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

[snowychap]

30 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

I literally haven't got a clue what your position is on anything...apart from 'op'position. 

What utter crap.

30 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Some conversations are just too difficult.

When I am talking about the process of leaving the EU and the process of transposition of EU law in to UK law (and the associated issues with those processes) and what you want to talk about is the 'nitty gritty' of construction regulations, they're not difficult: they're impossible and futile.

Edited June 18, 2017 by snowychap

[magnkarl]

What this debate is still showing me is that a lot of postmodernists and remainers in our country still didn't get the hint. People are tired of not being allowed to speak their mind without being called a bigot and having their points of views called "utter crap" without any substantial view to back these insults up. You wonder why Joe Bloggs from Sunderland voted to leave? He's been told over a period of about 10 years that his views are racist, he's a bigot and that he should be ashamed for wanting stricter border control. 

In effect postmodernists, as well as the eurocrats who are incredibly ungrateful and unable to reform, have caused this problem themselves. If they would engage in debate without throwing out insults and being opposed to the system that allowed them to flourish as people and a discipline of thought they would probably not face so much opposition to their legislation. Instead you have people who still keep trying to belittle people for airing their point of view. Democracy isn't being laughed at for trying to advocate your point of view, but sadly that falls on so many deaf ears these days.

It's easy to be opposed to everything, it's a lot harder to actually contribute positively to change. 

Edited June 18, 2017 by magnkarl

[HanoiVillan]

51 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

What this debate is still showing me is that a lot of postmodernists and remainers in our country still didn't get the hint. People are tired of not being allowed to speak their mind without being called a bigot and having their points of views called "utter crap" without any substantial view to back these insults up. You wonder why Joe Bloggs from Sunderland voted to leave? He's been told over a period of about 10 years that his views are racist, he's a bigot and that he should be ashamed for wanting stricter border control. 

In effect postmodernists, as well as the eurocrats who are incredibly ungrateful and unable to reform, have caused this problem themselves. If they would engage in debate without throwing out insults and being opposed to the system that allowed them to flourish as people and a discipline of thought they would probably not face so much opposition to their legislation. Instead you have people who still keep trying to belittle people for airing their point of view. Democracy isn't being laughed at for trying to advocate your point of view, but sadly that falls on so many deaf ears these days.

It's easy to be opposed to everything, it's a lot harder to actually contribute positively to change. 

'Postmodernists'?

[Xann]

26 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

'Postmodernists'?

They hang in galleries mostly.

[magnkarl]

58 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

'Postmodernists'?

Without me going into a two hour essay on what post modernism in politics is - here's some people explaining it in a much simpler way than I could.

Most people are postmodernists in some shape or form, but you'll notice the ones that are most loud, most destructive to debate and openness and will slap you down with insults rather than debate because to them everything in society and human nature is created by our social structures. The most radical elements of our universities are generally in this category.

Founding principles of our democracies like free speech, free thought, debate, openness and so forth generally come at odds with people like this. Scroll back in this thread and you'll see what I mean. These people are probably not even aware that they are postmodernist in nature.

In the EU debate one can explain it like this. Postmodernists will scream and shout at you for trying to go back to, or argue for the founding principles of our British union, which have strong borders and national identity in it. The whole structure that we had in Europe pre EU goes against postmodernism because borders are, according to them, a social construct that holds people apart. They'll tell you the same thing about gender, evil vs good, human aspirations and so on. It's a way to be upset about logic thinking and the realism that we had from about 1900-1970. 

If you'd like to go deeper in to the subject you can read Pauline Rosenau (pro modernist) or look up Prof. Jordan Peterson (critique), who has become one of the shining knights of free speech at universities in America/Canada. He's got a lot of lectures on youtube worth looking at.

Edited June 18, 2017 by magnkarl

[snowychap]

52 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

'Postmodernists'?

The Cornish.

[magnkarl]

21 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's quite frightening that you can actually post stuff like this without understanding just what nonsense it is.

Immensely ironic considering your use of the term 'postmodernists' for unnamed posters in this thread.

Yes, political science and theory is nonsense. I'm not sure if you quite understand what irony is but you've just stepped in it badly. Someone asked me to clarify a term and I did. I know how to back up my opinions without just harping on about spelling mistakes, people's personal views and other things. I'd be interested in hearing what you think about something that isn't just opposition to whatever anyone says.

You claim that you can't be bothered to debate someone when they speak about actual issues concerning leaving the EU and the construction business/SME's, yet you jump on the next possible chance at trying to silence someone with a view different to yours. I've ignored your posts now because I actually like the flow of debate from all sides of the spectrum, we have mods to moderate us, we don't need you doing it as well. Good day sir.

Edited June 18, 2017 by magnkarl

[bickster]

Am I reading this right, the week a block of flats goes up in flames killing many someone wants LESS burdensome regulation in the building trade. Sorry, deal with it or get s new job

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Without me going into a two hour essay on what post modernism in politics is - here's some people explaining it in a much simpler way than I could.

 

In the EU debate one can explain it like this. Postmodernists will scream and shout at you for trying to go back to, or argue for the founding principles of our British union, which have strong borders and national identity in it. The whole structure that we had in Europe pre EU goes against postmodernism because borders are, according to them, a social construct that holds people apart. They'll tell you the same thing about gender, evil vs good, human aspirations and so on. It's a way to be upset about logic thinking and the realism that we had from about 1900-1970. 

 

I think the problem I have with attempting to debate with you, is the sheer quantity of random scatter gun 'rubbish'.

Evil vs good is a social construct holding people apart? The offensive stuff from yesterday about getting the poor removed from Kensington? tripe about 90's people worked harder than the next generation?

It's not that I'm a post modernist construct. it's just that I can't cope with the daily stream of randomness.

Even your assertion that there were strong British Union borders and principles and national identity between 1900 to 1970. I'll leave you to work out how bizarre that idea is for yourself.

It's my hope, you are simply trolling.

[magnkarl]

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

Am I reading this right, the week a block of flats goes up in flames killing many someone wants LESS burdensome regulation in the building trade. Sorry, deal with it or get s new job

It does sound a bit far-fetched when you put it like that but I think the original sentiments posted here was about all the red tape concerning permits and details that don't jeopardize safety in any way. In our current EU regulated system only the largest building associations and developers are able to build because the smaller guys can't keep up with all the legislation. There are ways to ease those troubles without affecting safety laws. Smaller builders, who build just as well and safely as the bigger guys, simply can't afford to keep doing their job.

Edited June 18, 2017 by magnkarl

[a m ole]

@magnkarl I don't know how many times it has to be said but challenging someone's free speech isn't the same as silencing it. Constantly complaining about not being engaged in a debate and being silenced because the response is contradictory to your view is equally damaging to the debate.

People also have the free speech to call bollocks on something if they believe it to be so.

Edited June 18, 2017 by a m ole

[magnkarl]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Evil vs good is a social construct holding people apart? The offensive stuff from yesterday about getting the poor removed from Kensington? tripe about 90's people worked harder than the next generation?

Evil vs. good is a big debate within postmodernism - it is not my opinion. No idea why you're projecting that on me. Please show me where I said that we should remove poor people from Kensington, because that is the biggest reach I've heard in my life. You, amongst others, started talking about seizing property from people, turning the debate political in nature. I also didn't claim that all '90's people worked harder than the next generation'. I simply said that in my kid's circles there aren't the same urgency to get on the ladder - wherever that may be - as when I was young. I think you've made a boogeyman out of my opinions and turned them into something they're not.

[magnkarl]

4 minutes ago, a m ole said:

@magnkarl I don't know how many times it has to be said but challenging someone's free speech isn't the same as silencing it. Constantly complaining about not being engaged in a debate and being silenced because the response is contradictory to your view is equally damaging to the debate.

People also have the free speech to call bollocks on something if they believe it to be so.

Yep, which is fair enough. Saying "bollocks" as a reply with no backup to the claim is however not conducive to the debate.

[snowychap]

Just now, magnkarl said:

Yes, political science and theory is nonsense.

That's not what I said. I said what you posted was nonsense.

The political science and theory may well be fine though I think it's important to consider each argument on its own (a discussion on borders, for example, may well take a very different path to one on gender).

However, your application of this 'science and theory' to things in this debate and in this thread was nonsense.

12 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I'd be interested in hearing what you think about something

On topic and on the subject of openness (apparently at odds with the unnamed posters whom you've labelled postmodern in nature and the group to which it's obvious that you're implying I belong), I think that all EU regulations and laws that are current and directly applicable are transposed in to UK law via a single act, and thereafter primary legislation is used to make any changes not secondary legislation. This would obviously mean that the process takes longer and is more difficult but it would make the process more open, more accountable and return more power to parliament (away from the executive).

All of that was implicit in my criticism of the process (the SI part of it) as per the white paper.

[snowychap]

40 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

You claim that you can't be bothered to debate someone when they speak about actual issues concerning leaving the EU and the construction business/SME's, yet you jump on the next possible chance at trying to silence someone with a view different to yours.

I couldn't be bothered to keep on responding to attempts to draw me in to a debate around contruction regulations and which ones are good or not or burdensome or not when we're in a thread on the EU especially as the point that I picked up on from the other poster's initial comments was about the considerations likely to be highlighted in 'Great Repeal Bill' meetings.

[snowychap]

On 17/06/2017 at 10:50, snowychap said:

...the rider that the process for 'The Great Repeal Bill' may not be quite as suggested before the election because of the result and the precariousness of the government position...

Something related to this from Mark Elliot:

Quote

...the relationship between the legislative and executive branches is inevitably thrown into unusually sharp relief by a hung Parliament. Most obviously, this will make the government especially sensitive — and vulnerable — to legislators’ views. However, that there is a minority government in this Parliament is particularly noteworthy given that the former will be asking the latter to enact the “Great Repeal Bill”, which will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 whilst paving the way for the retention or domestication of much current EU law. The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently observed that that Bill is likely to effect a “massive transfer of legislative competence” from Parliament to government, thereby raising acutely important questions about both the constitutional appropriateness of such a reallocation of authority and the adequacy of parliamentary oversight structures contained in the Bill. It may well be that the unexpected parliamentary arithmetic bequeathed by the general election will permit Parliament itself to exert a more muscular role in this area, including by insisting that the Bill contains suitable constitutional safeguards. The “Great Repeal Bill”, in turn, might be less likely to serve as a Trojan mechanism for executive-instigated policy-making with little reference to Parliament.

Constitutional volatility may well have political implications. But it does not follow that political storms need, or should, render a constitutional system unstable. Nor does it follow that political turmoil is a signifier of constitutional shortcomings. Indeed, one of the central purposes of a constitution is to enable the political process to be conducted — warts and all — in a manner that is constitutionally orderly, even if it is, as it sometimes inevitably is, politically chaotic. The system of constitutional checks and balances that are presently operating in the USA, to the evident chagrin of President Trump, is a case in point. Indeed, if contemporary events in the USA have a lesson to teach in respect of the UK’s current predicament, it is that a constitution can quite properly operate not so as to smooth the government’s way, but to discomfit politicians or institutions by insisting upon adequate scrutiny and by safeguarding relevant constitutional standards.

One of the hallmarks of the UK constitution is the degree of control that can often be exerted by the UK government, given that — in normal circumstances — it pulls the levers in a sovereign Parliament. But we find ourselves today in far from normal circumstances. Indeed, it might be argued that, in some respects, a new constitutional normal is beginning to emerge. Hegemonic single-party governments with large majorities have been rare of late, while the counterbalancing effect of devolved governance is an increasingly embedded part of our constitutional architecture. The conditions are thus ripe for relevant constitutional institutions to exert appropriate control and influence, most obviously in relation to Brexit — and in particular, at least in the first instance, in relation to the “Great Repeal Bill”. If the effect of such constitutional assertiveness is something other than strong and stable government, then so be it. Constitutional government and political tumult may, in some circumstances, be necessary, if uneasy, bedfellows.

more on link

 

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

It does sound a bit far-fetched when you put it like that but I think the original sentiments posted here was about all the red tape concerning permits and details that don't jeopardize safety in any way. In our current EU regulated system only the largest building associations and developers are able to build because the smaller guys can't keep up with all the legislation. There are ways to ease those troubles without affecting safety laws. Smaller builders, who build just as well and safely as the bigger guys, simply can't afford to keep doing their job.

We're currently working with three different small builders and self builders, having just finished working with three others. We constantly have enquiries from small builders and developers - I just absolutely do not recognise your assertion that EU red tape has stopped competent smaller builders from building.

What is all this legislation they can't keep up with? Could you list out the stuff from just the last 12 months, or even just the big ticket items - just in case I've missed some. I'd appreciate it.

 

 

 

 

[bickster]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

It does sound a bit far-fetched when you put it like that but I think the original sentiments posted here was about all the red tape concerning permits and details that don't jeopardize safety in any way. In our current EU regulated system only the largest building associations and developers are able to build because the smaller guys can't keep up with all the legislation. There are ways to ease those troubles without affecting safety laws. Smaller builders, who build just as well and safely as the bigger guys, simply can't afford to keep doing their job.

Sorry, this from my own empirical evidence is utter tosh. I can think of three local builders in the village here that are buying land and building houses. I can go all over Europe and see small independent builders building houses

So from what I've read here, you know some builders who are a bit dim and a bit too tight fisted to employ an experienced project manager to oversee the legislation

Let's leave Europe because some people are a bit dim... oh hell that's already happened

 

Won't be much need for homes when we leave the EC anyway, there'll be no hard working European labour coming here to need new homes to rent and the rest will leave giving us plenty of empty properties to fill.

 

[ChrisVillan]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

Sorry, this from my own empirical evidence is utter tosh. I can think of three local builders in the village here that are buying land and building houses. I can go all over Europe and see small independent builders building houses

So from what I've read here, you know some builders who are a bit dim and a bit too tight fisted to employ an experienced project manager to oversee the legislation

Let's leave Europe because some people are a bit dim... oh hell that's already happened

 

Won't be much need for homes when we leave the EC anyway, there'll be no hard working European labour coming here to need new homes to rent and the rest will leave giving us plenty of empty properties to fill.

 

POSTMODERNIST!

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

4 hours ago, snowychap said:

When I am talking about the process of leaving the EU and the process of transposition of EU law in to UK law (and the associated issues with those processes) and what you want to talk about is the 'nitty gritty' of construction regulations, they're not difficult: they're impossible and futile.

Finally get you now. And yes I worry about how things will be transposed but I don't think that means ignoring the regulatory debate that will strengthen our hand in negotiations and inform politicians about what they've been doing wrong. I still don't see what that has to do with 99% of lobbyists.

And it's not just construction, it's anything. I just focused on construction because if you asked a question I could most likely answer it. I'd be happy to talk about CE markings, fishing, farming, renewable energy, milk production or anything if I can learn something. The Great Repeal Act meetings are as much about keeping legislation as they are about removing them.