LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI believe Rees-Mogg himself called for 2 referendums (referendii? Referendum?) in about 2012, probably before he took the moves to protect his hedge fund from the fallout by moving it within the EU...Originally Posted by philehidiot
Referenda?
I believe Rees-Mogg himself called for 2 referendums (referendii? Referendum?) in about 2012, probably before he took the moves to protect his hedge fund from the fallout by moving it within the EU...
Referenda?
I read that as a threat that she'd somehow screw it (more than she has). It struck me as an empty threat as it is law that we leave. No vote can stop that unless something is tabled to repeal that law. There's a process and it would be multiple votes, amendments and so on.... I'm honestly not sure there's even time for it given the rate those idiots move!
I'm sure they'd find some weird pseudo-constitutional path to derailing things but can you imagine if they did?! British people who invented Parliamentary democracy and exported it throughout the world being told their democratic decision doesn't count? I expect there'd be.... civil unrest at that. We have rules for a reason and if we're going throw out those rules because we (or another group) happen find them inconvenient then you invalidate the entire social legitimacy of government which rules only with consent. This is one of the reasons why people voted to leave the EU - a lack of democracy. They throw out rules when they don't fit (the bailouts were expressly forbidden for historical reasons. Basically Germany didn't want to be sending large quantities of cash to Greece to balance the Euro out. That worked.) and those in real power are not accountable to the people for their actions. If we choose to throw out the referendum and not leave we are no better than the institutions we seek to separate ourselves from.
Bear in mind the above is not a case for leave Vs remain (I'm well done with that), just the potential serious consequences for democracy if our leaders about face right now. As Junker said the day after the referendum - we should just get on with it and leave quickly, for the sake of all of us and not extend the period of uncertainty longer than absolutely necessary. People seriously need to stop trying to stop this train and figure out how to keep it on the tracks.
Possibly did but the situation in 2012 is different to now. This was when things were being proposed and you can tell by the 8 seconds it is taken out of context. In this speech he was proposing a system that was planned from the start to be multiple, staged votes, not just one. This was considered and rejected.
If you're referring to him opening an office in Ireland that was... opening an office. He doesn't even run a hedge fund. He has addressed this on multiple occasions and it's just a lie being spread by news agencies who don't want to listen to him and make a counter-argument but just discredit so they don't have to put the work in and discuss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzy0wQQkr3g
AKA politely saying he's lying.AARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!! TERMINOLOGICAL INEXACTITUDE!
I do wonder if it's not going to take a new generation of politicians to get this done. A good number of them, I would imagine, have grown up with a mindset that only ever worked in and looked towards a future in the EU. The idea of any other sort of scenario, where the UK becomes individually far more responsible for it's own future, may never have entered their minds, and some simply may not be capable or interested in redeveloping their vision.
It's a huge wake up call, perhaps some even feel way out of their depth, and a new generation of representatives may well be necessary for building a post Brexit UK. It truly is a new way of thinking and operating. Or perhaps, an old one revisited.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
I think you're quite probably right but it goes deeper than that... our Civil Service has signed around 5 Armed Forces integration deals with the EU since the referendum and they are not small agreements, they're integration commitments as part of the EU army. The politicians have their feet on the pedals but it's the Civil Service which is the engine, etc. If they choose to do things differently they can derail almost anything... I have a better method...
Referendums is the common preference, but referendae works fine.
Referenda is only when you have several issues to referend...
How would she do that, and why? That'd be all the excuse Comrade Corbyn needs to seize power.
Meanwhile, we won't be leaving until they make their minds up anyway, so straight away we're into delays.
"The European Court of Justice ruled on 10 December 2018 that the UK could cancel the Article 50 Brexit process without the permission of the other 27 EU members, and remain a member of the EU on its existing terms, provided the decision followed a "democratic process". Prime Minister Theresa May warned Conservative MPs thinking of voting against the deal she reached with the EU that they risk "no Brexit at all". This is a reference to another referendum, which is backed by the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru the Green Party, a small number of Conservatives and larger group of Labour MPs, who want the public to be given the final say, with the option to remain in the EU. They are trying to get the Labour leadership to back them - but Jeremy Corbyn says his priority is to force a general election."
BBC Website.
So, if you vote against No Deal and you vote against May's Deal, you exclude two out of three options. There is no fourth. That, by, default leaves you with one, so could be considered a democratic process of elimination.... unless you want to argue that something isn't the only option because you didn't vote specifically for it, which will pretty much force a second public vote as above. Corbyn wants a General because he thinks he and his mistress can take power, so that will delay things even longer, and before you know it we'll still be in Europe 10 years later as we argue about leaving... all while coming up with more things to do first.
Civil Serpents are masters of procrastination, if it benefits them.
Err.... how is this different from the way polluticians normally do things?
So long as they make at least a vague effort to put some barely-plausible spin on things, or their decisions benefit whichever vocal minorities are shouting the loudest, the country will just shut up and carry on. Generally the worst thing to happen will be some moaning on Twitter about it.
IIRC It was the court case Gina Miller brought that ruled it was advisory, like all referendums in the UK unless very clear language to the contrary is in the referendum legislation, that and also the fact that a briefing paper was issued before hand explaining that the referendum would have advisory effect only.
Just a quick hypothetical question if i may: Say you were making 80k a year from various client's and one of them told you they were taking their business elsewhere and if you don't do what they want they're not going to pay this years invoice of 4k, what would you do? Because that's basically how much weight threatening not to pay £39 billion to an organisation that has a revenue of approximately £800 billion each year, roughly £20 billion less than the UK spends each year.
Anyone think Mrs May regrets saying no-deal is better than a bad deal now she's trying to get her deal through parliament.
EDIT:IDK about some weird pseudo-constitutional path but by all accounts they're not even close to passing the necessary legislation needed to leave the EU, they have roughly 30 sitting days left and need to pass 9 pieces of legislation and amend a further 600 odd, considering the bill needed to hold the referendum in the first place took over 6 months I'm not holding out much hope.
Last edited by Corky34; 25-01-2019 at 06:58 PM.
Just out of curiosity, all those preferring an end to Brexit, are you okay with joining the Euro, free movement including turkey, a European military, handing over budgetary control to the EU, and more and more central control over laws in general?
Because that's what remain means.
No it doesn't.
It does. Budgetary oversight is already with the EU (EDIT if you don't believe that, ask Italy and Ireland), the C&C structure for the EU Navy is already in place and they've built the buildings for the command staff for the army. Free movement MAY or may not include Turkey but it's heading that way. As for handing over more and more powers, the EU calls them "competencies" and you have no democratic redress when they take them over.
There's plenty of arguments FOR the EU, "no it doesn't" when faced with plain facts is not one of them.
The necessary leglislation required to leave is in place. To cope with leaving, not so much.
EDIT: Oh and we represent about 9% of thetotal EU budget. Not so much that they can't plug the gap but they haven't even started budgetary considerations for if we leave with no deal. Their arrogance will be their undoing.
No it's not, that's unless you're confusing the single currency, that the UK has opted-out of, with the EU.
You'll have to forgive me for not taking your word for that and asking for a citation, onus probandi and all that.
No it's not, firstly the UK is not part of the Schengen Area, our sovereign parliament took control and refused to sign it. We are however signed up to the treaty of Rome (aka:The treaty on the functioning of the European Union) that among other things like the four freedoms includes the freedom of movement for workers that stipulates EU citizens are free to look for work for up to 3 months.
Secondly Turkey has been trying to join the EU for over three decades and has so far has only closed 1 of the 17 chapters required to join in all that time, however if you have evidence that Turkey is more likely to join in the next 30 years than they've been in the last 30 I'm all ears.
Powers that we've chosen to either 'hand over' or not, as shown by our refusal to sign up to the Schengen Area, the single currency, partially opting-out of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and areas of freedom, security and justice.
And no "competencies" do not hand over powers with no democratic redress, as explained in the FAQ on EU competences and the European Commission powers.
And FYI those "competencies" are voted on by either the council, parliament, or both so there's plenty of ways that the whole population or all the eligible members of a state can remedy or set right any proposed legislation, as demonstrated recently when the European Council voted down the controversial copyright reforms (Articles 11 and 13). Interesting enough Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Slovenia, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Croatia, Luxembourg, and Portugal all voted against it, you'll notice the UK is not one of those who voted against it.In the areas where the EU can carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement action by the member states, does the EU have competence to harmonise legislation in force in the member states?
NO - legally binding acts of the Union relating to these areas shall not entail harmonisation of national laws or regulations.
Well when someone makes claims that are uncertain, indefinite, unclear, and perhaps false there's really no other answer until someone such as yourself makes it a little more clearer.
I mean if i said are you OK with being sent to the moon you'd probably say no until you knew a few more details like how you were going to get there, if you were going to come back, if you'd be alive during the process and things like that.
That's reassuring.
I'm not sure losing 0.066% of revenue is very high on their list of priorities.
Last edited by Corky34; 26-01-2019 at 03:04 PM.
The EU has to sign off on the budgets of member states as far as I'm aware from speeches made in the Parliament. Countries have had their budgets rejected and indeed Ireland was told they’d have to agree their budget with the EU before being allowed a second referendum. The EU can also take control of governments, flying in technocrats as has also happened in recent years. Was it Italy most recently? I think it was in the wake of all the philandering, bribery and corruption (my head isn’t working quite as well as it should do, I’m not long out of hospital and still muggy). There are two very acceptable perspectives on this – 1) too much power in the hands of the unelected, 2) a very useful way of dealing with corrupt governments, as long as those with ultimate supranational power don’t get corrupt… better keep ‘em sweet with some good tax deals and lots of expenses and fancy cars…. Tick!
C&C structure, god this is gonna take a while to find. Was ages since I read this….
….Oh wait.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairm...tary_Committee
Senior C&C structure. Right there. You won't find any lower down for operational security.
Also worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common...Defence_Policy
“Operation Atalanta (formally European Union Naval Force Somalia) is the first ever (and still ongoing) naval operation of the European Union” – Under EU C&C. Not ours. Although I'm sure if we told a Type 45 under EU command to kill everything in sight and head home for tea and crumpets, they'd probably take our orders over the EU's. I've also seen our squaddies with no UK insignia and displaying EU flags instead.
I didn’t say anything about free movement to the UK, that’s an obvious exception but once they have that EU passport…. You really think they’re going to obey the rules and come here legally? They’ll enter with the EU passport and disappear like all the illegal immigrants to. And if they’re caught then they’ll be nicked, taken to the cop shop, released and told to report to an immigration centre, whereupon they’ll vanish again. Happens all the time. I saw it on telly Turkey has a lot of respect in the west. They were armed with US nukes during the cold war and they’re not afraid of us (see: recent blackmail). I’d be very cautious before writing them off.
So, the tale of the farmer who was fined for his paperwork being delayed by the Christmas post, asked his MP who took it to government and was told “it’s an area of EU competency, if we don’t fine him, the EU will fine us, it’s tough” is a lie? There may be redress for certain things but the EU does not give the little man anywhere near the redress of grievance that UK law and parliamentary democracy does. Ever tried contacting the EU about anything? You have a direct link to the highest levels of our government via your MP, not so with the EU as the status of an MEP is somewhat… limited.
Yes! The Parliament (who can’t propose laws) can reject a law! Upon which the law goes back for revision and gets sent back to the Parliament and so on. Look up how many laws have been totally rejected and failed under this EU system. You can guess the answer by the description above. It’s a rubber-stamp parliament. See: Soviet.
If someone wanted to send me to the moon I’d simply ask they give me the keys. A shot at the moon is far better than this circus. Just avoid that nasty radioactive bit on the way.
If we represent such a small financial benefit to the EU, why were they so obsessed with getting such a large sum of money out of us before even starting negotiations? Personally, I think we should pay our budgetary contributions up to the end of the last budget (can’t remember when that is) regardless of a deal or not. That money goes to things like sewers in Romania and is actually relied upon for people’s jobs, etc. We can’t screw with that. With regards to the rest of the money, here’s an example of why nobody believes we owe that much, not even the EU. They’ve said we need to pay towards ongoing pension commitments beyond when we leave. Fair, but when we joined they demanded we pay towards pension commitments acquired BEFORE we joined. It’s either retrospective or prospective, not both. They’ve maximised that amount and we’ve agreed in order to get to the meat of the matter which is really quite sensible.
As for the Article 13/11 thing – I didn’t even hear we’d won against that nonsense. I’ve opened your source to read later.
By the way, you DO realise I’m just arguing for the sake of it, right? I can see this debate from both sides (and have actually now turned down 3 media appearances on the subject…. Scary). My problem is that I never kept sources listed when I read them. If I ever research something this in depth again, I’m going to keep a searchable Excel sheet with sources.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
So... some commentary there that in some cases goes back to 2014, and has rather a lot of "might happen". I'm not sure how a change to German energy policy is even slightly relevant to Brexit, but if it makes you happy...
So a quick google for "EU has to sign off on the budgets of member states" turned up nothing, (afaik) the EU agrees with all members states, including Ireland, as explained on the 'EU budget in my country page'..."The EU budget is an important tool that puts EU policies into practice. It finances actions that Member States cannot fund on their own or that they can fund more economically by pooling their resources.", Italy breached single currency debt rules and as you say all the other philandering, bribery and corruption.
Either way they all seem a long way off from what a common man would consider budgetary oversight as there's no itemised summaries of expected income and expenditure, there's no telling members what they can or can't spend their own money on, and there's no supervising going on. There are democratically agreed upon rules that member states signed up to when they joined the single currency and there are negotiated agreements between members and the EU.
Also how have you come to the conclusion that there's too much power in the hands of the unelected? MEPs are elected, council members are elected, even the heads of various commission departments are elected, in terms of democracy the EU is considerably more democratic than the UK.
Don't those links rather dispute your previous point that there's too much power in the hands of the unelected? I mean the chairman of the European Union military committee is appointed for a 3 year term by the elected heads of member states and even then all he does is chair the comity of the chiefs of defence of the EU member states, and the EUMC is responsible for enacting the democratically agreed upon policies involving things like terrorism, and security.
As demonstrated in your example of Operation Atalanta being a counter-piracy military operation. I'd say working together when it comes to things like terrorism, piracy, border security, and other defence issues related to the EU as a whole is probably rather sensible. It's also a long way from a C&C structure for the EU Navy as it's temporary and on a basis-by-basis need, when piracy in the Indian ocean is no longer such a problem it will be disbanded and the vessels from 16 member states will no longer be needed along with the C&C structure, although ironically when we leave the C&C structure will moving from the multinational headquarters (MNHQ) at Northwood to Spain.
You may not have explicitly mentioned free movement to the UK but you certainly implied it, if not why say "Free movement MAY or may not include Turkey", if it wasn't relevant to the discussion why mention it?
Once they have an EU passport they can come hear perfectly legally so i don't see why they'd want to disobey the rules, if however you're talking about immigrants who've entered the country perfectly legally and over-stayed then we're perfectly within our right to deport them. Don't get me wrong as i completely agree with you that how the UK deals with immigration from the EU is worse than awful, however i don't see why that's a problem of the EU's doing, it's the UK that doesn't bother keeping records of who enters or leave to or from the EU, it's the UK that doesn't bother enforcing the 3 month rules, it's the UK that has the ability to control its border with the EU but choose not to exercise that control.
You're asking if the fictitious or true narrative or story, especially one that is imaginatively recounted from a farmer is a lie? I probably wouldn't go that far but if i knew some more details i dare say the tale is constructed from truths, half-truths, and lies. From your description I'd guess that the MP who he took it to told him it's an area of EU competency because either the MP couldn't be bothered or didn't understand the legalities.
Re: Democratic redress, you didn't say there maybe redress for certain things, you said there's no redress. If however you meant 'a' citizen has limited redress then you're correct, but that's no different than the UK system, you can go and talk to your MEP just like you can with your MP, here's a list of them if you want to seek redress over they way they represent you.
If your farmer wanted to talk to someone like Gerard Batten they could have e-mailed him, contacted him via his website, that oddly seems to have been taken over by an travel insurance company.
I understand the rhetorical flourish but i don't think it helps to use emotive language.
What you describe though, that the law goes back for revision and gets sent back to the Parliament and so on, is entirely true but, that's how laws are made throughout the world, unless you are actually living in a dictatorship. That's what politics means, it means compromising and reaching consensus, the UK does exactly the same thing, we're even doing it now with Mrs May's deal as it got voted down and now a supposedly revised 'deal' is going to be voted on again, another example is the Snoopers Charter, first proposed by Blair, despite vociferous objections and it being shot down many times both in parliament and legally here we are some 15 years later with an Investigatory Powers Act.
I get what you're saying but i don't see how it's any different than what happens in the UK.
It's not a large sum of money, at least not to us or them, it's also not them getting it out of us, it's honoring your commitments, we signed up to X, Y, or Z and it's only fair (IMO) that we stick by our word (it's in black&white but you get what i mean). I wasn't aware they demanded we pay towards pension commitments acquired BEFORE we joined, do you have a citation on that as I'd be interested to read about it.
Either way though i think the argument over money is largely irrelevant as it's a tiny amount when compared to the other costs involved in leaving, this threadreader link lists 180 factual, fully-sourced examples of the impact Brexit is already having on the UK and although I've not tallied all the money i dare say it exceed the £39 billion by at least 100x.
That's OK, for the sake of it is better than not for the sake of it.
It's good when people can debate these things while remaining civil.Although this much typing takes me blooming ages.
It would be dead handy if you give your own opinion instead of just posting links to third party ones, perhaps tell us what's the point you're trying to make and back that up with some originally sourced evidence.
EDIT: BTW I'm not saying the EU is perfect or without flaws but when compared to the way the UK does things it's demonstrably better IMO, you only have to look at the mess parliament has been in for the last few months for an example of that, that and the 72 rules covered in this twitter post that a supranational organisation imposed on us and we want to take control of once we've left.
Last edited by Corky34; 27-01-2019 at 12:58 PM.
FWIW, maintaining freedom of movement is what I care the most about. If we end up with a deal where we exit while retaining freedom of movement, the whole thing won't bother me too much.
Of course I am well aware that is the polar opposite of many Brexiters want (I suspect that many consider ending the freedom of movement a top reason for Brexit).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
