Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

woejus wrote: »

You don't speak for the entirety of the population of Europe. That kind of assumption laden, lazy thinking has the brits where they are now.

What weasel words? I'm loathe to "educate" what is likely a paid agent of a state entity, so here, fill your boots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Count how many weasel words you had in your previous comment? Let's see if you can beat that score in the next comment! Commenters of the world, unite!

I know what weasel words are, but my earlier comment was replete with reason and buttressed by the prevailing evidence.

Deleted User wrote: »

not a centralised structure that blends all countries into one, with distant bureaucrats at the top, immune from national electorates.

You mean people like Aaron Banks, Steve Bannon, Mark Zuckerberg - all meddling one way or another in the UK's domestic politics, all immune from the electorate?

Treat that as a rhetorical question - in your first 30 posts, you've made it clear that you're immune to any suggestion that the people at the head of the EU, elected by EU citizens, might be about as democratic as any governing body could ever be.

CelticRambler wrote: »

You mean people like Aaron Banks, Steve Bannon, Mark Zuckerberg - all meddling one way or another in the UK's domestic politics, all immune from the electorate?

Treat that as a rhetorical question - in your first 30 posts, you've made it clear that you're immune to any suggestion that the people at the head of the EU, elected by EU citizens, might be about as democratic as any governing body could ever be.

My problem with the EU democratic system is manifold; the distance between Juncker and ordinary citizens of individual nation-states is one of them; the growing centralisation of power is an ongoing cause for concern.

Nobody is suggesting the EU is non-democratic, but that it's democratic impulse is very weak indeed.

As for Steve Bannon, my personal view is that he is the absolute summit of the art of logical reasoning.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

If anything, that's an argument in favor of Euroscepticism.

Any country is free to leave the EU overnight (and trash their economy and citizens in the process). Nobody is stopping them.

woejus

Deleted User wrote: »

I know what weasel words are, but my earlier comment was replete with reason and buttressed by the prevailing evidence.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not a native English speaker. You seem to be using words inaccurately (a generous assessment). You presented no evidence in your templated statement you refer to, merely assertions. It's almost as if you cannot stray from a given set of talking points. Have a smiley face

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If anything, that's an argument in favor of Euroscepticism.

Why? The humiliation was entirely self imposed. The UK thought they could blackmail the EU into backing down with the threat of a No deal and the EU just called their bluff repeatedly

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not specifically the people of NI but they would have been one of the groups that would have been prevented from introducing a border under the original WA backstop and we don't want a border or at least I thought we did not.

The backstop was not intended to prevent the people of NI from introducing a hard border. The people of NI do not wan't to introduce a hard border on this island. The backstop was to prevent the British government from following a policy which would result in a hard border. This aim is achieved in the WA and as such the backstop is no longer required.

It was an insurance policy that prevented a hard border being introduced. Yes it could be replaced but only with something else that also prevented a hard border.I say it is backing down because what was once a legally watertight insurance against any unilateral imposition of a border has been replaced with something that specifically allows for the unilateral imposition of a border.

Who can unilaterally impose a border?

The NI assembly can't, they can only vote to end the arrangement set out in the WA. Then the question goes back to the EU and the British government. There is nothing preventing the EU and British government agreeing a replacement for these arrangements to insure that the border remains open, indeed the WA gives both parties two years to do just this. British government policy is to keep the border open, lets not forget. The commitments the British government has made over the border, and EU insistance that those commitments be put into effect, will not go away.

We have entered the world of alternative reality, this is not going to come up as an issue, the NI assembly wont vote for a hard border in 4 years or 40 years. In your alternate reality however, in 6 years time a battered Britain, having found out how cut throat the world of international trade really is, might gladly welcome an opportunity to go back to the all UK backstop.

Deleted User wrote: »

The reality is that the EU is convulsed by the Eurosceptic surge - and that surge is likely to amplify over the coming decade.

What surge? I did not see much evidence of it in the latest European Elections.

One way or another, the European Union will be dead. Brexit is just the warning shot. Other countries will inevitably follow, with time and with enough pressure, and this egregious political entity will finally dissolve.

Sure they will, any day now...
Meanwhile, on the ground European Solidarity has never been stronger and nowhere outside the UK can a serious political movement be found that actually advocates leaving the EU. Populism is loosing ground everywhere. Euroscepticism, as a drive to see the EU fall apart, is dead. Brexit killed it. Euroscepticism has reverted to form, a dispirate group of fringe ideologies that want to disrupt Europe but can't credibly propose an alternative to it.

What we need to see is a Council of Europe - with decisions taken by leaders of individual nation-states; not a centralised structure that blends all countries into one, with distant bureaucrats at the top, immune from national electorates.

We already have a Council of Europe, its called... the Council of Europe.

Deleted User wrote: »

My problem with the EU democratic system is manifold; the distance between Juncker and ordinary citizens of individual nation-states is one of them; the growing centralisation of power is an ongoing cause for concern.

What is this "distance" you're referring to? It is just as easy for me to walk into the chamber of the European Parliament as it is to visit the Dáil or the HoC, and I'm glad of that because the only political representative I can vote for at the current time is my local French MEP: as a non-resident of Ireland, the Irish system doesn't let me vote for any Irish TD or President, and the French won't let me vote for any of their Deputés or Président.

On the other hand, if you're worried about growing centralisation of power, I presume you've been religiously boycotting everything and anything to do with Facebook, and lobbying your local TDs to lend their support so your MEPs efforts to make Mark Zuckerberg accountable to European citizens?

Deleted User wrote: »

My problem with the EU democratic system is manifold; the distance between Juncker and ordinary citizens of individual nation-states is one of them; the growing centralisation of power is an ongoing cause for concern.

Nobody is suggesting the EU is non-democratic, but that it's democratic impulse is very weak indeed.

As for Steve Bannon, my personal view is that he is the absolute summit of the art of logical reasoning.

And yet you want to strip away all of its democratic institutions. Strange logic indeed.

Enzokk

looksee wrote: »

Is someone orchestrating this? Trump impeachment and Johnson criminal case. Some strange coincidences going on.

I don't think so, just a confluence of events that meant it happened at the same time. I think the Met should have passed on the details a long time ago as the Electoral Commission passed on their information 16 months ago. The story was they didn't do anything due to "political sensitivities" at the time and I guess they just couldn't wait any longer really.

As for Trump, that is more to do with the fact that the Republican Senators will not impeach him, ever. So the Democrats just timed this to cause the most damage and also the evidence against Trump just got too much really. Politicians playing games as usual.

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote: »

If anything, that's an argument in favor of Euroscepticism.

Your reply in reference to the humiliation, is not that it is the EU causing it, rather is just showing up the UK as being very xenophobic and getting a fake sense of superiority. The humiliation is that they aren't running the empire any longer.

Capt'n Midnight

briany wrote: »

Doncaster Pro-Brexit demonstrations called off today as no-one was going to show up. Organisers blamed the failure of the demonstration on the shortage of protesters.

Another astroturfing failure.

Who to believe about the economy ?

On one hand all the leading economists have been saying since 2014 that Brexit would cost the UK economy dearly while on the other Farage & Co. couldn't organise a piss-up in a distillery.

woejus wrote: »

I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not a native English speaker. You seem to be using words inaccurately (a generous assessment). You presented no evidence in your templated statement you refer to, merely assertions. It's almost as if you cannot stray from a given set of talking points. Have a smiley face

Sounds like envy to me. :rolleyes:

ancapailldorcha

woejus wrote: »

I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not a native English speaker. You seem to be using words inaccurately (a generous assessment). You presented no evidence in your templated statement you refer to, merely assertions. It's almost as if you cannot stray from a given set of talking points. Have a smiley face

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like envy to me. :rolleyes:

Cut out this juvenile nonsense please.

briany

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Another astroturfing failure.

Who to believe about the economy ?

On one hand all the leading economists have been saying since 2014 that Brexit would cost the UK economy dearly while on the other Farage & Co. couldn't organise a piss-up in a distillery.

Seems like all the Brexit demonstrations recently have been ones that are against. Are there really no big pro-Brexit demonstrations, or are they being subjected to media censorship?

beggars_bush

briany wrote: »

Seems like all the Brexit demonstrations recently have been ones that are against. Are there really no big pro-Brexit demonstrations, or are they being subjected to media censorship?

25 of them turned up on November 1st in London

Joe_ Public

Not forgetting the great march on london a few months back where i dont think the great brexit pilgrims managed to outnumber the police detailed to shadow them. One farage rally from that march gave rise to the immortal line from the guardians john crace. "We are the 17.4 million", Farage told the crowd of 150.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

And yet you want to strip away all of its democratic institutions. Strange logic indeed.

Reform the means through which collective agreement is sought, is the way I'd put it.

Many people voted Brexit - for right or wrong - because they felt that power must be repatriated back to the UK.

We can argue about whether that power is large or small, but what matters is that it's power assigned to a distant institution.

When you speak to Leavers about the May Deal, they often argue about the nature of the powers returned to the UK. The same is true with Boris Johnson's deal, even though the vast majority has been duplicated from his predecessor.

In time, more people will realise that - through stealth and not through any consultation - their General Election vote is next to worthless.

Strazdas

briany wrote: »

Seems like all the Brexit demonstrations recently have been ones that are against. Are there really no big pro-Brexit demonstrations, or are they being subjected to media censorship?

I get the impression the pro-Brexit movement is hugely exaggerated by the right wing press and the Brexit politicians. As an active political movement, it seems virtually non-existent and yet the aforementioned are banging on morning, noon and night about "17.4 million people", "the end of democracy in the UK if Brexit is not delivered" etc.

Deleted User wrote: »

Reform the means through which collective agreement is sought, is the way I'd put it.

Indeed you would, because you realise your proposal contradicts the supposed reason for the proposal. You complain that there is a lack of democracy in the EU and your proposed solution strips out the democracy from it. Must try harder.

If you are genuinely think there is a lack of democracy, then why not propose the transfer of decision making power to the EU parliament which is directly elected by the citizens of Europe? Surely that would be a more consistent line of argument?

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Indeed you would, because you realise your proposal contradicts the supposed reason for the proposal. You complain that there is a lack of democracy in the EU and your proposed solution strips out the democracy from it. Must try harder.

If you are genuinely think there is a lack of democracy, then why not propose the transfer of decision making power to the EU parliament which is directly elected by the citizens of Europe? Surely that would be a more consistent line of argument?

Precisely because I don't want a European Parliament.

I don't identify as "European"; it is not a national identity. Whilst I am "European" by virtue of geography, my nationality is Irish and I want Irish affairs, as much as possible, managed by an Irish Government directly elected by the people.

I don't want European institutions, parliaments and presidents making decisions on a Europe-wide basis. I don't want 2 sets of elections, Irish and EU.

I want Irish elections and governments throughout Europe working together.

VinLieger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Precisely because I don't want a European Parliament.

I don't identify as "European"; it is not a national identity.

In your opinion.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whilst I am "European" by virtue of geography, my nationality is Irish and I want Irish affairs, as much as possible, managed by an Irish Government directly elected by the people.

Any examples where the EU has impinged on you in a substantive way to explain this position?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't want European institutions, parliaments and presidents making decisions on a Europe-wide basis. I don't want 2 sets of elections, Irish and EU.

Why?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I want Irish elections and governments throughout Europe working together.

So a cooperating union of european nations....

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The NI assembly can't, they can only vote to end the arrangement set out in the WA. Then the question goes back to the EU and the British government. There is nothing preventing the EU and British government agreeing a replacement for these arrangements to insure that the border remains open, indeed the WA gives both parties two years to do just this. British government policy is to keep the border open, lets not forget. The commitments the British government has made over the border, and EU insistance that those commitments be put into effect, will not go away.

However in the event that the Assembly votes against continuation, and I agree this is not a likely outcome, of the arrangement there is nothing obliging the UK to prevent a hard border. This is the problem. Then we are in a situation the previous backstop was supposed to insure against.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

However in the event that the Assembly votes against continuation, and I agree this is not a likely outcome, of the arrangement there is nothing obliging the UK to prevent a hard border. This is the problem. Then we are in a situation the previous backstop was supposed to insure against.

If the turkeys vote for Christmas, the turkeys get Christmas. That's how it works. It'll be on them and they will have to answer for it.

briany wrote: »

Seems like all the Brexit demonstrations recently have been ones that are against. Are there really no big pro-Brexit demonstrations, or are they being subjected to media censorship?

I suspect that most Brexiteers are simply waiting for the election to make their mark, why protest when all you need to do is vote for a pro Brexit party in five weeks time.

If Brexit was cancelled, then they would be out on the streets, as things stand it is still going ahead.

Deleted User wrote: »

We can argue about whether that power is large or small, but what matters is that it's power assigned to a distant institution.

Let's try again: what do you mean by "distant" ? You say you're Irish, grand. I'm Irish too. I live and work in France. My sister (Irish) lives and works in Germany. Two of my children (Irish) are living and working (for now) in England. I have cousins (Irish) living and working in Canada, the US, Australia and Japan.

Now from where I'm sitting, my Irish cousins in Australia are a hell of a lot more distant than my friendly neighbourhood MEP sitting in Brussels/Strasbourg, and my sister can get to Brussels/Strasbourg a lot faster than she can get to her "local" national parliament in Berlin.

So what is this "distance" you keep throwing up as a Big Problem?

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect that most Brexiteers are simply waiting for the election to make their mark, why protest when all you need to do is vote for a pro Brexit party in five weeks time.

If Brexit was cancelled, then they would be out on the streets, as things stand it is still going ahead.

Would they though? They seem totally disorganised and cannot agree on anything