This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
https://tribes.chathamhouse.org
So, I’m a 94% match for ‘contented European’ then
Fair enough
Which one are you?
So, I’m a 94% match for ‘contented European’ then
Fair enough
Which one are you?
1
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Apparently 67% hesitant European.
But 66% austerity rebel
Or 60% EU rejecter
Or 35% contented European.
Apparently 67% hesitant European.
But 66% austerity rebel
Or 60% EU rejecter
Or 35% contented European.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
66% contented - interesting looking at the regional distribution of types.
66% contented - interesting looking at the regional distribution of types.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
67 % Hesitant European, which confirms my belief that I am firmly pro with some reservations. In the referendum I was definitely in the "the Devil you know" camp, rather than "the blind unknown change for the sake of change camp". I've learned that in life and politics nothing is ever perfect, but it's easier to strive for change from within than from without.
67 % Hesitant European, which confirms my belief that I am firmly pro with some reservations. In the referendum I was definitely in the "the Devil you know" camp, rather than "the blind unknown change for the sake of change camp". I've learned that in life and politics nothing is ever perfect, but it's easier to strive for change from within than from without.
5
1
5
2
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
We are all just people. All this patriotism and tribal crap does is create barriers between people.
As I get older the more I realise how ridiculous it is that people are always put into some sort of category, whether it's your type of employment, nationality , skin colour, or any other made up category.
Cut out the tribal crap of whatever type, treat everyone as just people and the world would be a much much better place.
We are all just people. All this patriotism and tribal crap does is create barriers between people.
As I get older the more I realise how ridiculous it is that people are always put into some sort of category, whether it's your type of employment, nationality , skin colour, or any other made up category.
Cut out the tribal crap of whatever type, treat everyone as just people and the world would be a much much better place.
30
2
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Like you, 94% (in other words, not very tribal at all).
Like you, 94% (in other words, not very tribal at all).
Post edited at 09:25
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
88% Hesitant European. The graphic even has a bloke holding a daft looking and lazy lurcher. That's me, that is.
88% Hesitant European. The graphic even has a bloke holding a daft looking and lazy lurcher. That's me, that is.
2
5
1
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I think the whole thing boils down to a continuum with these extremes:
Federalist = Doing very nicely out of the EU thank you;
Rejecter = Skint and getting the shitty end of the gloabalisation stick.
I think the whole thing boils down to a continuum with these extremes:
Federalist = Doing very nicely out of the EU thank you;
Rejecter = Skint and getting the shitty end of the gloabalisation stick.
13
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Can we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya now?
Interests mate, its all about our interests. Adam Smith and Karl Marx both had that right.
Did you actually try the test? Its not actually about Tribalism in, say, the Kenyan general election sense of the term.
I got 100% contented European, although I don't know what that means in Brexit Britain when 3/5th of my family aren't UK citizens. Us "contented Europeans" aren't going to be that contented going forward it would seem...
Can we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya now?
Interests mate, its all about our interests. Adam Smith and Karl Marx both had that right.
Did you actually try the test? Its not actually about Tribalism in, say, the Kenyan general election sense of the term.
I got 100% contented European, although I don't know what that means in Brexit Britain when 3/5th of my family aren't UK citizens. Us "contented Europeans" aren't going to be that contented going forward it would seem...
4
6
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Cheese-eater
Anti-chalk
There I got cheese & chalk into one post now I can die happy
Cheese-eater
Anti-chalk
There I got cheese & chalk into one post now I can die happy
3
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
81% federalist.
There should be fewer borders in the world but achieving that is not easy and the EU is currently making a pigs ear of integration.
81% federalist.
There should be fewer borders in the world but achieving that is not easy and the EU is currently making a pigs ear of integration.
2
In reply to Removed User:
Is anyone else doing a better job?
> 81% federalist.
> There should be fewer borders in the world but achieving that is not easy and the EU is currently making a pigs ear of integration.
Is anyone else doing a better job?
4
1
In reply to TobyA:
Interesting response.
First line- Try and undermine the poster as a bit loopy and happy clappy but put a smiley face at the end as sort form of excuse for the derogatory words.
Next line - quote a couple of historical figures to try and confirm your intellectual superiority.
Next line - that tribalism leads you to write about anything African says far more about you than I can. Despite me writing 'tribal crap of any kind' you've taken it to somehow mean that I'm a bit thick and think that the only meaning of tribalism must relate to African tribes.
I'll wait for your response that this is a total over reaction but your post really doesn't show you in a good way.
> Can we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya now?
> Interests mate, its all about our interests. Adam Smith and Karl Marx both had that right.
> Did you actually try the test? Its not actually about Tribalism in, say, the Kenyan general election sense of the term.
> I got 100% contented European, although I don't know what that means in Brexit Britain when 3/5th of my family aren't UK citizens. Us "contented Europeans" aren't going to be that contented going forward it would seem...
Interesting response.
First line- Try and undermine the poster as a bit loopy and happy clappy but put a smiley face at the end as sort form of excuse for the derogatory words.
Next line - quote a couple of historical figures to try and confirm your intellectual superiority.
Next line - that tribalism leads you to write about anything African says far more about you than I can. Despite me writing 'tribal crap of any kind' you've taken it to somehow mean that I'm a bit thick and think that the only meaning of tribalism must relate to African tribes.
I'll wait for your response that this is a total over reaction but your post really doesn't show you in a good way.
7
10
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
OK, so you want to suggest that I'm a bit racist?
But did I say "anything African" or did I say the specifically the Kenyan general election? Kenyans themselves use the word "tribe" to describe I guess what could in terms more familiar to European social science be describe as nations or ethnic groups, and those "tribal" divisions have scarred Kenyan politics since independence. I remember when I took my Kenyan mate, from a language course we were doing, to try ice climbing he told me all about how his tribe had had huge impacts on his life and was part of why he left Kenya.
I don't really think that a think-tank trying to find a neat way of grouping different EU citizens by their interests, vis a vis the EU, is quite the same as Kenyan politicians sending out mobs of drunk youths to attack people who might vote against them because of their family background. It seems you think otherwise, so we can happily differ on that.
OK, so you want to suggest that I'm a bit racist?
But did I say "anything African" or did I say the specifically the Kenyan general election? Kenyans themselves use the word "tribe" to describe I guess what could in terms more familiar to European social science be describe as nations or ethnic groups, and those "tribal" divisions have scarred Kenyan politics since independence. I remember when I took my Kenyan mate, from a language course we were doing, to try ice climbing he told me all about how his tribe had had huge impacts on his life and was part of why he left Kenya.
I don't really think that a think-tank trying to find a neat way of grouping different EU citizens by their interests, vis a vis the EU, is quite the same as Kenyan politicians sending out mobs of drunk youths to attack people who might vote against them because of their family background. It seems you think otherwise, so we can happily differ on that.
8
1
In reply to Ciro:
No, but if it's not good enough it's not good enough.
> Is anyone else doing a better job?
No, but if it's not good enough it's not good enough.
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Hesitant European. I like the idea of the concepts of free movement etc as well as a free trade bloc but think the EU is too big a bureaucracy, quite wasteful etc as it stands. I think I’d probably say that the EEA (in terms of what it does, not which countries it contains) is what the EU should be, and stop there.
Hesitant European. I like the idea of the concepts of free movement etc as well as a free trade bloc but think the EU is too big a bureaucracy, quite wasteful etc as it stands. I think I’d probably say that the EEA (in terms of what it does, not which countries it contains) is what the EU should be, and stop there.
4
In reply to Removed User:
Indeed, important to strive for better... I just thought a pigs ear was a bit negative, considering it's our best crack so far
> No, but if it's not good enough it's not good enough.
Indeed, important to strive for better... I just thought a pigs ear was a bit negative, considering it's our best crack so far
In reply to TobyA:
Wow. Where have I said that I think that. I'm really not sure what you're going on about Kenya for, my post was about grouping people leading to conflict a lot of the time. It may be wishful thinking that it can ever change but no harm in wanting it to.
> I don't really think that a think-tank trying to find a neat way of grouping different EU citizens by their interests, vis a vis the EU, is quite the same as Kenyan politicians sending out mobs of drunk youths to attack people who might vote against them because of their family background. It seems you think otherwise, so we can happily differ on that.
Wow. Where have I said that I think that. I'm really not sure what you're going on about Kenya for, my post was about grouping people leading to conflict a lot of the time. It may be wishful thinking that it can ever change but no harm in wanting it to.
1
5
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
69% - Hesitant European
“Hesitant Europeans need persuading on the EU” - Good luck on that.
In principle the EEC is a good idea, but can’t see the need for the United States of Europe and the opaque version of democracy that is at the heart of the EU.
I will never forget the disaster that was the ERM and the resulting 20% interest rates caused by currency speculators.
69% - Hesitant European
“Hesitant Europeans need persuading on the EU” - Good luck on that.
In principle the EEC is a good idea, but can’t see the need for the United States of Europe and the opaque version of democracy that is at the heart of the EU.
I will never forget the disaster that was the ERM and the resulting 20% interest rates caused by currency speculators.
2
1
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
You said that this slightly trite (although the cartoons are nice) multiple choice test from a think-tank would lead to tribalism. I don't think it will. Now, arguing about things on social media, that leads to tribalism!
> Wow. Where have I said that I think that.
You said that this slightly trite (although the cartoons are nice) multiple choice test from a think-tank would lead to tribalism. I don't think it will. Now, arguing about things on social media, that leads to tribalism!
6
1
In reply to TobyA:
Nope. My post was about tribalism generally.
> You said that this slightly trite (although the cartoons are nice) multiple choice test from a think-tank would lead to tribalism. I don't think it will. Now, arguing about things on social media, that leads to tribalism!
Nope. My post was about tribalism generally.
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
OK, but then slightly random to just pop it into this thread? Anyway, I still think its hard to make everyone's interests run parallel, that's where politics comes from.
> Nope. My post was about tribalism generally.
OK, but then slightly random to just pop it into this thread? Anyway, I still think its hard to make everyone's interests run parallel, that's where politics comes from.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Nearly equal measures contented hesitant federalist... Seems about fair.
Nearly equal measures contented hesitant federalist... Seems about fair.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
81% hesitant European.
Actually, I’m a remainer who thinks leaving is a total car crash and have seen first hand the benefits of the EU in my work.
I guess I’m trying to square that with the sense of disquiet which has historically accompanied a Reichschancellor working towards a unified Europe
81% hesitant European.
Actually, I’m a remainer who thinks leaving is a total car crash and have seen first hand the benefits of the EU in my work.
I guess I’m trying to square that with the sense of disquiet which has historically accompanied a Reichschancellor working towards a unified Europe
3
1
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
It's got eight questions and the "tribe" into which it has put the most respondents is the 'sitting on the fence' one.
Perhaps the only thing you can take away from this is that people's views are more complex than - and not well represented by - 6 boxes.
It's got eight questions and the "tribe" into which it has put the most respondents is the 'sitting on the fence' one.
Perhaps the only thing you can take away from this is that people's views are more complex than - and not well represented by - 6 boxes.
Post edited at 09:53
1
In reply to BFG:
People's views are more complex than a binary referendum too, but apparently 'Brexit means Brexit' and we're all supposed to be glad that an extreme minority group with unworkable dreams is calling all the shots, having assumed they represent the wishes of what already was a slim majority based on substantial misinformation.
> Perhaps the only thing you can take away from this is that people's views are more complex than - and not well represented by - 6 boxes.
People's views are more complex than a binary referendum too, but apparently 'Brexit means Brexit' and we're all supposed to be glad that an extreme minority group with unworkable dreams is calling all the shots, having assumed they represent the wishes of what already was a slim majority based on substantial misinformation.
7
2
In reply to john arran:
Go on, don't beat about the bush, tell us how you really feel.
I didn't see 'anti-Brexit' on the list of stances on the above questionnaire.
Go on, don't beat about the bush, tell us how you really feel.
I didn't see 'anti-Brexit' on the list of stances on the above questionnaire.
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
88% Hesitant European! That was a surprise, and may show how meaningful this is.
Interesting to note that Federalists are only 8% of the population.
88% Hesitant European! That was a surprise, and may show how meaningful this is.
Interesting to note that Federalists are only 8% of the population.
1
In reply to BFG:
Do you propose an alternative?
Put up and shut up, maybe? Or maybe You lost, loser, get over it?
It may have escaped your attention but indications are that a majority of people in the UK aren't convinced that Brexit is actually a good idea, now that the realities of it are better understood. And the clock is ticking as to how long it can bury its head in the sand before reality becomes unavoidable.
> Go on, don't beat about the bush, tell us how you really feel.
Do you propose an alternative?
Put up and shut up, maybe? Or maybe You lost, loser, get over it?
It may have escaped your attention but indications are that a majority of people in the UK aren't convinced that Brexit is actually a good idea, now that the realities of it are better understood. And the clock is ticking as to how long it can bury its head in the sand before reality becomes unavoidable.
1
3
In reply to john arran:
I'm not proposing 'put up or shut up' I was simply bemused that you brought up the referendum in a reply to a post that had absolutely nothing to do with it and in a thread where it is, roughly, tangentially related.
But, ya know, whatever floats your boat. Clearly the UKC forums haven't had enough threads about Brexit yet. Don't worry, I'm sure there are going to be many more.
I'm not proposing 'put up or shut up' I was simply bemused that you brought up the referendum in a reply to a post that had absolutely nothing to do with it and in a thread where it is, roughly, tangentially related.
But, ya know, whatever floats your boat. Clearly the UKC forums haven't had enough threads about Brexit yet. Don't worry, I'm sure there are going to be many more.
2
3
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
About the most worthless survey I´ ve ever taken, I´ m a hesitant European apparently even though I have lived in various countries in Europe (outside the UK) for over 30 years, completely support the ideal of a united Europe with free movement and trade and have no intention of ever leaving.
Questions like are you "proud" to be a European are utterly stupid, proud compared with being an Eskimo, a Brazilian or what?
About the most worthless survey I´ ve ever taken, I´ m a hesitant European apparently even though I have lived in various countries in Europe (outside the UK) for over 30 years, completely support the ideal of a united Europe with free movement and trade and have no intention of ever leaving.
Questions like are you "proud" to be a European are utterly stupid, proud compared with being an Eskimo, a Brazilian or what?
6
In reply to BFG:
I'm sorry if bringing up division among people's attitude to Brexit is out of place in a thread about division in people's attitude to the EU.
And yes, I don't doubt the fact that Brexit will continue to be discussed here for a long time yet, as I've yet to see any sign of a fairy sprinkling magic dust to make the growing problems disappear.
I'm sorry if bringing up division among people's attitude to Brexit is out of place in a thread about division in people's attitude to the EU.
And yes, I don't doubt the fact that Brexit will continue to be discussed here for a long time yet, as I've yet to see any sign of a fairy sprinkling magic dust to make the growing problems disappear.
1
3
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
It appears that I'm 100% contented European.
I can't see any reason to disagree with that verdict
It appears that I'm 100% contented European.
I can't see any reason to disagree with that verdict
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
With 50 replies, the results are in...
8 federalists
9 contented Europeans
10 hesitant Europeans
1 reluctant European
1 EU rejector
Surprisingly few on the rejecting side, given the intensity of debate on brexitrelated threads. Is that a function of the way the questions were set up?
But then summo and big ger haven’t taken the test yet I suppose...
With 50 replies, the results are in...
8 federalists
9 contented Europeans
10 hesitant Europeans
1 reluctant European
1 EU rejector
Surprisingly few on the rejecting side, given the intensity of debate on brexitrelated threads. Is that a function of the way the questions were set up?
But then summo and big ger haven’t taken the test yet I suppose...
Post edited at 23:22
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I think it's as much that contented Remain supporting Europeans like me get branded Brexiters because we argue a more realistic and pragmatic assessment of Brexit against the remorselessly doom-laden perspective of the majority. That puts us on the other side of the in-thread debate, yet not the vote.
I think it's as much that contented Remain supporting Europeans like me get branded Brexiters because we argue a more realistic and pragmatic assessment of Brexit against the remorselessly doom-laden perspective of the majority. That puts us on the other side of the in-thread debate, yet not the vote.
2
In reply to john arran:
If the vote had been narrowly the other way would you have been so vociferous in your claim about the validity of referendums? Almost the entire establishment from banks and industrialists to pop stars and union barons were telling people not to vote out. Even Farage felt the vote could not be won, such were the powerful forces lined against the leavers. And the misinformation cut both ways. Still does.
If the vote had been narrowly the other way would you have been so vociferous in your claim about the validity of referendums? Almost the entire establishment from banks and industrialists to pop stars and union barons were telling people not to vote out. Even Farage felt the vote could not be won, such were the powerful forces lined against the leavers. And the misinformation cut both ways. Still does.
3
2
In reply to john yates:
The flippant answer would be that I wouldn't have any reason to be vociferous, since we wouldn't have a shothole in one foot and still be intent on tying ourselves to a rail track
More seriously though, I believe you are mistaken if you think I have been vociferous in claims about the validity of referendums. They can be a vital asset within a democratic framework and play an important role in maintaining constitutional integrity. I happen to work in the field of international elections and it's very clear to me that in this case the referendum did not conform to good practice international norms, principally in two ways:
1. Constitutional change should require a higher threshold than a simple majority. At the very least it should require 50%+ of the entire electorate, rather than the turnout, but most usually in modern constituencies it is expressed as a two-thirds majority of those casting ballots. In reality, if the vote had gone marginally the other way, the outcome should have been similar, i.e. there is no clear mandate for fundamental constitutional change unless a very clear majority of people want it.
2. If two options are presented, the implications of each need to be clearly explained. This was reasonably clear, almost trivially so, on the Remain side. But Leave campaigners were arguing a wide variety of often mutually exclusive outcomes, meaning that most people voting for Leave would end up with something they weren't hoping for. It sounded simple enough,'Do you want to stay in the EU?' Yes or No. But that's like asking people if they want to change the national anthem, and then being surprised, after a majority said Yes, when they ended up with an anthem they thought was worse than the one we started with. Ah, but you voted for change, so you need to start enjoying the theme tune to Dad's Army.
So you'll see I'm not 'vociferous in [my] claim about the validity of referendums', but I do have huge and substantiated qualms about the validity of this one.
The flippant answer would be that I wouldn't have any reason to be vociferous, since we wouldn't have a shothole in one foot and still be intent on tying ourselves to a rail track
More seriously though, I believe you are mistaken if you think I have been vociferous in claims about the validity of referendums. They can be a vital asset within a democratic framework and play an important role in maintaining constitutional integrity. I happen to work in the field of international elections and it's very clear to me that in this case the referendum did not conform to good practice international norms, principally in two ways:
1. Constitutional change should require a higher threshold than a simple majority. At the very least it should require 50%+ of the entire electorate, rather than the turnout, but most usually in modern constituencies it is expressed as a two-thirds majority of those casting ballots. In reality, if the vote had gone marginally the other way, the outcome should have been similar, i.e. there is no clear mandate for fundamental constitutional change unless a very clear majority of people want it.
2. If two options are presented, the implications of each need to be clearly explained. This was reasonably clear, almost trivially so, on the Remain side. But Leave campaigners were arguing a wide variety of often mutually exclusive outcomes, meaning that most people voting for Leave would end up with something they weren't hoping for. It sounded simple enough,'Do you want to stay in the EU?' Yes or No. But that's like asking people if they want to change the national anthem, and then being surprised, after a majority said Yes, when they ended up with an anthem they thought was worse than the one we started with. Ah, but you voted for change, so you need to start enjoying the theme tune to Dad's Army.
So you'll see I'm not 'vociferous in [my] claim about the validity of referendums', but I do have huge and substantiated qualms about the validity of this one.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...