[Presvias]

Divided Britain 2019.

Maybe some Brexiters can go ahead and explain these quotes to me, cos I bit fick.

[foxdemon]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejo2Kc4-PXw

Getting back on track, this video shows well the basic issues.

It is amazing to watch the labour PMs a oud giving straight answers to questions like when will they hold an election (never if they could arrange it), and why does the Brexit extension bill give the EU the right to set the timing for the leave date? It is an obvious charade of liars duping the public out of their democratically expressed will to leave.

The UK public is finding out it is not just the EU commission that is undemocratic, but that most politicians in their parliament are undemocratic as well. The vote of a UK citizen means nothing.

[snapdragon]

You won't get any answers, presvias.

I decided back in 2016 that we were better off in the EU than out. Much better off.

Events have proved me correct.

To continue:

The UK public is finding out it is not just the EU commission that is undemocratic,

Explain how and why the EU commission is undemocratic.

[foxdemon]

@snapdragon

The EU Commission is appointed by the EU Council. The EU Council is composed of national elites. I will be charitable and only say that yours ignores democratic results of referendum and avoids elections if they think they will lose. Though there are a few examples of important treaties getting repeat referendum when the ‘right’ result wasn’t returned.

So there is a clear deficiency in democratic accountability.

We need to pause for a moment and ask what is democracy about. At the most basic level, it is an answer to the question of succession. It also grants a certain legitimacy to the regime as it is the popular choice. It represents the notion of ruling with the consent of the governed. Finally, it brings an element of accountability as the politicians can be removed at the next election should their over step their authority.

The EU Commission hasn’t had a succession crisis yet, but it is suffering from issues relating to popular legitimacy and accountability to the public.

The actual people’s house, the EU Parliament, doesn’t have much powers. There is also another organ of government, the confusingly named Council of the EU, which is another national elites house. Both have review powers mainly, with more teeth on the second house.

I think this set up favouring national elites (which in your nation’s case have proven themselves disdaining if democracy) is insufficiently democratic and thus will continue to be a source of popular discontent. Ideally, the EU Parliament would ha e legislative powers, the EU Commission, also elected, being the executive, and the Council if the EU being the house of review. The EU Council becoming redundant. This would of course mean federation.

I see the EU as being in a transitory state. It either moves to federation or it falls apart. The UK did have an important role to play in this process as it was the most successful European democracy until recently. Alas, the leavers won the referendum to leave so now that is what the UK must do. The UK can’t remain in the EU if it is such an obviously undemocratic influence. I agree with Macron that, like it or not, it is better out than in.

[Sivad]

You won't get any answers

There are damn good answers, you're just trying to pretend brexit is only a right-wing issue.

I decided back in 2016 that we were better off in the EU than out. Much better off.

"we" who? "we" the liberal professional class?

Events have proved me correct.

They have. Brexit is definitely bad for professional class liberals.

To continue:


Explain how and why the EU commission is undemocratic.

[snapdragon]

@snapdragon

The EU Commission is appointed by the EU Council. The EU Council is composed of national elites. I will be charitable and only say that yours ignores democratic results of referendum and avoids elections if they think they will lose. Though there are a few examples of important treaties getting repeat referendum when the ‘right’ result wasn’t returned.

So there is a clear deficiency in democratic accountability.

We need to pause for a moment and ask what is democracy about. At the most basic level, it is an answer to the question of succession. It also grants a certain legitimacy to the regime as it is the popular choice. It represents the notion of ruling with the consent of the governed. Finally, it brings an element of accountability as the politicians can be removed at the next election should their over step their authority.

The EU Commission hasn’t had a succession crisis yet, but it is suffering from issues relating to popular legitimacy and accountability to the public.

The actual people’s house, the EU Parliament, doesn’t have much powers. There is also another organ of government, the confusingly named Council of the EU, which is another national elites house. Both have review powers mainly, with more teeth on the second house.

I think this set up favouring national elites (which in your nation’s case have proven themselves disdaining if democracy) is insufficiently democratic and thus will continue to be a source of popular discontent. Ideally, the EU Parliament would ha e legislative powers, the EU Commission, also elected, being the executive, and the Council if the EU being the house of review. The EU Council becoming redundant. This would of course mean federation.

I see the EU as being in a transitory state. It either moves to federation or it falls apart. The UK did have an important role to play in this process as it was the most successful European democracy until recently. Alas, the leavers won the referendum to leave so now that is what the UK must do. The UK can’t remain in the EU if it is such an obviously undemocratic influence. I agree with Macron that, like it or not, it is better out than in.

Here's my source for you.

It's quite simple and take just a couple of minutes to read.

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-eu-works-who-runs-eu/

I'd like to see the source(s) for your claims.

[Presvias]

You won't get any answers, presvias.

I decided back in 2016 that we were better off in the EU than out. Much better off.

Events have proved me correct.

I keep an open mind mate.

I said back then... The no 1 point of importance is who's in govt and which civil servants do the work.

That assertion is undeniably true.

A BS govt will ruin everything whether we stay, leave or half-leave. It was true then and it's true now.

I'm open to any option at all; except for no deal Brexit. A good govt/civil servants could've negotiated a good deal, or a good reform package if we stayed, so either way we'd be better off.

[snapdragon]

There are damn good answers, you're just trying to pretend brexit is only a right-wing issue.

It's a right wing project, certainly. If there are damned good answers, I'd like to see them.

"we" who? "we" the liberal professional class?

The whole country.

They have. Brexit is definitely bad for professional class liberals.

In what way is it good for everyone else ( apart from tax dodgers)

[/quote]

Not an answer.

But, then, I didn't expect one.

[snapdragon]

I keep an open mind mate.

So, what good things could happen?

Actual good concrete things for ordinary people. I'm not alking about those people who are going to make lots of dosh out of it.

I said back then... The no 1 point of importance is who's in govt and which civil servants do the work.

That assertion is undeniably true.

Well, it's a bit obvious.

A good government would never have held the referendum in the first place.

A BS govt will ruin everything whether we stay, leave or half-leave. It was true then and it's true now.

Yes, but a bullshit government can be ousted. There would be light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm open to any option at all; except for no deal Brexit. A good govt/civil servants could've negotiated a good deal, or a good reform package if we stayed, so either way we'd be better off.

No, they couldn't have negotiated a good deal. There was never any chance of that.

Besides, what's a good deal? it's all things to all people.

To my elderly neighbours it means we can deport all foreigners immediately - especially Muslims- and then there will then be plenty of council houses and hospital beds for the indigenous Brits.

I wish that was hyperbole.

Having our cake and eating it was cloud cuckoo land.

It was promised by people who never thought they would have to try and deliver on it.

Remember, there was no way the British people would vote to leave.

The Brexiters could promise whatever crap they wanted, then afterwards cry their crocodile tears and tell us how hard they'd tried and how sorry they were. A nice little career boost.

It's either Brino or crashing out. There's nothing on offer, really, in between. There never was.

Both are bloody awful prospects, but at least with Brino there'd be no wriggling out of the anti tax avoidance directive.

[foxdemon]

There are damn good answers, you're just trying to pretend brexit is only a right-wing issue.

Well, that is a good point. Chairman Corbyn is a leaver too. And we all know his first act as PM would be to rename the UK as “Airstrip One”.

[Nonsense]

Interesting.

As usual you make interesting points; but it appears that you concede that BoJo is a serial liar like, as you say, all of the rest of them.

You don't really appear to want this singapore on thames model.

So I still don't get why you're supporting BoJo. FWIW, not supporting either side is IMHO a very honourable and legit position t hold. That's the position I held in 2016, and I was vindicated as well.

There's only one reason why I 'support' BoJo & that is because he is intent on implementing the 2016 referendum result.

That is what motivates me to comment, because the people ordered parliament to deliver Leave & that is something that they have singulary failed to do & have no intention of doing so.

That is the principle which places me on the Leave side of the argument,it's not for parliament,or 'remain' voters to decide that the referendum result was relative, it wasn't, it was binary & it said "Leave".

The Lib Dems have more of an argument,but,it is a fallacious argument, one that they now hope to pass at their conference, which is to scrap BREXIT,because, although their election manifesto never pledged to implement Brexit, it matters not, as the people voted to Leave & instructed parliament to take us out.

Now, of course people of all persuasions can interpret the referendum result according to their political or prejudicial taste,again, it matters not,because the vote said Leave.

The Lib Dems will probably take plenty of votes away from Labour, but I am sure that the majority at the election will vote in accordance with the direction that the referendum decided.

My own personal reasons are irrelevent, I simply argue from the point of, "An Englishman's word is his bond", when that word (Leave)was invoked at the referendum result, that message was as clear as daylight, it has to be implemented to the letter.

[B0ycey]

Chairman Corbyn is a leaver too. And we all know his first act as PM would be to rename the UK as “Airstrip One”.

Corbyn isn't interested in making the UK Oceania. That is Johnsons domain. Corbyn I suspect would keep the UK in a Swiss model customs union whilst aligning the UK to a more socialist model in terms of public services. Johnson on the other hand would pimp the UK out to capitalist America and sell off whatever was left to sell.

[snapdragon]

Corbyn believes that the EU would prevent him carrying out his nationalisation plans, which is the main reason he wants to leave, but it doesn't.

https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-c ... st-eu-law/

He also believes the EU doesn't do enough to protect workers, but that's down to the Tories, not the EU.

It's interesting to note that the working time directive was one of the times the British government didn't win against the rest of the EU.

That didn't please the Tories, but it pleased the unions.

The Tory government plan to pull it as soon as the UK has left.

Corbyn is living in la la land. I don't like Corbyn.

[fokker]

Brexit at all cost as Boris Johnson wants to carry it out will be a chaotic event with possibly severe economic consequences. Economic turmoil will hit most the weakest social classes which includes pensioners. And with Tories in power, it cannot be expected pensions will be on their priority list. Why on earth pensioners would support a chaotic Brexit when long term stability is in their vital interest as they do not have time to wait out the turbulent years.

To me as an observer the following should happen:
1.) New elections after requesting extension to article 50. Justification for article 50 will be carrying out new elections due to indecisive parliament.
2.) New referendum being held on Brexit, with 2 rounds this time. First round all available options (no Brexit, hard Brexit, Brexit with agreement negotiated by Teresa May), 2nd round to choose the best from winning options.
3.) Parliament should approve the form of Brexit that won in referendum

2nd referendum is not undemocratic at all. People's opinions continue to evolve, their preferences change, which is why there are parliamentary elections being held periodically (can also be called early). Referendum always reflects will of the people, therefore it cannot be undemocratic regardless of how many times it is repeated. British general public fails to understand Brexit is such a complex, problematic and divisive action that single referendum and standard parliamentary procedures cannot deal with it. There is no conspiracy to derail Brexit. Unlike when on the brink of war, there is no pressure or motivation for a quick decision, therefore there is small chance for a national unity in parliament to carry Brexit out.

[Beren]

The EU Commission is appointed by the EU Council. The EU Council is composed of national elites.

The members of the European Council are the (democratically elected) heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission. If a vote is taken, neither the European Council President nor the Commission President takes part.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/

[Nonsense]

Brexit at all cost as Boris Johnson wants to carry it out will be a chaotic event with possibly severe economic consequences. Economic turmoil will hit most the weakest social classes which includes pensioners. And with Tories in power, it cannot be expected pensions will be on their priority list. Why on earth pensioners would support a chaotic Brexit when long term stability is in their vital interest as they do not have time to wait out the turbulent years.

To me as an observer the following should happen:
1.) New elections after requesting extension to article 50. Justification for article 50 will be carrying out new elections due to indecisive parliament.
2.) New referendum being held on Brexit, with 2 rounds this time. First round all available options (no Brexit, hard Brexit, Brexit with agreement negotiated by Teresa May), 2nd round to choose the best from winning options.
3.) Parliament should approve the form of Brexit that won in referendum

2nd referendum is not undemocratic at all. People's opinions continue to evolve, their preferences change, which is why there are parliamentary elections being held periodically (can also be called early). Referendum always reflects will of the people, therefore it cannot be undemocratic regardless of how many times it is repeated. British general public fails to understand Brexit is such a complex, problematic and divisive action that single referendum and standard parliamentary procedures cannot deal with it. There is no conspiracy to derail Brexit. Unlike when on the brink of war, there is no pressure or motivation for a quick decision, therefore there is small chance for a national unity in parliament to carry Brexit out.

Well,I think you will find that pensioners are not too happy with the Tories since they have been in power again.

Some 40% of pensioners lie below the bottom two quintile income groups,those people receive less than the Pension Credit level of income than those receiving it.
Pensioners, who have worked 50 years are entitled to the same Basic State Pension as younger pensioners on the new pension system, but, no, they do not receive it, that is discrimination.
If a man was born before 06 April 1951, or a woman, before 06 April 1953, both would be in receipt of the 'old' BSP of £125.95 p.wk.

if they have no other income, they would be entitled to Pension Credit, in order to top up their income to the P.C level.

But, if those same people on the B.S.P had worked 50 years, with an additional small private(occupational )pension that just exceeds the P.C level, then, effectively, the 'difference', that is the additional pension, is being used by the government to subside the difference between the 'old' B.S.P - P.C level, when any claim for P.C is made.

But further, a P.C pensioner gets additional 'entitlements' that other poorer pensioners do not get in similar or worse circumstances, say, from utility companies, dental treatments etc & looked at in the round it's easy to see that Tory polices under CAMERON-OSBORNE have left many pensioners worse-off.

OSBORNE reduced the level at which pensioners can claim P.C, thus making things even more difficult for them & in my book, my empathy lies with those pensioners getting the rough end of the stick after 50 years of working.

Pensioners are not interested in 'stability', they do not have a future horizon in which to make any grand plans, the only pensioners supporting the Tories, are the rich or better-off ones, who have had years, in which successive governemnts have forgone tax revenues,that have effectively been used to line the pockets of the rich,better-off pensioners pension fund companies.
That amounted to the tune of £40 BILLION a year, thus inflating the pension funds & current incomes of those people when they were working.

Now, I think that Additional Pension Contribution Relief should be scrapped, having been in existence since 1903, the money saved,could be used to pay the older pensioners a proper pension, the rest used to close the fiscal gap, with some used to create an investment fund worth £BILLIONS, as Start-Up Capital for young people to create their own businesses.

Once the Tory government have delivered Leave, those poorer pensioners have no more interest in the Tories than other poorer people,but, thats quite a lot of voters to lose for a political party in 'difficulties' of sorts & the same effects apply to the other parties that have neglected poorer pensioners such as Labour.

A second referendum is undemocratic, because the first one has not been implemented.

Also, why not apply your statement to general elections, people may regret voting this or that way,with 5 years, in which to endure the consequences or otherwise, would you think that, because you change your mind, that entitles you to another election, so that,like a referendum,you can swing your vote, or hope that enough people elsewhere would do so,just to change the result.

What you are suggesting, is that 'people can have their cake & eat it', as long as they get their 'cake', screw everyone else.

There will be none of it, the people voted one way in the 2016 referendum, that has\must be delivered, any party wishing another referendum should put it to the people in their election manifesto's & not try to game the system like Labour by circumventing an election with it's parliamentary shenanigans.

Doing the above, is the only honest approach, frustrating Brexit is absolutely dishonest & destructive of our already diminished 'democratic' credentials.

[Nonsense]

Brexit at all cost as Boris Johnson wants to carry it out will be a chaotic event with possibly severe economic consequences. Economic turmoil will hit most the weakest social classes which includes pensioners. And with Tories in power, it cannot be expected pensions will be on their priority list. Why on earth pensioners would support a chaotic Brexit when long term stability is in their vital interest as they do not have time to wait out the turbulent years.

To me as an observer the following should happen:
1.) New elections after requesting extension to article 50. Justification for article 50 will be carrying out new elections due to indecisive parliament.
2.) New referendum being held on Brexit, with 2 rounds this time. First round all available options (no Brexit, hard Brexit, Brexit with agreement negotiated by Teresa May), 2nd round to choose the best from winning options.
3.) Parliament should approve the form of Brexit that won in referendum

2nd referendum is not undemocratic at all. People's opinions continue to evolve, their preferences change, which is why there are parliamentary elections being held periodically (can also be called early). Referendum always reflects will of the people, therefore it cannot be undemocratic regardless of how many times it is repeated. British general public fails to understand Brexit is such a complex, problematic and divisive action that single referendum and standard parliamentary procedures cannot deal with it. There is no conspiracy to derail Brexit. Unlike when on the brink of war, there is no pressure or motivation for a quick decision, therefore there is small chance for a national unity in parliament to carry Brexit out.

It probably never crosses your mind,considering your statement, that pensioners may vote the way they do, for the long term benefit of the country,based on their lifelong experience, for which our membership of the E.U is just one part & they have the earlier history in their experience from which the idea arose.

At least you recognise that it is only a possibility that there may be 'severe economic consequences',considering that the aforesaid is the narrative of 'project fear' of course & only the effects of their shenanigans have thus far brought only 'uncertainty'.

An 'indecisive' parliament, is not grounds for calling an election, or, by definition, requesting an extension to Article 50.

The remedy of course, is for parliament to act decisively, by, either delivering Leave, or agree to an election & suffer the consequences for not implementing Leave.
Your second proposition has been tried-tested within the existing referendum result, the 'options' have all been exhaustively rejected in parliament, whether that be MAY's 'soft' Brexit, [b]'hard' Brexit of 'no-deal'[/b], or Brexit 'by agreement' as per Theresa MAY's concoction & the only 'option' left, is the default one of leaving on 31 October 2019.

Your final option of choosing [b]'the form of Brexit that won in the referendum'[/b](Leave), has been continuously thwarted by that body chosen to implement Brexit.
"Referendum always reflects will of the people, therefore it cannot be undemocratic regardless of how many times it is repeated".

The 'problem' is, having a second referendum is 'undemocratic', because the first referendum was democratic,so what you state above, is contradictory, because you say, no matter how many times it is repeated it cannot be undemocratic,but, you are not accepting it,even though it was democratic.

Now, traditionally we accept a woman's right to change her mind, but, we seem to traverse the sublime to the ridiculous with parliament's behaviour on the issue.

The issue is one that is not complex, divisive yes, but parliament simply & deliberately placed itself into the cul-de-sac to which it currently occupies.

It did not have to do that, it could simply have deliberated by implementing the result of the referendum & left the 'consequences' where they belong, at the hands of the people.

You say there is no conspiracy to derail Brexit-wrong, there is,just as the Scottish referendum brought out international politicians, Bank Governors, IMF,World Bank,diplomats, cheesy,shady British ne'er do well politicians, to bring media pressure to bear down on the Scots, so too with project fear.

[Nonsense]

Divided Britain 2019.

Maybe some Brexiters can go ahead and explain these quotes to me, cos I bit fick.

Just in the interest of being balanced & unbiased.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthe ... 91462.html

[snapdragon]

Another referendum would not undemocratic. Not at all.

By that reasoning, any sort of election would be undemocratic.

Right at the beginning another referendum when negotiations were complete was suggested so that people could make up their minds based on what was actually on the table and not airy fairy aspirations.

It probably never crosses your mind,considering your statement, that pensioners may vote the way they do, for the long term benefit of the country,based on their lifelong experience, for which our membership of the E.U is just one part & they have the earlier history in their experience from which the idea arose.

Some do, which is why not all pensioners voted to leave.

[Nonsense]

[quote="snapdragon"]Another referendum would not undemocratic. Not at all.

By that reasoning, any sort of election would be undemocratic.

Right at the beginning another referendum when negotiations were complete was suggested so that people could make up their minds based on what was actually on the table and not airy fairy aspirations.


No, it would not, having a second referendum before delivery of the result of the first one, is a complete nonsense.

If any government wanted a 'confirmatory' referendum, based on the outcome of negotiations, such as MAY's W.A, then the proper way would have been for parliament to order that the P.M must not sign any 'agreement' until parliament decides to ratify the same, as set before it.

Any 'second' referendum, where the ability to unravel the initial result was codified by way of a 'confirmatory' vote, would simply be seen as a device for 'rebels' to expoit for their own political ends,leading to the same situation prevailing now, because all manner of 'caveats' would creep into the debate in parliament.
These suggestions are the work of those who failed to win the popular vote & wish to prevail by other means.

The idea that people were not told this or that, or all the issues were not known,revealed or whatever, is complete & utter tosh.

In the 1970's, there was no internet with public forums, in which to debate issues like leaving the E.U or anything else.

Not only that, political issues were kept out of public debate, the only issues aired, were those in the newspaper publications, owned by mainly 'Tory' type press 'Barons' or someone of dubious nature like Robert MAXWELL & the public only saw what they published with no public input whatsoever.

No, the people voted back then on the available information, or experience they have\had in life, they accepted the outcome, even when opposed to the result.

In fact, the Labour government in 1975 was recommending 'remain', promising to abide by the result, which they had conveniently accentuated the positive's towards 'remain'.
If you suggest that people should agree or disagree on the negotiations,were they to disagree, then negotiations could\would repeated ad infinitum, with this or any country not actually leaving, precisely the game plan of CORBYN & Co.