EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you believe in this argument, and still support Brexit as you've described above, then shouldn't you stop arguing about British identity, and how something is or isn't fundamentally British, or how the EU is incompatible with Britishness? There are those of us who still believe in a British identity and a British entity.

Your idea of "Britishness" does not include the Commonwealth, or Ireland.

I recall two conversations I had with IA and Banquo years ago. IA demolished my concept of "Englishness" and Banquo showed me that our concept of "nationality" is not necessarily universal. Banquo considers NI a lost part of Ireland and I consider Ireland a lost part of Britain.

[Beskar]

I recall two conversations I had with IA and Banquo years ago. IA demolished my concept of "Englishness" and Banquo showed me that our concept of "nationality" is not necessarily universal...

or as I like to call it, a ploy by cartographers to prevent themselves from going out of business.

[Pannonian]

Your idea of "Britishness" does not include the Commonwealth, or Ireland.

I recall two conversations I had with IA and Banquo years ago. IA demolished my concept of "Englishness" and Banquo showed me that our concept of "nationality" is not necessarily universal. Banquo considers NI a lost part of Ireland and I consider Ireland a lost part of Britain.

Going by this argument, how can anything in the EU be fundamentally against British constitution, culture, or tradition? Even the hardline Leavers now accept that there is no material gain whatsoever from Brexit for the vast majority of people in the UK, with substantial loss in the event of no deal. I've seen arguments raised here and elsewhere that it is worth it nonetheless to protect some aspect of British identity. Yet you now argue that there is no such thing as British identity, so even this argument falls by the wayside. So is Brexit something that you must have because you say so, despite the material loss that it entails, and despite there being no philosophical argument for it? What is the point of Brexit?

[InsaneApache]

There's some interesting ideas on how democracy works by some posters on this thread.

The mental convolutions required to do this would end up with ones head up ones arse.

[Beskar]

I like the referendum which was won on the promise of implementing a Norway+ Model with the EU, then instead they dived straight into the worst horror stories of Project Fear going "Reeee" with the Mantra of Brexit means Brexit.

They also believe half the population no longer exists, or even those who wanted to exit on terms like Norway+. Supported by extremist and tabloid media, they completely obliterated political discourse for three years to the detriment of everything else.

These people also like to shout democracy, but when the suggestion of having a second referendum to break parliament deadlock with various options such as Norway+ being on the cards in an Alternative Vote format, they are completely against the democratic will of the people saying that giving people democratic will is not democratic.

It has also led to a situation that the two worst most untrustworthy individuals in British politics decided to pop-out from the Blue after screwing up the country to lead the charge with one leading the Brexit party and the other going to become our next Prime Minister. Both of these candidates support their American cheeto overlord equivalent too.

The idea that our politics are in such a sorry state is absolutely mind boggling. Second to only the individuals who say with a straight-face that these are good things without a single trace of irony. Dire straits indeed.

[Pannonian]

There's some interesting ideas on how democracy works by some posters on this thread.

The mental convolutions required to do this would end up with ones head up ones arse.

Do you think the winners should have to continue to explain and justify themselves? Should people be able to oppose the winners?

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's some interesting ideas on how democracy works by some posters on this thread.

The mental convolutions required to do this would end up with ones head up ones arse.

I genuine thought the same towards your concept of democracy. What do you mean by you cany be a little democratic just as you cant be a little pregnant? To see that seems as an absolutist position when influence in politics always exists in degrees. Hence the comment on indirect vs direct democracy.

[rory_20_uk]

Going by this argument, how can anything in the EU be fundamentally against British constitution, culture, or tradition? Even the hardline Leavers now accept that there is no material gain whatsoever from Brexit for the vast majority of people in the UK, with substantial loss in the event of no deal. I've seen arguments raised here and elsewhere that it is worth it nonetheless to protect some aspect of British identity. Yet you now argue that there is no such thing as British identity, so even this argument falls by the wayside. So is Brexit something that you must have because you say so, despite the material loss that it entails, and despite there being no philosophical argument for it? What is the point of Brexit?

I think you will find there are hard-line Leavers who do think there are material gains to leave.

More example of glossing over things that do not fit your argument.

No one expects you to alter your mind since you clearly are not interested in facts that do not support your view.

[Husar]

There's some interesting ideas on how democracy works by some posters on this thread.

The mental convolutions required to do this would end up with ones head up ones arse.

Well, not sure whether that includes me, but here's my take:

The change is, as I hope we can agree, on the level of a constitutional change or even above that concerning the impact it has.
It may not have started this way as it was implemented as a series of small changes over a long period of time, but changing it all at once is a pretty big deal, no?
Well, if it's not, then I don't see why you'd be so passionate about getting it done, and if it is, then we can probably agree that it's a constitutional-level change.
Now as far as democracies are concerned, many or even most of them require some type of two thirds majority for constitutional changes, usually in their parliament. Some also require a referendum. Apparently the UK thinks that 52% in a non-binding referendum and 51% in parliament are enough to enact potentially the biggest change in UK political direction of the century. And then wonders that there is a lot of trouble.

I mean, that's okay, you do you, but I do me and laugh at you because it's kinda crazy-funny in a way.

[Pannonian]

I think you will find there are hard-line Leavers who do think there are material gains to leave.

More example of glossing over things that do not fit your argument.

No one expects you to alter your mind since you clearly are not interested in facts that do not support your view.

When 90% of economists reckon there are no economic gains and only economic disadvantages, and there is no consistent logical argument for the 10%, do you point to the 10% and say that, look, it's not unanimous? Even the pet economist of the 10%, who is often quoted by Furunculus on the post-Brexit model to follow, says that there are economic costs, notably the disappearance of the car manufacturing industry, but says it's worth it. The disappearance of the car manufacturing industry has come to pass. Can you show me how it's worth it?

In Furunculus' posts, there are a number advocating our transition to the Singapore model, notwithstanding our very different social model to Singapore. The outgoing UK ambassador to Singapore, who presumably has some idea both of the UK and of Singapore, says that Singaporeans regard Brexit with disbelief. So even those who are currently following the Singaporean model reckon it's not a very good idea for the UK to follow suit.

So can you point me to reputable arguments for gains to be made from Brexit? Or are you just going to say, there are and therefore you are wrong, without detail?

[rory_20_uk]

Not defending your rhetoric then? Now it's 90% of economists not 100% of Leavers.

The relocation of car jobs was linked to the EU free trade agreement with Japan. But let's not let facts get in the way of narrative eh?

I can recognise the simplistic rhetoric in both misstating then pretending it is fact and now trying to reframe the argument on purely economic grounds. Either you are too stupid or senile to recall the many times I have seated it was not on economic grounds I voted leave or else you are intentionally misleading which is worse.

[Pannonian]

Not defending your rhetoric then? Now it's 90% of economists not 100% of Leavers.

The relocation of car jobs was linked to the EU free trade agreement with Japan. But let's not let facts get in the way of narrative eh?

I can recognise the simplistic rhetoric in both misstating then pretending it is fact and now trying to reframe the argument on purely economic grounds. Either you are too stupid or senile to recall the many times I have seated it was not on economic grounds I voted leave or else you are intentionally misleading which is worse.

If you're going to present an argument, are you going to rely on the collective opinion of informed experts? You're in the medical field, so if the overwhelming majority of experts in the field state something is so, with backing arguments and evidence, while a tiny minority of experts state otherwise, with discredited arguments and evidence, do you point to non-experts who somehow believe the tiny minority of experts?

Rory, what do you think of homoepathy? Does it work? Is there an argument for its application in the medical world?

[Furunculus]

There are no 'experts' on the collection of values that define the socio cultural ambitions for how i want my country to interact with its citizens and the outside world.

perhaps vernan bogdanor could give it a decent crack... what did he say?

[rory_20_uk]

If you're going to present an argument, are you going to rely on the collective opinion of informed experts? You're in the medical field, so if the overwhelming majority of experts in the field state something is so, with backing arguments and evidence, while a tiny minority of experts state otherwise, with discredited arguments and evidence, do you point to non-experts who somehow believe the tiny minority of experts?

Rory, what do you think of homoepathy? Does it work? Is there an argument for its application in the medical world?

Ah but you didn't say that. You said all. Not all experts, not the majority of experts. All leavers.

What do I think of homeopathy? I would say that it is ineffective. I would not make the claim that all doctors think that Homeopathy is ineffective. Since that would be incorrect.

But homeopathy is something that has been used for over 100 years and the initial use was involving both dietary changes and it took place in Switzerland. Both retrospective evidence as well as clearly demonstrating that is being misused. And with medicines efficacy is a nice simple single variable.

Brexit has yet to happen. And only one variable is economic. And again... not the one I am primarily interested in. To use the example of homeopathy, if one would say it works because it tastes good then I would have to accept that based on that metric it is good.

[Montmorency]

Ah but you didn't say that. You said all. Not all experts, not the majority of experts. All leavers.

What do I think of homeopathy? I would say that it is ineffective. I would not make the claim that all doctors think that Homeopathy is ineffective. Since that would be incorrect.

But homeopathy is something that has been used for over 100 years and the initial use was involving both dietary changes and it took place in Switzerland. Both retrospective evidence as well as clearly demonstrating that is being misused. And with medicines efficacy is a nice simple single variable.

Brexit has yet to happen. And only one variable is economic. And again... not the one I am primarily interested in. To use the example of homeopathy, if one would say it works because it tastes good then I would have to accept that based on that metric it is good.

Right. There are multiple variables. If one's society were organized around slavery, it would be reasonable to seek to dismantle that institution despite the cost of economic turbulence or social upheaval. Maybe a pacifist would compromise their principles to assist in the war effort against Hitler. Some radical leftists have a similar approach to capitalism and colonialism. More generally, if there is no peace without justice and no justice without peace, at some point you have to accept sacrifices in the name of your higher good.

But for an intelligent person to condone accelerating the demise of the United Kingdom over the European Court of Justice is just bonkers to me.

[Pannonian]

Right. There are multiple variables. If one's society were organized around slavery, it would be reasonable to seek to dismantle that institution despite the cost of economic turbulence or social upheaval. Maybe a pacifist would compromise their principles to assist in the war effort against Hitler. Some radical leftists have a similar approach to capitalism and colonialism. More generally, if there is no peace without justice and no justice without peace, at some point you have to accept sacrifices in the name of your higher good.

But for an intelligent person to condone accelerating the demise of the United Kingdom over the European Court of Justice is just bonkers to me.

Especially when the ECJ rules in the UK's favour 90-95% of the time due to us following the rules.

[Beskar]

Especially when the ECJ rules in the UK's favour 90-95% of the time due to us following the rules.

Don't even get started on how Brexiteers want to leave the European Court of Human Rights as well. Despite the fact Britain established it,.it is because they believe it is part of the evil EU and bullyboy Brussels.

[Pannonian]

Don't even get started on how Brexiteers want to leave the European Court of Human Rights as well. Despite the fact Britain established it,.it is because they believe it is part of the evil EU and bullyboy Brussels.

They want out of the single market despite Britain being instrumental in establishing it.

John Bird and John Fortune - Europe (from 1996)

Mark Francois MP, 2019

[Beskar]

John Bird and John Fortune - Europe (from 1996)

Not seen this one before but crikey.. that is Boris Johnson!

And for his valiant supporters, yes, Boris is a utter-cockwomble. Google his remarks and you will even get the parliamentary questions this week when his remarks were brought up.

Not to say about reports/rumours that has been suggested on the front pages this week either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Going by this argument, how can anything in the EU be fundamentally against British constitution, culture, or tradition? Even the hardline Leavers now accept that there is no material gain whatsoever from Brexit for the vast majority of people in the UK, with substantial loss in the event of no deal. I've seen arguments raised here and elsewhere that it is worth it nonetheless to protect some aspect of British identity. Yet you now argue that there is no such thing as British identity, so even this argument falls by the wayside. So is Brexit something that you must have because you say so, despite the material loss that it entails, and despite there being no philosophical argument for it? What is the point of Brexit?

Only Furunculus looks forward to the sunny uplands of free-trading, Empire building, broadside-delivering Brexit.

So let's just dump the economic argument, OK?

You've missed the basic point though - Brexit is all about contesting what it means to be British.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not seen this one before but crikey.. that is Boris Johnson!

And for his valiant supporter, yes, Boris is a racist. Google his remarks and you will even get the parliamentary questions this week when his remarks were brought up.

Not to say about reports/rumours that has been suggested on the front pages this week either.

Oh come now Beskar - wife beating?

His admittedly left-wing neighbour stuck his oar in, called the police and sent the recording to the guardian.

The Police attended and found nothing amiss.

Most likely explanation - she thought he was cheating on her and started throwing plates at him. After all, that's how she got him away from his second wife, and how his second wife got him away from his first.

[Furunculus]

Don't even get started on how Brexiteers want to leave the European Court of Human Rights as well. Despite the fact Britain established it,.it is because they believe it is part of the evil EU and bullyboy Brussels.

if it wasnt for judicial activism whereby the court interprets well beyond what the text says wifhout accepting the margin for appreciation or the principle of subsidiarity then wed alk be fine with t.

[Furunculus]

Only Furunculus looks forward to the sunny uplands of free-trading, Empire building, broadside-delivering Brexit.

So let's just dump the economic argument, OK?

You've missed the basic point though - Brexit is all about contesting what it means to be British.

sure, i would be content with that as my natural preference, but please recall that i have always said that i recognized that the result wss not decisive enough to justify this 'dream' and that i was happy to maintain britain closely aligned as a (low end) social democracy rather than a market economy (like canada/oz).

im the very heart and soul of compromise. ;)

[Beskar]

Oh come now Beskar - wife beating?

I like how it was pointless to even contest the him being an utter-cockwomble rather than this weeks frontpages suggestion.

[InsaneApache]

Don't even get started on how Brexiteers want to leave the European Court of Human Rights as well. Despite the fact Britain established it,.it is because they believe it is part of the evil EU and bullyboy Brussels.

We don't need it that's why. It was set up after WWII to make sure those bloody Europeans don't start any more wars.

Anyhoo the left wing case for Brexit, or as they call it Lexit…..

[Beskar]

Look's like Kenneth Clark agrees with what I said on his term of Foreign Secretary.
https://twitter.com/BBCPanorama/stat...24771703955457

He also said he is a 'nicer version of Donald Trump'

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I like how it was pointless to even contest the racism rather than this weeks frontpages suggestion.

Not really worth addressing.

Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall, that extends to other people's culture.

I can't tell you if he's racist or not because I don't know him, nor can I peer inside his mind. However, I've seen no evidence of racism in his government record.

Unlike Sanjid Javid.

[Furunculus]

“Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall, that extends to other people's culture.”

and even if he is 'culturalist', as the product of peoples choices i hold it to be a distinct and separate thing, lesser in offence than views on immutable personal characteristics.

i hold that extending the definition of racism beyond that defined in the OED as counterproductive and encouraging of idiocy.

[Pannonian]

Not really worth addressing.

Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall, that extends to other people's culture.

I can't tell you if he's racist or not because I don't know him, nor can I peer inside his mind. However, I've seen no evidence of racism in his government record.

Unlike Sanjid Javid.

There's oodles and oodles of evidence of his complete incompetence though. His former boss says he can't think of a more unsuitable person for the role of PM. Ken Clarke, the last remaining big beast of the Thatcher-Major era, calls him the most incompetent foreign secretary of any party that he's ever seen. Johnson's only recommendation is the name recognition he's built on his HIGNFY appearances. The man makes Corbyn look focused and well informed.

[Beskar]

i hold that extending the definition of racism beyond that defined in the OED as counterproductive and encouraging of idiocy.

I assume that this is this: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

From his public track record, we do have the following:
Referring to black commonwealth citizens as "regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies", with "the tribal warriors… [who] all break out in watermelon smiles".
Papua New Guinea and their “orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing”.
On the topic about Libya being the next Dubai - "The only thing they’ve got to do is clear the dead bodies away and then we’ll be there."
Called the Continent of Africa as "That country".
Dismissed Barack Obama's views due to “part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire”
Praising alcohol at a Sikh temple.
Reciting a colonial-era poem in Myanmar which went down like a lead balloon.
Women in Burka's as Letter Boxes and Bank Robbers.

Then there is also the company he keeps, such as the like of Steve Bannon who believes people such wear the term 'Racist' as a medal. The people who do classify him as racist are his fellow MPs, in other parties and some even in his own.

However, @Philippus Flavius Homovallumus is right. "Boris Johnson is pretty offensive overall."

His track record on Homophobia and other issues are terrible too.

I just feel sorry for the family of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as he effectively dug her coffin and threw her in due to his remarks.