https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=edGFTEbZCHQ
Printable View
I heard a report on NPR today suggesting that support for the EU among EU member-states has increased during this Brexit process. Watching the UK twist in the breeze seems to be having a cautionary effect on the electorates of the other member states. I suspect that support to emulate the UK in its effort to leave is waning.
So maybe the EU leadership is getting what it needs most, whether or not that is the stated views of EU leadership?
After this example, who would want to follow along? And, if the leave effort now fails and the UK returns (likely after the next EU elections during this latest "extension"), then the EU is more or less solidified as the dominant player in European politics -- not the sole voice of Europe by any means, but the first voice.
In the short term you may be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
However, what will this do to Europe in the long term?
If Brexit fails the UK will experience a power "Downgrade" similar to the one after Suez that was inflicted by the US - the UK went from World Super Power to Great Power. If Brexit "fails" and Article 50 is revoked then the UK will be reduced to Regional Power behind France and Germany. Such a fate may well dissuade others from following the example of the UK's electorate, but this will not actually reduce resentment at the practices and corruption of the EU.
If the EU humiliates the UK and forces us to remain part of the EU - as looks likely - then the people of the UK will remain resentful for the foreseeable future. Support for "Remain" comes from a fear that leaving will cause political and economic collapse, not a swing in favour of the EU's political settlement.
The EU has made it clear it won't renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement which means the only purpose of an extension is to give the UK's Parliament more time to change its mind, despite the fact that the UK Parliament cannot vote again on the agreement unless Parliament is prorogued. If May tries to prorogue Parliament merely to pass the agreement there will probably be a General Election. If the EU gives the UK an extension until December that will allow another vote of No Confidence in her
All of this assumes the UK's Parliament will accept the EU's conditions. If it does not the EU will either have to accept actual renegotiation or allow No Deal and the dreaded Hard Border.
Might this be the very essence where your brexit support stems from? Sounds bit like The Ghost dancing Lakota at Wounded Knee. "If we dance hard enough everything turn back like it was before." We all know how well that turned out. Now by trashing your own economy with Brexit, you are yourselves creating this drop of influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Care to elaborate concerning the EU corruption?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
How is EU is forcing you to stay?It is your own parliament that is not accepting any of the choices brought to it by your own Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
EU politicians who have voted against May's deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
UK politicians who have voted against May's deal.
Steve Baker
Bill Cash
Christopher Chope
David Davis
Iain Duncan Smith
Mark Francois
Boris Johnson
Daniel Kawczynski
Esther McVey
Dominic Raab
John Redwood
Jacob Rees Mogg
When did the EU promise this?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It has nothing to do with economics it is and always was about who governs the UK.
Christ on a bike where to begin!Quote:
Care to elaborate concerning the EU corruption?
So who does govern the UK? You've already criticised Parliament for betraying the British people because they refused to pass May's deal to facilitate her Brexit. Should they have passed it, in your view? Don't dance around it with memes. Give your honest opinion on whether or not Parliament should have passed it. Or even whether or not it needed Parliament to vote on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Start with anything.Give us an example? Not what you phantom, but any corruption misconduct revealed within EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
There's an MEP called Nigel Farage who's been claiming goodness knows how much money whilst not turning up for work. Does that count?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
The EU Accounts -Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-audi...ign-eu-budget/
Prior to 2007 The EU’s Court of Auditors described the EU's budget as "not entirely" fair and accurate. Between 1994 and 2015 the Court described the payments as not being "free from material error" which is to say there were significant accounting errors.
I.e. money was being paid for things that didn't exist and the process itself was being managed in an unfair (corrupt) way.
Since 2007 the Court has described the accounts as fair and accurate but prior to 2016 (the year the UK voted to leave) there remained significant material inaccuracies.
The Accounts didn't get a clean bill of health in 2016, either, they were just "mostly" accurate.
https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecad...ts-2017-en.pdf
The most recent report, for 2017, indicates that there continue to be material "errors" in reimbursement-based payments, though this was less than in 2016.
In essence - the EU pays for things people claim they are entitled to be reimbursed on without the attending paperwork.
This is, fundamentally, corruption.
And now that we are out of the EU, we can be ruled by the incorruptible Westminster. Have you seen some of the sidelines our MPs get up to? Eg. John Redwood giving financial advice to his clients not to invest in the UK because the UK economy post-Brexit is likely to be dodgy. And then pushing for no deal. Or Rees Mogg expanding investments inside the EU because there is likely to be greater stability within the EU than in the UK post-Brexit. Why are European politicians doing dodgy stuff to their money such an important issue with you, but UK politicians screwing the UK over such a non-issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
we exist in this parliamentary knot in large part because parliament has inserted itself into a gov't task; negotiating treaties with foreign powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
and negotiation by committee is universally understood to be a poor idea.
yes, we can make the argument that the eu is so deeply entwined around our domestic governance that it is no longer a foreign policy issue...
... but this is precisely my objection to ever closer union.
yes, parliament should have passed May's deal, but i wish it didn't have too.
of course, if didn't feel it needed to have a say then we may not have felt it necessary to leave. see the conundrum?
What authority does this government have? Please explain on what authority the government would be doing the above that you suggest they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Excuse me, but the Government negotiates treaties on behalf of Parliament, which I remind you is constituted of Both Houses and the Sovereign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The Government led by Theresa May has never acted on behalf of Parliament, that is why we are in this mess. Parliament cannot reasonably be expected to pass the Withdrawal Agreement in its current form and the EU's insistence that it should borders on being deliberately pernicious.
Extension until 31/10/2019.
At this rate, with the extension until October, I fully expect it to be delayed AGAIN.
It's funny how you mention the status quo as a potential future option. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Zing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
As PFH has said, the Government negotiates treaties on behalf of Parliament. That it has not, because it buckled on the question of meaningful votes is in good measure why we are in this knot.
We saw exactly this point with the outrage over the initial extension, where the leave date became the 12th of april regardless of the fact that parliament had put "31st of March" into law.
Why not? It isn't ideal, but it is perfectly workable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
If we didn't like the sequencing of WA > FTA + the maximalist interpretation of "no hard border", then we should have left without a deal.
But this is still perfectly workable.
British governments take office based on their majority in the Commons. Where is this majority?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Was that the guy who used EU funds to pay for his parties campaigning in a national election on the platform against the EU?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Then there was that guy who charged parliament to build a house for his duck.. oh wait, that was UK corruption.
I dont see how, even when May managed to shift the faux brexiteers she was still short of a majority. As it is she has run out of viable turncoats on her side and is looking for support from across the isle; that isnt going to come without likely dire concessions. The deal in its current form just isnt going to pass parliament and its going to be a hell of a challenge to rework the deal to enough of the opposition's liking, while also getting EU approval for the changes, without haemoragging support tory-side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You mean Alexis Tsipras?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
He might have too. Le Penn did similar in France. Popular trope.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallum
same lies, same power mongers..its all the eu's fault though~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It certainly does. And what has the EU done about it? They should have penalised the corrupt little leech years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So... since we have problems with corruption at the UK level, we might as well have an extra level of corruption. Is that the extent of the argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The EU have their 4 pillars. The UK had their red lines. Given they were not remotely close and both sides prior to the start said they'd not budge there was never going to be an agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Negotiation was basically to what extent the UK was prepared to do what the EU wanted. And, sure, they are the EU rules - why should they break their own rules? Except for auditing accounts, country expenditure deficits, financial tricks to enter the EU in the first place, exceptions for overseas territories. But apart from all the examples where they have done, when has the EU ever changed its mind? And of course the massive difference is the previous examples the EU bent because it was politically desired to do so. There is and never will be any political desire to bend for what the UK wants.
Others have mentioned the UK loosing "power" on the world stage. Personally I would have thought that Suez would have been a wake up call, but no we are still pretending that we matter and if we just accept that we have a role with soft power things would be much easier - perhaps it would be more effective if people stopped hating us for intervening in situations where we have frankly no place.
If this loss of power means that every time some country implodes the UK doesn't need to send its overstretched armed forces and shower resources on some new disaster that'd be fantastic! France and Germany can enjoy the prestige of getting shot at by all sorts of "lovely" cultures. Perhaps people in our own "communities" will side with terrorists less often.
~:smoking:
How many conflicts has the EU embroiled the UK in during our membership? Here are the last few that I remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Syria, sort of: Did we really get involved?
Libya: Was this an EU-driven involvement?
Iraq: Most of the EU states were against. We joined to pay the blood price of being in partnership with the US.
Afghanistan: A NATO response.
Sierra Leone: A purely UK affair. A British officer and the UK foreign minister (Robin Cook) both said the UK would not wait for wider approval before intervention.
Kosovo: A UK-driven affair, bringing a reluctant US into it.
Have I missed anything? How would leaving the EU free us from the above? The most controversial on the list, Iraq 2003, was driven by our perceived need to keep our partnership with the US. Once we leave the EU, we will be more dependent than before on the US-UK relationship. You argue that our EU membership leads us to being shot at because of EU-embroiled conflicts, which hasn't happened. But your action leads us to being more heavily dependent on a relationship which does result in us being shot at because of US-embroiled conflicts, and that has happened. You argue a theoretical case that isn't backed by evidence, but your chosen action is seen to have resulted in what you argue against in the past.
We should have left on the 29th as promised. No ifs no buts. The people didn't vote for a deal, they voted out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
..and when presented with the facts there proceeded to be a sudden rush of whataboutery and cries of 'look over there'.....Quote:
Start with anything.Give us an example? Not what you phantom, but any corruption misconduct revealed within EU.
Did I say leaving the EU would? Oh that's right - you've assumed what I meant, not bothered to check and just run with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I guess that was better than having to accept the rest of the post.
~:smoking:
:creep:Quote:
‘It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave: your decision – nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you: you the British people will decide.
‘At that moment you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and second referendum in which Britain could stay, I say: Think again. The renegotiation is happening right now and the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice: an In or Out referendum.
‘When the British people speak, their voice will be respected, not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave.’
It's a majority of members, not numbers in a specific party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Our FPTP system isn't a "Party" system, as much as some like to pretend it is.
It's a majority of votes in a Commons Bill. Parties help to get these common majorities together. But in this case, the government has had 3 goes at passing the Bill, and failed on each occasion. The Tories were only asked to form a government because they and the DUP combined to form a majority of the MPs in the Commons. But the DUP has voted against the Bill on each occasion, and has said that it will continue to vote against it. Thus meaning the government has no majority on this issue, as demonstrated on 3 occasions. Furunculus said that the government should have had executive power on this, and that Parliament should not have presumed to poke their nose in. But government authority is based on a demonstrable majority, which it plainly does not have on this. What Furunculus suggests should have been done overturns centuries of our most fundamental constitutional foundation, that government is based on a majority of votes in the Commons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Yet a Vote of No Confidence has not been brought...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It's clear there's no will to oust the Government, so on we go.
If that's the only measure of government, then all the government has to do to facilitate May's Brexit is pass her Bill. More yeas than nays on her Bill is the concrete proof of its democratic legitimacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
You have a formidable talent for reading the words I write and then imputing any meaning you deem useful into those words when you impart their apparent meaning to others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You misrepresent my words (again), and you plainly don't understand the constitutional position. A quick google search would have cleared up any confusion:
https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+c...t=firefox-b-ab
"The Government makes treaties… The UK Government is responsible for negotiating, signing and ratifying the 30 or so international treaties involving the UK each year. The starting point for treaty ratification in the UK is that the Government has the power to make international treaties under its prerogative powers."
https://researchbriefings.parliament...ummary/SN05855
"The lack of formal parliamentary involvement in treaty-making differentiates the British Parliament from most other national legislatures. ... (The constitution of the United States provides that treaties are made by 'the President by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators')."
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/...office/p14.pdf
"The power to conclude and ratify treaties in the United Kingdom is one of the few remaining prerogatives of the crown. We may search in vain for constitutional ..."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1948324
"Under English law the capacity to negotiate and conclude treaties falls entirely to the executive arm of government. Nominally Parliament plays no role at all in this process."
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/...xt=cklawreview
Just in case you were bored and had a spare moment to re-read what i said:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053792891Quote:
"we exist in this parliamentary knot in large part because parliament has inserted itself into a gov't task; negotiating treaties with foreign powers.
and negotiation by committee is universally understood to be a poor idea.
yes, we can make the argument that the eu is so deeply entwined around our domestic governance that it is no longer a foreign policy issue...
... but this is precisely my objection to ever closer union.
yes, parliament should have passed May's deal, but i wish it didn't have too.
of course, if didn't feel it needed to have a say then we may not have felt it necessary to leave. see the conundrum? "
Three questions:
1. Does your quote above seem like a reasonable characterization of what I said?
2. Does your quote above seem like a accurate restatement of uk constitutional principles?
3. Do you realise how much time I spend correcting your misrepresentations of my words?
Folks, just listen to the experts:
I wonder how often in history there have been this many people in power around the world who, were it not for the promise of a future democratic removal, would be at high risk of assassination.
Here's hoping I dont get a knock on my door by the local Met officer for wondering.
You mean the leader of the country the EU threatened to drive into poverty in order to overturn a referendum result?Quote:
Originally Posted by gallum
Then they drove Greece into poverty anyway.
Plenty of time for Referendum 2 with the choices given as Alternative Vote format.
Time to get the Brexit the people of the country actually want, instead of what the "European Research Group" wants.
On another note, who else dislikes the name of the ERG? It has no representation of what it actually is, in the same league as referring to North Korea as democratic because of it's name.
This is so out of touch with objective reality that one gets the feeling that you are writing these things just to keep the posting going..~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The problem is simple and yet so complicated at the same time - not even the UK knows what it wants. England and Wales have voted for Leave; Scotland and Northern Ireland are staunchly Remain.
When there is such a significant disconnect in between the 4 members of the UK, how do you expect to arrive at a consensus for everyone?
The split is pretty much 50/50 between those who want to remain and those who wanted to leave in some fashion. It isn't located so geographically, it is pretty even throughout the nation throughtout the nation with minor variation based on country, city or rural.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Though the latter 50% who chose the option to leave have no consensus on what leave actually looks like and the PM has pandered to the most extremist elements of that percentage and brow-beaten the other half of the country to accept it or else. Country is being held hostage by a ring of football hooligans chanting "Brexit means Brexit".
It isn't that the UK doesn't know what it wants, it is there is not actual politic will to give the nation what it wants or even make any steps to remedy the situation.
As I said, Legally-Binding Referendum with Alternative Vote. It will solve the issue. But god-forbid giving the nation the democratic choice of choosing. I will happily accept options such as Common Market 2 (Norway Plus) as advocated by Vote Leave during the initial referendum for example, but instead of trying to unify the country, it is time for...
BREXIT MEANS BREXIT
Which in reality resulted into Brexit means Brex**it
On that note, Mr Nigel has returned from life outside of the UK to launch his new "Brexit Party"
It's just like the split within the EU. 27 countries want the UK to remain and the UK wants to leave. The obvious solution for the UK is to leave the union because it disagrees with the direction of the union. So for NI and Scotland, the same solution can be applied, if they vote for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
I think you are reading too much into the irish result, Northern island split down the same catholic/protestant divide it always does. The main divide in britain isnt between the kingdoms (as much as the at-current impotent SNP may wish to believe) but between parliament and people, with the government being a rogue element.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Parliament is dominated by mp's who want to remain, they wish to avoid no deal but are disunited in what to do instead as they are vaguely aware that trying to outright betray the referendum would be suicidal, thus they are running a delaying action hoping that the people get tired of it all and become willing to remain.
The people are split thrice by those who want either a good deal, no deal or remain, with good deal/no deal forming a majority comprising of the remainers who have accepted the referendum result and the leave voters, while the remainers hold a minority of voters, comprising of the sizeable portion of remainers who dont respect the referendum. The remainers are very loud.
Finally the government is run by a PM who wants a bad deal who has basically gone rogue and has wrangled her way into being immune to removal by parliament, constantly insisting that it's her way of the highway, currently she is incapable of getting parliament to agree to her terms because, while immoveable, she is impotent.
Thus Britain is in a holding pattern until either May's deal gets through (unlikely), the EU decides to refuse to extend the deadline (even less likely but might change as time goes on), someone gets rid of may and brings the conservatives back to sanity(if pigs fly) or the next election comes around wherein the conservative party will collapse and we either get corbyn or a hung parliament (pretty much a guarentee)
What is this good deal you are talking about? What red lines does it involve?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
"Good deal" is catch all term for "deal not mays deal". Presumably each person thinks thier preferance is good and can be considered unified by thier opposition to May's.
Is there anything practical that Leavers are united on and are willing to take responsibility for? Most of the Leave argument tends towards opposition to something existing, but without offering anything concrete as an alternative. A lot of criticism of others, but few arguments about how they'll make things better. So anything which isn't strictly following the Remain position is claimed to be support for a nebulous Leave position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
To be part of the EEC but not the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Customs Union is too far for many Brexiteers though, as it prevents them from signing trade agreements. And as Major and Blair pointed out during the campaign, there is the UK-RoI bilateral treaty to bear in mind, which was facilitated by mutual membership of the EU, but exists outside EU membership. Many leading Brexiteers want to unilaterally repudiate that treaty. Now what kind of agreements a country can get when it's shown that it will unilaterally ignore bilateral treaties, I'm unsure about. I'm sure I've already mentioned that the ERG, from whose ranks the next PM will be chosen, have already said that any agreement made by May will be ignored when she goes. The directors of Brexit have stated that their formal policy is that the UK shall become a rogue state who will not be obliged to keep any agreements. They will provide the next PM when the Tory party ousts May in December at the latest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
We're united on a break with europe, the degree of economic seperation is variable but the common theme is not being subordinate to EU lawmaking or foreign policy. Way I saw it the economic ties would be the most beneficial deal we could get the EU to agree to while law and foriegn policy were red lines, if they wont budge we go no deal, WTO rules, ideally we'd be reciprical with tarrif and borders, they dont tax us out we wont do likewiseQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But for some reason our politicians act like the outcome would be reliant on what we decide instead of what the EU does and that self governance is an optional instead of an absolute requirement. They also dont seem to think we are smart enough to notice them being outright self sabotaging when negociating.
If they keep it up it wont end well for thier election chances, not that they arent approaching terminal as it is.
a little nuance is called for here; are you referring to the common external tariff, or the common commercial policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
or both...
It's page 88 and Brexit is still in progress. :sweatdrop:
Democracy.Quote:
Is there anything practical that Leavers are united on and are willing to take responsibility for?
^ responsible for purveying fake news. ^Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Like there was any honesty or consensus among remain campaign!
There are only about 15% of the electorate who are actively pro-EU in the sense of approving of ever-closer-union.
i.e. they have no fundamental objection to joining the Euro, schengen, full justice integration, a common foreign policy, tax harmonisation, or the full convergence of flanking policies on social, employment and environmental regulation.
15%!
Was that what we heard from the remain campaign?
No, it was not. We got endless variations of nick clegg's LIE that eu membership in years time would look pretty much like it did today.
Pretty sure we left 29/03/19 with a trade deal, after which Theresa May resigned and was replaced by Oliver Letwin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
TV fans delighted as Brexit renewed for another seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If this keeps up, Brexit will be part of the next Presidential election here. Of course, our candidates will likely manage to both confirm their ignorance of any of the nuances AND offend one or all of the UK's factions on this issue. It is part of the charm of the 'Special Relationship.'
Our illustrious MPs take a break from Brexit...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbajf_rHzys
A bonus for spotting Treason May. :creep:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48034732
Ann Widdicombe is standing for the Brexit Party.
Farage really DOES have his ducks in order.
Our First Past the Post system is buckling under Brexit. And the EU's system designed to penalise small parties is adding to the mess.
Any solution would penalise the very people who gain most from it. So I'm not that hopeful.
~:smoking:
How is it the EU's fault again?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Since the EU uses the d'Hondt system: "The 'd'Hondt method' is a mathematical formula used widely in proportional representation systems, although it leads to less proportional results than other systems for seat allocation such as the Hare-Niemeyer and Sainte-Laguë/Schepers methods. Moreover, it tends to increase the advantage for the electoral lists gaining most votes to the detriment of those with fewer votes"Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I know, I know. more propaganda from those anti-EU liars... Link Oh wait... that's the EU website!
~:smoking:
AFAICS it's a slight favouring of one over the other. Nothing like the consistent rule by minority of our own homegrown system. The d'Hondt system has the massive advantage of being in use in far more countries than your other named systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
That's interesting, and it goes on:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Almost sounds like the EU was a product of its member states, which can do many things differently while some of them want it to be even worse. Of course that's silly because we all know the EU descended from the heavens and subjugated all of its current member states using alien mind control technology. I'm sure all of this was implemented against the will of the elected UK governments that ratified all of it.Quote:
It is, however, effective in facilitating majority formation and thus in securing parliamentary operability. The d'Hondt method is used by 17 EU Member States for the elections to the European Parliament. Furthermore, it is also used within the Parliament as a formula for distributing the chairs of the parliamentary committees and delegations, as well as to distribute those posts among the national delegations within the political groups. Such proportional distribution of leadership positions within Parliament prevents domination of parliamentary political life by only one or two large political groups, ensuring smaller political groups also have a say on the political agenda. Some argue however that this limits the impact of the election results on the political direction of decision-making within Parliament and call for a 'winner-takes-all' approach instead.
No, merely overruling every single plebiscite that has taken place and actively altering laws to avoid asking the direct question of the existence of the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
"Subjugated" is such a decisive word. They are merely freeing up people from having to worry about how their country is run. For their own benefit of course. And if the people don't like it they are ignorant xenophobes.
~:smoking:
Should the winners of the UK plebiscite be held responsible for the promises they made to win? When will we see the extra 350m/wk for the NHS that was promised? I've asked you quite a few times whether you'd be willing to be held responsible for the consequences of Brexit. You said somewhere that, if it all goes tits up, you'd go abroad to find work.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Be fair, Pannonian, he said he COULD go abroad to find work given his career choice, but also expressed the desire to stay in his native land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And wouldn't the correct choice have been to implement the decision of the voters as fast as practicable, using subsequent elections to vote out those who over-promised and under-performed?
If every decision must be reversed because some pol lied to try to persuade the electorate, than NEITHER of our governments would accomplish even the little they do...
The thing is, the leaders of Leave all ran clear of the leadership contest, and on the very morning of the result, Farage disowned the NHS promise. Brexiteers want victory without responsibility. They want to point the finger at a speck in someone's eye whilst ignoring the plank that's propping open their eyelids. Even now Brexiteers won't own responsibility for the consequences of their decision, they only want to accuse others of not respecting their decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Also, on the electorate: if there is such a simple solution, the government should be able to pass a Bill enacting Brexit. That is how Parliamentary democracy works. However, an election, held after May set article 50 in motion, left the government without the power to do so. This would suggest that the mandate no longer exists. May has already had three goes at her Bill, and failed each time. No deal, which is what the next PM will enact, had even less support than reversing the decision. Rory complains about how the EU's form of proportional representation under-represents smaller parties by the odd seat. But something that has been overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament (by 300 votes IIRC) will be enacted because that's the choice of the Tory members who will choose the next Tory leader. Which is less representative? Which has the greater import?
The EU overruled plebiscites? Do you have a link for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Did the EU do that or the national governments?
Why are you fixated on one slogan, and it really was just a slogan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You're fixated on this one idea even when a lot of Leave voters ignored it.
It's like the idea everyone who voted Leave is a racist, it's a way of "Othering" the opposition and you need to get over it.
gets pop-corn ready:
https://unherd.com/2019/04/have-the-...t-perspective/
lots to entertain, but a few choice quotes:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I answer and you choose not to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
To reiterate
Promises? Is that sort of like a legal fact but not really? Sort of worthless? One that many leavers never believed? One that you seem obsessed by?
The current situation is due to the last 30 years of policy on further integration.
So your question is lashing out at a straw man, rather than dealing with reality. Don't worry - it is evident you've no reposte.
~:smoking:
So... as long as individual countries that make up the EU do the bad thing, the EU is unaffected although is a creation of a sum of the bad parts. That is amazing logic you've got there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
~:smoking:
Because the EU's method of determining proportion is unfavourable by the odd seat, it is thus acceptable for the Tory membership to determine the course of this country? Remember the government does not have a majority, and the last three times it tried to enact Brexit, it failed to get through the Commons. Yet the next PM, and it is ERG policy to overturn the decisions made by this PM, will be chosen by the Tory membership. Does this represent a legitimate mandate, as you complain that the EU's proportional system does not?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
If you don't want to focus on specific promises (and note that Brexiteers highlight Cameron's promise that this is a once in a lifetime referendum), but wish to talk instead about general political theory, how about this? What mandate does Brexit have? What mandate does Brexit have when May is replaced as PM? Leavers crow at "Neverendums", but May has tried thrice to get her Bill through, without success. On the indicative votes, the least popular choice is no deal, which is the only thing specifically ruled out by the Commons. Yet the most influential faction in the Tory party has made no deal its goal. And said faction will supply the next PM, decided on by the Tory membership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Where is Brexit going? What is the mandate for this destination? See, I'm no longer focusing on a specific promise since you don't like it, and I'm allowing you to answer the question in a form of your choice. It's not a loaded question either, as it's a question that Parliament has tried and failed to answer over the past few months. Will you offer your preferred answer, and explain the mandate supporting it?
In a month it is likely that 75% of the electorate who vote in EU elections will support parties campaigning on the promise to deliver Brexit. The largest single party is projected to be the one with "Brexit" in the name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As you say, the EU has insisted we have to pass this deal and our elected representatives have three times refused to. The Good Friday Agreement doesn't mandate the Irish Backstop, the EU mandates it, yet it has become the fundamental sticking point.
The ERG didn't start out supporting no deal, their position has become more extreme and intransigent as the EU has also become more entrenched.
I don't know where you got that logic from, but it's not the logic that I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Your wording made it sound like the EU itself overruled the will of the people in several countries, but this was apparently not really the case.
The whole narrative of "the EU is destroying our national sovereignty and imposing its will on us" does not make sense in cases where the veto of a single national government such as your own could have stopped the process. In these cases you have to ask yourself why your own government didn't veto the thing if your entire nation (that elected that government) finds it so horrible?
Take this for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37749236
Quote:
Belgium cannot sign a key EU trade deal with Canada, Prime Minister Charles Michel has said, because of objections led by its Wallonia region.
If Brexit is such a done thing, it should be easy to pass the legislation to enact it. That is how our Parliamentary democracy works. And if you want to point to the Brexit party being the biggest single party, let me point out that EU membership won the biggest share for a single manifesto. Leave was fragmented to the extent that you tell us to ignore concrete promises made by Leave, and refuse to own responsibility for any Leave manifesto. ERG want no deal. ERG will choose our next PM and thus government. Do you agree with no deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
On the Irish back stop: if the EU is being unreasonably intransigent, why not negotiate directly with Ireland? The GFA is a bilateral treaty between the UK and Ireland, after all, with sponsorship from the US and enabled by the EU. But it's not just the EU insisting on the GFA being kept. The US has also said that the UK can forget about any agreements with the US if the GFA is broken. In all of this, it is just the UK, and specifically the most influential faction of the Tory party that will produce our next PM, that has said that the GFA will be unilaterally broken. Ireland has insisted on keeping it, and the EU and US have both backed it. But despite all that, in the eyes of Brexiteers, it's the EU who's being unreasonably intransigent.
In your eyes, what is the future of Brexit? How will it be enacted? May wants to have a fourth go, in a form that has already been rejected by Ireland, the US and the EU. Is May's Brexit minus the GFA the Brexit that we will have?