Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll stick with this issue for the time being, but I'm happy to address your other questions once we've done this one justice.

You appear to be finding it difficult to comprehend a fundamental distinction.

I am not against any specific EU law, or group of laws. I personally do not wish to see any overturned. There may be other people who do have an issue with a law or laws. What matters to me is not the content of the law, but where the law is sourced.

As many laws are sourced within "Europe", that is the principle upon which my criticism is made.

I really can't make it any clearer than that.

Would it be fair to say that you would prefer a bad British law to a good European one?

Let's indulge in a different bit of whataboutery for a change.

What happens if Johnson loses his seat? He'll have his name on the WA, but he won't be PM. Presumably he can continue as leader of the Conservative Party, but surely the Tories - even with a majority in the HoC - would need to elect a new PM before they could trot over to Buckingham Palace and tell her they had the makings of a government? What then for the ratification process - would it even be possible for Parliament to request an extension beyond the 31st Jan if the process of forming a government is bogged down in cross party negotiations?

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that you would prefer a bad British law to a good European one?

Yes.

And the electorate can judge the government of the day on all legislation - good or bad - that that government has made.

But what constitutes "good" or "bad" often depends on the politics of the person in question. One person's law is another person's crime.

Deleted User wrote: »

my primary arguments rest in democracy, sovereignty, and border controls.

So you said before. To which I put this challenge to you, as yet unanswered (quelle surprise):

CelticRambler wrote: »

Democracy - over numerous iterations of this thread we have discussed this point and concluded (with numerous proofs) that the EU as an institution is arguably more democratic (and accountable) than the UK.
Sovereignty - we're still waiting for you to provide specific examples of reclaimed sovereignty that will make a difference to the lives of ordinary British people post Brexit.
Border Controls - within the last week we have asked you repeatedly to explain why you believe that the government that has chosen not to enforce existing border controls will suddenly decide to enforce them post-Brexit; and to explain how these controls will be enhanced by removing the UK from pan-European security cooperation structures.
Identity - whose identity? The Scots have no trouble being Scots; the Welsh have no trouble being Welsh; half the Northern Irish have no trouble being Irish, and the other half are so sure of their British identity that they have made Westminster dance to their tune for the best part of 100 years. That just leaves the English, who are prepared to give up the protection of their cultural markers on the EU/world stage for the sake of ... umm ... uhhh ... well, blue passports (which they could have had at any time).

and the (unanswered!) follow-up:

taking democratic process, border control and fish/fleet management as examples, on what basis can Leavers trust a Tory-Brexit government to do anything to correct the supposed wrongs in these areas when the same Tory-Brexit government has done nothing to exercise the powers that it holds already to resolve the problems highlighted by Leavers, and (in the case of democratic process and fisheries) has actively promoted (or resisted change to) the situations that upset Leavers. In short, how will Brexit fix the problems caused by the Tories, if the Tories are designing Brexit to suit themselves?

Oh, and I also asked you what you find wrong or objectionable to the EU Pet Passport Scheme. Yes, there's a reason why I picked that specific example.

eskimohunt wrote:

Far from it; my primary arguments rest in democracy, sovereignty, and border controls.

I think you should stick with the European army so, because each of those arguments has been comprehensibly demolished when you offered them under your present and various previous incarnations.

These objections were offered by CelticRambler. I tersely responded to each, though perhaps it is better if CelticRambler focusses on one point, then moves to the next. Given the number of objections I'm expected to respond to, it can be difficult to get around to all when there are 5-8 questions in some posts.

Democracy - over numerous iterations of this thread we have discussed this point and concluded (with numerous proofs) that the EU as an institution is arguably more democratic (and accountable) than the UK.

"More democratic" is a matter of interpretation. For example, you will focus on elected officials and so on, we all know that.

My focus is not on that.

My focus is two-fold; namely, that I am - on principle - against the concept of pooled sovereignty for the creation of an supranational political organization.

It doesn't matter to me how "democratic" you identify the structure of that organization; it's the organization itself that I have a problem with.

Sovereignty - we're still waiting for you to provide specific examples of reclaimed sovereignty that will make a difference to the lives of ordinary British people post Brexit.

This links to my argument above.

By pooling sovereignty to a supranational political entity, by definition you have siphoned off sovereignty to some extent.

That is the principle from which I build my judgement.

Border Controls - within the last week we have asked you repeatedly to explain why you believe that the government that has chosen not to enforce existing border controls will suddenly decide to enforce them post-Brexit; and to explain how these controls will be enhanced by removing the UK from pan-European security cooperation structures.

I have answered this question, in-depth, ad nauseum.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me say - again - that government has shamefully decided not to deploy its own migration powers, particularly in respect of non-EU migration.

In terms of EU migration, I am against the concept that anyone can, with a mere passport to hand, arrive in the UK, and search for work.

That is the specific concept I am against.

Identity - whose identity? The Scots have no trouble being Scots; the Welsh have no trouble being Welsh; half the Northern Irish have no trouble being Irish, and the other half are so sure of their British identity that they have made Westminster dance to their tune for the best part of 100 years.

I would happily answer this question in detail, but we have been instructed not to navigate the thread down the question of immigration, so I cannot provide the answer you would like to hear.

Deleted User wrote: »

"More democratic" is a matter of interpretation. For example, you will focus on elected officials and so on, we all know that.

My focus is not on that.

My focus is two-fold; namely, that I am - on principle - against the concept of pooled sovereignty for the creation of an supranational political organization.

So to be clear: you are against the concept of the United Kingdom?

Deleted User wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself, let me say - again - that government has shamefully decided not to deploy its own migration powers, particularly in respect of non-EU migration.

I wasn't asking you to re-state your position: I was asking how you can reconcile your adoration of Boris Johnson and your desire for a "Clean Brexit" with the fact that the only Brexit being considered at the moment is the one designed by the Conservative Party, i.e. the very same government that you describe right there as having acted "shamefully". You are whooping for joy at the 45% Tory majority in the polls - how does Brexit make them less shameful?

So in summary, you see all forms of international cooperation and mobility as a loss of sovereignty, even if it produces prosperity and peace.

You must really miss the 19th century and I detect a nostalgia for the Europe that had such fun in numerous wars over the centuries.

First Up wrote: »

You must really miss the 19th century ...

Fixed that for ya!

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll stick with this issue for the time being, but I'm happy to address your other questions once we've done this one justice.

You appear to be finding it difficult to comprehend a fundamental distinction.

I am not against any specific EU law, or group of laws. I personally do not wish to see any overturned. There may be other people who do have an issue with a law or laws. What matters to me is not the content of the law, but where the law is sourced.

As many laws are sourced within "Europe", that is the principle upon which my criticism is made.

I really can't make it any clearer than that.

It's not my primary argument.

Far from it; my primary arguments rest in democracy, sovereignty, and border controls.

Right and you dont like the EU - therefore, as you state in a subsequent post, answering another members question

Would it be fair to say that you would prefer a bad British law to a good European one?
Yes.

Im happy to continue this but my view of this conversation is becoming strikingly negative at this stage - not because i fear my position is weakening- its not

its because it seems almost pointless to indulge in this any more - Why would you advocate the UK leaving the EU? in case they pass laws which the UK disagrees with, despite the UK being present during the legislation of said laws, and being able to scrutinize them.

eskimohunt - your arguments remind me of a scenario where by, someone wanders into a chat of a Saturday night (perhaps having had a few drinks, perhaps not) and adopts a position on an issue. And despite all evidence to the contrary, and having their position demolished, they remain by that position throughout. Its Pride, just like your argument against EU laws, which you acknowledge, you care not whether they are good or bad - You just dont want them in your country - you cant explain why, its principle - you dont care how much harm Brexit causes - its principle

How dare the European Union do what it was designed to do, and function as the largest single trading block in the world, while also allowing for legal challenges to take place between companies and entities spread across Europe - how dare they -

Im surprised we haven't been reminded of 'who won the war'

This seems a matter of Pride for you, and you no doubt imagine yourself in a Chuchillian position of 'struggling alone', against a mass of EuroPhiles, who wont let you articulate yourself properly - this is not a personal insult btw so i ask that you not attempt to insinuate it as such. It is simply a view that after 3 days of debating this with you, nothing you have said is remotely persuasive

If you had once, given a proper reason for leaving, you would have witnessed a stunned silence - followed by an acknowledgement of 'Hey - he has a point' - You dont

Respectfully, and i may infuriate some by saying this but - keep going - honestly - this is like simple chewing gum or exercise for the brain! The moment i find myself confounded by a serious point in favor of Brexit, il vanish due to the fact i will undoubtedly need an immediate MRI

So yea - keep going

CelticRambler wrote: »

So to be clear: you are against the concept of the United Kingdom?

I wasn't asking you to re-state your position: I was asking how you can reconcile your adoration of Boris Johnson and your desire for a "Clean Brexit" with the fact that the only Brexit being considered at the moment is the one designed by the Conservative Party, i.e. the very same government that you describe right there as having acted "shamefully". You are whooping for joy at the 45% Tory majority in the polls - how does Brexit make them less shameful?

The United Kingdom is a historic construct of 4-countries-in-1, with a shared history, identity and politics and so forth; and I firmly believe that more powers should be devolved to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The UK, in effect, acts as 1 country.

If one of those powers - such as Scotland - opts to Leave, I would be the first to respect that decision.

But the European Union is a collection of 27-countries opting to blend into one administrative system. That's the difference.

Again, it's the nation-state that must make decisions (in my politics), even if I personally disagree with a course of action.

When power rests with the nation-state, and, by extension, greater powers extended to provinces and local constituences, the better for all concerned.

I get very concerned when political power is concentrated - whether it's communism, fascism, or more benign forces, such as European Union.

If Boris reneges on his political promises re: Brexit and migration, I will be his first enemy.

First Up wrote: »

So in summary, you see all forms of international cooperation and mobility as a loss of sovereignty, even if it produces prosperity and peace.

You must really miss the 19th century and I detect a nostalgia for the Europe that had such fun in numerous wars over the centuries.

That's an absurd conclusion, one I shan't entertain with a comprehensive answer.

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of EU migration, I am against the concept that anyone can, with a mere passport to hand, arrive in the UK, and search for work.

Explain that - lets address this specific point please -

eskimohunt wrote:

That's an absurd conclusion, one I shan't entertain with a comprehensive answer.

It is a conclusion derived from your own contributions.

I won't dispute the absurdity.

First Up wrote: »

It is a conclusion derived from your own contributions.

I won't dispute the absurdity.

this

Deleted User wrote: »

I am - on principle - against the concept of pooled sovereignty for the creation of an supranational political organization.

It doesn't matter to me how "democratic" you identify the structure of that organization; it's the organization itself that I have a problem with.

This seems to be the sum total of your argument if we are honest. Everything else is merely window dressing to flesh out what is a fairly threadbare viewpoint. Issues around legislation or democracy, that you have used to justify your point of view, fall away under questioning. Your opposition to the EU seems to be based on an outdated 19th century concept of sovereignty.

The irony for me is that the argument against the EU on the basis of a loss of sovereignty is the weakest of the lot. Member states don't give up any soverignty as part of the EU. Member states choose to cooperate with one another in a number of areas because it is beneficial to do so, choosing to cooperate does not entail a loss of soverignty and choosing not to cooperate does not enhance soverignty. Having the choice is where soverignty lies, it does not depend on the choice you make.

Indeed membership of the EU enhances the soverignty of member states in the sense that as members of the EU, acting together, they have far more influence over the forces that shape the modern world than they would if they each went their own way.

Would Italy or Greece be better equiped to deal with the migration crisis on their own without the EU? No, of course not. Will the UK be better off in the cold world of internationl trade by itself? No, not a chance.

Deleted User wrote: »

The United Kingdom is a historic construct of 4-countries-in-1, with a shared history, identity and politics and so forth

So is the EU, to about the same extent (except it's 28-in-1). You do realise that Scotland and Northern Ireland have different judicial systems to England, don't you? And the "shared history" is mainly one of an "English" royal family of continental European origin stomping all over the natives. And claiming "identity" as a unifying factor ... :pac: :pac: :pac:

In an earlier post, I gave you numerous examples of aspects of "English" identity that are directly drawn from continental European traditions, so you're going to have to come up with a stronger explanation of why the UKGB&NI under the thumb of a minority English government (c.f. recent imposition of laws in NI against the wishes of the elected "majority") demonstrates less pooled sovereignty than the EU, where member nations can object to the imposition of unwanted laws.

liamtech wrote: »

Explain that - lets address this specific point please -

I believe that the nation-state reserves the right to control its borders; both the quality and quantity of people entering the country.

With the EU, that concept is thrown out the window.

What we have is a system in which people can enter a country, search for work, and you have no control of the numbers of people that can come.

Many here, rightfully, ask, "what about non-EU migration over which the government has control?"

And I agree, government has been shambolic in controlling non-EU migration.

By controlling both, the nation-state can control the quantity of people that come but, more importantly, the quality of people that can come to fulfil a given economic need.

So whilst I am in favour of migration, as all successful modern economies need a great deal of "foreign inward investment" (for want of a better phrase), that decision should be in control of government and not as part of a supranational organization.

As the UK opts to Leave the European Union, it restores this ability to control the quality and quantity of people entering its country. That is valuable, and remains one of the key reasons why many people opted to Leave.

CelticRambler wrote: »

So is the EU, to about the same extent (except it's 28-in-1). You do realise that Scotland and Northern Ireland have different judicial systems to England, don't you? And the "shared history" is mainly one of an "English" royal family of continental European origin stomping all over the natives. And claiming "identity" as a unifying factor ... :pac: :pac: :pac:

Exactly true.

Which is why if Scotland opts to Leave that Union, we should respect it - which you agree with me on.

The difference is that you refuse to let the UK leave the European Union!

The inconsistency is astounding, even by your own example.

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is that you refuse to let the UK leave the European Union!

Singlehandedly? Ooh, can I list that as a super-power on my CV? :P

Alas, I am neither capable of refusing to let the UK leave, nor trying to. I just happen to think that it is an incredibly stupid idea, for which no-one - not one single person - can present a coherent justification other than "JUST BECAUSE!"

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is that you refuse to let the UK leave the European Union!

The inconsistency is astounding, even by your own example.

Who is refusing to let the UK leave? Only people in the UK have prevented the UK leaving, especially the leader of the Tory party who several times has asked the EU to allow the UK to stay for a little while longer. The EU has done nothing to prevent the UK leaving.

Deleted User wrote: »

I get very concerned when political power is concentrated - whether it's communism, fascism, or more benign forces, such as European Union.

OK hang on a moment Eskimohunt i have a genuine Question for you (not to say my other questions aren't genuine, but this one is more about your position on International Politics in general)

Are you a Defensive Neo-Realist? That is someone who argues that

International System is Anarchic in Nature?
Distrusts entirely the idea of International co-operation believing that states behave inherently selfishly
Mistrusts international agreements as having no real back bone?
Perhaps your position is closer to Classical Realism? State, Survival, and Self-Help?
Are you arguing FOR-BREXIT - or more akin to an AGAINST THE EU position, for the above reasons??

Are you familiar with said theories?

This is of interest to me because it will, for me, at least allow me to understand why you are advocating the way you are?

I believe that the nation-state reserves the right to control its borders; both the quality and quantity of people entering the country.

With the EU, that concept is thrown out the window.

What we have is a system in which people can enter a country, search for work, and you have no control of the numbers of people that can come.

Many here, rightfully, ask, "what about non-EU migration over which the government has control?"

And I agree, government has been shambolic in controlling non-EU migration.

By controlling both, the nation-state can control the quantity of people that come but, more importantly, the quality of people that can come to fulfil a given economic need.

So whilst I am in favour of migration, as all successful modern economies need a great deal of "foreign inward investment" (for want of a better phrase), that decision should be in control of government and not as part of a supranational organization.

As the UK opts to Leave the European Union, it restores this ability to control the quality and quantity of people entering its country. That is valuable, and
remains one of the key reasons why many people opted to Leave.

Nothing new in this thesis you said the same thing for 3 days - although you have omitted the idea of 'Dilution of State National Culture' - which is good - considering the link to the Far Right Anti Immigration crowd - more interested in your answer to my above questions?

CelticRambler wrote: »

Singlehandedly? Ooh, can I list that as a super-power on my CV? :P

Alas, I am neither capable of refusing to let the UK leave, nor trying to. I just happen to think that it is an incredibly stupid idea, for which no-one - not one single person - can present a coherent justification other than "JUST BECAUSE!"

Right, and many people think it's an "incredibly stupid" idea for Scotland to Leave the United Kingdom.

But if Scotland deserve the right to make that decision, we must respect the choice of its people.

The same is true of the UK leaving the European Union, however "stupid" the decision is lamented by some.

Deleted User wrote: »

Right, and many people think it's an "incredibly stupid" idea for Scotland to Leave the United Kingdom.

But if Scotland deserve the right to make that decision, we must respect the choice of its people.

The same is true of the UK leaving the European Union, however "stupid" the decision is lamented by some.

Ok, but who exactly is preventing the UK from leaving? The EU is certainly not.

liamtech wrote: »

Are you a Defensive Neo-Realist? That is someone who argues that

Are you familiar with said theories?

This is of interest to me because it will, for me, at least allow me to understand why you are advocating the way you are?

Nothing new in this thesis you said the same thing for 3 days - although you have omitted the idea of 'Dilution of State National Culture' - which is good - considering the link to the Far Right Anti Immigration crowd - more interested in your answer to my above questions?

Probably best not to get too deep into these political theories, but no, I'm against the concept of nation-states acting of their own volition. A certain degree of international cooperation is needed, indeed welcomed. But you can have both, they are not mutually exclusive.

New Zealand is an independent nation-state, but one who cooperates with the international community in a positive direction. But she is not involved in a supranational political organization with Australia and the Northern Mariana Islands with a currency, parliament, and Australasian Commission.

As for your reference re: "cultural dilution", you know - as well as I - that we have been recommended not to pursue that line of discussion, hence why it was omitted in my answer above.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Ok, but who exactly is preventing the UK from leaving? The EU is certainly not.

When I was responding to the earlier poster, I was pointing out his personal inconsistency with supporting Scotland becoming an independent nation-state versus his very different stance on the UK leaving a different union, the European Union. It was in that context I made that comment.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

The United Kingdom is a historic construct of 4-countries-in-1, with a shared history, identity and politics and so forth; and I firmly believe that more powers should be devolved to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The UK, in effect, acts as 1 country.

If one of those powers - such as Scotland - opts to Leave, I would be the first to respect that decision.

There are a couple of huge differences between how the UK is structured and how the EU is structured

1. The EU28 have a veto over the direction of the EU for a lot of things. The UK has no such thing, crystallised by the Brexit referendum where 2 out of the 4 constituient parts voted to stay in the EU but because the bigger part voted to leave, everyone leaves. This would not happen in the EU

2. There is a simple procedure for any member of the EU to leave, invoke article 50. The UK has no such procedure and is actively stopping one constitient part from pursuing a referendum to leave

Deleted User wrote: »

When I was responding to the earlier poster, I was pointing out his personal inconsistency with supporting Scotland becoming an independent nation-state versus his very different stance on the UK leaving a different union, the European Union. It was in that context I made that comment.

I don't see any inconsistancy in opposing membership of the UK but supporting membership of the EU. The UK was and in many ways remains a domination of the smaller nations by their larger neighbour. Any member state of the EU can leave whenever they want, unlike membership of the UK. Imagine if Camron had to ask Junker for permission to hold the Brexit referendum. Imagine the new Commission President telling the UK that a Brexit referendum was off the table for as long as she was in power.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There is a simple procedure for any member of the EU to leave, invoke article 50. The UK has no such procedure and is actively stopping one constitient part from pursuing a referendum to leave

In 2014, the Scottish people had their say; you portray this as if the UK has never offered Scotland its choice to Leave. If they did Leave (I supported it at the time), we would have to respect that choice. But they opted to Remain, so we must respect that too.

Personally, I believe another Scottish referendum should be held perhaps 3-5 years post Brexit.

Why?

For two reasons: first, to let Brexit settle in, so people understand the consequences fully and, second, to let the Scottish people have their say on whether they - in a post-Brexit world - want to remain part of the UK or wish to join the EU and the Euro and so forth.

As I said, the UK is almost a country in itself; and it must abide by its constitutional norms. We cannot have a situation in which one part of the UK unilaterally requests independence, in the same way we cannot have Catalonia doing the same.

If you have no constitutional norms, what's stopping Munster becoming an independent nation?

Separatism is a challenging constitutional subject.

eskimohunt wrote:

New Zealand is an independent nation-state, but one who cooperates with the international community in a positive direction. But she is not involved in a supranational political organization with Australia and the Northern Mariana Islands with a currency, parliament, and Australasian Commission.

What's your opinion of the Australia - New Zealand migration agreement?

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably best not to get too deep into these political theories, but no, I'm against the concept of nation-states acting of their own volition. A certain degree of international cooperation is needed, indeed welcomed. But you can have both, they are not mutually exclusive.

New Zealand is an independent nation-state, but one who cooperates with the international community in a positive direction. But she is not involved in a supranational political organization with Australia and the Northern Mariana Islands with a currency, parliament, and Australasian Commission.

As for your reference re: "cultural dilution", you know - as well as I - that we have been recommended not to pursue that line of discussion, hence why it was omitted in my answer above.

When I was responding to the earlier poster, I was pointing out his personal inconsistency with supporting Scotland becoming an independent nation-state versus his very different stance on the UK leaving a different union, the European Union. It was in that context I made that comment.

You ought consider familiarizing yourself with the tenets of Neo-Realism, and the family of Realist theories of International Relations - it would actually allow you to argue the points you are raising with far more legitimacy -

In any case the fundamental basis of your thesis on EU laws, is not liking them due to pride - therefore Pride leads to economic self harm

Your basic argument on Sovereignty, also falls flat due to the very fact that a state CAN LEAVE the EU if they wish - if it was as authoritarian as you make out, it would be impossible to leave

And the reason the UK has not left yet is

The referendum result is contested as to whether people knew what they wanted
The political parties in favor of Brexit do not agree on how to carry it out
The range of Brexit's range from Near Total Alignment (pointless) - to Ultra Harsh NO DEAL - (disastrous)