Printable View
I honestly don't think that the EU wants us in any more.
two and a half years of chaos and dire warnings after the vote and its still basically 50:50.
If art50 is revoked that leaves the EU with its second biggest member as a major headache for another generation.
blocking ever closer union every time they have a bright idea.
A pretty good exposition of the point above:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...last-two-years
Given all the lies that Brexiteers have told about the EU, and the degree of hatred they have for the EU, what do you expect? However, what Brexit has brought up is an equally intense fondness for the EU that there has not been before. Before Brexit, Eurosceptics have been allowed to use the EU as a scapegoat for all ills, while even Europhiles merely mildly liked the EU as a background fact. Post Brexit, the country is polarised. Leave won the vote. Leavers should own responsibility for the state of the country as they've brought it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Yeah, give Them the billions you can keepQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
what useful proportion of the electorate feels this way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39...ull-report.pdf
Clue - table 1 page 119
Stay and increase EU’s powers = 4% (2017)
Work for single European government =3% (2017) altho, to be fair it has ticked up from the year before (2.0%!)
Clue - figure 1 page 121
European identiry stands at 17% - altho, to be fair is has ticked up in recent years (15%!)
What numbers turned up for the pro and anti Brexit rallies? Pro Brexit rallies muster around 5k. Anti Brexit rallies muster over 100 times that. Anti Brexiteers aren't going to go away. They're going to get more numerous and more intense in their belief after the effects of Brexit kick in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
If there is a vote before no deal and remain, which would you vote for? If the former, will you own responsibility for all the consequences of your vote?
Note for those who haven't been paying close attention: remember the Brexiteers have been holding up the ECJ as an example of how the UK yields sovereignty to an outside body. Despite the fact that any multilateral agreement must entail yielding in some part. Despite the fact that the ECJ has favoured the UK disproportionately (IIRC around 95% of UK-other disputes went in the UK's favour). That the ECJ is separate from the EU's administration, as any court should be, is ignored by Brexiteers; anything with "Europe" in the title is automatically taboo, hence withdrawal from Euratom and ECHR. The UK argued that, once article 50 had been invoked, it could no longer be revoked. The EU argued that, if the UK wanted to revoke, it must require the unanimous support of the other 27 countries to revoke, as per any new application to join. The ECJ ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke, on the grounds of sovereignty.
1. The UK says article 50 can no longer be revoked (we have no power and it's the EU's fault).
2. The EU says the EU27 must agree for article 50 to be revoked (we demand power).
3. The ECJ says it's entirely within the UK's power to revoke (the UK is sovereign).
Funnily enough, out of the above three, it is only the ECJ that has defended the UK's sovereignty.
And further to that, the UK government last night postponed a scheduled vote on May's deal. A previous vote ensured that Parliament has the right to oversee the process before any Brexit can take place. But now the government is arguing that it can bypass Parliament until Brexit is a fait accompli. And so, the day after the maligned ECJ has upheld the UK's sovereignty, the UK government has suspended Parliament's rights, in the name of Brexit.
irrelevant - versus the comprehensive BES 2018 report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
no deal, of course. the eu wasn't good enough before, it wasn't good enough with cameron's deal, it certainly isn't good enough as the status quo minus medicine & financial regulators. it feels like you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here: this isn't simply a on-balance dry economic cost/benefit analysis. and i'm pretty sure i've pointed that out to you before.
but as I said: i support the deal, which seems only proper given that I am a pragmatic and reasonable middle-of-the-road kinda guy. ;)
Do you support not allowing Parliament to vote on the deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
constitutionally, i'm in favour of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
1. the executive having responsibility for negotiating foriegn treaties
> though i'm happy to recognise that the EU is so pervasive that brexit is practically a domestic issue
2. that government legal advice should remain private
> to ensure that governments can ask for and receive comprehesive and non-evasive advice
but more than anything i'm in favour of [the process] of parliament and how gov't responds to the demands of a political constitution (rather than a legal one), so I'm quite accepting of the fact that parliament will have a 'meaninful' vote and got an extensive precis of the legal advice.
Sounds like a nearly perfect 50/50 split.
So, how does your system work? If it really is split 50/50 do you let the Lords break the tie, let the Sovereign make the call, or toss a coin?
~;)
good question...
Aren't these powers normally dependent on the executive having a demonstrable majority in Parliament? If the government wishes to bypass Parliament because they are not confident of having a demonstrable majority, what mandate do they have to do what they want to do? And what if the executive delays matters so that Parliament has no practical recourse to alternative courses of action? NB. Parliament has already authorised the amendment of any action the government wishes to take on the issue, so this isn't just theoretical. The executive wishes to evade this, and has already done by calling off last night's vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
No, those which I list exist regardless of majorities, but as custom of a political constitution are subject to the dictate of Parliament, even if it's not an advisable course of action.
Making saugages is not something anyone wants to get too familiar with, but the process tends to produce a consistently palatable result. I hope we end with that situation here.
WIll you support May's deal, as a pragmatic and reasonable compromise?
Brexit is not sausage making. It has far greater consequences, which sausage making does not. For that reason, glib comparisons are not appropriate. If you want to make comparisons, only political situations with similarly wide ranging consequences are comparable. You keep arguing about sovereignty, how it is a good thing that can not be ceded in any part to the EU. Yet it is the ECJ which has upheld British sovereignty, and the executive you continue to support that is setting aside Parliamentary sovereignty. You keep talking about the constitution, alluding to something nebulous that nonetheless supports your course of action. I'll remind you again, despite your denial of the fact, that the mandate of the executive is contingent on their possession of a demonstrable majority. If an executive does not have a demonstrable majority, it does not have a mandate. And if it bypasses Parliament to avoid the demonstrable fact that it does not have a majority, then it is abusing its power, and whatever it does has no democratic legitimacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
How is a government formed? By asking the leader of the party with a majority of the seats in the Commons to form a government. Failing a majority, then the leader of the biggest party is invited to form a coalition that can form a majority of the seats in the Commons. If the biggest party cannot do this, then the second biggest party is invited to try. If this successive coalition forming cannot form a majority, then there is another election to clarify matters. A majority in the Commons is the basis of any mandate for the executive. The executive's mandate is contingent on a majority in the Commons. The executive's mandate does not exist separate from the Commons.
At what point have I discussed mandates? This begun with your question on a meaningful vote, and my response of constitutional conventions.
If you want to talk about constitutional conventions, how does that work in terms of the Grieve amendment? By that, Parliament can amend any action May takes on this issue. But to do so, it must be allowed to vote on whether or not May's deal passes. This was denied last night. You appear to support this denial. Was May right to call off the vote last night? Should she be allowed to delay any Parliamentary action until her deal or no deal is a fait accompli?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You first: do you suppot the deal?
I'd have thought it was obvious. No I bloody well do not. And she should let Parliament demonstrate that they do not bloody well support it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Now do you think May was right to call off the vote last night?
So, do you support some other deal, or withdrawing art50 and stopping brexit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I'm fine with her delaying the vote if she thinks she can by her positive actions change the dial in favour of acceptance (but not by her negative actions of letting it run up to the deadline so no other choice is possible).
Withdrawing article 50, another referendum, except this time Leave has a manifesto to be measured up to, whatever. One thing that is definite and immediate is that Parliament has the right to amend whatever action May takes on this issue. This was established in the Grieve amendment, which passed in the Commons. By this, May does not have the authority to do whatever she likes without first passing it through the Commons. This is not theoretical, nor is it in some indefinite future. It has to be done before May can claim final authority for her actions. Without this, all her authority on this issue is provisional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Edit: the EU have confirmed and reiterated that there will be no further renegotiation. The deal is the deal. They are willing to dress it up. But in concrete terms, there will be no further changes.
Are you willing to own your responsibility if no deal occurs, because you weren't willing to accept a reasonable and pragmatic compromise in support of the majority view of the referendum?
Sorry, couldn't resist. :D
But back to your point: as per the sausage machine analogy, i'm happy with the process of parliament and that is what it has produced.
I agree that there will be no substantial change made to the WA, at most we'll get pointless clarifications explaining what the text already says - as was the case with Spain on Gibraltar - but hopefully it will prove enough. I'm already 'okay' with it.
The Queen, the ultimate arbiter of constitutional convention in the UK, seemingly agrees with me. May has apparently been called in for a chat, presumably for not having a working majority. And now the Tory party are gearing up for a leadership challenge, with the 48 letter mark rumoured to have been reached. What was it you said about delaying things past the deadline?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
https://www.ft.com/content/6650dc0e-...f-99e208d3e521
Have Merkel/Germans been relatively accommodating of the UK's perspective compared to France and Spain out of fear that hard Brexit would help precipitate global economic downswing (and thereby damage German export markets)?
Or there is a minority government, which are fairly common and stable throughout modern European history. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Poor juxtaposition, because Pan doesn't support or participate in this decision-making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
'The rich desire to hunt the homeless for sport. The government has reached a tentative deal to allow them to hunt the homeless only for food. The alternative to this reasonable and pragmatic compromise is that many cadavers will go to waste. You wouldn't want that, would you?'
Their hearts are not in it. Honestly, this is just a charade at this point.
I think I was agreeing with you. Are you now manufacturing disagreement even where it does not exist, and does this help you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Shouldn't the same generosity apply also to me? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty
To return to an earlier phrase: The idea that democratic self-governance will lead to societal collapse is absurdist fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty
I might not be the only person peddling poor juxtapositions, and at least I presented mine ironically and with a smile.
I just leave this here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Given the deadline is March 29th, I think that there is no referendum (lest the plebs get a taste for direct democracy) and just initially a postponing and then a drop of Brexit. Sure the UK looses the most, but many other countries in the EU would also loose, and with the riots in France and Italy and Greece being... themselves no change is fine.
~:smoking:
May will hold onto her spot, but her bill won't pass. So I guess everyone at this point is just playing games and running down the clock until they revoke Article 50.
I suspect it will pass.
But you do support and have actively participated in this decision-making, as you've spent many posts emphasizing. ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I'm not sure how that relates to my post, but the far left would agree with you.Quote:
To return to an earlier phrase: The idea that democratic self-governance will lead to societal collapse is absurdist fantasy.
<poetry>Quote:
I might not be the only person peddling poor juxtapositions, and at least I presented mine ironically and with a smile.
https://i.imgur.com/3i6GNnh.jpg
Sorry, but no member of the electorate gets to dodge this way.
we are collectively bound to accept the result of the democratic process, and uber Remainers are just as liable for a disorderly brexit as erg wing nuts.
If you want to distinguish between the degree of responsibility owned by a voter versus an MP, sure, I'm open to that case myself.
But I myself sit high on the alter of moral purity in supporting a reasonable and pragmatic compromise that reflects a close result on a divisive and far reaching issue. How terribly British of me! :D
I'm not the extremist here.
Bwahahaha. So the concrete unpreparedness of the UK for Brexit is partly the fault of the Remainers for not believing hard enough. Perhaps if we'd all united in prayer to the god of Brexit, all the problems would go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You won. We lost. This is your victory. Own it.
My victory would be May's deal.
I've already told you (a number of times) that while my personal preference was for a slightly more freebooting brexit Britain I didn't think this was justified given the result (or possible given the election), so I would content myself with a softer brexit.
Well here it is; May's deal.
Huh? It seems fairly obvious to me that someone who supports and votes for a course of action is more accountable and responsible for it than someone who votes against it and does not support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
A-are you saying Remainers would have to discharge their responsibility by usurping the government through force? ~:confused:
You've been very concerned about being seen as an extremist, have you?Quote:
I'm not the extremist here.
If you told the captain there are icebergs ahead, you're just as responsible for sinking the ship as the captain who said you'll be fine and ordered to go full steam ahead. Common sense, guys.
Don't you understand it, the iceberg is a succesful brexit. Ever heard about the orchestra now that we are innuandoQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
no, i'm saying that if there is going to be endless whining about owning 'your' decision should no deal arrive that resposnibility lies equally with all parties that reject compromise, remainer and brexiter alike. if remainers had pulled for soft brexit instead of complaining about how unfair life is they might very well have achieved it, but they didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
every second post i receive in this topic invites me to "own my responsibility" for my policy choice, just pointing out that it isn't me coming across as the extremist here. i support May's reasonable and pragmatic deal, as one would expect from a middle-of-the-road compromising kinda guy... ;)
But that's rubbish. Remainers had no authority over Brexit negotiations to "pull for soft Brexit".
You don't get to arrogate labels like "reasonable" and "pragmatic" to yourself on the basis of self-identification, they have to be demonstrated. I don't know what your standards for "reasonable" are, but for something to be pragmatic suggests it as an optimal or optimized response to existing conditions, which given my understanding of your own posts over time and the Brexit process over time comes across as flagrant goal-post moving.
For the government to propose something does not make it reasonable, pragmatic, nor a compromise by virtue of being conclusive. If your only ideological condition is not being subject to a framework for future political integration and you accept whatever fulfills that one ideological criterion, that doesn't make your "middle of the road" and those who disagree with you extremists. You're getting what you want at the expense of others.
A: Let's stay home and cook dinner.
B: I refuse to eat at home.
A: I would prefer not to spend money eating out.
B: Get in the car. I'm driving us for dinner.
A: Can't we talk this over?
***3 days later***
A: We're at the other end of the country. Please, let's go home.
B: Don't be so extreme. Here, I'll compromise and stop at this Cracker Barrel we're coming up on.
Which vote of mine brought about this situation, may I ask? Was it my pro-EU vote in 2016? Or was it my pro-EU vote in 2017? Would the thousands of customs officers that we're short of have been found had I believed harder in May? Would the severe jams predicted by Kent Council Council from Dover to Maidstone be solved if I'd believed harder in May? Would the WTO drop their demands on the NI-Ireland border if I'd believed harder in May? Etc. Explain how your vote to Leave absolves you of responsibility whilst passing it onto my vote to Remain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
All I wanted was for tomorrow to be reasonably like today. That's extremism, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Now it's three days later and you're at Cracker Barrel. Do you want the biscuits or the cornbread with your greens? Remember to pay your check in the gift shop (enjoy the AKUS Christmas music!) on the way out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If you want to call yourself pragmatic, use the engineering model.
1. Do not use drastically new solutions, unless it is thoroughly tested, first in theory, and then in practice via small scale models. If you can't provide proof of concept, assume revolutionary new solutions do not work.
2. Use tried and tested solutions, adapted to the problem at hand. The closer a tried and tested solution is to the defined problem, the more reliably you can assume its implementation to be. If the context is completely different from that of your chosen solution, do not assume that it will work.
3. Peer review by acknowledged experts. There will always be differing views. But if an overwhelming majority of experts on the subject hold an opinion, it is more likely than not that their received opinion is the correct one.
4. When implementing, start with as small a scale as possible. Always leave yourself a way to reverse your actions.
5. If evidence suggests your model is wrong, reverse your actions and return to the baseline.
Brexit fails every one of these points, extravagantly.
But the world changes and successful societies meet that change by adapting appropriately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
brexit is a policy choice, much the same as opting to be a more collective society and doing some corbyn style nationalisation while weakening the foundation of property ownership.
And, this is me having fun with the weakness in your own position in accusing me of being the extremist while refusing to compromise.
I'm an it project manager working to the agile methodology, so I recognise much of the sense inherent in the above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
this is indeed how you develop an [existing] product, but at the same time existing products do get engineered into a corner, whereby the changing environment leaves them unfit for purpose.
and the response may to replace the product.
You might argue that May's new 'product' does meet these same principles, in that 8t attempts to change as little as possible:
Common rule book for good.
non regression on flanking policies
keeping competition policy
Retaining lots of programs
Keeping a close security relationship
Rebuilding the services relationship and the new institutional relationship are the closest elements to revolutionary change.
I'll do whatever I damn well please. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Especially when I am having fun pointing out the illogical point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Bad logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
If Corbyn as PM demanded the nationalization of all private property and the deportation of all persons judged to hold a net worth in the 99th percentile to holding facilities in the far north, would you say it is a compromise to proceed with the nationalization but not the gulags? If there is essentially a binary outcome, and all the results fall on your side of the binary, it is laughable to speak of extremism or resistance to compromise by the other side. It is a bad-faith rhetorical trick.
Now, if you would like to look down Pannonian for holding the values he does, that's your prerogative, and his in turn. But you can't accuse him of resistance to compromise when, aside from not having any power to affect a compromise, the compromises you deign to present all violate his values just as a "compromise" that ensured greater UK political integration into the EU would violate yours.
Funnily enough, the EU had already compromised with the UK on Furunculus's terms. Increased political integration would not apply to the UK; only other countries. F's complaint was that this would affect the UK's ability to effect power blocs within the EU, as the natural fault lines would leave the UK 1 short. Because these natural fault lines leave the UK short (and note that the support for the EU universally went up across the EU27 following the referendum), he wants revolution which we are patently unprepared for. And on top of that, he blames Remainers. Now this is why I keep reminding Leavers to take responsibility for their win; it is a habit of theirs to blame others for the world not being as they'd want it to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
https://i.imgur.com/2aRPrPD.jpg
(someone else linked this, but the narrative amused me.)
It is not deportation of people, its just leaving a political institution that is going in a direction we can't follow.
This is the point precisely; I never never looked down on pannonian for his remain views, but never have I had that courtesy extended to me. His choice is legitimate, mine apparently is not.
Reality is legitimate. Fantasy is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
My point was over your use of "compromise" and "extremism", not whether the choice to change the institutional relationship with the EU, or leave it, is radical in itself. (Though I have contended elsewhere that it is simply because of the depth and complexity of the actually-existing built relationship).Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
But your stance is extreme whereas his is not. You can accept almost anything short of retracting Article 50, whereas Pan prefers whatever produces the least disruption. You occupy almost all the area in which there is space to offer compromise.
To say something is extreme is not to say that it is bad or illegitimate. Defending Jews in Nazi Germany was extreme. Labor militancy was and remains extreme. All I'm telling you in this latest sub-thread is that calling Pannonian (fundamentally a conservative) extreme and averse to compromise is gross projection and you ought to walk it back.
I thought the idea was a deepening political union between the rest of the EU, along with declining UK influence on the major decisions of EU structure, will end in de jure political union, or de facto union in which the UK passively assents to whatever the EU imposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
On a lighter note:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjp5...SwjkcQ&index=2
Yes. But a hollow gift unless other peripheral states have an interest in joining us against the consensus, which was disallowed by Belguim (cuck move or what?). The result is as you describe below:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Yes. As I am sure you'll recall me saying: First we didn't care becuase we had a veto, then we didn't care because we had the vote weight to block QMV, then when the vote weight changed post lisbon cameron tried to get us a red card. what we were offered was a notional exemption for britain which had little real meaning unless the other euro-outs had an incentive to join. Belgium said no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So when you say this:
You are only partially right; the peripheral nations would be very happy to preserve core fiscal and economic independence by forgoing the euro, but that was not an option, so no the fault lines did leave us short.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So we left!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I'm not at all sure how that relates to what i said. Would be spiffing if you might further explain, please.
But within the existing structure, we can still persuade others to our POV if our case is sound enough. All that Brexiteers demand, we can still do, in a fashion, within the EU. See Frag's admission that immigration from outside the EU is one of the reasons why he supports Brexit; this is entirely controllable by a UK government within the EU, and post-referendum immigration from outside the EU has actually gone up. See Corbyn's wish to nationalise the railways; this is doable within the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Compare with Furunculus's suggestion a couple of pages back of invoking some clause or other that might delay Brexit, not to aid transition or other practical use, but just to invoke a once only clause so that no one else can do so after.
those three sentences are funny when read together: I occupy all the space for compromise... because I am reasonable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
i agree the whole argument produces no value, it doesn't get us anywhere meaningful, and it does not make interesting debate here on this thread. I simply got bored of being traduced time after time and decided to make a point of dishing some back. more than happy to return to the implications of the policy rather than playing the man.
My point is that the backstop is actually pretty good for us, if they'd offered that to Cameron we'd have bitten Junkers arm off!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But, my fear, is that we end up with labour sometime within the transition and they do something stupid. again. like blair did in 1997 when he immediately threw away Major's opt-out from the social chapter - which I contend was the single biggest feeding cause of the 2012 promise to hold a referendum. i.e. because the the transition can be extended by "up to two years", that would go into the period beyond the latest possible GE date. And, frankly, i'd rather the WA/PD/FTA is all sorted before they get back into power. After all comrade corbyn wants an end of the competition regs on state aid, so if he ditches that just so he can re-open the coal mines it will come at tremendous cost.
Very interesting report YouGov has put out. By going solely of First Preferences (first past the post) it looks like Remain is the clear winner.
However, we all know FPTP has its issues, so they set up each option in head to head choices to determine the Condorcet method winner (possibly the closest we can get mathematically to picking a winner that meets the preferences of the voters).
May's deal comes out dominating (372 constituencies to Remain's 262) when you actually apply math and take into account the varying preferences of voters for different options. Maybe it's time I step aside from the commentary and recognize that Brexit isn't as frivolous as Pannonian makes it out to be. When it comes down to it, May's deal is the closest Brexiteers will get to their ideal state with the least amount of economic turmoil, on some level this is recognized as Deal beat out No Deal 2 to 1 in the head to head pick.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...tituencies-it-
Furunculus, Не говорит ерунду
ACIN, the hard limitation to the usefulness of any MP constituency analysis is that Brexit will not be decided on a per-constituency vote per se, whether in Parliament or by another referendum. The fact that [EDIT: Corrected because I thought I was referring to the figures in Table 13, but was actually giving figures from Table 14 on the Condorcet vote within MP incumbent supporters] almost 80% of Tory constituencies have Deal as their Condorcet vote, and almost 60% of Labour constituencies have Remain as their Condorcet vote, is therefore electorally not meaningful. More interesting to me is that Remain is basically still only 50-50 against either Deal-Brexit or No-Deal-Brexit, also confirming reports that there has been minimal movement between positions within the electorate (i.e. polarization).Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
46% have Remain at 1st preference vs 27% for Deal vs 27 for No Deal. So Leavers are evenly split, but almost all Leavers have the other form of leaving as their second choice. (Deal wins overwhelmingly against No Deal because Remainers prefer Deal to No Deal, ACIN.)
Also interesting, a majority of respondents who actually voted Leave in 2016 prefer No Deal to Deal (51-40). (I'm looking at the full report.)
You meant Не говори ерунду. What you wrote means "Doesn't say nonsense" and you must have meant "Don't say nonsense" as a request/order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
In my endless Europhile arrogance and without fully understanding the methodical differences you're talking about, I might just as well claim that this only tells us something about how bad the British school system is and how much they hate us. Maybe trying to invade them wasn't so wrong after all, since they hate us landlubbers and always tried to divide us and meddle in our affairs while whining that we would meddle in theirs. And on the side they took millions of other peoples' freedoms, and are still proud of it while whining the EU would be taking theirs...Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Just because something is democratic, that doesn't mean it can't be stupid. That said, I hope they leave now! Get off my europhile lawn!
I like to be ruled by drunken squirrels from tax havens and why wouldn't I, seeing what the British like!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam Fox MP, Trade Minister
Quote:
No it won't moron. Its an agreement with the EU (of which the UK is still a member and would benefit enormously from). Because of YOUR hatred of the EU you and your robotic Far Right ideological nutcase agenda you plan to take us out and away from all these benefits- :daisy: YOU FOX
Quote:
Except Japan has said this FTA will not form the basis of a JP-UK trade deal IF we leave the EU. Do keep up Liam.
Quote:
Liam, the UK is leaving the EU so won't benefit from this Japan/EU free trade deal. If you look at the paperwork, Japan is precluded from offering an equivalent deal to the UK.
Are Brexiteers liars or just idiots?Quote:
Now Liam. It isn’t right to be taking the Michael out of us all like this. The EU Japan Trade Deal starts just as we are supposed to be exiting.
So there goes another 3bn£ out from the window. I guess for some reason EU gets better deals then Britain alone..Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
More i think about this, less i understand this Brexit. Who is actually benefiting from it and how?
Pretty much nobody, though some (including, according to Pannonian, some of the loudest exit voices) are pretty well insulated from the downsides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
It is possible that the UK will be stronger for a hard Brexit independence....but the positives aren't quite certain and won't be felt for a generation while the suckage will be immediate and encompass most of a decade.
It remains to be seen how long it takes for the UK to rebound from the price it pays for such an exit.
Can't I use the infinitive imperative in this context? Is it allowed in the first-person plural (present indicative) form?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
не болтай, солнышкоQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Apparently there's an HBO TV movie coming out starring Benedict Cumberbatch. Too soon?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Не говорит is not an infinitive of any kind. It is present tense 3rd person singular. The infinitive is (не) говорить, but it can hardly be used as an imperative with a direct object (like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?). Не разговаривать may be used as an order addressing a group (for example in a class room = stop talking), but it is an intransitive verb which can't be followed by an object (ерунду). Говорить = say, tell, Разговаривать = talk, speak, more or less. Singular imperative is не говори, plural imperative (or a deferential form) is не говорите.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I wonder who will want to learn Russian (or any other Slavic language) after this post.
Sorry, but what was the purpose of the original comment? I confess I missed the original, and largely bypassed subsequent discussion.
You probably don't know this, but I once failed a Russian A1 class at the University, didn't have the time to learn for it even though I found it quite interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Google says you told me: "Don't talk, the sun." I can only assume that "the sun" in this case stands for the daisy emoticon that you would use to hide an insult here on the Org. :creep:
Rather "don't babble, honey".Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If we all followed this advice, the Backroom would have to shut down....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Along with most of the elected leadership in Europe and North America.
I forgot the soft sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
What if a group of partisans have been captured by the Germans and are debating whether to give up intel?Quote:
The infinitive is (не) говорить, but it can hardly be used as an imperative with a direct object (like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?). Не разговаривать may be used as an order addressing a group (for example in a class room = stop talking), but it is an intransitive verb which can't be followed by an object (ерунду). Говорить = say, tell, Разговаривать = talk, speak, more or less. Singular imperative is не говори, plural imperative (or a deferential form) is не говорите.
лично не сдаю родину.
Всё, капут. Говорим (~ расскажем?)
Are you sure transitive verbs can never be used as infinitival imperatives? Aside from По траве не ходить in the link, does this work:
Я открою дверь.
Не откривать (дверь)!
Or:
Дрова не рубить.
Печку не топить.
Кашу не варить.
Maybe even:
Если овощи есть, есть овощи.
(I'll admit though Google Translate likes these, my reference people don't)
English has "not to worry" , but it's probably a unique formula (idiom).Quote:
(like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?).
I prefer Liebchen, a terrific German word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-of-governmentQuote:
A powerful cross-party group of MPs today warns Theresa May that Brexit is “sucking the life” out of her government – as cabinet sources admit that the crisis is forcing vital domestic business off the government’s timetable.
With the deadlock over May’s Brexit deal unresolved, and a key vote in parliament postponed until mid-January, the chairpersons of six all-party select committees have signed a statement saying long-drawn-out arguments over Brexit are having a “serious detrimental effect” on wider domestic policy.
While the six have very different views on Brexit they agree that the government is letting people down with its near-total preoccupation with the issue at a time of crisis in the NHS and social care, rising knife crime, failing public transport, chronic homelessness and environmental challenges. Labour members including Creagh say government austerity has made neglect of poorer communities by government even more shocking.
Their intervention follows news on Friday that chaos over Brexit has forced NHS leaders to postpone a new long-term plan for the NHS and put back, yet again, a long-awaited green paper on the future of social care until January. Both decisions dismayed MPs and organisations across the health and social care sectors.
Asked why the social care green paper had been delayed, a government source told the Observer the crisis over Brexit had “wiped the grid clean and meant we have had to push stuff back. So social care won’t be until January.”
Practically all government has stopped since the 2016 referendum pending the conclusion of Brexit. And the harder the Brexit, the longer acting to ameliorate its effects will continue to affect government. Eg. No deal will reduce government revenue by an amount equivalent to 100% of the Defence budget. If the UK leaves with no deal, as the ERG (over a third of the ruling party) is urging, there will be widespread and deep spending cuts, as the government will have to prioritise some services and drop others just to avoid collapse. With the 2016 result, no plans are possible as all normality is gone.
The example is strange. Are these remarks belonging to two different people? If so, расскажем should be followed by some object(s) like расскажем им всё. Говорим is also possible, but it I wouldn't put it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I never said it. My observations concerned the verb говорить and I said "hardly possible". Generally, all of these possible and gramatically correct, but they sound impersonal (as used on signs По газонам не ходить or Животных не кормить - in the zoo) and a bit rude if used addressing someone. More natural and emotionally neutral would be an imperative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
A funny sign plate (using infinitive as an imperative) allegedly spotted in a Soviet diner: Пальцами и яйцами в солонку не лазить. It may be understood in two ways since яйца means both "eggs" and (informal) "testicles".
Oh, and Неоткривать(дверь)! > открЫвать
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46586673
May says doing a final referendum on the choices before us would say to the people democracy doesn't work. I would argue that it shows it does work, by giving people the say on the matter instead of the failed politics which have been at play. Leave will face the scrutiny and accountability behind the agenda. All those people who voted for buses and 'soft brexit', Norway model, etc, will most likely go with the remain-within-EU camp given the other choice is the May Deal and Hard Brexit.
Also the responsibility of what happens is transferred to the people so something gets done, whatever the outcome, instead of the constant ankle biting.
May the force be with you. I admire her, she was never a supporter of a brexit herself, that is ok, never deny a mind.of your own people will always disagree. She is brave. At this point there should be a second chance though. Remainers do not understand that everything will be fine, and that is what worries eurocrats the most, doing Just fine. Do you want anders enhanced version of an Orwellian dystopia, vote for it but don't call me
i don't really care about a sec ref one way or another, as long as the question is usefully representative of the dilemma faced.
i do think it will reflect badly on parliament if they prove unable to deal with the policy around the decision that was given to them at their request in 2016.
fair warning: anyone who thinks public discourse has been ugly up until now will get a surprise if a sec ref narrowly overturns the first result.
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Nigel Farage, 17th May 2016
A second referendum would be a great expression of democratic orientation in decision making. It would also be a total cop-out by government, since the goal of government representatives is to balance the will of the people with the best interests of the people and pass laws and resolutions that embody that. Else, why have a legislature? Hold annual referenda covering questions of governance and let ministries manage it.
The Lords could continue as before, since signing in and then taking a bit of a kip doesn't get in the way overmuch.
"Will of the people" - Jeremy Corbyn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
"I think we've had enough of experts" - Michael Gove.
"Enemies of the people" - Daily Mail.
Three indicators and drivers of said cop out. All arguments for good government founder when matched against the above. The "will of the people" of the people must be carried out, and anyone standing in the way are "enemies of the people". And all reasoned arguments are dismissed because "I think we've had enough of experts". Such is Brexit. And as Furunculus threatens, if Brexit doesn't happen, things will turn ugly, presumably due to Leavers.
Agreed, brexiteers should get a second chance, nobody should deny them that. Just fair play as things have gotten more complicated. I hope the answer will be the same, but if it isn't I really should stfu and watch things roll out. Your choice I will just have respect it. But do remainers have everything succombingQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
So I started listening to a podcast called "Talking Politics" hosted by a professor from Cambridge University. Turns out he had an earlier podcast called "Election" leading up to the 2015 general election. Just for fun I have been listening to some of these early episodes and there are quite a few precursors leading up to the Brexit vote that have really caught my attention.
As a whole, British political elite seem to be particularly blind to the art of politicking. Many of the guests the host brings on for conversations seem to be in complete agreement that neither Labour or the Conservatives are looped into a 21st century dialogue with their constituents. Compared to the high degree of political penetration that US politicians pursue every day, the following issues were brought up multiple times by multiple parties.
A. Lack of interest in online presence.
Both Milliband and Cameron never used twitter as a platform for quick vitriolic/rhetorical messages in a way that US politicians did following 2008 (and Trump to a greater success later in 2016).
Neither Milliband nor Cameron (at the time of the episodes I listened to), reached out with an AMA on Reddit or with an interactive Q&A session on Facebook or with any social media platform at all really. Completely disconnected to the forums that young people spend their time in.
Most importantly, neither party seems to have learned from Barack Obama's fundraising and community outreach strategy, where most of his campaign money came from millions of small online donations that kept those donors (average middle class citizens) interested in their investment and motivated to give more when asked.
B. Lack of interest in television presence.
At the time (I assume, based on the host implication, they never really explained the history of this) the 2015 election was the first/second? election with television debates. But with so many parties all on the stage, it is a bit of clusterfuck and you are not going to get the message out clearly with all these different brands being pushed at the same time. Some of the debates were cancelled due to disagreements between parties. But really, if you were the labour or the conservative party, why would you dilute your message down like this? Get a debate between you and your biggest opponent and cut him down 1 on 1 as many times as you can. UKIP and Greens and Lib Dems would only serve to undermine your positions and shift the dialogue in directions you can't anticipate. Why have UK political parties only started television debates in the 21st century?!? US politicians have been arguing on air since the 1960s.
C. Lack of dominance in the political realm.
With a first past the post system, the Tories and Labour are structurally advantaged to dominate as the two historically large tent parties. But despite their structural advantage, each only command roughly 30% of the electorate while four other parties split the rest. Why did the Tories lose members to UKIP up until the Brexit vote when the goals of UKIP were achieved and the party was no longer needed? Why is Labour, even under the more leftist Corbyn, not captured the Lib Dem vote? Unless I misunderstand the Lib Dems policy positions (are they more similar to New Labour under Blair?).
All of this seems to indicate from the beginning that the UK has been at least for the past two decades been managed by a political elite that is so far disconnected from their constituents they have neglected to build the infrastructure necessary to communicate with them, and perhaps even understand them.
With leaders like these, what hope does the United Kingdom have of maintaining itself whether they go full Brexit or stay in the EU?
EDIT: Fixed some words
"All of this seems to indicate from the beginning that the UK has been at least for the past two decades been managed by a political elite that is so far disconnected from their constituents they have neglected to build the infrastructure necessary to communicate with them, and perhaps even understand them."
An argument might be made that that MP's have become increasingly superfluous as ever-closer-union brought the EU in to do more.
It is often said that politicians are made from ambitious people who wish to wield the levers of power. How disappointing to reach that position of pre-eminence only to to find out that those levers are no longer connected to anything...
Forty years of the Mother of all Parliaments acting as a rubber stamp for statutory instruments created on behalf of the EU, agreed by the executive in Brussels.
Quelle surprise - that modern politics is more vacuous than visceral, more charlatanry than considerate.
Quelle surprise, look at the bright side your French has improved