EU referendum could be held as early as 2016

[The Don]

Because it would cease to be my country and I wouldn't want anything ever to do it with.

But why? In this scenario the public have knowingly voted to join a federal europe, so it's not like you can use dishonesty or a lack of democracy as your reason for hating Europe enough to move away from Britain. Why do you feel compelled to move away if the British public decided to join a federation?

[-:Undertaker:-]

But why? In this scenario the public have knowingly voted to join a federal europe, so it's not like you can use dishonesty or a lack of democracy as your reason for hating Europe enough to move away from Britain. Why do you feel compelled to move away if the British public decided to join a federation?

I would give my life, as generations have before us, for British independence and sovereignty. If my fellow subjects decided to end a thousand years of independence voluntarily then that would be unforgivable. Infact, I can't think of a nightmare worse to me than that. I'd disown it all and be broken.

[The Don]

I would give my life, as generations have before us, for British independence and sovereignty. If my fellow subjects decided to end a thousand years of independence voluntarily then that would be unforgivable. Infact, I can't think of a nightmare worse to me than that. I'd disown it all and be broken.

Fair enough. It does seem a bit like you would be "cutting off the nose to spite the face" though. You love Britain so much you would leave it and move to a different country if it ever gave up its sovereignty. For you as a citizen and where day to day life is concerned it would remain the same Britain as it always has been but based on principle you couldn't stomach to live in a Britain that is no longer sovereign. Then again, i've never really understood nationalism so I guess that's why I can't relate.

[scottish]

We're not leaving the EU, calm down everyone.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Fair enough. It does seem a bit like you would be "cutting off the nose to spite the face" though. You love Britain so much you would leave it and move to a different country if it ever gave up its sovereignty. For you as a citizen and where day to day life is concerned it would remain the same Britain as it always has been but based on principle you couldn't stomach to live in a Britain that is no longer sovereign. Then again, i've never really understood nationalism so I guess that's why I can't relate.

You could argue that for anything then, couldn't you? I am sure when German armies were marching into France, for the majority life continued as 'normal' and you can see that from pictures at the time. And I am sure that as long as you could still go to work, marry the girl you loved and have children then you would probably have thought what is the point in fighting, am I right? For the millions of men who did give their lives for their countries independence though who actually feel it is better to live standing on your feet than on your knees, a nation that feels it can no longer rule itself isn't worth living in.

There are values and principles in life that are far more important than still being able to watch television, go bowling and go to work. It is the duty of all British people today to honour and uphold the sacrifices made in the past for us, and make sacrifices if need be for generations of Britons to come.

[The Don]

You could argue that for anything then, couldn't you? I am sure when German armies were marching into France, for the majority life continued as 'normal' and you can see that from pictures at the time. And I am sure that as long as you could still go to work, marry the girl you loved and have children then you would probably have thought what is the point in fighting, am I right?

That's a ridiculous and false comparison. Nazi Germany was slaughtering civilians and for many millions they weren't able to live a normal life which was the whole point of my comment. In the scenario we're discussing, Britain would be diplomatically joining a federation, it wouldn't be being invaded and oppressed as your example of Nazi Germany in France. Life in occupied France wasn't the same as it was before the Germans rolled in. An actual comparable scenario would be one where a nation diplomatically joined another, such as Scotland joining England. Not one where a bigger country invades and occupies another by force.

For the millions of men who did give their lives for their countries independence though who actually feel it is better to live standing on your feet than on your knees, a nation that feels it can no longer rule itself isn't worth living in.

By your logic Scotland isn't worth living in for the Scottish people then, since as you've pointed out yourself Westminster holds supremacy over their country.

There are values and principles in life that are far more important than still being able to watch television, go bowling and go to work. It is the duty of all British people today to honour and uphold the sacrifices made in the past for us, and make sacrifices if need be for generations of Britons to come.

There is no duty that all British people must follow. People are individuals and like Tom said earlier there is no hivemind that dictates what a British person must do or think. Your entire argument seems to be independence for independence sake and not what's best for Britain.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's a ridiculous and false comparison. Nazi Germany was slaughtering civilians and for many millions they weren't able to live a normal life which was the whole point of my comment. In the scenario we're discussing, Britain would be diplomatically joining a federation, it wouldn't be being invaded and oppressed as your example of Nazi Germany in France. Life in occupied France wasn't the same as it was before the Germans rolled in. An actual comparable scenario would be one where a nation diplomatically joined another, such as Scotland joining England. Not one where a bigger country invades and occupies another by force.

Not at all, of course the circumstances are different but the actual value being saved is the principle of political sovereignty and national independence. We fought not because of death camps, but because we have a right as a people and as a nation to our political self-determination and that would be the case tomorrow if a foreign nation without death camps attempted to neuter our political sovereignty with a prime example of this being how we broke with the Roman Catholic Church and the power of the Papacy. And the same story is sprawled across our history books. Time after time again the people of these islands have fought to retain their independence as a people despite constant attempts from the European continent to end that political sovereignty and independence.

So again by taking your own logic, unless it directly affected you then you wouldn't fight for that value and principle, would you?

By your logic Scotland isn't worth living in for the Scottish people then, since as you've pointed out yourself Westminster holds supremacy over their country.

I believe there's a British demos so I do not see it that way. For a Scottish nationalist, again I can understand - but not agree - with their position if they do not believe there is a British demos and thus would view the Union as a foreign power and encroachment on Scottish sovereignty.

In such cases, the only way to decide such a matter is via referendum.

There is no duty that all British people must follow. People are individuals and like Tom said earlier there is no hivemind that dictates what a British person must do or think. Your entire argument seems to be independence for independence sake and not what's best for Britain.

What is best for the people of these islands is to have their own future and destiny in their own hands, and to allow future generations of Britons the same benefit which for over a thousand years millions have laid down their lives for. Of course people are individuals, but people also belong to a demos and thus are a people and become a nation. The fact is that the people of these islands are a demonstrable body of people, and those here in the present are merely the guardians of what they have been gifted by those who have gone: it is not theirs to give away.

A European demos does not exist so political union cannot exist without political subjugation: in contrast to German unification.

[The Don]

Not at all, of course the circumstances are different but the actual value being saved is the principle of political sovereignty and national independence. We fought not because of death camps, but because we have a right as a people and as a nation to our political self-determination and that would be the case tomorrow if a foreign nation without death camps attempted to neuter our political sovereignty with a prime example of this being how we broke with the Roman Catholic Church and the power of the Papacy. And the same story is sprawled across our history books. Time after time again the people of these islands have fought to retain their independence as a people despite constant attempts from the European continent to end that political sovereignty and independence.

Nope, it’s still a false comparison. A country that’s forcefully annexed will have fewer rights than one that democratically votes to join a federation. They are not comparable at all. Compare Scotland and Tibet for example, you can’t compare the principles behind not wanting to be invaded to the principles behind not wanting to democratically joining a federation.

You can literally use the same arguments about any area that’s become a part of something bigger. I’m tired of using Scotland as my example but Scotland fought to remain independent for years, they then peacefully joined with England and it was beneficial to their people.

I believe there's a British demos so I do not see it that way. For a Scottish nationalist, again I can understand - but not agree - with their position if they do not believe there is a British demos and thus would view the Union as a foreign power and encroachment on Scottish sovereignty.

In such cases, the only way to decide such a matter is via referendum.

There wasn’t a British demos 300 years ago when Great Britain was formed. Despite these differences I would argue, and I’m sure you would agree, that Scotland joining England worked out better than had they had your same nationalistic ideology and remained as independent states. Clearly it wasn’t necessary for the success of the UK.

What is best for the people of these islands is to have their own future and destiny in their own hands, and to allow future generations of Britons the same benefit which for over a thousand years millions have laid down their lives for. Of course people are individuals, but people also belong to a demos and thus are a people and become a nation. The fact is that the people of these islands are a demonstrable body of people, and those here in the present are merely the guardians of what they have been gifted by those who have gone: it is not theirs to give away.

No, the best thing for Britain is what provides the best quality of life for its citizens. I think that being in the EU will provide a higher quality of life for the population than being nationalistic and isolated will.

A European demos does not exist so political union cannot exist without political subjugation: in contrast to German unification.

Well it clearly can as it is. You use this as your key argument all the time but it’s nonsense. Anyone can make up their own criteria of what’s needed for political union, that doesn’t mean that it actually is needed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nope, it’s still a false comparison. A country that’s forcefully annexed will have fewer rights than one that democratically votes to join a federation. They are not comparable at all. Compare Scotland and Tibet for example, you can’t compare the principles behind not wanting to be invaded to the principles behind not wanting to democratically joining a federation.

That isn't true at all.

In Vietnam, those in the southern state which was propped up by the United States were arguably much more free and democratic yet many Vietnamese supported the northern state as the northern state forces were seen as independent and fighting for national independence where as the south was viewed as a puppet of a foreign government. In that example, the people sided with the cause of national independence and self-determination rather than which regime would give them most freedoms.

When faced with the prospect of a bigger widescreen or self-determination, people will pick self-determination.

You can literally use the same arguments about any area that’s become a part of something bigger. I’m tired of using Scotland as my example but Scotland fought to remain independent for years, they then peacefully joined with England and it was beneficial to their people.

Scotland and England were able to join together in a Union for a number of reasons: the people were highly mixed culturally and ethnically, spoke the same language, there had always been the notion of a pan-British identity dating from Roman times and one hundred years before there had already been the Union of the Crowns. In much the same way, i'll give the example of German unification below.

None of these conditions exist in Europe today.

There wasn’t a British demos 300 years ago when Great Britain was formed. Despite these differences I would argue, and I’m sure you would agree, that Scotland joining England worked out better than had they had your same nationalistic ideology and remained as independent states. Clearly it wasn’t necessary for the success of the UK.

Yes there was, see above.

No, the best thing for Britain is what provides the best quality of life for its citizens. I think that being in the EU will provide a higher quality of life for the population and being nationalistic and isolated will.

How is arguing for self-determination and closer ties with the Commonwealth isolationist?

Well it clearly can as it is. You use this as your key argument all the time but it’s nonsense. Anyone can make up their own criteria of what’s needed for political union, that doesn’t mean that it actually is needed.

No they cannot.

You need a demos for a political union to happen naturally, especially if you want a democratic state, as in the German example where by what was standing in the way of German unification was aristocratic dynasties holding on to their own power blocs. German unification was de facto subjugation by the German princely states and dukedoms to the more powerful Prussian state, but that was not seen as subjugation as the people of Germany considered themselves German and felt a sense of German identity so it was a natural progression unlike European integration.

No such factors exist or have existed in Europe for European integration or eventual European unification to happen. Indeed, the opposite examples being Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Czechslovakia show the complete opposite, where you had different people put together in a political union which fell apart shortly after the aggressive forces holding those 'nations' together disappeared or were weak enough to be collapsed.

Why? Because those people were completely different to one another and couldn't exist within the same political state.

[The Don]

That isn't true at all.

Can you really not understand the differences between the rights of a country that’s being occupied and one that democratically merges with others and will have a guaranteed, agreed upon set of rights rather than one that’s dictated to them?

Scotland and England were able to join together in a Union for a number of reasons: the people were highly mixed culturally and ethnically, spoke the same language, there had always been the notion of a pan-British identity dating from Roman times and one hundred years before there had already been the Union of the Crowns. In much the same way, i'll give the example of German unification below.

They shared a language about as much as we do with the European Union currently. A vast majority of EU citizens can speak English. A vast majority of Scotts didn’t speak English when Great Britain was formed. It’s only because English people persecuted any highlanders that dared speak Gaelic that we ended up being the dominant language. It’s laughable that you can call the Scottish and English a demos in the 1700’s when their cultural differences were massive. The only difference is that we shared the same island as opposed to them being on the continent. How many Scott’s now let alone in the 1700’s felt they shared a ‘demos’ with the English? I guarantee you the answer is close to none.

None of these conditions exist in Europe today.

Well a vast majority of English speakers exist over on the continent. More importantly you’re ignoring the fact that we already share a political union with these countries.

Yes there was, see above.

No, there really wasn’t. See above.

How is arguing for self-determination and closer ties with the Commonwealth isolationist?

Arguing against ties and trade with Europe is. Especially considering the fact that if we wish to leave the EU and keep the FTA we’ll have to follow EU policy anyway, something which you’re obviously against.

No they cannot.

You need a demos for a political union to happen naturally, especially if you want a democratic state, as in the German example where by what was standing in the way of German unification was aristocratic dynasties holding on to their own power blocs. German unification was de facto subjugation by the German princely states and dukedoms to the more powerful Prussian state, but that was not seen as subjugation as the people of Germany considered themselves German and felt a sense of German identity so it was a natural progression unlike European integration.

No such factors exist or have existed in Europe for European integration or eventual European unification to happen. Indeed, the opposite examples being Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Czechslovakia show the complete opposite, where you had different people put together in a political union which fell apart shortly after the aggressive forces holding those 'nations' together disappeared or were weak enough to be collapsed.

Why? Because those people were completely different to one another and couldn't exist within the same political state.

As I said before, clearly it isn’t needed. The UK is a testament to that. You can’t compare Dictatorships or an Empire absorbing unwilling states to that of peaceful, democratic integration.