|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bloody Brexiteers
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
An idiot.
This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
I think the distinction is that there was already a majority in the Scottish Parliament for independence. There's a difference between putting a question to the country to ask them to confirm a change you believe in and giving them the option of a change you believe to be disastrous. It's a reasonable question but I think the solution lies in that for a change to occur there ought to be agreement between parliament and the country. If you can't get a majority in parliament and a majority in a referendum then it's probably not a change that should be made right now.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The Gospel reading today was the one about the demons being cast into the herd of pigs.
I noticed that the guy said his name was "legion" which made me think of Mr Britain.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
An idiot.
This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
An idiot.
So much for democracy, then. The people are asked their opinion, for once given a voice and have the chance to say yes or no, and because some of them want to say no, the person who suggested the idea is an idiot?
What question in your considered opinion should have been posed, if not a simple yes/no one?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.
And in the event, were offered a choice between devo-max and independence. Those who wanted the status quo were effectively disenfranchised.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So much for democracy, then. The people are asked their opinion, for once given a voice and have the chance to say yes or no, and because some of them want to say no, the person who suggested the idea is an idiot?
We're a representative democracy. We vote for representatives to represent us in parliament.
If you're so fired up for democracy, for people being asked their opinion and being given a voice, I'd like to remind you how few people voted for the Tories, and ask you just how they became a majority in parliament? Where was your rhetoric, your passion, to demand the people were listened to then?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you're so fired up for democracy, for people being asked their opinion and being given a voice, I'd like to remind you how few people voted for the Tories, and ask you just how they became a majority in parliament? Where was your rhetoric, your passion, to demand the people were listened to then?
I'm not particularly fired up for democracy (or anything else), I just assumed the left-wing types on the board would be and if so your post above would apply to them.
Btw, I voted Conservative at the last election because it was the least worst option. Maybe one day there will be a political party I can vote for because I like them and they represent my views, but I suspect that won't happen in my lifetime.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So much for democracy, then. The people are asked their opinion, for once given a voice and have the chance to say yes or no, and because some of them want to say no, the person who suggested the idea is an idiot?
What question in your considered opinion should have been posed, if not a simple yes/no one?
Democracy isn't a simple yes/no question. It is an assemblage of sometimes complex yes/no final answers. Thinking in terms of yes/no, black/white, on/off does a disservice to democracy and oneself.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
So what question should have been posed then?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think it's because some people want to vote no, that has dismayed me. It's because great clouds of poisonous racism and xenophobia have been disseminated, so that the debate has become toxic. I don't know whether referendums always do this - presumably, Switzerland manage to keep theirs civilized, but this one has been vile.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'm not particularly fired up for democracy
Clearly not, since you voted Tory.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?
I'm with lilbuddha here. This referendum was never about going to the people to settle the issue once and for all. This referendum was a stupid, stupid, stupid and opportunistic miscalculation by Cameron to gain better control over his own destiny and that of his party.
If you have a system of democracy with elected representatives, calling referendums effectively undermines that system.
(over here, François Hollande recenly called a "territorial" referendum to try and resolve a longstanding argument about a major new international airport. He did not specify which "territory" would be called to vote for several months after the announcement, and few people doubt that the territory chosen has been solidly found to ensure the government's preference wins and can be shown by dint of this farce to be "the will of the people").
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know whether referendums always do this - presumably, Switzerland manage to keep theirs civilized...
Well, as civilized as you can be when you're passing the kind of ballot measures that would make Nigel Farage come in his pants.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Switzerland is a case apart. It has a much smaller population than the UK and has historically been isolationist inasmuch as everyone with any money has vast amounts of it stashed away there, as remote from international legislation as possible. As a result, unlike the UK, its interest is to stay as clear of as many international cooperative agreements as it reasonably can and be reasonably sure its territorial integrity will remain intact.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
The whole point of democracy is choice - even bad choices. It's yer free will thing, innit?
I can't say I'm ecstatic about some of the people or options I've voted for over the years, but the answer has always seemed to me to become more of a grassroots activist rather than walk away, complaining Jack's as bad as Nancy aa my mother would say.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Switzerland is a case apart. It has a much smaller population than the UK and has historically been isolationist inasmuch as everyone with any money has vast amounts of it stashed away there, as remote from international legislation as possible. As a result, unlike the UK, its interest is to stay as clear of as many international cooperative agreements as it reasonably can and be reasonably sure its territorial integrity will remain intact.
Yes, but the referendum I linked to was about restricting the construction of minarets within Switzerland itself. As such, it had little if anything to do with staying out of international agreements.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Firenze:
The question is what the best way of expressing that choice is. I'm all for grassroots engagement, but at a national level, I think the issues best solved by referendum are vanishingly small simply because the world at that level is such a complex place.
Stetson:
I know. But the Swiss aren't the British, anyway.
[ 19. June 2016, 15:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The Vote Now Show, which is going out at 7:15pm tonight, asked the audience what the next referendum should be about; several said banning referenda. (This won't go out. They had more than enough material and not enough time to edit.)
Current polls are neck and neck. One has both sides at 44%, another has Leave just ahead and a third has Remain just in the lead.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Meanwhile, Farage has said he is a victim of political hate.
Thing is, Nig, it isnt just about the politics, people hate you because you are a thoroughly nasty little man who wants to associate himself with the death of a genuinely good person to cover over the fact that you are an apologist for fascists.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Partially true I would think, but making it all about him at this particular point in time is fairly narcissistic.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
If political hatred is a term that implies we should have to feel sorry for the privately-educated, European parliament expenses taking, ex-City, beer swilling, mouthy, racist, two-faced bastard - then I'm going to suggest the term is a bit devalued.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Utter contempt is more appropriate. His public and political persona is that of a terrible human being.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Firenze:
The question is what the best way of expressing that choice is. I'm all for grassroots engagement, but at a national level, I think the issues best solved by referendum are vanishingly small simply because the world at that level is such a complex place.
My response was more to the suggestion that voting Tory was not believing in democracy. Not voting is not believing in democracy.
I am not for referenda in general: they're a debased form of politics. You do need political passion and conviction, if only to see you through the evenings on hard chairs in church halls or draughty vigils outside polling stations, but in referenda it is too often just the sound and the fury without the hard thinking about why, and how, and who and how much.
[ 19. June 2016, 17:44: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
In this specific instance, voting Tory meant voting for the abject abandonment of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, known as the EU referendum.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
An idiot.
This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
Well, in the run-up to the Independence referendum I said several times that my preference was for a vote to establish (or not) a desire for independence to allow the Scottish government to enter negotiations with a mandate from the people of Scotland, which would be followed by a second referendum on whether to accept the particular proposal on the table. So, not a simple yes/no question, but a yes/no to see if there was sufficient support in Scotland for the hard work of the national discussion on what independence means followed by a vote to confirm that.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What question in your considered opinion should have been posed, if not a simple yes/no one?
I think there is a place for a simple yes/no question. But, the time for that is after a national discussion on the issues in hand. Probably to ratify (or reject) an Act of Parliament, with the government wanting a specific constitutional change.
At this stage the nation is just starting the debate (in the context of a non-specific and ill-timed question). We need a Parliament that has debated the issues in an intelligent and serious manner (yeah, I can dream), and that probably means we need some MPs specifically elected on an "out-of-EU" ticket (even if that means UKIP).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
So punishing the victim for being a victim.
Your ignorance of how prison actually works in practice is becoming more apparent with every post.
Eutychus, I acknowledge my ignorance. But I don't think that disqualifies me from expressing disgust with the glee which some people outside express about particular potential inmates having to deal with rape.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It doesn't. I was dismissing as ignorant your suggestions that a) solitary confinement would or should form part of any conventional sentencing b) being isolated from the general prison population after having been raped is "punishing the victim for being the victim".
However, to get this back on track, if it makes you feel any better, if Britain seeks to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (as many Brexiters seem to want to do and indeed Cameron appears to be committed to), I see no reason why you should not look forward to indefinite solitary confinement and who knows what other human rights abuses, free of pesky interference from "Strasbourg", i.e. the European Court of Human Rights.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?
In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
What on earth has the European Court of Human Rights got to do with the EU?
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Nothing at all, as I have already pointed out.
Except that in the minds of many, I'm sure that achieving Brexit means breaking free of the jurisdiction of the ECHR, since it has the word "European" in its title and is located in one of those nasty foreign places. And that to my mind at least, the arguments advanced for decoupling from the Convention on Human Rights appear to be about as equally misguided as those for leaving the EU.
[ 20. June 2016, 06:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nothing at all, as I have already pointed out.
Except that in the minds of many, I'm sure that achieving Brexit means breaking free of the jurisdiction of the ECHR, since it has the word "European" in its title and is located in one of those nasty foreign places. And that to my mind at least, the arguments advanced for decoupling from the Convention on Human Rights appear to be about as equally misguided as those for leaving the EU.
I'm not sure it is "nothing at all", although you are correct to say that leaving the EU is not to leave the ECHR.
The complication is that there are overlaps with the different ideas; all members of the EU are members of the Council of Europe. All members of the CoE are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, of which the European Court of Human Rights rules. Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty codifies that the Union "shall respect fundamental human rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights".
So they are all tied together.
But in a sense this is a bit of a red herring. The truth is that the Tories want out of the European courts (both the European Court of Justice and the ECHR) over and above the Brexit Tories dislike of the EU. At present there isn't a way to be part of the EU and not be a signatory to these courts.
This does illustrate the idiocy of having a binary vote. If the majority go with Brexit, does that mean that there is a mandate to leave the ECHR? It is quite possible that there is a majority who somehow seem to think that the ECHR (a document written by British Tories, ironically) is a bad thing, but it seems to me that there may be pressure within the Tories to leave the ECHR even if Remain win. How that'd work, nobody seems to know.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Not very hellish, I know, but here is
my blog take on the Referendum and what it's doing to our politics.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Not very hellish, I know, but here is
my blog take on the Referendum and what it's doing to our politics.
Not really very anything. Who cares what you think?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I thought that was pretty good, Pete. Particularly this.
quote:
In the midst of that deep distrust of our democratic institutions, we lob a time bomb - a referendum which allows all that distrust to be expressed, exacerbated by a free-for-all without rules in the social media and in the press. Result - a campaign where fear, misrepresentation, and paranoia become the currency of public discourse.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Who cares what you think?
And, who cares what you think?
If you think people are reading and thinking about what you write, then a) everyone else has the right to expect that and, b) you're delusional.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, who cares what you think?
If you think people are reading and thinking about what you write, then a) everyone else has the right to expect that and, b) you're delusional.
If you think the purpose of this thread/board is for someone to come along and simply post a link to their blog, on the expectation that we should be interested because they're a bishop, then I suggest it is you that is delusional.
This isn't reddit, we don't typically have drive-by posting of links to people's blogs.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?
In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.
It hasn't been.
If Cameron hadn't held the referendum you can bet he would have been jumped on for not doing so and breaking an election promise. So he holds one and up goes the cry of what a stupid idea. If people really don't want a referendum, don't vote. You don't have to be part of it.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?
In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.
It hasn't been.
If Cameron hadn't held the referendum you can bet he would have been jumped on for not doing so and breaking an election promise. So he holds one and up goes the cry of what a stupid idea. If people really don't want a referendum, don't vote. You don't have to be part of it.
That'll be nothing compared to the outcome. It will be divisive if the result is to Remain and chaotic if the result is to Leave.
That's not just my preference: for 40 years our legislation in areas such as employment, welfare, health, agriculture in addition to border controls, the economy and trade has been affected by EEC/EU directives on those subjects. We'll have to rewrite a lot of law if we pull out.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Cameron on the TV was evasive on what happens on 24th June. He used it as yet another "I want to make your flesh creep" opportunity - which of course he now has to do.
But the public debate would have been better served if both sides had been forced to produce a proper manifesto spelling out the consequences of the possible scenarios as they saw them.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?
In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.
It hasn't been.
If Cameron hadn't held the referendum you can bet he would have been jumped on for not doing so and breaking an election promise. So he holds one and up goes the cry of what a stupid idea. If people really don't want a referendum, don't vote. You don't have to be part of it.
Cameron's election promise was to negotiate a substantive new deal for the UK in Europe and then put it to the vote. He failed to negotiate a deal for the UK, why then does he still want to hold the referendum?
But, on one thing I agree. If we didn't want a referendum then the time to vote for that was last year, by note voting for a Tory in the general election - which is what I would have done if my postal ballot had arrived (for a whole load of reasons, but the pledge for a new deal in Europe and a referendum were among the policies in the Tory manifesto I disagreed with).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cameron's election promise was to negotiate a substantive new deal for the UK in Europe and then put it to the vote. He failed to negotiate a deal for the UK, why then does he still want to hold the referendum?
I have to agree with Cameron that if the EU needs reform you need to be a member of it to put your point of view across and try to get it implemented.
I know it didn't work last time and he emerged with a pale shadow of what he'd hoped to get. That is one reason for voting Leave. If it can't be reformed from the inside then the best option is to cut your losses and go. But if other nations are agreed that it needs reform and are prepared to work together on this then it is a possibility. I'm not convinced it will happen but voting Remain gives that second chance.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
This by Paul Mason is on the money.
quote:
For many people, the Brexit campaign feels, for one brief moment, like the first time they have had control. But the clue is in the word “brief”. Once the vote is over, it will be the rightwing Tories in control. Ask Ukip; ask Boris Johnson: will Brexit guarantee a rise in wages, a cap on rents, a fall in NHS waiting times or class sizes? Ask the leave camp to put targets on these things – not for the longterm, but within 12-18 months. They can’t.
What can is a left-led Labour party, combined with the progressive nationalist parties and the Greens, which will institute real change. There will be no dilemmas in the newsrooms of the Times and Telegraph if that happens: they will unite to crush it.
That’s how you know the difference between a real revolt and a fake one: by its enemies.
This is a fake referendum where the Tory grandees are fighting it out in a way that means they'll get what they want whichever side wins.
I think Corbyn had it right all along; being part of the EU is better than leaving, but neither of the options are particularly palatable.
And it is certainly true that the Brexit Tories are deliberately pandering to working people with lies.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The EU, like any political structure, has it's own set of internal cycles - they just aren't synched with the UK political cycles. There are points when issues of reform naturally raise their head, and other times when the cycle is in "business as usual". And, different parts of the EU also operate on different cycles, and have their own reform mechanisms.
The big point of reform will arise when expansion is considered. Which was the point at which the UK government negotiated restrictions on the rights to work in the EU for the new nations joining. To try and put additional restrictions on the rights of EU nationals to work at a point where expansion is not being considered, and only a few years after the previous negotitations on worker rights is out of synch with the rest of the EU. So, it's not surprising that many other nations were not interested - especially when they're focussed on the pressing need of handling an unrelated crisis (actually, two - the economic difficulties of Greece and other nations, and the large number of refugees).
In other areas of EU policy there are standing committees who are constantly (if in amny cases rather slowly) reforming policy - recent changes to fisheries policy are an example (changes that the UK largely opted out of contributing too since the lazy sod who should have been on that committee couldn't be bothered to turn up, let alone contribute).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In other areas of EU policy there are standing committees who are constantly (if in amny cases rather slowly) reforming policy - recent changes to fisheries policy are an example (changes that the UK largely opted out of contributing too since the lazy sod who should have been on that committee couldn't be bothered to turn up, let alone contribute).
I think you might be talking about Farage, who is on the European Parliament fisheries committee.
AFAIU the actual changes to the fisheries policy were mainly negotiated by the parties to the European Council, so I'm not sure whether Farage's presence or absence really made a whole lot of difference.
It seems perfectly correct to me to state that the European Parliament is a rather defunct organisation given that some members like Farage take all possible funds without regularly attending and some (like, IIRC a Bulgarian member) just keep pressing the 'yes' button when voting in every debate.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The European Parliament is an essential part of the EU structure, it's one of three legs of the legislative tripod. The Council of ministers reflects the views of the individual nations in the EU, the Commission is an a-political bureacracy, the Parliament represents the people of Europe. Which doesn't mean it's perfect, of course.
There does appear to be a substantial amount of abuse of the system within the European Parliament. Personally I would like to see the establishment of some form of job description with a performance evaluation for MEPs - expected minimum number of days spent on Parliamentary business, minimum expected contribution to debates (through asking questions, tabling motions, expressing the views of their constituents etc) both in the chamber and on committees, and so on. With loss of expenses and/or salary for failure to meet the required performance levels. Of course, people should be free to vote for individuals and parties who explicitely disagree with the EU and make it clear they will not take their seat - but, any MEP who takes that line should also be happy to not take any European money for the job they're not doing.
I would also make a similar suggestion for the House of Commons.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.
And what would happen if the three options got something like 40%, 30% and 30%?
The best thing about yes/no questions is you know which answer won. Anything else becomes fraught with difficulty.
Are you using first past the post? That might work for, say, choosing a national anthem. Apparently in some places such as the UK it's good enough for picking an MP. But for something as core as the constitutional arrangements of a country, heaven help you if none of the options makes the 50% mark.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.
And what would happen if the three options got something like 40%, 30% and 30%?
The best thing about yes/no questions is you know which answer won. Anything else becomes fraught with difficulty.
Are you using first past the post? That might work for, say, choosing a national anthem. Apparently in some places such as the UK it's good enough for picking an MP. But for something as core as the constitutional arrangements of a country, heaven help you if none of the options makes the 50% mark.
Transferable vote?
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
