Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Junkyard Tom

Bambi wrote: »

Oh right, so how do we repeal legislation and laws imposed on us by the EU?

What part of we-are-the-EU is it people don't understand?

peasant

I just can't get over the irony that Gibraltar, that rock of British sovereignty (literally) is now to join the Schengen area and the EU border will be at the airport, passports to be controlled by Spain.

Sums up this whole Brexit mess wonderfully. UK citizens flying into their own territory will have to show their passports to a foreign power while EU citizens (and all others) arriving at the border from Spain will just be waved through.

You couldn't make it up, really



sovereignty

fish

blue passports

Dyr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Vote for those who will represent you. Quaint wee thing called democracy.

TDs can't repeal EU laws.

FrancieBrady

Bambi wrote: »

TDs can't repeal EU laws.

MEPs do that Bambi.

Dyr

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What part of we-are-the-EU is it people don't understand?

What part of nothing more than Home Rule dont people understand?

FrancieBrady

Bambi wrote: »

What part of nothing more than Home Rule dont people understand?

If you want out of the EU, then muster the support to do it at a national level, alá Farage. It is possible, if you switch on your telly at 11pm, you'll see.

Dyr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

MEPs do that Bambi.

I assume that you're a fan of NI being run from Westminister so? I mean, what was that 25 years of fighting and the GFA all about, you get to elect some MPs to London dont you?

timetogo1

Happy days. Another achievement to get exactly what they had before Brexit.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1344712385072918532?s=19

FrancieBrady

Bambi wrote: »

I assume that you're a fan of NI being run from Westminister so? I mean, what was that 25 years of fighting and the GFA all about, you get to elect some MPs to London dont you?

I don't 'elect' any MP's Bambi

Junkyard Tom

Bambi wrote: »

What part of nothing more than Home Rule dont people understand?

We elected to join the EU and we can elect ourselves out of it too.

You do realise that if we hadn't been in the EU we'd very likely have a hard border running through our island again? You do get that much, don't you?

Dyr

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We elected to join the EU and we can elect ourselves out of it too.

You do realise that if we hadn't been in the EU we'd very likely have a hard border running through our island again? You do get that much, don't you?

I didnt ask how we joined the EU. You're the chappie who stated that being able to change our minds was a fundamental aspect of democracy.

I asked how do we, as a nation state, change our minds on laws, that we never voted on and that our parliament never voted on?

We can't, but hey, its only a fundamental part of democracy.

Still though, Home Rule has always had its fans I suppose

FrancieBrady

Bambi wrote: »

I asked how do we, as a nation state, change our minds on laws, that we never voted on and that our parliament never voted on?

The exact same way you do, if you want to change a law here. You muster support for your position. The fundamentals of democracy.

Harry Palmr

Amusing to note they left on CET!

Leroy42

Doctor Roast wrote: »

They wouldn't get away with that on the Brits... Plenty of talk and calls for a second referendum though... Until the desired result is achieved

Right, so it's the fault of the weakness of the individual countries. Clearly the EU will back down if you stand up to them.

No undemocratic as such, they simply ask for what they would like and let the sovereign country decide.

Leroy42

Bambi wrote: »

I didnt ask how we joined the EU. You're the chappie who stated that being able to change our minds was a fundamental aspect of democracy.

I asked how do we, as a nation state, change our minds on laws, that we never voted on and that our parliament never voted on?

We can't, but hey, its only a fundamental part of democracy.

Still though, Home Rule has always had its fans I suppose

If you want a speed limit changed, a new school built, changes in lockdown, changes in drink driving limits etc etc, how would you go about it?

Doctor Roast

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Being able to change political direction is the essence of democracy. The inability to change one's political position, or representatives, is known as totalitarianism.

It only seems to work one way though, when it's a Yes it's accepted and on they go... Never to be revisited, its dubious democracy and think posters deep down know that

Seth Brundle

Doctor Roast wrote: »

It only seems to work one way though, when it's a Yes it's accepted and on they go... Never to be revisited, its dubious democracy and think posters deep down know that

Right. So the Brits didn't vote to leave?

VinLieger

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Right. So the Brits didn't vote to leave?

The same way absolutely nothing was changed between Nice 1 and 2 or Lisbon 1 and 2 as a reaction to their initial rejections.......

First Up

Doctor Roast wrote:

It only seems to work one way though, when it's a Yes it's accepted and on they go... Never to be revisited, its dubious democracy and think posters deep down know that

You can revisit any issue just as soon as you form a government. That's how representative democracy works.

Fr Tod Umptious

VinLieger wrote: »

The same way absolutely nothing was changed between Nice 1 and 2 or Lisbon 1 and 2 as a reaction to their initial rejections.......

Lisbon 2 did take account of the Irish rejection and was ammend.
To what extent I've no idea and don't plan to go looking on new years day.
But it was changed.

ArmaniJeanss

Which EU laws in particular to people have a problem with.
Working time directive maybe? Climate Change Act? CE mark on toys? Food and safety standards? Death Penalty being outlawed?

Genuine question. I think it's an area where some specifics are needed rather than a nebulous 'EU law imposed' statement.

And importantly even if (after Irexit) we revoked these laws, what advantages or disadvantages it would bring us.

LuckyLloyd

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Which EU laws in particular to people have a problem with.
Working time directive maybe? Climate Change Act? CE mark on toys? Food and safety standards? Death Penalty being outlawed?

Genuine question. I think it's an area where some specifics are needed rather than a nebulous 'EU law imposed' statement.

And importantly even if (after Irexit) we revoked these laws, what advantages or disadvantages it would bring us.

Good luck getting a coherent answer on that one. Brexit had a decade to pare down and refine the reasons for leaving the EU but never got far beyond sloganeering and high level inaccuracies.

VinLieger

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Lisbon 2 did take account of the Irish rejection and was ammend.
To what extent I've no idea and don't plan to go looking on new years day.
But it was changed.

Im well aware they were both changed, I was being sarcastic in response to Doctor Roast

MrMusician18

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Lisbon 2 did take account of the Irish rejection and was ammend.
To what extent I've no idea and don't plan to go looking on new years day.
But it was changed.

We're the actual treaties changed? I'm pretty sure what happened was that there were memorandums and annexes added that clarified positions on neutrality, abortion and the other spurious argumentsmade against Lisbon 1.

The treaty itself didn't change though, because reopening a carefully crafted compromise between the all the member states was not going to happen.

Doctor Roast

MrMusician18 wrote: »

We're the actual treaties changed? I'm pretty sure what happened was that there were memorandums and annexes added that clarified positions on neutrality, abortion and the other spurious argumentsmade against Lisbon 1.

The treaty itself didn't change though, because reopening a carefully crafted compromise between the all the member states was not going to happen.

It didn't, a few concessions tacked on as a nice little excuse for a revote... We had every dogs arse in Europe telling us we would have to vote again Sarkozy etc. Cowan barefaced lying on national TV telling us our vote would be respected only to look like like a slapped schoolboy when he was summoned to the EU council.

https://brexitcentral.com/irish-observer-warned-2013-pro-eu-elite-seek-block-brexit/

Leroy42

Doctor Roast wrote: »

It didn't, a few concessions tacked on as a nice little excuse for a revote... We had every dogs arse in Europe telling us we would have to vote again Sarkozy etc. Cowan barefaced lying on national TV telling us our vote would be respected only to look like like a slapped schoolboy when he was summoned to the EU council.

https://brexitcentral.com/irish-observer-warned-2013-pro-eu-elite-seek-block-brexit/

The treaty didn't need to change, a memo to clarify meaning was sufficient to disprove the scare stories.

But regardless, we as a sovereign nation, chose to have a second vote. Our elected representatives agreed. The voters, in a free and fair election, made our choice.

Now, either you believe that are representatives have been corrupted by the EU, which would seem to count against giving them direct and unchecked power, or you believe the voters are unable to practice democracy correctly, which again calls into question why you would opt to let them have a final say

Zebra3

Leroy42 wrote: »

The treaty didn't need to change, a memo to clarify meaning was sufficient to disprove the scare stories.

But regardless, we as a sovereign nation, chose to have a second vote. Our elected representatives agreed. The voters, in a free and fair election, made our choice.

Now, either you believe that are representatives have been corrupted by the EU, which would seem to count against giving them direct and unchecked power, or you believe the voters are unable to practice democracy correctly, which again calls into question why you would opt to let them have a final say

The voters faced a campaign of intimidation from politicians and their media cheerleaders that the economy would collapse and they would be responsible unless it was passed second time around.

fash

MrMusician18 wrote: »

We're the actual treaties changed? I'm pretty sure what happened was that there were memorandums and annexes added that clarified positions on neutrality, abortion and the other spurious argumentsmade against Lisbon 1.

The treaty itself didn't change though, because reopening a carefully crafted compromise between the all the member states was not going to happen.

This is the thing: people say "democracy" and "people should be able to change the law". In reality that is wrong.
The average person is too low information in order to be voting on things as complex and abstract as the Lisbon treaty - or indeed Brexit itself.
As a consequence, the campaigns end up being fought over lies "the EU is going to bring in abortion and gay marriage" "All the benefits, none of the costs" .
In relation to Lisbon, Ireland got "changes" made to the treaties - but since the reasons a significant chunk of people voted against the treaty in the first place were irrelevant nonsense, the changes requested (and very readily agreed by the other EU members) were also irrelevant nonsense.
So yes one can say "Ireland listened to the people and then based on that went back and renegotiated" - as a reason.
But the elephant in the room is that a large amount of the voters do not have the time or inclination to understand the fundamentals and shouldn't have been listened to in the first place.
Arguing "government listened, changes were made, people decided again" is to me just a way of beating populists at their own game: they can't admit the average voter is low information - so cannot easily counter the argument.

fash

Zebra3 wrote: »

The voters faced a campaign of intimidation from politicians and their media cheerleaders that the economy would collapse and they would be responsible unless it was passed second time around.

Sounds like these voters you are talking about are easily manipulated, fickle and don't make decisions based on careful consideration of the reality of these complex situations.
Why do you think it is a good idea that those sorts of people get to make decisions in relation to complex matters?

Dr Cockhound

fash wrote: »

Sounds like these voters you are talking about are easily manipulated, fickle and don't make decisions based on careful consideration of the reality of these complex situations.
Why do you think it is a good idea that those sorts of people get to make decisions in relation to complex matters?

You're appear to be implying the wrong kind of people were allowed to vote?