Brexit discussion thread II

jm08 · 15-08-2017 03:35PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know you don't like any critcism at all of the eu, but you have to admit, it is extremely wasteful.

even the most die hard europhile must cringe when it sees the eu packing up everything, sticking it all in to lorries and trotting off to Strasbourg.

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!

jm08 · 15-08-2017 03:47PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness it's the business of the British I suppose. I have no problem with them.

I don't really have a problem with them either - the Queen is grand, but it is a democratic deficit that the people don't elect their Head of State who can't get involved in the politics. If thats the case, what is the point of the queen being the head of state.

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.

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 03:50PM

Water John wrote: »

Fratton, it's one of the prices of peace and harmony in Europe and so, value for money, even if daft.

paying for fuel is one of the costs of having a car, that doesn't mean i don't carehow much i pay. I will still avoid a petrol station that is over charging.

murphaph wrote: »

Of course the Strasbourg shuffle is wasteful, but so is devolution in the UK....could just as easily rule everything from Westminster much more economically, but the natives wouldn't have it. Same goes for the French. We will hopefully see some sense prevail however and gently ease the role away from Strasbourg similar to how Germany eased the role of capital away from Bonn (hint: there's still loads of federal ministries in Bonn)

There is certainly waste in the EU but it costs like 1% of European GDP. It's surprisingly good value. People seem to think half their taxes are being spent on bureaucrats in Brussels.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm

€100m that is pissed away that could be better spent elsewhere?

percentages are very handy things to use when you want to hide real figures. Who cares if it is onl a small percentage, it is still a lot of money.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do you have any proof of this at all?

Strasbourg?

But you tell me of you think this is a fair remuneration package

http://en.euabc.com/word/814

COMMISSIONERS
The basic salary of a Commissioner is € 20 666 per month. This is 12,5 % more than the highest civil servant in the EU. The five Vice-Presidents each earn 25 % more, this is € 22 963 in monthly basic salary. The President receives 38 % more, this is € 25,351 per month. Figures are from 1 July 2010.
The salaries are NOT taxed in their member states. Instead, a low tax is paid to the EU.

The salaries are multiplied by 1.15 to include a residence allowance at 15 % of the salaries. Commissioners also receive a family allowance, € 171 plus 2% of the basic salary and an entertainment allowance of € 607 per month. The Vice Presidents receive € 911 per month and the President € 1 418.
For each child they receive € 373 and an additional education allowance, € 253.

When a Commissioner starts in office, he/she receives two month extra pay. When leaving they receive one extra month salary plus a transitional allowance for 3 years. This amount is between 40 and 65 % of their last basic salary, depending on how many years they have served as Commissioners. After 5 year a Commissioner, receive 55 % of their salary for the first 3 years.
Commissioners receive a daily allowance when they are travelling. They have 5 % more than the highest civil servants do.

Former Commissioners receive a pension from the age of 65, also with the low EU tax. The pension is calculated as 4.275 % of the basic salary for each year up to a maximum of 70 % of the final basic salary. The pension can be paid from the age of 60 with a reduction to 70 %.

Commissioners can have their EU pensions paid in addition to all national pensions. A pensioned Commissioner with a national pension as a MP or/and a MEP, a pension as minister and a private pension from a private job can accumulate all pensions with no reductions.

Former Commissioners will therefore have net pensions much higher than the national prime ministers will. On the other hand, both salaries and pensions for Commissioners are lower than what is paid for the leaders of many banks and private companies. Here we don’t judge on what is reasonable – we only bring the facts to the public so that voters can judge on salaries for their public servants.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not sure but the Royals are a huge part of the British brand. Buckingham Palace is always mobbed with tourists. If it's a net loss, I'd expect it to be very small.

if it was a large loss, it would still be less than the cost of having a president and holding elections every four or five years, especially when you consider it is a purely ceremonial job.

solodeogloria · 15-08-2017 04:00PM

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.

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

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 04:12PM

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!

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

jm08 wrote: »

I don't really have a problem with them either - the Queen is grand, but it is a democratic deficit that the people don't elect their Head of State who can't get involved in the politics. If thats the case, what is the point of the queen being the head of state.

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.

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

ancapailldorcha · 15-08-2017 04:45PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Strasbourg?

But you tell me of you think this is a fair remuneration package

http://en.euabc.com/word/814

Seems like a drop in the ocean for an entity with a yearly budget of several billion. That's a very weak basis for your argument.

murphaph · 15-08-2017 04:45PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

Then why even wait until 2019? Why not go now without the EU holding your hand for a few years?

ancapailldorcha · 15-08-2017 04:53PM

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.

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.

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

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

murphaph · 15-08-2017 04:54PM

And now the former Brussels correspondent from the number 2 publication on that list is the Foreign Secretary. What a shambles a once great country has become :-(

Huh? What happened to the myth list.

Calina · 15-08-2017 05:02PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Strasbourg?

But you tell me of you think this is a fair remuneration package

http://en.euabc.com/word/814

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.

solodeogloria · 15-08-2017 05:10PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:13PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:17PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:18PM

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

oscarBravo · 15-08-2017 05:19PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:20PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:31PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:34PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:36PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:43PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:43PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:48PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:57PM

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 · 15-08-2017 05:59PM

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 · 15-08-2017 06:00PM

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 · 15-08-2017 06:06PM

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 · 15-08-2017 06:09PM

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

jm08 · 15-08-2017 06:10PM

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 · 15-08-2017 06:20PM

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 · 15-08-2017 06:35PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

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

Heavy on aspiration, light on detail.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments