Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Tarquin Maynard-Portly posted:

totemphile posted:

Tarquin Maynard-Portly posted:

 

You don't like what I say...

I'm not denying anything (unlucky) but the facts are that most of our former Colonies choose to remain members of the Commonwealth. 

Factually accurate, so not something you can "question".  Its nothing like the current relationship between Germany and other EU Nations. Nothing at all. 

We also realised many years ago that we'd need to change our behaviours and did so. We withdrew from the former subject Nations. The US remains on land originally populated by other people. 

Not sure why you raise slavery - annoying for some, as vile as the slave trade was, slaves where purchased from Africans and the Barbary Pirates captured many whites, selling them and using them as slaves. 

Which is why we led the world in abolishing the vile trade, and played a major part in stamping it out. 

Tschuss. 

 

It's not that I don't like what you say, I couldn't care less whether I like it or not. What I do care about is that you make it out as if there never was a thing that went wrong in The British Empire, except for some minor "unlucky" instances of course, you know, the kind of things that happen in any good company - after all the sun never set on The British Empire, right?

You may wish to continue to deny the facts, that is your prerogative, but here's a bit of factual reading to give you a new perspective on all the things you thought you already knew or didn't know. I think this article summarises nicely, and much more eloquently and lucid than I ever could, the condition you are suffering from. Call it delusion, if you wish...

 

"Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/co...es-ignore-atrocities 

Such a shame that, while you've typed *such* a lengthy reply ( too long to bother with) you've not noted that I've said - three or four times - that I deny nothing. 

PS -looks like >80% of your spiel is cut and paste from a book review...  Tut. 

 

Nice read Totemphile, modern technology allows us to store links, and resurrect them, when appropriate.

 I guess it s a Human thing:

The Egyptian Dynasty

The Old Kingdom

 The New Kingdom

 The Persian Empire

 The Han Empire

 The Roman Empire.....

 The British Empire

 When it's all said and done, All Empires rise, and fall.

And taking a wild guess, I would imagine that Greed, and wrong doings, played a role in the decline of All Empires!

America, an Extension of the British Empire.

So do I think you guys are sleeping walking out of the Europe?  No

Just changing times, Global Elites run the World, and the answer to fix broken economies, Austerity!

Greed, the root of all evil.

 Just my perspective.

 Allante93!

Allante93 posted:

Tarquin Maynard-Portly posted:

totemphile posted:

Tarquin Maynard-Portly posted:

 

You don't like what I say...

I'm not denying anything (unlucky) but the facts are that most of our former Colonies choose to remain members of the Commonwealth. 

Factually accurate, so not something you can "question".  Its nothing like the current relationship between Germany and other EU Nations. Nothing at all. 

We also realised many years ago that we'd need to change our behaviours and did so. We withdrew from the former subject Nations. The US remains on land originally populated by other people. 

Not sure why you raise slavery - annoying for some, as vile as the slave trade was, slaves where purchased from Africans and the Barbary Pirates captured many whites, selling them and using them as slaves. 

Which is why we led the world in abolishing the vile trade, and played a major part in stamping it out. 

Tschuss. 

 

It's not that I don't like what you say, I couldn't care less whether I like it or not. What I do care about is that you make it out as if there never was a thing that went wrong in The British Empire, except for some minor "unlucky" instances of course, you know, the kind of things that happen in any good company - after all the sun never set on The British Empire, right?

You may wish to continue to deny the facts, that is your prerogative, but here's a bit of factual reading to give you a new perspective on all the things you thought you already knew or didn't know. I think this article summarises nicely, and much more eloquently and lucid than I ever could, the condition you are suffering from. Call it delusion, if you wish...

 

"Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/co...es-ignore-atrocities 

Such a shame that, while you've typed *such* a lengthy reply ( too long to bother with) you've not noted that I've said - three or four times - that I deny nothing. 

PS -looks like >80% of your spiel is cut and paste from a book review...  Tut. 

 

Nice read Totemphile, modern technology allows us to store links, and resurrect them, when appropriate.

 I guess it s a Human thing:

The Egyptian Dynasty

The Old Kingdom

 The New Kingdom

 The Persian Empire

 The Han Empire

 The Roman Empire.....

 The British Empire

 When it's all said and done, All Empires rise, and fall.

And taking a wild guess, I would imagine that Greed, and wrong doings, played a role in the decline of All Empires!

America, an Extension of the British Empire.

So do I think you guys are sleeping walking out of the Europe?  No

Just changing times, Global Elites run the World, and the answer to fix broken economies, Austerity!

Greed, the root of all evil.

 Just my perspective.

 Allante93!

 

Well, I guess I'm waiting for an apology and compensation from the Italian/Roman Government, the Scandinavian/Viking Government, the Dutch/Belgian Government and the French/Norman Government.

And being of rather lowly peasant stock, I would expect an apology and compensation from the Feudal rulers of the British Isles through to the Victorian Task-Masters and their descendants who benefited and treated us more like slaves and dogs than fellow humans.

Perhaps I'm being a bit unrealistic ? Perhaps I should look forward, not backward, other than to learn from the events of the past so as to avoid a repeat in the future.

Perhaps the descendants of these Roman, Viking, Anglo-Saxon, Norman, Feudal Victorian Task-masters don't feel my situation is their wrong-doing, or for them to apologise etc.

Perhaps they are right.

Anyway, back to Brexit and sleep-walking.

Hopefully, May will get an indication this week, of how desperate the remains of the EU are to secure a preferential trade deal with the UK in the near future. And how desperate the EU is to get all its itinerant plumbers, builders and nurses back.

Yes, I am feeling somewhat flippant tonight. !

Tarquin Maynard-Portly posted:

totemphile posted:

Tarquin Maynard-Portly posted:

 

You don't like what I say...

I'm not denying anything (unlucky) but the facts are that most of our former Colonies choose to remain members of the Commonwealth. 

Factually accurate, so not something you can "question".  Its nothing like the current relationship between Germany and other EU Nations. Nothing at all. 

We also realised many years ago that we'd need to change our behaviours and did so. We withdrew from the former subject Nations. The US remains on land originally populated by other people. 

Not sure why you raise slavery - annoying for some, as vile as the slave trade was, slaves where purchased from Africans and the Barbary Pirates captured many whites, selling them and using them as slaves. 

Which is why we led the world in abolishing the vile trade, and played a major part in stamping it out. 

Tschuss. 

 

It's not that I don't like what you say, I couldn't care less whether I like it or not. What I do care about is that you make it out as if there never was a thing that went wrong in The British Empire, except for some minor "unlucky" instances of course, you know, the kind of things that happen in any good company - after all the sun never set on The British Empire, right?

You may wish to continue to deny the facts, that is your prerogative, but here's a bit of factual reading to give you a new perspective on all the things you thought you already knew or didn't know. I think this article summarises nicely, and much more eloquently and lucid than I ever could, the condition you are suffering from. Call it delusion, if you wish...

 

"Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them.

There is one thing you can say for the Holocaust deniers: at least they know what they are denying. In order to sustain the lies they tell, they must engage in strenuous falsification. To dismiss Britain's colonial atrocities, no such effort is required. Most people appear to be unaware that anything needs to be denied.

The story of benign imperialism, whose overriding purpose was not to seize land, labour and commodities but to teach the natives English, table manners and double-entry book-keeping, is a myth that has been carefully propagated by the rightwing press. But it draws its power from a remarkable national ability to airbrush and disregard our past.

Last week's revelations, that the British government systematically destroyed the documents detailing mistreatment of its colonial subjects, and that the Foreign Office then lied about a secret cache of files containing lesser revelations, is by any standards a big story. But it was either ignored or consigned to a footnote by most of the British press. I was unable to find any mention of the secret archive on the Telegraph's website. The Mail's only coverage, as far as I can determine, was an opinion piece by a historian called Lawrence James, who used the occasion to insist that any deficiencies in the management of the colonies were the work of "a sprinkling of misfits, incompetents and bullies", while everyone else was "dedicated, loyal and disciplined".

The British government's suppression of evidence was scarcely necessary. Even when the documentation of great crimes is abundant, it is not denied but simply ignored. In an article for the Daily Mail in 2010, for example, the historian Dominic Sandbrook announced that "Britain's empire stands out as a beacon of tolerance, decency and the rule of law … Nor did Britain countenance anything like the dreadful tortures committed in French Algeria." Could he really have been unaware of the history he is disavowing?

Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.

No matter. Even those who acknowledge that something happened write as if Elkins and her work did not exist. In the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan maintains that just eleven people were beaten to death. Apart from that, "1,090 terrorists were hanged and as many as 71,000 detained without due process".

The British did not do body counts, and most victims were buried in unmarked graves. But it is clear that tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Kikuyu died in the camps and during the round-ups. Hannan's is one of the most blatant examples of revisionism I have ever encountered.

Without explaining what this means, Lawrence James concedes that "harsh measures" were sometimes used, but he maintains that "while the Mau Mau were terrorising the Kikuyu, veterinary surgeons in the Colonial Service were teaching tribesmen how to deal with cattle plagues." The theft of the Kikuyu's land and livestock, the starvation and killings, the widespread support among the Kikuyu for the Mau Mau's attempt to reclaim their land and freedom: all vanish into thin air. Both men maintain that the British government acted to stop any abuses as soon as they were revealed.

What I find remarkable is not that they write such things, but that these distortions go almost unchallenged. The myths of empire are so well-established that we appear to blot out countervailing stories even as they are told. As evidence from the manufactured Indian famines of the 1870s and from the treatment of other colonies accumulates, British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practised by other nations. Yet the myth of the civilising mission remains untroubled by the evidence."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/co...es-ignore-atrocities

 

 

Such a shame that, while you've typed *such* a lengthy reply ( too long to bother with) you've not noted that I've said - three or four times - that I deny nothing. 

PS -looks like >80% of your spiel is cut and paste from a book review...  Tut. 

 

At no point during this discussion have you acknowledged any of the atrocities committed by the British during the time of the British Empire. On the contrary, the first thing you did was highlight in glorious language how good everything was the British did. And I quote:

"The approach we took was similar to that of the Romans - assimilate the people, let them get on with their daily lives but with a titular Head of State - the Empress - based in England. 

We subsequently returned the lands entirely to the original "owners" many of whom, as mentioned, chose to retain links to Great Britain via voluntary membership of the Commonwealth." 

It's a shame you didn't take the time to read my earlier post, it would have been worth your time. I am sure the 1 million plus Kikuyu who were detained would take quite a different view to your humanitarian version. The torture and killings that took place don't sit too well with your "we let them get on with their lives" description. 

And like I said before, it is very questionable that Britain voluntarily returned the "lands to the original owners", it's more like Britain gave up on its colonies because it didn't have much of a choice.

You stated:

- "The difference between "Boer War Concentration Camps" and "Nazi Concentration Camps" - some simpletons don't understand that the latter set out to kill; the former set out to "concentrate" a population in one place, not kill them." 

Yet of the 107,000 people interned in the camps, 27,927 Boers died, along with an unknown number of black Africans. (Independent)

- "Mau Mau? Oh now the US would have loved to have been able to suppress a single murderous militant uprising. Just once. "

Not a word of the brutal torture and disgustingly inhumane treatment of the Kikuyu there either.

- "The 1943 famine can't be laid at the door of the Empire - the statistics are just not reliable. Sorry."

Yet between 12 and 29 million Indians died of starvation while it was under the control of the British Empire, as millions of tons of wheat were exported to Britain as famine raged in India. (Independent)

And the list goes on. 

You keep saying that you don't deny anything yet you have chosen to ignore each and every atrocity that has been mentioned. No offence intended but judging by your replies so far you seem fall into the category of what's described as an imperial apologists. That's no better then denying it, if you asked me. 

Anyways, I don't think we are going to get anywhere with this discussion. It was a mistake on my part to pick up on it, I should have stayed out of this thread. Apologies to the OP for the continued diversion. 

I have just watched today's edition of "Question Time", and have to admit I have been absolutely horrified by the attitude of the majority of the people in the audience. It certainly puts some perspective on the intelligence (or lack of) of many of the people who voted for Brexit in the recent referendum.

For once, the majority of the people in the audience out-did the UKIP representative in respect of the shallowness and offensiveness of their opinions. Strange that, judging by the applause at key points during the questions, that many of those who favoured a Hard BREXIT (i.e. just get out NOW, and to hell with the detail) also could be seen to applaud the one or two members of the panel who voiced their support of Donald Trump and his paranoia.

It appears to me that some prominent people within UKIP and not a few of UKIP's supporters are beginning to look and sound more and more like the BNP as time goes on.

For me, this episode of Question Time has demonstrated Britain at its very worst. Stomach churning! I can only hope that this audience does not truly represent the local area in which the program was based.

I find it hard to believe that I could be singing the praises of Ken Clarke and Yanis Varoufakis. Their reasoned arguments and responses to the questions were howled down by the idiots in the audience, but were a breath of fresh air in what was otherwise a poisonous and vitriolic atmosphere.

I really do despair for the future of this country. We are divided like never before. This has become much worse than the usual Left/Right wing class based politics.

Hmack posted:

I have just watched today's edition of "Question Time", and have to admit I have been absolutely horrified by the attitude of the majority of the people in the audience. It certainly puts some perspective on the intelligence (or lack of) of many of the people who voted for Brexit in the recent referendum.

For once, the majority of the people in the audience out-did the UKIP representative in respect of the shallowness and offensiveness of their opinions. Strange that, judging by the applause at key points during the questions, that many of those who favoured a Hard BREXIT (i.e. just get out NOW, and to hell with the detail) also could be seen to applaud the one or two members of the panel who voiced their support of Donald Trump and his paranoia.

It appears to me that some prominent people within UKIP and not a few of UKIP's supporters are beginning to look and sound more and more like the BNP as time goes on.

For me, this episode of Question Time has demonstrated Britain at its very worst. Stomach churning! I can only hope that this audience does not truly represent the local area in which the program was based.

I find it hard to believe that I could be singing the praises of Ken Clarke and Yanis Varoufakis. Their reasoned arguments and responses to the questions were howled down by the idiots in the audience, but were a breath of fresh air in what was otherwise a poisonous and vitriolic atmosphere.

I really do despair for the future of this country. We are divided like never before. This has become much worse than the usual Left/Right wing class based politics.

Unfortunaly, Hmack, I think the audience last night was truely representative of the local area and the Leave voters in general.

I was born and brought up in Chester-le-Street, about 25 miles from Hartlepool. The usual joke about Hartlepool is along the lines of "First prize is a week's holiday in Hartlepool. 2nd prize is two week's holiday in Hartlepool".

I'm afraid that in the political sense, Hartlepool is representative of the whole of the North East. There is virtually no imigration to the North East......it's too poor, but immigration will dominate the issue, rather than economics.

It seems to me that there are very few Conservative MPs who are willing to stand up and be counted like Ken Clarke. My own MP ( I don't own him, but you know what I mean) represents a constituency that voted by a small majority to "Remain", and he says that was his vote as well. But he won't stand up against May and voice what he says are his real concerns about Brexit.

But at least the people in Hartlepool last night were straight-forward in expressing their views (although I don't share those views). Whereas May is a "Closet" Brexiteer. She claimed to be a Remainer during the run-up to the referendum, but that was only because she thought she was backing the "winning side". Now she has revealed her true colours - a hard brexiteer.

I can't stand lying, cheating, irrisponsible politicians. Unfortunately, that is most of the current lot in the Commons.

PS. My only "hope" last night was that the BBC was also being irresponsible and had deliberately packed the audience with hard right BNP/Brexit supporters, so as to make the programme more "entertaining" and newsworthy.

Perhaps i'm just being a skeptic. ?

Don Atkinson posted:

PS. My only "hope" last night was that the BBC was also being irresponsible and had deliberately packed the audience with hard right BNP/Brexit supporters, so as to make the programme more "entertaining" and newsworthy.

Perhaps i'm just being a skeptic. ?

When I was in the QT audience, there was the minor hurdle of a phone call from a producer who had a question or two to make sure you were at least vaguely politically aware ('what's going on at the moment that you feel strongly about?' kind of thing), but I don't remember there being a question about political alignment.

With Any Questions, there was no phone call, just had to apply for tickets.

They're often at pains to say that the audience is not selected to be representative (eg when they ask for a show of hands on a given question during the show), so that the audience's reaction is not implied to be reflective of anything more than the people who happen to be in the room.

So my conclusion would be that the people in the audience were simply those who applied when tickets were available, nothing more specific or manipulated than that.

Make of that what you will.

Interesting summary Don.  It'll be interesting to compare next week with the audience in Gloucester as I expect the same theme of questions will be tabled.  Interesting that in the Gloucester constituency has been one of the UK's political change seats - 1970 Con,  1987 Con,  1997 Lab,  2001 Lab,  2010 Con.    Gloucestershire's (county) Brexit vote was a strong 58% leave;  I wonder if this is a reflection of the x6 growth in 10 years immigrant population attracted in part to the agricultural work in the area?  

Dave***t posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

PS. My only "hope" last night was that the BBC was also being irresponsible and had deliberately packed the audience with hard right BNP/Brexit supporters, so as to make the programme more "entertaining" and newsworthy.

Perhaps i'm just being a skeptic. ?

When I was in the QT audience, there was the minor hurdle of a phone call from a producer who had a question or two to make sure you were at least vaguely politically aware ('what's going on at the moment that you feel strongly about?' kind of thing), but I don't remember there being a question about political alignment.

With Any Questions, there was no phone call, just had to apply for tickets.

They're often at pains to say that the audience is not selected to be representative (eg when they ask for a show of hands on a given question during the show), so that the audience's reaction is not implied to be reflective of anything more than the people who happen to be in the room.

So my conclusion would be that the people in the audience were simply those who applied when tickets were available, nothing more specific or manipulated than that.

Make of that what you will.

Dave, your analysis has effectively removed any "hope" that I might have had. In other words, as my main post suggested, the audience was representative of the overall NE view. Not everybody, but the overall picture.

Hi Don,

there is another reason for some hope. Anything involving activitiy, like going somewhere or even typing a response here, requires the desire to do so. People with strong/radical opinions are more likely to have this desire, while those with more middle-of-the-road stances are more likely to be passive. All audiences will therefore be unrepresentative, unless the appereance is mandatory for all.

Mulberry posted:

Hi Don,

there is another reason for some hope. Anything involving activitiy, like going somewhere or even typing a response here, requires the desire to do so. People with strong/radical opinions are more likely to have this desire, while those with more middle-of-the-road stances are more likely to be passive. All audiences will therefore be unrepresentative, unless the appereance is mandatory for all.

Thank you Mulberry, you make a very valid point. the audience might have been slightly more extreme that average, even for Hartlepool.

But as I indicated above, having originated in the NE myself, I felt the audience wasn't far removed from "typical" in that Region.

Let's see what Gloucester brings up next week, as mentioned by Mike-B

So, according to the BBC, May is now "Optimistic" of getting the right deal for the UK with the EU.

Not "Confident", just "Optimistic".

I am not impressed.

Brexit will be like metric, which we are...aren't we?

Don Atkinson posted:

So, according to the BBC, May is now "Optimistic" of getting the right deal for the UK with the EU.

Not "Confident", just "Optimistic".

Things have turned a bit this afternoon -  May has also said it could be achieved, despite the continuing deadlock over a landmark EU-Canada trade deal that began in 2009.   However this afternoon Canada's trade minister told reporters: "It seems evident for me and for Canada that the European Union is not now capable of having an international accord even with a country that has values as European as Canada."

So I'm not at all optimistic that the EU (27) could collectively agree any kind of deal, let alone actually sign something within the 2 years required for Article 50 that will be as complex as involved with Brexit.      

Mike-B posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

So, according to the BBC, May is now "Optimistic" of getting the right deal for the UK with the EU.

Not "Confident", just "Optimistic".

Things have turned a bit this afternoon -  May has also said it could be achieved, despite the continuing deadlock over a landmark EU-Canada trade deal that began in 2009.   However this afternoon Canada's trade minister told reporters: "It seems evident for me and for Canada that the European Union is not now capable of having an international accord even with a country that has values as European as Canada."

So I'm not at all optimistic that the EU (27) could collectively agree any kind of deal, let alone actually sign something within the 2 years required for Article 50 that will be as complex as involved with Brexit.      

Yes Mike,

Getting a deal with the EU27 within 2 years of invoking Article 50 will be very optimistic ! No doubt that's what May actually meant when she used the word optimistic You know what politicians are like.

It also looks like any trivial little Parish Council within the EU27 could block any deal, regardless of the sensibility perceived by the rest of the Union.

Bonkers!

Don Atkinson posted:

It also looks like any trivial little Parish Council within the EU27 could block any deal, regardless of the sensibility perceived by the rest of the Union.

Bonkers!

That may be true, but is seems a little bizarre. The quitters bang on about the EU not being democratic and decisions are taken by the Brussels elite, not member states, yet it appears the opposite is true when it comes to the matter of the UK brexiting.

fatcat posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

It also looks like any trivial little Parish Council within the EU27 could block any deal, regardless of the sensibility perceived by the rest of the Union.

Bonkers!

That may be true, but is seems a little bizarre. The quitters bang on about the EU not being democratic and decisions are taken by the Brussels elite, not member states, yet it appears the opposite is true when it comes to the matter of the UK brexiting.

 

Yes,

Well obviously it's with Canada at the moment, but I can see the UK/EU negotiations going this way each and every day. But as you say Frank, where were the two MPs for the Rotten Borough of Old Sarum when the UK wanted to block the occasional EU Directive..................?

Don Atkinson posted:

fatcat posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

It also looks like any trivial little Parish Council within the EU27 could block any deal, regardless of the sensibility perceived by the rest of the Union.

Bonkers!

That may be true, but is seems a little bizarre. The quitters bang on about the EU not being democratic and decisions are taken by the Brussels elite, not member states, yet it appears the opposite is true when it comes to the matter of the UK brexiting.

Yes,

Well obviously it's with Canada at the moment, but I can see the UK/EU negotiations going this way each and every day. But as you say Frank, where were the two MPs for the Rotten Borough of Old Sarum when the UK wanted to block the occasional EU Directive..................?

(As I understand it) ... most EU decisions which need ratifying have to be ratified by the constitutional requirements set down by the respective states*.  For the UK that means debate and vote in parliament with no regard for the citizens thoughts or the individual nations which make up the union (and in some cases using the Royal Prerogative the government / Prime Minister has).

Other state require treaties to be ratified by the constituent regions / nations which make up their state; or put the treaty to a referendum.  Remember things like the Maastricht Treaty were put to a referendum across most of Europe but in the UK we don't have a wide use of referendums.

So it appears that (at least in this case) its the UK which is NOT democratic!

Note *: the same as the requirements under Article 50

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

fatcat posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

It also looks like any trivial little Parish Council within the EU27 could block any deal, regardless of the sensibility perceived by the rest of the Union.

Bonkers!

That may be true, but is seems a little bizarre. The quitters bang on about the EU not being democratic and decisions are taken by the Brussels elite, not member states, yet it appears the opposite is true when it comes to the matter of the UK brexiting.

Yes,

Well obviously it's with Canada at the moment, but I can see the UK/EU negotiations going this way each and every day. But as you say Frank, where were the two MPs for the Rotten Borough of Old Sarum when the UK wanted to block the occasional EU Directive..................?

(As I understand it) ... most EU decisions which need ratifying have to be ratified by the constitutional requirements set down by the respective states*.  For the UK that means debate and vote in parliament with no regard for the citizens thoughts or the individual nations which make up the union (and in some cases using the Royal Prerogative the government / Prime Minister has).

Other state require treaties to be ratified by the constituent regions / nations which make up their state; or put the treaty to a referendum.  Remember things like the Maastricht Treaty were put to a referendum across most of Europe but in the UK we don't have a wide use of referendums.

So it appears that (at least in this case) its the UK which is NOT democratic!

Note *: the same as the requirements under Article 50

I am now confused. I'm not sure what Frank and Eloise consider the situation to be. (it's my lack of understanding, I'm not being critical in any way)

I consider the UK decision to leave the EU is democratic. Both the referendum and the use of the Royal Perogative are part of our established processes (or so I am told). However, I consider the decision to leave is il-judged, and was based on an Electorate that were fed lies.

I consider the Belgian Region that is blocking the Ceta deal is acting democratically. However, I consider it a stupid arrangement whereby  c.3m people can bugger up the sensible wishes of c.508m + c.33m, but hey-ho that's the way the EU goes !

I consider the events of this week show that May is deluded if she thinks she will have a mature discusion with the EU and achieve the right deal for the UK. The EU is far from mature. It's full of despots (like Junkers) who behave like spoilt, selfish, self-centred brats. And Boris is no better.

Can we have another referendum now please?

FF, I agree, also the behaviour of the majority of the  EU we are told on not wanting to make negotiations easy and business like with the UK and, as we see, Canada, just show what a flawed, outdated and protection institution it appears to be. It really does reinforce in my eyes the UK has made the right decision...to me the EU feels dangerous. I just can't see it reforming until it really has seriously more damaged itself given the current rhetoric from it.

For me Cameron's complete failure in any meaningful negotiation set my thoughts.. and we are seeing why with that, petulance, intransigence and stubbornness  starting to be played out again now from many of the EU leaders... I hope the EU reforms such that we, the UK, can have a modern, partner relationship with it for the benefit of all.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

also the behaviour of the majority of the  EU we are told on not wanting to make negotiations easy and business like with the UK

Ignoring the Canada negotiations for a moment ... I think people are misrepresenting what the leaders in the EU are saying on negotiations with the UK.  They do not (despite what people want to believe) looking to punish the UK for leaving the EU; or "set an example" by making things hard.  They aren't going to bend over backwards to give the UK what the "Leave" campaign promised us.

What the EU leaders are say is that the UK is NOT going to be able to have full access to the single market without accepting the responsibilities of being part of the EFTA - that is primarily accepting free movement of labour an accepting the supremacy of ECJ over related matters.

and, as we see, Canada, just show what a flawed, outdated and protection institution it appears to be.

It is protectionist in the same way the UK is now being protectionist.  In fact a lot of the CETA breakdown is due to the deal being not protectionist enough from what I can ascertain.

It really does reinforce in my eyes the UK has made the right decision...to me the EU feels dangerous. I just can't see it reforming until it really has seriously more damaged itself given the current rhetoric from it.

The problem with leaving the EU is that so much of the UK economy is based on being part of the EU.  It remains to be seen what the medium terms affects of leaving the EU are on the UK economy.  Is it worth loosing the financial / banking sector and the Japanese car industries to "take back control"?

For me Cameron's complete failure in any meaningful negotiation set my thoughts.. and we are seeing why with that, petulance, intransigence and stubbornness  starting to be played out again now from many of the EU leaders... I hope the EU reforms such that we, the UK, can have a modern, partner relationship with it for the benefit of all.

The UK has never wanted to embrace the EU project.  Its always wanted the advantages without playing a full part.  The whole "£350 million to EU each week" was a classic example.  The EU as a whole has been looking to improve Europe for the whole - the UK has always been what can the EU do to improve us and now we are seeing less concrete advantages its like "right you've helped us get back on our feet, now we're happy you can go **** yourselves cause you don't do exactly what we want you to".  There was (however) more chance of the EU reforming to be better for the UK when we were part of the EU.

By no measure was the EU perfect ... but we were in a much better position economically as part of the EU than outside (IMO).  The people who loose out are not going to be those at the top though ... they will get visas to work in their same jobs in the EU or Worldwide if the worst comes to the worst.  No those who loose out are those who are low waged.  The ones who have been convinced that its immigration which has forced down their wages and ruined their communities.

Anyway just my feelings and thoughts.