EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Montmorency]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053792687
"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."

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053792539
"Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)"

You don't have to repeat yourself. Prison abolition is consistent with a society that respects the liberty of individuals, but there's a missing link between the ideology and what's actually happening in the world. There's a missing link between 'I don't like the norms and politics of EU membership' and 'leaving the EU under any circumstances realizes my independent preferences.' To say nothing of the costs you would impose on others.

[Pannonian]

welcome to the crux of the demos problem; being able to live with the kratos.
you'd work to let that lunatic corbyn be prime minister which i think is insane, but i'm not gonna throw my toys out the pram and insist you live in another country.

Does the Scottish Parliament get a say in altering the status of the citizens over which it has authority?

And since when have I ever worked to let that lunatic Corbyn be prime minister? I despise the man, probably with more grounding in knowledge of him than you do.

[Pannonian]

You don't have to repeat yourself. Prison abolition is consistent with a society that respects the liberty of individuals, but there's a missing link between the ideology and what's actually happening in the world. There's a missing link between 'I don't like the norms and politics of EU membership' and 'leaving the EU under any circumstances realizes my independent preferences.' To say nothing of the costs you would impose on others.

Try the congress of the state of Indiana voting to set pi to 3.2.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In all this time, setting aside contesting the ideological content of these positions, I just haven't been able to understand the logical connection from the above to desiring Brexit in real world conditions. I sympathize with those who seek prison abolition because they think it is a fundamentally unjust practice for the state to incarcerate people. That doesn't mean I'm going to support emptying all the prisons tomorrow without contingency just because the political power to do so exists and "abolition means abolition". And at least abolition is conceptually simple to implement: there are people in prison; make them not be in prison by physically moving them out. Making Britain not be in EU is not as simple, and likely carries a much higher social and economic cost.

For a lark, imagine PM Corbyn obtained a narrow-majority referendum result to "nationalize every corner shop." I guess that's the will of the people. Let no one here say they're not a radical...

It profits a man nothing to lose the world for his soul - but for England?

Personally, I believe the EU is fundamentally flawed, and that Britain is not compatible with the EU. We've had one foot out the door for two decades and our leaving would seem to be inevitable by default - unless we adopt the Euro and abolish the monarchy.

Does the Scottish Parliament get a say in altering the status of the citizens over which it has authority?

Yes - it does.

The English and Welsh largely voted to leave, the Irish were split between those who live near the border and those who live near the coast. The only regions that voted very strongly for Remain were Scotland and Greater London - the Irish vote was less enthusiastic. So, we're currently leaving because of that. If the Scottish collectively decide that they're more European than British then they will secede from the UK, as they are entitled to do.

You want Brexiteers (horrible word, hate it) to "take responsibility" but all the Leave vote did was vote differently to the Remain vote. This may give the Scottish Nationalists enough wind to secede but it's won't be "because of Brexit", it will be because many of them want to secede anyway because they no longer feel British and don't want to be part of Great Britain anymore.

I would hazard that the ultimate collapse of the UK has been coming since 1997 when Tony Blair gave the Scots their own Parliament, giving the Scottish ultra-nationalists a platform that allowed Alex Salmond to pretend to be a real politician and not a racist bigot who likes to feel up his secretary and take Russian money.

[Furunculus]

You don't have to repeat yourself. Prison abolition is consistent with a society that respects the liberty of individuals, but there's a missing link between the ideology and what's actually happening in the world. There's a missing link between 'I don't like the norms and politics of EU membership' and 'leaving the EU under any circumstances realizes my independent preferences.' To say nothing of the costs you would impose on others.

there is no missing link.

i look at the enormous acceleration of criminal law and regulation and I see harmonisation to the eu norm.
i look at over-regulation in pursuit of the precautionary principle and i see the same.

I also see us as a thorn in the side of our good neighbours in that we're holding them back from their ambition in how they want to see their society operate.

everyone wins.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

there is no missing link.

i look at the enormous acceleration of criminal law and regulation and I see harmonisation to the eu norm.
i look at over-regulation in pursuit of the precautionary principle and i see the same.

I also see us as a thorn in the side of our good neighbours in that we're holding them back from their ambition in how they want to see their society operate.

everyone wins.

The acceleration of criminal law is a British fetish - not an EU one. Consider, for example, the sale of firearms and knives in other countries.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Personally, I believe the EU is fundamentally flawed, and that Britain is not compatible with the EU. We've had one foot out the door for two decades and our leaving would seem to be inevitable by default - unless we adopt the Euro and abolish the monarchy.

Mate, it's looking like Britain is not even compatible with itself.

As long as you keep sending Bond movies and Samuel Smith over to my corner of California, you do you.

[InsaneApache]

I'm asking this specifically of IA though, as he's said that Farage is a good bloke whom he agrees with. So I'm asking him if he agrees with Farage on Brexit.

OK one last time then I'm done.

This is no longer about Brexit but rather about the legislators ignoring the will of the people. It's about democratic principles.

You either believe in the democratic process or you don't. You can no more be a 'little bit' democratic then you can be a 'little bit' pregnant.

Democracy relies on the losers accepting the result, which you obviously don't.

How about this then.

A general election is called and Labour win. Then all those who didn't vote Labour say that there should be a second general election because all the people who voted Labour were low information, didn't know what they were voting for and a bit thick. If not bigoted.

Can you see now the dangers inherent in that way of thinking?

Perhaps you ought to move to North Korea, they think like that over there. You'd fit right in.

[Pannonian]

OK one last time then I'm done.

This is no longer about Brexit but rather about the legislators ignoring the will of the people. It's about democratic principles.

You either believe in the democratic process or you don't. You can no more be a 'little bit' democratic then you can be a 'little bit' pregnant.

Democracy relies on the losers accepting the result, which you obviously don't.

How about this then.

A general election is called and Labour win. Then all those who didn't vote Labour say that there should be a second general election because all the people who voted Labour were low information, didn't know what they were voting for and a bit thick. If not bigoted.

Can you see now the dangers inherent in that way of thinking?

Perhaps you ought to move to North Korea, they think like that over there. You'd fit right in.

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

(Nigel Farage is a) Top man who believes in democracy, unlike the main parties. This is no longer about Brexit it is now about the political class declaring war on democracy. They will get it good and hard this Thursday.

Do you agree with Nigel Farage on Brexit? Do you agree with Nigel Farage on democracy, for that matter?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”



Do you agree with Nigel Farage on Brexit? Do you agree with Nigel Farage on democracy, for that matter?

The difference between what Farage said and what you are saying is that he said a narrow result would not be "the end" whereas you are saying a narrow result was illegitimate.

=/=

[Husar]

You either believe in the democratic process or you don't. You can no more be a 'little bit' democratic then you can be a 'little bit' pregnant.

Well, if a non-binding referendum can be binding, who knows what else is possible.

[Pannonian]

The difference between what Farage said and what you are saying is that he said a narrow result would not be "the end" whereas you are saying a narrow result was illegitimate.

=/=

And BTW, do you agree that 52-48 is not a decisive enough margin to be the end of the matter?

Please explain. And BTW, I directed the question specifically at IA because, on the one hand, he thinks highly of Farage as an icon of democracy. And on the other hand, IA reckons we should have to wait 40 years before we revisit this matter.

I accept that we will be leaving the EU as a result of the referendum. I demand only that those who wanted to leave should be held responsible for the consequences of leaving, and that Leave politicians, as the side that won, should be held to what they said during the campaign. Is this undemocratic as IA accuses me of being?

Youse lot won. Take ownership of your victory, instead of trying to evade responsibility.

[Pannonian]

Another note for IA: you reckon that not accepting the will of the victors amounts to the denial of democracy. I disagree. It may have escaped your attention that we do not only have a loyal government, but we also have a loyal opposition. You are denying that any kind of opposition can be loyal, that we should all get behind the victors.

[InsaneApache]

I'm beginning to lose the will to live.

Another note for IA: you reckon that not accepting the will of the victors amounts to the denial of democracy. I disagree. It may have escaped your attention that we do not only have a loyal government, but we also have a loyal opposition. You are denying that any kind of opposition can be loyal, that we should all get behind the victors.

It's too late for that. The time for opposing the departure of the EU was before the vote not after it. Jesus wept lad wtf is wrong with you.

I demand only that those who wanted to leave should be held responsible for the consequences of leaving

OK now I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Do you hold the electorate to same standards in a general election? If not, why not? I voted for an outcome not a process.

By your thinking anyone who voted for New Labour is a corrupt fascist warmonger and as entertaining as that might be, it's plain wrong.

Just because the politicians have cocked up doesn't make me or anyone who voted culpable.

Oh and the main consequences of us leaving is that we get to fire those onanists in Parliament when they behave in such a manner.

Well, if a non-binding referendum can be binding, who knows what else is possible.

There's an old adage in England usually ascribed to the legal profession.

"Don't ask a question unless you know the answer."

BTW I see Herr Merkell was doing the 'shake and vac' yesterday, do her batteries need replacing?

[Pannonian]

I'm beginning to lose the will to live.

It's too late for that. The time for opposing the departure of the EU was before the vote not after it. Jesus wept lad wtf is wrong with you.

Can you read?

I accept that we will be leaving the EU as a result of the referendum. I demand only that those who wanted to leave should be held responsible for the consequences of leaving, and that Leave politicians, as the side that won, should be held to what they said during the campaign. Is this undemocratic as IA accuses me of being?

Youse lot won. Take ownership of your victory, instead of trying to evade responsibility.

BTW, do you agree that 52-48 is too small a margin for this to be the end of the matter?

[InsaneApache]

cross post.

BTW, do you agree that 52-48 is too small a margin for this to be the end of the matter?

The majority won so yes, it is the end of the matter.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please explain. And BTW, I directed the question specifically at IA because, on the one hand, he thinks highly of Farage as an icon of democracy. And on the other hand, IA reckons we should have to wait 40 years before we revisit this matter.

I accept that we will be leaving the EU as a result of the referendum. I demand only that those who wanted to leave should be held responsible for the consequences of leaving, and that Leave politicians, as the side that won, should be held to what they said during the campaign. Is this undemocratic as IA accuses me of being?

Youse lot won. Take ownership of your victory, instead of trying to evade responsibility.

The consequence of voting to Leave is that we are Leaving.

"Demanding" that Leave voters "take responsibility" for Scotland possibly seceding is rather like me demanding you and Husar take responsibility for the UK Brexiting because you support the Lisbon Treaty.

Let's look at this another way:

If Brexit results in a customers border between NI and RI is that the responsibility of Leave voters?

Answer: Yes.

If Brexit results in an uptick in paramilitary violence due to the prospect of the return of a customs border, is that the responsibility of Leave voters?

Answer: No.

Individual responsibility and collective responsibility end when the next individual or collective makes a decision. Otherwise responsibility could regress backwards to the beginning of recorded history.

So, there you go - Julius Caesar is responsible for Brexit.

[Pannonian]

cross post.



The majority won so yes, it is the end of the matter.

Do you agree with Farage on Brexit and the exercise of democracy?

[InsaneApache]

Do you agree with Farage on Brexit and the exercise of democracy?

I agree with Dave.

[Pannonian]

The consequence of voting to Leave is that we are Leaving.

"Demanding" that Leave voters "take responsibility" for Scotland possibly seceding is rather like me demanding you and Husar take responsibility for the UK Brexiting because you support the Lisbon Treaty.

Let's look at this another way:

If Brexit results in a customers border between NI and RI is that the responsibility of Leave voters?

Answer: Yes.

If Brexit results in an uptick in paramilitary violence due to the prospect of the return of a customs border, is that the responsibility of Leave voters?

Answer: No.

Individual responsibility and collective responsibility end when the next individual or collective makes a decision. Otherwise responsibility could regress backwards to the beginning of recorded history.

So, there you go - Julius Caesar is responsible for Brexit.

What about the Tory members? Direct questions on the price they are willing to pay in order to get Brexit. A majority are willing to accept the break up of the union if that is the price of Brexit. That possibility was certainly raised during the campaign, that the indy ref vote was contingent on then current conditions, that one of the major arguments against independence, that Scotland would not be automatically in the EU post independence as the UK would inherit this status, would be moot in the event of Brexit. Despite that argument being raised, you lot voted Leave anyway. Should you not be responsible for ignoring this? You've tried to hive off responsibility to the Scots. Shouldn't you accept at least part of the responsibility, by ignoring the effects that your vote would have on Scotland?

BTW, you say that Scotland split away from the UK as a result of 1997. From what Scots said before that, it was Thatcher and her experiments in Scotland, notably the poll tax, that made them look away from the UK. That Westminster used Scotland as a testbed for potentially unpopular policies that may or may not see light of day in England. And now, with Brexit, you've imposed the granddaddy of unpopular policies on Scotland. But no, it's the will of the Scots, and nothing to do with you. Even though you were told the Scots didn't want it, and you decided to give it to them anyway.

[Pannonian]

I agree with Dave.

I asked specifically about Nigel Farage. Why are you talking about David Starkey?

(Nigel Farage is a) Top man who believes in democracy, unlike the main parties. This is no longer about Brexit it is now about the political class declaring war on democracy. They will get it good and hard this Thursday.

Do you agree with Farage on democracy?

[Gilrandir]

I suggest celebrating it when the thread reaches the 100th page.

[InsaneApache]

I asked specifically about Nigel Farage. Why are you talking about David Starkey?



Do you agree with Farage on democracy?

Blimey.

You can admire a politician without agreeing with everything they stand for. I posted Starkey as that is more in tune with my view.

[Montmorency]

Personally, I believe the EU is fundamentally flawed, and that Britain is not compatible with the EU. We've had one foot out the door for two decades and our leaving would seem to be inevitable by default - unless we adopt the Euro and abolish the monarchy.

Clearly leaving is not inevitable, but requires specific input and effort. What do you believe the EU has to do with abolishing monarchy? You will note there are numerous monarchies in EU or EEA.

Still the missing link remains, the connection between concluding that "the EU is fundamentally flawed" and "we can and shall revoke our membership." One cannot lead to the other alone unless you have no other political beliefs or principles.

cross post.

The majority won so yes, it is the end of the matter.

What a disturbingly-Orwellian conception of "democracy." Let us imagine a world in which Corbyn's Labour promulgated a referendum offering a binary of "Continue with capitalism" or "Transition to socialism", there was a 52% result in favor of socialism, and Labour proceeded on a quest to chaotically unravel the political system without any clear understanding of goals or underlying socioeconomics, and rebuked any dissent as a treasonous impediment to realizing "the will of the people" because "socialism means socialism" (and socialism is what the party says it is).

It is Orwellian because it rhetorically abuses the concept into inversion of its original meaning for the sake of repressing opponents, an anti-ideal that has no descriptive content but merely exists to be tautologically disappointed by those who don't conform with your vision.

Just because the politicians have cocked up doesn't make me or anyone who voted culpable.

The problem lies not with the politicians who cannot deliver what you desire, but with those desiring it in folly.

Individual responsibility and collective responsibility end when the next individual or collective makes a decision. Otherwise responsibility could regress backwards to the beginning of recorded history.

So, there you go - Julius Caesar is responsible for Brexit.

If using "responsibility" with the sense of accountability - you think people are responsible for decisions only up to the point those decisions have unfavorable consequences? On the contrary, if you choose to eat a kilogram of assorted cheeses and you do so despite being told that you are lactose intolerant, you are responsible for the eating of the cheese and any subsequent problems with digestion. If you set fire to a house, you are responsible for the consequence of the house burning and any collateral spread of fire; what you personally wished the fire would achieve is irrelevant and can only be a mitigating factor in terms of what liability is juridically assigned to you.

[Pannonian]

Clearly leaving is not inevitable, but requires specific input and effort. What do you believe the EU has to do with abolishing monarchy? You will note there are numerous monarchies in EU or EEA.

Still the missing link remains, the connection between concluding that "the EU is fundamentally flawed" and "we can and shall revoke our membership." One cannot lead to the other alone unless you have no other political beliefs or principles.

And in the poll of Tory members (who will be choosing our next PM), they are willing to see the union break up if this is the price of Brexit. Then look at the Leave arguments about how the EU is different from the UK, how the EU is fundamentally incompatible with the UK etc. If Brexit is fundamentally about the British identity, how does it square with the willingness to end Britain as an entity?

[Beskar]

So yeah... Boris Johnston as Prime Minister.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And in the poll of Tory members (who will be choosing our next PM), they are willing to see the union break up if this is the price of Brexit. Then look at the Leave arguments about how the EU is different from the UK, how the EU is fundamentally incompatible with the UK etc. If Brexit is fundamentally about the British identity, how does it square with the willingness to end Britain as an entity?

I note how you keep referencing the break up of the Union, which seems increasingly likely anyway, but have not said much about Conservatives being willing to destroy their own party.

It's pretty obvious from that Poll that the members see the EU as the biggest existential threat to British democracy except for Corbyn. Bit extreme, certainly, but that appears to be the view.

Brexit is fundamentally about self-determination, as is IndyRef2.

Shockingly, the English, welsh, Scots and Irish think the same way on this...

You keep talking about the "breakup of the Union" and "Brutishness" but you forget we've already lost most of Ireland and the Australians have declared us to be foreign aliens.

"Britishness" is already long-dead, you're mooning over the tattered remains.

So yeah... Boris Johnston as Prime Minister.

Least worst option, same as three years ago.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is no longer about Brexit but rather about the legislators ignoring the will of the people. It's about democratic principles.

One of the goals of indirect representation is purposely to give a class of citizens a monopoly on decision making, by definition it is less democratic than direct democracy. With that said that does not mean that it is less legitimate than acts of direct democracy. If they choose not to go forward with Brexit, that is the will of people as expressed by the general election which took place after the Brexit vote.

You either believe in the democratic process or you don't. You can no more be a 'little bit' democratic then you can be a 'little bit' pregnant.

So why have a Parliament? Either we hear from the people on what to do via endless referendums, or this isn't democracy. May isn't the kingdom, neither is the Conservative Party, it's the people who live in it.

Democracy relies on the losers accepting the result, which you obviously don't.

This is a flippant statement and is always said by the winning side. As if any vote or referendum is to be considered the point where politics ends and decisions are enacted. There is always the political will to support an agenda and then there is the political will to pursue it. You've barely edged out in the former, but are completely lacking in the latter and now you call others as anti-democratic to cover up this deficiency.

A general election is called and Labour win. Then all those who didn't vote Labour say that there should be a second general election because all the people who voted Labour were low information, didn't know what they were voting for and a bit thick. If not bigoted.

If Corbyn ends up nationalizing the banks and exiles the financial elite from London, they would have a strong point, right?

Can you see now the dangers inherent in that way of thinking?

No, because it seems as politics as usual that now once you have committed to saying something must be done, you must now go about the work of convincing people how you will go about doing it. And if you fail to make that case to the public, then you get to live in political frustration as there is no sense in rewarding ideas which people love but are not possible or financially tenable. When is the referendum on giving everyone an extra 3,000 pound every year? We all want it, therefore it must be gotten or truly we are no longer democratic.

Perhaps you ought to move to North Korea, they think like that over there. You'd fit right in.

Your complaint is the excessive stonewalling of political opposition, if that is what you want gone then maybe your mention of North Korea is less advice and more projection.

[Pannonian]

I note how you keep referencing the break up of the Union, which seems increasingly likely anyway, but have not said much about Conservatives being willing to destroy their own party.

It's pretty obvious from that Poll that the members see the EU as the biggest existential threat to British democracy except for Corbyn. Bit extreme, certainly, but that appears to be the view.

Brexit is fundamentally about self-determination, as is IndyRef2.

Shockingly, the English, welsh, Scots and Irish think the same way on this...

You keep talking about the "breakup of the Union" and "Brutishness" but you forget we've already lost most of Ireland and the Australians have declared us to be foreign aliens.

"Britishness" is already long-dead, you're mooning over the tattered remains.

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.

[Pannonian]

This is a flippant statement and is always said by the winning side. As if any vote or referendum is to be considered the point where politics ends and decisions are enacted. There is always the political will to support an agenda and then there is the political will to pursue it. You've barely edged out in the former, but are completely lacking in the latter and now you call others as anti-democratic to cover up this deficiency.

See also winning sides and not needing to take responsibility yet demanding that the losers should submit. IA wants Remainers to shut up about Remaining, yet excuses the Leavers from the consequences of Leaving - Farage recently ran an election whilst explicitly not having a manifesto to which he need commit. And more personally, IA trumpets how Farage will show the anti-democratic Parliament the what for, yet excuses himself from Farage's statement (that contradicts IA's wish that Remainers should shut up) that Farage's cohorts will not shut up in the event of a 52-48 Remain victory, that it would take a 2/3 majority to shut him up.

Democracy for Brexiteers does not mean due process and implementing the will of the majority whilst respecting the rights of the minority and holding politicians responsible for their actions. It means asserting the dominance of the winning side and denying that the losers have any rights at all.