Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do you have any qualms at all about how the Leave campaign was conducted? Were the NHS bus, scaremongering about Syrian refugees, lies about the EU all fine with you? I don't mention the Remain side because it lost.

I've yet to see a single reason to be positive about it.

Good evening!

If I hadn't already answered that question on this thread several times that would have been a fair one. I think the campaign was mostly well fought. There were lies on both sides both in respect to the £350mn figure, the Turkey joining prospect on the leave side, and project fear on the remain side.

The gullible, feeble minded people argument doesn't wash with me and it never will. It's full of condescending attitudes to what was the biggest vote on a matter in British history in terms of turnout. I'm also sick and tired of hearing the result was narrow. A margin of a million voters wasn't narrow.

There's a lot of positive arguments for leaving and there were and are no good arguments for staying in at this point. Fearmongering isn't a reason to stay in the EU. The hard remainers need to give clear positive and good reasons as to why the UK should rejoin the EU.

The reason shouldn't be that the UK should be in to offer balance because that's a reason about other countries and not about the UK and it shouldn't be a reason borne out of fear mongering. The UK needs a clear reason as to why it fits into the EU. Germany has a very good one as does Ireland but Britain has never had a decent membership narrative.

At this stage I'm definitely not supportive of rejoining. EU membership was a much better prospect in the 70s on the basis of economics but not so much in 2017. I've been told off by murphaph for not understanding Germany's reason but Germany's reason is Germany's reason. Not Britain's reason. Britain joined way too late for EU membership to have been anything about the Second World War.

Irish people are usually far more passionate about the EU due to the benefits it received from it. It's about as evangelical about the EU as a born again Christian is about Jesus. I don't have the faith in respect to the EU.

It's time for the EU to realise that Britain was never a good fit and that Charles de Gaulle was right to say no to the UK in the 1960's.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

jm08 wrote: »

I'd imagine if Ireland voted no in an advisory capacity for Ireland to leave the EU, all of our most recent Presidents would have probably questioned it by at least putting it to the Council of State (which if in a UK context would have included Tony Blair as a former Prime Minister) before letting the Right Wing Tories run away with it.

One of the things which Ireland does i the context of a referendum is define i advance the path to be followed in the case of either outcome prevailing. So in that respect, I don't think Ireland would ever vote in an advisory capacity in this way. What is not necessarily to be excluded is the text of any subsequent legislation to be reviewed by the Council of State if there were doubts about the drafting of the Acts required to give effect to the outcome of the referendum.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The more I read this thread the more bejoggled I am at the extent to which democracy and the people's verdict is despised.

You're seriously suggesting that you would want a ceremonial head of state to veto the result of a referendum because you don't like the result? That's the only real reason.

It is also incredible that people think that spending €100mn to move to Strasbourg is a good price to keep France happy.

The more and more I read the more and more I'm sure that the UK should leave the EU. I really don't believe the extreme fearmongering either. The UK has every opportunity to be successful post-Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I don't think he is suggesting that a ceremonial head of state would or should do this to be honest with you.

I think you need to understand that the implementation of democracy varies from country to country and that largely, the systems should be coherent. Currently, referendums are not that coherent to the UK system of representative democracy and legally, unless the Act arranging the referendum specifies the outcome to be binding - which the Brexit one did not although the AV one did iirc - the referendum is advisory regardless of who or how many people voted in it. In a democratic UK, all actors would know this because they would be civically aware of how their democracy should operate. Direct democracy is not the sole type of democracy in operation and voting systems vary from one country to the next. CF US and its electoral college where 3 million more voted for Hillary Clinton and yet we still have Donald Trump as leader of the free world

As such, the discussion of what constitutes democracy is not really a binary one. In any case, the referendum in question was very poorly implemented and might well have been struck down in Ireland because of how the information flow was manipulated and how one of the options was not clearly defined.

You live in the UK so you are at liberty to be in favour or not in favour of Brexit. But to date, while you have mentioned that there is every opportunity for the UK to be successful outside the UK, the only concretisation of that which you have offered is Trade deals! without any detail on how that might enumerate to success.

In fact, I fear that success for the UK outside the EU is not a defined metric anyway so that no matter what happens someone will say it was successful, even if every house in the country burns, well sovereignty, yeah.

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

GoThere were lies on both sides both in respect to the £350mn figure, the Turkey joining prospect on the leave side, and project fear on the remain side.

The gullible, feeble minded people argument doesn't wash with me and it never will.

To bad facts prove you wrong.

Nearly half of the British public believe Vote Leave’s claim that the UK pays £350 million a week to the European Union despite the figure being debunked, a poll shows.

Ipsos MORI found that 47 per cent of the public believe that the claim, which has been repeatedly criticised by the UK Statistics Authority, is true.

Just 39 per cent realise the figure, which has formed the centerpiece of the Leave campaign, is false, while 14 per cent do not know.

Water John

The former Brussels journalist had no problem wasting £50m on a garden project in London.

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's a lot of positive arguments for leaving and there were and are no good arguments for staying in at this point. Fearmongering isn't a reason to stay in the EU. The hard remainers need to give clear positive and good reasons as to why the UK should rejoin the EU.

With all due respect, I don't think there's a power in the 'verse could convince you to remain at this stage - not because there are no good reasons for being in the EU, but because in your mind you've conflated "reasons to leave" with "rational arguments", and "reasons to remain" with "fearmongering".

The only way to create a blanket equivalence of all arguments for remaining with "project fear" is to convince yourself that all the benefits of EU membership can be enjoyed by a non-EU member; that there are literally no disadvantages to not being a member of the biggest free market the world has ever seen. It's pretty well futile to attempt to debate that level of delusion.

The arguments for leaving the EU boil down to precisely one thing: not allowing foreigners to have any say over how the British do things. If you have convinced yourself that that's a sufficiently compelling argument for the monumental act of self-sabotage on which the UK is currently embarking, then there's quite simply no point in trying to reason with you.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Calina - I've explained in detail about how referendums were a necessary adaptation to the British democratic system and how proportional representation doesn't resolve the problem that is addressed by referendums.

You can pick up and respond to that post a few pages ago if you like.

At this stage I think complaining about a very clear outcome can only be interpreted as being a sore loser. For every alleged leaver who was confused you can find a remainer who just wants to get things done to a remainer who realised he was wrong (like me!).

oscarBravo - There are several tangible advantages to being out. The only reasons for being in are that the status quo remains but nobody during the referendum argued for a positive picture of the EU. That's a problem because if anything not everyone trusts the politicians (I did and rather blindly!).

Sorry but fearmongering isn't "reasoning".

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The more I read this thread the more bejoggled I am at the extent to which democracy and the people's verdict is despised.

You've conflated democracy with getting what you want. Yes, we had a referendum and yes, the side I picked lost. But this idea that British people are all-knowing and infallible is garbage frankly. Referenda are supposed to be used to decide very simple things. Take the SSM referendum. We knew what the text was and what it would be changed to upon a yes vote winning, which it thankfully did. The EU referendum was won by the leave side because they employed scaremongering about Turkey, an NHS crisis the government has created itself, refugees, the ECJ and EU regulations that nobody can name but are still somehow stifling the economy.

People here don't despise the leave voters, it's Vote Leave, Leave.EU and Grassroots OUT that they despise along with the lies, the press barons, the Politicians, the hedge fund managers, billionaires, etc... And for what? Just because they want to turn a profit and because they wanted to destroy the EU. I'm glad they failed at that at least. I mean, even the Vote Leave chief thinks the referendum was a bad idea FFS.

Every time I hear one of these canards like "Plenty of opportunities" or "You lost, get over it" it reeks of people who know that they have no logic-based defence whatsoever for the current mess that we're in and that they've just done the bidding of elites like Banks, Rothermere, Farage, Johnson, Gove, Murdoch, Cummings, Baker, the Barclays, etc who seem them ultimately as useful idiots.

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

oscarBravo - There are several tangible advantages to being out.

Not really, no. The reasons given for leaving range from the completely wooly - "taking back control" - to the specific, but dishonest - "controlling immigration", despite a failure to do so in those areas where it was already possible - to the vaguely optimistic - "doing great trade deals", which suggests that the UK has more to offer the world on its own than it does as part of a market of half a billion people.

No, I'm not buying it. The reasons for leaving fundamentally boil down to "taking back control" - taking it back from whom? Foreigners, frankly.

The only reasons for being in are that the status quo remains but nobody during the referendum argued for a positive picture of the EU.

For some reason I'm picturing someone who wants to chop his arm off. You tell him how bad it will be if he does, but he decides that you're just fearmongering and chops it off anyway. Afterwards, while rationalising his decision, he criticises you for not telling him all the positive things about having two arms.

The UK has never, ever had an honest internal dialogue about the EU. There was little point trying to sell a positive vision of the EU to the British people because they wouldn't have believed it. And anyway, it would have looked like the Life of Brian "what have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch.

Sorry but fearmongering isn't "reasoning".

Dismissing every argument that doesn't suit your conclusion as "fearmongering" isn't exactly reasoning either.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You've conflated democracy with getting what you want. Yes, we had a referendum and yes, the side I picked lost. But this idea that British people are all-knowing and infallible is garbage frankly. Referenda are supposed to be used to decide very simple things. Take the SSM referendum. We knew what the text was and what it would be changed to upon a yes vote winning, which it thankfully did. The EU referendum was won by the leave side because they employed scaremongering about Turkey, an NHS crisis the government has created itself, refugees, the ECJ and EU regulations that nobody can name but are still somehow stifling the economy.

People here don't despise the leave voters, it's Vote Leave, Leave.EU and Grassroots OUT that they despise along with the lies, the press barons, the Politicians, the hedge fund managers, billionaires, etc... And for what? Just because they want to turn a profit and because they wanted to destroy the EU. I'm glad they failed at that at least. I mean, even the Vote Leave chief thinks the referendum was a bad idea FFS.

Every time I hear one of these canards like "Plenty of opportunities" or "You lost, get over it" it reeks of people who know that they have no logic-based defence whatsoever for the current mess that we're in and that they've just done the bidding of elites like Banks, Rothermere, Farage, Johnson, Gove, Murdoch, Cummings, Baker, the Barclays, etc who seem them ultimately as useful idiots.

Good evening!

The irony is that you're only complaining because you didn't get what you wanted.

The simple fact is if 52% had voted to stay in you would have called it settled. I would have done also!

You wouldn't have been arguing that it was narrow and the leavers should have their day. You wouldn't have been arguing for the Government to leave the EU anyway. You wouldn't have been insisting that the remainers were simple minded.

I'm sorry but this argument is simply bollocks! It needs to be routinely dismissed as such also.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Calina - I've explained in detail about how referendums were a necessary adaptation to the British democratic system and how proportional representation doesn't resolve the problem that is addressed by referendums.

I remember that post. It had a lot of words and opinion but not, iirc, much in the way of rational argument.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You can pick up and respond to that post a few pages ago if you like.

At the time I chose not to for a couple of reasons. a) I don't think anything would convince you that you could possibly be wrong about anything and b) I didn't have the time then. I still don't have the time so I'm going to put it this way: I don't agree with you and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you of why.

solodeogloria wrote: »

At this stage I think complaining about a very clear outcome can only be interpreted as being a sore loser. For every alleged leaver who was confused you can find a remainer who just wants to get things done to a remainer who realised he was wrong (like me!).

I have to say that you do not come across as a remainer who realised you were wrong. Absolutely nothing in any post you have posted has given me any indication that you had a Damascus moment in this risk. For this reason, I have always assumed that if you voted remain, it was as a lack of faith to yourself and your opinion.

solodeogloria wrote: »

oscarBravo - There are several tangible advantages to being out. The only reasons for being in are that the status quo remains but nobody during the referendum argued for a positive picture of the EU. That's a problem because if anything not everyone trusts the politicians (I did and rather blindly!).

Sorry but fearmongering isn't "reasoning".

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The tangible advantages remain undefined. The reasons for remaining in include the fact that many of the services which the UK will need to do for itself are already done at lower cost on a pooled basis by the EU. Two additional benefits are the new trade deals, CETA and Japan. That is far beyond "the status quo remains".

I seem to recall you work in IT. Are you not familiar with "If it ain't broken don't fix it" and "If it's chipped, smashing it to pieces will not fix it?"

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The irony is that you're only complaining because you didn't get what you wanted.

What about the people who voted for £350 million a week for the NHS? Will they get what they voted for? Will farmers keep the subsidies like they were promised? Will small businesses get room to thrive once the fetters of EU regulation are removed?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The simple fact is if 52% had voted to stay in you would have called it settled. I would have done also!

You wouldn't have been arguing that it was narrow and the leavers should have their day. You wouldn't have been arguing for the Government to leave the EU anyway. You wouldn't have been insisting that the remainers were simple minded.

This tired old strawman. Leave won, I get it. Whatever I type in here won't change that. I never said that Leavers were simple minded. I was specifically talking about the Leave campaigns. That you keep missing the point so spectacularly suggests that you are simply being disingenuous.

The remain campaign was a bleary, economics-focused affair run by policy wonks who couldn't concede ground on immigration and freedom of movement quickly enough. At least they didn't lie to the public though.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm sorry but this argument is simply bollocks! It needs to be routinely dismissed as such also.

Why not debunk it then? You have yet to provide a single tangible opportunity that there are apparently so many of.

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

For the level of responsibility and the impact of the work they do, yes I think that's a fair remuneration package for them. It might even be low given what corresponding packages for senior managers in large private companies can be.

The current commission has some very able people - of the few I've happened across in conferences, Andrus Ansip and Maros Sefkovic in particular stand out. Most of the people who wind up as Commissioners tend to have a lot of experience either diplomatic or political and are well capable of covering their briefs in an international organisation efficiently. They also get grilled by the European Parliament before their appointment is confirmed by the way and those hearings are in public. Worth a look for people who want to actually be informed.

ok, but lets just put this in to perspective.

There are four presidents in the european union, none of whom have pressures like foreign policy, handling internal disasters or terrorist attacks or even the possibility of taking a country to war.

Yet all four of them earn more than Macron, Merkel, May and Varadkar.

And you think that is a good deal?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The UK has never, ever had an honest internal dialogue about the EU. There was little point trying to sell a positive vision of the EU to the British people because they wouldn't have believed it. And anyway, it would have looked like the Life of Brian "what have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch. Dismissing every argument that doesn't suit your conclusion as "fearmongering" isn't exactly reasoning either.

has anyone?

we blame them here for everything from water charges to bailing out German bond holders to trying to force abortion on us.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Last point for today.

Calina - you don't get to ignore the fact that I argued clearly for the place of the referendum in British politics a few posts ago and how I clearly explained how PR doesn't solve the problem it solved. I'm not going to rehash it for you.

ancapailldorcha - I would have given you a better hearing if you acknowledged that there were some fair arguments made by the leave side and a lot of lies from Cameron, Osborne, the Treasury, the Bank of England, and the IMF.

Unless you can tell me that you would have objected to a 52% remain result in the same way that you have objected to this result then it's entirely fair to say you're being hypocritical and anti-democratic. That's why the complaints should be ignored and it's why the result should be acted upon.

Not liking the result isn't an argument.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

ancapailldorcha - I would have given you a better hearing if you acknowledged that there were some fair arguments made by the leave side and a lot of lies from Cameron, Osborne, the Treasury, the Bank of England, and the IMF.

Unless you can tell me that you would have objected to a 52% remain result in the same way that you have objected to this result then it's entirely fair to say you're being hypocritical and anti-democratic. That's why the complaints should be ignored and it's why the result should be acted upon.

Not liking the result isn't an argument.

I'm starting to think that you're being disingenuous on purpose because you can't mount any other sort of defence.

Care to list any of these "Lies?"

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ok, but lets just put this in to perspective.

There are four presidents in the european union, none of whom have pressures like foreign policy, handling internal disasters or terrorist attacks or even the possibility of taking a country to war.

Yet all four of them earn more than Macron, Merkel, May and Varadkar.

And you think that is a good deal?

Personally I think Macron and Merkel are seriously underpaid, May is worth about 5 pence on the basis of calling the election which she didn't have to, and I haven't made up my mind on Varadkar yet.

There aren't really 4 presidents though - they have specific institutional roles rather than generic EU roles.

This is one of the things which troubles me and why I attach a lot of importance to detail and getting things right (which you dismiss as nitpicking). We don't say the UK has a president when we are talking about the Speaker of the House of Commons, but to be honest, Tajani's role is pretty much Speaker of Parliament and not president of the EU. It's worth looking at his role in Parliament for that reason. And Juncker is pretty much the chairman of the Commission and Tusk the chairman of the Council. Partly the issue is actually linguistic - the term in French is Président and depending on context, you could translate it to President (cf America, leader thereof) or chairman (cf committee of your local golf club).

So I think it's lazy to talk about the EU having four presidents in the tone of voice that suggests it's an awful waste because in the context of political leadership, their roles are not as Presidents as such but as leaders of their institutions, and in any case, none of them are President of the EU because that role does not exist.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Last point for today.

Calina - you don't get to ignore the fact that I argued clearly for the place of the referendum in British politics a few posts ago and how I clearly explained how PR doesn't solve the problem it solved. I'm not going to rehash it for you.
a

There is a difference between British politics and the British implementation of democracy. As a result, I don't care how politically expedient you think it is to have a referendum - a referendum in which you claim to have voted the wrong way therefore undermining your argument that it has a place at all, and I want to be absolutely clear on this. Britain has a representative democracy and until such time as that changes, referendums have no place in their constitutional arrangement. As for the part which is underlined, it is essentially meaningless to me sorry. The UK could do with votes counting and their FPTP system does not allow for that in many constituencies. They need to fix this for democratic reasons - and it doesn't mean they have to start having direct democracy either.

I suspect you only care about this because if Brexit hadn't happened, it would all be completely irrelevant and you'd go on voting for whatever your local candidate is, and maybe it might even count. When I lived in the UK, in a safe Tory seat though I found it didn't. And that is not democratic. All the referendums in the world will not change that.

Chips Lovell

Northern Ireland paper tomorrow I believe. That should be interesting...

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The more I read this thread the more bejoggled I am at the extent to which democracy and the people's verdict is despised.

You're seriously suggesting that you would want a ceremonial head of state to veto the result of a referendum because you don't like the result? That's the only real reason.

It is also incredible that people think that spending €100mn to move to Strasbourg is a good price to keep France happy.

The more and more I read the more and more I'm sure that the UK should leave the EU. I really don't believe the extreme fearmongering either. The UK has every opportunity to be successful post-Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No, I would want an elected Head of State to be looking out for the interests of the people.

Its nothing to with liking the result, its to do that people made their decision based on lies they were fed (and two wrongs don't make a right just because both sides were lying/fearmongering).

London got the European Medicines Board to keep it happy (it wasn't based in London because it was value for money for the EU).

jm08

Fratton Fred wrote: »

bit of a difference between what the eu do and running a country though, don't you agree?

No. Those civil servants are exclusive of councils, etc. The EU has as many government dept. as the British Gov., You brexiteers complain about losing your sovereignty to the EU (i.e., EU are making too many decisions for you).

so ignoring a referendum result is a sign of democracy working?

Don't ignore it, just don't commit economic suicide over it when it isn't necessary.

FrancieBrady

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Northern Ireland paper tomorrow I believe. That should be interesting...

Heavy on aspiration, light on detail.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The authoritarian left would never stand for that. Look at how many of them have denigrated the very concept of democracy after the election of Trump and the passing of Brexit.

They'd either oppose it outright, or they'd demand some set of criteria to be eligible for voting, which would conveniently (and totally coincidentally of course :rolleyes:) bar right-leaning folk from voting. This was also widely discussed on social media after the Brexit vote - everything from an upper age limit ("because old people don't have to live too long with the consequences of their votes") to minimum established education requirements, etc.

Ah, democracy: the last unassailable sacred cow.

Some of us who have "denigrated the very concept of democracy" have proposed something less drastic than eligibility for voting: not relying on an underinformed electorate to make a simplistic decision about an almost incomprehensibly complex topic.

It puzzles me how people who put democracy on a pedestal are so blind to its feet of clay. Seriously: in a post arguing for democracy, you cite Trump and Brexit. Don't those two results cause you to question your slavish devotion to the idea that large groups of underinformed people can't make bad decisions? Or does that slavish devotion extend to the idea that bad decisions made democratically are better than good decisions made any other way?

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

Personally I think Macron and Merkel are seriously underpaid, May is worth about 5 pence on the basis of calling the election which she didn't have to, and I haven't made up my mind on Varadkar yet.

There aren't really 4 presidents though - they have specific institutional roles rather than generic EU roles.

This is one of the things which troubles me and why I attach a lot of importance to detail and getting things right (which you dismiss as nitpicking). We don't say the UK has a president when we are talking about the Speaker of the House of Commons, but to be honest, Tajani's role is pretty much Speaker of Parliament and not president of the EU. It's worth looking at his role in Parliament for that reason. And Juncker is pretty much the chairman of the Commission and Tusk the chairman of the Council. Partly the issue is actually linguistic - the term in French is Président and depending on context, you could translate it to President (cf America, leader thereof) or chairman (cf committee of your local golf club).

So I think it's lazy to talk about the EU having four presidents in the tone of voice that suggests it's an awful waste because in the context of political leadership, their roles are not as Presidents as such but as leaders of their institutions, and in any case, none of them are President of the EU because that role does not exist.

I didn't say any of them was President of the eu, I said there are four presidents in the european union, as in people who work in the european union who have the title president.

ok, so, Tajani is president of the european parliament, but apparently that only equates to the speaker.

yet he still earns more than Macron, May and Merkel.

is that a good thing?

Fratton Fred

jm08 wrote: »

No. Those civil servants are exclusive of councils, etc. The EU has as many government dept. as the British Gov., You brexiteers complain about losing your sovereignty to the EU (i.e., EU are making too many decisions for you).

how many claims for welfare do the eu handle? how many claims for NI numbers do they handle? how many people's tax affairs do they have to manage? How many claims for asylum has the eu handled in the last twelve months?

I think you'll find the answer to the above is somewhere between zero and none

jm08 wrote: »

Don't ignore it, just don't commit economic suicide over it when it isn't necessary.

so what you're saying is that although parliament voted overwhelmingly (with only the SNP voting against) in favour of holding a referendum, they voted to agree the wording and they voted on the manner in which the referendum would be held, but they should then turn around and decide to ignore the result of that referendum because the people were too stupid to vote the correct way?

and that is how democracy should work, but doesn't in the UK because there is a democracy deficit?

I would be interested in hearing your views on how a dictatorship should work.:rolleyes:

Samaris

Just to comment, it wasn't even a binding referendum, it was intended to be advisory. Frankly, I find it rather amazing that they will go ahead with a deeply destructive deal (or no deal!) based on an advisory referendum that only scraped through and was based on a pack of lies so monstrous that the leaders of the pro-Brexit camp ended up mostly stabbing each other in the back and/or fleeing to the US (again, hi Farage, you cowardly windbag).

Fratton Fred

Samaris wrote: »

Just to comment, it wasn't even a binding referendum, it was intended to be advisory. Frankly, I find it rather amazing that they will go ahead with a deeply destructive deal (or no deal!) based on an advisory referendum that only scraped through and was based on a pack of lies so monstrous that the leaders of the pro-Brexit camp ended up mostly stabbing each other in the back and/or fleeing to the US (again, hi Farage, you cowardly windbag).

there is no such thing as an advisory referendum, it is either pre legislative, or post legislative.

If Scotland had voted for independence, should parliament then have said no, it is financial suicide, the Scots were lied to by the SNP so we won't pass it?

Of course not, if you vote for legislation to hold a referendum, you have to honour that commitment, you can't just decide some of the arguments were dodgy and therefore nullify the result.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no such thing as an advisory referendum, it is either pre legislative, or post legislative.

If Scotland had voted for independence, should parliament then have said no, it is financial suicide, the Scots were lied to by the SNP so we won't pass it?

Of course not, if you vote for legislation to hold a referendum, you have to honour that commitment, you can't just decide some of the arguments were dodgy and therefore nullify the result.

Em I seem to remember May telling the Scottish parliament now was not the time for a referendum following a vote by the Scottish parliament. She's also aligned herself with homophobes, terrorist supporters and climate change skeptics to stay in power. Somehow I don't think she's above the nullifying the result.

Lemming

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no such thing as an advisory referendum, it is either pre legislative, or post legislative.

Cabinet papers say otherwise ... Or does the cabinet lie to the public? Take your pick.

steddyeddy

Samaris wrote: »

Just to comment, it wasn't even a binding referendum, it was intended to be advisory. Frankly, I find it rather amazing that they will go ahead with a deeply destructive deal (or no deal!) based on an advisory referendum that only scraped through and was based on a pack of lies so monstrous that the leaders of the pro-Brexit camp ended up mostly stabbing each other in the back and/or fleeing to the US (again, hi Farage, you cowardly windbag).

I don't understand it. I'd be more centre leaning than the Tory party but I secretly harboured the belief that they were safe hands for the economy. One might say they took a conservative approach.

Since the leave side was pursued and this path was followed I consider them to be the most crack pot party I have heard in recent times. Jacob Reece Mog and Boris Johnson, two highly educated men spout deluded economics about the EU needing Britain more so will be begging to offer them a trade deal. I don't understand it.

jm08

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how many claims for welfare do the eu handle? how many claims for NI numbers do they handle? how many people's tax affairs do they have to manage? How many claims for asylum has the eu handled in the last twelve months?

Well, they manage CAP - (12.2m farms in EU in 2010), they doled out about 18 billion for research & growth last year, and they gave 4 bn to help countries deal with the refugee crisis.

I think you'll find the answer to the above is somewhere between zero and none

Some call CAP farmer's dole

so what you're saying is that although parliament voted overwhelmingly (with only the SNP voting against) in favour of holding a referendum, they voted to agree the wording and they voted on the manner in which the referendum would be held, but they should then turn around and decide to ignore the result of that referendum because the people were too stupid to vote the correct way?

I think actually the real problem is that the UK does not have a codified Constitution which allows the politicians to make it up as they go along.

and that is how democracy should work, but doesn't in the UK because there is a democracy deficit?

Worth a look at how Denmark (who has a monarchy) does things. They rewrote their Constitution in 1952.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Denmark

I also think that if the UK had a codified Constitution there would be less concern about keeping sovereignty.

Edit: missed this bit

I would be interested in hearing your views on how a dictatorship should work.

You'd need to get rid of Parliament & Lords to operate a dictatorship.

Samaris

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no such thing as an advisory referendum, it is either pre legislative, or post legislative.

If Scotland had voted for independence, should parliament then have said no, it is financial suicide, the Scots were lied to by the SNP so we won't pass it?

Of course not, if you vote for legislation to hold a referendum, you have to honour that commitment, you can't just decide some of the arguments were dodgy and therefore nullify the result.

British referenda are ALL advisory, as of seven years ago. It is up to the MPs to take note of it or not as they wish. That is the law. It was very specifically decided that they cannot be legally binding. It was made clear to the British people that it was advisory.

Also, quite a lot of the arguments were dodgy in some way or another, but that's a different matter. That blasted bus will go down in history for one.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how would the eu stop the UK from having access to the eu internal market?

You don't need to block access, even reduced access would have knock on effects. At best there'd be a race to the bottom as more competitors are chasing fewer opportunities. If you've seen pictures of the 1973 oil crisis remember that most oil still flowed. It's just that demand was a little higher than supply.


Quotas
Change in regulations so products have to be recertified (sharp practice)
Anti-dumping tariffs
Delays at customs would ruin fresh fruit and veg
Dropping hints to other countries that giving the UK a good deal won't be well received (done with diplomacy) thus reducing the benefit of UK access


As a third party the UK has no automatic rights to EU access. Yes there are mechanisms that could be used but the UK is burning goodwill with a sense of an unbelievable sense of entitlement.

If you need to rely on loopholes, remember they can work two ways

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no such thing as an advisory referendum, it is either pre legislative, or post legislative.

If Scotland had voted for independence, should parliament then have said no, it is financial suicide, the Scots were lied to by the SNP so we won't pass it?

Of course not, if you vote for legislation to hold a referendum, you have to honour that commitment, you can't just decide some of the arguments were dodgy and therefore nullify the result.

A majority of the people of Scotland voted for devolution in 1979 (by a similar margin to last year's referendum on the EU). Parliament though discarded that result, so clearly Parliament does not have to honour the results of a referendum - either politcally or legally speaking - if it so chooses.

Jaggo

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's a lot of positive arguments for leaving and there were and are no good arguments for staying in at this point. Fearmongering isn't a reason to stay in the EU. The hard remainers need to give clear positive and good reasons as to why the UK should rejoin the EU.

Great things about the EU:

1. Common cross border solutions to common problems. These include environmental issues like nuclear/waste water pollution in the Irish Sea: Acid rain across northern England and Europe.
2. The Principles behind most EU legislation are excellent. The REACH regulations on chemicals is excellent accepted by China and other non-EU counties, and the environmental protocols where the adoption of precaution and polluter pays were a world first and are much beloved by environmental organisations.
3. Reduced administration burden. The pooling of administration processes particularly stuff like chemical, medicine, products etc. means that each country in the EU gets the BEST administered safety standards while only paying a fraction of cost.
4. The EU verses Corporations, due to the size of the EU market the EU are capable of fighting off monopoly undue influence of large corporations. It was the EU that got Microsoft to split Internet explorer from Windows; that put limits on the use of data by facebook/google and reduced mobile rates - wasn't it Rupert Murdock who said that he didn't like EU as he couldn't influence decisions like he could in London?
5. I like the freedom to travel and live right across the EU.
6. I like being European, I like being an EU citizen. I like the idea that I am part of a block of countries that could put aside their differences and work for a common and worthwhile purpose. (Never mind the neighbourly bickering)

I have a few more but would anyone like to add to this list?

steddyeddy

Well Guy Verhofstadt, the EU's chief negotiator weighed in on the UK's proposal to have a transition arrangement in the customs union:

To be in & out of the Customs Union & "invisible borders" is a fantasy. First need to secure citizens rights & a financial settlement - Guy Verhofstadt

https://mobile.twitter.com/GuyVerhofstadt/status/897411698939883520

Capt'n Midnight

jm08 wrote: »

In comparison to the British Civil Service though, it seems to be relatively efficient. Something like 46,000 EU employees (this includes organisations like Medicines Board (1K), Court of Justice (2K), European Parliament (7K), Commission (24K) etc.

British Civil service Employs 418,343 (this excludes NHS Staff, Police, Army etc) and lets not forget that 33% of people in NI are public servants!

Jobs for the boys up North is one of the biggest costs involved in a united Ireland.

Also
Yes Minister is still funny because it's true. Here's what the UK can do with half of that 46,000.


Hacker: How many people do we have in this department?
Sir Humphrey: Ummm... well, we're very small...
Hacker: Two, maybe three thousand?
Sir Humphrey: About twenty-three thousand to be precise.
Hacker: TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND! In the department of administrative affairs, twenty-three thousand administrators just to administer the other administrators! We need to do a time-and-motion study, see who we can get rid of.
Sir Humphrey: Ah, well, we did one of those last year.
Hacker: And what were the results?
Sir Humphrey: It turned out that we needed another five hundred people.

Fratton Fred

jm08 wrote: »

Well, they manage CAP - (12.2m farms in EU in 2010), they doled out about 18 billion for research & growth last year, and they gave 4 bn to help countries deal with the refugee crisis.

so they managed a sum around 10% of the UK's social welfare bill. Glad we got that sorted.

jm08 wrote: »

I think actually the real problem is that the UK does not have a codified Constitution which allows the politicians to make it up as they go along.

that is not so. the Uk does have a codified constitution, it just isn't written down in one place and like every constitution, is open to interpretation.

but where is the problem?

jm08 wrote: »

You'd need to get rid of Parliament & Lords to operate a dictatorship.

why get rid of them, when you can just have someone completely ignore any rulings they make, which is what you are suggesting

Samaris wrote: »

British referenda are ALL advisory, as of seven years ago. It is up to the MPs to take note of it or not as they wish. That is the law. It was very specifically decided that they cannot be legally binding. It was made clear to the British people that it was advisory.

Also, quite a lot of the arguments were dodgy in some way or another, but that's a different matter. That blasted bus will go down in history for one.

they are advisory in as much as Parliament is sovereign and no parliament can bind a future parliament to a decision. Advisory is only a figure of speech, it is not a legal basis.

If Parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, whether that is for eu membership, Scottish independence or changing the national anthem, it can't ask the people to make a decision (and promise to stick to whatever decision is made) and then ignore it.

That is an afront to democracy.

I think the simple answer with regards the bus, is to make Boris and Nigel cough £350m per week for the NHS.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That is an affront to democracy.

The whole bloody thing was an affront to democracy with the fact that the likes of Farage were hedging their bets with talk of a second referendum. The referendum was a glorified opinion poll and nothing more. You're right in that Parliament is sovereign and has proceeded to go with the wishes of 52% of the public. It's ultimately academic in that regard.

Samaris

Jaggo wrote: »

Great things about the EU:

1. Common cross border solutions to common problems. These include environmental issues like nuclear/waste water pollution in the Irish Sea: Acid rain across northern England and Europe.
2. The Principles behind most EU legislation are excellent. The REACH regulations on chemicals is excellent accepted by China and other non-EU counties, and the environmental protocols where the adoption of precaution and polluter pays were a world first and are much beloved by environmental organisations.
3. Reduced administration burden. The pooling of administration processes particularly stuff like chemical, medicine, products etc. means that each country in the EU gets the BEST administered safety standards while only paying a fraction of cost.
4. The EU verses Corporations, due to the size of the EU market the EU are capable of fighting off monopoly undue influence of large corporations. It was the EU that got Microsoft to split Internet explorer from Windows; that put limits on the use of data by facebook/google and reduced mobile rates - wasn't it Rupert Murdock who said that he didn't like EU as he couldn't influence decisions like he could in London?
5. I like the freedom to travel and live right across the EU.
6. I like being European, I like being an EU citizen. I like the idea that I am part of a block of countries that could put aside their differences and work for a common and worthwhile purpose. (Never mind the neighbourly bickering)

I have a few more but would anyone like to add to this list?

7. That countries can pool resources that are difficult, dangerous or require very specialized knowledge-bases to produce - such as nuclear material for chemotherapy as well as nuclear power plants.
8. That Europe has been extremely well-behaved about not having pan-European wars in the last seventy years. Given Europe's natural state is fighting itself, that is actually one hell of an achievement and I am not convinced that it would have happened with the formation of the EU bloc.

Samaris

Fratton Fred wrote: »

they are advisory in as much as Parliament is sovereign and no parliament can bind a future parliament to a decision. Advisory is only a figure of speech, it is not a legal basis.

Uh, well, no, it isn't. This was decided by the Supreme Court. It is a legal basis. This is ..a thing as what is. I can't really say anything more on that. British referenda are advisory and not legally binding. That's...just how it is.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so they managed a sum around 10% of the UK's social welfare bill. Glad we got that sorted.



that is not so. the Uk does have a codified constitution, it just isn't written down in one place and like every constitution, is open to interpretation.

but where is the problem?



why get rid of them, when you can just have someone completely ignore any rulings they make, which is what you are suggesting



they are advisory in as much as Parliament is sovereign and no parliament can bind a future parliament to a decision. Advisory is only a figure of speech, it is not a legal basis.

If Parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, whether that is for eu membership, Scottish independence or changing the national anthem, it can't ask the people to make a decision (and promise to stick to whatever decision is made) and then ignore it.

That is an afront to democracy.

I think the simple answer with regards the bus, is to make Boris and Nigel cough £350m per week for the NHS.

Lying to your electorate so you can get one up on a party colleague is an affront to democracy.

Capt'n Midnight

Has anyone actually read the UK paper on
Future customs arrangements: a future partnership paper

It's long on aspirations but very short on specifics.

Just skip down to page 13 onwards. It's very clear that that they will be requesting submissions from more interested parties to see where to go. This is stuff that should have been done and dusted and the implications digested long before the triggering of Article 50.




BTW Just in case anyone missed it. Brexit means the Isle of Man will leave the customs union.
63. The Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, are part of the EU
Customs Union. As we leave the EU, the Government will work with the Governments
of the Crown Dependencies and ensure their priorities are taken into account as we
progress negotiations with the EU.

steddyeddy

Jaggo wrote: »

Great things about the EU:

1. Common cross border solutions to common problems. These include environmental issues like nuclear/waste water pollution in the Irish Sea: Acid rain across northern England and Europe.
2. The Principles behind most EU legislation are excellent. The REACH regulations on chemicals is excellent accepted by China and other non-EU counties, and the environmental protocols where the adoption of precaution and polluter pays were a world first and are much beloved by environmental organisations.
3. Reduced administration burden. The pooling of administration processes particularly stuff like chemical, medicine, products etc. means that each country in the EU gets the BEST administered safety standards while only paying a fraction of cost.
4. The EU verses Corporations, due to the size of the EU market the EU are capable of fighting off monopoly undue influence of large corporations. It was the EU that got Microsoft to split Internet explorer from Windows; that put limits on the use of data by facebook/google and reduced mobile rates - wasn't it Rupert Murdock who said that he didn't like EU as he couldn't influence decisions like he could in London?
5. I like the freedom to travel and live right across the EU.
6. I like being European, I like being an EU citizen. I like the idea that I am part of a block of countries that could put aside their differences and work for a common and worthwhile purpose. (Never mind the neighbourly bickering)

I have a few more but would anyone like to add to this list?

Science funding. The EU contributes to all forms of research through fostering collaborations and direct funding.

Capt'n Midnight

Samaris wrote: »

Uh, well, no, it isn't. This was decided by the Supreme Court. It is a legal basis. This is ..a thing as what is. I can't really say anything more on that. British referenda are advisory and not legally binding. That's...just how it is.

The Irish solution is of course to have another referendum :pac:



The UK constitution is precisely three words long.

Parliament is God.

Even then the House of Lords can only delay things, so it's really down to the House of Commons, though at present the upper chamber is anti-Brexit and the clock is ticking so the dynamic may be a little different.



However, the UK has already received a lot of concessions, so they have to loose this preferential treatment to arrive to the level of other EU members and then have to fall further to loose preferential treatment relative to other countries more closely integrated into the EU like EFTA members and Turkey.

joeysoap

Guy Verhofstadt @GuyVerhofstadt
To be in & out of the Customs Union & "invisible borders" is a fantasy. First need to secure citizens rights & a financial settlement



Wonder why he didn't mention Ireland? We are on the list before trade talks can begin?

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

Science funding. The EU contributes to all forms of research through fostering collaborations and direct funding.

The importance of this aspect should not be under rated. The loss of access to these programs lead to the Swiss compromise on the recent FMOP vote. We now have a temporary agreement until we vote on the issue again. The original vote was carried on a majority of 20k. It was no expected to pass and there was a low turn out. Even the winning party admitted they did not expect it to pass and no they had no idea how to implement it!

Once students started to be reject for the Erasmus program and companies found their access to research work blocked, people quickly came to their senses.

Jaggo

Good points on the science funding.

The EU pooling of resources allows irish involvement in the development of large scale projects such as CERN and the european space programme.

CERN (the large hadron collider) discovered the higgs boson and during the development phase an english researcher developed the world wide web.
The space programme broke nasa and the U.S. military's control over launching satellites leading to cheaper gps, telecommunication networks and google earth satellite images.

solodeogloria

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, whether that is for eu membership, Scottish independence or changing the national anthem, it can't ask the people to make a decision (and promise to stick to whatever decision is made) and then ignore it.

That is an afront to democracy.

I think the simple answer with regards the bus, is to make Boris and Nigel cough £350m per week for the NHS.

Good morning!

Yes, there's no way to justify your view as a democrat and oppose implementing the result of the referendum. There's no way to claim referenda don't or haven't had a place on the British electoral system when they have been used for decades either.

Let's be fair the remain side sold some shocking lies. The Treasury said there would be unemployment and a recession in the immediate aftermath of leaving the EU.

[URL=
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/08/brexit-hit-house-prices-significantly-george-osborne-eu-referendum]George Osborne said house prices would plummet and mortgage costs would increase[/URL].
This didn't happen. Borrowing costs are lower. House prices are broadly stable and rising in most areas.

Barack Obama told us that the UK would be at the back of the queue in respect to trade with the US.

The IMF warned the UK would be in recession in 2017. Not true.

Edit: The IMF again on a prophesied stock market crash after the referendum and severe crash in house prices. Didn't happen, wasn't going to happen. Manipulative fear mongering.

David Cameron told us he would be prime minister after the referendum and he would pull Article 50 after the referendum.

Where was ancapailldorcha during the referendum campaign? He'll probably make some excuses for these now. I don't particularly mind if he does.

The fact is Brexit is happening. The people voted for it. Get over it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Let's be fair the remain side sold some shocking lies. The Treasury said there would be unemployment and a recession in the immediate aftermath of leaving the EU.

[URL=
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/08/brexit-hit-house-prices-significantly-george-osborne-eu-referendum]George Osborne said house prices would plummet and mortgage costs would increase[/URL].
This didn't happen. Borrowing costs are lower. House prices are broadly stable and rising in most areas.

Barack Obama told us that the UK would be at the back of the queue in respect to trade with the US.

The IMF warned the UK would be in recession in 2017. Not true.

Edit: The IMF again on a prophesied stock market crash after the referendum and severe crash in house prices. Didn't happen, wasn't going to happen. Manipulative fear mongering.

David Cameron told us he would be prime minister after the referendum and he would pull Article 50 after the referendum.

I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "lie" there, solo. A prediction as to future events which is not born out is not a "lie"; if it were, all those who predicted a comfortable win for May in the recent election, for example, would be liars. Nigel Farage, who predicted a remain win in the Brexit referendum, would be a liar. I dare say that if I were to trawl through the archive of your posts on board I could make you a liar. And I am certain that you coul dmake me one.

I think we need to reserve terms like "lie" for statements that are untrue at the time they are made, and that are known by the person making them to be untrue.

Samaris

Er, Solo, you realise that Britain hasn't actually left the EU yet, right? I wouldn't dismiss potential results too quickly, because it's not actually reached that point yet.

Recession in 2017 was expected and didn't happen, the stock markets are on an unprecedented bubble. We'll...see if the end of that cycle is a slow deflation or a burst though.

Don't be too quick to dismiss all the worried arguments though.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "lie" there, solo. A prediction as to future events which is not born out is not a "lie"; if it were, all those who predicted a comfortable win for May in the recent election, for example, would be liars. Nigel Farage, who predicted a remain win in the Brexit referendum, would be a liar. I dare say that if I were to trawl through the archive of your posts on board I could make you a liar. And I am certain that you coul dmake me one.

I think we need to reserve terms like "lie" for statements that are untrue at the time they are made, and that are known by the person making them to be untrue.

Good morning!

I don't share your view. I think these were clearly wrong and clearly intended to manipulate voters.

If they weren't certainly true they shouldn't have been said.
It's fair to ask the remain side to acknowledge the clear untruths from their side of the campaign.

Aside from complaining about the result some details on the NI paper in the Guardian - The UK have published their paper on Northern Ireland strongly advocating for no border infrastructure to be put in place and for there to be an open border and for the CTA to be maintained.

Samaris - all these predictions were about the immediate aftermath. You don't get to whitewash these.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria