EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Beskar]

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

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kagemusha]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

I Want To Brexit - The Musical

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

[Goalum]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing is good for their economy as its structure stands because [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"]

[Goalum]

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

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

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

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

You are restating essentially, but if you must go ahead. Its an effort to ride the statement [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.

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Goalum]

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

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

Interesting set of principles.

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

[Husar]

The EU has advanced according to the design of an oligarchy

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

2. Yes, actually - although Home Rule was not

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

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

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

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

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

I do hope that answers all your questions.

[Kagemusha]

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

2. Yes, actually - although Home Rule was not

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

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

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

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

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

I do hope that answers all your questions.

On pi: the Indiana Pi Bill.

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

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

Not everyone who studied Humanities at uni is innumerate.

I was a strong Brexiteer. Now we must swallow our pride and think again - Peter Oborne, former chief political writer at the Daily Telegraph

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Goalum]

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

[Goalum]

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

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

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

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

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

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

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

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

The market economy rather than social democracy

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

Taxation to achieve public services rather redistribution

Isn't all taxation, by definition, redistribution?

Regulation by demonstrable-harm rather than the precautionary-principle

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

A majoritarian electoral system with adversarial politics rather than coalitions and consensus politics

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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


Isn't all taxation, by definition, redistribution?


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[Furunculus]

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.'”

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

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

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