Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Resurrection posted:

, I, for one, am not going to give any of you a solitary inch in your manouevres to get us back into Juncker's Kleptocracy. Why should I?

 

there you go again, talking as if people suggest “getting back in” - I think you’re the only one on here that has even mentioned that as something people might seek. And anyway , would it be up to you?

As for a confirmatory referendum, you've said many times something to the effect that you won’t give in to calls for one. Somehow I doubt your view will have any influence on a decision on that, so as you won’t accept that the original referendum was at all flawed or that people voted to give government a shake up, not expecting or wanting that to carry the vote even though it is known for a fact, there is no point carrying on the conversation.

Enjoy your closeted hard right anti-EU anti-immigration isolationist views, but don’t expect good to come of them. I am sure you will exercise your right to el freedom of speech and spout them forth again.

Cheers

When we do leave, and I fear it is a when, I can't see the UK ever going back.  Regardless of the fate of the UK, and I think our economy will suffer for many years, there probably will be some soul-searching among the senior political leaders within the EU as to how the EU could lose a 'premier league' member. I suspect some reform will take place, possibility an inner and outer circle, the former to appease those member states that really want closer integration and political union, even tax rate harmonisation. The outer circle will be for members states that are happy to enjoy the benefits of the EU 'as is' and want to go no further.  The tragedy will be that with the right will the UK government could probably have led and achieved such reform from within the EU, and all the pain and cost for the UK and EU could have been avoided.   Cameron and the Conservative party must carry much of the blame for this, and I think history will judge their role harshly.  

MDS posted:

When we do leave, and I fear it is a when, I can't see the UK ever going back.  Regardless of the fate of the UK, and I think our economy will suffer for many years, there probably will be some soul-searching among the senior political leaders within the EU as to how the EU could lose a 'premier league' member. I suspect some reform will take place, possibility an inner and outer circle, the former to appease those member states that really want closer integration and political union, even tax rate harmonisation. The outer circle will be for members states that are happy to enjoy the benefits of the EU 'as is' and want to go no further.  The tragedy will be that with the right will the UK government could probably have led and achieved such reform from within the EU, and all the pain and cost for the UK and EU could have been avoided.   Cameron and the Conservative party must carry much of the blame for this, and I think history will judge their role harshly.  

I partially agree with you MDS. If the EU had not conspired to becoming a supranational state at the expense of the individual member countries and if, since 1975, we had not been expected to bear so much of the cost of its budget, and if we had not been so enthusiastic in implementing every diktat mandated by the EU from their unelected Council of Ministers then we might have had a workable, supportable institution. The idea that with just a little more integration all will be well with the world is naive to say the least.

Merkel is a very weakened woman whose authority, at least in Germany, is very much on the wane. Macron may be wandering the world stage like that other liberal clown Trudeau, but his own popularity in France is down over 30 points since he opportunistically grasped power last year, and there is plenty trouble on the streets of France from the unions and workers who are not too happy  with his authoritarian changes. 

If you are not  interested in the needs and wishes  of the natives and minions then they will rebel. In current parlance, if you are one of the confident, comfortable 'anywheres' then you might still see the idea of supranational states where everyone joyfully moves, integrates and coexists as worth the sacrifices that are expected to be made by the 'somewheres', who are not very happy at alll to be expected to move, migrate, change their mores, or worse, see themselves replaced by imported 'somewheres', then you will have friction and lots of it. 

There will be no further tighter integration between any of the inner core of the EU because the electorates of the individual states will simply remove those that are mandating this disgraceful hijack of democracy dressed up as Nirvana because they are quite fed up of the snake oil political salesmen purveying thrir nonsense. The rise of populism so despised by the liberal left  is exactly what it says on the tin: it is the populus rebelling against against an arrogant elite behaving like effete, entitled feudal overlords for whom the little people are simply the help at best and an expendable impediment to their 'progress' at worst. 

You see, Resurrection is not so right wing as to have forgotten his roots or the individual people who mandated politicians to look after the electorate' interests and not grandiose political experiments guaranteed to destabilise and probably destroy the societies that were built by centuries of human endeavour.  

Resurrection posted: 

There will be no further tighter integration between any of the inner core of the EU because the electorates of the individual states will simply remove those that are mandating this disgraceful hijack of democracy dressed up as Nirvana because they are quite fed up of the snake oil political salesmen purveying thrir nonsense. .   

If this had been perceived to be true by voters at the time of the referendum I believe significantly fewer would have voted ‘yes’. Certainly amongst people with whom I’ve discussed Brexit, the creeping centralisation has seemed to have been the single biggest concern - which is not saying that any of said people (including me) think EU otherwise is perfect - far from it, but addressing the problems internally is better than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. OF course, this would make no difference to people who could see no benefit of the EU, with the customs union, free trade, common laws relating to things like safety of food and other goods and to environmental pollution that can affect neighbouring states, perhaps living in an insular world where all that matters is what visibly directly affects them or their families.

Resurrection posted:

"You see, Resurrection is not so right wing as to have forgotten his roots or the individual people who mandated politicians to look after the electorate' interests and not grandiose political experiments guaranteed to destabilise and probably destroy the societies that were built by centuries of human endeavour."  

I see you do have something in common with a certain DT. 'Illeism (referring to oneself in the third person) is often said by psychologists to be a sure sign of egotism or narcissism.

Surely not, or does this explain a lot about some of your posts? 

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

"You see, Resurrection is not so right wing as to have forgotten his roots or the individual people who mandated politicians to look after the electorate' interests and not grandiose political experiments guaranteed to destabilise and probably destroy the societies that were built by centuries of human endeavour."  

I see you do have something in common with a certain DT. 'Illeism (referring to oneself in the third person) is often said by psychologists to be a sure sign of egotism or narcissism.

Surely not, or does this explain a lot about some of your posts? 

Sometimes I amuse myself with what I write even if it is not to everyone's taste. However, egotism is not real in my character. I am all too aware with my shortcomings and weaknesses, of which there are plenty. I was not gifted with great physical or sporting ability or supreme intellectual capacity; in fact I believe I have a poor memory for studying except on Brexit of course. Am also a bit too blunt for my own good. Nah, am a lousy narcissist, but do like wordplay and honestly do not take it personally if you do get one over on me, which of course is hardly ever. 

In fact you would probably notice that I never ever challenge any of you on your HiFi postings as I do not believe I have a deep enough musical or technical knowledge. Obviously I do like and admire music in all its forms and people who have the talent to make and produce it.

I can understand some people being critical of the EU but one of the criticisms often levelled at it is it is undemocratic.  For example, Resurrection uses the term "unelected Council of Ministers".  I always find this irritating because it is unjustified.  For sure, the Commission isn't elected but then it is the equivalent of the  EU's civil service , and civil servants aren't elected in members states.  However, apart from the obviously elected European Parliament, the ministers attending the various councils are elected, not to those particular councils but in their respective member states. For example, Phillip Hammond attends ECOFIN as the UK's representative. Is it fair to criticise his attendance on the basis that no one elected him to fulfil this specific role? If it is, it would also be fair to say 'he shouldn't be Chancellor, because no-one elected him to fill that position'. That's the way democracy works in member states. Similarly judges at the ECJ are not elected but then neither are the judiciary in the UK. I think this often levelled criticism is either used by those who don't understand how the EU institutions work or who do but chose to ignore the truth because they know the argument massages the prejudices of those who are anti the EU.       

I find it somehow both shocking and unsurprising at the same time that most Brexit debates I come across, including the one here, seem mostly to be concerned with either troll jousting or re-running aspects of the pre-vote debate.

Big things are happening to which little attention ever gets paid.  For example a few days ago there was a spat because the govt tried to use Brexit as an opportunity to stealth-destroy some very important human rights legislation.  It's called the Charter of Fundamental Rights, if you care to have a google.  If you do, Google news will point out that the Lords defeated the govt's attempt to scrap it.  Cue standard arguments such as 'it's not necessary because the same stuff will be covered by other legislation' or 'it'll be fine, trust us and our chosen independent assessor'.

This is pretty big deal stuff.  I signed a petition about it.  Yet virtually no visible mention was made of it among those who happily debate who 'won' and so on.  It's astonishing that more wasn't made of it in the media.

Maybe the continued focus on the vote itself is actually a good thing, though - it's probably part of why there's a growing awareness of the call for a proper, meaningful confirmatory referendum on the terms reached (something I argued for on this thread a loooooong way back).

Resurrection posted:

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

"You see, Resurrection is not so right wing as to have forgotten his roots or the individual people who mandated politicians to look after the electorate' interests and not grandiose political experiments guaranteed to destabilise and probably destroy the societies that were built by centuries of human endeavour."  

I see you do have something in common with a certain DT. 'Illeism (referring to oneself in the third person) is often said by psychologists to be a sure sign of egotism or narcissism.

Surely not, or does this explain a lot about some of your posts? 

Sometimes I amuse myself with what I write even if it is not to everyone's taste. However, egotism is not real in my character. I am all too aware with my shortcomings and weaknesses, of which there are plenty. I was not gifted with great physical or sporting ability or supreme intellectual capacity; in fact I believe I have a poor memory for studying except on Brexit of course. Am also a bit too blunt for my own good. Nah, am a lousy narcissist, but do like wordplay and honestly do not take it personally if you do get one over on me, which of course is hardly ever. 

In fact you would probably notice that I never ever challenge any of you on your HiFi postings as I do not believe I have a deep enough musical or technical knowledge. Obviously I do like and admire music in all its forms and people who have the talent to make and produce it.

Interesting example of narcissism there!  

Dave***t posted:

I find it somehow both shocking and unsurprising at the same time that most Brexit debates I come across, including the one here, seem mostly to be concerned with either troll jousting or re-running aspects of the pre-vote debate.

Big things are happening to which little attention ever gets paid.  For example a few days ago there was a spat because the govt tried to use Brexit as an opportunity to stealth-destroy some very important human rights legislation.  It's called the Charter of Fundamental Rights, if you care to have a google.  If you do, Google news will point out that the Lords defeated the govt's attempt to scrap it.  Cue standard arguments such as 'it's not necessary because the same stuff will be covered by other legislation' or 'it'll be fine, trust us and our chosen independent assessor'.

This is pretty big deal stuff.  I signed a petition about it.  Yet virtually no visible mention was made of it among those who happily debate who 'won' and so on.  It's astonishing that more wasn't made of it in the media.

 

A very good justification for the Upper House, despite what the Brexiteers like Rees-Mogg imply. 

MDS posted:

Dave***t posted:

I find it somehow both shocking and unsurprising at the same time that most Brexit debates I come across, including the one here, seem mostly to be concerned with either troll jousting or re-running aspects of the pre-vote debate.

Big things are happening to which little attention ever gets paid.  For example a few days ago there was a spat because the govt tried to use Brexit as an opportunity to stealth-destroy some very important human rights legislation.  It's called the Charter of Fundamental Rights, if you care to have a google.  If you do, Google news will point out that the Lords defeated the govt's attempt to scrap it.  Cue standard arguments such as 'it's not necessary because the same stuff will be covered by other legislation' or 'it'll be fine, trust us and our chosen independent assessor'.

This is pretty big deal stuff.  I signed a petition about it.  Yet virtually no visible mention was made of it among those who happily debate who 'won' and so on.  It's astonishing that more wasn't made of it in the media.

 

A very good justification for the Upper House, despite what the Brexiteers like Rees-Mogg imply. 

Ah, one JRM worth a hundred lords a leaping, particularly when they are of the quality of Mandelsom, the KInnocks, Chakrabarti, Prescott, Adonis and all the Liberals whose names I never knew anyway.

Best never to give a Referendum on the Lords or the £300 a day parasites would be finished. 

Dave***t posted:

I find it somehow both shocking and unsurprising at the same time that most Brexit debates I come across, including the one here, seem mostly to be concerned with either troll jousting or re-running aspects of the pre-vote debate.

Big things are happening to which little attention ever gets paid.  For example a few days ago there was a spat because the govt tried to use Brexit as an opportunity to stealth-destroy some very important human rights legislation.  It's called the Charter of Fundamental Rights, if you care to have a google.  If you do, Google news will point out that the Lords defeated the govt's attempt to scrap it.  Cue standard arguments such as 'it's not necessary because the same stuff will be covered by other legislation' or 'it'll be fine, trust us and our chosen independent assessor'.

This is pretty big deal stuff.  I signed a petition about it.  Yet virtually no visible mention was made of it among those who happily debate who 'won' and so on.  It's astonishing that more wasn't made of it in the media.

Maybe the continued focus on the vote itself is actually a good thing, though - it's probably part of why there's a growing awareness of the call for a proper, meaningful confirmatory referendum on the terms reached (something I argued for on this thread a loooooong way back).

Dave,

There are (literally) hundreds of very, very important issues that need very careful consideration regarding our leaving the EU. I have highlighted a few that I have been concerned about. They never make it into the headline media reports (galileo made it into the BBC's subsidiary news but that's about it !) despite the fact that they are crucial to our future.

Far more importantly, the future consequences of these issues with respect to Remaining or Leaving are never articulated so that even our politicians are aware of them, never mind understanding them. As to the "man in the Clapham omnibus...." well, I suppose it's too much to expect him to even want to know about these issues.

The Gov has said that MPs will be given a "meaningful" vote. I would like to think this will be a free vote, not a three-line-whip, and that "meaningful" will include the option to Remain. (Our MPs need to consider the National interest of 65m people, not just the wishes of c.17.5m voters in the summer of 2016)

Resurrection posted:

MDS posted:

When we do leave, and I fear it is a when, I can't see the UK ever going back.  Regardless of the fate of the UK, and I think our economy will suffer for many years, there probably will be some soul-searching among the senior political leaders within the EU as to how the EU could lose a 'premier league' member. I suspect some reform will take place, possibility an inner and outer circle, the former to appease those member states that really want closer integration and political union, even tax rate harmonisation. The outer circle will be for members states that are happy to enjoy the benefits of the EU 'as is' and want to go no further.  The tragedy will be that with the right will the UK government could probably have led and achieved such reform from within the EU, and all the pain and cost for the UK and EU could have been avoided.   Cameron and the Conservative party must carry much of the blame for this, and I think history will judge their role harshly.  

I partially agree with you MDS. If the EU had not conspired to becoming a supranational state at the expense of the individual member countries and if, since 1975, we had not been expected to bear so much of the cost of its budget, and if we had not been so enthusiastic in implementing every diktat mandated by the EU from their unelected Council of Ministers then we might have had a workable, supportable institution. The idea that with just a little more integration all will be well with the world is naive to say the least.

Merkel is a very weakened woman whose authority, at least in Germany, is very much on the wane. Macron may be wandering the world stage like that other liberal clown Trudeau, but his own popularity in France is down over 30 points since he opportunistically grasped power last year, and there is plenty trouble on the streets of France from the unions and workers who are not too happy  with his authoritarian changes. 

If you are not  interested in the needs and wishes  of the natives and minions then they will rebel. In current parlance, if you are one of the confident, comfortable 'anywheres' then you might still see the idea of supranational states where everyone joyfully moves, integrates and coexists as worth the sacrifices that are expected to be made by the 'somewheres', who are not very happy at alll to be expected to move, migrate, change their mores, or worse, see themselves replaced by imported 'somewheres', then you will have friction and lots of it. 

There will be no further tighter integration between any of the inner core of the EU because the electorates of the individual states will simply remove those that are mandating this disgraceful hijack of democracy dressed up as Nirvana because they are quite fed up of the snake oil political salesmen purveying thrir nonsense. The rise of populism so despised by the liberal left  is exactly what it says on the tin:it is the populus rebelling against against an arrogant elite behaving like effete, entitled feudal overlords for whom the little people are simply the help at best and an expendable impediment to their 'progress' at worst. 

You see, Resurrection is not so right wing as to have forgotten his roots or the individual people who mandated politicians to look after the electorate' interests and not grandiose political experiments guaranteed to destabilise and probably destroy the societies that were built by centuries of human endeavour.  

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

 

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

You, of course would prefer Corbyn, McDonnell, Nugee and Abbott. Unbelievable!

The Gov has said that MPs will be given a "meaningful" vote. I would like to think this will be a free vote, not a three-line-whip, and that "meaningful" will include the option to Remain. (Our MPs need to consider the National interest of 65m people, not just the wishes of c.17.5m voters in the summer of 2016)

 

Obviously the last General Election was a travesty too as the Conservatives only got 13.6 million votes and Labour 12.8 million. Hardly representative of the 65 million are they? Logic and Remainers are on completely separate planets. It all sounds so trite and right when you are in complete agreement with one another, eh!

Resurrection posted:

 

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

You, of course would prefer Corbyn, McDonnell, Nugee and Abbott. Unbelievable!

I think I'd rather have Russ Abbott in the Home Office than Diane! 

Resurrection posted:

 

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

You, of course would prefer Corbyn, McDonnell, Nugee and Abbott. Unbelievable!

The converse of 'A' isn't necessarily 'B'.

MDS posted:

Resurrection posted:

 

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

You, of course would prefer Corbyn, McDonnell, Nugee and Abbott. Unbelievable!

I think I'd rather have Russ Abbott in the Home Office than Diane! 

Ha! Ha! me too.

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

 

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

You, of course would prefer Corbyn, McDonnell, Nugee and Abbott. Unbelievable!

The converse of 'A' isn't necessarily 'B'.

A Hiuge example of obscurantism... 

Resurrection posted:

The Gov has said that MPs will be given a "meaningful" vote. I would like to think this will be a free vote, not a three-line-whip, and that "meaningful" will include the option to Remain. (Our MPs need to consider the National interest of 65m people, not just the wishes of c.17.5m voters in the summer of 2016)

 

Obviously the last General Election was a travesty too as the Conservatives only got 13.6 million votes and Labour 12.8 million. Hardly representative of the 65 million are they? Logic and Remainers are on completely separate planets. It all sounds so trite and right when you are in complete agreement with one another, eh!

So logically from your agreement of the position that the current government isn't representative, you appear to agree with the view that that 17.5m voters aren't representative of 65m people.

So...  You are now on the same planet as the Remainers!  

All nice and peaceful now that you've changed sides!    

(Hope you enjoy the humour!)

Yet again we have a quitter (not for the first time this week ) indicating they believe the people in power in the UK and the alternatives are not fit to govern.

So, why not leave the power in the hands of the EU, who, on the evidence of the brexit negotiations are far more competent/organised than the UK government.

You know it makes sense.

Talking of Home Secretaries, I see a leaked letter published by The Guardian has cranked up the pressure on Rudd. Apparently she wrote to the PM in January 2017 describing a 10% increase in enforced deportations, a target she has very recently told the House of Commons she wasn't aware of. Oops!

I'd be interested to see how she talks her way out of this one. Misleading the House is normally a crime for which ministers do not survive.  

I should have added, if Rudd does go there will be much celebration among the Tory herd-Brexiteers like Rees-Mogg as Rudd is known as a strong Remainer. 

MDS posted:

Talking of Home Secretaries, I see a leaked letter published by The Guardian has cranked up the pressure on Rudd. Apparently she wrote to the PM in January 2017 describing a 10% increase in enforced deportations, a target she has very recently told the House of Commons she wasn't aware of. Oops!

I'd be interested to see how she talks her way out of this one. Misleading the House is normally a crime for which ministers do not survive.  

But interestingly, misleading the electorate in referendums is apparently perfectly OK!

Huge posted:

MDS posted:

Talking of Home Secretaries, I see a leaked letter published by The Guardian has cranked up the pressure on Rudd. Apparently she wrote to the PM in January 2017 describing a 10% increase in enforced deportations, a target she has very recently told the House of Commons she wasn't aware of. Oops!

I'd be interested to see how she talks her way out of this one. Misleading the House is normally a crime for which ministers do not survive.  

But interestingly, misleading the electorate in referendums is apparently perfectly OK!

Yes, Huge. It's shameful. The 'Westminster bubble' seems to have 'values' that are often very different to those of the man-in-the-street.