Basically if you think the idea of europeans working together is a noble
idea you are pro EU.
If you think that Britain can only regain former glories alone you are anti.
The rest is spin.
I also tend to believe that the leave side has a huge lead in attracting
nutcases, racists and nostalgics to its cause, and, whatever the arguments,
i dont want a country led by such people.
On May 27, 2016 10:52 AM, "Mike Weatherley" <[log in to unmask]>
> From: British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]> on
> behalf of Michael <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 25 May 2016 17:16
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Vote Leave
> On 25/05/2016 16:50, Dave Tooke wrote:
> > Who are the mysterious EU bureaucrats? Do you mean MEPs who are elected
> and pass all laws...?
> True, they are elected. But considering that the vast majority of them are
> elected in countries other than the UK, you can understand why many might
> worry that they need not, necessarily, have the best interests of the UK at
> heart. In the same way that President Obama (much as I love him for what he
> has achieved for, and what he represents to, America) may not, necessarily,
> have had the UK's best interests at heart in recommending the UK remain
> part of a trading-block which insists (I believe, uniquely among such
> trading-blocks) that 'free movement of people' must be inextricably linked
> to 'free-trade'. It is unlikely that any American president would offer
> similar advice to his own people. What may be most convenient/profitable
> for the US in foreign-trade, such as the TTIP agreement (which Obama was
> also lobbying for while over here) may not always be so for the UK (or for
> its valued institutions, such as the NHS). Even my local MP (actually, a
> Tory, who could normally be expected to defend free-trade) is so worried
> about the effect of TTIP on the NHS he is voting against it. So we need to
> be careful when placing our trust in those outside the UK about what is or
> isn't in the UK's best interests.
> And anyway, as three of the panelists on Question Time last night
> pointed-out, it is the European Commission who initiate new laws, and they
> (unlike the MEPs) are not in fact elected, merely 'appointed' from member
> countries. (Also, it was pointed - out, often from the ranks of politicians
> who failed to get elected to power in their *own* countries :-)
> It always amuses me how 'free trade' is often touted as a reason for
> staying within the EU. Yet, I rather thought that we paid a net £10 billion
> or so a year for the privilege. Which doesn't actually look much like
> 'free-trade' after all (either for the UK or any other European
> As for keeping the peace in Europe since 1945, I rather thought that was
> down to NATO, which will continue to do so with or without the EU. Though
> it may well suffer if funding is (likely) siphoned away from NATO to create
> a hypothetical 'EU armed forces').
> > Do you have faith that a Tory Government led by BoJo, May and Gove will
> give a flying fig for archaeology?
> > Dave Tooke
> Well, Bojo has a keen interest in Roman Britain... And I thought May was
> on the 'IN' side, so would she serve with the other two, I wonder...
> Mike Haseler wrote:
> >>Concentrating just on the issues affecting archaeology: Why wouldn't the
> Tory's be happy to fund British archaeology if it is good quality, factual
> and not politically biased.
> Oooh... a barbed question there :-)
> You know, it's always puzzled me why so many among the current generation
> of English archaeologists seem so intent to distance themselves from having
> had any possible ethnic descent from our good friends and cousins on the
> near continent - especially Germany, Holland & Scandinavia. It's a paradox
> that - on the one hand - they profess to like being part of Europe, yet -
> on the other hand - they argue against any significant ethnic contribution
> from those countries to Britain going back over the last 1,500 years or so.
> Despite what the written records, linguistics & (dare I even say) latest
> archaeology would suggest. Anyway, food for (archaeological) thought :-)
> Mike (BSc)