Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
This game of chicken has been a disgrace, no doubt.
I voted to remain but I genuinely think the referendum should be respected. I think I was one of the few in the country that thought TM's deal was ok, delivered on most of the points of Brexit while keeping in close regulatory and trade alignment during a transition period and was a good compromise for both leave and remain groups.
On this point I totally agree. The governments position on this has been a complete demolition ball!
If you are referring to any of my posts with this then I have clearly stated compromise is needed from BOTH sides. Remainers should accept the result of the largest democratic process in this country's history and the Brexiteers need to accept it could never be as hardline as some were and still are aiming for. We are still European even if the majority wanted to be free of further integration.
To be fair, this has been the position of BOTH sides and why we are still in this massivley damaging and embarrassing situation.
I'm not sure any, or many reasonable people who voted for Brexit, and there are millions, aren't aware of this Diarm.
One of the main frustrations of Brexiteers, certainly the ones I know, family and friends, feel that we (the people) weren't asked whether we wanted to sign up to anything other than a free trade agreement. I think all over Europe, the electorate should have been given the say throughout the formation of what is now the EU.
Edit: as an addition, my partner is Greek. Her family, that still live over there, have had their lives and business made very difficult by being part of the EU. The EU is not a good fit for everybody no matter its intentions.
I've been saying this for a long time as some will know. I think we're at a point where a good few MPs wish they had backed it, and would now given the chance, suitably rebranded as you say. Corbyn and McDonnell should have given a free vote on it in the first place instead of playing election games, considering they had themselves backed honouring the referendum in two elections and backed the withdrawal act in parliament.
The problem is that there aren't many solutions. And those that are possible have all been rejected already.
If people would act sensibly, and stop the "we're going to invent some magical solution" or "the EU are going to cave in because of German car manufacturers" or "we can have the same benefits outside the EU as inside the EU". These are all complete rubbish and just stoking up the divisions in the public even more.
And you know that if there was a referendum the same tripe will be spouted by all the different parties/factions in their campaigns.
It doesn't need to be "equivalent" as that's a subjective term. Who decides what's equivalent? Would you be comfortable with pressure groups achieving a UK ban of criticism of the Netanyahu regime under the guise of eliminating anti-Semitism?
Any attack on free speech is an attack on civil liberties.
We don't which is outrageous and it's being eroded all the time. Whether under the guise of anti-racism (see the criticism Momentum have gotten for genuinely fair criticisms), or by specific government policy.
The level of debate is determined by the effectiveness of said debate. The greater chance something has of winning the more it'll be used. This is the case in every election or referendum.
Telling one side of the argument to do something that's counterproductive to their cause would by definition be a rigged democratic exercise.
The fact is that the electorate of each EU country gets to vote for their politicians who govern for them. It has been clear to the voters what they have been intending to do in respect of the EU and even now the electorate of each EU member state can vote for a political party who wants out of the EU. In other words, Brussels is no more or less democratic than Westminster. Well actually, at least most EU member states have proportional representation in their country so I wouldn’t want to say the EU is quite as undemocratic as that...
My point has never been that it's less democratic by design (although their is an argument for that)... My point is it's less democratic because of its size.
The EU is less democratic for the same reason a world government would be less democratic.
The alternative for me is democracy on a more local level. The more local something is the smaller the likelihood of corruption.
Think of a global government in comparison with a government of a town of 500. The chances of a huge global company successfully lobbying the former is huge and obvious. The cost is comparatively small compared with the potential benefits (a small change in policy would have huge financial ramifications). The cost to lobby the government of a population of 500 would outweigh the benefits in the vast majority of situations. The cost to lobby a government of 1 person becomes a simple trade transaction between two people.
The smaller the government the smaller the chance of corruption. That's why the EU is always going to be less democratic.
I think Farage and Johnson are idiots. I voted leave in spite of them, not because of them.
"F*ck shaking hands - get back to your own country."
Cancel brexit and vote Labour.
Do you remember when Cameron and May stood in front of no.10 after their election wins, and spoke of fixing inequality and the imbalances within our country? Well, anyone who believed them, or even gave them the benefit of the doubt, clearly hasn't been paying attention to the way the tories have sold off and destroyed our country.
So if the status quo means the continued tory rule, then no, it probably won't get any better whichever way brexit goes.
A tory government released from the shackles of the eu is their wet dream. Goodbye workers rights. Goodbye nhs. Hello tax breaks for the rich.
Got it in one.
Does anyone really think that Boris or JRM and their right wing mates actually give a sh1t about ordinary people....
Because if you do then keep talking the tablets, assuming they will be available after we crash out.
I was being polite really. It's a terrible argument on par with 30m Turks landing on our streets(with less xenophobia).
What would be more difficult to leave in the future? Think about that point for a minute. Are you basically saying that we would have more advantages from being within the EU so it would be even more damaging to leave? Because that's certainly how it seems.
If you’re of the opinion that things are getting worse then why would you wait longer to get out? It’s not that hard to grasp is it? The more time passes the more integrated into the EU we become.
I partially agree with your first point about layers obscuring democracy but size also means that policy becomes less extreme and more representational. The US federal and state laws are a good example of that but the EU environmental laws too where individual governments are too close to push them through. You will not solve climate change with localised politics.
As for corruption i really don't get how you've arrived at that. Nothing in our politics shows that to be the case as far as I'm aware. The idea that you can lobby the EU easier than MPs or local officials is a bit absurd, collective responsibility is designed to erode such corruption. Is there some specific EU corruption you're rallying against?
That's very simple to answer.
Things are not getting worse for us because of the EU.
In your most humble opinion which I tend to agree with
With the Benn act, assuming Boris complies and requests the extension (whilst presumably in the background saying ignore this, they made me do it), what happens if say France reject the extension? Do we end up with no deal and Brexit on Oct 31st? Or are we then likely to see the return of May’s deal which will presumably then get support as no deal looms large? Technically he’s obeyed the law by asking for the extension, doesn’t mean they have to give it though. They must be getting as fed up with it as the rest of us.
If France reject then yes it’s a no-deal. But it’s worth remembering that no matter what Boris says in the background, the EU are perfectly aware he’s running a minority government with no majority of any kind, and that a general election is coming very soon. They’ve also been having discussions with the opposition parties.
I’d be astonished if they don’t roll the dice one more time and see how the GE turns out. They don’t really have anything to lose from a few more months delay as long as it’s sorted before next summers budget talks.
Moot point. The EU will grant the extension.
Do you not think the referendum HAS been respected? The main driving force behind it has spent three years doing their best to adhere to it, a process which only seemed to highlight difficulties and reasons why it should not be respected. Feels to me like respecting the referendum has turned into flogging a dead horse.
Again I disagree, you're more likely to get extreme policies due to lobbying.
For example if someone told you they were going to create a local policy that actively prevented African people from selling their goods by leveling an "African levy" to all sales; there would be a revolt.
People would say "that's outrageous, I buy my bread from an African baker who's the best and the cheapest in the area, how dare you close him down or force me to pay more via this levy".
However the external tariffs that discriminate in the same way are deemed moderate, rather than patently racist.
I try not to make the perfect an argument against the better. The UK government are also too big and should delegate far more.
If there were a referendum on giving far more powers to regional governments I'd also vote for that.
In terms of corruption see the aforementioned prevention of African, Asian and South American goods via external protectionist tariffs and regulations.
Exactly.
Had there been a solid plan we could easily have left within a year or 2 and remainers would have been able to do little about it. Instead we have had to endure a constant stream of bulsshot and moving the goalposts.
Of course they will, there would be no end to the amount of extensions they would grant. An extension is no Brexit ... for now anyway, and possibly never.
My parents, 3 of my friends and my Mrs all do not think the referendum has been respected, and especially by Parties actively campaigning on reversing their vote and, regardless of my voting direction, I tend to agree with them on certain points. I have been on the losing side on a few general elections and it is a part of being a democracy. Yes, you can change your mind in a democracy but not straight away surely? Not before the vote has even been implemented? It is this side of the remain argument I don't like and don't get.
If it couldn't be respected in the first place then it wouldn't or shouldn't have been put to the people. I believe very firmly that it could be delivered if all minds were onto it instead of making it difficult. That is what Article 50 was designed to do, allow a member state to leave. So if article 50 doesn't actually facilitate that then surely there is a huge dishonesty there? I think remain have blocked and delayed brexit in almost every way possible. If the whole house got behind this we'd have been much further down the road than we are.
That being said, and what I do agree with my brexit voting friends and family is that the integration of the UK into the EU has been done in such a deceitful and sneaky way over the last 30 years and the public have seen so many powers handed over without their say so (no political party ever had these treaties in their manifesto), that how can anyone really feel part of it or trust it or even want it? That is also a big factor in the split between 'old and young' voters. The older ones (my parents especially) still feel a sense of betrayal at being led through the backdoor into a political union back in the 70's when it was informed it was only going to be a trade union.
This has been a very damaging time for the UK and unless hard line Brexiteers and Remainers start the healing process now, by some form of painful compromise and working together towards the best brexit possible our country will be fractured permanently.
I imagine so, just sort of wondering aloud what would happen if one decide nah, feck em.
The sooner we have an election the better, but I find it hard to believe even that will actually resolve anything. I don’t see any party having a majority afterwards and there seems to be enough parties not willing to join forces to be able to form a coalition.
Moving the goalposts.
That is the basis of the problem. There were no goalposts.
Just one word. Leave.
And leave probably meant 17 million different things to those who were pursued to vote for it.
If the idiot Cameron had devoted any thought process to the referendum then we would not still be where we are; Chaos.
You can’t compare protectionism to racism and corruption. Countries look out for their best interests, and if trading with a country will make money, they won’t hesitate to trade, no matter what colour the population are.
The corruption is the protection of rich white people at the expense of poor black people; due to the lobbying by the aforementioned rich white people.
The fact that this is ratified by government makes it worse not better.
When it comes to racism, money sees no colour. Cue Bannon dancing with Saudi sheikhs.
The rich white people in this case being the population of the UK. We want goods we want to buy, at the standards we expect and as a country we want to profit from the transactions. Countries put their own citizens first for right or wrong. If it’s racist, then we’re all racist.
Don't you see the contradiction of wanting smaller government then adding extra layers of(competing) bureaucracy?
If we go back to the example of thousands of governments of 500 people do you think this kind of racist policy would be enacted and be enforceable?
For example Town A enacts a policy that bans African wheat because they want to protect their wheat manufacturers, under the guise of it "not meeting our quality expectations". The people then have two options: drive 10 minutes to Town B to buy the cheaper African wheat that they believe is perfectly fine quality or buy UK wheat as they agree the quality is better. If no-one buys the African wheat then by definition there would be no law in the first place as Town A wouldn't have a problem.
Therefore banning anything under this guise is obviously against what the population want by it's very definition.
That's why the bigger the government the more inherently corrupt it is. It restricts the rights of the populace under often spurious and jingoistic regulations.
It would be the opposite. If we had thousands of competing governments they would be much smaller. Very few groups of 500 would vote to pay larger taxes to increase the size of its civil service. If they did people would move to a neighbouring town with lower taxes, decreasing the population over time to zero (and therefore no government at all).
The chances are most of these small governments would be voluntary citizens who met up in their free time in order to make their town a better place.
For ultimate freedom we are 70 millions governments of one who aren't coerced by force to do anything (provided of course that our actions aren't harming anyone else)
This is more than a bit mad, and completely ignores how people actually act in reality. Back when there were countless small states, all that happened was they spent half their time beating the shit out of each other and trying to steal each other’s shit, while being considerably more racist, jingoistic and xenophobic than any country today.
I take it your a supporter of Thatcherism. It also seems you are quite a way down this road, so not much point in me arguing the finer details, though I disagree with almost every part of your post.
What I will say though:
Collaboration is better than competition.
Kindness, caring and community values are more important than getting ahead of some other group.
The world has finite resources and can handle only so much from us as a species before it will fight back, hard. To continue the race to the bottom style of politics is the last thing we need right now.
This made me smile.
Guy is a complete tool. I've no idea why the BBC think he is in any qualified to be talking on political matters.
Guy is a complete tool. I've no idea why the BBC think he is in any qualified to be talking on political matters.
Thatcherism included things like poll tax which I thought was outrageous. It was too authoritarian for my liking also.
My views are in line with:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
Believing that progress is down in any part to centralisation of government is where we'll have to agree to disagree.