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

[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.