EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

My impression is that sometimes you like to fling out academic sounding verbiage in the hope that sheer quantity alone will disguise the fact that on occasion you have no substantial rebuttal to offer. Is that unfair?

---

I don't use more academic language than you do; my diction is pretty much vernacular. I only post a lot relative to the average user here. I don't feel like you've rebutted my points, though I'll grant that you make an effort to be substantive. You have a particular premise in favoring a "market economy", but I've never seen you show why the existence of finance as a major sector of the British economy is self-justifying, how the continuation of a £100 billion sector is the lynchpin for sustaining British life and therefore a lynchpin of Brexit strategy, or even how the fact of European integration is either a mortal threat to the British economy or really a moral threat to your value of sovereignty (or why your particular construction of sovereignty makes sense in the first place). You've had a generation within the EU Single Market; can you show that Single Market membership is not relevant to the growth of this industry? Why do you think there is growth opportunity outside the EU for this industry as opposed to constraint outside Europe alongside the prospect of erosion of European market share? (Deutsche Bank at least thinks Single Market access is exactly one of the advantages that has been enticing to the foreign banks that scaffold British investment banking, the dominant subset of British banking and financial services.)

At risk of getting ahead of myself, I'm interested in both if you're plausible and if you're internally consistent.

Quick question: have you ever mocked Corbyn for musing on British autarky?

EDIT:

Quote:

---

I can't read that - but I have seen many valid and useful critiques, not least that services is inextricably tied up with people.

---

Accessible through Google search, "Why is Britain leaving the single market for services?". Also try Incognito/Private browsing. 1K words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The tyrannous EU forces its member states to vote and vote again until they get the right result. Parliament is betraying the British people by failing to pass the government's Bill, even after three goes. MPs like John Redwood and Bill Cash, and Boris Johnson, David Davis and Jacob Rees Mogg before them, keep doing all they can to stop Brexit. It's all the EU's fault.

---

Is it tragedy, or farce that all of this is true?

We're heading into round two of the votes now:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-will-vote-on

Option A is a non-starter and Option B has already been rejected. One hopes if they're soundly rejected again that they, along with May's deal can be put to bead - with a stake through the heart.

So Labour has whipped in favour of commons 2.0, aka Norway-Plus, aka EFTA.
At this moment of writing, it is coming out with the Common Market 2.0 motion winning by 307 to 253

Does that sit well with those who voted leave if this gets the majority?
[As a note, Norway-Plus was shouted a lot as a possible default position by the leave camp during the referendum.]

Ill take it as an improvement, but it remains for the proponents to explain why it is acceptable for:
1. the eu to regulate the city of london (financial and professional services)
2. how that is actionable given it requires efta allowing a member in a customs union

mays deal is better, if:
a) you believe that flanking policies ought to be the competence of parliament
b) you want service related trade deals

I know that there was no official vote of "no confidence," but when a government-sponsored measure on a major piece of legislation is voted down three times, isn't there a bit of a tradition that the PM resigns and/or calls for elections? As a student of representative democracy, I would appreciate local insight on this.

@Beskar All along, I think the bulk of the leave crowd wanted something along the lines of Norway Plus. My read is that 90%+ of the UK was happy with a combination of the EEC and the Good Friday Accords. It was the further diminution of sovereignty thereafter, notably the Lisbon deal and the refugee crisis engendered by Assad's excesses, that created a notable groundswell against the EU. Obviously, the 'nativists' in the UK took up that latter issue (likely to bigoted excess) as our own nativists here in the USA have taken up 'The Wall' as some kind of mantra (shamefully, with bigoted excess led by our President). The bulk of the opposition wasn't quite that strident though, at least from my read of things from this side of the pond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I know that there was no official vote of "no confidence," but when a government-sponsored measure on a major piece of legislation is voted down three times, isn't there a bit of a tradition that the PM resigns and/or calls for elections? As a student of representative democracy, I would appreciate local insight on this.

@Beskar All along, I think the bulk of the leave crowd wanted something along the lines of Norway Plus. My read is that 90%+ of the UK was happy with a combination of the EEC and the Good Friday Accords. It was the further diminution of sovereignty thereafter, notably the Lisbon deal and the refugee crisis engendered by Assad's excesses, that created a notable groundswell against the EU. Obviously, the 'nativists' in the UK took up that latter issue (likely to bigoted excess) as our own nativists here in the USA have taken up 'The Wall' as some kind of mantra (shamefully, with bigoted excess led by our President). The bulk of the opposition wasn't quite that strident though, at least from my read of things from this side of the pond.

---

May's government has ignored all previous customs and traditions. Before the three failed votes, May had postponed the promised "meaningful vote", which was originally set for pre-Christmas break. When it eventually happened in mid-January, it was defeated by the biggest marginal in recorded history, which alone would normally cause previous British governments to call for a vote of confidence in itself, or even to call a General Election to clear the situation (as has happened numerous times in the past when it's clear the main manifesto promise cannot be kept). Prior to that, the government had to be taken to court to allow Parliament a say at all; May had ruled that Brexit was to be a matter determined and decided by her, and the court disagreed. Alongside that, the European Court of Justice, that body Brexiteers demonise as encroaching on British sovereignty, overruled the UK government's assertion that article 50, once invoked, cannot be revoked; the ECJ ruled that British sovereignty retains control of the process until it is ended. May now deems the process to be unsatisfactory, and has ordered a Secession of the Nobs (she's ordered the cabinet to abstain).

Brexit is all about the good of the Tory party, not the good of the country. Even the original referendum was to solve the schisms in the Tory party that have existed for the past 30 years, that had accounted for Thatcher and Major previously.

People from outside the UK may not be familiar with the individuals in the Brexit story, so here is a picture of Jacob Rees Mogg, the head of the European Research Group, the euphemistically named anti-EU group that is directing Brexit policy in the British government. It is a screencap from the most recent episode of Newsnight, a political discussion programme on the BBC.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.postimg.cc/YCp3NYjJ/Ashamp...25m18s-001.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

People from outside the UK may not be familiar with the individuals in the Brexit story, so here is a picture of Jacob Rees Mogg, the head of the European Research Group, the euphemistically named anti-EU group that is directing Brexit policy in the British government. It is a screencap from the most recent episode of Newsnight, a political discussion programme on the BBC.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.postimg.cc/YCp3NYjJ/Ashamp...25m18s-001.jpg

---

A picture's worth a 1000 words :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Brexiiteers are the ones who need to get serious.
They do hold the parliamentary majority. So when the deal is getting shot down by both the Remainers (representing 49% of the population who voted) and Brexiteer European Research Group, you cannot blame the peoples who are against it, blame the people (ERG) supposedly for it.

or you know, just accept there is actually no consensus on what Brexit actually is and have an actually referendum with the people to have a right to define and give a mandate to enact it. Opposed to the advisory non-binding wish-washy one which caused this mess and ever-enduring constitutional crisis in the first place.

Unless the real reason is, you are fearful that people might not actually want Brexit now and vote to remain, opposed to actually voting to confirm they do indeed want Brexit and expect to win.

---

I would have some grudging respect if right at the start the MPs had said "this was a non-binding vote. Thanks for your say, but we're overruling it as is our prerogative." But they didn't. Back then it was all about the "will of the people". Well, sort of.

Since the 1970's when the last plebiscite was undertaken on the as now is EU, how many times has what was voted on substantially changed? And yet there have been no votes.

So to point out the obvious, again it is only the requirement for new elections when the answer is against the EU's interests. Otherwise I imagine it is all a-ok since the politicians agreed it and they are our representatives... even though in many cases this wasn't in the manifesto. Mere details, right?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Ill take it as an improvement, but it remains for the proponents to explain why it is acceptable for:
1. the eu to regulate the city of london (financial and professional services)
2. how that is actionable given it requires efta allowing a member in a customs union

mays deal is better, if:
a) you believe that flanking policies ought to be the competence of parliament
b) you want service related trade deals

---

The Leave vote was sold on the premise that Leaving would not incur substantial economic disruption. The majority of those who voted Leave did so on the principle that they wanted to leave the EU. Nobody was asked about leaving the EEA, although some clearly also voted to leave the trading Bloc.

at the Election the Tories DID put forward a vision of Brexit and Labour but not, but:

A) Both parties committed to Brexit
B) The current Labour Leader is a man many suspect of being a closet Communist/Terrorist Supporter/Anti-Semite/wanting to overthrow the Monarchy/Break up the UK/All/Some of the above.

So, really, the fact that May got the best Result since Thatcher is not that surprising, and it's not really a mandate for Brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I would have some grudging respect if right at the start the MPs had said "this was a non-binding vote. Thanks for your say, but we're overruling it as is our prerogative." But they didn't. Back then it was all about the "will of the people". Well, sort of.

---

Why don't you directly cite Corbyn on the morning of the result?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkmBdQ-t8cg

I despise the man as much as any of the ERGers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I despise the man as much as any of the ERGers.

---

Careful now how you speak about comrade Jeremy - the breeze's a bit chilly in Irkutsk this time of the year..:yes:

The Independent Group(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want to remain.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like no-deal Brexit. They should have gone for Norway-Plus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The Independent Group(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want to remain.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like no-deal Brexit. They should have gone for Norway-Plus.

---

The ERG(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want a harder brexit.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like a softer Brexit. They should have gone for Theresa's deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The Leave vote was sold on the premise that Leaving would not incur substantial economic disruption. The majority of those who voted Leave did so on the principle that they wanted to leave the EU. Nobody was asked about leaving the EEA, although some clearly also voted to leave the trading Bloc.

at the Election the Tories DID put forward a vision of Brexit and Labour but not, but:

A) Both parties committed to Brexit
B) The current Labour Leader is a man many suspect of being a closet Communist/Terrorist Supporter/Anti-Semite/wanting to overthrow the Monarchy/Break up the UK/All/Some of the above.
So, really, the fact that May got the best Result since Thatcher is not that surprising, and it's not really a mandate for Brexit.

---

lots of people insisted it would mean leaving the EEA, and lots of others said they'd be happy with eea.

but i'm not sure how that follows on from what i said, re: questions about financial services regulation and how eea+cu is actionable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

The ERG(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want a harder brexit.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like a softer Brexit. They should have gone for Theresa's deal.

---

Looks like we agree on both counts.

Though arguably, no deal Brexit seems to be the default if nothing passes still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Looks like we agree on both counts.

Though arguably, no deal Brexit seems to be the default if nothing passes still.

---

Video explaining the consequences of no deal. Probably explains the news article it's tied to.

Government orders hospitals not to reveal Brexit impact assessments to protect 'commercial interests'

Fox's department does have a workable solution for the customs problem listed in the video: no customs checks on imports. No tailbacks on incomings if there are no checks. The price is it will severely damage or even collapse the agricultural and probably other industries that rely on tariffs to render them viable. But Patrick Minford, Furunculus' favourite economist who's come up with the economic model that F even now favours as Britain's future, reckons that's a worthwhile price to pay. Move UK to a services (read finances) model without an agricultural or manufacturing industry weighing it down. So the video isn't entirely accurate. It is possible to solve some of the problems of no deal. You just have to sacrifice some sectors of the UK economy. And I suspect, some of the constituent nations of the UK itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

...But Patrick Minford, Furunculus' favourite economist who's come up with the economic model that F even now favours as Britain's future, reckons that's a worthwhile price to pay...

---

I love how you personalise this at every opportunity.
It is such an inspiring method of debating ideas; never mind the idea itself, just vilify the proponent.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053785833

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!

Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)

That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.

I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.

---

Returning to this time after time like a dog to its own vomit, is forcing me to question your grasp on reality.

That well known fascist Corbyn has been given the keys to Brexit....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7NlFWh7Sz8

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Once Brexit is done and we freed from the shackles of Europe. Think of the possibilities.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/bgQATl9.jpg

[Reference to proponents of a new-integrated commonwealth union.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Once Brexit is done and we freed from the shackles of Europe. Think of the possibilities.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/bgQATl9.jpg

[Reference to proponents of a new-integrated commonwealth union.]

---

The future possibilities :laugh4:

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.

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

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

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...it-trade-goods

The economic editor of the most left leaning newspaper in the uk, that believes that "the people are ready for radical change" [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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob Rees Mogg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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/Maastr...y#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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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/Maastr...y#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-cont...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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

I Want To Brexit - The Musical

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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 [its structure] 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.

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"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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 [in greek we call this καπέλλωμα, "hating" αs puting our "hat" on statements] and create sympathy for brexiteer psychology.

Yes, indeed - people might get scared of new things - yet change is part of life, and 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Taxation to achieve public services rather redistribution

---

Isn't all taxation, by definition, redistribution?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

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

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

https://order-order.com/2019/04/08/l...#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.'”

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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: