it's liberal approach to the problem. The EU was born out of WWII, which was undeniably in the 20th century, we are now in the 21st century and need new solutions.
I don't know, I got it wrong last time didn't I. The government are supposed to represent the will of the people; that's democracy.
I'm sorry you felt that my observation was a general criticism of journalists, rather than a specific tongue-in-cheek poke at literary redundancy here on the forums
In 12-18 months the rapidly worsening and uncontrollable migration crises will have hardened attitudes across EU member countries and demonstrate how completely ineffectual the EU machine is. As another example; they are now just starting to look at the dying steel industry in Europe. Rather too late and nothing they can now do that would make any difference. DC you are looking to only aim to restrict EU migrants' access to in-work benefits such as tax credits? Firstly, you are looking to eliminate them for all, secondly, what about out of work benefits? Rather pathetic climb down and no pretension to be controlling EU migration? As most of the EU continues to stagnate, we will be a magnet for those looking to get on. It's a broken experiment in my opinion (like the Euro) and just a matter of time until it unravels. If we do vote to leave, will the Scots use it as the lever to leave the UK when the oil price is in the doldrums? Interesting times! Is that Boris I can see on a white stallion.....
Why should it split if there's an out vote? (Unless, of course the result is not accepted, respected and implemented by the Government). Or why only if there's an OUT vote? (Surely you cannot trying to suggest to the Tory faithful, should any be present, that they need to vote IN for the sake of their party..) I think the Tories are more likely to split if the vote is to stay in because then the minutiae of dealing with Europe and forming policy will become sand in the party's wheels once again. The Europhiles will push for deeper integration in a way they have never dared to before, and the sceptics will dig their heels in harder than ever and many will probably leave. And a spit would almost certainly have happened if Cameron had refused to hold a referendum. Either way, I predict the Conservative party will prove to be more durable than the EU.
I believe everything in a newspaper is tainted by the writers opinion or personal bias. The omission,(or inclusion),of one or two words,"Mister" for example,describes whether a columnist considers someone guilty or innocent. "Smith was handcuffed before being dragged into court by two burly Policeman " "Mr Smith was smiling as he entered court flanked by two Policeman". My cynicism is not restricted to newspaper journalists though,as I have the same regard for all media mouthpieces. Snake oil sellers.
That's not how it works. Every five years we get to choose a selection of people to make decisions without checking the will of the people, we choose them based on our assessment of how well they will manage things for the next five years, not how closely they will follow public opinion
You described the original opinion piece as "astute". That's your opinion. I said "There's a great deal of tendentious, inconsistent waffle here, obviously, but the writer does make one good point". That's my opinion. So should I not post opinions on this forum unless they have been vetted by you?
Does the will of the people not come into the selection process ? Is the will of the people different from public opinion ? Do we select whom to vote for based upon what they personally say or do we vote for a party who has a manifesto ? Do we vote for the pretty one in the red / blue dress ? Once elected does our MP represent us, do they serve their party, their country, their Queen or other interests ? It is presumptuous to say how we chose whom to vote for. Can democracy be defined in a sentence or two ?
Good point. MPs are elected ostensibly on the basis of what they have said and done in the past and what they say about the future. As each crisis comes along, MPs and the government which the majority of them support make decisions about actions, laws, and policies. Those decisions are not necessarily reflective of public opinion polls, nor of what the media are saying. Actually voters can vote for or against candidates for any reasons they please, which might include racist bigotry, disliking a candidate's hairstyle, or confusing one candidate with another. Voters don't have to be reasonable. And that's democracy.
Everything one human being says to another human being is coloured by the speaker's perception. That isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing, its just a fact of life. Whether one's views are influenced or manipulated by the press (or by politicians or any other public commentator) depend entirely on whether we allow ourselves to be influenced or manipulated.
