Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady

devnull wrote: »

From RTE



Words fail me. They really do.

I mean it's almost like they can't comprehend that the countries of the EU have a say rather than some head honcho just making a decision on his own

Or maybe they are keeping it from the DUP?

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

It's ironic that he's saying brexit has to happen because if it doesn't, there will be violence in the streets, but the Yellowhammer report says that if brexit does happen, there will be civil unrest because of shortages of food, medicine, fuel and the damage it will do the economy.

He would be incapable of comprehending the irony. I genuinely think he's just not that bright.

Akrasia

ElectronVolt wrote: »

I'm most definitely in favour of an European Union, but I am a bit stunned at Guy Verhofstadt's speech at the Liberal Democrats conference where he talked about a world of 'Empires'. I understand what he was trying to say i.e. that the EU was a collection of nations, standing together against, being able to operate in a world of empires and emerging empires, but that is not how it came across at all.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1173548730542448645?s=09

The choice of language was extremely clumsy and the word 'empire' in these islands is an incredibly loaded phrase and immediately brings up connotations of the British Empire, both in the minds of those of us who would found that empire abhorrent and those on the right in England who quite like the idea of the days of 'Rule Britannia'.

I get what he was trying to say, but I think he's managed to paint the EU as an emergent imperial force and that is likely to play extremely badly with both Brexiteers and Remainers.

The EU needs to get across the point that it's not something that can be compared to militarily imposed empires of the past. It's more like crowdsourcing, pooling and bringing together of a group of smaller, generally like minded countries to allow them to exist in a world of bullying empires. It's about having scale and an ability to stand independently without being bounced between major global economic and military powers, but that absolutely is not how his speech will be interpreted.

His choice of language and delivery has probably just fed the trolls with rocket fuel.

It's a really poor choice of words, but he wrote a book about this 11 years ago 'The New Age of Empires' where he explained that the era of a monopolar world is ending with the decline of US dominance and the rise of other economic and political powers like China, India, Brazil etc

He is arguing that for Europe to challenge and compete, we need to work more closely together as a federation. He's a federalist which is no secret to anyone who is paying attention, given that he helped found the spenelli group which is pushing for a federal Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinelli_Group but stupidly insists on using the word empire so that the conspiracy theorists can run with it and pretend that it's all a 'new world order' plot to take over the world

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

Former/current occupations of virulent Brexiteers.

Mark Francois - Banker (and a word which rhymes) / lobbyist

Jacob Rees Mogg - Banking / Investments

Andrea Leadsom - Banking

Nigel Farage - Stock trader

Peter Bone - Businessman

David Davis - Businessman


I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Let's not forget property investor MEP Habib of the Brexit Party. He has set aside 100 million to buy up property when it tanks after the UK has crashed out.

devnull

FrancieBrady wrote: »

devnull wrote: »

From RTE



Words fail me. They really do.

I mean it's almost like they can't comprehend that the countries of the EU have a say rather than some head honcho just making a decision on his own

Or maybe they are keeping it from the DUP?

The most important line is the one about not letting the 27 countries see it means they lose control.

That's what this is all about. Control

Taking it away from the EU and parliament and dictating things and doing what the hell they want with nobody to step them x.

They are a threat to democracy and must be stopped.

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's not forget property investor MEP Habib of the Brexit Party. He has set aside 100 million to buy up property when it tanks after the UK has crashed out.

Or people like Daniel Hannan whose think tank, Initiative for Free Trade, has close ties with Washington based rightwing counterparts with whom they have openly discussed the potential of getting their grubby mitts on the UK health service. That FTA with trump is worth a lot to a small select group of I dividuals.

trellheim

There's an old Yes Minister quote ( as there is for so much of politics). "I cant show you that" why ? "because then you couldn't deny seeing it"

sondagefaux

lawred2 wrote: »

I understand that. So inferred in what you've just said is that prorogation was deemed illegal in Scotland on a point of law? Is that the case?

It's still a common law system as far as I was aware.

Scots law is a mixture of common law and 'civil' law. Scotland was in the past, in some respects, closer to the Netherlands and France culturally than to England, up to about the end of the 16th century.

sondagefaux

Shelga wrote: »

Anyone know what time tomorrow we can expect the Supreme Court judgement?

Not happening tomorrow. The respondent's (the UK government) lawyers will make their arguments tomorrow. There will be further proceedings on Thursday, and the Supreme Court will probably give its decision some time next week, unless there's (near) unanimous and speedy agreement among the judges and it gives its decision on Friday.

Capt'n Midnight

It's not just car plants.

1,000 jobs that Yorkshire won't be getting because of Brexit.

It's a mine. Dig minerals out of the ground and sell them as fertilizer. It's as low tech as you'd like. There's local demand and export potential especially now that sterling is weak.

And they can't get financing because of Brexit

A Shropshire Lad

Mark Francois: "If we don't leave on 31 Oct, this country is going to explode".

EXPLODE !

And Remainers are the group accused of project fear?

Enzokk

sondagefaux wrote: »

Not happening tomorrow. The respondent's (the UK government) lawyers will make their arguments tomorrow. There will be further proceedings on Thursday, and the Supreme Court will probably give its decision some time next week, unless there's (near) unanimous and speedy agreement among the judges and it gives its decision on Friday.

In the morning the Government will have 2.5 hours to present their argument as it will be their turn in the Miller case, and in the afternoon it is the turn of the other side of the Cherry case that was heard in Scotland. So it seems like if I have it correct the morning is the reply to this morning and the afternoon is the reply to this afternoon. But both cases are linked, just the different laws but it will be interesting to hear if there is a different argument or more precise answers from the government in the morning.

I got this from the post yesterday from GM228, post is here.

Capt'n Midnight

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Scotland doesn't just have its own courts, it has its own laws.

Northern Ireland has its own courts and laws too and also gets to opt out of supposedly UK wide stuff like human rights.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/uk-military-amnesty-for-historic-prosecutions-could-breach-international-human-rights-law-924578.html

The ECHR allows states to opt out – or derogate – their human rights obligations when there is “a war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”.

Given that NI and Scotland could leave, does Brexit "threaten the life of the nation" ?
Academic, but there's people looking for legal loopholes all over the place.

sondagefaux

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Northern Ireland has its own courts and laws too and also gets to opt out of supposedly UK wide stuff like human rights.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/uk-military-amnesty-for-historic-prosecutions-could-breach-international-human-rights-law-924578.html

Given that NI and Scotland could leave, does Brexit "threaten the life of the nation" ?
Academic, but there's people looking for legal loopholes all over the place.

Northern Ireland doesn't get to 'opt out' of human rights.

The Good Friday Agreement specifically says that all laws in force in Northern Ireland must be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and mandated the creation of a human rights body for Northern Ireland.

The proposed amnesty for alleged crimes committed by British military personnel in Northern Ireland during the Troubles would be a UK law, not a Northern Ireland law.

sondagefaux

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Mark Francois: "If we don't leave on 31 Oct, this country is going to explode".

EXPLODE !

And Remainers are the group accused of project fear?

Francois and his kind know that it's much more likely that the majority of people in the UK now want to remain in the EU.

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/asked-how-you-would-vote-3319804

Fantastisch

So if the supreme court rules it was illegal what next?

He recalls parliament?

He possibly resigns?!

briany

Fantastisch wrote: »

So if the supreme court rules it was illegal what next?

He recalls parliament?

He possibly resigns?!

Well, if he's toying with the possibility of breaking the law by refusing to ask for an extension, I'm wondering if he can wriggle out of recalling parliament. It seems to be the way with these legal procedures that things are drawn out. Appeals, technicalities, all that stuff.

I've seen Yes, (Prime) Minister mentioned a few times, but has anyone else been enticed to have another watch of The Thick Of It during all of this? The longer Brexit goes on and the more revelations which unfold, the more that show seems like a documentary. Specifically the hour-long specials 'Rise of the Nutters' and 'Spinners and Losers', I'm getting serious vibes of those episodes from the current Tory crop and Brexit.

No this isn't the TV Forum, but I would highly recommend that show which may be fiction but gives a serious view into the British political system and the politicking which clearly goes on in real life. The potential of what Dominic Cummings is trying to accomplish in real life makes The Thick Of It's Malcolm Tucker seem quite benevolent in comparison, though.

I'm not trying to start a discussion here about a TV show, just recommending this because I think there might be posters here who would definitely enjoy it if they had previously never heard of it.

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen Yes, (Prime) Minister mentioned a few times, but has anyone else been enticed to have another watch of The Thick Of It during all of this? The longer Brexit goes on and the more revelations which unfold, the more that show seems like a documentary. Specifically the hour-long specials 'Rise of the Nutters' and 'Spinners and Losers', I'm getting serious vibes of those episodes from the current Tory crop and Brexit.

No this isn't the TV Forum, but I would highly recommend that show which may be fiction but gives a serious view into the British political system and the politicking which clearly goes on in real life. The potential of what Dominic Cummings is trying to accomplish in real life makes The Thick Of It's Malcolm Tucker seem quite benevolent in comparison, though.

I'm not trying to start a discussion here about a TV show, just recommending this because I think there might be posters here who would definitely enjoy it if they had previously never heard of it.

To be honest, the real life Brexit fiasco is neck and neck with The Thick of It in the comedy stakes right now, and that's just the bit that the public is able to see. Hard to imagine the full scope of machinations behind the scenes.

Imreoir2

ElectronVolt wrote: »

I'm most definitely in favour of an European Union, but I am a bit stunned at Guy Verhofstadt's speech at the Liberal Democrats conference where he talked about a world of 'Empires'. I understand what he was trying to say i.e. that the EU was a collection of nations, standing together against, being able to operate in a world of empires and emerging empires, but that is not how it came across at all.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1173548730542448645?s=09

The choice of language was extremely clumsy and the word 'empire' in these islands is an incredibly loaded phrase and immediately brings up connotations of the British Empire, both in the minds of those of us who would found that empire abhorrent and those on the right in England who quite like the idea of the days of 'Rule Britannia'.

I get what he was trying to say, but I think he's managed to paint the EU as an emergent imperial force and that is likely to play extremely badly with both Brexiteers and Remainers.

The EU needs to get across the point that it's not something that can be compared to militarily imposed empires of the past. It's more like crowdsourcing, pooling and bringing together of a group of smaller, generally like minded countries to allow them to exist in a world of bullying empires. It's about having scale and an ability to stand independently without being bounced between major global economic and military powers, but that absolutely is not how his speech will be interpreted.

His choice of language and delivery has probably just fed the trolls with rocket fuel.

I agree his choice of language is not great, but his wider point is entirely valid. The context is that he is a Pro-EU federalist who is strongly anti-nationalist, and he often speaks against the evils of nationalism. This is important because to understand what he means by Empire you have to contrast it to the nation-state which he contends is largely responsible for the destruction of Europe of the past. The world is moving away from the nation state as envisaged in the 19th century to being dominated by larger multinational multi-ethinc powers. The small European nation on its own would be lost in this world of "empires", easy prey to the US "Empire" or the Chinese "Empire" or any of the other emerging empires of which he speaks. The world is moving to a multi-polar system and Europe can only maintain its relevance in this new world as a united collection of states, not as a collection of dispirate and disunited nation-states as the Eurosceptic ideology proposes. A retreat to the isolationist nationalism of the past that sees the power of the state end at its own national boundries is not an answer to the challenges of today for any country in Europe.

You could see that as a call for Europe to become an empire to challenge the other empires that exist and are emerging in the world. The EU does superficially have some of the traits of an empire in that it is a large multi-ethnic political unit as opposed to being a state for a single people or a national unit as nationalism would have us believe is the ideal. It should also be noted that Empires have been by far any away the most common and most stable form of political organisation for humans over the centuries, small independant national states were unusual for most of history and did'nt tend to last the test of time.

A large multi-national state does not necessarily have to follow the path that has made the concept of empire toxic to our cultural perception either, you can have such a state without conservative reactionism, military expansionism, colonialism or exploitative relationships with its neighbours. Clearly the word empire is problematic, but the concept of a democratic, multinational, multi-ethinc European state, which I think is what Verhofstat is speaking of when he used the term, is not to be dismissed because of problematic terminology.

johnnyskeleton

Imreoir2 wrote: »

A retreat to the isolationist nationalism of the past that sees the power of the state end at its own national boundries is not an answer to the challenges of today for any country in Europe.

Whats wrong with that? The last thing Id want to see is the EU getting into the prower projection stuff that the US and UK, and to a lesser extent France, are currently doing. An intranational organisation that encourages internal free movement, gets good trade deals and has committments to mutual defence and common values such as human rights, the rule of law etc is a great thing.

It has achieved and surpassed its goal of making war between European States practially unthinkable.

Why do we need to throw our weight around on the world stage? Can we not be content to sit back and adopt a live and let live policy? Particularly since so much of the turmoil in the world has been caused by European interference

Kermit.de.frog

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

An intranational organisation that encourages internal free movement, gets good trade deals and has committments to mutual defence and common values such as human rights, the rule of law etc is a great thing.

I agree...until it verges in to a federalised superstate.

We laugh at the Brits now. I just hope in 30 years time we are not wondering why we didn't do the same while we had the chance.

An Ciarraioch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I agree...until it verges in to a federalised superstate.

We laugh at the Brits now. I just hope in 30 years time we are not wondering why we didn't do the same while we had the chance.

In practice, most critical decisions are taken at European Council level, so if anything, more power has been exercised by national governments in recent years.

Robert McGrath

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I agree...until it verges in to a federalised superstate.

We laugh at the Brits now. I just hope in 30 years time we are not wondering why we didn't do the same while we had the chance.

“While we had the chance”?

What does that mean?

Are you suggesting that at some point the EU will prevent members from leaving?

To be honest, that sounds like the nonsense the Brexiter press have been promoting, i.e. “the EU want to trap us in the EU forever”

Imreoir2

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Whats wrong with that? The last thing Id want to see is the EU getting into the prower projection stuff that the US and UK, and to a lesser extent France, are currently doing. An intranational organisation that encourages internal free movement, gets good trade deals and has committments to mutual defence and common values such as human rights, the rule of law etc is a great thing.

It has achieved and surpassed its goal of making war between European States practially unthinkable.

Why do we need to throw our weight around on the world stage? Can we not be content to sit back and adopt a live and let live policy? Particularly since so much of the turmoil in the world has been caused by European interference

Who said we need to throw our weight around? The point I was making is that the nationalist eurosceptic ideology proposes that all soverignty be vested in the nation state. It proposes a relationship where the Irish state extends no further than Irelands national boundries, the Belgian state extends no further than the Belgian national boundries etc. The European ideal proposes that each of our states can extend beyond our national boundries, into each other through a pooling of soverignty and a cooperative approch to solving problems that are beyond any individual nation states ability to address effectivly.

Europe can project power as well, but how it does so is key. Unlike the US, the EU projects economic power not military power. The EU at its core is a peace project that from its inception has used economic cooperation as a way to remove the incentive to resort to military conflict.

Podge_irl

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I agree...until it verges in to a federalised superstate.

We laugh at the Brits now. I just hope in 30 years time we are not wondering why we didn't do the same while we had the chance.

It can't turn into a federalised superstate without our explicit approval so I don't really see the issue. It's pointless scaremongering.

Valhallapt

Podge_irl wrote: »

It can't turn into a federalised superstate without our explicit approval so I don't really see the issue. It's pointless scaremongering.

Any indications / polling done on a federal E.U. I am personally in favour of a United States of Europe. I think Ireland would do well in such a structure.

johnnyskeleton

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I agree...until it verges in to a federalised superstate.

We laugh at the Brits now. I just hope in 30 years time we are not wondering why we didn't do the same while we had the chance.

We will always have that chance. Article 50 allows any Member State to leave at any time

johnnyskeleton

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Who said we need to throw our weight around?

You did. By saying we needed to challenge other empires:

You could see that as a call for Europe to become an empire to challenge the other empires that exist and are emerging in the world

Also, in your post asking where anyone said Europe should throw its weight around:

Europe can project power as well, but how it does so is key. Unlike the US, the EU projects economic power not military power. The EU at its core is a peace project that from its inception has used economic cooperation as a way to remove the incentive to resort to military conflict.

In more practical, contemporary terms, Im not happy with the EU sitting in on G7 meetings. 4 EU Member States are G7 Members, so they dont need to be there, and the other 24 are not in G7.

Ultimately, I dont think the response to Brexit etc is to talk about the EU as a cohesive whole. The EU has shown great unanimity since Brexit started, but I dont think that should lead to calls for increased federalisation. If anything, I think the EU needs to cool off on things like introducing more Member States or talk of Empires etc

Zubeneschamali

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Are you suggesting that at some point the EU will prevent members from leaving?

If Brexit actually happens, it will be too late for all other EU nations to leave.


Because we will all have seen the horror movie example of the UK as the one who split off from the group to rescue the pet cat.