Referendum on EU membership

[Finnegan]

Tunchev would have been illegible for a work permit because of his international appearances, likewise Sol (I think?)

Knocky probably wouldn't.

[Carl the Llama]

My take on the whole topic:

Does anyone seriously believe Cameron (or any other PM for that matter) would be able to renegotiate terms of membership to make Britain 'more equal' than the other member states, to pinch Orwell's terminology?

Good joke David, I can see why it took you so long to come up with.

[brockmyster]

What an absolute pile of steaming turd that comment is.

The irony is thats what your comment is

As for the referendum i think, like others have said, that many citizens of this country dont have a clue about the implications either way and we could end up with a ridicolous answer

[Parafox]

If re-elected Cameron will renegotiate the terms of Britain's role in the EU before the referendum. People will then vote based on the result of those negotiations. It's looking increasingly likely that Labour will be back in by then anyway, so it matters not. But if it came down to it, Cameron would attempt to negotiate a better deal and then use that to sell the idea of staying in to the British public in the run up to the vote. If the Conservatives get back in then this will be all we hear about for a couple of years - plenty of time for everyone to make an informed opinion.

Personally I think that a compromise is ideal, but coming out is a lot more dangerous than staying in. Having a referendum on such an important issue is a very risky strategy. Even if Cameron negotiates a good deal there is no guarantee that the public won't vote to leave anyway. If election votes weren't an issue, he would never make this promise, instead he would renegotiate first and then take stock from there. It's a bit reckless to do it this way, and the chances of it not ending in tears - either an ill-considered EU withdrawal or the return of Labour - seem pretty slim to me.

Crikey O'Riley, I actually find this to be an intellectual, considered response... and look who wrote it

Nurse!!...

[Jon the Hat]

My take on the whole topic:

Does anyone seriously believe Cameron (or any other PM for that matter) would be able to renegotiate terms of membership to make Britain 'more equal' than the other member states, to pinch Orwell's terminology?

Good joke David, I can see why it took you so long to come up with.

That would depend on whether you believe it is currently equal or not. It clearly isn't. No reason why terms cannot be renegotiated.

[Carl the Llama]

That would depend on whether you believe it is currently equal or not. It clearly isn't. No reason why terms cannot be renegotiated.

The reason I find it so funny is because we're already not contributing our fair share to Europe.

[leicsmac]

From an economic standpoint, the Euro has almost proven that a single currency spread across countries with lots of different cultures doesn't really work. At least, not at the moment. The same difference in culture means there are political and governance differences too.

However...there are some issues that are truly global...possible climate change (don't give a shit if its caused by us or not, the fact is it's happening with or without us), overpopulation, declining natural resources. These things are going to affect EVERYONE one day, no matter where they are, and at the moment due to these political, cultural and economic differences we are not looking at the big picture. Money, history and culture are no good to a world where most of the people are dead and civilisation has collapsed, is it? (Except maybe for future archaeologists a few thousand years down the line when it recovers again)

That's why we do need a global body of governance to tackle these particular issues. Not like the UN we have now. Something that actually has teeth and can pass legislation that actually sticks to different nations, but is answerable to all of its members.

In short - I'm in favour of world Government, but I know that it couldn't work at a comprehensive level. However I do also realise that if we don't take some action against some things as one planet, something is going to happen that will render all of this discussion moot.

[Rincewind]

I know some will disagree but while we have a world with different cultures and religions there will never be a world government. I cannot see people in different countries changing lifestyles to another. I believe in a secular or humanitarian society which has some of the values of religion but without a god. I cannot see people stop believing in something that has been embedded into their genes for thousands of years. Not in our lifetime anyway. A few thousand years? who knows but will it be too late when Mankind finally wakes up and work together for one goal?

One of the only ways possible is for one nation to take over the rest. It will be a Big Brother type rule in order to keep order. Or we could be invaded by aliens who once seeing what a shit world we have made destroys it so to start again. A few nuclear bombs would enable us to do this also but knowing from what has gone on somebody will invent a higher power and brainwashing will start again.

[Webbo]

In short - I'm in favour of world Government, but I know that it couldn't work at a comprehensive level. However I do also realise that if we don't take some action against some things as one planet, something is going to happen that will render all of this discussion moot.

I can't think of anything more terrifying.

[leicsmac]

I know some will disagree but while we have a world with different cultures and religions there will never be a world government. I cannot see people in different countries changing lifestyles to another. I believe in a secular or humanitarian society which has some of the values of religion but without a god. I cannot see people stop believing in something that has been embedded into their genes for thousands of years. Not in our lifetime anyway. A few thousand years? who knows but will it be too late when Mankind finally wakes up and work together for one goal?

One of the only ways possible is for one nation to take over the rest. It will be a Big Brother type rule in order to keep order. Or we could be invaded by aliens who once seeing what a shit world we have made destroys it so to start again. A few nuclear bombs would enable us to do this also but knowing from what has gone on somebody will invent a higher power and brainwashing will start again.

Agree with this. Though authoritarianism of this kind scares me.

I can't think of anything more terrifying.

I'm not sure if you got my point here, or perhaps I'm not identifying correctly what you find 'terrifying' about my comment

I don't think a world system of governance is going to happen...but I do think global unilateral action is needed on some issues because if we don't act then one of them is going to eventually cause something that will destroy or heavily damage civilisation. And I'd rather that not happen.

[Webbo]

Agree with this. Though authoritarianism of this kind scares me.

I'm not sure if you got my point here, or perhaps I'm not identifying correctly what you find 'terrifying' about my comment

I don't think a world system of governance is going to happen...but I do think global unilateral action is needed on some issues because if we don't act then one of them is going to eventually cause something that will destroy or heavily damage civilisation. And I'd rather that not happen.

If you can find a problem that 90% of the world thinks is a problem and then find a solution that 90% of the world thinks is the right solution or doesn't cost/damage one section of the world more than another then it might possibly work. Anything else is oppression.

[Rincewind]

What scares me anout it is if the USA decide they should be in charge. Will they still want the same gun laws? Or will it be a global OK Coral every day.

[leicsmac]

If you can find a problem that 90% of the world thinks is a problem and then find a solution that 90% of the world thinks is the right solution or doesn't cost/damage one section of the world more than another then it might possibly work. Anything else is oppression.

Fair enough...worked with banning CFC's I guess - just not in any other case so far.

I just hope in the case of something becoming a big issue that we'll have enough time to hit that 90% figure and take action before the shit hits the fan. Problem is people often don't know there is a real global issue until it comes up and slaps them in the face, and by then it could be too late. Cassandra truth in action - people don't want to hear that bad news might be on the way.

But I do agree that action that affects all the world must be decided upon by all of the world. Anything else is authoritarianism.

My prediction - next global crisis (pick any one of the three I've talked about already) - we don't cooperate and act as one agenda until it's too late, and civilisation eats itself.

Yes, I have my cynical hat on today.

[MooseBreath]

Overpopulation isn't even a problem. Neither is declining natural resources. I suppose it might be easier to tackle climate change if someone had the power to impose rules on the entire world, but let's face it no-one in their right mind is ever going to sign up for that.

[leicsmac]

Overpopulation isn't even a problem. Neither is declining natural resources. I suppose it might be easier to tackle climate change if someone had the power to impose rules on the entire world, but let's face it no-one in their right mind is ever going to sign up for that.

How is this not a problem? You could make a case for overpopulation not being an issue due to future improvements in agriculture...but how is lessening amounts of gas and oil (two resources civilisation is pretty much absolutely dependent on) not be a problem?

Asteroid mining could well be the answer to our rare and heavy earth metals problem, but I'm not sure about finding a replacement for gas and oil, unless we can get nuclear fusion working pretty quickly.

Edit: As for climate change, I don't believe that humans have a great deal to do with it to be honest (it's difficult to tell), but the fact that it's happening should be something we respond to as one planet.

[MooseBreath]

How is this not a problem? You could make a case for overpopulation not being an issue due to future improvements in agriculture...but how is lessening amounts of gas and oil (two resources civilisation is pretty much absolutely dependent on) not be a problem?

Asteroid mining could well be the answer to our rare and heavy earth metals problem, but I'm not sure about finding a replacement for gas and oil, unless we can get nuclear fusion working pretty quickly.

World population will level out in the next few decades. We already have the technology to replace oil and gas if and when it is needed. The new wind farm in Ireland alone is going to produce some 20% of the UK's power. There are other ideas like tidal power which we can easily bring in if necessary. Besides there is no definite end to the oil in sight yet and we haven't even started fracking seriously yet, that alone will keep us going for decades.

[leicsmac]

World population will level out in the next few decades. We already have the technology to replace oil and gas if and when it is needed. The new wind farm in Ireland alone is going to produce some 20% of the UK's power. There are other ideas like tidal power which we can easily bring in if necessary. Besides there is no definite end to the oil in sight yet and we haven't even started fracking seriously yet, that alone will keep us going for decades.

Fair enough - I hope you're right, because if you are it sounds like the UK is well-covered for energy. I do think we should be shifting to renewables sooner rather than later though - or at the very least 'clean' non-renewables that are going to last a very long time. Why aren't we using these replacement technologies yet? I would have thought breaking the dependence on imported gas and oil - in fact the worlds dependence on all gas and oil - would be a good thing?

Hopefully the rest of the world will be in as good shape energy-wise, because demand is going to increase exponentionally as other nations attempt to 'catch up' with the living standards of the West.

[MooseBreath]

Fair enough - I hope you're right, because if you are it sounds like the UK is well-covered for energy. I do think we should be shifting to renewables sooner rather than later though - or at the very least 'clean' non-renewables that are going to last a very long time. Why aren't we using these replacement technologies yet? I would have thought breaking the dependence on imported gas and oil - in fact the worlds dependence on all gas and oil - would be a good thing?

I think we are shifting towards renewables slowly. There is a lot of opposition from environmentalists who don't like the way things like wind farms look which slows things down. But mainly I think the large capex required is prohibitive when we don't know what new and more efficient technologies are just around the corner. The closer we get to the end of oil and gas, the less that will matter. We know that we can and will switch when necessary, but for now it's more sensible to wait. The worst thing would be to spend billions and billions on renewable systems which could well be made redundant by new technology within decades.

[BoneDog]

I don't think a world system of governance is going to happen...but I do think global unilateral action is needed on some issues because if we don't act then one of them is going to eventually cause something that will destroy or heavily damage civilisation. And I'd rather that not happen.

I agree with some of the things you've said on this subject, but not on the point of over-population. Unless you were talking about over-population of cities or something like that!

If you were talking about the general world population being too high (which I'm led to believe is a myth), then what kind of things are being suggested to solve that problem?

[leicsmac]

I think we are shifting towards renewables slowly. There is a lot of opposition from environmentalists who don't like the way things like wind farms look which slows things down. But mainly I think the large capex required is prohibitive when we don't know what new and more efficient technologies are just around the corner. The closer we get to the end of oil and gas, the less that will matter. We know that we can and will switch when necessary, but for now it's more sensible to wait. The worst thing would be to spend billions and billions on renewable systems which could well be made redundant by new technology within decades.

All sounds reasonable. Just got to trust that the analysts predicting the energy trends are on the top of their game prediction-wise and are not open to corruption from the rich oil lobby who want things to stay the way they are for as long as possible. Last thing we need is for people to say we have a large supply, then suddenly run out (following an abrupt and massive spike in prices and profit of course) and have no system waiting to replace it. I might even say that that is a pretty popular conspiracy theory - the big energy companies let the oil run close to running out, make big money on higher prices caused by low supply, then swoop in with renewable technologies (for which patents have been held and suppressed for years) 'save the day' and keep control of the market. Shrewd business strategy. Yeah, I'm definitely feeling the cynic today. But if it keeps us all in the style of life to which we've become accustomed, doesn't matter, right?

It's a good idea to wait (for the reason you suggested), but we'd better be sure we have a good idea of when the change will occur and have the tech in place for when it does. This is not something we want to gamble on.

[leicsmac]

I agree with some of the things you've said on this subject, but not on the point of over-population. Unless you were talking about over-population of cities or something like that!

If you were talking about the general world population being too high (which I'm led to believe is a myth), then what kind of things are being suggested to solve that problem?

I was talking about general overpopulation, which leads to a lot of other attendant problems - increased energy demand, increased pollution caused by this, greater weight on agriculture and water supplies etc. It would seem that population growth is slowing, but there's so many forecasts out there it's impossible to tell. Hopefully it'll cap out at around 9 billion sometime around the middle of this century.

[BoneDog]

How is lessening amounts of gas and oil (two resources civilisation is pretty much absolutely dependent on) not a problem?

Oil is abiotic. I'm 93% certain of that. The establishment like to pretend that the supply is finite, because prices can be hiked to extortionate rates with much less resistance that way.

[BoneDog]

On the subject of future energy sources, a couple of years ago I heard about a Libyan desert solar plan for Europe. Not sure how accurate the story was, but apparently a massive solar field was going to be erected somewhere in the Libyan desert, and cables were going to run through the already existing large pipelines that go under the Med to mainland Europe.

Not sure of any truth in that but I thought it was interesting. We steal their oil, precious metals and gemstones, now we're going to steal their Sun. Charming!

[The Doctor]

Oil is abiotic. I'm 93% certain of that. The establishment like to pretend that the supply is finite, because prices can be hiked to extortionate rates with much less resistance that way.

It really isn't - Crude oil is the remains of dead creatures, with great pressure exerted on them over millions of years. Oil is biotic & a finite resource.

[Carl the Llama]

It really isn't - Crude oil is the remains of dead creatures, with great pressure exerted on them over millions of years. Oil is biotic & a finite resource.

We're basically running our cars on T-Rexes, which is pretty cool when you think about it.