Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [5]

[Bluebottle]

So, I feel a bit confused. Is the referendum only for British citizens? Or British citizens of British birth?

[Bluebottle]

I only voted because I felt I had to vote for someone, not because I really trusted any of the parties or felt my vote would make a difference (it didn't come close to it as it turned out )

Well, at least you are part of the statistic now. And when people are making an argument against the first past the post system, they can point to your vote as part of the reason it doesn't work. And if more stay at home voters do like you, the part about not making a difference might change eventually too.

[Pettytyrant101]

So, I feel a bit confused. Is the referendum only for British citizens? Or British citizens of British birth? - Blue

Those eligible to vote are-

British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens over 18 who are resident in the UK will be eligible to vote
So too will UK nationals who have lived overseas for less than 15 years
The franchise will not include 16 and 17-year-olds, unlike the Scottish independence referendum
Members of the House of Lords and Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar will also be allowed to vote, although they cannot participate in general elections- BBC

Those not allowed to vote- EU citizens resident in the UK. (Currently they can vote in local and European elections, and those in Scotland also voted in the Scottish Independence referendum)

[Bluebottle]

Ah, ok. Well, I can kind of see arguments for either side then. On the one hand it's the future of Britain, and it's citizens, that will be decided, but on the other hand it's hard to deny that, certainly long inhabiting, EU citizens have become an integrated part of British society and their citizenship might be more in name than reality. Also I'm not sure of the contingency of getting a UK citizenship, but one could theorize that there will be a dark number here of people left out, because despite them effectively calling Britain their home, they might not be able to achieve citizenship.

I don't have an answer, but the largness of the number of people who will be excluded is definitely something to consider. And you do get a whiff of setting yourself up for the result you want, by excluding voters who can vote in other referendums, in a particular one where you consider they might vote against you.

[Mrs Figg]

lets put this simply. British citizens are going to vote on something that is going to affect them forever. EU people who are NOT UK citizens have no business voting. They may be economic migrants who have a vested interest in the UK remaining in the EU.. its just common sense to have it as simple as possible.

[Pettytyrant101]

Its the principle an the message it sends.

EU citizens can vote in local and European elections, they could vote in the PR referendum, they could vote in the Scottish referendum, they could vote for regional parliaments, they can vote for Mayors. But suddenly now they cant vote in this referendum?
Its undemocratic. Its unfair. And it says that they are still just Johnny foreigner to the English at the end of the day and this doesn't concern foreigners.

[Mrs Figg]

I am a British citizen but cant vote.

[Eldorion]

I was going to argue that the ease with which citizens of certain countries can live in the UK creates a special extenuating circumstance, but then I remembered that they're going to allow Commonwealth citizens who live in the UK to vote, so yeah. I don't see how you can allow one but not the other unless you just admit that you're trying to manipulate the make-up of the electorate.

[Mrs Figg]

its the same as a general election. how can it be manipulation?

[Eldorion]

I did not actually know that (or had forgotten), so I'll concede that it isn't manipulation. But it doesn't make sense to me why foreign citizens of one international organization are allowed to vote in all UK elections but the other are not. Though I suppose that's reflective of the "with Europe but not of it" attitude that is in part responsible for the coming referendum. But it seems rather at odds with the ideals of the EU and makes Cameron's claim that he wants to stay in sound rather hollow.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not totally sold on the EU myself either, I just don't get what they're going for. Maybe just trying to balance the Eurosceptic and pro-business wings of the Conservative Party?

[Pettytyrant101]

Whats happening in Baltimore? Saw a headline earlier 35 dead in a month and 29 shootings just over the weekend! Sounds like the wild west. You take care Eldo.

[Eldorion]

Apparently gang violence is up since the riots but Baltimore has a long history of high murder rates.  This is worse than usual obviously.  Part of the reason it's easily ignored is because if you live in a middle or upper class neighborhood you almost never have to come face to face with it.  There are stark differences between the impoverished and affluent areas of Baltimore (which are not exactly the same as being black and white areas, though there is a racial component to it).  I hope that the attention brought on by the recent protests results in positive reforms being made, but it's a very complicated situation, obviously.

I appreciate you thinking of me, but I'm out in the suburbs myself.  I used to live and work in the inner ring suburbs and spent a good deal of time in the city, but since last fall I've been out in the more distant, still semi-rural (more so in mindset, increasingly less so in reality) 'burbs.

[Mrs Figg]

I did not actually know that (or had forgotten), so I'll concede that it isn't manipulation. But it doesn't make sense to me why foreign citizens of one international organization are allowed to vote in all UK elections but the other are not. Though I suppose that's reflective of the "with Europe but not of it" attitude that is in part responsible for the coming referendum. But it seems rather at odds with the ideals of the EU and makes Cameron's claim that he wants to stay in sound rather hollow.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not totally sold on the EU myself either, I just don't get what they're going for. Maybe just trying to balance the Eurosceptic and pro-business wings of the Conservative Party?

I have a feeling Cameron wants to keep us in Europe but with a deal of bargaining to get us some good deals first. I personally think it would be bad news to leave.

[Pettytyrant101]

So Bildenberg meets soon- this years guest list includes-

UK Chancellor George Osborne
Laurence Boone, special adviser on financial and economic affairs to President Francois Hollande
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte
Austrian President Heinz Fischer
former Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti
former European Commission President Jose Barroso
Google boss Eric Schmidt (with two other senior google figures specialising in artificial intelligence)
Santander chairman Ana Botin
BBC Trust chairman Rona Fairhead
Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist (in total there are 19 people attending from the global media)
David Petraeus, the retired US general and former CIA director
Former French Prime Minister Alain Juppe
Michael O'Leary, chairman of the budget airline Ryanair (The world of finance provides 31 attendees, with industry, mainly heavy, and transport accounting for another 18.)
Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State

It breaks down as 31 from finance, 21 from politics, 19 from industry and heavy transport, 18 from media, 14 from lobby groups, 14 academics, 6 from the world of high tech, 5 from policing, 4 from Law, 1 from Real Estate, and 1 Royal (Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands).


So global conspiracy? Powerful persons gentleman club? What do you think its about?

And is it right in democratic countries that member's of its government can go off to meetings with no minutes, no agenda, and no reporting on their activities? Or is a chance for people to try to work out new solutions to global problem sin an environment where they are free to talk.

[Eldorion]

If Bilderberg is a global conspiracy, then it's the most disorganized and ineffective conspiracy ever attempted.  The people who attend collectively wield massive power and influence, but they are often rivals or otherwise just not coordinating well.

And is it right in democratic countries that member's of its government can go off to meetings with no minutes, no agenda, and no reporting on their activities? Or is a chance for people to try to work out new solutions to global problem sin an environment where they are free to talk.

It's not like the public is privy to the minutes or agenda of meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or CIA briefings of the President, or even certain Congressional meetings (the TPP discussions being the most prominent recent example).  All of those are infinitely more likely to result in policy change that effects ordinary peoples lives than the Bilderberg Group is.  Plus it's not like you can really stop world leaders from meeting in private after hours at, say, the G7. Or, y'know, holding conference calls with each other.

[David H]

So global conspiracy? Powerful persons gentleman club? What do you think its about?

I'm going to rule out "global conspiracy" right from the start. If a list of people who include Google and CIA background decide to have a global conspiracy, I'm pretty sure they can figure out a way to do it without the media event.

And is it right in democratic countries that member's of its government can go off to meetings with no minutes, no agenda, and no reporting on their activities? Or is a chance for people to try to work out new solutions to global problem sin an environment where they are free to talk.

I'm going to go a step further and say that it's not not only right, it's necessary for democracy to have forums for talking off the record. Diplomacy just doesn't work in public with everybody watching and yelling at you. Without functional diplomacy, force seems to be the normal fallback plan. which isn't the best option in a democracy.

So I guess I hope they solve a few of the world's problems while they're meeting, but if nothing else I don't really begrudge them a good party.

[halfwise]

Yep. In Fahrenheit 911 a big deal was made of the link between the Bush and bin Laden families. Ain't nothing wrong with friendly links between world leaders and also businessmen. They've got to keep obvious patronage out the deals, but the world works on human connections.

[Eldorion]

Well said, Dave.

So I guess I hope they solve a few of the world's problems while they're meeting, but if nothing else I don't really begrudge them a good party.

Just think of the buckie variants they're keeping from us plebs, though!

Edit:

Yep.  In Fahrenheit 911 a big deal was made of the link between the Bush and bin Laden families.  Ain't nothing wrong with friendly links between world leaders and also businessmen.  They've got to keep obvious patronage out the deals, but the world works on human connections.

It's kinda ironic that more people get worked up about Bilderberg, which is happening under the spotlight of the world's media, than they do about the revolving door of business, lobbyists, and government officials, which no one seems to blink an eye at.

[Pettytyrant101]

But minutes are taken -they are in the UK anyway- even if the meeting is secret- there is a public record, so if some question arises the record can be checked, and it stands for future generations when the official secrets statuettes on it run out.
Whereas at these meetings we have no idea what publicly elected officials are up to.

So perhaps a more refined question would be should serving government ministers attend meeting whose agenda is utterly secret?

[Eldorion]

I seriously doubt that minutes are taken every time a President or PM has over some friends, advisors, or donors from the private sector or even from other countries.  Or that there are no off-the-record conversations in between the official events at big get-togethers like the G7. Just the practicality of that seems unworkable.

[halfwise]

Going back to what Dave said, you don't want minutes taken every damn time some leaders meet. They've gotta establish a personal working relationship. Presumably any secretary knows what goes on and off the record, but even so having minutes taken can overly formalize a meeting when at first you just want to develop some personal trust and understanding.

[Eldorion]

I haven't been following the EU/IMF-Greece showdown closely enough to have a particularly informed opinion, but it's fascinating and worrying what's going and will surely have major implications for the future of the Eurozone and possibly even the very idea of "ever-closer union".

Any of our European members (or people anywhere) been watching this? The deadline is only days away.

[Pettytyrant101]

The short answer is- its a fucking mess.

The longer answer is- Greece owe a lot of money and have huge debts, the EU could wave those debts and save a hell of a lot of suffering among the Greek population which has rampant unemployment, especially among youths which is always trouble in the long term, and has suffered massive public cuts in finance and a collapse in wages for those still with a job.

Problem is the EU cant wave the debts because 1- they would have to absorb the debt and that largely means Germans dipping in to their pockets again and they starting to tire of doing that, and 2 it means why would any of the other countries who got in trouble and are also having to implement severe austerity policies bother if they can just get the debt paid by the rest of the EU?
The result is a stalemate, during which Greece put there offer across trying to avoid paying most of it back and the EU money men reject it.
Major sticking points are over pension reform- they don't want to raise it and further budget cuts.

For Greece its lose lose really, at least in the short term, if they pull out of the EU and try to restart their currency they do so from a position of bankruptcy and needing loans which would come with huge charges if anyone would lend to them at all. But long term they may well be able to build back up their own currency value.
If they stay in they avoid a very painful exit financially but they will have to agree to further austerity and a raising of the pension age.

Unable to decide the ruling party have decided to throw it to the people in a referendum.

But the short answer is still more accurate.

[Eldorion]

The weirdest thing to me is the IMF continuing to insist on austerity when they've already admitted they were wrong about the impact of austerity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/12/imf-austerity-is-much-worse-for-the-economy-than-we-thought/
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/05/imf-underestimated-damage-austerity-would-do-to-greece

But on the other hand, surely the long-term best case scenario for Greece is to have a functioning economy again. But I think you're right that defaulting now means they wouldn't get help trying to rebuild the drachma.

[Mrs Figg]

all that Greek president seems to do is have a giggle with the Italian PM, lots of ruffling hair and bro-fisting, but the situation is dire. They will have to leave the EU, they shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. The Greek people have been lied to and shafted.