EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For those who voted Leave. If there were a choice between no deal and revoke, which would you choose?

No idea - didn't know last time until I was in the booth.

[Beskar]

Once Brexit is done and we freed from the shackles of Europe. Think of the possibilities.
https://i.imgur.com/bgQATl9.jpg
[Reference to proponents of a new-integrated commonwealth union.]

[Furunculus]

For those who voted Leave. If there were a choice between no deal and revoke, which would you choose?

are you asking again because you expect a difference result?

no deal.

[Goalum]

Once Brexit is done and we freed from the shackles of Europe. Think of the possibilities.
https://i.imgur.com/bgQATl9.jpg
[Reference to proponents of a new-integrated commonwealth union.]

The future possibilities :laugh4:

[Brandy Blue]

Shucks. If the Commonweath dunt want yer, y'all would be mighty welcome to be our fifty-foist state. We dig them fancy British ax-cents. 'Sides, you could get as much chlorine soaked chicken a la Trump as ya want.

[Greyblades]

So do we declare the tories dead man walking now or wait for the last of them to cave to May's blackmail?

[Furunculus]

the perpetual bridesmaid of brexit questions: why is it appropriate to leave the EU our regulator in Services?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/04/customs-union-soft-brexit-trade-goods

[Goalum]

The economic editor of the most left leaning newspaper in the uk (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers), that believes that "the people are ready for radical change" (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/larry-elliott-labour-has-a-once-in-a-generation-opportunity-and-the-tories-know-it-1.3245441) [notice carefully the wording/terminology folks: "the people" - "radical", "change"] writes articles that support cutting ties with the eu..

..unbelievable.. ~:)

Socialist utopias or anything that converged to them have always sounded good on paper.. and once realised, reality hits.. try negotiating steel trade deals with say, China as the uk or as part of the eu.. and see what you get in the deal..

There is simply no way in practice for the eu nations to maintain their high [highest on the planet in fact in terms of salaries/social services/working hours] standard of living as single entities.

The future for what is the western/european way of life right now lies with the eu staying alive and thriving - anything else is either right wing trip down to nationalistic glory memory lane, or leftist disguised hate of capitalism in an effort to overthrow it through populism

[Pannonian]

If a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible. We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes.

Stuff that Brexiteers had claimed the UK does not have the power to do, but would have to leave the EU in order to be free of these schemes. Now the head of ERG says that the UK does have the power within the EU to do these things, that the EU cannot go ahead with these unless the UK agrees.

Brexit is founded on hypocrisy and lies.

[Goalum]

Brexit is founded on hypocrisy and lies.

The campaign behind the brexit is mainly psychological in nature - on the level of the collective subconscious.

It expresses the need for things not to change, to remain familiar, defining and excluding from a right wing perspective, which is deep and understandable to a certain extent - and it expresses the need to deconstruct, liberate so as to be able to reconstruct differently from a left wing perspective, which is equally deep and understandable.

All these needs/tendencies are battling it out in the social pot against the current of the times as well as the needs and challenges it brings forth.

From many perspectives the whole thing - while violent and chaotic - is very fascinating

[Pannonian]

The campaign behind the brexit is mainly psychological in nature - on the level of the collective subconscious.

It expresses the need for things not to change, to remain familiar, defining and excluding from a right wing perspective, which is deep and understandable to a certain extent - and it expresses the need to deconstruct, liberate so as to be able to reconstruct differently from a left wing perspective, which is equally deep and understandable.

All these needs/tendencies are battling it out in the social pot against the current of the times as well as the needs and challenges it brings forth.

From many perspectives the whole thing - while violent and chaotic - is very fascinating

The leaders of Brexit are, to a man, hypocrites and liars though. Reassuring people that Brexit won't adversely affect the country whilst deploying their investments on the basis that the economy will go down. Eg. John Redwood, one of the unyielding no dealers in the ERG, has been arguing that there is opportunity for the economy in Brexit, whilst advising his clients that the economy post-Brexit is likely to be unstable and that they'd be advised to hold off on investments. Brexit will benefit the very rich who can move their capital overseas, like Rees Mogg. It will cost most of the rest of us.

[Goalum]

The leaders of Brexit are, to a man, hypocrites and liars though.

I dont know them all, but mostly yes. Exactly the same happened in the greek referendum of 2015. Same underlying dynamics. Same people_types jumped into rabble rousing the crowds into a dead end that was rejected 24 hours after the result by the very government that was actually campaigning for it.

Same story in britain, but more keeping up appearances basically- to be a bit self-sarcastic in greece we don't lose time with such trivialities as appearances ~;) :laugh4:


Brexit will benefit the very rich who can move their capital overseas, like Rees Mogg. It will cost most of the rest of us.

Its like a giant betting table for them sadly, and people don't always see this..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Brexit is founded on hypocrisy and lies.

So is the EU - the supposed Guardian of Democracy that is fundamentally undemocratic; the harbinger of economic stability which has stagnated Southern Europe for a decade.

Hat the ERG et al., by all means, but see the other side for what it is, not what you would wish it to be.

[Pannonian]

The French, Spanish and Belgians have lost their patience with May, who has been constantly pushing the same thing over and over every few weeks. The EU are prepared for no deal Brexit, and that is what will happen unless May provides a good argument otherwise. The ERG have said that they won't be bound by anything May promises, so anything that isn't legally set will be overturned by the next PM. No deal is the end point for Brexit. Hope the Leavers will accept responsibility for this. We Remainers didn't want any of this.

[Goalum]

the supposed Guardian of Democracy that is fundamentally undemocratic;

In what way exactly? Undemocratic means that democracy as a state system for its member states is not supported by the eu institutions and guidelines, and absolutism, in some form is. Examples please?


the harbinger of economic stability which has stagnated Southern Europe for a decade.

Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy have been given huge cash injections from approximately 1980 onwards for decades, most of them went in the bottomless pit of corruption these countries have - and that eu law is against in every way.. in Greece - and this is only one example - farmers would plant trees to get eu subsidies and subsequently paying off forestry officers to maintain the status of the subsidy/loan and receiving all subsequent installments without actually doing any raising/maintaining of the trees at all..

The phenomena was so widespread that it was satirised regularly in films newspapers and every day talk since 1981 - being a farmer with eu subsidies in greece made you a dolce vita super star - russian escort girls, clubbing 24/7, the latest range rovers, villas in their estates.. in Italy, Spain and Portugal similar things happened..

Especially the last decade, that Greece, Ireland and Portugal flirted bankruptcy with Spain and Italy faring close behind, they were able to maintain their level of living by the huge eu loans they received by the "stagnating" eu, at record interest rates that their economies wouldn't have achieved by themselves even to the second coming.

Both countries, chose to leave the public sector untouched due to nepotism and widespread corruption, and taxed businesses instead, hence why Portugal was slow to exit their memorandum, and Greece actually hasn't succeeded yet - nothing to do with the eu


Very different story in Ireland where they lowered taxes for businesses and did cuts in the public sector during the loans period - their economy soon took off and after that they were able to give back the cuts to the public sector and even give raises..


but see the other side for what it is, not what you would wish it to be.

And so should you - are you actually seeing the eu for what it is?

[Furunculus]

Especially the last decade, that Greece, Ireland and Portugal flirted bankruptcy with Spain and Italy faring close behind, they were able to maintain their level of living by the huge eu loans they received by the "stagnating" eu, at record interest rates that their economies wouldn't have achieved by themselves even to the second coming.

80-90 percent of those 'huge' eu loans never touched the country, merely being recycled into the french and german banks that had dangerously over-leveraged themselves with tens of billions of euros in non-performing-loans.


Both countries, chose to leave the public sector untouched due to nepotism and widespread corruption, and taxed businesses instead, hence why Portugal was slow to exit their memorandum, and Greece actually hasn't succeeded yet - nothing to do with the eu
sure, but this doesn't present an argument that the eurozone is a good economic fit for their economy.

[Furunculus]

The campaign behind the brexit is mainly psychological in nature - on the level of the collective subconscious.

It expresses the need for things not to change, to remain familiar,
To the extent that there is truth in the above statement, you just described politics generally - and not anything of any particular distinction to brexit.

I think some would say that they are rather shocked and disappointed at the degree to which brexit will change things, reducing the familiar.

[rory_20_uk]

The French, Spanish and Belgians have lost their patience with May, who has been constantly pushing the same thing over and over every few weeks. The EU are prepared for no deal Brexit, and that is what will happen unless May provides a good argument otherwise. The ERG have said that they won't be bound by anything May promises, so anything that isn't legally set will be overturned by the next PM. No deal is the end point for Brexit. Hope the Leavers will accept responsibility for this. We Remainers didn't want any of this.

Those who voted to join over 30 years ago and those who had no new votes when the agreement changed are responsible.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Those who voted to join over 30 years ago and those who had no new votes when the agreement changed are responsible.

~:smoking:

Given a choice between no deal Brexit or Revoke, which would you choose?

[Kagemusha]

So is the EU - the supposed Guardian of Democracy that is fundamentally undemocratic

National armies in democracies are there to preserve democracy,still they are zero democratic organisations themselves. EU is similar.It is a tool, not some kind of independent entity, like most right wing populists try to claim.The minister council of the independent countries forming EU can pretty much override anything the democratically elected EU Parliament might want to achieve. If you want EU to become democratic, in that case you are pushing for an European federal state. Now that is an oxymoron if anything.

[Beskar]

If you want EU to become democratic, in that case you are pushing for an European federal state. Now that is an oxymoron if anything.

I said to this to Furunculus, way back when he used the whole demo and katos argument. Let's say this was a big No No and he would hate to see it actually become democratically accountable.

On the otherhand, I am all for the United Nations of Earth (/alternative names).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

National armies in democracies are there to preserve democracy,still they are zero democratic organisations themselves. EU is similar.It is a tool, not some kind of independent entity, like most right wing populists try to claim.The minister council of the independent countries forming EU can pretty much override anything the democratically elected EU Parliament might want to achieve. If you want EU to become democratic, in that case you are pushing for an European federal state. Now that is an oxymoron if anything.

Are you familiar with the original meaning of "Oligarchy" - rule by "the best".

The EU has advanced according to the design of an oligarchy, one backed by most national governments for most of the last 30 years, without any real decenters until Brexit.

The Treaty on European Union which created the current arrangement was subject to Referendums in only three countries, it was initially rejected in Denmark and passed in France by a narrower margin than the Brexit vote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty#Ratification

The EU Constitution was rejected by two countries before being reworked into the Lisbon Treaty, which was initially rejected by Ireland.

The claim that to democratise the EU we must accept the Federalisation of Europe is faulty logic - it assumes that the EU is a legitimate institution, and that this is the only option. In my view the EU is not legitimate and should be dismantled until it once again resembles the EEC. Once this is done the process of Federalisation should only be carried forward by unanimous plebiscites among the member-States.

In Democracies it is the duty of the elected politicians to exercise power, not to hand that power to another body without the consent of the electorate.

[Kagemusha]

Are you familiar with the original meaning of "Oligarchy" - rule by "the best".

The EU has advanced according to the design of an oligarchy, one backed by most national governments for most of the last 30 years, without any real decenters until Brexit.

How? EU is accountable to its member states in it´s current form. It is a platform for streamlining mutual policies in Europe by its member states and economical partners .It has no will of its own nor power to project such will.


The Treaty on European Union which created the current arrangement was subject to Referendums in only three countries, it was initially rejected in Denmark and passed in France by a narrower margin than the Brexit vote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty#Ratification

The EU Constitution was rejected by two countries before being reworked into the Lisbon Treaty, which was initially rejected by Ireland.

Here is the treaty of European Union:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012M%2FTXT

Have you ever read it? Do you know what it consist? One clear thing that is easy to pull out from it is article 5:

"1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.
3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.
4. Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality."

Is this above a constitution of a federal state or declaration of confederation of states which as entity can only act within the boundaries the member states allow it to perform?


The claim that to democratise the EU we must accept the Federalisation of Europe is faulty logic - it assumes that the EU is a legitimate institution, and that this is the only option. In my view the EU is not legitimate and should be dismantled until it once again resembles the EEC. Once this is done the process of Federalisation should only be carried forward by unanimous plebiscites among the member-States.

In Democracies it is the duty of the elected politicians to exercise power, not to hand that power to another body without the consent of the electorate.

The same problem applies above in your statement here as in direct democracy many times.Uninformed opinions taken as "truth". You think you are being Federalized by EU when you are not and giving EU democratic license via Parliament having power over the executive and member states would indeed create the very thing you fear most. The democracies in EU are the National governments, who use EU as their tool, the tool itself does not need to be a democracy.

See i am pro EU, but not Pro Federal state of EU, or federal state of Earth like Beskar said he is. I think both are beautiful visions, but at this time neither is plausible as there is no democratic support for either of them. For EU to become a Federal state, there needs to be an outside threat that only united EU can respond. There is no such thing currently, still EU has been a very good instrument for decades, creating stability and cooperation inside Europe and dismantling it would have only negative effects.

Similarly in my opinion Britain´s Brexit has only interruptive effect to both EU and Britain and neither will benefit from it. Both politically and economically.

[Pannonian]

I Want To Brexit - The Musical (https://www.facebook.com/MyLux.lu/videos/1522587414542010/)

Includes classics like "Should I go or should I go".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the

Conferral took place without referendums - that is the point. I do not consider that this was legitimate and therefore the legal authority of the EU is not legitimate, something which has caused many of the problems over the last two decades, especially since the financial crash. Certainly, the EU is a Federal State because it has "EU Citizens" and only a State can have citizens. This gift of Citizenship was imposed from above, without asking.

You might argue that countries like the United States were ultimately created in the same way - to which I would reply the United States was founded by men who believed in enslaving other human beings and its moral underpinnings are so weak that it has elected Donald Trump as President after decades of endemic corruption.

[Pannonian]

Conferral took place without referendums - that is the point. I do not consider that this was legitimate and therefore the legal authority of the EU is not legitimate, something which has caused many of the problems over the last two decades, especially since the financial crash. Certainly, the EU is a Federal State because it has "EU Citizens" and only a State can have citizens. This gift of Citizenship was imposed from above, without asking.

You might argue that countries like the United States were ultimately created in the same way - to which I would reply the United States was founded by men who believed in enslaving other human beings and its moral underpinnings are so weak that it has elected Donald Trump as President after decades of endemic corruption.

Was the NHS created on the basis of a referendum? Was Ireland given independence on the basis of a referendum? When Hong Kong was given away, was it on the basis of a referendum? When Britain handed over the mandate of Palestine, was it because of the result of a referendum? Do all government decisions lack democratic if not backed by a referendum? Does democratic authority overrule expert opinion? Should pi be set to 3.2, rather than its current value of the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter?

[Goalum]

80-90 percent of those 'huge' eu loans never touched the country, merely being recycled into the french and german banks that had dangerously over-leveraged themselves with tens of billions of euros in non-performing-loans.

The subsidies [giving money away - not loaning - for the purpose of developing the economy] southern europe received from 1980 and onawrds were in the trillions over the 80's and 90's - so if you want to take those quote marks off please.

Loans are a different story and they came into play after the creditcrunch [economic crisis of 2008] made their chronically dysfunctional economies to collapse - with the strain it added to them.

The loans southern european states received after the credit crunch, operated just like any normal loans would have for the countries they received them - whether they were eu money or were coming from the money-markets - nothing to do with the state of the french and german banks.


If you mean by "being recycled into the french and german banks" that they ended up in the french and german banks eventually because their [southern european states] economies are based in consumerism that is fuelled/aggressively_pursued/covered up by corruption in an over-inflated public sector [essentially a "turf" for the left and popular right, they control and run it this way] - then yes, [southern european countries buy northern_western european products/goods] - but whose fault is it?

The eu's or of those countries that keep that structure of their economy such so certain political affiliations/pals/factions within political parties can lord it over the rest of the populace through the power they exert with corrupt favors [in exchange for votes] in the public sector?

Just to give an idea to anyone reading of the levels of corruption we are talking about:

In Greece, we have 1,000,000 active public sector employees, and 3,000,000 retired public sector ex-employees. That means that out of a country of 10,000,000 people, 4 out of 10 are paid directly/are working for the public sector

All these people shouldn't be there - and this is what creates further problems for the economy - basically the costs for pensions are huge in the state budgetevery year, and the activity of the private sector very small in comparison by numbers [and further maimed by bureaucracy and slow_to_deliberate justice]

The left especially literally runs large parts of this huge, dysfuntional and corrupt machine, by many means - one of which is by making sure it holds the majority in the syndicalist managing boards of each sector within the public sector, as by greek law if the members of the board of a syndicate vote for a strike, then everyone is required to strike - it is illegal not to.

The "bad" eu, required this law changed [they proposed for the totality of the workers of a sector to vote for deciding a strike!] since 2009 that Greece got its first memorandum.. well guess what after 10 years of memorandums it is still unchanged - because, well - the left/popular_right will lose large parts of the public sector as its turf [and so a lot of political power with it - the ability to exchange favors for votes in the minds of the people~;)], the minute this law goes defunct.


sure, but this doesn't present an argument that the eurozone is a good economic fit for their economy.

Nothing is good for their economy as its structure stands because is chronically dysfunctional, as explained above - investors know this so they avoid these countries like the plague that makes the problem chronic and it consolidates the power of those parties that favor a corrupt overblown public sector be it of the left or the right.

[I]The left wants this as does the popular right - as it makes them ever powerful politically at the expense of strangling the economy [which in turn leaves the people at the mercy of political power as a means to make a living ad infinitum..], again, this situation is the abc of greek, italian, spanish and portuguese politics.

All these "economies" [quote marks refer to their pitiful present state] are champions in corruption indicators - champion them at this state is like championing corruption itself, which is typical of making everything state owned, which is typical of absolutist systems [be they right or left - absolutist power structures are surprisingly similar, hence the Nazis were "National Socialists"]

[Goalum]

To the extent that there is truth in the above statement, you just described politics generally - and not anything of any particular distinction to brexit.

The general and the specific are always linked in any phenomena - so nothing new in what you say.

You are probably saying it as to avert onlookers thinking that brexiteering logic is fuelled by subjective motives rather than objective reasoning - as that might not sit well on the eyes of anyone reading.


I think some would say that they are rather shocked and disappointed at the degree to which brexit will change things, reducing the familiar.

You are restating essentially, but if you must go ahead. Its an effort to ride the statement and create sympathy for brexiteer psychology.

Yes, indeed - people might get scared of new things - yet change is part of life, and [I]what does not change/adapt/improve is superseded

People who voted to leave with an expectation for a miracle - or as a protest for their own life troubles as it often happens, should know that it won't come by Britain - or any country for that matter - shrinking in itelf.

[Furunculus]

I said to this to Furunculus, way back when he used the whole demo and katos argument. Let's say this was a big No No and he would hate to see it actually become democratically accountable.

On the otherhand, I am all for the United Nations of Earth (/alternative names).

Democracy is more than just the opportunity to vote once every five years.
Democracy is also the understanding that [your] view will be represented in government, and that that gov't will be accountable to [your] will.

I could suggest making the UK the fifty-first state of the US, with all the sovereignty that american states have from federal encroachment.
Would you be happy with that?

I am a negative-liberty classical liberal, believing in:

The market economy rather than social democracy
Taxation to achieve public services rather redistribution
Regulation by demonstrable-harm rather than the precautionary-principle
An activist foreign policy rather than platitudes about soft-power
A majoritarian electoral system with adversarial politics rather than coalitions and consensus politics

EU membership might suit those who take the opposite view, but I see it as a ratchet that ceaslessly works to lever british society from the norms that are my preference.

[Goalum]

I am a negative-liberty classical liberal, believing in:

The market economy rather than social democracy
Taxation to achieve public services rather redistribution
Regulation by demonstrable-harm rather than the precautionary-principle
An activist foreign policy rather than platitudes about soft-power
A majoritarian electoral system with adversarial politics rather than coalitions and consensus politics


Interesting set of principles.

It seems as it may best be described [in its totallity, as a set] in its making trends and esssential driving principle as adopting a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values.~:)

[Husar]

The EU has advanced according to the design of an oligarchy

How do you arrive at that conclusion?
And how and why would getting closer with the US be any better for Britain in terms of oligarchic power?

[Pannonian]

How do you arrive at that conclusion?
And how and why would getting closer with the US be any better for Britain in terms of oligarchic power?

The EU is about the furthest from an oligarchy as there is of any significant country or bloc in the world. Power concentration is how the world works. The EU does less of it than anyone else. It's why the leaders of Brexit want Brexit; so that they can follow the US model of further concentrating power in the hands of those who already have it. Every argument from Leavers ignores this context - whatever they complain about the EU, they're driving us further along that road than the EU allows.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Was the NHS created on the basis of a referendum? Was Ireland given independence on the basis of a referendum? When Hong Kong was given away, was it on the basis of a referendum? When Britain handed over the mandate of Palestine, was it because of the result of a referendum? Do all government decisions lack democratic if not backed by a referendum? Does democratic authority overrule expert opinion? Should pi be set to 3.2, rather than its current value of the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter?

1. The NHS involved no external transfer of legislative power.

2. Yes, actually - although Home Rule was not

3. No, and I discussed this in the opening pages of this thread - that was a mistake which continues to haunt British political life.

4. Again, no, and again this was arguably a mistake because there has been intermittent war in the region ever since.

5. Governments are not usually elected on the basis that they will hand over their sovereign power, and they have never been elected on this basis in the UK.

6. Referendums overrule expert opinion - this is a key difference between oligarchy and democracy. The experts are oligarchs - which is not to say they are wrong.

7. For convenience Pie is usually only calculated to 3.214, except in the case of very precise engineering works.

I do hope that answers all your questions.

[Kagemusha]

Conferral took place without referendums - that is the point. I do not consider that this was legitimate and therefore the legal authority of the EU is not legitimate, something which has caused many of the problems over the last two decades, especially since the financial crash. Certainly, the EU is a Federal State because it has "EU Citizens" and only a State can have citizens. This gift of Citizenship was imposed from above, without asking.

You might argue that countries like the United States were ultimately created in the same way - to which I would reply the United States was founded by men who believed in enslaving other human beings and its moral underpinnings are so weak that it has elected Donald Trump as President after decades of endemic corruption.

You are confusing EU as country still yet again. EU is more like a gentlemen´s club of Nations, rather then country. Conferral took place because of the representative Governments of European Nations saw that fit.

I did not take you as anarchist.Government is legalized violence, full stop. You pay taxes or you suffer,you abide the law or you suffer, you go to war if ordered to do so, or you suffer. That is government. Again doesnt have anything to do with current EU.

[Husar]

For convenience Pie is usually only calculated to 3.214, except in the case of very precise engineering works.

Sorry to interrupt, but if you want to say that you know what you're talking about, it is weird that you write "Pi" wrong and also get the number itself wrong: https://www.google.com/search?q=pi
3.1415... rounds to 3.142, your 3.214 is all mixed up. :bow:

[Pannonian]

1. The NHS involved no external transfer of legislative power.

2. Yes, actually - although Home Rule was not

3. No, and I discussed this in the opening pages of this thread - that was a mistake which continues to haunt British political life.

4. Again, no, and again this was arguably a mistake because there has been intermittent war in the region ever since.

5. Governments are not usually elected on the basis that they will hand over their sovereign power, and they have never been elected on this basis in the UK.

6. Referendums overrule expert opinion - this is a key difference between oligarchy and democracy. The experts are oligarchs - which is not to say they are wrong.

7. For convenience Pie is usually only calculated to 3.214, except in the case of very precise engineering works.

I do hope that answers all your questions.

On pi: the Indiana Pi Bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill).

The Bill, passed by the Congress, was eventually overruled by the Senate on the grounds that it was effing stupid.


Sorry to interrupt, but if you want to say that you know what you're talking about, it is weird that you write "Pi" wrong and also get the number itself wrong: https://www.google.com/search?q=pi
3.1415... rounds to 3.142, your 3.214 is all mixed up. :bow:

3.141592654 was the figure on calculators. 22/7 was the approximation for measuring work.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry to interrupt, but if you want to say that you know what you're talking about, it is weird that you write "Pi" wrong and also get the number itself wrong: https://www.google.com/search?q=pi
3.1415... rounds to 3.142, your 3.214 is all mixed up. :bow:

Thank you for the correction, this is why I took the Humanities at University.

[Pannonian]

Thank you for the correction, this is why I took the Humanities at University.

Not everyone who studied Humanities at uni is innumerate.

I was a strong Brexiteer. Now we must swallow our pride and think again - Peter Oborne, former chief political writer at the Daily Telegraph (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-was-strong-brexiteer-now-we-must-swallow-our-pride-and-think-again/)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was the NHS created on the basis of a referendum? Was Ireland given independence on the basis of a referendum? When Hong Kong was given away, was it on the basis of a referendum? When Britain handed over the mandate of Palestine, was it because of the result of a referendum? Do all government decisions lack democratic if not backed by a referendum? Does democratic authority overrule expert opinion? Should pi be set to 3.2, rather than its current value of the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter?

I thought HK was simply the lease running out. Should have done a lease up with proper length like Arthur Guinness!

[Goalum]

On the otherhand, I am all for the United Nations of Earth (/alternative names).

Its a humanist dream, and interesting conception, there will be always attempts at it, but it won't happen.

We are wired to [on occasion, at times] compete and struggle with each other at all levels: as persons, organisations, classes, sexes, races, nations, localities, leagues of nations, cultures - its the only way to evolve and self-define [which is a big part of evolving too]

[Pannonian]

I thought HK was simply the lease running out. Should have done a lease up with proper length like Arthur Guinness!

The lease ran out on the mainland bit. The island itself was in perpetuity. Or until Thatcher signed it away. The Hong Kongers were not consulted, let alone asked in a referendum. Peter Oborne, a self-proclaimed Brexiteer himself, outlines how Brexit violates many of the principles of a functional democratic decision and even process, with the vast majority of the violations on the Brexit side. The Indiana Pi Bill was dropped because it was plainly idiotic, and the fact that it came that close to passing both Houses was held to be an embarrassment, even at the time, even after it had been passed by the state Congress. Democracy does not preclude idiocy when all evidence points to the latter.

[Pannonian]

Its a humanist dream, and interesting conception, there will be always attempts at it, but it won't happen.

We are wired to [on occasion, at times] compete and struggle with each other at all levels: as persons, organisations, classes, sexes, races, nations, localities, leagues of nations, cultures - its the only way to evolve and self-define [which is a big part of evolving too]

The EU is a compromise of different interests, which is why critics can always find something to criticise; nothing about the EU is fine tuned, as one interest is always balanced and checked against another. But, in the UK at least, the sceptics have but one common theme: everything European is bad. Their arguments have no common theme except this, they ignore the context of the rest of the world, and even in their pure form, their arguments are often mutually contradictory, eg. the common complaint that the EU is not democratic, and that the UK needs to regain sovereignty. Except, of course, the UK does directly elect representatives in the form of MEPs, and the much criticised undemocratic and over-powerful Commissioners are representatives of the member states directly appointed by their national governments. The blind hatred towards the EU from otherwise intelligent people is dumbfounding.

[Goalum]

The EU is a compromise of different interests, which is why critics can always find something to criticise; nothing about the EU is fine tuned, as one interest is always balanced and checked against another. But, in the UK at least, the sceptics have but one common theme: everything European is bad. Their arguments have no common theme except this, they ignore the context of the rest of the world, and even in their pure form, their arguments are often mutually contradictory, eg. the common complaint that the EU is not democratic, and that the UK needs to regain sovereignty. Except, of course, the UK does directly elect representatives in the form of MEPs, and the much criticised undemocratic and over-powerful Commissioners are representatives of the member states directly appointed by their national governments. The blind hatred towards the EU from otherwise intelligent people is dumbfounding.

The eu is comprised of nations that have very strong cultural, historical, geopolitical and economic ties.

Its the best idea in the world - although there is something to be said about maintaining national identities within it. I'm all for it, and i actually have received much of the benefits it has to offer personally.

I studied in the uk and, for the bachelor academic fees were covered up by the eu. I subsequently did a doctorate in the uk [on scholarship] and worked there too. It was fantastic and instructive in so many ways - real eye opener, not to mention the amazing people i've met.

England is obviously not my country, its the english people that decide their fate - yet as someone who has the place, its people and the language in his heart, all i can honestly say is: Its in England's very best interests from any perspective to be at the forefront of the eu - not outside of it

[a completely inoffensive name]

Democracy is more than just the opportunity to vote once every five years.
Democracy is also the understanding that [your] view will be represented in government, and that that gov't will be accountable to [your] will.

I think this understanding is incorrect. With any configuration of Democracy as we understand it (Democracy for the masses, with no arbitrary limitations on suffrage) you would have to be very confused to think that your individual view will in any way, shape or form be represented in your government among the millions of others contributing their individual voices. After all, there is always the radicals who by definition are political outliers and may never see their ideas ever implemented in government policy.
Democracy should be understood practically as a mechanism where when there is a general public will towards some goal or policy, it is represented by their government, by which the political elite follows said public will to various degrees (depending on how strong the will or mandate presents itself through voting) in order to maintain their relative status and power.

E.g. Brexit, yes, the general will was to leave in some shape or form from the EU. But the Leavers all had varying ideas on the degree of separation, we may see a no-deal crash out that only truly 'represented' the views of a small minority of UK citizens.
But I would still agree with you and the other leavers that this still is Democracy exercised properly since this is the policy direction that the public expressed a majority consent for. I am just taking issue with your formulation. You can't really believe that second statement in practice?

For the below, I want to pick your brain a little bit, taking each statement by itself.


I am a negative-liberty classical liberal, believing in:

The market economy rather than social democracy
Can you be more clear on what "social democracy" means in this context? I think leftists would tell you that social democracy is the market economy just with additional political programs attempting to backfill issues with unaddressed externalities.
I am not sure if you are making a statement in favor of laissez-faire style capitalism or if you were making a point against a socialist economic structure.



Taxation to achieve public services rather redistribution
Isn't all taxation, by definition, redistribution?



Regulation by demonstrable-harm rather than the precautionary-principle
I don't really have a stake on either side of this comparison. All I would note is that here in the US they say that every rule written by OSHA is written in blood...somehow conservatives still find OSHA regulations "too restrictive" on business.



A majoritarian electoral system with adversarial politics rather than coalitions and consensus politics
I think I understand the above once I read this. Unfortunately I can't think of a political system that somehow negates the tendency of humans to coalesce around like-minded people and form parties/coalitions.

[Furunculus]

I think this understanding is incorrect. With any configuration of Democracy as we understand it (Democracy for the masses, with no arbitrary limitations on suffrage) you would have to be very confused to think that your individual view will in any way, shape or form be represented in your government among the millions of others contributing their individual voices. After all, there is always the radicals who by definition are political outliers and may never see their ideas ever implemented in government policy.
Democracy should be understood practically as a mechanism where when there is a general public will towards some goal or policy, it is represented by their government, by which the political elite follows said public will to various degrees (depending on how strong the will or mandate presents itself through voting) in order to maintain their relative status and power.

E.g. Brexit, yes, the general will was to leave in some shape or form from the EU. But the Leavers all had varying ideas on the degree of separation, we may see a no-deal crash out that only truly 'represented' the views of a small minority of UK citizens.
But I would still agree with you and the other leavers that this still is Democracy exercised properly since this is the policy direction that the public expressed a majority consent for. I am just taking issue with your formulation. You can't really believe that second statement in practice?

For the below, I want to pick your brain a little bit, taking each statement by itself.

Can you be more clear on what "social democracy" means in this context? I think leftists would tell you that social democracy is the market economy just with additional political programs attempting to backfill issues with unaddressed externalities.
I am not sure if you are making a statement in favor of laissez-faire style capitalism or if you were making a point against a socialist economic structure.


Isn't all taxation, by definition, redistribution?


I don't really have a stake on either side of this comparison. All I would note is that here in the US they say that every rule written by OSHA is written in blood...somehow conservatives still find OSHA regulations "too restrictive" on business.


I think I understand the above once I read this. Unfortunately I can't think of a political system that somehow negates the tendency of humans to coalesce around like-minded people and form parties/coalitions.

Does it help if I point out that in demanding that government is representative and accountable to [your] interests that I am making a statement about the collective, and that this is the sine-quo-non of the legitimate state; in that it is able to demonstrate it is the the closest approximation of a collective will. That the EU is poorly placed to approximate a collective will, due to it sitting over numerous quite separate collectives, leaving it poorly placed to be representative of and accountable to any single 'us'.
So, yes I do believe that statement in practice, but not quite in the way you (reasonably) interpreted it based on my words.

Re: the apparently dichotomous points beneath - they are not really dichotomous

Of course I support social welfare, but the guiding principle of the state is to enable a free market not a social democracy

Yes, all taxation is redistribution, and i'm happy that income tax is progressive, but the guiding principle of the taxation system is to fund public services not to achieve redistribution of wealth.

Absolutely, there is a purpose for the precautionary-principle in regulating activity in the state, but I would limit it to catastrophic problems that work beyond the normal political horizon of two or three administrations. i.e. climate change, not fracking.

It is beyond dispute that civilization would not exist if we did not have any capacity or desire to cooperate and collaborate in pursuit of shared aims. That doesn't mean that I must disbelieve that adversarial politics can be more responsive to change, and more thoroughly challenge poor policy.

[Pannonian]

Brexiteer Tory MP demands second vote of confidence in May, four months after the last one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzvJ7NrPcKU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzvJ7NrPcKU)

[Furunculus]

https://order-order.com/2019/04/08/leave-eu-fines-reduced-appeal/#disqus_thread

“What started out as a witch-hunt by the political establishment in what they thought was the largest political scandal investigating Cambridge Analytica and Goddard Gunster’s alleged involvement in the Leave.EU referendum campaign, has today been proven to be false. Instead, the Electoral Commission fined us on technicalities and an overspend of £50,000, not the £70,000 originally presented by them on £7 million overall spend. The fines were reduced and the Judge accepted the technical breaches were ‘mistakes’ rather than calculated wrong-doings and crucially held there were ‘no findings that Leave.EU had been dishonest.'”

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47874367

So the latest news is that the EU is willing to offer up to a year's extension, on the condition the withdrawal agreement is not re-opened.

Barnier has said the UK should agree to enter into a Customs Union with the EU, and that the EU will not move its negotiating position even if the UK does.

Donald Tusk has said "neither side should feel humiliated but we're very obviously into the humiliation phase of these negotiations.

[Pannonian]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47874367

So the latest news is that the EU is willing to offer up to a year's extension, on the condition the withdrawal agreement is not re-opened.

Barnier has said the UK should agree to enter into a Customs Union with the EU, and that the EU will not move its negotiating position even if the UK does.

Donald Tusk has said "neither side should feel humiliated but we're very obviously into the humiliation phase of these negotiations.

Have you heard what the ERG have been saying? Nothing the EU 27 have said is in the league of those idiots in terms of aggression and arrogance. And when May goes, the next PM will be one of them. It is already their stated position that the UK will seek to be as much of a pain as possible to punish the EU for daring to offer the UK an extension rather than kicking us out right now, and that the next PM will repudiate all agreements made by this one. In comparison, the EU 27 have been exemplars of conciliation.

In related news, a couple of UKIP councillors/candidates have called for the death of Remain politicians and voters. And Brexiteers have accused HM of treason for signing off on the Boles/Cooper motion. Is this the taking back control you wanted?

[rory_20_uk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47874367

So the latest news is that the EU is willing to offer up to a year's extension, on the condition the withdrawal agreement is not re-opened.

Barnier has said the UK should agree to enter into a Customs Union with the EU, and that the EU will not move its negotiating position even if the UK does.

Donald Tusk has said "neither side should feel humiliated but we're very obviously into the humiliation phase of these negotiations.

So the options are remain, or leave. The same two that were at the start. A few non-options added to the mix. These were always the options. They were always going to be the options. Why would the EU allow people to leave the Cartel and do well - just have common standards where sensible and without the overheads. How would that pay all the Final Salaries?

There are a couple of things that continue to be options: we are allowed to unilaterally withdraw Article 50 and we are equally allowed to start again the day afterwards. And perhaps this time use the two year period to prepare for an exit rather than hope for the EU to go against their interests.

Or this disaster could be the majority in the Civil Service and the Commons ensuring that eventually we remain. I don't know what is worse - that they engineered this situation or that they didn't.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

So the options are remain, or leave. The same two that were at the start. A few non-options added to the mix. These were always the options. They were always going to be the options. Why would the EU allow people to leave the Cartel and do well - just have common standards where sensible and without the overheads. How would that pay all the Final Salaries?

There are a couple of things that continue to be options: we are allowed to unilaterally withdraw Article 50 and we are equally allowed to start again the day afterwards. And perhaps this time use the two year period to prepare for an exit rather than hope for the EU to go against their interests.

Or this disaster could be the majority in the Civil Service and the Commons ensuring that eventually we remain. I don't know what is worse - that they engineered this situation or that they didn't.

~:smoking:

It's been made clear that this would be deemed not in good faith, and that if you withdraw article 50 and restart the 2 year process again immediately afterwards, it will resume at this current point, with the 2 year process having already completed, and with the current withdrawal agreement.

If you really are resentful at having ended up where we are, this is the result of your decision to Leave, which you haven't changed. You and all the other Leavers are responsible for bringing us to this point. We Remainers wanted none of this. There was a clear manifesto that we voted for, which was EU membership as at the point of the referendum. Other than May's agreement, which does not have Parliamentary authority (unless you're suggesting the executive does not need Parliamentary authority), or no deal, I haven't seen any manifesto from Leave. Other than promises like 350m/wk for the NHS, which they've disowned. Unless of course you, like Boris Johnson, still want to claim this as a valid argument for Leave.

[rory_20_uk]

It's been made clear that this would be deemed not in good faith, and that if you withdraw article 50 and restart the 2 year process again immediately afterwards, it will resume at this current point, with the 2 year process having already completed, and with the current withdrawal agreement.

If you really are resentful at having ended up where we are, this is the result of your decision to Leave, which you haven't changed. You and all the other Leavers are responsible for bringing us to this point. We Remainers wanted none of this. There was a clear manifesto that we voted for, which was EU membership as at the point of the referendum. Other than May's agreement, which does not have Parliamentary authority (unless you're suggesting the executive does not need Parliamentary authority), or no deal, I haven't seen any manifesto from Leave. Other than promises like 350m/wk for the NHS, which they've disowned. Unless of course you, like Boris Johnson, still want to claim this as a valid argument for Leave.

When people start using terms "good faith" you know they've got no legal argument.

So the process can be ended. Another one can begin. Nothing in the law states that this can not be done.

As I have said before, those who since the 1970's have allowed the EEC to become the current EU without any of the People's votes that are now not being followed are responsible for the situation. Own the mess that has been created over 30 years. No, rectifying 30 years of mission creep with no mandate will not be quick or easy to rectify.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

When people start using terms "good faith" you know they've got no legal argument.

So the process can be ended. Another one can begin. Nothing in the law states that this can not be done.

As I have said before, those who since the 1970's have allowed the EEC to become the current EU without any of the People's votes that are now not being followed are responsible for the situation. Own the mess that has been created over 30 years. No, rectifying 30 years of mission creep with no mandate will not be quick or easy to rectify.

~:smoking:

I do own that mess. Except I don't call it a mess. I call it a working entity. Some bits not working as well as others. But overall, I was happy with the whole thing, and I'd have the whole thing again, as at the point of the referendum. Now that I own responsibility for our EU membership as was, will you own responsibility for the results of Leave, as you voted for?

BTW, so does this mean you support revoke? Right now, legally, the default is no deal, as article 50 sets us a leave date but we haven't modified the conditions on which we leave. If we want an extension, the EU 27 have to all agree. Any single disagreement, and it's back to no deal as the default. That I didn't vote for. That you voted for.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do own that mess. Except I don't call it a mess. I call it a working entity. Some bits not working as well as others. But overall, I was happy with the whole thing, and I'd have the whole thing again, as at the point of the referendum. Now that I own responsibility for our EU membership as was, will you own responsibility for the results of Leave, as you voted for?

BTW, so does this mean you support revoke? Right now, legally, the default is no deal, as article 50 sets us a leave date but we haven't modified the conditions on which we leave. If we want an extension, the EU 27 have to all agree. Any single disagreement, and it's back to no deal as the default. That I didn't vote for. That you voted for.

A "Working Entity"?

The Greeks might not agree.

[Husar]

A "Working Entity"?

The Greeks might not agree.

The Greeks are in trouble because they have no working entities themselves and their working entities were allowed to retire too soon, etc.

[Beskar]

A "Working Entity"?

The Greeks might not agree.

The Russians might agree.

Did spend a pretty penny to throw spanners in the works at every opportunity, including Brexit.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Putin's government is free to do as it wishes on most such issues. Putin plays the international politics game with old school rules.

[Pannonian]

Putin's government is free to do as it wishes on most such issues. Putin plays the international politics game with old school rules.

In the past, it was only the far left who did the bidding of Russia. Nowadays, it's the Eurosceptics, encompassing the far left and much of the right. To Eurosceptics, everything European is bad, and everything anti-European is good. Hence much of the argument from Brexiteers is how much harm they can do to the EU, and anyone, even Russia and China, who is anti-European, is deemed a friend. Rees Mogg, the head of the anti-European group, has promised to make the EU regret not kicking out the UK, by using all the UK's powers within the EU to be as much of a pain in the butt as possible. Remember the complaints from Brexiteers that they wanted out of the EU because they had no say.

And among the lower ranking Brexiteers, the voters rather than the politicians, they still blame, not the Brexiteer politicians who made them promises with no thought of keeping them, but those who are trying to make things work. Even when both groups are voting against May, it's the Remainers whom they blame, not the hardcore Brexiteers who are voting the same way. And as you can see, while I and other Remainers are happy to take responsibility for the EU being as imperfect as it is and still voting for it, Brexiteers still claim that the post-victory situation is none of their responsibility. They didn't vote for this, they say.

[rory_20_uk]

In the past, it was only the far left who did the bidding of Russia. Nowadays, it's the Eurosceptics, encompassing the far left and much of the right. To Eurosceptics, everything European is bad, and everything anti-European is good. Hence much of the argument from Brexiteers is how much harm they can do to the EU, and anyone, even Russia and China, who is anti-European, is deemed a friend. Rees Mogg, the head of the anti-European group, has promised to make the EU regret not kicking out the UK, by using all the UK's powers within the EU to be as much of a pain in the butt as possible. Remember the complaints from Brexiteers that they wanted out of the EU because they had no say.

And among the lower ranking Brexiteers, the voters rather than the politicians, they still blame, not the Brexiteer politicians who made them promises with no thought of keeping them, but those who are trying to make things work. Even when both groups are voting against May, it's the Remainers whom they blame, not the hardcore Brexiteers who are voting the same way. And as you can see, while I and other Remainers are happy to take responsibility for the EU being as imperfect as it is and still voting for it, Brexiteers still claim that the post-victory situation is none of their responsibility. They didn't vote for this, they say.

You really are rather amusing - with your certainty of what other people think.

Perhaps you could say to some Euroskeptics rather than pretend that every single one is the same.

Oh, and lest we forget, Italy is signing up to the Chinese trade initiative and the Chinese have already heavily invested in Greece (which might be why Greece is so friendly to China). See? I can cope with a reality that all countries in the EU are different.

It isn't supposed to be "victory" or "defeat". It was supposed to be leaving the EU. We did not win, and they have not lost. I would hope that we can work with the EU in the future. They should be our close friends - just like the USA is a close friend (and I really can't be bothered to list all the other close friends the UK has which have nothing to do with the EU) - without having their laws imposed. Leaving would be... imperfect but I am happy to deal with that.

Hopefully the pitiful histrionics and posturing will cease soon on all sides. I never have linked Remainers with Nazis and I hope that those senior officials in the EU might grow up and stating that those who wished to leave will go to hell.

Given the time that has been wasted (and there was nothing on the vote that stated "and the Government hereby will pretend to negotiate for two years and get nowhere) best to legally withdraw Article 50, and then legally restart and then use the next two years to prepare for the no-deal leave the EU always promised and build from there.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=55&v=edGFTEbZCHQ

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I heard a report on NPR today suggesting that support for the EU among EU member-states has increased during this Brexit process. Watching the UK twist in the breeze seems to be having a cautionary effect on the electorates of the other member states. I suspect that support to emulate the UK in its effort to leave is waning.

So maybe the EU leadership is getting what it needs most, whether or not that is the stated views of EU leadership?

After this example, who would want to follow along? And, if the leave effort now fails and the UK returns (likely after the next EU elections during this latest "extension"), then the EU is more or less solidified as the dominant player in European politics -- not the sole voice of Europe by any means, but the first voice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I heard a report on NPR today suggesting that support for the EU among EU member-states has increased during this Brexit process. Watching the UK twist in the breeze seems to be having a cautionary effect on the electorates of the other member states. I suspect that support to emulate the UK in its effort to leave is waning.

So maybe the EU leadership is getting what it needs most, whether or not that is the stated views of EU leadership?

After this example, who would want to follow along? And, if the leave effort now fails and the UK returns (likely after the next EU elections during this latest "extension"), then the EU is more or less solidified as the dominant player in European politics -- not the sole voice of Europe by any means, but the first voice.

In the short term you may be correct.

However, what will this do to Europe in the long term?

If Brexit fails the UK will experience a power "Downgrade" similar to the one after Suez that was inflicted by the US - the UK went from World Super Power to Great Power. If Brexit "fails" and Article 50 is revoked then the UK will be reduced to Regional Power behind France and Germany. Such a fate may well dissuade others from following the example of the UK's electorate, but this will not actually reduce resentment at the practices and corruption of the EU.

If the EU humiliates the UK and forces us to remain part of the EU - as looks likely - then the people of the UK will remain resentful for the foreseeable future. Support for "Remain" comes from a fear that leaving will cause political and economic collapse, not a swing in favour of the EU's political settlement.

The EU has made it clear it won't renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement which means the only purpose of an extension is to give the UK's Parliament more time to change its mind, despite the fact that the UK Parliament cannot vote again on the agreement unless Parliament is prorogued. If May tries to prorogue Parliament merely to pass the agreement there will probably be a General Election. If the EU gives the UK an extension until December that will allow another vote of No Confidence in her

All of this assumes the UK's Parliament will accept the EU's conditions. If it does not the EU will either have to accept actual renegotiation or allow No Deal and the dreaded Hard Border.

[Kagemusha]

If Brexit fails the UK will experience a power "Downgrade" similar to the one after Suez that was inflicted by the US - the UK went from World Super Power to Great Power. If Brexit "fails" and Article 50 is revoked then the UK will be reduced to Regional Power behind France and Germany.

Might this be the very essence where your brexit support stems from? Sounds bit like The Ghost dancing Lakota at Wounded Knee. "If we dance hard enough everything turn back like it was before." We all know how well that turned out. Now by trashing your own economy with Brexit, you are yourselves creating this drop of influence.


Such a fate may well dissuade others from following the example of the UK's electorate, but this will not actually reduce resentment at the practices and corruption of the EU.

Care to elaborate concerning the EU corruption?


If the EU humiliates the UK and forces us to remain part of the EU - as looks likely - then the people of the UK will remain resentful for the foreseeable future. Support for "Remain" comes from a fear that leaving will cause political and economic collapse, not a swing in favour of the EU's political settlement.

The EU has made it clear it won't renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement which means the only purpose of an extension is to give the UK's Parliament more time to change its mind, despite the fact that the UK Parliament cannot vote again on the agreement unless Parliament is prorogued. If May tries to prorogue Parliament merely to pass the agreement there will probably be a General Election. If the EU gives the UK an extension until December that will allow another vote of No Confidence in her

All of this assumes the UK's Parliament will accept the EU's conditions. If it does not the EU will either have to accept actual renegotiation or allow No Deal and the dreaded Hard Border.

How is EU is forcing you to stay?It is your own parliament that is not accepting any of the choices brought to it by your own Government.

[Pannonian]

Might this be the very essence where your brexit support stems from? Sounds bit like The Ghost dancing Lakota at Wounded Knee. "If we dance hard enough everything turn back like it was before." We all know how well that turned out. Now by trashing your own economy with Brexit, you are yourselves creating this drop of influence.

Care to elaborate concerning the EU corruption?

How is EU is forcing you to stay?It is your own parliament that is not accepting any of the choices brought to it by your own Government.

EU politicians who have voted against May's deal.



UK politicians who have voted against May's deal.

Steve Baker
Bill Cash
Christopher Chope
David Davis
Iain Duncan Smith
Mark Francois
Boris Johnson
Daniel Kawczynski
Esther McVey
Dominic Raab
John Redwood
Jacob Rees Mogg

[Pannonian]

You really are rather amusing - with your certainty of what other people think.

Perhaps you could say to some Euroskeptics rather than pretend that every single one is the same.

Oh, and lest we forget, Italy is signing up to the Chinese trade initiative and the Chinese have already heavily invested in Greece (which might be why Greece is so friendly to China). See? I can cope with a reality that all countries in the EU are different.

It isn't supposed to be "victory" or "defeat". It was supposed to be leaving the EU. We did not win, and they have not lost. I would hope that we can work with the EU in the future. They should be our close friends - just like the USA is a close friend (and I really can't be bothered to list all the other close friends the UK has which have nothing to do with the EU) - without having their laws imposed. Leaving would be... imperfect but I am happy to deal with that.

Hopefully the pitiful histrionics and posturing will cease soon on all sides. I never have linked Remainers with Nazis and I hope that those senior officials in the EU might grow up and stating that those who wished to leave will go to hell.

Given the time that has been wasted (and there was nothing on the vote that stated "and the Government hereby will pretend to negotiate for two years and get nowhere) best to legally withdraw Article 50, and then legally restart and then use the next two years to prepare for the no-deal leave the EU always promised and build from there.

~:smoking:

When did the EU promise this?

[InsaneApache]

It has nothing to do with economics it is and always was about who governs the UK.


Care to elaborate concerning the EU corruption?

Christ on a bike where to begin!

[Pannonian]

It has nothing to do with economics it is and always was about who governs the UK.

Christ on a bike where to begin!

So who does govern the UK? You've already criticised Parliament for betraying the British people because they refused to pass May's deal to facilitate her Brexit. Should they have passed it, in your view? Don't dance around it with memes. Give your honest opinion on whether or not Parliament should have passed it. Or even whether or not it needed Parliament to vote on it.

[Kagemusha]

Christ on a bike where to begin!

Start with anything.Give us an example? Not what you phantom, but any corruption misconduct revealed within EU.

[Pannonian]

Start with anything.Give us an example? Not what you phantom, but any corruption misconduct revealed within EU.

There's an MEP called Nigel Farage who's been claiming goodness knows how much money whilst not turning up for work. Does that count?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Start with anything.Give us an example? Not what you phantom, but any corruption misconduct revealed within EU.

The EU Accounts -

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

Prior to 2007 The EU’s Court of Auditors described the EU's budget as "not entirely" fair and accurate. Between 1994 and 2015 the Court described the payments as not being "free from material error" which is to say there were significant accounting errors.

I.e. money was being paid for things that didn't exist and the process itself was being managed in an unfair (corrupt) way.

Since 2007 the Court has described the accounts as fair and accurate but prior to 2016 (the year the UK voted to leave) there remained significant material inaccuracies.

The Accounts didn't get a clean bill of health in 2016, either, they were just "mostly" accurate.

https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/annualreports-2017/annualreports-2017-en.pdf

The most recent report, for 2017, indicates that there continue to be material "errors" in reimbursement-based payments, though this was less than in 2016.

In essence - the EU pays for things people claim they are entitled to be reimbursed on without the attending paperwork.

This is, fundamentally, corruption.

[Pannonian]

The EU Accounts -

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

Prior to 2007 The EU’s Court of Auditors described the EU's budget as "not entirely" fair and accurate. Between 1994 and 2015 the Court described the payments as not being "free from material error" which is to say there were significant accounting errors.

I.e. money was being paid for things that didn't exist and the process itself was being managed in an unfair (corrupt) way.

Since 2007 the Court has described the accounts as fair and accurate but prior to 2016 (the year the UK voted to leave) there remained significant material inaccuracies.

The Accounts didn't get a clean bill of health in 2016, either, they were just "mostly" accurate.

https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/annualreports-2017/annualreports-2017-en.pdf

The most recent report, for 2017, indicates that there continue to be material "errors" in reimbursement-based payments, though this was less than in 2016.

In essence - the EU pays for things people claim they are entitled to be reimbursed on without the attending paperwork.

This is, fundamentally, corruption.

And now that we are out of the EU, we can be ruled by the incorruptible Westminster. Have you seen some of the sidelines our MPs get up to? Eg. John Redwood giving financial advice to his clients not to invest in the UK because the UK economy post-Brexit is likely to be dodgy. And then pushing for no deal. Or Rees Mogg expanding investments inside the EU because there is likely to be greater stability within the EU than in the UK post-Brexit. Why are European politicians doing dodgy stuff to their money such an important issue with you, but UK politicians screwing the UK over such a non-issue?

[Furunculus]

Give your honest opinion on.... whether or not it needed Parliament to vote on it.

we exist in this parliamentary knot in large part because parliament has inserted itself into a gov't task; negotiating treaties with foreign powers.
and negotiation by committee is universally understood to be a poor idea.

yes, we can make the argument that the eu is so deeply entwined around our domestic governance that it is no longer a foreign policy issue...
... but this is precisely my objection to ever closer union.

yes, parliament should have passed May's deal, but i wish it didn't have too.
of course, if didn't feel it needed to have a say then we may not have felt it necessary to leave. see the conundrum?

[Pannonian]

we exist in this parliamentary knot in large part because parliament has inserted itself into a gov't task; negotiating treaties with foreign powers.
and negotiation by committee is universally understood to be a poor idea.

yes, we can make the argument that the eu is so deeply entwined around our domestic governance that it is no longer a foreign policy issue...
... but this is precisely my objection to ever closer union.

yes, parliament should have passed May's deal, but i wish it didn't have too.
of course, if didn't feel it needed to have a say then we may not have felt it necessary to leave. see the conundrum?

What authority does this government have? Please explain on what authority the government would be doing the above that you suggest they do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

we exist in this parliamentary knot in large part because parliament has inserted itself into a gov't task; negotiating treaties with foreign powers.
and negotiation by committee is universally understood to be a poor idea.

yes, we can make the argument that the eu is so deeply entwined around our domestic governance that it is no longer a foreign policy issue...
... but this is precisely my objection to ever closer union.

yes, parliament should have passed May's deal, but i wish it didn't have too.
of course, if didn't feel it needed to have a say then we may not have felt it necessary to leave. see the conundrum?

Excuse me, but the Government negotiates treaties on behalf of Parliament, which I remind you is constituted of Both Houses and the Sovereign.

The Government led by Theresa May has never acted on behalf of Parliament, that is why we are in this mess. Parliament cannot reasonably be expected to pass the Withdrawal Agreement in its current form and the EU's insistence that it should borders on being deliberately pernicious.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Extension until 31/10/2019.

[edyzmedieval]

At this rate, with the extension until October, I fully expect it to be delayed AGAIN.

[Husar]

the UK will be reduced to Regional Power behind France and Germany.

It's funny how you mention the status quo as a potential future option. :clown:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's funny how you mention the status quo as a potential future option. :clown:

Zing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Furunculus]

What authority does this government have? Please explain on what authority the government would be doing the above that you suggest they do.


Excuse me, but the Government negotiates treaties on behalf of Parliament, which I remind you is constituted of Both Houses and the Sovereign.

The Government led by Theresa May has never acted on behalf of Parliament, that is why we are in this mess.



As PFH has said, the Government negotiates treaties on behalf of Parliament. That it has not, because it buckled on the question of meaningful votes is in good measure why we are in this knot.

We saw exactly this point with the outrage over the initial extension, where the leave date became the 12th of april regardless of the fact that parliament had put "31st of March" into law.


Parliament cannot reasonably be expected to pass the Withdrawal Agreement in its current form and the EU's insistence that it should borders on being deliberately pernicious.

Why not? It isn't ideal, but it is perfectly workable.
If we didn't like the sequencing of WA > FTA + the maximalist interpretation of "no hard border", then we should have left without a deal.
But this is still perfectly workable.

[Pannonian]

As PFH has said, the Government negotiates treaties on behalf of Parliament. That it has not, because it buckled on the question of meaningful votes is in good measure why we are in this knot.

We saw exactly this point with the outrage over the initial extension, where the leave date became the 12th of april regardless of the fact that parliament had put "31st of March" into law.

Why not? It isn't ideal, but it is perfectly workable.
If we didn't like the sequencing of WA > FTA + the maximalist interpretation of "no hard border", then we should have left without a deal.
But this is still perfectly workable.

British governments take office based on their majority in the Commons. Where is this majority?

[Beskar]

There's an MEP called Nigel Farage who's been claiming goodness knows how much money whilst not turning up for work. Does that count?

Was that the guy who used EU funds to pay for his parties campaigning in a national election on the platform against the EU?

Then there was that guy who charged parliament to build a house for his duck.. oh wait, that was UK corruption.

[Greyblades]

Why not? It isn't ideal, but it is perfectly workable.
If we didn't like the sequencing of WA > FTA + the maximalist interpretation of "no hard border", then we should have left without a deal.
But this is still perfectly workable.

I dont see how, even when May managed to shift the faux brexiteers she was still short of a majority. As it is she has run out of viable turncoats on her side and is looking for support from across the isle; that isnt going to come without likely dire concessions. The deal in its current form just isnt going to pass parliament and its going to be a hell of a challenge to rework the deal to enough of the opposition's liking, while also getting EU approval for the changes, without haemoragging support tory-side.

[Goalum]

Was that the guy who used EU funds to pay for his parties campaigning in a national election on the platform against the EU?


You mean Alexis Tsipras?

[Beskar]

You mean Alexis Tsipras?

He might have too. Le Penn did similar in France. Popular trope.

[Goalum]

He might have too. Le Penn did similar in France. Popular trope.

same lies, same power mongers..its all the eu's fault though~;)

[rory_20_uk]

There's an MEP called Nigel Farage who's been claiming goodness knows how much money whilst not turning up for work. Does that count?

It certainly does. And what has the EU done about it? They should have penalised the corrupt little leech years ago.


And now that we are out of the EU, we can be ruled by the incorruptible Westminster. Have you seen some of the sidelines our MPs get up to? Eg. John Redwood giving financial advice to his clients not to invest in the UK because the UK economy post-Brexit is likely to be dodgy. And then pushing for no deal. Or Rees Mogg expanding investments inside the EU because there is likely to be greater stability within the EU than in the UK post-Brexit. Why are European politicians doing dodgy stuff to their money such an important issue with you, but UK politicians screwing the UK over such a non-issue?

So... since we have problems with corruption at the UK level, we might as well have an extra level of corruption. Is that the extent of the argument?


When did the EU promise this?

The EU have their 4 pillars. The UK had their red lines. Given they were not remotely close and both sides prior to the start said they'd not budge there was never going to be an agreement.

Negotiation was basically to what extent the UK was prepared to do what the EU wanted. And, sure, they are the EU rules - why should they break their own rules? Except for auditing accounts, country expenditure deficits, financial tricks to enter the EU in the first place, exceptions for overseas territories. But apart from all the examples where they have done, when has the EU ever changed its mind? And of course the massive difference is the previous examples the EU bent because it was politically desired to do so. There is and never will be any political desire to bend for what the UK wants.

Others have mentioned the UK loosing "power" on the world stage. Personally I would have thought that Suez would have been a wake up call, but no we are still pretending that we matter and if we just accept that we have a role with soft power things would be much easier - perhaps it would be more effective if people stopped hating us for intervening in situations where we have frankly no place.

If this loss of power means that every time some country implodes the UK doesn't need to send its overstretched armed forces and shower resources on some new disaster that'd be fantastic! France and Germany can enjoy the prestige of getting shot at by all sorts of "lovely" cultures. Perhaps people in our own "communities" will side with terrorists less often.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

It certainly does. And what has the EU done about it? They should have penalised the corrupt little leech years ago.



So... since we have problems with corruption at the UK level, we might as well have an extra level of corruption. Is that the extent of the argument?

The EU have their 4 pillars. The UK had their red lines. Given they were not remotely close and both sides prior to the start said they'd not budge there was never going to be an agreement.

Negotiation was basically to what extent the UK was prepared to do what the EU wanted. And, sure, they are the EU rules - why should they break their own rules? Except for auditing accounts, country expenditure deficits, financial tricks to enter the EU in the first place, exceptions for overseas territories. But apart from all the examples where they have done, when has the EU ever changed its mind? And of course the massive difference is the previous examples the EU bent because it was politically desired to do so. There is and never will be any political desire to bend for what the UK wants.

Others have mentioned the UK loosing "power" on the world stage. Personally I would have thought that Suez would have been a wake up call, but no we are still pretending that we matter and if we just accept that we have a role with soft power things would be much easier - perhaps it would be more effective if people stopped hating us for intervening in situations where we have frankly no place.

If this loss of power means that every time some country implodes the UK doesn't need to send its overstretched armed forces and shower resources on some new disaster that'd be fantastic! France and Germany can enjoy the prestige of getting shot at by all sorts of "lovely" cultures. Perhaps people in our own "communities" will side with terrorists less often.

~:smoking:

How many conflicts has the EU embroiled the UK in during our membership? Here are the last few that I remember.

Syria, sort of: Did we really get involved?
Libya: Was this an EU-driven involvement?
Iraq: Most of the EU states were against. We joined to pay the blood price of being in partnership with the US.
Afghanistan: A NATO response.
Sierra Leone: A purely UK affair. A British officer and the UK foreign minister (Robin Cook) both said the UK would not wait for wider approval before intervention.
Kosovo: A UK-driven affair, bringing a reluctant US into it.

Have I missed anything? How would leaving the EU free us from the above? The most controversial on the list, Iraq 2003, was driven by our perceived need to keep our partnership with the US. Once we leave the EU, we will be more dependent than before on the US-UK relationship. You argue that our EU membership leads us to being shot at because of EU-embroiled conflicts, which hasn't happened. But your action leads us to being more heavily dependent on a relationship which does result in us being shot at because of US-embroiled conflicts, and that has happened. You argue a theoretical case that isn't backed by evidence, but your chosen action is seen to have resulted in what you argue against in the past.

[InsaneApache]

So who does govern the UK? You've already criticised Parliament for betraying the British people because they refused to pass May's deal to facilitate her Brexit. Should they have passed it, in your view? Don't dance around it with memes. Give your honest opinion on whether or not Parliament should have passed it. Or even whether or not it needed Parliament to vote on it.

We should have left on the 29th as promised. No ifs no buts. The people didn't vote for a deal, they voted out.


Start with anything.Give us an example? Not what you phantom, but any corruption misconduct revealed within EU.

..and when presented with the facts there proceeded to be a sudden rush of whataboutery and cries of 'look over there'.....

[rory_20_uk]

How many conflicts has the EU embroiled the UK in during our membership? Here are the last few that I remember.

Syria, sort of: Did we really get involved?
Libya: Was this an EU-driven involvement?
Iraq: Most of the EU states were against. We joined to pay the blood price of being in partnership with the US.
Afghanistan: A NATO response.
Sierra Leone: A purely UK affair. A British officer and the UK foreign minister (Robin Cook) both said the UK would not wait for wider approval before intervention.
Kosovo: A UK-driven affair, bringing a reluctant US into it.

Have I missed anything? How would leaving the EU free us from the above? The most controversial on the list, Iraq 2003, was driven by our perceived need to keep our partnership with the US. Once we leave the EU, we will be more dependent than before on the US-UK relationship. You argue that our EU membership leads us to being shot at because of EU-embroiled conflicts, which hasn't happened. But your action leads us to being more heavily dependent on a relationship which does result in us being shot at because of US-embroiled conflicts, and that has happened. You argue a theoretical case that isn't backed by evidence, but your chosen action is seen to have resulted in what you argue against in the past.

Did I say leaving the EU would? Oh that's right - you've assumed what I meant, not bothered to check and just run with it.

I guess that was better than having to accept the rest of the post.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

‘It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave: your decision – nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you: you the British people will decide.
‘At that moment you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and second referendum in which Britain could stay, I say: Think again. The renegotiation is happening right now and the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice: an In or Out referendum.
‘When the British people speak, their voice will be respected, not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave.’

:creep:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

British governments take office based on their majority in the Commons. Where is this majority?

It's a majority of members, not numbers in a specific party.

Our FPTP system isn't a "Party" system, as much as some like to pretend it is.

[Pannonian]

It's a majority of members, not numbers in a specific party.

Our FPTP system isn't a "Party" system, as much as some like to pretend it is.

It's a majority of votes in a Commons Bill. Parties help to get these common majorities together. But in this case, the government has had 3 goes at passing the Bill, and failed on each occasion. The Tories were only asked to form a government because they and the DUP combined to form a majority of the MPs in the Commons. But the DUP has voted against the Bill on each occasion, and has said that it will continue to vote against it. Thus meaning the government has no majority on this issue, as demonstrated on 3 occasions. Furunculus said that the government should have had executive power on this, and that Parliament should not have presumed to poke their nose in. But government authority is based on a demonstrable majority, which it plainly does not have on this. What Furunculus suggests should have been done overturns centuries of our most fundamental constitutional foundation, that government is based on a majority of votes in the Commons.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a majority of votes in a Commons Bill. Parties help to get these common majorities together. But in this case, the government has had 3 goes at passing the Bill, and failed on each occasion. The Tories were only asked to form a government because they and the DUP combined to form a majority of the MPs in the Commons. But the DUP has voted against the Bill on each occasion, and has said that it will continue to vote against it. Thus meaning the government has no majority on this issue, as demonstrated on 3 occasions. Furunculus said that the government should have had executive power on this, and that Parliament should not have presumed to poke their nose in. But government authority is based on a demonstrable majority, which it plainly does not have on this. What Furunculus suggests should have been done overturns centuries of our most fundamental constitutional foundation, that government is based on a majority of votes in the Commons.

Yet a Vote of No Confidence has not been brought...

It's clear there's no will to oust the Government, so on we go.

[Pannonian]

Yet a Vote of No Confidence has not been brought...

It's clear there's no will to oust the Government, so on we go.

If that's the only measure of government, then all the government has to do to facilitate May's Brexit is pass her Bill. More yeas than nays on her Bill is the concrete proof of its democratic legitimacy.

[Furunculus]

Furunculus said that the government should have had executive power on this, and that Parliament should not have presumed to poke their nose in. But government authority is based on a demonstrable majority, which it plainly does not have on this. What Furunculus suggests should have been done overturns centuries of our most fundamental constitutional foundation, that government is based on a majority of votes in the Commons.
You have a formidable talent for reading the words I write and then imputing any meaning you deem useful into those words when you impart their apparent meaning to others.

You misrepresent my words (again), and you plainly don't understand the constitutional position. A quick google search would have cleared up any confusion:

https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+constitution+power+to+negotiate+treaties&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

"The Government makes treaties… The UK Government is responsible for negotiating, signing and ratifying the 30 or so international treaties involving the UK each year. The starting point for treaty ratification in the UK is that the Government has the power to make international treaties under its prerogative powers."
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05855

"The lack of formal parliamentary involvement in treaty-making differentiates the British Parliament from most other national legislatures. ... (The constitution of the United States provides that treaties are made by 'the President by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators')."
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf

"The power to conclude and ratify treaties in the United Kingdom is one of the few remaining prerogatives of the crown. We may search in vain for constitutional ..."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1948324

"Under English law the capacity to negotiate and conclude treaties falls entirely to the executive arm of government. Nominally Parliament plays no role at all in this process."
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2829&context=cklawreview

Just in case you were bored and had a spare moment to re-read what i said:


"we exist in this parliamentary knot in large part because parliament has inserted itself into a gov't task; negotiating treaties with foreign powers.
and negotiation by committee is universally understood to be a poor idea.

yes, we can make the argument that the eu is so deeply entwined around our domestic governance that it is no longer a foreign policy issue...
... but this is precisely my objection to ever closer union.

yes, parliament should have passed May's deal, but i wish it didn't have too.
of course, if didn't feel it needed to have a say then we may not have felt it necessary to leave. see the conundrum? "
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053792891&viewfull=1#post2053792891

Three questions:
1. Does your quote above seem like a reasonable characterization of what I said?
2. Does your quote above seem like a accurate restatement of uk constitutional principles?
3. Do you realise how much time I spend correcting your misrepresentations of my words?

[Goalum]

Folks, just listen to the experts (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/expert-on-reversing-referendums-says-brexit-can-also-be-stopped):

[Greyblades]

I wonder how often in history there have been this many people in power around the world who, were it not for the promise of a future democratic removal, would be at high risk of assassination.

Here's hoping I dont get a knock on my door by the local Met officer for wondering.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Folks, just listen to the experts (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/expert-on-reversing-referendums-says-brexit-can-also-be-stopped):

You mean the leader of the country the EU threatened to drive into poverty in order to overturn a referendum result?

Then they drove Greece into poverty anyway.

[Beskar]

Plenty of time for Referendum 2 with the choices given as Alternative Vote format.

Time to get the Brexit the people of the country actually want, instead of what the "European Research Group" wants.

On another note, who else dislikes the name of the ERG? It has no representation of what it actually is, in the same league as referring to North Korea as democratic because of it's name.

[Goalum]

You mean the leader of the country the EU threatened to drive into poverty in order to overturn a referendum result?

Then they drove Greece into poverty anyway.

This is so out of touch with objective reality that one gets the feeling that you are writing these things just to keep the posting going..~:)

[edyzmedieval]

The problem is simple and yet so complicated at the same time - not even the UK knows what it wants. England and Wales have voted for Leave; Scotland and Northern Ireland are staunchly Remain.

When there is such a significant disconnect in between the 4 members of the UK, how do you expect to arrive at a consensus for everyone?

[Beskar]

The problem is simple and yet so complicated at the same time - not even the UK knows what it wants. England and Wales have voted for Leave; Scotland and Northern Ireland are staunchly Remain.

When there is such a significant disconnect in between the 4 members of the UK, how do you expect to arrive at a consensus for everyone?

The split is pretty much 50/50 between those who want to remain and those who wanted to leave in some fashion. It isn't located so geographically, it is pretty even throughout the nation throughtout the nation with minor variation based on country, city or rural.
Though the latter 50% who chose the option to leave have no consensus on what leave actually looks like and the PM has pandered to the most extremist elements of that percentage and brow-beaten the other half of the country to accept it or else. Country is being held hostage by a ring of football hooligans chanting "Brexit means Brexit".

It isn't that the UK doesn't know what it wants, it is there is not actual politic will to give the nation what it wants or even make any steps to remedy the situation.

As I said, Legally-Binding Referendum with Alternative Vote. It will solve the issue. But god-forbid giving the nation the democratic choice of choosing. I will happily accept options such as Common Market 2 (Norway Plus) as advocated by Vote Leave during the initial referendum for example, but instead of trying to unify the country, it is time for...

BREXIT MEANS BREXIT

Which in reality resulted into Brexit means Brex**it

[Beskar]

On that note, Mr Nigel has returned from life outside of the UK to launch his new "Brexit Party (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47907350)"

[Husar]

The problem is simple and yet so complicated at the same time - not even the UK knows what it wants. England and Wales have voted for Leave; Scotland and Northern Ireland are staunchly Remain.

When there is such a significant disconnect in between the 4 members of the UK, how do you expect to arrive at a consensus for everyone?

It's just like the split within the EU. 27 countries want the UK to remain and the UK wants to leave. The obvious solution for the UK is to leave the union because it disagrees with the direction of the union. So for NI and Scotland, the same solution can be applied, if they vote for it.

[Greyblades]

The problem is simple and yet so complicated at the same time - not even the UK knows what it wants. England and Wales have voted for Leave; Scotland and Northern Ireland are staunchly Remain.

When there is such a significant disconnect in between the 4 members of the UK, how do you expect to arrive at a consensus for everyone?

I think you are reading too much into the irish result, Northern island split down the same catholic/protestant divide it always does. The main divide in britain isnt between the kingdoms (as much as the at-current impotent SNP may wish to believe) but between parliament and people, with the government being a rogue element.

Parliament is dominated by mp's who want to remain, they wish to avoid no deal but are disunited in what to do instead as they are vaguely aware that trying to outright betray the referendum would be suicidal, thus they are running a delaying action hoping that the people get tired of it all and become willing to remain.

The people are split thrice by those who want either a good deal, no deal or remain, with good deal/no deal forming a majority comprising of the remainers who have accepted the referendum result and the leave voters, while the remainers hold a minority of voters, comprising of the sizeable portion of remainers who dont respect the referendum. The remainers are very loud.

Finally the government is run by a PM who wants a bad deal who has basically gone rogue and has wrangled her way into being immune to removal by parliament, constantly insisting that it's her way of the highway, currently she is incapable of getting parliament to agree to her terms because, while immoveable, she is impotent.

Thus Britain is in a holding pattern until either May's deal gets through (unlikely), the EU decides to refuse to extend the deadline (even less likely but might change as time goes on), someone gets rid of may and brings the conservatives back to sanity(if pigs fly) or the next election comes around wherein the conservative party will collapse and we either get corbyn or a hung parliament (pretty much a guarentee)

[Pannonian]

I think you are reading too much into the irish result, Northern island split down the same catholic/protestant divide it always does. The main divide in britain isnt between the kingdoms (as much as the at-current impotent SNP may wish to believe) but between parliament and people, with the government being a rogue element.

Parliament is dominated by mp's who want to remain, they wish to avoid no deal but are disunited in what to do instead as they are vaguely aware that trying to outright betray the referendum would be suicidal, thus they are running a delaying action hoping that the people get tired of it all and become willing to remain.

The people are split thrice by those who want either a good deal, no deal or remain, with good deal/no deal forming a majority comprising of the remainers who have accepted the referendum result and the leave voters, while the remainers hold a minority of voters, comprising of the sizeable portion of remainers who dont respect the referendum. The remainers are very loud.

Finally the government is run by a PM who wants a bad deal who has basically gone rogue and has wrangled her way into being immune to removal by parliament, constantly insisting that it's her way of the highway, currently she is incapable of getting parliament to agree to her terms because, while immoveable, she is impotent.

Thus Britain is in a holding pattern until either May's deal gets through (unlikely), the EU decides to refuse to extend the deadline (even less likely but might change as time goes on), someone gets rid of may and brings the conservatives back to sanity(if pigs fly) or the next election comes around wherein the conservative party will collapse and we either get corbyn or a hung parliament (pretty much a guarentee)

What is this good deal you are talking about? What red lines does it involve?

[Greyblades]

"Good deal" is catch all term for "deal not mays deal". Presumably each person thinks thier preferance is good and can be considered unified by thier opposition to May's.

[Pannonian]

"Good deal" is catch all term for "deal not mays deal". Presumably each person thinks thier preferance is good and can be considered unified by thier opposition to May's.

Is there anything practical that Leavers are united on and are willing to take responsibility for? Most of the Leave argument tends towards opposition to something existing, but without offering anything concrete as an alternative. A lot of criticism of others, but few arguments about how they'll make things better. So anything which isn't strictly following the Remain position is claimed to be support for a nebulous Leave position.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What is this good deal you are talking about? What red lines does it involve?

To be part of the EEC but not the EU.

[Pannonian]

To be part of the EEC but not the EU.

Customs Union is too far for many Brexiteers though, as it prevents them from signing trade agreements. And as Major and Blair pointed out during the campaign, there is the UK-RoI bilateral treaty to bear in mind, which was facilitated by mutual membership of the EU, but exists outside EU membership. Many leading Brexiteers want to unilaterally repudiate that treaty. Now what kind of agreements a country can get when it's shown that it will unilaterally ignore bilateral treaties, I'm unsure about. I'm sure I've already mentioned that the ERG, from whose ranks the next PM will be chosen, have already said that any agreement made by May will be ignored when she goes. The directors of Brexit have stated that their formal policy is that the UK shall become a rogue state who will not be obliged to keep any agreements. They will provide the next PM when the Tory party ousts May in December at the latest.

[Greyblades]

Is there anything practical that Leavers are united on and are willing to take responsibility for? Most of the Leave argument tends towards opposition to something existing, but without offering anything concrete as an alternative. A lot of criticism of others, but few arguments about how they'll make things better. So anything which isn't strictly following the Remain position is claimed to be support for a nebulous Leave position.

We're united on a break with europe, the degree of economic seperation is variable but the common theme is not being subordinate to EU lawmaking or foreign policy. Way I saw it the economic ties would be the most beneficial deal we could get the EU to agree to while law and foriegn policy were red lines, if they wont budge we go no deal, WTO rules, ideally we'd be reciprical with tarrif and borders, they dont tax us out we wont do likewise

But for some reason our politicians act like the outcome would be reliant on what we decide instead of what the EU does and that self governance is an optional instead of an absolute requirement. They also dont seem to think we are smart enough to notice them being outright self sabotaging when negociating.

If they keep it up it wont end well for thier election chances, not that they arent approaching terminal as it is.

[Furunculus]

Customs Union is too far for many Brexiteers though, as it prevents them from signing trade agreements.

a little nuance is called for here; are you referring to the common external tariff, or the common commercial policy?
or both...

[Husar]

It's page 88 and Brexit is still in progress. :sweatdrop:

[InsaneApache]

Is there anything practical that Leavers are united on and are willing to take responsibility for?

Democracy.

[Furunculus]

Though the latter 50% who chose the option to leave have no consensus on what leave actually looks like
^ responsible for purveying fake news. ^

Like there was any honesty or consensus among remain campaign!

There are only about 15% of the electorate who are actively pro-EU in the sense of approving of ever-closer-union.
i.e. they have no fundamental objection to joining the Euro, schengen, full justice integration, a common foreign policy, tax harmonisation, or the full convergence of flanking policies on social, employment and environmental regulation.
15%!

Was that what we heard from the remain campaign?
No, it was not. We got endless variations of nick clegg's LIE that eu membership in years time would look pretty much like it did today.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's page 88 and Brexit is still in progress. :sweatdrop:

Pretty sure we left 29/03/19 with a trade deal, after which Theresa May resigned and was replaced by Oliver Letwin.

[drone]

It's page 88 and Brexit is still in progress. :sweatdrop:

TV fans delighted as Brexit renewed for another season (https://newsthump.com/2019/04/11/tv-fans-delighted-as-brexit-renewed-for-another-season/)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If this keeps up, Brexit will be part of the next Presidential election here. Of course, our candidates will likely manage to both confirm their ignorance of any of the nuances AND offend one or all of the UK's factions on this issue. It is part of the charm of the 'Special Relationship.'

[InsaneApache]

Our illustrious MPs take a break from Brexit...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbajf_rHzys

A bonus for spotting Treason May. :creep:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48034732

Ann Widdicombe is standing for the Brexit Party.

Farage really DOES have his ducks in order.

[rory_20_uk]

Our First Past the Post system is buckling under Brexit. And the EU's system designed to penalise small parties is adding to the mess.

Any solution would penalise the very people who gain most from it. So I'm not that hopeful.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Our First Past the Post system is buckling under Brexit. And the EU's system designed to penalise small parties is adding to the mess.

Any solution would penalise the very people who gain most from it. So I'm not that hopeful.

~:smoking:

How is it the EU's fault again?

[rory_20_uk]

How is it the EU's fault again?

Since the EU uses the d'Hondt system: "The 'd'Hondt method' is a mathematical formula used widely in proportional representation systems, although it leads to less proportional results than other systems for seat allocation such as the Hare-Niemeyer and Sainte-Laguë/Schepers methods. Moreover, it tends to increase the advantage for the electoral lists gaining most votes to the detriment of those with fewer votes"

I know, I know. more propaganda from those anti-EU liars... Link (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)580901) Oh wait... that's the EU website!

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Since the EU uses the d'Hondt system: "The 'd'Hondt method' is a mathematical formula used widely in proportional representation systems, although it leads to less proportional results than other systems for seat allocation such as the Hare-Niemeyer and Sainte-Laguë/Schepers methods. Moreover, it tends to increase the advantage for the electoral lists gaining most votes to the detriment of those with fewer votes"

I know, I know. more propaganda from those anti-EU liars... Link (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)580901) Oh wait... that's the EU website!

~:smoking:

AFAICS it's a slight favouring of one over the other. Nothing like the consistent rule by minority of our own homegrown system. The d'Hondt system has the massive advantage of being in use in far more countries than your other named systems.

[Husar]

Since the EU uses the d'Hondt system: "The 'd'Hondt method' is a mathematical formula used widely in proportional representation systems, although it leads to less proportional results than other systems for seat allocation such as the Hare-Niemeyer and Sainte-Laguë/Schepers methods. Moreover, it tends to increase the advantage for the electoral lists gaining most votes to the detriment of those with fewer votes"

I know, I know. more propaganda from those anti-EU liars... Link (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)580901) Oh wait... that's the EU website!

~:smoking:

That's interesting, and it goes on:


It is, however, effective in facilitating majority formation and thus in securing parliamentary operability. The d'Hondt method is used by 17 EU Member States for the elections to the European Parliament. Furthermore, it is also used within the Parliament as a formula for distributing the chairs of the parliamentary committees and delegations, as well as to distribute those posts among the national delegations within the political groups. Such proportional distribution of leadership positions within Parliament prevents domination of parliamentary political life by only one or two large political groups, ensuring smaller political groups also have a say on the political agenda. Some argue however that this limits the impact of the election results on the political direction of decision-making within Parliament and call for a 'winner-takes-all' approach instead.

Almost sounds like the EU was a product of its member states, which can do many things differently while some of them want it to be even worse. Of course that's silly because we all know the EU descended from the heavens and subjugated all of its current member states using alien mind control technology. I'm sure all of this was implemented against the will of the elected UK governments that ratified all of it.

[rory_20_uk]

Almost sounds like the EU was a product of its member states, which can do many things differently while some of them want it to be even worse. Of course that's silly because we all know the EU descended from the heavens and subjugated all of its current member states using alien mind control technology.

No, merely overruling every single plebiscite that has taken place and actively altering laws to avoid asking the direct question of the existence of the EU.

"Subjugated" is such a decisive word. They are merely freeing up people from having to worry about how their country is run. For their own benefit of course. And if the people don't like it they are ignorant xenophobes.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

No, merely overruling every single plebiscite that has taken place and actively altering laws to avoid asking the direct question of the existence of the EU.

"Subjugated" is such a decisive word. They are merely freeing up people from having to worry about how their country is run. For their own benefit of course. And if the people don't like it they are ignorant xenophobes.

~:smoking:

Should the winners of the UK plebiscite be held responsible for the promises they made to win? When will we see the extra 350m/wk for the NHS that was promised? I've asked you quite a few times whether you'd be willing to be held responsible for the consequences of Brexit. You said somewhere that, if it all goes tits up, you'd go abroad to find work.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Should the winners of the UK plebiscite be held responsible for the promises they made to win? When will we see the extra 350m/wk for the NHS that was promised? I've asked you quite a few times whether you'd be willing to be held responsible for the consequences of Brexit. You said somewhere that, if it all goes tits up, you'd go abroad to find work.

Be fair, Pannonian, he said he COULD go abroad to find work given his career choice, but also expressed the desire to stay in his native land.

And wouldn't the correct choice have been to implement the decision of the voters as fast as practicable, using subsequent elections to vote out those who over-promised and under-performed?

If every decision must be reversed because some pol lied to try to persuade the electorate, than NEITHER of our governments would accomplish even the little they do...

[Pannonian]

Be fair, Pannonian, he said he COULD go abroad to find work given his career choice, but also expressed the desire to stay in his native land.

And wouldn't the correct choice have been to implement the decision of the voters as fast as practicable, using subsequent elections to vote out those who over-promised and under-performed?

If every decision must be reversed because some pol lied to try to persuade the electorate, than NEITHER of our governments would accomplish even the little they do...

The thing is, the leaders of Leave all ran clear of the leadership contest, and on the very morning of the result, Farage disowned the NHS promise. Brexiteers want victory without responsibility. They want to point the finger at a speck in someone's eye whilst ignoring the plank that's propping open their eyelids. Even now Brexiteers won't own responsibility for the consequences of their decision, they only want to accuse others of not respecting their decision.

Also, on the electorate: if there is such a simple solution, the government should be able to pass a Bill enacting Brexit. That is how Parliamentary democracy works. However, an election, held after May set article 50 in motion, left the government without the power to do so. This would suggest that the mandate no longer exists. May has already had three goes at her Bill, and failed each time. No deal, which is what the next PM will enact, had even less support than reversing the decision. Rory complains about how the EU's form of proportional representation under-represents smaller parties by the odd seat. But something that has been overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament (by 300 votes IIRC) will be enacted because that's the choice of the Tory members who will choose the next Tory leader. Which is less representative? Which has the greater import?

[Husar]

No, merely overruling every single plebiscite that has taken place and actively altering laws to avoid asking the direct question of the existence of the EU.

The EU overruled plebiscites? Do you have a link for that?
Did the EU do that or the national governments?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The thing is, the leaders of Leave all ran clear of the leadership contest, and on the very morning of the result, Farage disowned the NHS promise. Brexiteers want victory without responsibility. They want to point the finger at a speck in someone's eye whilst ignoring the plank that's propping open their eyelids. Even now Brexiteers won't own responsibility for the consequences of their decision, they only want to accuse others of not respecting their decision.

Also, on the electorate: if there is such a simple solution, the government should be able to pass a Bill enacting Brexit. That is how Parliamentary democracy works. However, an election, held after May set article 50 in motion, left the government without the power to do so. This would suggest that the mandate no longer exists. May has already had three goes at her Bill, and failed each time. No deal, which is what the next PM will enact, had even less support than reversing the decision. Rory complains about how the EU's form of proportional representation under-represents smaller parties by the odd seat. But something that has been overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament (by 300 votes IIRC) will be enacted because that's the choice of the Tory members who will choose the next Tory leader. Which is less representative? Which has the greater import?

Why are you fixated on one slogan, and it really was just a slogan?

You're fixated on this one idea even when a lot of Leave voters ignored it.

It's like the idea everyone who voted Leave is a racist, it's a way of "Othering" the opposition and you need to get over it.

[Furunculus]

gets pop-corn ready:

https://unherd.com/2019/04/have-the-remainers-lost-perspective/

lots to entertain, but a few choice quotes:
These accounts make me wonder where this leaves the one in three black and minority ethnic voters who voted for Brexit, the incredibly diverse towns like Birmingham, Luton and Slough which provided majority support for Leave, or the academic studies which show, clearly, how racial prejudice in Britain has been consistently declining since the 1980s. Moreover, how do these accounts of “bigoted” Leavers fit with the growing pile of research we now have that suggests that it is Remainers, not Leavers, who might have a problem with tolerance.

Consistently, Remainers were more likely than Leavers to distance themselves from the other side: while 80% of Leavers are open to having a Remainer acquaintance, only 70% of Remainers feel the same way; while 79% of Leavers are open to having a Remainer co-worker, only 67% of Remainers feel the same way; while 78% of Leavers would not mind having a Remainer living next door, only 65% of Remainers feel the same; while 80% of Leavers would be willing to have a Remainer as a friend, only 61% of Remainers feel the same way; and, lastly, while 75% of Leavers would be willing to have their child enter into a romantic relationship with a Remainer, only 53% of Remainers would want to see their child in a relationship with a Leaver.

The irony is that liberal catastrophisers engage in exactly the same behaviour that they associate with populists and Right-wing extremists; they overgeneralise; they label others; they engage in Manichean ‘good-versus-bad’ dichotomous thinking; they lose perspective; and they become obsessed with apocalyptic-style scenarios.

[rory_20_uk]

Should the winners of the UK plebiscite be held responsible for the promises they made to win? When will we see the extra 350m/wk for the NHS that was promised? I've asked you quite a few times whether you'd be willing to be held responsible for the consequences of Brexit. You said somewhere that, if it all goes tits up, you'd go abroad to find work.

I answer and you choose not to hear.

To reiterate
Promises? Is that sort of like a legal fact but not really? Sort of worthless? One that many leavers never believed? One that you seem obsessed by?
The current situation is due to the last 30 years of policy on further integration.

So your question is lashing out at a straw man, rather than dealing with reality. Don't worry - it is evident you've no reposte.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

The EU overruled plebiscites? Do you have a link for that?
Did the EU do that or the national governments?

So... as long as individual countries that make up the EU do the bad thing, the EU is unaffected although is a creation of a sum of the bad parts. That is amazing logic you've got there!

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

So... as long as individual countries that make up the EU do the bad thing, the EU is unaffected although is a creation of a sum of the bad parts. That is amazing logic you've got there!

~:smoking:

Because the EU's method of determining proportion is unfavourable by the odd seat, it is thus acceptable for the Tory membership to determine the course of this country? Remember the government does not have a majority, and the last three times it tried to enact Brexit, it failed to get through the Commons. Yet the next PM, and it is ERG policy to overturn the decisions made by this PM, will be chosen by the Tory membership. Does this represent a legitimate mandate, as you complain that the EU's proportional system does not?

[Pannonian]

Why are you fixated on one slogan, and it really was just a slogan?

You're fixated on this one idea even when a lot of Leave voters ignored it.

It's like the idea everyone who voted Leave is a racist, it's a way of "Othering" the opposition and you need to get over it.

If you don't want to focus on specific promises (and note that Brexiteers highlight Cameron's promise that this is a once in a lifetime referendum), but wish to talk instead about general political theory, how about this? What mandate does Brexit have? What mandate does Brexit have when May is replaced as PM? Leavers crow at "Neverendums", but May has tried thrice to get her Bill through, without success. On the indicative votes, the least popular choice is no deal, which is the only thing specifically ruled out by the Commons. Yet the most influential faction in the Tory party has made no deal its goal. And said faction will supply the next PM, decided on by the Tory membership.

Where is Brexit going? What is the mandate for this destination? See, I'm no longer focusing on a specific promise since you don't like it, and I'm allowing you to answer the question in a form of your choice. It's not a loaded question either, as it's a question that Parliament has tried and failed to answer over the past few months. Will you offer your preferred answer, and explain the mandate supporting it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you don't want to focus on specific promises (and note that Brexiteers highlight Cameron's promise that this is a once in a lifetime referendum), but wish to talk instead about general political theory, how about this? What mandate does Brexit have? What mandate does Brexit have when May is replaced as PM? Leavers crow at "Neverendums", but May has tried thrice to get her Bill through, without success. On the indicative votes, the least popular choice is no deal, which is the only thing specifically ruled out by the Commons. Yet the most influential faction in the Tory party has made no deal its goal. And said faction will supply the next PM, decided on by the Tory membership.

Where is Brexit going? What is the mandate for this destination? See, I'm no longer focusing on a specific promise since you don't like it, and I'm allowing you to answer the question in a form of your choice. It's not a loaded question either, as it's a question that Parliament has tried and failed to answer over the past few months. Will you offer your preferred answer, and explain the mandate supporting it?

In a month it is likely that 75% of the electorate who vote in EU elections will support parties campaigning on the promise to deliver Brexit. The largest single party is projected to be the one with "Brexit" in the name.

As you say, the EU has insisted we have to pass this deal and our elected representatives have three times refused to. The Good Friday Agreement doesn't mandate the Irish Backstop, the EU mandates it, yet it has become the fundamental sticking point.

The ERG didn't start out supporting no deal, their position has become more extreme and intransigent as the EU has also become more entrenched.

[Husar]

So... as long as individual countries that make up the EU do the bad thing, the EU is unaffected although is a creation of a sum of the bad parts. That is amazing logic you've got there!

~:smoking:

I don't know where you got that logic from, but it's not the logic that I have.
Your wording made it sound like the EU itself overruled the will of the people in several countries, but this was apparently not really the case.
The whole narrative of "the EU is destroying our national sovereignty and imposing its will on us" does not make sense in cases where the veto of a single national government such as your own could have stopped the process. In these cases you have to ask yourself why your own government didn't veto the thing if your entire nation (that elected that government) finds it so horrible?

Take this for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37749236


Belgium cannot sign a key EU trade deal with Canada, Prime Minister Charles Michel has said, because of objections led by its Wallonia region.

[Pannonian]

In a month it is likely that 75% of the electorate who vote in EU elections will support parties campaigning on the promise to deliver Brexit. The largest single party is projected to be the one with "Brexit" in the name.

As you say, the EU has insisted we have to pass this deal and our elected representatives have three times refused to. The Good Friday Agreement doesn't mandate the Irish Backstop, the EU mandates it, yet it has become the fundamental sticking point.

The ERG didn't start out supporting no deal, their position has become more extreme and intransigent as the EU has also become more entrenched.

If Brexit is such a done thing, it should be easy to pass the legislation to enact it. That is how our Parliamentary democracy works. And if you want to point to the Brexit party being the biggest single party, let me point out that EU membership won the biggest share for a single manifesto. Leave was fragmented to the extent that you tell us to ignore concrete promises made by Leave, and refuse to own responsibility for any Leave manifesto. ERG want no deal. ERG will choose our next PM and thus government. Do you agree with no deal?

On the Irish back stop: if the EU is being unreasonably intransigent, why not negotiate directly with Ireland? The GFA is a bilateral treaty between the UK and Ireland, after all, with sponsorship from the US and enabled by the EU. But it's not just the EU insisting on the GFA being kept. The US has also said that the UK can forget about any agreements with the US if the GFA is broken. In all of this, it is just the UK, and specifically the most influential faction of the Tory party that will produce our next PM, that has said that the GFA will be unilaterally broken. Ireland has insisted on keeping it, and the EU and US have both backed it. But despite all that, in the eyes of Brexiteers, it's the EU who's being unreasonably intransigent.

In your eyes, what is the future of Brexit? How will it be enacted? May wants to have a fourth go, in a form that has already been rejected by Ireland, the US and the EU. Is May's Brexit minus the GFA the Brexit that we will have?

[Pannonian]

I don't know where you got that logic from, but it's not the logic that I have.
Your wording made it sound like the EU itself overruled the will of the people in several countries, but this was apparently not really the case.
The whole narrative of "the EU is destroying our national sovereignty and imposing its will on us" does not make sense in cases where the veto of a single national government such as your own could have stopped the process. In these cases you have to ask yourself why your own government didn't veto the thing if your entire nation (that elected that government) finds it so horrible?

Take this for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37749236

The EU is responsible for the Windrush scandal. Rory has already blamed the EU for taking us into foreign wars.

[Greyblades]

Its leaked that our government is willing to consider letting a chinese company upgrade the national internet infrstructure .

What do the conservative hopefuls have to say about the revelation of yet another massive blunder our prime minister made in defiance of her cabinet's advice? Hang the leaker! (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/25/cabinet-ministers-go-public-deny-leaking-details-huawei-affair/)

My country, my fucking country.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU is responsible for the Windrush scandal. Rory has already blamed the EU for taking us into foreign wars.

Ladies and gentlemen - a remainer in full flow.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

I suppose i can't be be the only beneficiary of misrepresentation, that would he unfair on the rest of you.

[Pannonian]

Ladies and gentlemen - a remainer in full flow.

~:smoking:

Would you like to explain what you mean by the following?


IOthers have mentioned the UK loosing "power" on the world stage. Personally I would have thought that Suez would have been a wake up call, but no we are still pretending that we matter and if we just accept that we have a role with soft power things would be much easier - perhaps it would be more effective if people stopped hating us for intervening in situations where we have frankly no place.

If this loss of power means that every time some country implodes the UK doesn't need to send its overstretched armed forces and shower resources on some new disaster that'd be fantastic! France and Germany can enjoy the prestige of getting shot at by all sorts of "lovely" cultures. Perhaps people in our own "communities" will side with terrorists less often.


Why was it the EU's fault that we got involved in those foreign entanglements? How would Brexit help free us from these entanglements?

[Husar]

Why was it the EU's fault that we got involved in those foreign entanglements? How would Brexit help free us from these entanglements?

Seems obvious that he wants to leave NATO and break ties with the US. Seems like a good move, given that London is almost entirely owned by Russian and Saudi oligarchs by now.

[rory_20_uk]

Would you like to explain what you mean by the following?



Why was it the EU's fault that we got involved in those foreign entanglements? How would Brexit help free us from these entanglements?


Would you like to explain what you mean by the following?



Why was it the EU's fault that we got involved in those foreign entanglements? How would Brexit help free us from these entanglements?

Where did I even mention the EU? How the HELL did you manage to get the EU into something where I didn't mention it at all? Not once.

First paragraph was in very simple terms demonstrating that I do not think that the UK is a "big power" any more. Some Remainers seem to think that those who wish to leave expect the UK to be a major power again - the whole "returning to the Days of Empire" trope. Can you believe that? Remainers making up their own narrative??!?

The second paragraph mentions Germany and France - two major European powers. If the UK is now a weaker power and no longer pretends to have clout then I mentioned two countries that could step up. Not that they should or that they must.

Do you see how the EU wasn't mentioned? Not once?

Us choosing to be a country that has a small armed forces would free us from entanglements by not getting involved in the first place. If we continue to have "soft" power that's great. The whole speaking English thing, following codes of Law that have their genesis in English common law and perhaps even continuing to value the trappings the UK has - like the Monarchy and the Commonwealth. Then that'd be good.

No EU mentioned. Not blaming the EU for something nor viewing the EU as the cause of all suffering.


Seems obvious that he wants to leave NATO and break ties with the US. Seems like a good move, given that London is almost entirely owned by Russian and Saudi oligarchs by now.

A German with a sense of humour.

Why would the UK want to leave the US - we both share a love of Russian money and influence and Saudi money for weapons...

NATO is the model for what I would have supported in an EU. Shared standards, shared goals but each independent of each other. Giving how NATO has helped prevent European or another World War since WW2 I think it is a good model to use.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Intergovernmental not supranational, right?

[Husar]

NATO is the model for what I would have supported in an EU. Shared standards, shared goals but each independent of each other. Giving how NATO has helped prevent European or another World War since WW2 I think it is a good model to use.

On such a loose collection of countries, divide and conquer can work relatively well. Maybe less so in war, but when we're talking soft(er) power through monetary influence, etc.
Shared goals are harder to keep without a shared purse and with everyone fighting for themselves. The crisis in Greece and other countries would probably be an example of that as the "EU purse" is not shared enough to maintain the shared goals. One country tries to profit at the expense of the others (yes, Germany does that, too) and the ensuing conflict erodes the goal sharing.

To think that loosening the ties would somehow lead to less conflict seems wrong.

[rory_20_uk]

On such a loose collection of countries, divide and conquer can work relatively well. Maybe less so in war, but when we're talking soft(er) power through monetary influence, etc.
Shared goals are harder to keep without a shared purse and with everyone fighting for themselves. The crisis in Greece and other countries would probably be an example of that as the "EU purse" is not shared enough to maintain the shared goals. One country tries to profit at the expense of the others (yes, Germany does that, too) and the ensuing conflict erodes the goal sharing.

To think that loosening the ties would somehow lead to less conflict seems wrong.

That we have parties in several EU countries whose main aims are against the EU demonstrates that there is plenty of conflict against the EU already.

To have shared goals and a shared purse appears to make the assumption that there are shared goals and that there is the desire for a shared purse. Much of the evidence demonstrates that this is not the case; there is probably groups of countries with shared outlooks and these groups differ depending on the topic. For example, Germany is much less interventionist than the UK or France; Germany's productivity and view on debt (and almost anything good to be honest) is at odds with Italy and Greece for starters.

The USA works due to their ability to commit ethnic genocide and cultural destruction on pretty much everything on the continent - and indeed the main differences that persist appear to be remnants of what was there before it was bulldozed. Europe can't take that approach.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

That we have parties in several EU countries whose main aims are against the EU demonstrates that there is plenty of conflict against the EU already.

We also have parties that are against a democratic Germany and want the Reich back or implement a Stalinist utopia. Does that mean the only democratic thing to do is to is to dismantle Germany again and give Scotland independence? And dismantle the US for ultimate states' rights as well of course.

As for the rest, just because everybody was cheering for Total War (not the game) when Himmler was calling for it, doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. There are plenty of people in the EU today who thrive on this conflict and competition, that doesn't mean listening to them is going to solve our problems and make the world a better place, precisely because most do not define "better place" as a place with lots of competition and bloodshed.

A lot of people simply blame the highest authority for everything. Removing that authority simply makes them blame the next lower one until you have anarchy and they kill their neighbor to fix their "perceived" problems...
Is that the sort of gut feeling we should use to model our society?

[Pannonian]

That we have parties in several EU countries whose main aims are against the EU demonstrates that there is plenty of conflict against the EU already.

To have shared goals and a shared purse appears to make the assumption that there are shared goals and that there is the desire for a shared purse. Much of the evidence demonstrates that this is not the case; there is probably groups of countries with shared outlooks and these groups differ depending on the topic. For example, Germany is much less interventionist than the UK or France; Germany's productivity and view on debt (and almost anything good to be honest) is at odds with Italy and Greece for starters.

The USA works due to their ability to commit ethnic genocide and cultural destruction on pretty much everything on the continent - and indeed the main differences that persist appear to be remnants of what was there before it was bulldozed. Europe can't take that approach.

~:smoking:

Talking about shared goals, and your resentment at the ECJ for dictating to us outside the structure of a UK government (despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour), what do you make of the US threat to remove us from Five Eyes if we do not ban Huawei?

Do other Leavers feel this is a reasonable request by the US?

[rory_20_uk]

Talking about shared goals, and your resentment at the ECJ for dictating to us outside the structure of a UK government (despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour), what do you make of the US threat to remove us from Five Eyes if we do not ban Huawei?

Do other Leavers feel this is a reasonable request by the US?

I doubt there are many people anywhere in the world who think anything the Trump administration do is reasonable.
Are we now basing what our country does for decades on one tweet?

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Talking about shared goals, and your resentment at the ECJ for dictating to us outside the structure of a UK government (despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour), what do you make of the US threat to remove us from Five Eyes if we do not ban Huawei?

Do other Leavers feel this is a reasonable request by the US?

i am sympathetic to both sides.l:

5g is going to be fundamental to the way newtorked industry works to such a degree that giving control to a strategic competitor is frankly dangerous.
i dont blame the us for taking an ideological position; it is their fight and they have the resource to do otherwise.
i don't blame australia for coming to the same conclusion, for they lack the resources to verify and validate their networks.
i don't believe britain is in either of those two positions , so i can see the logic of keeping them out of the core of the network.

but let's make no bones about it, in an information age china is our strategic competitor.

[Pannonian]

I doubt there are many people anywhere in the world who think anything the Trump administration do is reasonable.
Are we now basing what our country does for decades on one tweet?

~:smoking:

Why are you dismissing this as a tweet, when a named US official has stated this to be policy? Should we comply with the US?

[Pannonian]

i am sympathetic to both sides.l:

5g is going to be fundamental to the way newtorked industry works to such a degree that giving control to a strategic competitor is frankly dangerous.
i dont blame the us for taking an ideological position; it is their fight and they have the resource to do otherwise.
i don't blame australia for coming to the same conclusion, for they lack the resources to verify and validate their networks.
i don't believe britain is in either of those two positions , so i can see the logic of keeping them out of the core of the network.

but let's make no bones about it, in an information age china is our strategic competitor.

So do you think the US demand is reasonable?

[rory_20_uk]

Why are you dismissing this as a tweet, when a named US official has stated this to be policy? Should we comply with the US?

Because now US officials are desperately trying to doll up tweets as policy on the fly? To try to pretend they have a policy? As with almost everything else? And Congress would need to pass a law for this to be the case who tend to be less enthusiastic about destroying strategic relationships. It is also very wonkish, so Grandpa-in-Chief will probably move on before long. And finally there is no American company that would win the business so will he really care?

There is a pretty good likelihood the demands will fall foul of WHO rules on anticompetitive behaviour.

He's been offered a state visit where he can come and sit in antique hideous gilt surroundings with royal courtiers fawning on him. He'll love it. Perhaps we can give him an honoury knighthood to really pander to his vanity.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

He's been offered a state visit where he can come and sit in antique hideous gilt surroundings with royal courtiers fawning on him. He'll love it. Perhaps we can give him an honoury knighthood to really pander to his vanity.

I don't think you realised how great of an idea this would be.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So do you think the US demand is reasonable?

Ejection from the Five Eyes?

I think the threat is reasonable.

Allowing a hostile nation to have access to our communications infrastructure is dumb, and China is not only hostile but a repressive society. Even if Huawei is honest today (and that's an open question) all its executives could be arrested tomorrow and the company nationalised.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think you realised how great of an idea this would be.

It gives me the same feeling as deciding to have a quick swim in an open cesspit.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Ejection from the Five Eyes?

I think the threat is reasonable.

Allowing a hostile nation to have access to our communications infrastructure is dumb, and China is not only hostile but a repressive society. Even if Huawei is honest today (and that's an open question) all its executives could be arrested tomorrow and the company nationalised.

So do you think that foreign countries making requests of our government is acceptable if those requests are reasonable?

[Pannonian]

Because now US officials are desperately trying to doll up tweets as policy on the fly? To try to pretend they have a policy? As with almost everything else? And Congress would need to pass a law for this to be the case who tend to be less enthusiastic about destroying strategic relationships. It is also very wonkish, so Grandpa-in-Chief will probably move on before long. And finally there is no American company that would win the business so will he really care?

There is a pretty good likelihood the demands will fall foul of WHO rules on anticompetitive behaviour.

He's been offered a state visit where he can come and sit in antique hideous gilt surroundings with royal courtiers fawning on him. He'll love it. Perhaps we can give him an honoury knighthood to really pander to his vanity.

~:smoking:

If you think that Congress will be unwilling to break up international relationships at the behest of the President, what do you make of the head of Congress warning the UK that, if we were to break the GFA, we can forget about any agreements with the US? This is the stated policy of the ERG, who will decide our next PM and thus government. And the head of the US Congress is telling us that this is not acceptable. Do you think that we should be listening to US demands and subsequently changing our policies?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So do you think that foreign countries making requests of our government is acceptable if those requests are reasonable?

Hmmm....Pannonian is playing the "reverse roles on sovereignty" card...tricksy, very tricksy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you think that Congress will be unwilling to break up international relationships at the behest of the President, what do you make of the head of Congress warning the UK that, if we were to break the GFA, we can forget about any agreements with the US? This is the stated policy of the ERG, who will decide our next PM and thus government. And the head of the US Congress is telling us that this is not acceptable. Do you think that we should be listening to US demands and subsequently changing our policies?

Listening? Of course, as we are allies of long standing. OTOH, this is Congress to whom your refer. At the end of the day, US business needs will have the greater leverage over the votes of that body.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So do you think that foreign countries making requests of our government is acceptable if those requests are reasonable?

That is the very essence of diplomacy - among states and individuals.

If you expect me to say otherwise you either need more wine or more coffee.


If you think that Congress will be unwilling to break up international relationships at the behest of the President, what do you make of the head of Congress warning the UK that, if we were to break the GFA, we can forget about any agreements with the US? This is the stated policy of the ERG, who will decide our next PM and thus government. And the head of the US Congress is telling us that this is not acceptable. Do you think that we should be listening to US demands and subsequently changing our policies?

It is not the stated policy of the ERG to break the Good Friday Agreement - I believe it is the stated policy of the ERG to uphold said agreement. You are conflating a hard border with breaking the Agreement, but there is nothing IN the Agreement about a hard border, just a demilitarised one.


Listening? Of course, as we are allies of long standing. OTOH, this is Congress to whom your refer. At the end of the day, US business needs will have the greater leverage over the votes of that body.

Pan isn't making any sense, not that I can make out.

[Pannonian]

That is the very essence of diplomacy - among states and individuals.

If you expect me to say otherwise you either need more wine or more coffee.

It is not the stated policy of the ERG to break the Good Friday Agreement - I believe it is the stated policy of the ERG to uphold said agreement. You are conflating a hard border with breaking the Agreement, but there is nothing IN the Agreement about a hard border, just a demilitarised one.

Pan isn't making any sense, not that I can make out.

I agree with the US demands on this, and that we should comply with the requirements of Five Eyes as we gain more with compliance than we do with protesting our sovereignty and right to do whatever we want whatever the outside world thinks. I support our membership of international bodies and I see cooperation across borders as a good thing. That's why I voted for it. Unfortunately, one of the supposedly principled arguments for Leave is that it is an outrage that an outside body like ECJ is able to tell us what to do. Despite our governments having signed up to agreements that the ECJ rules on. Despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour. This is rory's stated red line on Brexit, and thus I posed the question of equivalence to him. And he couldn't answer, as his red line was supposedly principled and not based on benefits, and thus he attacked the credibility of the administration rather than apply that principle across the board.

If you think that I make no sense, and that the ERG does not intend to break the GFA, note that it was Pelosi who explicitly made that threat/promise, that if the UK breaks the GFA, it can forget about agreements with the US. I didn't make that jump. Pelosi, the speaker of US Congress, did. Rory tried to discredit the other government official by saying that Trump's administration was slapdash and that such intentions would need to be backed by Congress passing a law (and I'd ask again, what is Brexit's mandate if it cannot pass the Commons). So I pointed out that the speaker of Congress thinks we are going rogue, and are liable to breaking international treaties.

[Pannonian]

Listening? Of course, as we are allies of long standing. OTOH, this is Congress to whom your refer. At the end of the day, US business needs will have the greater leverage over the votes of that body.

The UK is a longstanding member of the EEC/EU. It's signed up to the agreements that the EU consists of. It is one of the principal creators of the Single Market, whose rules are enforced by the ECJ (who rule in our favour in something like 95% of cases involving UK companies/claimants). But it is supposedly outrageous that we have to follow the demands of a non-UK body such as the ECJ, that Brexit is justified by this principle alone, and arguments of cost benefits and evidence that we gain from EU membership are irrelevant in the face of this principled argument. Thus I invited Brexiteers to apply their argument across the board. After all, a principle is a principle.

Personally, I agree with the US on this, and I would not trust Chinese control of our infrastructure. But then I never made that principled argument. I support sovereignty as something real and tangible, based on trust and trustworthiness. I do not support supposed assertions of principle that require us to break that trust. I trust the EU and the US, as both have earned that over time and with their actions. I do not trust China, as their actions do not engender trust. It is not a matter of principle. It is a matter of trust.

[Furunculus]

So do you think the US demand is reasonable?

Yes, it is a reasonable demand to make.

It is also reasonable for the UK to push back against the US [if] it believes it can mitigate that vulnerability by excluding huawei from the 'core' network.

The truth of the security matter - whether it is closer to US's precautionary principle, or UK's demonstrable harm - is not something I am qualified to answer.

[rory_20_uk]

I agree with the US demands on this, and that we should comply with the requirements of Five Eyes as we gain more with compliance than we do with protesting our sovereignty and right to do whatever we want whatever the outside world thinks. I support our membership of international bodies and I see cooperation across borders as a good thing. That's why I voted for it. Unfortunately, one of the supposedly principled arguments for Leave is that it is an outrage that an outside body like ECJ is able to tell us what to do. Despite our governments having signed up to agreements that the ECJ rules on. Despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour. This is rory's stated red line on Brexit, and thus I posed the question of equivalence to him. And he couldn't answer, as his red line was supposedly principled and not based on benefits, and thus he attacked the credibility of the administration rather than apply that principle across the board.

I didn't respond since... I have a life beyond this discussion board. If a week had gone by and I'd been posting elsewhere I might think that you have a point. As it is I quite understand that the best argument you've had in several pages is inferring the intent of others and wild extrapolation.

If you can't tell the difference between the ECJ imposing its decisions on the UK and an ally stating possible effects to possible courses of action then I have no idea what more to say - they are completely different.

Might I also remind you that the USA under The Donald has been something of a sieve with the toddler in chief taking delight in sharing classified information with others pretty much because he can. I imagine that countries all over the world have taken note and free sharing of intelligence is probably not quite as free as it was under previous presidents.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree with the US demands on this, and that we should comply with the requirements of Five Eyes as we gain more with compliance than we do with protesting our sovereignty and right to do whatever we want whatever the outside world thinks. I support our membership of international bodies and I see cooperation across borders as a good thing. That's why I voted for it. Unfortunately, one of the supposedly principled arguments for Leave is that it is an outrage that an outside body like ECJ is able to tell us what to do. Despite our governments having signed up to agreements that the ECJ rules on. Despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour. This is rory's stated red line on Brexit, and thus I posed the question of equivalence to him. And he couldn't answer, as his red line was supposedly principled and not based on benefits, and thus he attacked the credibility of the administration rather than apply that principle across the board.

If you think that I make no sense, and that the ERG does not intend to break the GFA, note that it was Pelosi who explicitly made that threat/promise, that if the UK breaks the GFA, it can forget about agreements with the US. I didn't make that jump. Pelosi, the speaker of US Congress, did. Rory tried to discredit the other government official by saying that Trump's administration was slapdash and that such intentions would need to be backed by Congress passing a law (and I'd ask again, what is Brexit's mandate if it cannot pass the Commons). So I pointed out that the speaker of Congress thinks we are going rogue, and are liable to breaking international treaties.

You're missing the fundamental point - the UK is supposed to be governed by consent, and that consent is supposed to be ongoing. No one in the UK consented to being governed by the European Union or to the progressive extension of the ECJ's remit. In fact nobody ever voted to join the EEC, only to endorse the status quo after the fact.

It is the EU that has linked a hard border to the Good Friday Agreement - this is what the Americans are picking up on. The distinction is subtle, to be sure, and nobody is saying they WANT a hard border but nonetheless having one by default does not actually break they agreement.

The simple fact is that the Backstop is repugnant to the British Constitution and has been voted down three times now - despite which the EU continues to insist on its implementation. The EU is point-blank refusing to negotiate, so who's fault will it ultimately be if we crash out with No-deal?

Just the people in the UK who voted Leave?

That's rather like blaming Roman Catholics for crop failures.

[Montmorency]

If you can't tell the difference between the ECJ imposing its decisions on the UK and an ally stating possible effects to possible courses of action then I have no idea what more to say - they are completely different.


In the final sense - is it really?


You're missing the fundamental point - the UK is supposed to be governed by consent, and that consent is supposed to be ongoing. No one in the UK consented to being governed by the European Union or to the progressive extension of the ECJ's remit. In fact nobody ever voted to join the EEC, only to endorse the status quo after the fact.

A very good point, but like many of the best criticisms of the EU it cuts the same way for the constituent states. You have two paths: disintegration or unionism (as contrasted to EU-style confederalism). I know which is most conducive to national survival.

[Pannonian]

You're missing the fundamental point - the UK is supposed to be governed by consent, and that consent is supposed to be ongoing. No one in the UK consented to being governed by the European Union or to the progressive extension of the ECJ's remit. In fact nobody ever voted to join the EEC, only to endorse the status quo after the fact.

It is the EU that has linked a hard border to the Good Friday Agreement - this is what the Americans are picking up on. The distinction is subtle, to be sure, and nobody is saying they WANT a hard border but nonetheless having one by default does not actually break they agreement.

The simple fact is that the Backstop is repugnant to the British Constitution and has been voted down three times now - despite which the EU continues to insist on its implementation. The EU is point-blank refusing to negotiate, so who's fault will it ultimately be if we crash out with No-deal?

Just the people in the UK who voted Leave?

That's rather like blaming Roman Catholics for crop failures.

Did we consent to join Five Eyes? You allow for the demands of Five Eyes membership, deeming the demands reasonable. But you don't allow for the demands of EU membership, deeming the very membership unreasonable in principle. There was a referendum in the 1970s supporting our continued membership of the EEC. When was there a referendum on our membership of Five Eyes? Applying your principled argument across the board, shouldn't we withdraw from Five Eyes, NATO, the UN and the WTO until we can endorse each of them via a referendum? EEC membership was directly endorsed by a referendum once upon a time, yet you deny the legitimacy of our membership. None of these other organisations have any such direct support.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did we consent to join Five Eyes? You allow for the demands of Five Eyes membership, deeming the demands reasonable. But you don't allow for the demands of EU membership, deeming the very membership unreasonable in principle. There was a referendum in the 1970s supporting our continued membership of the EEC. When was there a referendum on our membership of Five Eyes? Applying your principled argument across the board, shouldn't we withdraw from Five Eyes, NATO, the UN and the WTO until we can endorse each of them via a referendum? EEC membership was directly endorsed by a referendum once upon a time, yet you deny the legitimacy of our membership. None of these other organisations have any such direct support.

If our EEC membership was legitimised by a vote won sold on a lie then our leaving can also be legitimised by a vote won sold on a lie.

The very fact I can advance that argument should tell you all you need to know, but as you'll probably ignore that point let me make another.

Citizenship can only be granted by a State. The EU grants citizenship, our ultimate citizenship. It is, ergo, the State by which we are ultimately governed. Five Eyes, Nato, etc. don't do this.

So, again, if the EU is our governing State it requires our continued consent to govern us. That consent has been withdrawn.

[Montmorency]

The EU grants citizenship, our ultimate citizenship.

No it doesn't.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Non?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union

[Montmorency]

Non?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union

Citizenship in the EU is derivative of citizenship in a member state. This is the difference between a confederation and a unitary union, a difference I hope you will engage with. In a unitary union such as in the United States there is no citizenship particular to the several states, except inasmuch as a US citizen maintains residence in a given state. This is an inversion of the characteristics of EU citizenship.

Serious question: does an "EU citizen" have any obligations toward the EU government?

[Pannonian]

If our EEC membership was legitimised by a vote won sold on a lie then our leaving can also be legitimised by a vote won sold on a lie.

The very fact I can advance that argument should tell you all you need to know, but as you'll probably ignore that point let me make another.

Citizenship can only be granted by a State. The EU grants citizenship, our ultimate citizenship. It is, ergo, the State by which we are ultimately governed. Five Eyes, Nato, etc. don't do this.

So, again, if the EU is our governing State it requires our continued consent to govern us. That consent has been withdrawn.

Did we ever vote to join the Commonwealth? Yet Commonwealth citizens had the right to vote in the 2016 referendum, but EU citizens didn't. On what grounds were Commonwealth citizens granted this ultimate right? Shouldn't we withdraw from the Commonwealth until we vote to join it?

[Pannonian]

Citizenship in the EU is derivative of citizenship in a member state. This is the difference between a confederation and a unitary union, a difference I hope you will engage with. In a unitary union such as in the United States there is no citizenship particular to the several states, except inasmuch as a US citizen maintains residence in a given state. This is an inversion of the characteristics of EU citizenship.

Serious question: does an "EU citizen" have any obligations toward the EU government?

EU citizens are citizens who belong to an EU state. The individual EU member states are states that have signed up to wide ranging agreements that span the entity we call the EU. And every time those agreements change, the individual member states have to re-ratify them. When they ratify them, they signal their willingness to follow these agreements.

[InsaneApache]

Did we ever vote to join the Commonwealth? Yet Commonwealth citizens had the right to vote in the 2016 referendum, but EU citizens didn't. On what grounds were Commonwealth citizens granted this ultimate right? Shouldn't we withdraw from the Commonwealth until we vote to join it?

Are you serious?

The Commonwealth is the residue of the Empire*. Even I'm too young to remember the Empire(I'm 60) but afaik British subjects were considered to be, well British.


British subject status was codified in statute law for the first time by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, which formalised the status as a common nationality among the United Kingdom and its Dominions. Dominions that adopted this Act as part of their own nationality laws (Australia, Canada, Ireland, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa) were authorised to grant subject status to aliens by imperial naturalisation.

Your ignorance is astounding.

*The only time in history that an empire collapsed and then voted to remain together with strong political and cultural ties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did we ever vote to join the Commonwealth? Yet Commonwealth citizens had the right to vote in the 2016 referendum, but EU citizens didn't. On what grounds were Commonwealth citizens granted this ultimate right? Shouldn't we withdraw from the Commonwealth until we vote to join it?

Stripping Commonwealth Citizens of their right to vote in our elections is one of the few legal acts of violence we have NOT committed. Nonetheless the sad state of relations between us and our close kin in Australia is reflected by the decision of the Australian High Court that British, Canadian, etc. citizenship is "alien" to Australia and automatically disbars someone from sitting in Parliament there.

I suggest you start another thread if you want to discuss our sad, pathetic, and racist, behaviour in this regard. All in the name of closer ties with Europe - because people in Europe are white, whereas people in the West Indies aren't.

It's worth noting that EU citizenship was (probably) originally intended to replace national citizenship but then Denmark refused to sign off in a referendum until they got an opt out.

[Montmorency]

Stripping Commonwealth Citizens of their right to vote in our elections is one of the few legal acts of violence we have NOT committed. Nonetheless the sad state of relations between us and our close kin in Australia is reflected by the decision of the Australian High Court that British, Canadian, etc. citizenship is "alien" to Australia and automatically disbars someone from sitting in Parliament there.

I suggest you start another thread if you want to discuss our sad, pathetic, and racist, behaviour in this regard. All in the name of closer ties with Europe - because people in Europe are white, whereas people in the West Indies aren't.

It's worth noting that EU citizenship was (probably) originally intended to replace national citizenship but then Denmark refused to sign off in a referendum until they got an opt out.

1. Why is Commonwealth citizenship any more legitimate a construct than EU citizenship. Especially considering its literal imperial genealogy?
2. Why can't Britain be close both to the Commonwealth and to the EU?
3. The existence of Europe is not what made British people racist against brown people of the East or West Indies.
4. Citation needed. Here (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/145/the-citizens-of-the-union-and-their-rights) is the substance of EU citizenship, as codified in the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:



Definition of EU citizenship

Under Article 9 of the TEU and Article 20 of the TFEU, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union. Nationality is defined according to the national laws of that State. Citizenship of the Union is complementary to, but does not replace, national citizenship. EU citizenship comprises a number of rights and duties in addition to those stemming from citizenship of a Member State. In case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern, Advocate General Poiares Maduro at the CJEU explained the difference (paragraph 23):

‘Those are two concepts which are both inextricably linked and independent. Union citizenship assumes nationality of a Member State but it is also a legal and political concept independent of that of nationality. Nationality of a Member State not only provides access to enjoyment of the rights conferred by Community law; it also makes us citizens of the Union. European citizenship is more than a body of rights which, in themselves, could be granted even to those who do not possess it. It presupposes the existence of a political relationship between European citizens, although it is not a relationship of belonging to a people. (…) It is based on their mutual commitment to open their respective bodies politic to other European citizens and to construct a new form of civic and political allegiance on a European scale.

It does not require the existence of a people, but is founded on the existence of a European political area from which rights and duties emerge. In so far as it does not imply the existence of a European people, citizenship is conceptually the product of a decoupling from nationality. As one author has observed, the radically innovative character of the concept of European citizenship lies in the fact that ‘the Union belongs to, is composed of, citizens who by definition do not share the same nationality’. On the contrary, by making nationality of a Member State a condition for being a European citizen, the Member States intended to show that this new form of citizenship does not put in question our first allegiance to our national bodies politic. In that way, that relationship with the nationality of the individual Member States constitutes recognition of the fact that there can exist (in fact, does exist) a citizenship which is not determined by nationality.

That is the miracle of Union citizenship: it strengthens the ties between us and our States (in so far as we are European citizens precisely because we are nationals of our States) and, at the same time, it emancipates us from them (in so far as we are now citizens beyond our States). Access to European citizenship is gained through nationality of a Member State, which is regulated by national law, but, like any form of citizenship, it forms the basis of a new political area from which rights and duties emerge, which are laid down by Community law and do not depend on the State. (…) That is why, although it is true that nationality of a Member State is a precondition for access to Union citizenship, it is equally true that the body of rights and obligations associated with the latter cannot be limited in an unjustified manner by the former.’

Once the UK has left the EU (‘Brexit’), a decision on the acquired rights of British nationals resident in Member States, and of EU citizens living in the UK, has to be made. Over the years, each Member State has vested its nationals with a legal heritage of rights, and EU law also creates a number of individual rights directly enforceable in the courts, according to the jurisprudence of the CJEU (Van Gend & Loos). Limits of that legal heritage could be seen as resting with the national law that gives them effect. Should the UK repeal bill rescind the effects of the Treaties, they could in principle no longer be invoked in UK courts.


Substance of citizenship

For all EU citizens, citizenship implies:


The right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (Article 21 of the TFEU) (4.1.3);
The right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections (Article 22(1) of the TFEU) in the Member State in which they reside, under the same conditions as nationals of that State (for the rules on participation in municipal elections see Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, and for the rules governing election to the European Parliament, see Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993) (1.3.4);
The right to diplomatic protection in the territory of a third country (non-EU state) by the diplomatic or consular authorities of another Member State, if their own country does not have diplomatic representation there, to the same extent as that provided for nationals of that Member State;
The right to petition the European Parliament (Article 24(2) of the TFEU) and the right to apply to the Ombudsman (Article 24(3) of the TFEU) appointed by the European Parliament concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the EU institutions or bodies. These procedures are governed respectively by Articles 227 and 228 of the TFEU (1.3.16 and4.1.4);
The right to write to any EU institution or body in one of the languages of the Member States and to receive a response in the same language (Article 24(4) of the TFEU);
The right to access European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subject to certain conditions (Article 15(3) of the TFEU).



By contrast with the constitutional understanding in European states since the French Declaration of Human and Civil Rights of 1789, no specific guarantees of fundamental rights are associated with citizenship of the Union. Article 6 of the TEU states that the Union recognises the rights set out in the EUCFR and that it will accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but it does not make any reference to the legal status of Union citizenship.

Union citizenship does not as yet entail any duties for citizens of the Union, despite the wording to that effect in Article 20(2) of the TFEU. This constitutes a major difference between EU citizenship and citizenship of a Member State.


There is again this kind of circular reasoning where the EU is to be condemned for usurping the constituent states while not fulfilling the obligations of a state, yet it simply cannot fulfil the obligations of a state because it is not a state because it has never usurped the constituent states. When Americans experienced a similar thing after the Revolution, they generally understood that these problems stemmed from the weakness of the absence of proper union, and that throwing in with a strong union would be preferable to dissolving ties.

Of course, the pervasive flaw of this act of union (as transferred to the provisions of the Constitution) was that it was developed by a post-colonial oligarchy that then proceeded to crack down on democratic movements to expand suffrage in the individual states (e.g. Shays' Rebellion, women in some states/colonies had the right to vote and lost it following the Revolution or the ratification of the Constitution). Knowing better today, we understand the value of participatory democracy in establishing new political arrangements. Right?

It's salient to me that concomitant with the union growing from a true federation to a unitary union was the expansion of the franchise, legally and substantively, from where like <5% of the adult population was voting at first, to where an overwhelming majority of the adult population can vote (aspirationally).

[Pannonian]

Are you serious?

The Commonwealth is the residue of the Empire*. Even I'm too young to remember the Empire(I'm 60) but afaik British subjects were considered to be, well British.

Your ignorance is astounding.

*The only time in history that an empire collapsed and then voted to remain together with strong political and cultural ties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

I'm not the one arguing that our EU membership was invalid because we never specifically endorsed the current iteration in a referendum. I'm happy to be a citizen of the UK, Commonwealth, the EU, and any other group that my government signs me into. The argument about the EU was supposed to be an argument of principle, not of cost benefits. In that case, why is that argument not applied across the board, to the Commonwealth as well as the EU? If Maastricht and Lisbon were invalid because they were never endorsed in a referendum, how is Commonwealth membership supported in the same way?

And BTW, if you reckon that British subjects were British and universally so, talk to the people of Hong Kong.

[Pannonian]

Stripping Commonwealth Citizens of their right to vote in our elections is one of the few legal acts of violence we have NOT committed. Nonetheless the sad state of relations between us and our close kin in Australia is reflected by the decision of the Australian High Court that British, Canadian, etc. citizenship is "alien" to Australia and automatically disbars someone from sitting in Parliament there.

I suggest you start another thread if you want to discuss our sad, pathetic, and racist, behaviour in this regard. All in the name of closer ties with Europe - because people in Europe are white, whereas people in the West Indies aren't.

It's worth noting that EU citizenship was (probably) originally intended to replace national citizenship but then Denmark refused to sign off in a referendum until they got an opt out.

Did I support stripping Commonwealth citizens of their rights in the UK? No. I support extending those rights to EU citizens. I support our EU membership. I support our Commonwealth membership. I support our Five Eyes membership. I support other memberships too. I don't think that membership of one takes away from membership of another. It's Brexiteers who support taking us away from those memberships.

[Husar]

*The only time in history that an empire collapsed and then voted to remain together with strong political and cultural ties.

Not surprising since the Aborigines they threw off the cliffs, the blacks they apartheited from in South Africa and the natives they murdered in the US and Canada weren't exactly given a vote on the matter, but the British invaders who replaced them were. :rolleyes:

Most of the other empires probably didn't genocide the natives in the places they conquered before voting on the matter.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did I support stripping Commonwealth citizens of their rights in the UK? No. I support extending those rights to EU citizens. I support our EU membership. I support our Commonwealth membership. I support our Five Eyes membership. I support other memberships too. I don't think that membership of one takes away from membership of another. It's Brexiteers who support taking us away from those memberships.

Only one of those organisations is trying to create a super-state.

Even the Commonwealth is more drifting apart than pulling together, which is a shame.

Having said that, I would not endorse re-grant of rights to Commonwealth Citizens today without reciprocal referendums in all participating nations, even if I'd be perfectly happy living in a Commonwealth Super-Sate with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and all the other smaller West Indian Realms.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...(I'm 60) ….

Damn, making me feel young you are.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Only one of those organisations is trying to create a super-state.

Even the Commonwealth is more drifting apart than pulling together, which is a shame.

Having said that, I would not endorse re-grant of rights to Commonwealth Citizens today without reciprocal referendums in all participating nations, even if I'd be perfectly happy living in a Commonwealth Super-Sate with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and all the other smaller West Indian Realms.

Wrong tense. They HAVE created a superstate, a "united states" of sorts. It is just in its early phases. When our United States of America was formed, there was quite a deal of particularism among the states, it took a while for federal power to surpass and mostly supplant the states.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wrong tense. They HAVE created a superstate, a "united states" of sorts. It is just in its early phases. When our United States of America was formed, there was quite a deal of particularism among the states, it took a while for federal power to surpass and mostly supplant the states.

I would say the State is in the process of formation - the US came into being through the necessity of war - the EU has yet to be so tested. The worst test so far was the financial crash, the EU failed that test and mostly nothing has happened since.

[Pannonian]

Only one of those organisations is trying to create a super-state.

Even the Commonwealth is more drifting apart than pulling together, which is a shame.

Having said that, I would not endorse re-grant of rights to Commonwealth Citizens today without reciprocal referendums in all participating nations, even if I'd be perfectly happy living in a Commonwealth Super-Sate with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and all the other smaller West Indian Realms.

At what point does it cross the line from being a sensible collection of treaties fostering desirable cooperation, to being a superstate that must be opposed at every level? The ability to vote for representatives? Yet Brexiteers criticise the EU for being undemocratic. If our relationship with the EU remained the same, but there were no European Parliament for representatives to sit in, and there were no EU passport, and it were called the EEC, would you be happy with it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

At what point does it cross the line from being a sensible collection of treaties fostering desirable cooperation, to being a superstate that must be opposed at every level? The ability to vote for representatives? Yet Brexiteers criticise the EU for being undemocratic. If our relationship with the EU remained the same, but there were no European Parliament for representatives to sit in, and there were no EU passport, and it were called the EEC, would you be happy with it?

At the point at which it subverts member-states constitutions in order to foster "Ever Closer Union".

So, 1992?

[Pannonian]

At the point at which it subverts member-states constitutions in order to foster "Ever Closer Union".

So, 1992?

How? And do you apply this logic to other institutions as well?

In related news, in last night's local elections the pro-Brexit parties got a kicking, with UKIP losing nearly all their councillors, the Tories over 1300, and Labour a net loss after expecting gains of 400 (cf. McDonnell). The Lib Dems gained 700, the Greens nearly 200, and independents the balance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How? And do you apply this logic to other institutions as well?

I have enumerated this point at length probably hundreds of times over the last ten years. A search of this thread with the terms "Lisbon Treaty" and "Democratic Deficit" should yield an answer for you.


In related news, in last night's local elections the pro-Brexit parties got a kicking, with UKIP losing nearly all their councillors, the Tories over 1300, and Labour a net loss after expecting gains of 400 (cf. McDonnell). The Lib Dems gained 700, the Greens nearly 200, and independents the balance.

In other news, pro-Brexit parties still won the vast majority of seats.

[Beskar]

It gives me the same feeling as deciding to have a quick swim in an open cesspit.

~:smoking:
On the plus side, it is legitimate grounds for impeachment if he got knighted.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In other news, pro-Brexit parties still won the vast majority of seats.

Quite a spin. So was May's snap election great for the Tories/Brexit as well?

[Beskar]

In other news, pro-Brexit parties still won the vast majority of seats.

41% is a vast majority? (Conservatives & UKIP)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quite a spin. So was May's snap election great for the Tories/Brexit as well?


41% is a vast majority? (Conservatives & UKIP)

Labour is officially pro-Brexit, even if its MP's aren't.

Both Labour and the Conservatives, especially Labour, had their biggest losses in Leave areas because their voters just stayed home.

Lab + Cons got the majority of the votes cast - ergo the majority voted for pro-Brexit parties.

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=4ZL4-kcIsaQ

Didn't DrJunker get an award for being able to tie his own shoelaces or summat? :laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=139&v=syQZ5D1YLko

A man after my own heart....:laugh4:

[Pannonian]

A man after my own heart....:laugh4:

What do you think of Nigel Farage the MEP?

[InsaneApache]

What do you think of Nigel Farage the MEP?

Top man who believes in democracy, unlike the main parties. This is no longer about Brexit it is now about the political class declaring war on democracy. They will get it good and hard this Thursday.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=130&v=_nKbXJA18v8

[Husar]

Top man who believes in democracy, unlike the main parties. This is no longer about Brexit it is now about the political class declaring war on democracy. They will get it good and hard this Thursday.

Come on, the same people who complain about a lack of democracy in the EU would block any reform with arguments of "national sovereignty". This is all about ideas of provincialism and "glorious competition" that do nothing but undermine democracy in the end because the private sector is not held to the same standard and simply dominates politics in all the small backwaters and their silly notions of "sovereignty" which they throw out of the window the moment a megacorp offer them a thousand jobs in return for all kinds of exemptions from their "sovereign laws". This is so laughable it's not even funny anymore.

[InsaneApache]

Blimey mate.


their silly notions of "sovereignty"

Are you serious?

[Husar]

Are you serious?

The way sovereignty is used today, yes. In the 17th, 18th and partially the 20th century the word made a lot more sense to me than it does today. As I said right afterwards, the "sovereignty" of the people in nation states is largely undermined by lobbyists anyway. People hate politicians for being lobbyists and then vote for even worse lobbyists just because they babble about a "sovereignty" that's actually even more of a corporate rule. The EU may not be terribly good against this process at the moment, but even that is still better than the national governments and their "sovereignty" blabla that makes them kiss the industrials' arses in every modern crisis. That's not a meritocracy, that's feudalism, where the king (government) depends on the support of the noblemen (industrialists, bankers, investors) and everybody else isn't really considered. "Sovereignty" is just a buzzword in that fight to rally the peasants for the crusade, but the conquered lands won't be given to the peasants, no matter how much they hope that.

[InsaneApache]

Well where to start?

There's been no peasants in the UK for hundreds of years, so I'm afraid you lost me there.

[Pannonian]

Top man who believes in democracy, unlike the main parties. This is no longer about Brexit it is now about the political class declaring war on democracy. They will get it good and hard this Thursday.


“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.” (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017)
- Nigel Farage

Do you agree with Farage?

[Husar]

Well where to start?

There's been no peasants in the UK for hundreds of years, so I'm afraid you lost me there.

That's too bad then, but if you prefer to argue semantic and analogies, I'm afraid there is nothing I can do for you.

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/E61Obov.jpg

[Furunculus]

Fortunately for him, i reckon he has a wardrobe fully of shiny pin-stripes.

for his sake, i hope his sense of humour is as accommodating as his wardrobe.

[rory_20_uk]

Fortunately for him, i reckon he has a wardrobe fully of shiny pin-stripes.

for his sake, i hope his sense of humour is as accommodating as his wardrobe.

Given he's pressing charges for assault, it appears not.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Given he's pressing charges for assault, it appears not.

~:smoking:

"But if they don't deliver this Brexit that I spent 25 years of my life working for, then I will be forced to don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines."
- Nigel Farage

Presses charges for assault for throwing milkshake over his suit.

[rory_20_uk]

"But if they don't deliver this Brexit that I spent 25 years of my life working for, then I will be forced to don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines."
- Nigel Farage

Presses charges for assault for throwing milkshake over his suit.

Yes, he's an odious little twerp who appears to be bankrolled by a "friend". A politician using inflammatory rhetoric - whatever next??!?

Corbyn is a relatively dim extreme leftist who hasn't the intellectual agility to review his views in the last 3 or 4 decades. Sturgeon? Etc etc.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Yes, he's an odious little twerp who appears to be bankrolled by a "friend". A politician using inflammatory rhetoric - whatever next??!?

Corbyn is a relatively dim extreme leftist who hasn't the intellectual agility to review his views in the last 3 or 4 decades. Sturgeon? Etc etc.

Yes, I've told you that your country is terrible for a while now, it took you a bit to realize that, but I guess that's normal.
I'm not saying my country is great though, just not quite as low as UK and USA yet. We're working on it, we've already made the term "social democrats" useless so far, currently working on "christian democrats". :clown:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, I've told you that your country is terrible for a while now, it took you a bit to realize that, but I guess that's normal.
I'm not saying my country is great though, just not quite as low as UK and USA yet. We're working on it, we've already made the term "social democrats" useless so far, currently working on "christian democrats". :clown:

The main opposition in your Federal Parliament includes Neo-Nazis

I'd say you've lapped us, sorry.

[Husar]

The main opposition in your Federal Parliament includes Neo-Nazis

I'd say you've lapped us, sorry.

So main opposition > Brexit?
I'd be more inclined to agree if this main opposition had any chance of enacting meaningful political change.
If they get to be the government, I might consider migrating though...

[Pannonian]

The main opposition in your Federal Parliament includes Neo-Nazis

I'd say you've lapped us, sorry.

Our governing party has been moving bodily towards UKIP. Our next PM will be someone who's been chosen with the manifesto of taking us out of the EU with no deal. The rest of the cabinet will similarly be chosen with UKIP's ideas in mind. NB. this isn't the main opposition including the unpalatable. This will be the government, head of government, and the cabinet. And according to the Times, May will go tomorrow. Most estimates are within the next week.

[Furunculus]

We should have voted through the deal.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Our governing party has been moving bodily towards UKIP. Our next PM will be someone who's been chosen with the manifesto of taking us out of the EU with no deal. The rest of the cabinet will similarly be chosen with UKIP's ideas in mind. NB. this isn't the main opposition including the unpalatable. This will be the government, head of government, and the cabinet. And according to the Times, May will go tomorrow. Most estimates are within the next week.

Unless it's Boris, and he immediately calls an election, banking on gobbling up the Brexit vote to win a majority.

If that happens expect to be SHOCKED as Boris does a reverse-Kevin and offers the EU a sensible deal:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLuEY6jN6gY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLuEY6jN6gY)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8RkqbqmttA

[Pannonian]

Any opinions on non-UK EU citizens being made to jump through additional hoops in order to be able to vote in these elections, with many disqualified from voting because of this?

[Furunculus]

my wife suffered this.
when only my polling card dropped through the letter box a few weeks back i immediately emailed the council.

she was on the register for local elections, just not european ones as a result of the 'need' for this daft extra form...

... which needless to say we never received.
nor too did they receive the first copy of the form we deposited.

we both voted today.

[Pannonian]

my wife suffered this.
when only my polling card dropped through the letter box a few weeks back i immediately emailed the council.

she was on the register for local elections, just not european ones as a result of the 'need' for this daft extra form...

... which needless to say we never received.
nor too did they receive the first copy of the form we deposited.

we both voted today.

Shouldn't there be an investigation when an implementation of electoral practices systematically disadvantages a specific group? There are outcries when US constituencies make it harder for the poor working class, predominantly black and hispanic in these areas, to vote.

[Furunculus]

Sure, go for it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Any opinions on non-UK EU citizens being made to jump through additional hoops in order to be able to vote in these elections, with many disqualified from voting because of this?

Pretty disgraceful, really - which is I'm sure what Furunculus means - but he also means that if you don't get your polling card you need to follow up. Yes, it's the Council's responsibility not to screw up, but if you think they have you have a responsibility to complain before Polling Day.

[Furunculus]

apparently the problem relates to Article 9 of Directive 93/109/EC.

doesn't absolve the council from:
failing to send us an ec1 form.
losing the first one we sent in.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Shouldn't there be an investigation when an implementation of electoral practices systematically disadvantages a specific group? There are outcries when US constituencies make it harder for the poor working class, predominantly black and hispanic in these areas, to vote.

How do you feel about the 80-year-ol army veteran who got "Milkshaked" for wearing a Brexit Party rossette?

[Pannonian]

How do you feel about the 80-year-ol army veteran who got "Milkshaked" for wearing a Brexit Party rossette?

Not something I'd do. But then, milkshaking Farage isn't something I'd do either. The latter is only notable because of the militant language he'd been using to describe what he'd do for Brexit, in comparison with him taking legal action against someone throwing a milkshake over him. Milkshaking anyone is wrong. But Farage is a hypocrite, which is more wrong, probably the greatest fault a politician can have.

And as expected, May is gone. The next PM, who will not have a Parliamentary majority, will be a hard line Brexiteer. We are looking at no deal or thereabouts.

[Furunculus]

Should have passed the deal.

[Pannonian]

Should have passed the deal.

Do you blame the ERG as well? After all, they voted against too.

[Beskar]

How do you feel about the 80-year-ol army veteran who got "Milkshaked" for wearing a Brexit Party rossette?

It is a shame to hear that the poor gentleman was subjected to that. Was reading yesterday about a remainer with a sign saying "I believe Brexit will be bad, Change my mind" who had a drink thrown at him and attacked by a flagpole as he was surrounded with chants of "Traitor".

It is awful what behaviours people lower themselves too and all examples should be challenged.

I am simply glad it hasn't reached the heights of last time when Jo Cox got shot.

[Montmorency]

I am simply glad it hasn't reached the heights of last time when Jo Cox got shot.

Throwing drinks at people is an excellent alternative to political violence, don't let anyone (https://newrepublic.com/article/153959/milkshaking-nigel-farage-effective) tell you otherwise (https://twitter.com/samharrisorg/status/1131263791415595009).

Hurting or killing people who embarrass you is no one's prerogative.

[Furunculus]

Someone who threw a milshake at me would get a punch in the face.


Pan - yes.

[Pannonian]

Someone who threw a milshake at me would get a punch in the face.


Pan - yes.

Let's not forget this gem from May: "No deal is better than a bad deal." You voted for Brexit without a manifesto to be held to (eg. Farage touted Norway as a good model). And now we're getting Brexit. Own responsibility for it and its consequences. This is nowt to do with Remainers.

[Furunculus]

No deal IS better than a bad deal.

There is no logical link between what I have said and your rince cyle repeat claim that Remainers have no blame and that "I must own" brexit.

It was an acceptable deal, we should vote for it.
I will hold parliaments face to the grindstone until I get what I want, even if that means no deal.

But I have without fail defended and advocated on behalf of the deal.
you will get no mea culpa from me.

[Pannonian]

No deal IS better than a bad deal.

There is no logical link between what I have said and your rince cyle repeat claim that Remainers have no blame and that "I must own" brexit.

It was an acceptable deal, we should vote for it.
I will hold parliaments face to the grindstone until I get what I want, even if that means no deal.

But I have without fail defended and advocated on behalf of the deal.
you will get no mea culpa from me.

Is the current deal we have within the EU a bad deal?

[Montmorency]

Someone who threw a milshake at me would get a punch in the face.

Sounds familiar.


Suppression of Far-Right ideas is what allows them to fester. In this case egging the Senator is likely to engender sympathy if not admiration for his response. He hit him, the kid then threw a pathetic counter so he hit him again, then his aides dragged him away.

It's not amusing, conservatives. :worried:

[Pannonian]

Sounds familiar.

It's not amusing, conservatives. :worried:

FWIW, I think that anyone throwing stuff at politicians deserve on the spot retaliation. It was the case with John Prescott, it's the case now. However, Prescott did not blow himself up to be a macho militant. That's why people sympathised with Prescott when he punched the egg thrower. He's just an ordinary bloke who had an egg thrown at him, and he reacted understandably. Farage, OTOH, ramped up the language, saying that he'd bring a rifle to enact Brexit if necessary (remember Jo Cox MP, a Remainer, was shot dead in the original referendum campaign). Then when someone threw a milkshake on him, he pressed charges.

I don't mind that much when politicians make mistakes, or do stuff I disagree with. They are decisionmakers, and when you make decisions, sooner or later one of them will be wrong. But hypocrisy is unforgivable. That's do as I say, not as I do. That's Farage acting militant, then taking offence when someone does a very mild version of what he's advocated to him. That's Redwood saying that Brexit will benefit the UK, then advising his rich friends not to invest in the UK because Brexit will be bad for the economy. That's Farage saying that he will fight for Britain, but never bothering to turn up to any of the votes involving British issues. That's Farage not doing any of the work as an MEP, yet claiming all the salary paid to an MEP for doing that work. That's Farage saying that a 52-48 victory for Remain will not be the end of the argument, yet claiming exactly that when his side won by that exact margin.

Why do I quote all these examples of Brexiteer politicians? Because Brexit has normalised the corruption of UK politics, and Leave supporters will praise it nonetheless because they are on the winning side. I support moderate politics that takes the losing side into account, accepts opposing views without vilifying it as treason, and I support arguments based on evidence and reason. Because of that, I hate Corbyn. But Brexit is a much more extreme version of all Corbyn's faults.

[rory_20_uk]

"Leave supporters will praise it nonetheless..." And you support moderate politics after branding everyone that disagrees ipso facto an extremist... Personally I would say I am a Globalist and I am against the UK being forced into one clique at the expense of all other important power blocks.

For Corbyn, Brexit is only the prelude before he really destroys the country. I don't know how far he'd get before they'd be an uproar and the pound massively devalues.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Sounds familiar.
:

to what?

[Furunculus]

Is the current deal we have within the EU a bad deal?

it was unnacceptable before the renegotiation .
it was unnacceptable after the renegotiation .

i want the deal, but ill have no deal rather than remain.
i believe we have covered these points on a number of occasions.

[Pannonian]

"Leave supporters will praise it nonetheless..." And you support moderate politics after branding everyone that disagrees ipso facto an extremist... Personally I would say I am a Globalist and I am against the UK being forced into one clique at the expense of all other important power blocks.

For Corbyn, Brexit is only the prelude before he really destroys the country. I don't know how far he'd get before they'd be an uproar and the pound massively devalues.

~:smoking:

Moderate politics is politics that takes the views of the minority into account without deeming them traitors. Moderate politics is politics that respects unwritten but well-established custom. The vast majority of politics before Brexit could be described as moderate politics. Brexit politics has become what people can get away with.

[Pannonian]

it was unnacceptable before the renegotiation .
it was unnacceptable after the renegotiation .

i want the deal, but ill have no deal rather than remain.
i believe we have covered these points on a number of occasions.

Here we go. This is what Brexit is.

[Beskar]

Sounds familiar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBqfuUiBpXs

[Montmorency]

to what?

What I quoted there.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBqfuUiBpXs

Yeah, There's also the Chretien (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawinigan_Handshake) incident in Canada, though the protester wasn't even doing anything in particular. When I first saw the video many years ago, all I perceived was the comedic and ridiculous aspect of a head of government going Mr. Hyde on a random schlemiel. It takes a more ominous cast these days.


FWIW, I think that anyone throwing stuff at politicians deserve on the spot retaliation.

Mmmmmmm - can we at least agree that staining someone's jacket is not an "attempted assassination" deserving of violently forceful retaliation?

Anyway, it appears Farage (https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-mcdonalds-asked-not-to-sell-milkshakes-during-rally-11723088) is attempting to enforce a milkshake-prohibition zone within his vicinity.


Police asked a McDonald's in Edinburgh not to sell ice cream or milkshakes during a rally run by Nigel Farage.

As hundreds of Brexit Party supporters joined a rally led by Mr Farage at Edinburgh's Corn Exchange, the nearby branch of the fast food chain avoided selling the products - to prevent a repeat of recent dairy-based attacks.

Or is it the British police being proactive? Definitely a very British form of prohibition.

[Furunculus]

I dont see the parallel between objecting to an assault, and some tangent to far right politics. the act itself is apolitical .

[Pannonian]

US Ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson tells #Marr that the whole of the economy, including the #NHS, will be “on the table” in a future US-UK trade deal after Brexit (https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1135118137987223554)

This is Brexit.

[Husar]

US Ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson tells #Marr that the whole of the economy, including the #NHS, will be “on the table” in a future US-UK trade deal after Brexit (https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1135118137987223554)

This is Brexit.

You can talk to him about it at the annual Margaret Thatcher Conference soon: https://www.facebook.com/CentreforPolicyStudies/photos/a.10151857794016713/10156491935261713/?type=3&theater

Debate the pros and cons, read some think tank studies about the wonders of privatization.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

US Ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson tells #Marr that the whole of the economy, including the #NHS, will be “on the table” in a future US-UK trade deal after Brexit (https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1135118137987223554)

This is Brexit.

As the EU has demonstrated, just because one side wants to negotiate something doesn't mean the other side has to.

[rory_20_uk]

US Ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson tells #Marr that the whole of the economy, including the #NHS, will be “on the table” in a future US-UK trade deal after Brexit (https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1135118137987223554)

This is Brexit.

A healthcare system where the state and private providers also are involved?

Like the service in France, Germany and Italy - y'know, most of the countries in the EU.

Oh, yes and of course as is already the case in the UK - almost all GPs are private companies under NHS contract.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

As the EU has demonstrated, just because one side wants to negotiate something doesn't mean the other side has to.

Post-Brexit, we will have a Tory government backed (driven?) by the Brexit party. Most of the decisionmakers, such as the favourite to be PM post-May and the head of the Brexit party whom people like IA adore, are firmly in the Trump camp. So when we lose our bargaining power due to exit from a powerful bloc, and the decisionmakers are inclined to support the above, why do you think we won't negotiate with the US on those terms? Farage, likely to be kingmaker, actively supports dismantling the NHS in favour of the US model. Johnson, likely to become PM, is the favoured candidate of Trump. They're the people who will be in charge of Brexit after May goes.

[rory_20_uk]

Post-Brexit, we will have a Tory government backed (driven?) by the Brexit party. Most of the decisionmakers, such as the favourite to be PM post-May and the head of the Brexit party whom people like IA adore, are firmly in the Trump camp. So when we lose our bargaining power due to exit from a powerful bloc, and the decisionmakers are inclined to support the above, why do you think we won't negotiate with the US on those terms? Farage, likely to be kingmaker, actively supports dismantling the NHS in favour of the US model. Johnson, likely to become PM, is the favoured candidate of Trump. They're the people who will be in charge of Brexit after May goes.

Although the USA hasn't managed to get any other country in the world to use a system as bad as theirs and the UK is in the top 10 of the biggest economies, we'll clearly adapt the least efficient one on the planet.

Your ability to see the future when it comes to poor outcomes of Brexit is amazing.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Post-Brexit, we will have a Tory government backed (driven?) by the Brexit party. Most of the decisionmakers, such as the favourite to be PM post-May and the head of the Brexit party whom people like IA adore, are firmly in the Trump camp. So when we lose our bargaining power due to exit from a powerful bloc, and the decisionmakers are inclined to support the above, why do you think we won't negotiate with the US on those terms? Farage, likely to be kingmaker, actively supports dismantling the NHS in favour of the US model. Johnson, likely to become PM, is the favoured candidate of Trump. They're the people who will be in charge of Brexit after May goes.

Remember whne David Cameron wanted to sell off all those forests and then had to agree not to after the public outcry.

We live in a democracy - if the NHS gets privatised it will ultimately because those supporting the public sector option have lost the argument - and that's a fair-ways off.

Unless you no longer believe we are a democracy, in which case maybe you should be fleeing to somewhere like France or Germany.