Obama puts pressure on Great Britain not to leave the EU.

[Monfang]

"The United States should not police the world!"

That was the slogan for many people when the US moves to support a rebellion or strike down a dictator. That the US has no right to poke their nose into the affairs of others. Yet, I don't see it being used for Obama when he made similar actions and I don't see it as of yet for this, outright attempting to sway politics in one of the United State's greatest friends.

If we want to discuss the merits and penalties of Great Britain leaving the EU, that can be spoken of in another thread. However, this is not for that. This is for asking ourselves if we really have a right to tell other countries what they are to do. Even if it is, "in the American interest" as Obama put it, it isn't our place to tell others how to lead their country unless they are outright killing them. And all the current UK Prime Minister David Cameron is offering should he be re-elected is to hold an in-or-out vote before the end of 2017. This means that he would give it to the people of England to decide if they stay with the EU or leave.

The United State Government should be supporting such a choice. Nothing is more free than a government to take an issue they could easily decide themselves without a word from the citizens and give it to the People to decide for themselves. But because it is not in 'our' interest, Obama thinks he should tell the British that they can do something that apparently enough of them want to do. I'm not from England, I don't live in Britain, I don't have ready access to the news on their country. However, I do believe I share one thing with our friends across the pond.

I hate it when nosy neighbors tell me I can't leave the Neighborhood Association.

A message to my fellow Englishman Roleplayers.. I'm sorry. He'll only be in office for a few more years. Maybe our next President will be more respectful and won't send the Queen an Ipod full of him talking and tell you what you can and can't do... I hope.

Source: www breitbart com/Big-Peace/2013/02/20/Obama-supports-EU-s-totalitarian-social-project

So, does Obama have a right to tell England they can't leave the EU? It isn't like he honestly can do anything about it, but it is a matter of respect, is it not? How would we feel if their Prime Minister told us we shouldn't do something that would only effect us?

I know there is a lot of room to wonder off, but for the most part lets keep it focused on Obama putting pressure on England.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Seriously? You're trolling this forum from Breitbart? Seriously.

[Monfang]

Seriously? You're trolling this forum from Breitbart? Seriously.

You have a news source that contradicts on what Obama says?

[Cyrano Johnson]

I'm just wondering why you felt the need to filter it to this forum through a site with a known right-wing slant instead of just linking the actual BBC story. (Besides which, your over-the-top rhetoric about Obama "policing the world" doesn't look at all relevant to the story to me.)

Oh, and by the way? Yes, states and leaders have the right to tell each other what they perceive their interests to be. Not a lot of diplomacy would get done if this did not happen.

[Monfang]

I'm just wondering why you felt the need to filter it to this forum through a site with a known right-wing slant instead of just linking the actual BBC story. (Besides which, your over-the-top rhetoric about Obama "policing the world" doesn't look at all relevant to the story to me.)

I didn't say Obama is policing the world, I am wondering why it isn't being spoken of in this situation.

And I said I didn't have any sources that spoke of it other than this and I didn't have access to news sources outside the US.

Do you have any opinion on what is going on aside from my choice of sources?

[Cyrano Johnson]

I am wondering why it isn't being spoken of in this situation.

Oh, there's a simple answer to that: because the only people who feel the need to recklessly accuse Obama of oppressing the British by simply stating his country's interests are right-wing American partisans, who inhabit a world and media establishment entirely of their own.

I kind of feel like you might already know that, though.

I didn't have access to news sources outside the US.

Really? You're not posting this on the Internet? You've never heard of Google? That seems awfully odd to me.

[Callie Del Noire]

I didn't say Obama is policing the world, I am wondering why it isn't being spoken of in this situation.

And I said I didn't have any sources that spoke of it other than this and I didn't have access to news sources outside the US.

Do you have any opinion on what is going on aside from my choice of sources?

So it's okay for our allies to criticize our choices but we can't reciprocate? The president is entitled to his opinion, as as the heads of government in the EU. Me personally? I'm not sure it's a wise move.. the folks of the UK are more economically entwiined with the EU and it will greatly harm their economy to just .. jump ship. 

[Monfang]

Oh, there's a simple answer to that: because the only people who feel the need to recklessly accuse Obama of oppressing the British by simply stating his country's interests are right-wing American partisans, who inhabit a world and media establishment entirely of their own.

I kind of feel like you might already know that, though.

I.. What? I never once suggested he was 'oppressing' them.

Lets try to get this back on topic, please?

Are you ok and in support of him telling the British Government that they should not let the British People have an in-or-out vote on whether to stay in the EU?

That is the core of this. All that PM Cameron wants to do is take it out of the hand of politicians and give it to the people of England. Should it not be they who decide, in a democratic nation, what should happen in this situation? Is Obama really saying he doesn't want the People of England to vote on an issue they apparently care greatly for?

So it's okay for our allies to criticize our choices but we can't reciprocate? The president is entitled to his opinion, as as the heads of government in the EU. Me personally? I'm not sure it's a wise move.. the folks of the UK are more economically entwiined with the EU and it will greatly harm their economy to just .. jump ship. 

I haven't heard as of late of any ally criticizing us or telling us that we as citizens can't vote on an issue like this. Unless you mean Netanyahu who is trying to protect his people against those who want to kill them.

And according to what I read there is apparently a strong push to separate from the EU in Britain and Cameron as brought up numbers that say it is hurting them so they believe that economicly it is bad for them to stay with the EU.

PS: THANK YOU for asking something on topic.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Are you ok and in support of him telling the British Government that they should not let the British People have an in-or-out vote on whether to stay in the EU?

Like I said in my second post: "Yes, states and leaders have the right to tell each other what they perceive their interests to be. Not a lot of diplomacy would get done if this did not happen."

The reason I brought up accusations of "oppression" is that your shrill tone and choice of words indicates an attempt to portray Obama as having ordered the British not to have a referendum. Which really has nothing to do with the actual story.

However, you're quite right: I should do more than just complain about the spring of the astroturf. Forbes has an interesting analysis of the British-exit business and what's driving it.

[Scribbles]

Thanks for the link to Forbes, Cyrano. That was an interesting read. I hope they're right as I'd really like to see the EU work.

[Monfang]

I want anything that seeks to do good work, however I don't believe that when a country wants to leave it should be told by another country who has no direct stakes in the event that it should not have a public vote on the issue.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I hope they're right as I'd really like to see the EU work.

Me too.

I want anything that seeks to do good work, however I don't believe that when a country wants to leave it should be told by another country who has no direct stakes in the event that it should not have a public vote on the issue.

Why are you just repeating the same thing over and over?

[Monfang]

Why are you just repeating the same thing over and over?

Because I am waiting for it to click that a democratically elected president is telling a different democratic country that they can not have a democratic vote on a national issue because he doesn't like what they are voting on.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Because I am waiting for it to click that a democratically elected president is telling a different democratic country that they can not have a democratic vote on a national issue because he doesn't like what they are voting on.

Yes, but simply repeating your own idiosyncratic version of events doesn't make your version true, Monfang. Obama stating US interests does not and cannot amount to ordering them not to have a referendum; those are simply different things, despite your attempts to obscure that difference.

[Scribbles]

Monfang,

I disagree, I feel it's important for a country to take an active part in international affairs and not be afraid to voice their opinion. Also, as Cyrano said, the US isn't ordering anyone around. They've actually gone so far as to reassure Britain that they will remain on good terms no matter what happens with the EU.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yes, but simply repeating your own idiosyncratic version of events doesn't make your version true, Monfang. Obama stating US interests does not and cannot amount to ordering them not to have a referendum; those are simply different things, despite your attempts to obscure that difference.

Thank you.. that is what I was looking to say. Lots of commentary like this goes back and forth. I know the French, Italians and Germans (not to mention Spanish) leadership were all critical of MANY things the president's acitons when I was based in Spain in 05. LOTS of commentary all the time.

[Monfang]

Yes, but simply repeating your own idiosyncratic version of events doesn't make your version true, Monfang. Obama stating US interests does not and cannot amount to ordering them not to have a referendum; those are simply different things, despite your attempts to obscure that difference.

How does it look like to them? He might not be taking action or saying so many words, but he's basically saying 'I don't think that is a good idea, I think you shouldn't pass this on to the public and just stay in the EU, even if the public disagrees. It's in the United State's best interest if you do.' And this isn't leaving a good impression:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obama-administration-warns-britain-to-stay-in-the-european-union-8444789.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/09/us-warns-uk-european-union

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100194911/barack-obama-lectures-britain-on-eu-membership-the-us-president-looks-arrogant-as-well-as-clueless/

British policy on Europe is frankly none of Washington’s business. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are an irrelevance when it comes to Britain’s decision on whether or not to remain in the European Union. The White House’s silly attempt to intervene on such a highly sensitive matter for the British electorate may please Downing Street, but it certainly won’t play well in Middle England. President Obama’s views on the EU are as relevant to British voters as the futile ranting of Herman Van Rompuy or Jose Manuel Barroso, and will only serve to reinforce the determination of millions of Britons to throw off the shackles of Brussels.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4735909/Barack-Obama-Britain-should-stay-in-EU.html

If I was from Britain, I would be horribly offended at what the Administration said. However, I'm an American, so I'm only horribly embarrassed.

Cyrano, this isn't like a country wanting to go to war. This isn't like a country wanting to raise terrifs that would effect US Trade. This is a country that believes that being in the EU is dangerous for their economy and wants to be free from the laws in the EU that overshadow their own. And they want to do it by first renegotiating their agreement with the EU and if that fails to pass it to the public for them to decide what happens next.

Monfang,

I disagree, I feel it's important for a country to take an active part in international affairs and not be afraid to voice their opinion. Also, as Cyrano said, the US isn't ordering anyone around. They've actually gone so far as to reassure Britain that they will remain on good terms no matter what happens with the EU.

You have a point, but this could have been done in such a better way. Instead of making this about American interests, it should have focused on British interests. They should have listed the benefits of them remaining with the EU but instead said that it is what they (the Obama Administration) want and that's that.

[Cyrano Johnson]

How does it look like to them?

Depends on which "them" you mean. If the "them" is the blogger who comprises your second-last link, I'd tell them the same thing I've told you: they're confusing a statement of interests with "intervention," and that's dumb. The other links report the event entirely neutrally. [EDIT: Snark about whether you read your own links removed, since I just had to edit this post for mistakenly calling your last link an "opinion columnist." However, the point that most of the links you provided don't support the image that you just tried to claim that they support stands.]

Cyrano, this isn't like a country wanting to go to war. [etc]

*

So what? Countries do talk about things other than wars and trade tariffs, you know. And have opinions about each others' handling of certain issues. That has nothing to do with whether your shrill rhetoric about this incident is valid in any way (far as I can see, it just isn't).

(* Actually? Pulling one of Europe's three largest economies out of the EU would be of global economic significance, so in terms of impact, the change being contemplated here is as radical as you can get short of a war or revolution, and pretending that nobody else "has a stake in it" is clueless. But leave that aside.)

[Monfang]

(* Actually? Pulling one of Europe's three largest economies out of the EU would be of global economic significance, so in terms of impact, the change being contemplated here is as radical as you can get short of a war or revolution, and pretending that nobody else "has a stake in it" is clueless. But leave that aside.)

Actually? The three of the most prosperous nations per capita in Europe are Switzerland, Norway, and Liechtenstein who are not in the EU and this would not effect trade between Britain and other nations. But yes, this is derailing the topic of whether or not the Obama Administration should be offending our allies by telling them not to do something because it's not in their (Obama's) best interests.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Actually? The three of the most prosperous nations per capita in Europe

Are not necessarily its three largest economies, and your claim that "this would not effect [sic] trade between Britain and other nations" is pure unsubstantiated assertion.

this is derailing the topic of whether or not the Obama Administration should be offending our allies

One blogger does not constitute "your allies," Monfang. Your continued shrillness doesn't look less silly the more you repeat and repeat.

[Monfang]

One blogger does not constitute "your allies," Monfang. Your continued shrillness doesn't look less silly the more you repeat and repeat.

Um.. I said 'our' as in America's. And Allies as in Britain.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Um.. I said 'our' as in America's. And Allies as in Britain.

I know what you said. You need more than a handful of Britons to hang the opinion on.

[Monfang]

I know what you said. You need more than a handful of Britons to hang the opinion on.

Among Tory supporters, 56 percent would vote to leave, and even 37 percent of Labour voters and 35 percent of Liberal Democrats would opt to get out of the EU as well. If “don’t knows” are included in the survey, 40 percent of Britons would vote to leave, 37 percent would stay, and 23 percent are undecided.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100199825/53-percent-of-british-voters-want-to-leave-the-eu-barack-obama-and-david-cameron-should-take-note/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3667906.ece

[Cyrano Johnson]

The opinion of offense at Obama's remarks, Monfang. Not being in favour of leaving the EU. They're different things, and I know you knew what I was talking about.

[Monfang]

The opinion of offense at Obama's remarks, Monfang. Not being in favour of leaving the EU. They're different things, and I know you knew what I was talking about.

Actually, I didn't.

But here we have numbers that show that at the current state, the English people want to leave the EU. While the Prime Minister wants to try and renegotiate to get some of the pressures from the EU off of England, the Obama Administration has spoke out against both actions because, as his administration said, it isn't in America's interest.

To put this into context, this is as if a man from a different neighborhood came over to the house of a different neighborhood and told the homeowner"It's not in my best interest for you to leave your neighborhood association." This after the homeowner's family told him of the problem the neighborhood association was causing them.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Guys this has kind of turned into a back and forth between the pair of you.  There are a lot of digs being thrown between the two of you as well.  Might be time to simply step away and evaluate.  If the two of you still wish to go at it then maybe a more personal debate would be better.  There are the ones reserved for one-to-one discussions.

[Monfang]

Guys this has kind of turned into a back and forth between the pair of you.  There are a lot of digs being thrown between the two of you as well.  Might be time to simply step away and evaluate.  If the two of you still wish to go at it then maybe a more personal debate would be better.  There are the ones reserved for one-to-one discussions.

Your right, sorry. I let myself be dragged into it. Should have stopped the moment he judged the source rather than the content of it.

I'm just gonna leave this here and see if anything comes of it.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Actually, I didn't.

Not a good sign, bro. And you don't seem able to do anything but crank out minor variations on a theme, either, so I shall bid you farewell.

[Tiberius]

Wouldn't surprise me if they did leave the EU, Germany had already threatened to pull the plug on the bailout funds, Angela Merkel was not happy at all with the state of the EU and basically good as said that if they don't shape up they'll leave. And since Germany and the UK make up much of the EU's financial power it would be a huge blow and would likely lead to the collapse of the EU.

[Vekseid]

Actually? The three of the most prosperous nations per capita in Europe are Switzerland, Norway, and Liechtenstein who are not in the EU and this would not effect trade between Britain and other nations. But yes, this is derailing the topic of whether or not the Obama Administration should be offending our allies by telling them not to do something because it's not in their (Obama's) best interests.

Alright, I'm not going to believe you pulled that semantic twist with any sense of honesty. Intentionally confusing 'largest economy' with 'prosperity per capita', that is. The invective framing in your second sentence is only marginally better.

This is a warning. Cut it out.

[Shjade]

To put this into context, this is as if a man from a different neighborhood came over to the house of a different neighborhood and told the homeowner"It's not in my best interest for you to leave your neighborhood association." This after the homeowner's family told him of the problem the neighborhood association was causing them.

Actually, to put this into context, let's put in the context:

“We value a strong UK voice in a strong European Union,” the US State Department’s Philip H Gordon, the Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, said starkly during a visit to London to meet ministers yesterday.

“We have a growing relationship with the EU as an institution, which has an increasing voice in the world, and we want to see a strong British voice in that EU. That is in America’s interests. We welcome an outward-looking EU with Britain in it.”

Nowhere in this statement do I see the following words or representations thereof: command, order, warn, threaten. There was no directive produced in these statements, nor was any intervening action proposed or even hinted at. There's nothing to support your assertion that

a democratically elected president is telling a different democratic country that they can not have a democratic vote on a national issue because he doesn't like what they are voting on.

^ That right there? That didn't happen. No one said the UK cannot do anything. All they said was, paraphrasing, "We'd really prefer if you stayed in the EU; if you leave there are going to be obvious political and economic repercussions that we'd rather not occur." Which is basically just stating the obvious.

There's nothing wrong with the leader of one nation making note of his agenda to the leader of another nation. This is not as big a deal as you seem to think it is.

[Monfang]

I'm only looking at this from the point of how I would feel if any other nation did this to the US. Israel, Japan, South Korea, any of them coming to our house and saying we shouldn't do something because it isn't in their best interest. It feels insulting to me.

I know what they wanted to say, they wanted to say: "We looked at the numbers and the way this would effect the world and we need to stay unified during these times of trouble. Lets find a solution to stay together rather than breaking apart when we need each other the most."

If he had said that, if his administration had pushed forward that message, I would be putting a different post. But because he framed it around American Interests... I'm left flabbergasted.

Am I overblowing it?

Yes, I most likely am. I possibly should have slept n this rather than posting it so early. They aren't going to post terrifs against Britian no matter what happens so it isn't a threat. But I felt like he's our figurehead and he should be putting forward a better image of the US than what he did.

[Kythia]

I'm British.  English, specifically.  Just getting that out there.

The story hasn't been heavily reported over here, though I had come across it before.  I honestly see this as a bit of a non-issue.  Obama can say whatever he wants and so long as its not "We will declare war on the UK if it leaves the EU" it doesn't really matter.  Regardless of what I think about the possibility of our exit and, frankly, the advisability of the referendum, Obama's not a UK citizen and doesn't get a vote here.  His voice is a loud one, sure, he's preseident of the US.  But thats all it is.  Just one loud voice that honestly most people won't hear and will be forgotten by the time it comes up. 

So I realize "meh, shrug" is, in a way, not contributing to the discussion overly, but on the other hand it kinda is.

[Monfang]

I'm British.  English, specifically.  Just getting that out there.

The story hasn't been heavily reported over here, though I had come across it before.  I honestly see this as a bit of a non-issue.  Obama can say whatever he wants and so long as its not "We will declare war on the UK if it leaves the EU" it doesn't really matter.  Regardless of what I think about the possibility of our exit and, frankly, the advisability of the referendum, Obama's not a UK citizen and doesn't get a vote here.  His voice is a loud one, sure, he's preseident of the US.  But thats all it is.  Just one loud voice that honestly most people won't hear and will be forgotten by the time it comes up. 

So I realize "meh, shrug" is, in a way, not contributing to the discussion overly, but on the other hand it kinda is.

Actually, because you are an English citizen, your words carry a lot of weight for us Americans. I didn't know personally the feelings of the citizens and sense this is a non-issue for you then perhaps I allowed it to get overblown.

[Serephino]

There's a major difference between someone expressing an opinion/concern, and making a demand.  And, also, if his concern is what is in the best interest of the country he's president of, isn't that a good thing?  I certainly want a president who cares about what's good for the country.

[Monfang]

There's a major difference between someone expressing an opinion/concern, and making a demand.  And, also, if his concern is what is in the best interest of the country he's president of, isn't that a good thing?  I certainly want a president who cares about what's good for the country.

Yes, I suppose taking out the context of the EU, a president who tries to do his best by his country would be someone we should hope for.

[Rhapsody]

Haven't read the entire thread, just expressing an opinion on the question asked in the initial post.

Does any country have the right to police the world? No.

Given the global community the world has and is still becoming, does any country have the right to protect their interests and what they perceive to be the interests of their allies? Yes.

I can put all the pressure I want on my friends to do something I want them to do. I can cajole them, guilt them, debate with them, try to trick them, and half a dozen other methods. Ultimately, I can't make my friends do anything. It's up to them whether or not they let themselves be swayed by my tactics.

[Shjade]

Actually, because you are an English citizen, your words carry a lot of weight for us Americans. I didn't know personally the feelings of the citizens and sense this is a non-issue for you then perhaps I allowed it to get overblown.

Speak for yourself, Monfang. Nation of origin doesn't make someone's statements more or less persuasive to me; the reasonability of their remarks does. For instance, the remarks you've been receiving for the last page and a half that all echo this same sentiment. >.>

[Beguile's Mistress]

One thing I've noticed in threads such as this is the tendency to berate and castigate when an opinion is expressed that we don't agree with.

In much the same way the leadership of foreign countries have the opportunity by virtue of their public face to make suggestions to their friends about policy decisions that will be voted on by the electorate.  Private communications are exchanged when countries need to dicker over what is good for both and in effect for the world.

Rather than take an abrasive tone with proclamations I find it better to be informative and rational.  I've always disliked the calling of names and use of derogatory personal terms whether in a one-on-one discussion or on the world stage.

So if someone like Cameron or Obama can take to the media and politely suggest that another country's policies might effect their own nation or the world adversely we can do the same when we discuss things in this thread.

:-)

[Ephiral]

Actually, because you are an English citizen, your words carry a lot of weight for us Americans. I didn't know personally the feelings of the citizens and sense this is a non-issue for you then perhaps I allowed it to get overblown.

Monfang, having just read this entire thread... you're not exactly giving the impression that you care what the British think about this. You opened with (known heavily slanted) American voices; when challenged, you made the absurd claim that you had no access to British sources. When pressed, suddenly you found some!

For the record, 7 of the top 10 results on Google for "Obama UK EU", including the top 3, are British voices. Exactly one of them takes any sort of offense, and a couple seconds' research show this to be an editorial (ie not representative of the population at large) in a paper which is known first and foremost for being in bed with the Conservative party (who have been against anything to do with the EU for twenty years). In short, the one bit of outrage that shows up in even the briefest look at the situation is from someone who has a vested professional interest in feigning outrage.

So, taking a look at your sources... Hm, that's funny. Two of them are simply reporting the fact that this conversation happened. They don't take an upset tone in the slightest, nor do they report upset among the British population. The third... is an editorial from the Telegraph, which has the exact problems I outlined in the previous paragraph. One of them points out that Obama's voice is not the only one weighing in on this - Ireland had extremely similar comments. Somehow, you don't seem to notice that case of "a democratically elected [Prime Minister] telling a different democratic country that they can not have a democratic vote on a national issue".

Moving on, I see you trying to defend your position that the British people, as a whole, want to leave the EU. You cite two sources. First, we have the Telegraph, which doesn't even pretend to be telling the truth in its own headline. The Times has the same numbers - 40%. As in "less than half". As in "The British population, taken as a whole, does not support the idea of withdrawing from the EU."

So. When presented with actual British opinions on this issue, you have claimed you couldn't find any, ignored what they actually said, elevated the US's comments to a special case based on... what, again?, and continued to ignore what the British actually say. I'm afraid nothing you've said or done in this thread supports the notion that you value the British take on this British issue in any way.

[Monfang]

I address what Ephiral says, but as it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, I put it away.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

For the record, 7 of the top 10 results on Google for "Obama UK EU", including the top 3, are British voices. Exactly one of them takes any sort of offense, and a couple seconds' research show this to be an editorial (ie not representative of the population at large) in a paper which is known first and foremost for being in bed with the Conservative party (who have been against anything to do with the EU for twenty years). In short, the one bit of outrage that shows up in even the briefest look at the situation is from someone who has a vested professional interest in feigning outrage.

I had said that I don't have ready access to British news sources *on my RSS feed.* Besides that, it served no purpose to my original point about what a president should or shouldn't do to look up how British news sources reacted to the statements as I do not know of any trusted news source in the area and it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Most news sources take a neutral tone.

So, taking a look at your sources... Hm, that's funny. Two of them are simply reporting the fact that this conversation happened. They don't take an upset tone in the slightest, nor do they report upset among the British population. The third... is an editorial from the Telegraph, which has the exact problems I outlined in the previous paragraph. One of them points out that Obama's voice is not the only one weighing in on this - Ireland had extremely similar comments. Somehow, you don't seem to notice that case of "a democratically elected [Prime Minister] telling a different democratic country that they can not have a democratic vote on a national issue".

I read them all, they all seemed to take the statements rather negatively. The use of the word 'warn' means they took the statements as a threat. If they had used a word such as 'suggests' or 'recommends' it would carry a much friendlier tone.

Moving on, I see you trying to defend your position that the British people, as a whole, want to leave the EU. You cite two sources. First, we have the Telegraph, which doesn't even pretend to be telling the truth in its own headline. The Times has the same numbers - 40%. As in "less than half". As in "The British population, taken as a whole, does not support the idea of withdrawing from the EU."

Yes, when the topic was derailed slightly, I had to answer the question pushed forward. Also, you are misreading the poll numbers. "Among Tory supporters, 56 percent would vote to leave, and even 37 percent of Labour voters and 35 percent of Liberal Democrats would opt to get out of the EU as well. If “don’t knows” are included in the survey, 40 percent of Britons would vote to leave, 37 percent would stay, and 23 percent are undecided."

That 40% still carries the majority and in a public vote, Britain would leave the EU.

So. When presented with actual British opinions on this issue, you have claimed you couldn't find any(Incorrect, I said I didn't have ready access), ignored what they actually said(Incorrect, I read them all and expressed my opinion upon reading them), elevated the US's comments to a special case based on... what, again?(Incorrect, this was about the US president, not anyone else), and continued to ignore what the British actually say.(Incorrect, I read what was written and expressed my as such) I'm afraid nothing you've said or done in this thread supports the notion that you value the British take on this British issue in any way.

Ephiral, what is your opinion on the Obama Administration's words to the British Government on leaving the EU?

[Ephiral]

I address what Ephiral says, but as it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, I put it away.

The thesis of your original post was "This statement was out of line and disrespectful to Britain." I, for one, think the opinion of actual Britons not only matters on that, but matters more than yours or mine.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I had said that I don't have ready access to British news sources *on my RSS feed.* Besides that, it served no purpose to my original point about what a president should or shouldn't do to look up how British news sources reacted to the statements as I do not know of any trusted news source in the area and it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Most news sources take a neutral tone.

The first sentence is a lie.

I'm not from England, I don't live in Britain, I don't have ready access to the news on their country.

And I said I didn't have any sources that spoke of it other than this and I didn't have access to news sources outside the US.

The rest seems... pretty disingenuous. The entire message of your opening post, as far as I can see, is that this message was offensive and imperialistic. You honestly don't think it's important to see if the recipients took offense before deciding the matter for them?

I read them all, they all seemed to take the statements rather negatively. The use of the word 'warn' means they took the statements as a threat. If they had used a word such as 'suggests' or 'recommends' it would carry a much friendlier tone.

This logic doesn't hold up to even the briefest scrutiny. A warning is not automatically a threat; in fact, I'd say it rarely is. If I warn someone that the roads are icy, I'm not threatening to crash their car. The US government did not say they would reduce or cut off trade. They did not say there would be any sanctions of any sort. They said that the friendship between America and the UK might weaken. In light of the fact that the current US administration relates to Europe primarily through the lens of the EU, this is a simple statement of fact.

Yes, when the topic was derailed slightly, I had to answer the question pushed forward. Also, you are misreading the poll numbers. "Among Tory supporters, 56 percent would vote to leave, and even 37 percent of Labour voters and 35 percent of Liberal Democrats would opt to get out of the EU as well. If “don’t knows” are included in the survey, 40 percent of Britons would vote to leave, 37 percent would stay, and 23 percent are undecided."

That 40% still carries the majority and in a public vote, Britain would leave the EU.

You're shifting the goalposts. The context was "What is the actual opinion of British people about this?", not "Would a motion to leave the EU pass?". 40% might be a legal majority, but legal does not equal actual.

Ephiral, what is your opinion on the Obama Administration's words to the British Government on leaving the EU?
[/quote]

I'd say that, by the standards of international diplomacy, it was refreshingly honest and quite mild.

[Monfang]

Refreshingly honest and quite mild?

Care to expand on that?

[Ephiral]

Diplomacy is filled with euphemism and half-statements. Coming out and laying the realpolitik on the table, just openly (and publicly!) saying "This is our country's interest, and our relations would be best served if you could consider listening to it." is surprisingly straightforward. As for the mildness... well, let me ask you this. You've repeatedly called these statements "threats" and "pressure". International diplomacy has well-established standards for these things, and they lie in actions. So... exactly what did the US government threaten to do? What actions will they take to harm British interests if they don't get their way?

Just for the record, I'll note that you're completely sidestepping the issue of what British people think of these allegedly offensive and disrepsectful statements, not to mention being caught out in lies and disingenuous arguments.

[Monfang]

Diplomacy is filled with euphemism and half-statements. Coming out and laying the realpolitik on the table, just openly (and publicly!) saying "This is our country's interest, and our relations would be best served if you could consider listening to it." is surprisingly straightforward. As for the mildness... well, let me ask you this. You've repeatedly called these statements "threats" and "pressure". International diplomacy has well-established standards for these things, and they lie in actions. So... exactly what did the US government threaten to do? What actions will they take to harm British interests if they don't get their way?

Just for the record, I'll note that you're completely sidestepping the issue of what British people think of these allegedly offensive and disrespectful statements, not to mention being caught out in lies and disingenuous arguments.

I'm side stepping because it's not the issue here.

And so far, America has taken action against Britain, specifically telling Russia how many Trident missiles the US was giving to Britain. The British policy of not giving out the number of nuclear deterrents they have is part of their defense policy. By the Obama Administration sharing it, they risk taking away that advantage from Britain. And as America's ally for a long time, there are already countless other secrets in America's files that Obama could give away. It was using these facts that I took the Administration's statements as a threat.

However, as our British friends have said they haven't heard anything from their news sources, I suspect that the British government is moving to prevent that from happening again and that there may be no need for alarm.

As I said before, I have changed my stance on this and admitted that I made a mistake posting this so early.

[Ephiral]

I'm side stepping because it's not the issue here.

British opinions of a statement made to Britain about British-US relations are unimportant in gauging its offensiveness or level of respect? I... really don't see how that's the case.

And so far, America has taken action against Britain, specifically telling Russia how many Trident missiles the US was giving to Britain. The British policy of not giving out the number of nuclear deterrents they have is part of their defense policy. By the Obama Administration sharing it, they risk taking away that advantage from Britain. And as America's ally for a long time, there are already countless other secrets in America's files that Obama could give away. It was using these facts that I took the Administration's statements as a threat.

First off: No, it wasn't. It was in a single article choosing to use the word "warn" that you took those statements as a threat.

I read them all, they all seemed to take the statements rather negatively. The use of the word 'warn' means they took the statements as a threat. If they had used a word such as 'suggests' or 'recommends' it would carry a much friendlier tone.

You are saying things that you know are not true, and are proven untrue by this very page. Why?

Second: Okay, that's an example of an action that the US has taken that could potentially harm British interests. Now you need to show a causal link between this and Britain reconsidering its position in the EU. You have a difficult task ahead of you, I'm afraid; Cameron's referendum promise was made on January 23, 2013, the US statements were made on January 18, 2013, the campaign for a referendum started in mid-July 2011, and the US-Russia agreement was made on February 26, 2010.

Failing that, we could try not shifting the goalposts. I asked what the US threatened to do. Please show me any mention, even by implication, of Russia, Trident missiles, nuclear secrets, or defense strategy in the US statements. Any one of the above will constitute acceptable evidence in my eyes. If you can't do either of the above, then I really question your alleged attempts to stick to the core topic, as this example is completely irrelevant to the actual event we've been discussing.

However, as our British friends have said they haven't heard anything from their news sources, I suspect that the British government is moving to prevent that from happening again and that there may be no need for alarm.

All that says is that the one person who identified as British and spoke up hasn't seen any articles. What exactly are you trying to claim, here? That the British government is trying to keep a lid on this? That they're moving to curry favour with the US to prevent more secrets leakage? Something else I'm not getting?

As I said before, I have changed my stance on this and admitted that I made a mistake posting this so early.

You did? Could you provide a quote, please? I certainly don't remember seeing it, and I just searched all of your posts for "change", "stance", "position", "mistake", and "wrong" and came up empty. The closest I see you coming is "Maybe I let this get overblown", which is a far cry from "My position on these statements has changed, and I should not have posted this.", and is in fact pretty wishy-washy as an admission of error of any sort.

While we're at it, what exactly is your current position? I certainly haven't seen you articulate a new one, and have in fact seen you continue to argue that the US is aggressively out of line here.

[Monfang]

Ephiral, this is the last time I'm going to address one of your posts if you keep this up. I have no desire to turn this into a debate of my character, if you want to do that then open a new thread.

As the final word, I'll save you the scrolling up and show you where I did explain that I believe I overblown it and admit my mistake: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=166656.msg7782054#msg7782054

"I didn't know personally the feelings of the citizens and sense this is a non-issue for you[The citizen who said it was a non-issue] then perhaps I allowed it to get overblown."

At a later point, I did change my position when someone else brought a new light into the situation:

"...taking out the context of the EU, a president who tries to do his best by his country would be someone we should hope for."

If you are quite done with the off topic character assassination, can you offer anything in relation to the topic?

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm side stepping because it's not the issue here.

And so far, America has taken action against Britain, specifically telling Russia how many Trident missiles the US was giving to Britain. The British policy of not giving out the number of nuclear deterrents they have is part of their defense policy. By the Obama Administration sharing it, they risk taking away that advantage from Britain. And as America's ally for a long time, there are already countless other secrets in America's files that Obama could give away. It was using these facts that I took the Administration's statements as a threat.

However, as our British friends have said they haven't heard anything from their news sources, I suspect that the British government is moving to prevent that from happening again and that there may be no need for alarm.

As I said before, I have changed my stance on this and admitted that I made a mistake posting this so early.

Also, as a suggestion for the future, consider your sources. A lot of media in the last two decades have taken a more editorial spin in their presentation. Pay particular attention to Newscorp's methodology as one of the more telling examples of it, and I think with some relevance in this situation. Rupert Murdoch is not above using his news empire to throw his weight around, particularly in the UK, not that FoxNews here in the US is any better.

ALWAYS read the news articles with  a grain of salt. Use multiple sources. Consider the sources.. because the media isn't there to present you with 'fair and balanced' anymore. Of course, depending on where it's from, it was rarely 'fair' or 'balanced'. More often than not it comes in varying degrees of 'unbiased'.

"You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."- Randolf Hersh might or might not have said it..but given his outlook in the politics of the time, he might have. It fits with his outlook. It definitely fits with some outlooks in editorial offices now.

In the last year, we've have editors (and corporate VPs) declare that they were sole mediators of what sources could (and couldn't) be protected by privilege, massive spin in the election (amazing what unmonitored corporate sponsorship brings) and the continued lack of insight and/or investigation into how far companies like NewsCorp has violated domestic and foreign laws in corrupt practices. The media was put in place to protect us from the government and provide a counterbalance.. I'd say in many ways.. those days are over.

The news is simply another source of ad revenues to some of the 'news syndicates'.

[Monfang]

Right, it clear this topic is done with.

[Mithlomwen]

Something to keep in mind here in the P&R boards is that you will be asked to provide sources for the information that is posted.  Depending on the source, the information may be more factual than that from other sources. 

If you are going to post in this forum, you have to be willing to back up your arguments with reliable sources.  If the source you choose to use is questionable, you will be asked about that.  If that is something you are not comfortable with, then it would probably be a good idea to not post topics that will cause debate. 

[Ephiral]

Ephiral, this is the last time I'm going to address one of your posts if you keep this up. I have no desire to turn this into a debate of my character, if you want to do that then open a new thread.

As the final word, I'll save you the scrolling up and show you where I did explain that I believe I overblown it and admit my mistake: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=166656.msg7782054#msg7782054

"I didn't know personally the feelings of the citizens and sense this is a non-issue for you[The citizen who said it was a non-issue] then perhaps I allowed it to get overblown."

At a later point, I did change my position when someone else brought a new light into the situation:

"...taking out the context of the EU, a president who tries to do his best by his country would be someone we should hope for."

If you are quite done with the off topic character assassination, can you offer anything in relation to the topic?

Mmm... the first point I still disagree on, but that's because firm ownership of errors is important to me. Which brings me to your second point. I completely missed that post, and in so doing I got the facts wrong in an aggressive line of questioning. I'm sorry.

What do I have to offer to the topic? The very post you're responding to contains an analysis and rebuttal of your assertions re: a) the 'threatening' nature of the statements, and b) the US-Russia info-sharing agreement being a response to the British move away from the EU. Pretending that it doesn't exist is insulting and transparent.

[Monfang]

I got this from the sticky on the debate forum. Following the link there, I found this:

Genetic Fallacy

Attacking the history of a claim rather than the claim itself is called a genetic fallacy. This is the most generic such fallacy - ad hominems are the most common genetic fallacies. "Fox News reported on an Earthquake last night, but it's Fox News, therefore it probably never happened." Note that this doesn't apply when the discussion is about the quality of the source itself - if someone has lied habitually in the past, using that as a basis for calling them a liar is not a fallacy.

Ad Hominem - 'Against the Person' is where an element of the person is used to discredit the argument itself. It can be true, and it is not necessarily even an attack - though it can be. For example, "Vekseid runs Elliquiy, therefore statements he makes in favor of it are false," is an ad hominem, however true the first phrase may be.

Following the links for Genetic Fallacy and Ad hominem found these:

Description of Genetic Fallacy

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong."

It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).

Examples of Genetic Fallacy

"The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a facist program."
"I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must."
"Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media's credibility, don't we."

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Sources: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=24136.0
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=24133.0
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

Let this be the end of it.

[Ephiral]

I have very specifically avoided making statements about you or your character, keeping strictly to the facts at hand and the statements you have made. I apologised and retracted my statement when you showed me that it was incorrect. I tried to continue discussion of the actual topic, which you ignored twice now; if you don't want to, fine. This will be my last post in this thread unless I am called out to respond. But please don't sling baseless accusations.

[Avis habilis]

I got this from the sticky on the debate forum...

Copy-pasting definitions doesn't count as a response. If you have a point to make, make it & be ready to support it. That goes for everyone reading this or any other debate-oriented thread in this section.

[owen84]

I think the point of this thread is lost a bit.

BUT HAY I'M FROM WALES (UK)

Ill throw my 2 pence worth.

This is the first place I have heard of this. So I guess it is not getting much publicity in the UK. But I don't mind its good to see America taking an interest in Britain future. I like politics and its something I have spoken to lodes with people from all over Europe.  And I find the general feel is America is very use and them. So it's nice to see america wanting to join the rest of the world and show an interest.

[Elias]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with President Obama and the American government giving their opinions to another government, ally or enemy. My problem is the hypocrisy of so many of those people posting here. If a Republican president were doing this I could just see all the ranting and raving coming from everyone as they scream about how the Republicans are trying to force their ideals on others, but when Obama does it, its just an opinion. Kind of funny.

Fact is America has a right to try and use any means to ensure its own interests everywhere and that includes Europe, Obama even has the right to pressure Cameron economically if he so chooses, I just hope that we all remember this when that pressure is something a little more confrontational or flies in the face of their ideology.

[Ephiral]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with President Obama and the American government giving their opinions to another government, ally or enemy. My problem is the hypocrisy of so many of those people posting here. If a Republican president were doing this I could just see all the ranting and raving coming from everyone as they scream about how the Republicans are trying to force their ideals on others, but when Obama does it, its just an opinion. Kind of funny.

Fact is America has a right to try and use any means to ensure its own interests everywhere and that includes Europe, Obama even has the right to pressure Cameron economically if he so chooses, I just hope that we all remember this when that pressure is something a little more confrontational or flies in the face of their ideology.

(Disclaimer: I am not American, but their politics affect me, given the 8900 km border and huge volume of trade we share.) I draw a distinction between the two actions, personally. I wouldn't care if this had happened in the Bush years. All it is is being unusually frank and honest. "This is the situation that would be ideal for the US." Economic pressure would be crossing the line, because it is actual action taken against foreign interests. I'll be first in line to condemn such an action. The US is entitled to do so, but that does not make it anything but a dick move.

So no, it's not hypocritical. This is not even an action taken; it is a diplomatic statement, nothing more, regardless of who says it.

[gaggedLouise]

I'd agree it's essentially just a diplomatic statement, even if Cameron probably felt it to be a bit obtuse. When it's your closest and most important ally speaking, you have to listen, especially when that ally is much stronger than yourself in many ways.

People around the world are used to the U.S. sometimes giving advice or making assessments in public about what other countries ought to do, or need to do. So it's sort of a funny sidelight when other major countries do the same thing at the U.S. - I remember how some Chinese bigwig, if it was Wen Jiabao or somebody close to him, spoke up during one of the rounds of American senate budget talks last year, and the gist of what he said was (paraphrase) "You need to get your act together on Capitol Hill - we the world can't have it like this, can we?" I'm sure the Chinese (and many other people around Asia, or in Latin America) loved hearing the Peking top brass making that kind of punchy advice talk in return after people in those countries had been looking up into the sole of a western - sometimes U.S. - boot at many times in the past.

[Elias]

In the end every country wants a say in foreign policy and those with power will always speak out. China is growing and will inevitably begin to force their opinions down the throat of the world. That is their right and the US should also fight them tooth and nail, because that is their right.

[Dashenka]

It won't change a damn thing when Obama leaves. The US (politicians) will always feel that the US is the world's leading country and they can dictate how the rest of the world should rule their country. Bush sr did it, Clinton did it, Bush jr. did it and now Obama does it. And so will the next president, and the next and the next.

They just don't see that the US have lost their status in the world as leading country and wildy flail their arms about in a desperate attempt to be taken seriously, something half the world has stopped doing years ago.

I don't mean to insult American people because I know there are more than a few who do actually know about a country called 'rest of the world' but that small of group of imbeciles like Palin, Romney and the likes are a danger to not only America but the whole world.

Just my two cents.