Jump to content


Photo

Brexit


  • Please log in to reply
5588 replies to this topic

#5581 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted Yesterday, 02:49 AM

The EU´s only mission is to grant no special favours to the UK and treat it like a 3rd country. Because if you would grant special favours, all other treaties with 3rd countries come into question. Apart from that the red lines of the UK, leave the EU no option any way.

 

That's not the case at all, there are all kinds of special accomodations for 3rd countries, but on the basis of a quid pro quo. The Brexiters want a one way street in which they get to make their rules. For obvious reasons, this is unacceptable.


  • 0

#5582 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted Yesterday, 06:32 AM

I guess in 100 years historians will use Brexit as a prime example of why direct democracy is a terrible idea (and which is why we rejected it pretty fast in the 1790s). 

 

I was reflecting this week how much the European non-conservative idea of "the (Majority) Will of the People Must be obeyed" has crept into the thinking of American conservatives, who used to say (in slightly incorrect terms) that the US is a republic, not a democracy, that the latter is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, and who thanked God for the electoral college that kept Hillary out of the White House despite winning the popular vote by the exact same margin as Leave in the Brexit referendum. I blame Steve Bannon and YouTube, personally.


  • 0

#5583 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,345 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted Yesterday, 06:59 AM

I guess in 100 years historians will use Brexit as a prime example of why direct democracy is a terrible idea (and which is why we rejected it pretty fast in the 1790s). 

 

Not historians, but propagandists to discredit direct democracy. But when you do not trust the people, you should not do democracy in the first place.

 

With the referendum were so many things done wrong. Remain and Brexit camps campaigned badly. Garbage in -> garbage out they say in science. Then it was promoted as a non-binding referendum, so an opinion poll, which may have dissuaded some voters because they just did not bother. Then Brits living abroad were excluded in the vote. The referendum came down from the government and was not started by the people. Cameron thought it was a smart gamble to improve his position in parliament and within the Tories believing it an easy win for him. Then referendums are held rarely in the UK, so people are simply not used to them. I may have forgotten some additonal points. So in the end it shows how not to do it in my opinion. Yes, the UK needs to sort out its relation with the rest of Europe, but for three years they still haven't gotten anywhere close to a consensus what a future relation may look like. 


  • 0

#5584 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted Yesterday, 07:35 AM

Ive always been fascinating by the Rousseau idea of the people being forced to be free. I dont claim to fully understand it, but that you in effect offering authoritarianism to force people be democratic is an interesting idea.

 

Where I think the new Democrats are coming from is that democracy comes directly from the people and they are always right. Which is getting back to the concept of natural freedom, and to my mind is fairly nonsensical unless you are living by yourself on a desert island somewhere. Its certainly alien to British politics, which since the Napoleonic era have always regarded the population as a potential threat to stability, and hence need to be carefully managed. Which makes no sense to Americans, but if you were living next door to Bonapartists, perhaps it would.

 

Referendums are not a solution to this problem, because they are always created by politicians with their own agenda to push. If the people somehow have the right to create their own agenda they can force through, that is a different matter, but practically you are leaving yourself open to every kind of tinpot tyranny society can up with. Execution for double parking, exile for being Conservative, that kind of thing. Of course Technology at least can made this possible. Im reminded of the movie 'The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer' which demonstrates this process taken to its naturally insane limit. :D

 

 

 

I dont know what it was about Peter Cook, but he was one hell of a prescient political observer. :D


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, Yesterday, 07:35 AM.

  • 0

#5585 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,846 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted Yesterday, 10:21 AM

Alright, because you insist on using embed and it rapidly makes posts wholly unreadable, Ill lay it out like this.


It's really quite easy. Change to text mode. Type in your quote bits. It's like grade school level HTML encoding.  

1 Its different in that its not written down. Its different in that the law is not the lead point for the honoring the consitution and in fact try to stay out of political matters. We actually intended to have the system YOU have, but it never was adopted for various reasons. Your founding fathers adopted it, and frankly, I think we should too. Although that would mean codifying a constitution by writing it down. All that said, just because we write it down, doesn't make it any less real. Except to Tory spin doctors anyway.


What other laws in the UK are spoken, not written down and are 'just as real'?
 

2 Such as? This is the ONLY time I can recall a British court ruling on a constitutional matter. Its never brought to them because, by and large, everyone respects the rules.


What was this?
https://www.bbc.com/...litics-38720320

I'll bet you there are other such cases going back. Perhaps a survey of your Supreme Court's case docket would be in order for you?

3  Proroguing doesnt force an election, because if it did, then it would have been unnecessary for Boris Johnson to push a bill to end the fix term parliament to get an election. This is NOT the same thing.


So what is it?  

4 You prorogue parliament to end a session, so there is a new queens speech and they move onto another session (DB can correct me here, but this is my basic understanding). Its is NOT the case you exacerabte the period of time its prorogued for the purpose of stiffling debate. This may only be a week and a half, but in the perishingly short time till October 31, its actually a lot of debate time.


From what I've seen of British Pundits who've looked at this more than you have, it would not have been the longest instance of a prorogue duration.  

5 Doesnt matter what I like. Bojo has been in office for something like 6 weeks now, and there has been NO proposals on how to leave the EU.


You have two. The one your previous PM negotiated and no-deal. I think you want something else right? I'm pretty sure that's what I've seen. So, you have to threaten the EU with a no-deal in order to get something other than the bag of non-magic beans that May negotiated.


I keep hearing about how the remainers have been causing all the problems, but the problem is, the casting vote in the conservative party was remainers voting against the deal.


Do you WANT May's deal? Because it' doesn't result in a proper exit and the UK loses sovereignty to the EU. STILL. It's worse than staying in.
  • 0

#5586 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,846 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted Yesterday, 10:22 AM

More Stuart..:

This is something you dont seem to understand. Its these hardline brexiters that are now holding the country to randsom to have a hard deal, even though nobody has asked for it, nobody has voted for it, and even the Conservative manifesto does not embrace it.


It's haggling. Do I seriously need to cite that scene from the Life of Brian again?


6 Its not a gentleman's agreement. Its a constitution. Just because its not written down like yours, doesnt make it any less valid.


If it's valid, then please cite the text of the rule.

How does contract law work in the UK? If you make a verbal contract and the party thinks it was different and you go to court, what happens?


If we suddenly say precedent has no role, then we can essentially unlock all the monarchs powers and just take the entire hardline Brexit team down to the tower. Would they argue that was unconstitutional? You bet your life they would.


If precedent has a role, then new precedent also has a role.  


 

7  Ok, so you have far greater knowledge of your constitution than I have, Ive no reason to argue this point.


There's part of your problem.  


9  Examples would be helpful here. Im trying to illuminate Ryan, not obfuscate. If you arent reading my explanations there isnt very much I can do here.


Want to illuminate, cite some examples. Cite some law.  

Westminsters bubble narrative? If you say im in favour of democracy and the eradication of tyranny, then yes I am. I gather you Americans have a few issues with unrestricted power of politicians, or is this not the case anymore?


Remember that bit about tension of different segments of government in opposition to each other? Ours was built as a mk2 version of what you have with the intention of avoiding things like Cavaliers and Roundheads having to kill each other and/or your head of state over issues of legal differences.
  • 0

#5587 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,065 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted Yesterday, 10:54 AM

 

I guess in 100 years historians will use Brexit as a prime example of why direct democracy is a terrible idea (and which is why we rejected it pretty fast in the 1790s). 

 

Not historians, but propagandists to discredit direct democracy. But when you do not trust the people, you should not do democracy in the first place.

 

 

The people en mass are not worthy of trust.  They do stupid things routinely and there is no accountability.  If I vote for a stupid law that I know as stupid, I may have to live with my stupidity but I will be able to continue to vote for stupid laws.  If my congressman does the same there is at least the chance that he will piss off enough people that he won't be reelected next year and thus lose his power to vote for stupid laws.


  • 0

#5588 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted Yesterday, 02:11 PM

I guess in 100 years historians will use Brexit as a prime example of why direct democracy is a terrible idea (and which is why we rejected it pretty fast in the 1790s).

 
Not historians, but propagandists to discredit direct democracy. But when you do not trust the people, you should not do democracy in the first place.
The people en mass are not worthy of trust.  They do stupid things routinely and there is no accountability.  If I vote for a stupid law that I know as stupid, I may have to live with my stupidity but I will be able to continue to vote for stupid laws.  If my congressman does the same there is at least the chance that he will piss off enough people that he won't be reelected next year and thus lose his power to vote for stupid laws.

Exactly. We can guard against the stupidity of politicians. It's impossible to guard against the stupidity of the electorate. Which is why their opinion every 4 or 5 years is more than enough.
  • 0

#5589 Mistral

Mistral

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cyprus
  • Interests:Military history, computer wargames.

Posted Yesterday, 04:11 PM

Like I said, I would love to see a referendum in the US on reducing the US military budget to 100 mil a year and spending the rest on Social Programs!

I can just see the red double decker busses with the slogan “millions per week for single mothers”.

Can you imagine the reaction here?
  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users