Why the north outside EU changes everything for the island

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which is all in the past. A lot of water has flowed under those bridges since.

Potentially 4 years until a General Election . I’m assuming Britain will be a Sovereign Independent Country in control of its own laws , borders and currency by then .

It will feel a lot like the 26 Counties getting its freedom from the British in 1922 .

I think I will go to London for the Freedom Celebrations . It will be Great Party .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

Potentially 4 years until a General Election . I’m assuming Britain will be a Sovereign Independent Country in control of its own laws , borders and currency by then .

It will feel a lot like the 26 Counties getting its freedom from the British in 1922 .

I think I will go to London for the Freedom Celebrations . It will be Great Party .

Democracy will see to it that it won't be 4 years to a GE.

Will you celebrate if that happens? I doubt it. I get the 'impression' you are 'Delighted With Democracy' only when it suits.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Democracy will see to it that it won't be 4 years to a GE.

Will you celebrate if that happens? I doubt it. I get the 'impression' you are 'Delighted With Democracy' only when it suits.

I’m a big fan of Democracy . It’s Great .

The Rape of Lucretia

blinding wrote: »

I’m a big fan of Democracy . It’s Great .

In theory at least. The one person one vote for everyone bit though, is where its current implementation is problematic. It is patently irresponsible to give people who dont really know what is good for them, a vote, as if they can make use of it correctly. Look at Brexit. Or Trump.
The great challenge for democracy, and for all of those who are capable of taking part in it to the greater good, is how to limit the harm democracy does to so many today.
There was a lot of merit in the original implementation of democracy, where they would have been horrified at the come one come all approach some seem to consider true democracy today. At the moment, the best we can say is that we have an imperfect democracy in much of the world, which we accept as a temporary stepping stone to a better one.

blinding

blinding wrote: »

I’m a big fan of Democracy . It’s Great .

So am I, but sometimes it goes wrong!
Don't forget, Hitler was elected!

blinding

Deleted User wrote: »

So am I, but sometimes it goes wrong!
Don't forget, Hitler was elected!

Those Germans and their Austrian .

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

In theory at least. The one person one vote for everyone bit though, is where its current implementation is problematic. It is patently irresponsible to give people who dont really know what is good for them, a vote, as if they can make use of it correctly. Look at Brexit. Or Trump.
The great challenge for democracy, and for all of those who are capable of taking part in it to the greater good, is how to limit the harm democracy does to so many today.
There was a lot of merit in the original implementation of democracy, where they would have been horrified at the come one come all approach some seem to consider true democracy today. At the moment, the best we can say is that we have an imperfect democracy in much of the world, which we accept as a temporary stepping stone to a better one.

I have seen the "uneducated voter" argument used to allow one party states to avoid calling elections far too often in the third world.

Best not to go down that path.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

You peddle sovereignty nonsense over and over yet can't back it up with real examples.

Ergo it's nonsense.

The UK makes the laws of the EU the UK had more outs than ins than any other members.

Your sovereignty ballax is just that ballaxology , repeating it over and over and suggesting that Ireland 'look after itself' doesn't make sovereignty nonsense true. It's just you repeating false claims.

And if it didn't come across as a call for irexit then I suggest you stop framing it that way.


Any facts to go with your nonsense?

I peddle "Sovereignty nonsense"?
Where?

Where have I called for Irexit?
Please do post a link.

I've frequently criticised the EU.
I have not called for Irexit.
It would be economic suicide given our current debt levels - in Euros.

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

I don’t think you like the Democracy of the Referendum and of the General Election as much as I do .

You're completely wrong. I like democracy much more than you. I don't share your apparent view that the many "Leave" voters are idiots, and have such trust in the voters that I am quite happy for them to have any number of opportunties to review and reconsider the Brexit decision. I like democracy so much that I don't believe it can every be "turned off". In a democracy, you al;ways have the right to offer democratic opposition to a decision democratically taken, to seek democratic review of that decision, to seek to have it democratically overturned. If you don't have that right, then you're not living in a democracy, and people who argue that you don't have that right are enemies of democracy.

Wanderer78

Peregrinus wrote:

You're completely wrong. I like democracy much more than you. I don't share your apparent view that the many "Leave" voters are idiots, and have such trust in the voters that I am quite happy for them to have any number of opportunties to review and reconsider the Brexit decision. I like democracy so much that I don't believe it can every be "turned off". In a democracy, you al;ways have the right to offer democratic opposition to a decision democratically taken, to seek democratic review of that decision, to seek to have it democratically overturned. If you don't have that right, then you're not living in a democracy, and people who argue that you don't have that right are enemies of democracy.

Do we truly live in a democracy?

Peregrinus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Do we truly live in a democracy?

Yes, we do.

Do we live in a perfect democracy? No, we don't.

Could our democracy be improved? Yes, it could.

But, do we truly live in a democracy? Yes, we do.

Wanderer78

Peregrinus wrote:

But, do we truly live in a democracy? Yes, we do.

Good argument but I'd somewhat disagree, what I believe we have is a somewhat dysfunctional form of plutocracy but operators under the guise of democracy, this is becoming more clearly obvious over time. I'd completely agree with yanis varoufakis on this one, i.e. democracy is a fragile flower which is easily trampled upon

Peregrinus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Good argument but I'd somewhat disagree, what I believe we have is a somewhat dysfunctional form of plutocracy but operators under the guise of democracy, this is becoming more clearly obvious over time. I'd completely agree with yanis varoufakis on this one, i.e. democracy is a fragile flower which is easily trampled upon

Well, perhaps. But in the present context the issue is not how perfect or pure is our democracy, but can the Brexit decision be democratically reversed? And the answer is, yes, there are several mechanisms by which this could be done, and those mechanisms are at least as democratic as the mechanism by which the Brexit decision was made in the first place. And those who attempt to prevent recourse to those mechanisms with the objective of preventing the Brexit decision from being reversed are not defending democracy; they are suppressing it.

Wanderer78

Peregrinus wrote:

Well, perhaps. But in the present context the issue is not how perfect or pure is our democracy, but can the Brexit decision be democratically reversed? And the answer is, yes, there are several mechanisms by which this could be done, and those mechanisms are at least as democratic as the mechanism by which the Brexit decision was made in the first place. And those who attempt to prevent recourse to those mechanisms with the objective of preventing the Brexit decision from being reversed are not defending democracy; they are suppressing it.

It's a difficult one to unravel, but my gut is saying, a rerun of this referendum, and possibly all referendums is highly undemocratic, we must remember our own past experiences regarding such matters. I think people such as varoufakis are correct on this one, accept this democratic vote, and go down the Norway style agreement to try solve this complex issue, or risk damaging your democratic system further by having a rerun.

Peregrinus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's a difficult one to unravel, but my gut is saying, a rerun of this referendum, and possibly all referendums is highly undemocratic, we must remember our own past experiences regarding such matters. I think people such as varoufakis are correct on this one, accept this democratic vote, and go down the Norway style agreement to try solve this complex issue, or risk damaging your democratic system further by having a rerun.

I disagree strongly (but with respect). If you rerun a referendum and you get a different outcome, you haven't damaged your democracy; you have reinforced it. You damage your democracy by refusing to rerun a referendum because you fear that you would get a different outcome, which you don't want.

Referendums are not magic - they're just one more tool in the toolbox of democracy; a way of making a decision democratically. Sometimes you choose that particular tool where there's a legal requirement to do so (e.g. when we amend the Irish Constitution); sometimes you choose them when you think it would be politically desirable to secure a specific mandate for a specific course of action (which is the usual reason for holding them in the UK).

What a referendum does not do, and what we should not want it to do, is to kick a particular question to the boundary of democracy, so to speak, so that it is now beyond democratic review, modification or reversal. You'd be arguing for a situation in which, if Parliament thinks that Brexit is going to damage the country, and this view has come to command majority public support in the country, nothing can be done. Parliament cannot reverse Brexit because it is bound by the mandate of the 2016 referendum, and cannot call another referendum to afford the people to set a new mandate because of this unwritten rule. (And you'd be be arguing that this was the outcome of a purely advisory referendum!) Why even would anybody think it was a remotely good idea to have such a rule?

Politically, a referendum can have the result of settling a question in a decisive way for a significant period of time, and a government might choose to call a referendum (or a lobby group might call for one) with the hope of achieving this outcome. But a referendum won't necessarily do that. It may, if e.g. the referendum vote is in favour of a clear and specific policy, so that everybody understands what will ensue, and if the majority of victory is substantial. But the Brexit referendum fails both these tests. It demonstrably hasn't settled much in the UK and, while Brexiters may regret this, they are not entitled to feel short-changed. The fault lies partly at their own door, for their failure to articulate a clear, realistic and consistent vision of the Brexit that they were seeking.

blinding

I love leave voters and I love the democracy that allowed them to have their say .

The Rape of Lucretia

If in favour of a rerun though, at what point do you stop having referenda? If the loosing side can always forxe a rerun by making enough noise, then the point of referenda is lost.

The first one was clear : leave the EU. Having one to confirm with the people that that is really what they meant undermines democracy not strengthens it. The idea of having ons to approve whatever leave deal is arrived at, is equally ludicrous.

The Rape of Lucretia

blinding wrote: »

I love leave voters and I love the democracy that allowed them to have their say .

They did undoubtedly give the wrong answer. But that is the flaw of democracy. If your democracy allows for the ignorant and the deluded to influence the outcome, then you must accept that outcome.
The leave negotiations are so tortured, because it is the wrong decision. And no good deal is possible. Effectively, the UK voted to have a bad deal, but many of them didnt realise, and still dont, that reality.

Peregrinus

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

If in favour of a rerun though, at what point do you stop having referenda? If the loosing side can always forxe a rerun by making enough noise, then the point of referenda is lost.

A rerun is a political decision. There's no point in a rerun, obviously, unless you expect a different outcome, and a government/parliament won't have a rerun unless they do expect a different outcome. That's why a decisive majority the first time round is one of the things that is likely to mean the first referendum can be conclusive.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The first one was clear : leave the EU. Having one to confirm with the people that that is really what they meant undermines democracy not strengthens it. The idea of having ons to approve whatever leave deal is arrived at, is equally ludicrous.

It's not remotely ludicrous. The terms of leaving which will be available to the UK were certainly not known in 2016, and it is nonsense to suggest that people voted for them. Indeed, even the terms of leaving which the government would seek weren't known in 2016; the government was still arguing with itself about this last month in a most unedifying fashion, and if they didn't know what what kind of Brexit they would seek it is stupid to suggest that the voters did.

It's entirely possible that, when people know more about what kind of Brexit is actually available, they may change their minds about whether they want it. The more different the reality turns out to be from the rosy picture painted by the leave campaign, the more likely it is that people will change their mind. People change there minds all the time, so it is ludicrous, to borrow your own word, to suggest that The People cannot. And it's positively antidemocratic to suggest that, if they have have or might have changed their minds, they should not be given a chance to say so.

blinding

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They did undoubtedly give the wrong answer. But that is the flaw of democracy. If your democracy allows for the ignorant and the deluded to influence the outcome, then you must accept that outcome.
The leave negotiations are so tortured, because it is the wrong decision. And no good deal is possible. Effectively, the UK voted to have a bad deal, but many of them didnt realise, and still dont, that reality.

They voted to leave the Eu .

Their Own Sovereignty , Control of their own Laws , Control of their own Borders . Continuing control of their Own Currency .

There was a time the people of Ireland were willing to fight for that .

Respect the right of another Country to do so even when the Irish have surrendered all that .

Countries must decide this stuff for itself or else it is not a Country . The british made their choice in the referendum followed by the General election where 84% of voters voted for parties that said they would respect the referendum result .

Democracy in action .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

They voted to leave the Eu .

Their Own Sovereignty , Control of their own Laws , Control of their own Borders . Continuing control of their Own Currency .

There was a time the people of Ireland were willing to fight for that .

Respect the right of another Country to do so even when the Irish have surrendered all that .

Countries must decide this stuff for itself or else it is not a Country . The british made their choice in the referendum followed by the General election where 84% of voters voted for parties that said they would respect the referendum result .

Democracy in action .

You aren't respecting it though, you are cheerleading it.

I respect their decision just as much as I respect the desire of those to avoid the destruction of ordinary lives this is going to bring.

The former (their decision) was based on gut hate for the EU and very littel fact and detail while the latter is based on the very bright lights of an oncoming train laden with harsh realities (that we have already seen biting).

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You aren't respecting it though, you are cheerleading it.

I respect their decision just as much as I respect the desire of those to avoid the destruction of ordinary lives this is going to bring.

The former (their decision) was based on gut hate for the EU and very littel fact and detail while the latter is based on the very bright lights of an oncoming train laden with harsh realities (that we have already seen biting).

Sure if ya are going to look at it like that then the 26 counties should have stayed in the British Empire .

When People democratically decide they want to run their own country then they should be allowed to do so .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

Sure if ya are going to look at it like that then the 26 counties should have stayed in the British Empire .

When People democratically decide they want to run their own country then they should be allowed to do so .

Absolutely no problem with that and never had. Because they do run their own country in the same way as any other democracy.

As a member of the EU I reject them having any of the benefits of the EU though unless they accept the same terms as anyone else.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely no problem with that and never had. Because they do run their own country in the same way as any other democracy.

As a member of the EU I reject them having any of the benefits of the EU though unless they accept the same terms as anyone else.

There is one problem with this . If Britain gets a bad deal then it will be very bad for the 26 counties . So why would the Eu do this to the 26 Counties ?

The 26 Counties makes this all very messy . If the Eu genuinely has the good interests of the 26 Counties at heart its hard to see how it can give Britain a bad deal .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

There is one problem with this . If Britain gets a bad deal then it will be very bad for the 26 counties . So why would the Eu do this to the 26 Counties ?

The 26 Counties makes this all very messy . If the Eu genuinely has the good interests of the 26 Counties at heart its hard to see how it can give Britain a bad deal .

We'll get over it. The pay off is not being in any way dependent on the UK which has started to devour itself just as it tried to devour anywhere with assets before.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We'll get over it. The pay off is not being in any way dependent on the UK which has started to devour itself just as it tried to devour anywhere with assets before.

I hope the Eu does not lose focus on the 26 counties , 6 months , 12 months , 18 months , etc down the line .

A Bad deal for Britain can only be a bad deal for the 26 Counties . Why would the Eu do this ?

The Rape of Lucretia

blinding wrote: »

There is one problem with this . If Britain gets a bad deal then it will be very bad for the 26 counties . So why would the Eu do this to the 26 Counties ?

It isnt 'doing' this to the 26. There are only bad deals for the UK, and only bad outcomes for Ireland. Nothing is better than the UK being in the EU. Only the have the cake and eat it contradiction, of the UK leaving the club yet retaining full membership rights would not impact the 26 negatively. And that is not going to happen because it would collapze the eu, and we would be even worse off.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It isnt 'doing' this to the 26. There are only bad deals for the UK, and only bad outcomes for Ireland. Nothing is better than the UK being in the EU. Only the have the cake and eat it contradiction, of the UK leaving the club yet retaining full membership rights would not impact the 26 negatively. And that is not going to happen because it would collapze the eu, and we would be even worse off.

Exactly. Blinding is hoping that the UK can threaten the EU by using us.
They now know that they can't and have come face to face with the reality of that.

Blinding needs to catch up with the state of play.

blinding

What would you do if the Eu tries to put the squeeze on you . Squeeze the bit of the Eu that will hurt the most of course in return .

Hopefully the Eu continues to keep the 26 Counties in its mind in the longer term . It could carelessly forget the 26 Counties .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

What would you do if the Eu tries to put the squeeze on you . Squeeze the bit of the Eu that will hurt the most of course in return .

Hopefully the Eu continues to keep the 26 Counties in its mind in the longer term . It could carelessly forget the 26 Counties .

Squeeze what? And to what end?

The have squeezed and have had to let go.

You keep theorising about this but dry up when asked for any detail.