Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

hotmail.com

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Goodness but this does look like a variation on the freedom of speech chatter that often pops up in crank threads. Say whatever your heart desires, do not be surprised or upset when someone else does the same and points out the erroneous nature of one's opinion.

My original point is that being outside of the EU or leaving the EU is a legitimate position to have.

That's all.

Seth Brundle

hotmail.com wrote: »

My original point is that being outside of the EU or leaving the EU is a legitimate position to have.

That's all.

Of course ìt is fine to hold a position.
However, when you ask someone for their reasons for their position does not mean that their response warrants respect. I have walked away from friends in the UK purely because I'm so tired of their anti-EU rhetoric which is so untrue but they refuse to hear otherwise.

yagan

hotmail.com wrote: »

My original point is that being outside of the EU or leaving the EU is a legitimate position to have.

That's all.

Highlighting the pros and cons of leaving the EU isn't stating that the leaving isn't legitimate.

There's still many a hardcore NI unionist who consider the Dail illegal and thus illegitimate, yet here we are.

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

My original point is that being outside of the EU or leaving the EU is a legitimate position to have.

That's all.

Is it though. Based on what.

They are perfectly entitled to hold whatever opinion they like, so if that is the meaning of legitimate then I find it odd that you are even arguing that point. Nobody here is anti-democratic or saying people shouldn't have that opinion.

What they are questioning, and to this day nobody has been able to answer, is why they arrived at that opinion. You said yourself they never expected it to be perfect. They didn't care about the lies on the bus, the falsehoods during the campaign.

They don't care about the ex UK immigrants living in the EU facing issues. They don't care about fishing, the music and performing arts industries. The ydon't care about youth summer and winter jobs. They don't care about increasing prices, lack of investment, loss of jobs.

So what do they care about and has that been delivered?

Christy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

Liberals show respect and respect people's opinions. (Well they used to).

They do not and never did. No one does. People have the right to an opinion. Other people have the right to challenge said opinion and dismiss it as nonsense if they can't back it up with logic.

This random thing that all opinions are the same value is a new thing used a lot by the far right when they don't want pointing out to flaws in their logic.

hotmail.com

yagan wrote: »

Highlighting the pros and cons of leaving the EU isn't stating that the leaving isn't legitimate.

There's still many a hardcore NI unionist who consider the Dail illegal and thus illegitimate, yet here we are.

Which NI unionists are these ?

MrMusician18

hotmail.com wrote: »

My original point is that being outside of the EU or leaving the EU is a legitimate position to have.

That's all.

Indeed it is. There are lots of arguments for wanting out that don't revolve around the rather nebulous identity issues. You could oppose free movement, you might not like various European policies eg nitrates or working time directives. You might think ETS is an expensive joke. You could believe that these issues are better resolved locally or nationally. Well founded arguments against EU membership could be made on those grounds - they are all in fact very similar to any independence movement. A strange irony is that the Tories will use the same pro union remain arguments to stifle Scottish independence.

My own personal opinion is that they were better in the tent changing the things they didn't like rather than outside it and that they threw out a lot of good for the bad. That said, there were and are legitimate reasons to leave. Not liking these reasons didn't make them less valid.

ancapailldorcha

yagan wrote: »

Highlighting the pros and cons of leaving the EU isn't stating that the leaving isn't legitimate.

There's still many a hardcore NI unionist who consider the Dail illegal and thus illegitimate, yet here we are.

Eh? I've been to many Orange parades, meetings and such and have met a certain senior DUP man but I've not once heard any Unionist, NI or otherwise claim that the Dail is illegal and/or illegitimate.

schmoo2k

hotmail.com wrote: »

No they don't have to understand what it is they are leaving.

If they want to leave, even for bonkers reasons not based on fact, they can leave.

People have to respect this.

I somewhat agree with this, but it applies to both remainers and leavers. There seems to be some very vocal Brexiters who want to change the now agreed terms and conditions?
Also some Brexitiers seem to think the EU changed rules specifically to punish the UK (which is very disrespectful to not just the EU, but to the UK Government who negotiated the agreements)?

yagan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Eh? I've been to many Orange parades, meetings and such and have met a certain senior DUP man but I've not once heard any Unionist, NI or otherwise claim that the Dail is illegal and/or illegitimate.

You've obviously haven't been hanging out with the creationist branch. They also think anglicans aren't true christians either.

It's bonkers when you hear them, but I've also had to hear about moving statues on the other side of the family.

mick087

hotmail.com wrote: »

This doesn't explain how so many left wingers hate the EU.

Being outside of the EU is just an ideology on it's own. And it's perfectly legitimate.

Many who have left views would believe that the EU commission is not a democratic organization and needs to change so the selected are elected and accountable to it citizens and not each other.

liamog

hotmail.com wrote: »

No they don't have to understand what it is they are leaving.

If they want to leave, even for bonkers reasons not based on fact, they can leave.

People have to respect this.

If you want to leave the EU because you believe the EU is sacrificing goats to print banknotes, then no, I do not have to respect your opinion. In that case you are clearly a misinformed buffoon and your opinion does not deserve respect.

yagan

mick087 wrote: »

Many who have left views would believe that the EU commission is not a democratic organization and needs to change so the selected are elected and accountable to it citizens and not each other.

The counterpoint to that is many people know the EU isn't a country and that commissioners are appointed as representatives by democratically elected governments.

What the commission proposes can only be ratified by elected MEPs.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is it though. Based on what.

They are perfectly entitled to hold whatever opinion they like, so if that is the meaning of legitimate then I find it odd that you are even arguing that point. Nobody here is anti-democratic or saying people shouldn't have that opinion.

What they are questioning, and to this day nobody has been able to answer, is why they arrived at that opinion. You said yourself they never expected it to be perfect. They didn't care about the lies on the bus, the falsehoods during the campaign.

They don't care about the ex UK immigrants living in the EU facing issues. They don't care about fishing, the music and performing arts industries. The ydon't care about youth summer and winter jobs. They don't care about increasing prices, lack of investment, loss of jobs.

So what do they care about and has that been delivered?

The Eurosceptics of 2005-10 had little interest in leaving the EU (apart from a few ideological types on the fringes of the movement). They merely wanted reform and to stop the EU taking on new powers.

It was Farage and his merry bunch of men who started putting the idea of smashing the relationship with the EU into the mainstream. Somehow an obvious crank and snake oil salesman (and someone who would be labelled 'far right' in most countries in Europe) gained traction and we are where we are today.

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

(...)

They don't care about the ex UK immigrants living in the EU facing issues. They don't care about fishing, the music and performing arts industries. The ydon't care about youth summer and winter jobs. They don't care about increasing prices, lack of investment, loss of jobs.

So what do they care about and has that been delivered?

Many Leave supporters (grassroots) cared about ending the influx of EU economic migrants under FoM.

That has arguably been delivered, and the British management of Covid turbocharged brexodus some.

Reportedly there are now ample employment opportunities for fruit and veg picking, bar tending, care home work, HGV driving (...).

That now said, I seem to recall Liz Truss recently reaching agreement with India over an FTA with FOM-like provisions? Purely coincidental, I’m sure.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

The Eurosceptics of 2005-10 had little interest in leaving the EU (apart from a few ideological types on the fringes of the movement). They merely wanted reform and to stop the EU taking on new powers.

It was Farage and his merry bunch of men who started putting the idea of smashing the relationship with the EU into the mainstream. Somehow an obvious crank and snake oil salesman (and someone who would be labelled 'far right' in most countries in Europe) gained traction and we are where we are today.

In being a Brexit snake oil salesman, Farage was completely overshadowed by Johnson.

10000maniacs

Liam Fox on Politics Live now saying Labour and Starmer need to embrace and love Brexit now. Nearly choked on my lunch. LOL.

partyguinness

I think another huge factor which I believe was very relevant but not mentioned is that there is zero appetite for elections at the moment with everything else going on. I think Labour were always on to a loser.

BlitzKrieg

hotmail.com wrote: »

This doesn't explain how so many left wingers hate the EU.

Being outside of the EU is just an ideology on it's own. And it's perfectly legitimate.

Many 'left wingers' hate the EU, that is true, but the issue I think is being missed here is that most of those 'left wingers' hate the EU for very different reasons as to why many 'right wingers' hate the EU and the core flaw of Brexit is that we are to treat it all as one entity.

It's been the core flaw of most of the anti EU debates I've crossed. The issues raised against the EU are often as much at odds with each other as they are with the EU

The most prime example is usually the democratic deficiencies of the EU. Many campaigns against the EU would lament the undemocratic nature of The Commission and how the EU is run, but they would in the same breath also lament the attack on national sovereignty the EU represents.

Yet there is a sense of banging one's head against a wall responding to this because the nature of how members of the Commission are nominated and elected is part of protecting the sovereignty of the member states. If you wanted a more democratic EU in terms of the powers of the parliament and how the Commission is elected, that democracy has to be directly taken from the powers of the member states which is an attack on their sovereignty.

And yet it is not just uncommon, but downright clockwork that the democratic deficiency of the EU followed by the loss of sovereignty of member states are both talking points run out parallel by the same campaigns and debaters without even a thought given to how both of these talking points are direct opposites.

Leroy42

10000maniacs wrote: »

Liam Fox on Politics Live now saying Labour and Starmer need to embrace and love Brexit now. Nearly choked on my lunch. LOL.

I assume he was asked why his own party doesn't follow that advice given that they continually complain about the EU and the deal and how unfair it all it.

Yet again, more simply slogan words that are never challenged.

Pandiculation

Well I think you get a lot of left wingers in the left of the Labour Party who see the EU as being too much about free market economics and not socialist enough, but that’s a reflection of the EU electorate and the kinds of governments that most EU countries elect in this era.

The Tories and right wing Brexiteers mostly want the total opposite abs consider the EU fat too socialist and hampering their desire for total laissez-faire capitalism.

Then you’ve a layer of populism, xenophobia and imperial exceptionalism that could be either left or right wing and possibly neither.

That’s the problem with trying to slot Brexit into a neatly left or right wing slot. It’s neither and both.

yagan

Pandiculation wrote: »

Well I think you get a lot of left wingers in the left of the Labour Party who see the EU as being too much about free market economics and not socialist enough, but that’s a reflection of the EU electorate and the kinds of governments that most EU countries elect in this era.

The Tories and right wing Brexiteers mostly want the total opposite abs consider the EU fat too socialist and hampering their desire for total laissez-faire capitalism.

Then you’ve a layer of populism, xenophobia and imperial exceptionalism that could be either left or right wing and possibly neither.

That’s the problem with trying to slot Brexit into a neatly left or right wing slot. It’s neither and both.

When you subtract the contradictory arguments you're left with a cultural predisposition against pooling sovereignty with any other nation.

I found some of the Remain voices echoed a similar exceptionalism with their "Lead, Not Leave" mantra.

Strazdas

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Many 'left wingers' hate the EU, that is true, but the issue I think is being missed here is that most of those 'left wingers' hate the EU for very different reasons as to why many 'right wingers' hate the EU and the core flaw of Brexit is that we are to treat it all as one entity.

It's been the core flaw of most of the anti EU debates I've crossed. The issues raised against the EU are often as much at odds with each other as they are with the EU

The most prime example is usually the democratic deficiencies of the EU. Many campaigns against the EU would lament the undemocratic nature of The Commission and how the EU is run, but they would in the same breath also lament the attack on national sovereignty the EU represents.

Yet there is a sense of banging one's head against a wall responding to this because the nature of how members of the Commission are nominated and elected is part of protecting the sovereignty of the member states. If you wanted a more democratic EU in terms of the powers of the parliament and how the Commission is elected, that democracy has to be directly taken from the powers of the member states which is an attack on their sovereignty.

And yet it is not just uncommon, but downright clockwork that the democratic deficiency of the EU followed by the loss of sovereignty of member states are both talking points run out parallel by the same campaigns and debaters without even a thought given to how both of these talking points are direct opposites.

The whole point of joining a club is that you lose sovereignty. Imagine trying to join a club but adding that you will refuse to follow any of its rules or be bound by any decisions taken against by the club members.

Anyone complaining about loss of sovereignty is admitting that are incapable of belonging to a club and are essentially a maverick.

Bit cynical

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The most prime example is usually the democratic deficiencies of the EU. Many campaigns against the EU would lament the undemocratic nature of The Commission and how the EU is run, but they would in the same breath also lament the attack on national sovereignty the EU represents.

Yet there is a sense of banging one's head against a wall responding to this because the nature of how members of the Commission are nominated and elected is part of protecting the sovereignty of the member states. If you wanted a more democratic EU in terms of the powers of the parliament and how the Commission is elected, that democracy has to be directly taken from the powers of the member states which is an attack on their sovereignty.

And yet it is not just uncommon, but downright clockwork that the democratic deficiency of the EU followed by the loss of sovereignty of member states are both talking points run out parallel by the same campaigns and debaters without even a thought given to how both of these talking points are direct opposites.

I'm not sure your argument is valid since the converse is quite obviously not true. Lack of supposed democracy at the EU level does not ensure sovereignty at the national level.

Nody

Pandiculation wrote: »

Well I think you get a lot of left wingers in the left of the Labour Party who see the EU as being too much about free market economics and not socialist enough, but that’s a reflection of the EU electorate and the kinds of governments that most EU countries elect in this era.

The Tories and right wing Brexiteers mostly want the total opposite abs consider the EU fat too socialist and hampering their desire for total laissez-faire capitalism.

Then you’ve a layer of populism, xenophobia and imperial exceptionalism that could be either left or right wing and possibly neither.

That’s the problem with trying to slot Brexit into a neatly left or right wing slot. It’s neither and both.

Sorry but I have to disagree here; the Tories are not ideological driven for capitalism. What they want is the ability to enrich themselves and their donors. If that's through state subsidies (why hello there contracts assigned without competition) or through lower cost (what worker rights do you want us to remove?) etc. does not really matter. Exactly as with the Republicans in the USA; they may claim they believe in capitalism but once rubber hits the dirt what they really believe in is making money for themselves and everyone else be damned.

Lemming

Christy42 wrote: »

They do not and never did. No one does. People have the right to an opinion. Other people have the right to challenge said opinion and dismiss it as nonsense if they can't back it up with logic.

This random thing that all opinions are the same value is a new thing used a lot by the far right when they don't want pointing out to flaws in their logic.

It's all about reporting "balance" and the notion that person "A" must keep a straight face whilst person "B" claims that the sun is really a very large halogen lamp constructed by aliens, because person "B"s opinion is apparently just as equal as person "A" citing facts.

The BBC Tories have been gaslighting the population for the last five years with this very deliberate policy to avoid being scrutinised.

BlitzKrieg

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure your argument is valid since the converse is quite obviously not true. Lack of supposed democracy at the EU level does not ensure sovereignty at the national level.

It is when the the supposed lack of democracy is because the actual decisions are made by the governments of the national member states.

The reason why the members of the commission is not directly elected by a vote in nation or across Europe is because they are selected by the governments of the member states themselves. It is entirely an aspect that is kept in government hands, How or where a Commissioner is selected is at it's core a decision by each member state's government.

That the vote to accept the commission and the commission president is initially taken by the heads of the member states in the Council.

Cameron's dislike of the commission was less to do with it having a democratic deficiency but because there was a decrease of government power when the vote for approving a commission was changed in Lisbon from being unanimous from all member states to being one of the very few majority votes in the Council.


The Commission is designed as this balancing act that it is meant to represent the EU and has some oversight from Parliament but it is primarily derived from the governments of the member states.

Which you can argue is not a lack of democratic oversight since all the EU governments are democratically elected, but a) good luck getting people to accept that, most I've talked to disregard it as it's never brought up in general elections

and from a number of the further left leaning opponents of the EU it is the involvement of the national government that is the problem from the get go regardless of whatever national process they have.

BonnieSituation

The thoughts of popular votes for the commission fill me with dread.

liamog

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The thoughts of popular votes for the commission fill me with dread.

I don't think anyone would design a national government where the finance minister is elected by popular vote. Democracy only goes so far.

BonnieSituation

liamog wrote: »

I don't think anyone would design a national government where the finance minister is elected by popular vote. Democracy only goes so far.

I know that, and you know that but we're EU lovers.

It drives me spare when I hear all this talk of democratic deficiencies in the EU. And that we're still seeing it after 5 years of the Brexit omnishambles is even more infuriating.