dust

Well, we do now. A few people may have responded poorly, recklessly, but the news reports I've seen over the last day or so have been focused on the woman herself, and the major politicians I've seen interviewed have not said much at all. Cameron and Corbyn both followed the "She was a rising star, a lovely woman" line without any mention of the attack itself. They'd also be accused of not knowing how to spell "Allahu Akbar"... Anyway, not without qualification. Reports were based on an eyewitness account. Yes, the man is clearly a nutter and it should have no influence over the referendum, which is why I previously suggested we not discuss it here. The man is a neo-Nazi who seems to have killed her because she was a "traitor" (his words). It has some link to the current sociopolitical climate, but it should not influence anyone's feeling over the referendum.

I agree there

44 million Muslims in Europe, 3 million in the UK, 5 million in the Americas. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of these Muslims are not engaging in mass violence. Like, 0.001% or less. However, I must agree that there is room for improvement among the Muslim population. In particular, we might be concerned about the ratio of sex offenders, especially child molesters, of the Muslim population to the general population. Those numbers don't look good. Erm... I don't see any need for racist epithets. Or racism of any kind. Base your judgement on religion, not on something as vague and bizarre as a notion of 'race'. Wow. The further from the societal norm? So whatever is commonplace is good, and whatever is not deserves judgement and is most likely bad?

Managed to keep my eyes away from this thread for a while now. Not disappointed to find y'all discussing the murder in conspiratorial tones. Until the whole story is known, why not keep your mouths shut in the same way that you're saying others should keep theirs shut? The real likelihood seems to be that the man was mentally deranged, and that this really has little to do with the referendum. We all know that most people on either side do not support murder over the issue. The murder should not influence people on either side. What also seems likely to me is that The Guardian and Daily Mail alike are focusing on the story because it's sensational and will sell well. I agree that the tragedy should not be used to further anyone's political aims. So, yes, why don't we all try to keep it away from the EU referendum talk?

"While it may not be politically correct to link psychological disorders with the transgender population, the researchers see the evidence that a link exists." This is true. However, it's not necessarily true that a psychological disorder causes transgenderism. It could very well be that being transgender, having gender dysphoria, leads people to develop psychological problems. In Lebanon -- mentioned in the article -- only 18% of people accept homosexuality. I'd imagine that transgenderism is even less accepted. In such an environment of rejection, it seems quite probable to me that LGBT people will be more likely to develop psychological disorders than the non-LGBT population. Lebanon is, though, a decent example of science beginning to triumph over religious shitfuckery. From Wikipedia: On 11 July 2013, the Lebanese Psychiatric Society (LPS) released a statement saying that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and does not need to be treated. They said: "Homosexuality in itself does not cause any defect in judgment, stability, reliability or social and professional abilities", and "The assumption that homosexuality is a result of disturbances in the family dynamic or unbalanced psychological development is based on wrong information". Boom. There is hope for humanity.

Loosely defined... my favourite era of painting... Ivan Aivazovsky The Ninth Wave Frederic Edwin Church Heart of the Andes (recommended very large viewing if you can find one - it's a huge painting) Anders Zorn Lappings of the Waves The Waltz Woman Getting Dressed Antonio Ciseri Ecco Homo John William Waterhouse St Eulalia Jean Leon Gerome Pygmalion and Galatea Lawrence Alma-Tadema Unconscious Rivals Alfons Mucha Times of Day I'd love to see more...

Just looked him up. My first thought was: that is some creepy shit. But the really abstract pattern pieces from his later years are really beautiful.

Not an amazingly thorough article, but backed up with sources and quite well-reasoned in the points it does make: https://www.facebook.com/nicholasjohncarter/posts/10153467946496736 Immigration has been in the news a lot lately, especially with the EU referendum coming up. So let's use the tools and data of political science to understand the topic better. Last year, 270,000 EU citizens immigrated to the UK, and 85,000 returned to the EU. So EU net migration was around 185,000 (1). Additionally, a similar number came from outside the EU, so 330,000 in total. That was the highest ever level of EU migration – going all the way back to when we joined the EEC in 1975. Indeed during the 1980s the trend was the other way – British workers moved overseas, particularly to Germany, as their economy was doing better than ours at that time. You might remember the TV show ‘Auf Wiedersehen Pet’. Currently our economy is doing better than many European ones so more people are coming than going. But there's no reason to think that will always be the case. The Leave campaign claim that EU migration is putting unsustainable pressure on our public services, worsening the housing crisis, putting pressure on the NHS, on schools and on our roads. Their latest TV broadcast for instance shows a sick older lady receiving NHS treatment much faster in an imaginary hospital if we leave the EU. Are they right? Imagine that we left the EU and banned EU immigration completely. Nobody else allowed – no footballers, no entertainers, no chefs, no businessmen, no nurses, no cleaners, nobody. And we kept that door shut for ten years. And for comparison let’s say that we stayed in the EU and immigration continues at this year’s record level (the highest ever) for the next ten years. How would that impact our population and our public services? In terms of population, we’d end up with 1.85m fewer people living in our country after the 10 years. That sounds like a lot of people, which it is. But we’re a big country – 64.6m in total at the moment (2). So even under these very extreme assumptions the difference is only 2.8%. Less than 1 in 35. Would you notice the difference if there were 34 instead of 35 people in your doctors’ waiting room? If there were 34 instead of 35 cars ahead of you in the traffic jam? Would your child’s education suffer in a class of 35 instead of 34? I doubt it. And don’t forget that we’re making crazily unrealistic assumptions about how much we could reduce immigration if we left the EU. Because even the most ardent Leave campaigners don’t say that we should stop immigration altogether. They usually talk of using a points system to reach the government’s net target of 100,000 per year. So the difference in population after 10 years wouldn’t be anything like as much as 1 in 35. Let’s say we could hit the net target of 100,000 – half from the EU and half from non-EU countries for the sake of argument. In that case, the difference in population after 10 years would be 1.35m or 1 in 49. And don’t forget that we’re also making another very aggressive assumption – that migration will continue at the same level as last year, our highest ever. It would be more realistic to take the average of the last five years migration (3). If we do that, then the difference in our population after ten years would be only 790,000 or 1 in 82. 1 in 82. I can’t tell the difference between a crowd of 81 and 82 people (even when they were my own wedding guests!). Can you? So here’s the thing: however you feel about EU immigration, even under extreme assumptions the impact on our overall population just isn’t very large. Now at this point some of you might be thinking – “This can't be right - step outside and look with your own eyes! Britain is full of foreigners! The place I grew up is like another country! How can you claim that EU immigration is not significant?”. I live in inner London so I can sense where you might be coming from. A few things to bear in mind: 1) The overwhelming majority of immigration to the UK over the last 40 years has been from outside the EU (3). However you feel about that, it has nothing to do with our EU membership; 2) Whether you like it or not, Britain has been a multicultural country for several generations at least. You can’t tell whether somebody is an immigrant just by looking at them (sorry if this is an obvious point). You might hazard a guess at their ethnicity or race but that’s a very different thing; 3) Historically, immigrants have clustered in particular areas of the country, so your neighbourhood may not be representative of the country at large; 4) British people from all backgrounds have become much more cosmopolitan in their tastes over the last 40 years. We drink in pubs much less, but enjoy wine at home or go to restaurants and cafes a lot more. Instead of just eating British food, we enjoy flavours from all over the world. So the retail and commercial landscape of our country has changed - to reflect our changing tastes, not just because of new arrivals. “But wait! What when Turkey, Montenegro and Albania join the EU? We’ll be swamped!” No we won’t. Mainly because Turkey and Albania are nowhere near being eligible to join the EU, and Montenegro is tiny. Also don't forget there are 27 other countries in the EU to choose from if residents of those countries did fancy a change of scene. And even if in the distant future many other countries did join and we did find ourselves swamped, Britain could leave. We’re free to leave the EU whenever we want. But if we leave and then want to rejoin, we’d need the consent of all 27 other member states. Better to stay and keep our options open than leave in fear of something that is very unlikely to happen. And so far we’ve also not factored in the contribution that immigrants make to our country, and specifically our public finances. EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they use in public services, as they are much more likely to be of working age than the general population (4). So if we used that extra tax revenue to hire more doctors, build more schools, invest in transport and so on, we’d actually have better public services than we would without any EU immigration. It takes time to hire and train teachers and doctors, build schools and roads, and so forth. So it’s true that a sudden influx of people into an area can put short-term pressure on services. But the fundamental reason for the issues we identified at the start – NHS pressure, oversubscribed schools, congested roads, the housing crisis – is not EU immigration. We are now six years into a government austerity programme to attempt to balance the books. So it’s not surprising that our public services are feeling the pinch. An ageing population and new advances in medicine put particular strain on the NHS. For the last thirty years, we have failed by a wide margin to build enough houses in the UK. Interest rates have been at an ‘emergency’ rate of 0.5% for the last seven years. That is why house prices are so high. And this story of decades of underinvestment is repeated for our roads and railways too. All of these issues are home-grown. And all of those policy areas are entirely within the control of our government in Westminster. They have nothing to do with the EU and are not the fault of EU migrants. Finally, there’s been plenty of academic research into this issue, including a summary paper just published by the London School of Economics (5). The research shows, contrary to many tabloid headlines, that 1) Immigrants do not take a disproportionate share of jobs created by our economy; 2) There is no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration on wages; 3) There is no evidence that EU migrants affect the labour market performance of native-born workers (i.e. make it harder for native-born workers to get promoted, get a pay rise, etc) So it is clear from examining the evidence that fears of immigration have been blown out of all proportion by the Eurosceptic press and the Leave campaign. But what about all that money we send the EU? Couldn't we use that to improve public services? Yes, but it wouldn't go very far, and it would be outweighed by the economic damage from leaving. Our net contribution to the EU was £8.5bn last year (6) which works out at 36 pence per person per day. That is a drop in the ocean compared to our annual NHS budget of £116.4bn (7). And if you’re trying to work out the impact of leaving the EU on our public services, you can’t just look at our net contribution. You also need to consider the effect that leaving would have on the size of our economy, and hence the tax revenue the government can generate. Seven highly respected independent economic organisations have tried to work this out (8). And all seven of them have reached the same conclusion: that the economic damage caused by Brexit would more than offset the saving from our EU contribution. The best estimate suggests that the government would have between £20bn and £40bn less to spend on public services than if we remained in the EU (9). So our public services wouldn't be better if we left the EU - they would be much worse. So if we left the EU to ‘take control of immigration’, and then reduced it as discussed above, we’d still have all the same problems we have today – the housing crisis, an overstretched NHS, oversubscribed schools, heavy traffic, etc. But we’d also have two even more serious problems to add to the list: a recession and the unknown consequences of destabilising the very institution which has secured peace in Europe for the last 70 years. People are sceptical of economists’ forecasts. But you don’t even need to estimate many of the economic problems that will arise from Brexit – you can see them already in the currency markets. The pound suffered its biggest one day fall in seven years when Boris and other MPs joined the leave campaign (10). You can watch the impact of movements in the referendum opinion polls in the EUR/GBP exchange rate. A major bank recently warned that Brexit could wipe 20% off the value of the pound through devaluation (11). Devaluation sounds like a dry and abstract concept. So let me explain what that means: 20% of your life savings wiped out overnight. The numbers in your bank account will be the same, but what you can buy with it will be 20% less, since most things we buy these days come from overseas. Only the other day the Financial Times reported that hedge funds are planning to run their own private exit polls on referendum day to speculate on the currency markets ahead of the official result (12). Just as during the ERM crisis of 1992, the vultures are circling, waiting to feast on our self-inflicted wounds. And here’s another very clear threat: to our jobs. Only last Friday, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, warned his staff in Bournemouth that one, two or even four thousand of them would be made redundant if we leave the EU (13). Imagine how his staff are feeling today. And as a manager, let me tell you: that’s not the kind of thing you tell your employees unless you’re deadly serious. Even leading Leave campaigner Michael Gove admitted just a few days ago that jobs are at risk if we leave the EU (14). Multimillionaire UKIP donor Arron Banks described this economic damage as ‘a price worth paying’ (15). Arron Banks, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage might be rich enough to gamble their jobs on Brexit - but are you? It is quite possible that some of your friends and family will lose their jobs as a direct result of Britain leaving the EU. Do you want to be responsible for that? We took an evidence-based look at the immigration and EU issue above. But the Leave campaign and Eurosceptic press (Express, Sun and Mail in particular) choose to paint a very different picture. A picture which blows these statistics out of all proportion. 'Strangers in Our Own Country' 'Our borders are out of control!'. You know the stuff I mean. Pictures which invite us to eye our friends and neighbours with suspicion and even hostility. Editorial which pins the blame for every problem from housing to wages to traffic to NHS waiting times on immigrants. And it's not even because they don't know any better. The leaders of the Leave campaign and the political editors of those newspapers are clever, well-educated people. They know the facts I set out above just as well as I do. Yet instead of presenting a balanced view, they choose to deliberately whip up fear and suspicion of immigrants for their own political purposes. Shame on them. Why? Because appealing to people's basest prejudices sells newspapers and gathers votes. Just ask Donald Trump. And what greater contrast could there be between the divisive rhetoric of the leave campaign and the noble vision of the EU's founding fathers. Men who, amid the ashes of World War Two, set their national differences aside and dared - not just to dream but to build - a better Europe for us all. A Europe in which war was “not only unthinkable … but materially impossible” (16). Here’s Winston Churchill addressing the Congress of Europe in 1948: “A high and a solemn responsibility rests upon us here ... If we allow ourselves to be rent and disordered by pettiness and small disputes, if we fail in clarity of view or courage in action, a priceless occasion may be cast away for ever. But if we all pull together and pool the luck and the comradeship - and we shall need all the comradeship and not a little luck … then all the little children who are now growing up in this tormented world may find themselves not the victors nor the vanquished in the fleeting triumphs of one country over another in the bloody turmoil of … war, but the heirs of all the treasures of the past and the masters of all the science, the abundance and the glories of the future.” And - against all the odds - we did it. We pooled the luck and the comradeship and achieved Churchill’s vision. Those “little children” are now retired – the first generation in a thousand years to grow up without the horror of war in Europe. Instead of building weapons, our scientists work together to solve the greatest problems of our age. We enjoy a standard of living unimaginable to people in 1948. All the cities, art, history, people, food and culture of this wonderful continent are open to us whenever we want to visit, to live or to work. Hundreds of millions of European people who until only a few decades ago were ruled by dictators or communists now enjoy democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the abundance of the free market. I think that’s worth 36 pence a day. And yet here we stand, about to turn our backs on this great project, thanks to cynical newspaper owners and barefaced lies from the Leave campaign. Forget what the Sun says. Forget what’s good for Boris’ and Farage’s careers. Listen to every current and former British Prime Minister (17). Every other major UK political party leader (18). To Barack Obama, to Hillary Clinton, to Angela Merkel and a host of other world leaders (19). To Stephen Hawking and 83% of scientists (20). To 40 religious leaders (21). To 300 leading historians (22). To the Trades Union Congress and our six largest trades unions (23). To 88% of economists (24). To the National Farmers Union (25). To the Chief Executive of NHS England (26), to the Royal College of Midwives (27) To British businesses of all sizes (28). For there is an overwhelming consensus among experts of all kinds that Britain is stronger in Europe. And what does the Leave campaign say to this? “I think people in this country have had enough of experts” (Michael Gove, Friday 3rd June) What an extraordinary response. If you were sick, you’d want to see a doctor. If you had a plane to fly, you’d want a pilot. So when we have the most important political, economic and foreign policy decision of our lifetime to make I think we should listen to the people who are in the best position to evaluate what to do. And they’re all telling us the same thing – we’re much better off in Europe. It might not be what Michael Gove wants to hear. But it sounds like the right answer to me. So when you’re in the polling station on Thursday 23rd - with that stubby little pencil in your hand –Vote Remain. Not in fear, but with pride – about what we, the people of Europe, have achieved together. Not in ignorance, but with science firmly on our side. And not alone, but with the greatest statesmen of the past three generations urging us on. And then in years to come, when your children ask you how you voted in the referendum of 2016, you can look them in the eye and tell them you were on the right side of history. Thank you for reading (1) https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ (2) https://www.ons.gov.uk/…/populationandm…/populationestimates (3) http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-…/… (4) http://www.economist.com/…/21631076-rather-lot-according-ne… (5) http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea019.pdf (6) https://fullfact.org/euro…/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ (7) http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngla…/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx (8) http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r116.pdf (9) http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r116.pdf (10) https://next.ft.com/co…/7fa04d70-d911-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818 (11) https://www.theguardian.com/…/brexit-could-wipe-20-percent-… (12) https://next.ft.com/co…/7e26d896-241c-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d (13) BBC Radio 4, 3rd June 2016; see also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36450460 (14) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/…/i-can-t-guarantee-everyone-will… (15) https://www.politicshome.com/…/arron-banks-%C2%A34300-loss-… (16) http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/declaration-of-9-may-1950 (17) David Cameron http://www.theguardian.com/…/david-cameron-launches-tory-ca… ; Gordon Brown http://www.theguardian.com/…/inspiring-view-britishness-def…; Tony Blair http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36408239; John Major http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/John-Major-Voting-to-leave-wil… (18) Jeremy Corbyn (Labour) http://labourlist.org/…/europe-needs-to-change-but-i-am-vo…/ Tim Farron (Lib Dem) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Britain-impoverished-backwater… Caroline Lucas (Green) http://europe.newsweek.com/caroline-lucas-brexit-european-r… Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) http://www.thesun.co.uk/…/Nicola-Sturgeon-vows-to-back-argu… (19) Barack Obama http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/as-your-friend-let-me-tell-you… ; Hillary Clinton http://www.theguardian.com/…/hillary-clinton-britain-should… Angela Merkel http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36436726; Shinzo Abe http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/japanese-prime-minister-shinz…/ (20) https://www.theguardian.com/…/stephen-hawking-donald-trump-… ; http://www.nature.com/…/scientists-say-no-to-uk-exit-from-e… (21) http://www.theguardian.com/…/religious-leaders-oppose-brexit (22) http://www.theguardian.com/…/vote-to-leave-eu-will-condemn-… (23) http://uk.reuters.com/ar…/uk-britain-eu-unions-idUKKCN0V517D (24) http://www.itv.com/…/almost-nine-in-10-economists-believe-…/ (25) http://www.theguardian.com/…/british-farmers-uk-eu-nfu-brex… (26) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36353145 (27) https://www.rcm.org.uk/…/royal-college-of-midwives-supports… (28) http://www.independent.co.uk/…/brexit-eu-referendum-what-wi…

Eugh.

I asked, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, many pages ago for a "stunningly cogent" argument to leave. I'd be surprised, at this point, with any argument at all beyond "Ah but the crony system and the immigrants and it's just like the USSR... you'll see, young man, I know things.." You stand on your soapboxes and perform little speeches about the European plutocracy and the loss of British Power to a crumbling political union, but to date I've seen little to back up your claims. No data that isn't easily refuted, not a scent on the wind of anything approaching a cogent argument. In lieu of one, and in view of various good arguments I've heard from people to remain, yes, I will be voting to remain.

Heh. You have indeed decided not to give a real answer. I clocked that pages ago. Now, back away slowly...

.

Munch's work isn't something I'd put up on a wall, but interesting nonetheless.

... more of the same. I'm still wondering where the sources are. You rarely back up what you say, and it's hard to argue with someone when they preface with "For me, it's like this..."; and when you do cite sources/use figures etc to back up claims, they still seem to be easily refuted; and often when presented with or asked for evidence, you ignore, and focus on something else. I will give the benefit of the doubt, and wait for the longer argument.

Yes, a decent example of the type of reply I'm not looking for.

As far as these: I think a discussion on the peacemaking/keeping role of the EU would be interesting. And there have been repeated claims that the EU is run by an elite of undemocratically elected fatcat bureaucrats, and it may well be, but I'm still unsure as to how, or how it's any worse than many modern democracies -- how the decision-making process is any worse and run by any less qualified or more corrupt people than in the UK, for example....

The numbers I'm finding pretty much all state the share of exports of UK goods and services to the EU at around 44% Even if only 6% of UK businesses export to the EU, that's well over 300,000 businesses, and 44% of exports accounts for a hell of a lot of trade -- £12 billion in EU exports in March alone. When you say "many of those report that it will make no difference" it is perhaps prudent to note that information already presented shows that the majority indeed believe that it will make a difference. I look forward. Though if you can find someone else's argument like I did and mix-n-match the responses it might be a lot less work

If you want to be notified by email when a new topic is posted in 'Zhuangzi', you can go to 'Zhuangzi' and click 'Follow this forum' at the top (above 'Start New Topic'). Then you can go to 'My Settings' > 'Notification Preferences' and choose from a few options including email. I'm not sure how to use 'Push Notifications', but apparently you can use an app on your phone or something..?

I've found the argument that I couldn't be bothered to write myself. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/05/27/dear-friends-this-is-why-i-will-vote-remain-in-the-referendum/ Now... any takers? Point by point, or not at all. Leave the rhetoric at the door and use some substance. I know none of you are going to, but felt it polite to ask.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schuman "... he was instrumental in building post-war European and trans-Atlantic institutions and is regarded as one of the founders of the European Union, the Council of Europe and NATO." He never ascribed Europe's peace to NATO, but to the coming together of Europe, beginning in 1951 with the Treaty of Paris (1951). NATO is a widespread military agreement; the EU is a political and economic alliance. The two can't really be compared. Either way, I have not argued, and will not argue, that NATO hasn't played its own peacemaking role; but you equally cannot claim that the EU hasn't. We could talk of the USSR, or we could talk of the USA, or China, or any number of other united nations. Anti-democratic? Exactly how? The EP is directly elected; they vote for candidates for Presidency of the EC. Is this somehow less democratic than the British parliament? A Queen, a House of Lords? You can condescend to the younger generations as you like, though I'll wager that my experience is not as lacking as you would like to believe. And the historical perspective thing? Please. There are at most a few decades between us; we all have equal access to the study of world history. Age is not a winning card here. You have already admitted to ignoring the opinions of the IMF, World Bank, Bank of England, the majority of British MPs, the majority of tech professionals in the City, the majority of businesses in the country, etc. Is there anyone I've forgotten? Oh, the majority of university-educated people, the leaders of the USA, the G7, the OECD...

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-English-think-of-being-called-Island-apes-Inselaffen-by-the-Germans They use the term to refer to a certain variety of Brit. The violent, alcoholic, xenophobic variety. By choosing insulation and fear, we would be choosing to enforce this stereotype, choosing it for ourselves; by choosing openness and confidence, we would be (among other things) showing that the UK is not all that backwards. You misunderstood my point. The important part of that sentence was "does not mean that peace will reign eternally upon Europe." Point being that Europe has a long history of internal conflict; that under the EU, Europe has seen the longest period of relative peace in hundreds of years; and that the UK is not exempt from having benefited from it, and will not be exempt from benefiting from it in the future. Your "being a cantankerous member of it" is your choice. If the vote is to leave, it will have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the vote is to remain, I hope it will be evidence that the younger generations are in favour of increased international cooperation and peace rather than childish dreams of British Power. Evidence that the British public is changing, that in a few decades the older population will be made up of people who aren't simply trying to reclaim some of the feeling (that they never had, and that the majority of Brits at the time never actually had) of importance and influence some currently associate with the British Empire -- something which has not existed for a long time, and the nostalgia for which is baseless. Well, we can agree on most of this.

The work is never done. There's no such thing as being saved indefinitely from conflict; that the UK is engaged in conflict with nations or groups in other parts of the world does not mean that peace will reign eternally upon Europe. 'Times have changed', as they say, but from where I'm sitting it really confirms the need to support and sponsor the EU -- and we can't do that by saying "Nah, better off out.. and you are too."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/21/eu-referendum-who-in-britain-wants-to-leave-and-who-wants-to-rem/ Says quite a lot. I'm not certain which wars you are referring to, but I for one would look to the World Wars as honest fights for freedom from a genuine looming threat; and, if we are referring to the World Wars, you should probably let someone who actually conducted one of them on the UK's behalf have a say in the matter: http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html "It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. ... In order that this should be accomplished, there must be an act of faith in which millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part. ... Great Britain ... must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine."

A better word, for me at least, is disquiet. I couldn't explain to you precisely who or what "I" am, but disquiet is felt nonetheless.

So, we can't say we're 'liberated' until we can honestly say we have no fear of death?