Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit Referendum Superthread
Options
Comments
-
They do manufacture their own power plants
Not all of them: http://www.kohlerengines.com/press/article.htm?articleId=jcbpartner20130 -
Join Date:Posts: 19383
Am I right in thinking that if the GB£ depreciated by 10%, then they need a growth of 10% to stay even?
If you measure UK GDP in euro, there has been contraction since Brexit - or am I wrong? Is that not why the stock market has risen?0 -
This is all straight out of UKIP's “Let’s abandon the sinking EU ship” propaganda.
Perhaps. However, there is a lot of truth to it hence why it resonated with the voters so much. The EU structurally is not exactly the garden of Eden. I don't even think the most ardent europhile will say that the EU does not have its problems.0 -
No 'faith' required to see which way this is going:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/update/02/
http://www.oecd.org/economy/the-economic-consequences-of-brexit-a-taxing-decision.htm
https://www.ft.com/content/68c61094-3870-11e6-a780-b48ed7b6126f
And again - everyone in the UK is materially worse off already as a consequence of the referendum outcome, let alone the triggering of Brexit.
I'd argue the real 'faith-based initiative' is the head-in-the-sand response to the new economic reality in the UK. But the best of luck with that.
I see you missed my earlier Warren Buffett quote?
Here it is again.Forecasts may tell you a great deal about the forecaster; they tell you nothing about the future0 -
-
Advertisement
-
prinzeugen wrote: »The old British kite mark is basically what the EU adopted for safety testing of products.
On the other hand, the UK railways are struggling to get diesel trains due to the new EU regs.
There was the case of a company buying all the engines for a locomotive order before the new year to complete them as they would be illegal after Jan 1st due to emissions regs.
I couldn't see the old kite mark being much of consequence now 30+ years
On, that is of course if Theresa asks for that concession also to allowed along
With everything else!0 -
White man speak with forked tongue, I think. Participation in the single market isn't just a matter of "no tariffs on the vast majority of goods". It means no tariffs at all, so that goods moving from the UK to the EU-27 don't have to be inspected to see if they attract tariffs or not. It means VAT co-ordination, so that when goods are moved out of the UK to the EU-27 you don't reclaim VAT from the UK authorities and pay it to the EU authorities. It means common regulatory and safety standards, so that goods from the EU don't have to be inspected or certified to see if they comply with EU product/consumer/safety standards. It means the reintroduction of customs clearance for trade with EU countries, abolished in the UK nearly 25 years ago. Etc, etc, etc.It really wasn't. Leavers are still insisting that the UK can both restrict immigration and retain free access to the single market:The most relaxed of the formal options available to the UK is a typical free trade deal. Britain would retain full or partial access to the Single Market, meaning tariffs on the vast majority of goods would continue to be exempted. But there would be no requirement for the UK to adopt regulations from Brussels, nor would Free Movement be a pre-requisite.
http://leave.eu/en/negotiations
A free trade deal with the EU falls far short of participation in the single market. It may mean few or no tariff barriers for the UK, but there will be plenty of non-tariff barriers that will introduce delay and expense for UK producers exporting to the EU (and vice versa) that they do not now face. That's a materially worse situation for both UK producers and UK consumers than the one they currently enjoy.0 -
No. Depreciation of sterling by 10% means that everything they source from outside the UK costs them 10% more. But it doesn't have the same effect for what they source from within the UK, which is quite a lot. Plus, it has the effect that everythign they sell outside the UK yields them 10% more. You have to net all those factors out to work out the overall effect on GDP of a devaluation of sterling. I don't know what that is, but it's certainly not a 10% decline, or anything like it.Sam Russell wrote: »Am I right in thinking that if the GB£ depreciated by 10%, then they need a growth of 10% to stay even?
Yes, basically, that's why the stock market has risen. An awful lot of the companies listed on the London Stock Exchange do a large part of their business/have a large part of their assets outside the UK, so when sterling declines their earnings, to the extent that they are in non-sterling currencies will now buy more sterling than they used to, so the expected dividend (expressed in sterling) and the share price (also expressed in sterling) go up.Sam Russell wrote: »If you measure UK GDP in euro, there has been contraction since Brexit - or am I wrong? Is that not why the stock market has risen?
But the don't go up by 10%, since some of the company's earnings are likely to have been in sterling. So if you're an investor in a company quoted in London, you might find that the share price, expressed in sterling, has risen by (say) 5%, but as sterling has fallen by 10% you're still worse off.0 -
What export-oriented manufacturers will do is manufacture to European standards anyway, and lobby the UK government to accept that goods manufactured to that standard can be freely sold in the UK. Instead of lobbying the EU to recognise British standards, they'll lobby the UK to recognise EU standards, which really makes much more sense.I couldn't see the old kite mark being much of consequence now 30+ years
On, that is of course if Theresa asks for that concession also to allowed along
With everything else!
The thing is, simple recognition by the UK government of EU standards isn't quite enough. If you're exporting your goods to the EU, you'll need to satisfy the EU authorities that they comply with EU standards. Since the UK government will no longer be enforcing EU standards, the mere fact that your goods were produced in the UK will not mean that they comply with EU standards, as is the case today. So you'll have to arrange (and pay) for your goods to be inspected and certified as complying with EU standards, to satisfy the EU authorities. This is the kind of non-tariff barrier that UK producers will face as a result of leaving the single market.0 -
Nobody has made such a claim. But, what certainly cannot be claimed is that 52% of the electorate want to see an end to free movement of EU citizens to/from the UK.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that, but anyway, it doesn’t change the fact that the British are largely rather insular.
I assume by “respected”, you mean their wishes need to be carried out. The problem is, nobody knows what they wish.
Good morning,
Firstly - I think we can argue all day long about whether or not May has a mandate. My view is we can see this from the key issues that drove the result. You disagree with that, but the polls moved in Leaves direction when immigration was introduced more clearly by Vote Leave in the final weeks of the campaign. May is right to deal with this issue because it has been an issue in British politics for too long.
Secondly - restricting free movement isn't about making Britain insular. There will continue to be a lot of migration in and out of the UK after Brexit. British people are largely pro immigration and the UK will need worldwide talent to work here. The question is determining who should come in a way that doesn't adversely affect the local economy. Low wage workers have been under pressure from wage competition from immigration for years. This needs to be addressed. I think this is something that needs to be fixed if Britain is to work for everyone. Britain is an outward looking country that engages with the world. Arguably it is much less insular than many other European countries.
Thirdly - by respected I mean that Britain must come out of the EU. If it doesn't that is a failure to respect democracy. I think May will get us out but the whining from the hard core Europhiles needs to end.
My view in the referendum was reluctant remain. I felt it was better to stay in and argue for reform that benefited everyone. I think post-Brexit I've woken up and seen that that wouldn't have been possible. The nasty side of the EU hasn't been clearer than now when we see how they are behaving over Brexit. I think the European project was good in terms of trade but it is heading to be a European superstate and Britain has every right to say they are out.
The fact is that it isn't working. The best thing to do is leave amicably. The political philosophy of Britain is different to the continent. On the continent they are more than happy to trust experts to make decisions on their behalf. That's why the concept of the European Commission making all the major European legislation with the Parliament having a limited Yes or No say was drafted. A traditional parliamentary democracy actually allows for members to propose legislation and to amend it. The EU doesn't because it is designed with technocracy in mind. That works in mainland Europe. Britain works on a different basis. British people want to chart decision making in their own country and on their own say. That's a philosophical difference in how politics works in both places. That's why voting again because the experts insist on it isn't acceptable.
The fact is also that Britain hasn't been a fully fledged party to the EU for years. They've held it back. The EU can now integrate more closely without the hand brake. Even though I don't agree that closer integration in the EU will fix any of it's problems because closer integration is the issue, it can and will press on with it without Britain.
Talk of not honouring the result is nonsense. The question isn't if Britain is going to leave it is how.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
Advertisement
-
solodeogloria wrote: »On the continent they are more than happy to trust experts to make decisions on their behalf. That's why the concept of the European Commission making all the major European legislation with the Parliament having a limited Yes or No say was drafted. A traditional parliamentary democracy actually allows for members to propose legislation and to amend it. The EU doesn't because it is designed with technocracy in mind. That works in mainland Europe. Britain works on a different basis. British people want to chart decision making in their own country and on their own say. That's a philosophical difference in how politics works in both places. That's why voting again because the experts insist on it isn't acceptable.
A few red herrings here.
The European Commission is no technocracy - it's appointed by the member states, through a democratic process, like any government appointment, and is subject to oversight by the EU Parliament.
Secondly, since Maastricht it's been within the power of the EU Parliament to initiate legislation. It's always had the power to send back amendments to the Commission.
Thirdly, it's not possible for a British people to 'chart decision making in their own country' if those decisions are European-wide in application. This is nothing to do with any philosophy, but with simple democratic mandates. You join the club on the basis of shared sovereignty and of equal representation.
Voting on the actual proposed arrangement for the UK is nothing to do with 'experts'. It's the sensible thing to do in a situation where the choices have been entirely ambigious beforehand, and the parliamentary system has been usurped by a referendum that has no actual legal standing beyond an advisory input. Democracy isn't strengthened by the pretence that the electorate have already made their preferred platform for european relations known to legislators. They have not. Putting the post-referendum platform options to the electorate is the real democratic move.0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Good morning,
Firstly - I think we can argue all day long about whether or not May has a mandate. My view is we can see this from the key issues that drove the result. You disagree with that, but the polls moved in Leaves direction when immigration was introduced more clearly by Vote Leave in the final weeks of the campaign. May is right to deal with this issue because it has been an issue in British politics for too long.
If they had swung from 0% to 52% based on this, then perhaps you could argue the mandate was for immigration controls.
As it stands, you only need less than 5% of 'Leave' voters to not have voted based on immigration to suggest that there is no mandate for this. Given that 48% clearly voted for the opposite, it would require over 96% of all 'Leave' voters to have done so based on immigration for the result to be interpreted as so.
Any idea of the percentages of Leave voters who voted to 'reclaim' all that money for the NHS? That 'mandate' is rarely discussed.
The impact is, unsurprisingly, not large.solodeogloria wrote: »Secondly - restricting free movement isn't about making Britain insular. There will continue to be a lot of migration in and out of the UK after Brexit. British people are largely pro immigration and the UK will need worldwide talent to work here. The question is determining who should come in a way that doesn't adversely affect the local economy. Low wage workers have been under pressure from wage competition from immigration for years. This needs to be addressed. I think this is something that needs to be fixed if Britain is to work for everyone. Britain is an outward looking country that engages with the world. Arguably it is much less insular than many other European countries.
Consider 1 - http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/how-small-small-impact-immigration-uk-wages
And the Bank of England paper from last year
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2015/swp574.pdf
which offers in its conclusionCloser examination reveals that the biggest effect is in the semi/unskilled services sector, where a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2 percent reduction in pay
Also of course interesting to note that it is quite contradictory to talk about free trade in goods and services and trade liberalization on one hand and promote labour market protectionist policies on the other.
I agree. The UK has voted to leave the EU, and leave it must.solodeogloria wrote: »Thirdly - by respected I mean that Britain must come out of the EU. If it doesn't that is a failure to respect democracy. I think May will get us out but the whining from the hard core Europhiles needs to end.
What?solodeogloria wrote: »My view in the referendum was reluctant remain. I felt it was better to stay in and argue for reform that benefited everyone. I think post-Brexit I've woken up and seen that that wouldn't have been possible. The nasty side of the EU hasn't been clearer than now when we see how they are behaving over Brexit. I think the European project was good in terms of trade but it is heading to be a European superstars and Britain has every right to say they are out.
What about the EU isn't working?solodeogloria wrote: »The fact is that it isn't working. The best thing to do is leave amicably. The political philosophy of Britain is different to the continent. On the continent they are more than happy to trust experts to make decisions on their behalf. That's why the concept of the European Commission making all the major European legislation with the Parliament having a limited Yes or No say was drafted. A traditional parliamentary democracy actually allows for members to propose legislation and to amend it. The EU doesn't because it is designed with technocracy in mind. That works in mainland Europe. Britain works on a different basis. British people want to chart decision making in their own country and on their own say. That's a philosophical difference in how politics works in both places. That's why voting again because the experts insist on it isn't acceptable.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/european_government/european_union.htmlThe European Union has 4 main aims:- To establish European citizenship. This means protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms.
- To ensure freedom, security and justice. This means co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs.
- To promote economic and social progress. This involves the single market, the euro, environmental protection and social and regional development.
- To assert Europe's role in the world.
I agree. The UK has always been correctly described as an 'in' country with many opt outs. (tallied here)solodeogloria wrote: »The fact is also that Britain hasn't been a fully fledged party to the EU for years. They've held it back. The EU can now integrate more closely without the hand brake. Even though I don't agree that closer integration in the EU will fix any of it's problems because closer integration is the issue, it can and will press on with it without Britain.
It now wishes to become an 'out' country with many 'opt-ins'.
Agree. The UK cannot (imo) reasonably stay within the EU.solodeogloria wrote: »
Talk of not honouring the result is nonsense. The question isn't if Britain is going to leave it is how.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria
It could potentially take a single baby step outside it and call the referendum respected. Or indeed it could take a great running jump, land outside of all aspects and call the referendum respected.
The 'space' on that spectrum were the UK will lie after the fact should surely be up for debate though.0 -
Good morning!
Can you back up the claim about the European Commissioners being elected by member states governments? As far as I know the member states don't decide these directly through their governments. They aren't accountable to the general public in the same way that MPs are.
The European Parliament doesn't seem to be able to initiate legislation according to a quick Google. It seems that it can only draw up reports for consideration by the Commission. It can amend this report but only the Commission initiates legislation. Again, rather technocratic.
Britain joined the EEC in 1973 and signed Maastricht in 1992. The EU is a different beast now and is on the verge towards becoming a superstate. Of course Britain has the sovereign right to leave on the basis of the provisions made for that process in the Lisbon Treaty.
Edit - by the nasty side of the EU. I mean Juncker and Schulz throwing a strop over the referendum result and their melodramatic comments since. Britain has said it isn't working so let's find a relationship that does. The EU seem to be making melodramatic comments about wanting to punish Britain. It's all rather childish isn't it? The contemptuous treatment Cameron received when asking for fair accommodation of the UK's concerns was also pretty nasty really.
Why is controlling immigration and having free trade an absurdity? Canada is just about to get this and South Korea has had it for years. I suspect this is more myth than reality.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
As I said before, I don't think you can argue that May has, or doesn't have, a mandate based on [what you may think are] the reasons people voted for Brexit.Deleted User wrote: »If they had swung from 0% to 52% based on this, then perhaps you could argue the mandate was for immigration controls.
As it stands, you only need less than 5% of 'Leave' voters to not have voted based on immigration to suggest that there is no mandate for this. Given that 48% clearly voted for the opposite, it would require over 96% of all 'Leave' voters to have done so based on immigration for the result to be interpreted as so. . . .
It could potentially take a single baby step outside it and call the referendum respected. Or indeed it could take a great running jump, land outside of all aspects and call the referendum respected.
The 'space' on that spectrum were the UK will lie after the fact should surely be up for debate though.
May has a mandate for Brexit because (a) the people voted for Brexit in the referendum and (b) her party won the election on a manifesto of holding that referendum and respecting the result (and note that both of these elements are necessary to support the view that she has a mandate). But she only has a mandate for Brexit; she has no mandate for any particular model of post-Brexit relationship with the EU, because no such mandate was sought. There is no mandate to impose immigration controls (thereby precluding EEA membership), for example. That question wasn't put to people in the referendum, and it didn't feature in the election manifesto. Out of the range of possible post-Brexit futures for the UK, the government has a mandate (as an aspect of its mandate to govern conferred by the election result) to pursue whichever of them it thinks is in the country's best interests. But is does not have, and cannot claim that the referendum gave it, a particular mandate for any particular post-Brexit relationship with the EU.0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Edit - by the nasty side of the EU. I mean Juncker and Schulz throwing a strop over the referendum result and their melodramatic comments since. Britain has said it isn't working so let's find a relationship that does. The EU seem to be making melodramatic comments about wanting to punish Britain. It's all rather childish isn't it? The contemptuous treatment Cameron received when asking for fair accommodation of the UK's concerns was also pretty nasty really.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria
I think you should take note of the facts before you make comments like that.
Have a look at this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-messages-insight-idUSKCN12R0YA
Hours before May's Tory conference speech she rang around the EU leaders with a very concilatory and assuring tone about Brexit.
In the Tory conference she then transformed from the 'quiet remainer' of the phone call to the hard Brexiter witnessed in the Tory conference.
You can't treat people like fools and it backfired badly with European leaders spelling out that she can't have her cake and eat it.
Apparently not even her closest advisers will reveal anything to their European counterparts: Zero. This is reflected by the fact that her own cabinet don't even know her plans. It looks like her attention to detail means she is not willing to talk at all until all the minutae of facts are in. This is weak politics.
This is spreading confusion in the UK and the EU and is deepening rifts between the parties.
As a German official said."If May came up with a clear concept of what she wanted and presented it to Merkel before she invokes Article 50, I'm sure she would get some indication of what we think," one German official said. "But first she has to have a concept and from what we've seen there is none."
There is an issue with nastiness, stand offishness, cockiness etc. in this exchange. It is all coming from the British side it appears.0 -
Good morning!
My last post until later.
May wasn't elected PM to be a quiet remainer but as someone who is going to take Britain out of the EU. She stated that from the steps of 10 Downing Street on day 1.
The change was the people's vote which she will respect.
The vote happened and it's in both the interest of the UK and the EU that Brexit goes smoothly.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Good morning!
Can you back up the claim about the European Commissioners being elected by member states governments? As far as I know the member states don't decide these directly through their governments. They aren't accountable to the general public in the same way that MPs are.
The European Parliament doesn't seem to be able to initiate legislation according to a quick Google. It seems that it can only draw up reports for consideration by the Commission. It can amend this report but only the Commission initiates legislation. Again, rather technocratic.
The commission members are appointed by their respective (duely elected) national governments. That's part and parcel of the democratic mandate given to those governments. The nominated appointees are then subject to oversight by the EU parliament. While commissioners aren't accountable in the same fashion as MP's are, they are still accountable.
The EU parliament can initiate legislative requests, which then have to be responded to by the Commission in a timely fashion. If the Commission reject a particular legislative request, they have to provide a justification for that rejection, and if that rejection is deemed unwarranted by the EU parliament, they can sanction the Commission. In reality, the Commission play ball with legislative requests from the parliament, and the norm is co-developed legislative initiatives.0 -
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37796836Brexit: High Court in Belfast due to rule on legal challenges
A judgement on two legal challenges to Brexit is due to be delivered by the High Court in Belfast later.
The separate proceedings, one brought by a cross-party group of MLAs and another from a victims' campaigner, were heard earlier this month.
One barrister said the UK's departure from the EU would be "catastrophic" for Northern Ireland's peace process.
...
A challenge by politicians from Sinn F in, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), the Alliance Party and the Green Party suggested that the government could not trigger Article 50 - the formal legal process for leaving the EU - without a parliamentary vote.
They believe the Brexit decision should be examined and voted on by parliament, or, failing that, by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Raymond McCord, whose son was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries and who now campaigns for victims of violence during Northern Ireland's Troubles, brought the other legal bid.
His lawyer argued that the Good Friday peace agreement meant Westminster had given sovereignty of Northern Ireland over to its people, and that leaving the EU would have a "catastrophic effect" for the peace process.
Mr McCord's concerns came amid concerns that EU money for peace projects that help Troubles victims in Northern Ireland could be ended.
Major constitutional changes such as leaving the EU could not therefore be imposed by a Westminster government, Mr McCord's barrister said.
But barristers for the government and the Northern Ireland Executive said there was no legal barrier to Brexit.
I wonder what the verdict will be, but I rather doubt that if it is against the Brexit that it might impress the PM.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »As I said before, I don't think you can argue that May has, or doesn't have, a mandate based on [what you may think are] the reasons people voted for Brexit.
May has a mandate for Brexit because (a) the people voted for Brexit in the referendum and (b) her party won the election on a manifesto of holding that referendum and respecting the result (and note that both of these elements are necessary to support the view that she has a mandate). But she only has a mandate for Brexit; she has no mandate for any particular model of post-Brexit relationship with the EU, because no such mandate was sought. There is no mandate to impose immigration controls (thereby precluding EEA membership), for example. That question wasn't put to people in the referendum, and it didn't feature in the election manifesto. Out of the range of possible post-Brexit futures for the UK, the government has a mandate (as an aspect of its mandate to govern conferred by the election result) to pursue whichever of them it thinks is in the country's best interests. But is does not have, and cannot claim that the referendum gave it, a particular mandate for any particular post-Brexit relationship with the EU.
The Tory manifesto did say "Yes to the Single Market", so it's arguable they only have a mandate for a Soft Brexit.0 -
Nobody is saying the EU does not have problems. But there is a huge difference between recognising the EU has problems and claiming it is on the verge of collapse.I don't even think the most ardent europhile will say that the EU does not have its problems.
I mean, it’s not like the UK does not have serious problems of its own.0 -
Advertisement
-
Also true, but the main point is that the Leave campaign is continuing to mislead the public and that it is very doubtful that the public support the hard Brexit option.Peregrinus wrote: »A free trade deal with the EU falls far short of participation in the single market.0 -
In the immediate aftermath of the result, polls swung massively in favour of Remain – that tells us all we need to know about polls. Using them as the basis for policy is a terrible idea.solodeogloria wrote: »My view is we can see this from the key issues that drove the result. You disagree with that, but the polls moved in Leaves direction when immigration was introduced more clearly by Vote Leave in the final weeks of the campaign.
Nobody said that it was. What was said is that Britain is already relatively insular.solodeogloria wrote: »Secondly - restricting free movement isn't about making Britain insular.
Pull the other one – it’s got bells on it.solodeogloria wrote: »British people are largely pro immigration…
There is little convincing evidence that there has been any significant reduction in wages for low-skilled workers as a result of immigration. But let’s say you’re right. The obvious question to me is how are British workers being out-competed by immigrants? I find it very hard to believe that it’s a simple case of immigrants being prepared to work for less.solodeogloria wrote: »Low wage workers have been under pressure from wage competition from immigration for years. This needs to be addressed.
But nobody is arguing that it will not?solodeogloria wrote: »Thirdly - by respected I mean that Britain must come out of the EU.
The EU is not even close to being a super-state.solodeogloria wrote: »I think the European project was good in terms of trade but it is heading to be a European superstars and Britain has every right to say they are out.
The EU Is not working? How so? It has delivered seventy years of peace and prosperity in Europe, something that was almost completely inconceivable in the immediate aftermath of WWII.solodeogloria wrote: »The fact is that it isn't working.
No, Britain just thinks it’s different. You’re aware that Oxbridge graduates are massively over-represented in British government? How is that representative of the general population?solodeogloria wrote: »The political philosophy of Britain is different to the continent. On the continent they are more than happy to trust experts to make decisions on their behalf. Britain works on a different basis.
That is a wonderful summary of how the EU does not operate.solodeogloria wrote: »That's why the concept of the European Commission making all the major European legislation with the Parliament having a limited Yes or No say was drafted. A traditional parliamentary democracy actually allows for members to propose legislation and to amend it.0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Can you back up the claim about the European Commissioners being elected by member states governments? As far as I know the member states don't decide these directly through their governments.
Seriously?0 -
Radiosonde wrote: »Peregrinus wrote: »As I said before, I don't think you can argue that May has, or doesn't have, a mandate based on [what you may think are] the reasons people voted for Brexit.
May has a mandate for Brexit because (a) the people voted for Brexit in the referendum and (b) her party won the election on a manifesto of holding that referendum and respecting the result (and note that both of these elements are necessary to support the view that she has a mandate). But she only has a mandate for Brexit; she has no mandate for any particular model of post-Brexit relationship with the EU, because no such mandate was sought. There is no mandate to impose immigration controls (thereby precluding EEA membership), for example. That question wasn't put to people in the referendum, and it didn't feature in the election manifesto. Out of the range of possible post-Brexit futures for the UK, the government has a mandate (as an aspect of its mandate to govern conferred by the election result) to pursue whichever of them it thinks is in the country's best interests. But is does not have, and cannot claim that the referendum gave it, a particular mandate for any particular post-Brexit relationship with the EU.
The Tory manifesto did say "Yes to the Single Market", so it's arguable they only have a mandate for a Soft Brexit.
I really doubt that they will get it, it'll be rather the "hard Brexit" which they'll get in the end, by the rhetoric this new PM and her cabinet has used up to this day when discussing the whole matter and sending "signals" to the EU. I'm rather sure that they are more capable to make things worse than to make them better.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »solodeogloria wrote: »Can you back up the claim about the European Commissioners being elected by member states governments? As far as I know the member states don't decide these directly through their governments.
Seriously?
After having read a couple of posts from this chap, it became clear to me that he's just another Brexiter and decided to decline from further readings of his opinions, cos all he does is just repeating some sort of Farage Propaganda and that part in his post which I have set in bold proves my point.0 -
I think that it is by now well noticed how rising nationalism in the UK after the Brexit vote has caused hatred and abuse by some Brits towards other nationals living there. So, I won't bother anybody too much with it anymore but this passage from the below linked article bears a quoted sentence which has a general meaning:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37787008The Poles looking to leave the UK after Brexit
...
Joanna lives in Poole and says at times she has been made to feel like a second-class citizen and has even been confronted by a stranger on the street.
"I was talking to my daughter [in Polish], we were joking and laughing. A man passed and said 'if you are in England you have to talk in English... otherwise you go back to your country'," she tells the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme.
"I said to that guy, 'I am talking with my child, so I will talk to my child in my language. And this is also my country, and I have equal rights here'."
The man, she says, answered in reply: "You don't have any rights here any more."
"That was my experience after Brexit," she says.
...
Well, that's a nice fella isn't he and I was wondering whether I shall be exactly that rude to anybody who walks the streets in Germany speaking English the same like this bigot did to that woman. I wouldn't do so because I am not inclined to let myself go down on such a low class people manner and level.
I have mentioned the way the Poles are now treated in the UK on a German News Website and pointed out that what the Poles suffer the Germans there could suffer as well. This was in stated by myself in reply to a comment from another commentator who appeared very happy about the low rate the has These days and expressed some happy Feelings about a good and cheap holiday over the Channel. He answered me that he don't care about how the English are treating the Poles over there and that his English is good enough to get what he wants. He appeared to never have met any of the low class English and their sick Obsession with WWII and Nazi-Germany etc.. He is quite a fool and no surprise also a right-winger himself (to put it moderate), but in my opinion that chap is just another anti-EU poster and as it happens, a German fellow citizen of mine.
It is very worrying to me that these days, chauvinism and exaggerated nationalism are en vogue again and bring people to express their hatred towards people they hardly know at all. Generalisations and the work of the tabloids, whether they are British, German or of any other source are stirring this bad mood among the people. No matter who one is, may one be a Pole, Brit, German, Muslim, Pakistani, this thing can affect anybody, anywhere and any time. Some people have never learned to think and act differenciated, some simply refuse to do so and the worst of all are those who generate, stirr up and exploit hatred like in this example shown above.
I would simply say "stop it"!0 -
I think it's important not to get swept up in anecdotes. I don't disagree that it's a terribly ignorant thing to say and probably not a very inviting thing to hear, but it is important to realise that there is not an 'epidemic of abuse' pouring across the countryside.
I back the right of people to discuss (inflammatory or otherwise) opinions and hopefully come to joint understandings through discussion. We should not be afraid of robust debate, we should encourage it. Shining a bright light on issues and bringing them into the open is a great way to deal with them.
When discussing this ideal, I always think back to the time Nick Griffin discussed his views on Question Time which was an important moment in the downfall of the BNP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY. If we censor and or drive underground these type of discussions, myths are created. We should not be afraid of having robust (and at times acrimonious) 'wars of words' about almost any subject. Nothing ought be sacrosanct when it comes to questioning.
Importantly, I am not in any way backing the idea that anyone should be free to act on their ideals in a way that is illegal (i.e xenophobic abuse simply because one holds nationalist views), but instead support their right to hold those views which ultimately it is up to others to defeat with logic and reason.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I think it's important not to get swept up in anecdotes. I don't disagree that it's a terribly ignorant thing to say and probably not a very inviting thing to hear, but it is important to realise that there is not an 'epidemic of abuse' pouring across the countryside.
I back the right of people to discuss (inflammatory or otherwise) opinions and hopefully come to joint understandings through discussion. We should not be afraid of robust debate, we should encourage it. Shining a bright light on issues and bringing them into the open is a great way to deal with them.
When discussing this ideal, I always think back to the time Nick Griffin discussed his views on Question Time which was an important moment in the downfall of the BNP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY. If we censor and or drive underground these type of discussions, myths are created. We should not be afraid of having robust (and at times acrimonious) 'wars of words' about almost any subject. Nothing ought be sacrosanct when it comes to questioning.
Importantly, I am not in any way backing the idea that anyone should be free to act on their ideals in a way that is illegal (i.e xenophobic abuse simply because one holds nationalist views), but instead support their right to hold those views which ultimately it is up to others to defeat with logic and reason.
You are speaking in general terms and what I was on about is the simply abuse to people of different nationality and dictating them the language to use when taling among themselves and frankly, that is a no-go attitude in my opinion. Otherwise I would be right to tell every English speaking person in Germany that he or she would have to speak German only even among their own kin and this is where it all starts because what that woman was talking with her daughter was no business of the bigot who passed by.0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »
May wasn't elected PM to be a quiet remainer but as someone who is going to take Britain out of the EU
May was not elected PM in the first place0 -
Advertisement
-
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »May was not elected PM in the first place
She was. Just by a very small number of people.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement