Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

Just now, Awol said:

No interest in talking to you until you can manage a little civility, Stefan. Cheerio. 

Interesting how you bow out without answering my question about a mandate for No Deal.

Especially considering what you quoted isn't uncivil in the slightest.

But no problems. Have fun playing with your unicorns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

So it's stubborn ideology over realism?

I think that the strongest pro Brexit argument is that of independence and principle of self governing.

I am not for or against it (at least in this debate ;) ) but the problem that the 'remain camp' have failed to address is the above independence argument.

Some people would prefer if their country was 10 times poorer, only if it meant that they can have a greater say. 

Banging on about how horrible the world is going to be post brexit really isn't hitting the right notes with the 'leave' camp because that is not the primary basis of their argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

I’ve wanted to leave the EU since the Lisbon Treaty and debated it endlessly on here long before Brexit was a thing. It’s a shame people like you can’t accept others have reasoned themselves into holding the opposite view to you without being duped. 

Still, at least you only called me stupid, not a fascist. That’s progress. 

said many times, my opinion on the EU is exactly the same as it was when I voted to leave 

my opinion on the ability of our own government however...they are utterly incapable of negotiating it, they're utter utter morons hell bent on furthering their own careers and no doubt making a bit of money on the side, its shambolic and embarrassing 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Awol said:

Recent history of prorogation:

2016 - 15th Sept to 10th Oct

2017 - 14th Sept to 9th Oct

2018 - 13th Sept to 9th Oct

2019 - 9th Sept to 14th Oct - IT’S A COUP!

As per the Commons library briefing paper (pdf available via the link to the report on this page) :

Quote

Box 2: Length of the “period of prorogation”
The period between prorogation and either a new session or dissolution is typically short in modern
times. This reflects the formality and uncontroversial nature of when and why the relevant sessions have
been brought to an end.

Year      “Period” of prorogation                Notes

2017          6 days                                     Parliament dissolved

2016          5 days                                     New session

2015          3 days                                     Parliament dissolved

2014          20 days                                   New session. Prorogation overlapped with European Parliamentary elections and (de facto) Whitsun recess.

2013          12 days                                    New session

2012           7 days                                    New session

2010           3 days                                    Parliament dissolved

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:


I am not for or against it (at least in this debate ;) ) but the problem that the 'remain camp' have failed to address is the above independence argument.
 

I'm not sure that's true. The government's own white paper stated we never lost sovereignty, we actually could send EU citizens back if they didn't have means of supporting themselves etc.

You can't fight feelings, even with facts. Not now. We're too far gone. If people 'feel' we aren't independent, then nothing anybody says will change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I'm not sure that's true. The government's own white paper stated we never lost sovereignty, we actually could send EU citizens back if they didn't have means of supporting themselves etc.

You can't fight feelings, even with facts. Not now. We're too far gone. If people 'feel' we aren't independent, then nothing anybody says will change that.

For some people, the bottom line is that;

A) EU legislation is supreme over our own British law
b) Britain is a contributor, and pays in more than it receives. Arguments such as 'why should we support money wasting Spain/Greece' are born out of this.

And I feel like these are arguments that the remain camp has no good answers for, at least in the eyes of the leave camp. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mic09 said:

A) EU legislation is supreme over our own British law
 

Then they're asked 'name one EU law you don't like' and they don't have an answer.

Just now, Mic09 said:


b) Britain is a contributor, and pays in more than it receives. Arguments such as 'why should we support money wasting Spain/Greece' are born out of this.
 

Why should anyone pay tax to support people they will never meet? That attitude never ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Then they're asked 'name one EU law you don't like' and they don't have an answer.

Most people regardless of whether they are remain or leave couldn't name a single EU law. Yet everyone has an opinion that they are willing to argue about. Hey Ho Democracy.
 

Quote

Why should anyone pay tax to support people they will never meet? That attitude never ends.

Maybe. But if the wide, general left (i.e. Labour) argue about putting more money into the NHS, then paying into an airport in Spain (that no one ever uses and it eventually goes bust) does become problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

For some people, the bottom line is that;

A) EU legislation is supreme over our own British law
b) Britain is a contributor, and pays in more than it receives. Arguments such as 'why should we support money wasting Spain/Greece' are born out of this.

And I feel like these are arguments that the remain camp has no good answers for, at least in the eyes of the leave camp. 

I would add that for me personally they don't apply a common sense approach to all parts of the EU, heating allowance for pensioners living in spain etc

the EU at times is too big an animal in that regard with seemingly very little flexibility on their core ideals, there is too much disparity between the member nations and balancing it is too slow (the irony being migration of say polish to Britain is having a positive effect on that balance)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Then they're asked 'name one EU law you don't like' and they don't have an answer.

It's a strange one.  It's not about specific laws and being constrained in objectionable ways, but about the general idea that we should be subject to any laws made by people other than our own representatives.

Yet the same strength of objection doesn't seem to emerge in respect of things like the power of multinationals to influence some laws and evade others, or the proposals in TTIP to allow foreign companies to sue our government for "lost" profits arising out of legislation we pass, even though the loss of control in those cases is to unprepresentative bodies in which we play no part.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

For some people, the bottom line is that;

A) EU legislation is supreme over our own British law
b) Britain is a contributor, and pays in more than it receives. Arguments such as 'why should we support money wasting Spain/Greece' are born out of this.

And I feel like these are arguments that the remain camp has no good answers for, at least in the eyes of the leave camp. 

The UK is a net contributor to the tune of around £9bn yes, but the value of trade (exports) in a given year is around £270bn-£280bn. This trade value will be smaller when we're out of the 'club' as we will lose that seamless trade mechanism, there will be tariffs and a ridiculous and costly bureaucracy associated with it organising new trade agreements. So the drop in trade will likely annihilate the 'savings' made from being out of the EU. It makes no sense to enforce unfavourable trading terms with one of your very biggest trading partners at the end of day. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

I would add that for me personally they don't apply a common sense approach to all parts of the EU, heating allowance for pensioners living in spain etc

the EU at times is too big an animal in that regard with seemingly very little flexibility on their core ideals, there is too much disparity between the member nations and balancing it is too slow (the irony being migration of say polish to Britain is having a positive effect on that balance)

And this should be the core of the debate.

Unfortunately, too often it's : "you want to leave, your are racist" or "you want to let the Germans to rule our country."

It's not healthy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

 

Unfortunately, too often it's : "you want to leave, your are racist" or "you want to let the Germans to rule our country."

MAYBE, 3 years ago this is a fair reflection.

Now, it's 'you don't want No Deal then you're against the will of the people'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

The UK is a net contributor to the tune of around £9bn yes, but the value of trade (exports) in a given year is around £270bn-£280bn. This trade value will be smaller when we're out of the 'club' as we will lose that seamless trade mechanism, there will be tariffs and a ridiculous and costly bureaucracy associated with it organising new trade agreements. So the drop in trade will likely annihilate the 'savings' made from being out of the EU. It makes no sense to enforce unfavourable trading terms with one of your very biggest trading partners at the end of day. 

This.

We don't pay into the EU altruistically. We're doing it get a return. We aren't doing it out of the goodness of our hearts.

Which is why looking at the direct cost to return directly from the EU is **** stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

The UK is a net contributor to the tune of around £9bn yes, but the value of trade (exports) in a given year is around £270bn-£280bn. This trade value will be smaller when we're out of the 'club' as we will lose that seamless trade mechanism, there will be tariffs and a ridiculous and costly bureaucracy associated with it organising new trade agreements. So the drop in trade will likely annihilate the 'savings' made from being out of the EU. It makes no sense to enforce unfavourable trading terms with one of your very biggest trading partners at the end of day. 

And this is another issue.

There has been so much scaremongering on both sides of the debate that a 'likely' outcome is often seen as another scare doomsday tactic.

Likely, you are correct.

But a brexiteer might say that likely we can set up better deals with who we wish and that will improve our situations.

We are dealing with a hypothetical, and that is unlikely to convince anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mic09 said:

And this is another issue.

There has been so much scaremongering on both sides of the debate that a 'likely' outcome is often seen as another scare doomsday tactic.

Likely, you are correct.

But a brexiteer might say that likely we can set up better deals with who we wish and that will improve our situations.

We are dealing with a hypothetical, and that is unlikely to convince anyone. 

It is guaranteed that increasing barriers to trade with our closest and biggest trading partners will not increase trade. We are not talking about *likely* scenarios here. Whether it is a good idea or not is a somewhat separate question, but making something much more difficult is not going to lead to more of it happening. 

To be clear, it will be true that even in a 'No Deal' scenario, eventually the amount that we export will be larger than it is today. This is because trade volumes generally increase over time. However, it is unlikely to ever be larger than the counterfactual amount of trade if we hadn't left the EU. Which might be perfectly okay, for many people; people are allowed to prioritise other things than trade. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

And this is another issue.

There has been so much scaremongering on both sides of the debate that a 'likely' outcome is often seen as another scare doomsday tactic.

Likely, you are correct.

But a brexiteer might say that likely we can set up better deals with who we wish and that will improve our situations.

We are dealing with a hypothetical, and that is unlikely to convince anyone. 

It's not scaremongering it's economics 101 and basic logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dr_Pangloss said:

It's not scaremongering it's economics 101 and basic logic.

I didn't say it's scaremongering.

I said that ''There has been so much scaremongering on both sides of the debate that a 'likely' outcome is often seen as another scare doomsday tactic''.

When you read about people not having pens or paper to work on in the office or that Brits will not be able to go to holiday in EU, and we are bombarded with an avalanche or retweeted crap, logic often fails.


So while I think you are correct, and it is economics 101, a ''click bait'' average voter will disagree, just because someone tweeted some bullshit on some pointless social media and Pierce Morgan/Rihanna/latest Love Island celebrity retweeted it.

Again, hey ho democracy. 

I always said that any general elections or referendums should be held over a 1 hour period, preferably on a Saturday evening during a Big Brother final. I think the country would be much better off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â