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

[chrisp65]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

maybe be it's like when people on here were quoting Rudd on something she didn't say , with the argument that although she didn't say it she must have briefed people privately otherwise they wouldn't have reported something that she didn't say ... and clearly she said it , even though she didn't 

This Rudd thing is something you’ve repeated quite a few times now.
Am I just falling for some Pablo’s dog thing? Or do you genuinely not get what happened with Rudd’s threat to name and shame companies that hired foreign types? She name checked the people in the hall that were working the media to explain explicitly to the journalists what Rudd meant.
Nobody has ‘quoted’ Rudd saying they would be around smashing the windows with jude written on them. She simply said Timothy and Francesca worked really hard on my speech and the meaning behind it and the means to deliver it. Meanwhile, Timothy and Francesca were working the room, briefing the press that what the speech really meant, was naming and shaming of companies refusing to hand over lists of foreign workers.
It could only have been clearer if she’d used a biro to give herself a little Chaplin moustache. 
Luckily, enough people pointed and laughed for her to realise it was all a bit Schindler’s List and she was able to have that inch of wriggle room to deny it ever meant reclaiming gold teeth.
I know it wasn’t Pablo’s dog.
 

[Wainy316]

4 hours ago, Awol said:

I have long believed the EU caused harm to the fabric of our democracy and now that cancer is going to be cut out.

The illusion of real choice between political parties that grew closer and closer in policy terms under EU membership can now be replaced with real choices.

 Whether you favour nationalization, industrial protection and real socialism, or a low tax, Singapore on steroids approach to the economy - or something else entirely - in a healthy democracy the electorate should have the choice to vote for a government that implements what they choose, free from outside interference.

Equally they should be able to sack every law maker in the land at election time and replace them with people they directly elect. That is the essence of democracy.

I totally reject the idea that we need a bunch of unelected arbiters in and from another country telling a sovereign people and parliament by fiat what is and is not permissible. 

I know both why I voted to leave and what benefits I think it will bring to the country. You are right that I don't know whether the overall economic impact will be positive, negative or broadly neutral over the long term, nor do the legions of economists who (falsely) claimed to know that before the referendum or the various talking heads in the media who still claim to.

So I do think there is something to celebrate, even though you don't. 

A lot of valid points, but it most certainly wasn't this line of thinking that swayed the vote.

[ml1dch]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Ah ,Ok I must have misread the thread , my bad 

But google world war 3 and you get links to Cameron so presumably Johnson is responding to something the newspapers are saying Cameron said , (which Cameron denied saying on the tv debate)

maybe be it's like when people on here were quoting Rudd on something she didn't say , with the argument that although she didn't say it she must have briefed people privately otherwise they wouldn't have reported something that she didn't say ... and clearly she said it , even though she didn't 

 

 

Token text from article  

It's odd. You've clearly clicked on the link, because you wouldn't have used it otherwise. You've managed to take some "token text" from it to include.

Yet for some reason you've chosen to quote a random bit of journalistic colour rather than Cameron's words, which form literally the first quote in the article. So yes, he was responding to something. Something in the article you've chosen:

"Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

"I would never be so rash to make that assumption."

So no suggestion of World War 3. Just the observation that the current "harmony" isn't a cast-iron guarantee

Something that the current "trade with us or we won't tell you what we know about terrorists" rhetoric is doing the best possible job to prove him right on.

Edited March 30, 2017 by ml1dch

[tonyh29]

41 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

It's odd. You've clearly clicked on the link, because you wouldn't have used it otherwise. You've managed to take some "token text" from it to include.

Yet for some reason you've chosen to quote a random bit of journalistic colour rather than Cameron's words, which form literally the first quote in the article. So yes, he was responding to something. Something in the article you've chosen:

"Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

"I would never be so rash to make that assumption."

So no suggestion of World War 3. Just the observation that the current "harmony" isn't a cast-iron guarantee

Something that the current "trade with us or we won't tell you what we know about terrorists" rhetoric is doing the best possible job to prove him right on.

i only quoted some random text to comply with rules so that's probably not helped ..

But , I think you are mis understanding what I was saying though ,the headline on that piece reads WW3 even though the article doesn't refer to it ...google returns lots of replies about Cameron saying it ... but you were kinda suggesting it was all in the mind of Boris  

Boris was speaking shortly after Cameron , it may be that he had just worked off the headline notes that media outlets were reporting ? It's hard to tell with Boris exactly ! I think he also sang Ode to Joy in German during that same speech ??

 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

This Rudd thing is something you’ve repeated quite a few times now.
Am I just falling for some Pablo’s dog thing? Or do you genuinely not get what happened with Rudd’s threat to name and shame companies that hired foreign types? She name checked the people in the hall that were working the media to explain explicitly to the journalists what Rudd meant.
Nobody has ‘quoted’ Rudd saying they would be around smashing the windows with jude written on them. She simply said Timothy and Francesca worked really hard on my speech and the meaning behind it and the means to deliver it. Meanwhile, Timothy and Francesca were working the room, briefing the press that what the speech really meant, was naming and shaming of companies refusing to hand over lists of foreign workers.
It could only have been clearer if she’d used a biro to give herself a little Chaplin moustache. 
Luckily, enough people pointed and laughed for her to realise it was all a bit Schindler’s List and she was able to have that inch of wriggle room to deny it ever meant reclaiming gold teeth.
I know it wasn’t Pablo’s dog.
 

Pavlov's dog ? Or am I missing the scentific research of a Columbian drug dealer and his dog ?

 

 

[blandy]

6 hours ago, Awol said:

I have long believed the EU caused harm to the fabric of our democracy and now that cancer is going to be cut out.

The illusion of real choice between political parties that grew closer and closer in policy terms under EU membership can now be replaced with real choices.

 Whether you favour nationalization, industrial protection and real socialism, or a low tax, Singapore on steroids approach to the economy - or something else entirely - in a healthy democracy the electorate should have the choice to vote for a government that implements what they choose, free from outside interference.

That's a fair viewpoint. Personally While the principle behind it is fine, I think that our democracy in the UK has effectively self harmed. I also think the consequences of that self harm caused many people who maybe don't keep up with the details (no, I don't mean you) to bale the EU for the damage resulting from the corruption of our democracy.

I don't see Corbyn Labour and UKIP/Tories as close - they're miles apart, though I carpet Blairite Labour and Tories and Libs were relatively closely aligned.

Our system is rigged. People's votes mostly don't count and are meaningless - that was one of the things with the referenda in Scotland and the EU one - people realised their votes would count for once (twice) and many more people became engaged, even if only cursorily.

There are major flaws with the way the EU is run, but honestly, I think the UK's version is as bad. I also think the path being pursued by the tories (who are by and large incompetent, in part because of the flaws of our system leaving them unopposed due also to Corbyn being a bell) is monumentally idiotic.

It's not going to end well.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

Pavlov's dog ? Or am I missing the scentific research of a Columbian drug dealer and his dog ?

yes it was Pavlov's, we just have an in joke about Pablo in the office, and there's nothing funnier than using an inny joke amongst outies

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

i only quoted some random text to comply with rules so that's probably not helped ..

But , I think you are mis understanding what I was saying though ,the headline on that piece reads WW3 even though the article doesn't refer to it ...google returns lots of replies about Cameron saying it ... but you were kinda suggesting it was all in the mind of Boris  

 

It was. Cameron makes a pretty innocuous and reasonable comment, Boris reacts with his typical gittish hyperbole (in my mind, with a snort and a guffaw for good measure), he's then created a handy "World War 3" sound bite and the slightly more gullible go away thinking that Cameron has said that the EU is the only thing preventing another World War.

And it feeds into the public consciousness to such an extent that even a gentleman as erudite and capable as yourself assumes that he MUST have said something along those lines. Because Googling Cameron and World War 3 brings up those Johnson quotes, so he HAS to have said SOMETHING like that. It's in the headline on Google after all.

It's basically a slightly more serious version of Bacuna's "Champions League" comments.

Edited March 30, 2017 by ml1dch

[snowychap]

Let's hope some of the more vociferous advocates of parliamentary sovereignty in the Commons seriously weigh in on the delegated powers part of the 'Great Repeal Bill'.

Quote

3.7

To overcome the challenge set out above, the Great Repeal Bill will provide a power to correct the statute book, where necessary, to rectify problems occurring as a consequence of leaving the EU. This will be done using secondary legislation...

I shan't hold my breath.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

The Commission is the body that drafts legislation and they are not subject to direct democratic accountability.

The UK Parliament has tried before to push back on EU legislation it felt was bad for the UK with zero positive outcomes. 

The EU is anti-democratic by design to prevent the public getting too close to the levers of power. Basically the Continental publics are not trusted to avoid electing fascists.

Like the Civil service, basically

The Uk Parliament has many times opted out of aspects we don't want to go along with - Shengen etc. While our veto has been reduced in scope, because of the enlargement we still have one in some areas. Ultimately the European Parliament (like ours) goes on majority vote for most legislation,

Yes, it could be more democratic, and some of the in camera negotiations on trade treaties etc. have been a disgrace in that regard - most recently TTIP. Our parliament does that too, mind.

The Commission has got too big for it's boots in some regards and everyone in the referendum and across Europe by and large recognises the arrangements and behaviour are flawed and need reform, and they may lack the courage to get a grip on it, yet for me, a lot of the more fervent leave people's claims about how we'll have freedom and so on now are completely, massively over the top. And particularly so given what we're going to lose, as individuals and as a nation.

 

[tonyh29]

42 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

It was. Cameron makes a pretty innocuous and reasonable comment, Boris reacts with his typical gittish hyperbole (in my mind, with a snort and a guffaw for good measure), he's then created a handy "World War 3" sound bite and the slightly more gullible go away thinking that Cameron has said that the EU is the only thing preventing another World War.

And it feeds into the public consciousness to such an extent that even a gentleman as erudite and capable as yourself assumes that he MUST have said something along those lines. Because Googling Cameron and World War 3 brings up those Johnson quotes, so he HAS to have said SOMETHING like that. It's in the headline on Google after all.

It's basically a slightly more serious version of Bacuna's "Champions League" comments.

Woo there , I never said Cameron said WW3 , I even said the headline refers to it but the content of the article doesn't 

like I said , I came in on the back end of a comment about Boris and world war 3 and was a bit confused ... and seem to have confused everyone even more now  

[ml1dch]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

Woo there , I never said Cameron said WW3 , I even said the headline refers to it but the content of the article doesn't 

like I said , I came in on the back end of a comment about Boris and world war 3 and was a bit confused ... and seem to have confused everyone even more now  

I don't think that anybody is in the least bit confused.

It's easy to read a headline and not bother looking beyond it. It's perfectly understandable.

[Enda]

9 hours ago, Awol said:

 Whether you favour nationalization, industrial protection and real socialism, or a low tax, Singapore on steroids approach to the economy - or something else entirely - in a healthy democracy the electorate should have the choice to vote for a government that implements what they choose, free from outside interference.

Two small but important points: first, industrial protection is prevented by international trade in general, not the EU. Look at China's below-cost selling of solar panels to try and get themselves a head-start in that market. There was war over that, and that dispute was settled by the WTO, so obviously had nothing to do with the EU. So ye can still run afoul of industrial protection laws even outside the EU. Second, contrary to popular belief, there's absolutely nothing stopping London from introducing e.g. a flat 10% tax on all income (personal or corporate) tomorrow. The EU has basically no say on the UK's tax rates.

[LondonLax]

9 hours ago, Awol said:

 

 Whether you favour nationalization, industrial protection and real socialism, or a low tax, Singapore on steroids approach to the economy - or something else entirely - in a healthy democracy the electorate should have the choice to vote for a government that implements what they choose, free from outside interference.

Equally they should be able to sack every law maker in the land at election time and replace them with people they directly elect. That is the essence of democracy.

 

How does an unelected house of review and an unelected head of state fit in to that? 

Presumably you must also favour a US style republic for the UK?

Edited March 30, 2017 by LondonLax

[StefanAVFC]

I'd like to see the Lords abolished and replaced with a 'senate' of sorts.

[Enda]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I'd like to see the Lords abolished and replaced with a 'senate' of sorts.

We've a Senate, and a President. Give it a few years and I'm sure you'll be welcome to apply to join the United Republic of Ireland and Great Britain.

We should be able to work a deal with the Germans to get you back into the EU as well.

[snowychap]

I find it bizarre that it's apparently almost a given that everyone should work together on 'security' and yet everything else (mainly economic stuff) should be up for give and take.

I wonder about the relative (both in risk and size) impact upon people's lives of the economics on the one hand and terrrrrrr/crime on the other. Crazy.

[Chindie]

Twitter and the FT seem to have noticed the draft EU guidelines have a nice Gibraltar shaped stumbling block... Anything relating to the rock requires bilateral agreement with Spain it seems.

I see trouble ahead. Completely predictable trouble, but still. Perhaps Spain will happily see the clause pulled from the draft document.

[darrenm]

8 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Twitter and the FT seem to have noticed the draft EU guidelines have a nice Gibraltar shaped stumbling block... Anything relating to the rock requires bilateral agreement with Spain it seems.

I see trouble ahead. Completely predictable trouble, but still. Perhaps Spain will happily see the clause pulled from the draft document.

Why did absolutely no-one see this coming? No-one!

[Straggler]

On 30/03/2017 at 12:23, Awol said:

I have long believed the EU caused harm to the fabric of our democracy and now that cancer is going to be cut out.

The illusion of real choice between political parties that grew closer and closer in policy terms under EU membership can now be replaced with real choices.

 Whether you favour nationalization, industrial protection and real socialism, or a low tax, Singapore on steroids approach to the economy - or something else entirely - in a healthy democracy the electorate should have the choice to vote for a government that implements what they choose, free from outside interference.

Equally they should be able to sack every law maker in the land at election time and replace them with people they directly elect. That is the essence of democracy.

I totally reject the idea that we need a bunch of unelected arbiters in and from another country telling a sovereign people and parliament by fiat what is and is not permissible. 

I know both why I voted to leave and what benefits I think it will bring to the country. You are right that I don't know whether the overall economic impact will be positive, negative or broadly neutral over the long term, nor do the legions of economists who (falsely) claimed to know that before the referendum or the various talking heads in the media who still claim to.

So I do think there is something to celebrate, even though you don't. 

I voted remain, but I could have been a leave voter if this was the debate that we had had before the vote.  I also have a problem with the lack of accountability that you detail in this argument.  It was a debate that I was actually looking forward to, as I knew that my understanding of these issues was limited and I was hoping to learn a great deal.  Sadly all I learned was that both the leave and the remain campaigns were full of shit and the only way I was going to be better informed was to do my own research.  I voted remain in the end because I thought by voting leave I would be handing power to a group of bigots that I find more objectionable than the option of remaining with the status quo.

At the moment I feel utterly justified in my conclusion.  That immigration has been put front and center at the expense of any other issue including logic suggests to me that sovereignty and accountability are at best byproducts of a pretty jingoistic process.  So yes I agree there are good reasons for leaving the EU, sadly I think the people responsible for taking us out do not have those good reasons at the front of their mind.  I also have major reservations in their ability to mange the whole process. 

My other main fear is that we are not taking control as an electorate in any substantive way by leaving. Yes we are moving away from Europe but the model we are apparently considering is consolidating power in the hands of big business and corporations.  As we have to rely more on attracting business by being a tax haven or having a more flexible workforce it hurts the people at the bottom and the middle more.  We have already seen the first hints of this as the finance industry and the car manufacturing industry are busy negotiating sweetheart deals with the government to mitigate the extra costs of being outside the EU.  It is the everyday tax payer who is funding these deals.  Granted I think there is already too much influence from business in politics at the expense of the people they are supposed to be representing, but I worry that Brexit is going to make this worse faster with the 'negotiating position' as it is at the moment.

In principle I can see why a true democracy would want to leave the EU.  In practice I cannot see any substantive way in which the process we are actively engaging in helps the average UK citizen.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Straggler
spelling