Jump to content
IGNORED

Brexit...


Hafnia

Referendum  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      26
    • Leave
      24

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Guest rusty747

Its the Gibraltar one that confuses me. Admittedly, I don't know that much about it but I seem to remember that, in the past, Gibraltar voted 98% in favour of remaining part of Britain rather than becoming part of Spain. Remaining in the EU would seem that there is more chance of the latter happening as 'country' boundaries start to disappear.

It is an interesting and very delicate political situation. On the one hand you can look at the Falkland Islands right to self determination as an example. On the other hand, you can look at the geographical proximity of Spain to Gibraltar and say that EU membership for Gibraltar makes sense - but how to administrate it? On the other hand again, Gibraltar and UK managed just fine together before the EU even existed. We can do so again.

 

There is no doubt that Brexit raises lots of collatoral issues which must be dealt with. But I can only say once again that the people have spoken and the will of the people must be respected and enacted.

Edited by rusty747
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree with most of that except the bold - why is challenging the decision, to make sure what happens is actually for the best rather than steamrolling ahead, considered "sabotage"? I call it self-preservation and common sense.

 

Got an escalated appointment regarding my permit this afternoon :)

 

Matt, it is fairly obvious that many Remainers (eg Heseltine, Blair, Mandelson et al) are not interested in what 'deal' is in place, they just want a reversal of the whole thing. That is the undemocratic bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is the demonstrated will of the people. And 'challenging' the will of the people as you put it is tantamount to saying that some people think theyknow better than others. Once we go down that route then democracy is dead.

 

The people have spoken. Now, Brexit must happen. To challenge it is to challenge democracy and is, imho, unconstitutional.

 

Good luck with your permit Matt.

Because that's the reality and it's why we have people in charge!

 

Some people spoke, yes, not the majority of the population but it's the basis of our broken system. Our democracy is parlimentary i.e. we have people in charge to make decisions in our best interests, vote by registered constituents.

 

To open every decision up to "the will of the people" is the death of the democracy we have and actually against the existing constitution by my understanding, and undermines the entire structure we have in place (which is arguably a good thing). It's also a step towards anarchy in my opinion.

 

I don't want us to leave, but leave we will for reasons I cannot get my head around. But if it's going to happen, it better had be challenged so that the solution benefits all the people, not just those who chose to leave, and quite frankly those in charge are fucking terrifying; to let them "get on with it" would be catastrophic for the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

Because that's the reality and it's why we have people in charge!

 

Some people spoke, yes, not the majority of the population but it's the basis of our broken system. Our democracy is parlimentary i.e. we have people in charge to make decisions in our best interests, vote by registered constituents.

 

To open every decision up to "the will of the people" is the death of the democracy we have and actually against the existing constitution by my understanding, and undermines the entire structure we have in place (which is arguably a good thing). It's also a step towards anarchy in my opinion.

 

I don't want us to leave, but leave we will for reasons I cannot get my head around. But if it's going to happen, it better had be challenged so that the solution benefits all the people, not just those who chose to leave, and quite frankly those in charge are fucking terrifying; to let them "get on with it" would be catastrophic for the country.

Well there we must disagree Matt. By challenging Brexit we are restricting the PM's negotiating tactics greatly. That, in turn, increases the likelihood of no agreement at all being reached and the UK just leaving and sticking two fingers up at the EU. The administrative and political machinery is in place for that to happen I believe. In that event, it would be the hardest brexit you can imagine. Far better, imho, to let the PM negotiate a good deal for us from a position of strength.

 

No political decision has ever benefitted ALL the people Matt. That is what democracy is about - getting the best possible deal for the largest possible number of people.

Edited by rusty747
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Matt, it is fairly obvious that many Remainers (eg Heseltine, Blair, Mandelson et al) are not interested in what 'deal' is in place, they just want a reversal of the whole thing. That is the undemocratic bit.

I see why people think that, but it's technically not as I explained above.

 

I'm glad people are challenging it; not just because I dislike the result, but because a massively important topic was treated with the least respect possible by selfish politicians more interested in bickering and sniping than putting forth a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there we must disagree Matt. By challenging Brexit we are restricting the PM's negotiating tactics greatly. That, in turn, increases the likelihood of no agreement at all being reached and the UK just leaving and sticking two fingers up at the EU. The administrative and political machinery is in place for that to happen I believe. In that event, it would be the hardest brexit you can imagine. Far better, imho, to let the PM negotiate a good deal for us from a position of strength.

May has already said she will do exactly that anyway. She'd still be enacting Brexit, so still respecting the will of the people, so who cares how "hard" it is. Right?

 

Or, should there be constructive debate (for the first time) on the topic to ensure the deal is the best for everyone? Which means engaging both leave and remain supporters and coming to a compromise that is best for everyone, instead of continuing to hear "you lost, accept it" or "it was a bullshit idea to start with, ignore the result"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

Because that's the reality and it's why we have people in charge!

 

Some people spoke, yes, not the majority of the population but it's the basis of our broken system. Our democracy is parlimentary i.e. we have people in charge to make decisions in our best interests, vote by registered constituents.

 

To open every decision up to "the will of the people" is the death of the democracy we have and actually against the existing constitution by my understanding, and undermines the entire structure we have in place (which is arguably a good thing). It's also a step towards anarchy in my opinion.

 

I don't want us to leave, but leave we will for reasons I cannot get my head around. But if it's going to happen, it better had be challenged so that the solution benefits all the people, not just those who chose to leave, and quite frankly those in charge are fucking terrifying; to let them "get on with it" would be catastrophic for the country.

You shoot your own argument in the foot a little there Matt.

 

On the one hand you suggest that we should disregard or challenge the demonstrated will of the people as 'that's why we have people in charge.' Next, you state that the people in charge 'fucking terrify' you.

 

The people have spoken Matt and, no matter who is in charge, they have to deliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

May has already said she will do exactly that anyway. She'd still be enacting Brexit, so still respecting the will of the people, so who cares how "hard" it is. Right?

 

Or, should there be constructive debate (for the first time) on the topic to ensure the deal is the best for everyone? Which means engaging both leave and remain supporters and coming to a compromise that is best for everyone, instead of continuing to hear "you lost, accept it" or "it was a bullshit idea to start with, ignore the result"

Because to effectively debate our negotiating tactics prior to negotiating with EU is to send the PM into a fight with both hands tied behind her back. May is aware of the spectrum of feelings I am sure and the deal she negotiates will be the best deal for the largest number of people imho, and certainly much better than anything that could be achieved if we show all our cards to the EU ahead of negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shoot your own argument in the foot a little there Matt.

 

On the one hand you suggest that we should disregard or challenge the demonstrated will of the people as 'that's why we have people in charge.' Next, you state that the people in charge 'fucking terrify' you.

 

The people have spoken Matt and, no matter who is in charge, they have to deliver.

I see it as backing up the argument for being part of the EU, because left to their own devices, our politicians are idiots.

 

Please stop saying "the people" - it wasn't "the people", it was some. Not even close to a quarter of the population. It's a catchphrase that undermines the debate.

 

I agree, those in charge have to deliver, but they have to deliver for everyone, and as I said, they actually have to listen and compromise with those who want to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because to effectively debate our negotiating tactics prior to negotiating with EU is to send the PM into a fight with both hands tied behind her back. May is aware of the spectrum of feelings I am sure and the deal she negotiates will be the best deal for the largest number of people imho, and certainly much better than anything that could be achieved if we show all our cards to the EU ahead of negotiations.

I see it as actually giving her a tactic before she goes into the fight. As you've said earlier; get your own house in order before thinking about the outside world

Edited by Matt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

I see it as actually giving her a tactic before she goes into the fight. As you've said earlier; get your own house in order before thinking about the outside world

But if you do that it is telling the EU how we will negotiate and is 100% guaranteed not to be successful.

 

It is obvious that you don't like May in particular or the Tories in general, but put that to one side just for one minute and ask yourself if they can do a better job for us all by being allowed to play their cards close to their chest or if they declare their hand to EU before any negotiations take place.

 

I think perhaps you need to differentiate between political agenda and ability. I understand and respect that you dont like Tory policy, but May is an able politician and will be negotiating on behalf of UK, not the Tory party.

Edited by rusty747
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit if you if you do that it is telling the EU how we will negotiate and is 100% guaranteed not to be successful.

There is no guarantee, this is new ground, though in my personal opinion, if we do not prepare to represent the whole of the country, Brexit will fail.

 

I've also read in that article that May will go ahead regardless of MP votes, which really is undemocratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

There is no guarantee, this is new ground, though in my personal opinion, if we do not prepare to represent the whole of the country, Brexit will fail.

 

I've also read in that article that May will go ahead regardless of MP votes, which really is undemocratic.

 

No, its called respecting the will of the people. What is undemocratic is the constituency MPs not reflecting the demonstrated wishes of their constituents.

 

May will represent the whole of the UK at negotiations. Just have a little faith Matt.

 

She has to secure a deal that keeps most people happy - if she wants another term as PM.

Edited by rusty747
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, its called respecting the will of the people. What is undemocratic is the constituency MPs not reflecting the demonstrated wishes of their constituents.

 

May will represent the whole of the UK at negotiations. Just have a little faith Matt.

 

She has to secure a deal that keeps most people happy - if she wants another term as PM.

But it's not the will of "the" people as I've explained, gets very frustrating to keep hearing that. Anyway, it's the result of the current broken and corrupt system Britain has in place, for better or worse.

 

All MPs have an obligation to serve their constituents. If their constituents voted against leaving, they should debate for the people who voted for them. Same for people voting to leave. What's undemocratic and unconstitutional is telling everyone to fall in line and just get on with it. Debate is healthy and, especially in this case, necessary. I'd even go so far as to saying that telling people to shut up and accept it is suppressing freedom of speech which is against the law (one which we have the EU to thank from what I've read)

 

As for the last bit, this is the whole problem with the debacle; career politicians more interested in securing their post than thinking and doing what's right - and I don't mean ignoring / over turning the result, I mean engaging in debate and compromise rather than ploughing ahead.

 

I stand corrected, "most" is a more accurate word as there's no way to keep all/everyone happy. But most has be more than the 17m people (25%) of 65m who voted to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

But it's not the will of "the" people as I've explained, gets very frustrating to keep hearing that. Anyway, it's the result of the current broken and corrupt system Britain has in place, for better or worse.

 

All MPs have an obligation to serve their constituents. If their constituents voted against leaving, they should debate for the people who voted for them. Same for people voting to leave. What's undemocratic and unconstitutional is telling everyone to fall in line and just get on with it. Debate is healthy and, especially in this case, necessary. I'd even go so far as to saying that telling people to shut up and accept it is suppressing freedom of speech which is against the law (one which we have the EU to thank from what I've read)

 

As for the last bit, this is the whole problem with the debacle; career politicians more interested in securing their post than thinking and doing what's right - and I don't mean ignoring / over turning the result, I mean engaging in debate and compromise rather than ploughing ahead.

 

I stand corrected, "most" is a more accurate word as there's no way to keep all/everyone happy. But most has be more than the 17m people (25%) of 65m who voted to leave.

Matt, debate takes place before a decision is made, not after. We have had the debate, we have had the referendum and the decision is Brexit.

 

Now, we need to unite behind the decision to get the best possible brexit deal for everyone. We wont do that by declaring our hand to the EU ahead of negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

Also, sorry but having faith in a Tory is fucking impossible, let alone one who was staunchly against the thing she now has to put in place...

In which case there is no point in continuing this debate with you.

 

I am no great Tory fan either but I do trust May and her team to deliver the best possible deal for UK. So, our differences are unbridgeable due to your strong political affiliations - which I respect but which makes further reasoned debate impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, debate takes place before a decision is made, not after. We have had the debate, we have had the referendum and the decision is Brexit.

 

Now, we need to unite behind the decision to get the best possible brexit deal for everyone. We wont do that by declaring our hand to the EU ahead of negotiations.

Ordinarily I'd agree, except in this case it didn't. Honestly, if anyone thinks the build up to the vote was debate, I'd be speechless.

 

I don't know why alignment to get the best for most is declaring our hand to the EU; it's simply ensuring we've got our hand ready to play rather than searching through for the trump card we thought we had to win the hand but can't find it because nothing organised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which case there is no point in continuing this debate with you.

 

I am no great Tory fan either but I do trust May and her team to deliver the best possible deal for UK. So, our differences are unbridgeable due to your strong political affiliations - which I respect but which makes further reasoned debate impossible.

Fair enough if you don't want to continue, but if it helps it wouldn't matter who was leading I'd still be making the same arguments. Having a hypocritical Tory leading the way is like cherry on top of a gateaux de shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This Verhofstadt guy (note what I did there :D) says that he received a thousand letters from Brits who want to stay in the EU. Well no one on the leave side is going to bother writing to him, are they. He's the guy who has consistently been issuing threats to the UK. BBC again by the way.

Just curious, John. Which outlet is acceptable to quote? Since the BBC and The Guardian are out, Times you need a subscription so can't quote, and I won't insult anyone by quoting the express or daily mail, I'm struggling to find a "neutral" source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

Fair enough if you don't want to continue, but if it helps it wouldn't matter who was leading I'd still be making the same arguments. Having a hypocritical Tory leading the way is like cherry on top of a gateaux de shite.

But I believe May will obtain a good deal for all UK and will negotiate in good faith on behalf of all UK citizens. You don't because of your distrust of her and her fellow tories.

 

That is where our debate will always end up and where we will never be able to agree.

 

I do hope you get your permit sorted out to your satisfaction though.

Edited by rusty747
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, John. Which outlet is acceptable to quote? Since the BBC and The Guardian are out, Times you need a subscription so can't quote, and I won't insult anyone by quoting the express or daily mail, I'm struggling to find a "neutral" source.

No, Matt, I wasn't meaning that you shouldn't quote them but it is always the BBC or Guardian. I'm getting to the stage where if I see a quote by GUA or BBC I don't bother reading as I know what to expect. Don't expect anything else from the Guardian but the BBC is supposed to be impartial. It would be nice to see some other source quoted and if it was anti-Brexit would probably carry more weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, sorry but having faith in a Tory is fucking impossible, let alone one who was staunchly against the thing she now has to put in place...

 

Matt, it does seem that your hatred of Tories is influencing your views. Would you be equally critical if it was a Labour government managing Brexit? Remember, a large proportion of the leave vote came from traditional Labour supporters in the north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Matt, it does seem that your hatred of Tories is influencing your views. Would you be equally critical if it was a Labour government managing Brexit? Remember, a large proportion of the leave vote came from traditional Labour supporters in the north.

i would be equally critical, because I don't like them either (not I'll admit I don't have the same contempt as for the Tories)

 

I post Guardian and BBC because I find myself agreeing with the way the articles are presented and fit my interpretation of events. If there are other sources I'm open to suggestion mate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I believe May will obtain a good deal for all UK and will negotiate in good faith on behalf of all UK citizens. You don't because of your distrust of her and her fellow tories.

 

That is where our debate will always end up and where we will never be able to agree.

 

I do hope you get your permit sorted out to your satisfaction though.

fair enough, and I hope she proves me wrong

 

Got all my papers now, application is in process so should find out in a few months. As of end of next year, I can start the process for citizenship too apparently!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Matt, I wasn't meaning that you shouldn't quote them but it is always the BBC or Guardian. I'm getting to the stage where if I see a quote by GUA or BBC I don't bother reading as I know what to expect. Don't expect anything else from the Guardian but the BBC is supposed to be impartial. It would be nice to see some other source quoted and if it was anti-Brexit would probably carry more weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree with almost everything you wrote, I just disagree with the conclusion regarding the EU.

 

The EU very clearly stays away from rulemaking on anthing related to language and culture. As it is a supranational organisation, and there is no cultural homogenity within its borders, it has no competence, nor reason, to act on these matters. The principle that the EU doesn't act in these local matters is a specific constitutional principle of EU law, which illustrates its importance. (as a side note: regions are also represented in the EU in the important advisory board "Committee of the Regions", which I assume has a Cornish member).

 

The EU is supposed to only act in the fields where there is a clear common goal among its members (free trade, environment, security, ..) and because in those fields I feel my objectives align with the Swedes, the Dutch, I don't feel (culturally) threatened when the EU does act in those fields.

 

Now, it could be that the EU passed regulation on something it thought to be within its competence, and possibly this regulation had an impact on the cultural identity of a certain region in Europe. But of the top of my head I can't think of any. Quite to the contrary, I can think of a few examples where the EU restricted its own goal to create a fully integrated Single Market, by protecting local products such as the Cornish Pastry. Can you give an example that made you conclude the EU doesn't respect the heterogenous nature of Europe?

 

It depends on your definition of culture. I'm not just talking about the arts or language but the basic principles that, within a culture, influence how we approach every aspect of life. Economic policy is cultural. (I remember decades ago that many in England threw a fit when told Britain must adhere to European labour laws, for example.) Doctors making home visits is cultural. Sense of humour, which might be risque or raucous, is cultural. So too are certain agricultural methods and bank holidays and forms of wine-making and haggis and setting fire to Guy Fawkes and the Grand National and fox hunting and burkinis and gun laws and cinnamon rolls and so on. The EU may respect the arts in each member country (although they do spend money on promoting an EU culture), but one's culture is very much more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...