I understand your concern and share it. But you are ducking the central problem. If the push factors are so great, then having a rescue system close to the coast of Africa means it becomes a ferry to Europe for the millions who wish to come here. Are you then proposing an effective open border between Africa and Europe? If you are, that is a position you need to argue for and also for far more resources to be put into the rescue mission, because otherwise even more people will drown as is happening this year. Having an inadequate rescue mission is the worst of all worlds-it encourages migrants to come but does not guarantee their rescue.
All I am arguing for, in the absence of a humane and effective means of preventing vessels from putting to sea in the first place, is a policy based, at least in part, on a degree of compassion.
Anyone rescued can and should be processed appropriately, to determine whether they should be welcomed as refugees or not - but that's a long way from advocating a free for all in the Mediterranean.
If the rescue mission is a pull factor at all, it is not something that causes migrants to leave their homelands (it would be very far down the list).
They will seek to cross, whether EU boats are there or not (it was their attempted, and often failed, crossings that led to the mission in the first place).
Remove the rescue mission and we know that people will die in its absence. Some die anyway, but at least that is something beyond our control.
I am profoundly unhappy with any policy decision taken that will knowingly lead to people dying, and that is precisely what will happen if the rescue mission is removed.
"Today we know that the UK is not ready to accept the free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the court and the Charter of Fundamental Rights - for the charter, this was confirmed last week by the House of Commons.
This means that the UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant.
The EU's remaining 27 countries would continue to share information from passenger name records and the UK would not have automatic access to EU-only police databases or those of countries in the Schengen zone, he said in a speech in Vienna.
Similarly, while the UK would be shown analysis done by Europol relating to live criminal investigations, it would not be able to "shape the direction" of the EU's law enforcement agency or other EU bodies... "
"Today we know that the UK is not ready to accept the free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the court and the Charter of Fundamental Rights - for the charter, this was confirmed last week by the House of Commons.
This means that the UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant.
The EU's remaining 27 countries would continue to share information from passenger name records and the UK would not have automatic access to EU-only police databases or those of countries in the Schengen zone, he said in a speech in Vienna.
Similarly, while the UK would be shown analysis done by Europol relating to live criminal investigations, it would not be able to "shape the direction" of the EU's law enforcement agency or other EU bodies... "
Listen, in post-Brexi Britain we'll need to develop new industries to make up for the collapse of pretty much everything else that generates our current GDP. Front and centre of this should be becoming a safe haven for criminals from across Europe fleeing from prosecution, think of all the drug and racketeering money flowing in plus a major boom for the construction industry with all the lairs that will need building.
Doesn't matter if they knew it or not, or claim it's what they wanted or not. If anybody was to question us no longer being part of any of these things then surely the EU's response would be a simple "Brexit means Brexit" and that ends all arguments doesn't it?
No-one who has read this thread will have any doubt that, on Brexit, I am in sympathy with Anna Soubry's view on that topic (I'm not so sure that agreement would stretch to other policy areas).
I understand your concern and share it. But you are ducking the central problem. If the push factors are so great, then having a rescue system close to the coast of Africa means it becomes a ferry to Europe for the millions who wish to come here. Are you then proposing an effective open border between Africa and Europe? If you are, that is a position you need to argue for and also for far more resources to be put into the rescue mission, because otherwise even more people will drown as is happening this year. Having an inadequate rescue mission is the worst of all worlds-it encourages migrants to come but does not guarantee their rescue.
All I am arguing for, in the absence of a humane and effective means of preventing vessels from putting to sea in the first place, is a policy based, at least in part, on a degree of compassion.
Anyone rescued can and should be processed appropriately, to determine whether they should be welcomed as refugees or not - but that's a long way from advocating a free for all in the Mediterranean.
If the rescue mission is a pull factor at all, it is not something that causes migrants to leave their homelands (it would be very far down the list).
They will seek to cross, whether EU boats are there or not (it was their attempted, and often failed, crossings that led to the mission in the first place).
Remove the rescue mission and we know that people will die in its absence. Some die anyway, but at least that is something beyond our control.
I am profoundly unhappy with any policy decision taken that will knowingly lead to people dying, and that is precisely what will happen if the rescue mission is removed.
One more point and then I will let it rest. The migrants picked up by the boat thet ended up in Spain were picked up just off the Libyan coast in inflatbles. There was never any intention, nor was it possible, that they would make it to Europe in the boats. They set off because they thought that rescue ships would pick them up. The rescue ships are part of the problem, particularly as more people are encouraged to try by the rescue policy than can be picked up. The rescue policy is causing the deaths, sadly.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
I understand your concern and share it. But you are ducking the central problem. If the push factors are so great, then having a rescue system close to the coast of Africa means it becomes a ferry to Europe for the millions who wish to come here. Are you then proposing an effective open border between Africa and Europe? If you are, that is a position you need to argue for and also for far more resources to be put into the rescue mission, because otherwise even more people will drown as is happening this year. Having an inadequate rescue mission is the worst of all worlds-it encourages migrants to come but does not guarantee their rescue.
All I am arguing for, in the absence of a humane and effective means of preventing vessels from putting to sea in the first place, is a policy based, at least in part, on a degree of compassion.
Anyone rescued can and should be processed appropriately, to determine whether they should be welcomed as refugees or not - but that's a long way from advocating a free for all in the Mediterranean.
If the rescue mission is a pull factor at all, it is not something that causes migrants to leave their homelands (it would be very far down the list).
They will seek to cross, whether EU boats are there or not (it was their attempted, and often failed, crossings that led to the mission in the first place).
Remove the rescue mission and we know that people will die in its absence. Some die anyway, but at least that is something beyond our control.
I am profoundly unhappy with any policy decision taken that will knowingly lead to people dying, and that is precisely what will happen if the rescue mission is removed.
One more point and then I will let it rest. The migrants picked up by the boat thet ended up in Spain were picked up just off the Libyan coast in inflatbles. There was never any intention, nor was it possible, that they would make it to Europe in the boats. They set off because they thought that rescue ships would pick them up. The rescue ships are part of the problem, particularly as more people are encouraged to try by the rescue policy than can be picked up. The rescue policy is causing the deaths, sadly.
Yup, i'll just leave it on this made up point, you can have no possible way of verifying!
I understand your concern and share it. But you are ducking the central problem. If the push factors are so great, then having a rescue system close to the coast of Africa means it becomes a ferry to Europe for the millions who wish to come here. Are you then proposing an effective open border between Africa and Europe? If you are, that is a position you need to argue for and also for far more resources to be put into the rescue mission, because otherwise even more people will drown as is happening this year. Having an inadequate rescue mission is the worst of all worlds-it encourages migrants to come but does not guarantee their rescue.
All I am arguing for, in the absence of a humane and effective means of preventing vessels from putting to sea in the first place, is a policy based, at least in part, on a degree of compassion.
Anyone rescued can and should be processed appropriately, to determine whether they should be welcomed as refugees or not - but that's a long way from advocating a free for all in the Mediterranean.
If the rescue mission is a pull factor at all, it is not something that causes migrants to leave their homelands (it would be very far down the list).
They will seek to cross, whether EU boats are there or not (it was their attempted, and often failed, crossings that led to the mission in the first place).
Remove the rescue mission and we know that people will die in its absence. Some die anyway, but at least that is something beyond our control.
I am profoundly unhappy with any policy decision taken that will knowingly lead to people dying, and that is precisely what will happen if the rescue mission is removed.
One more point and then I will let it rest. The migrants picked up by the boat thet ended up in Spain were picked up just off the Libyan coast in inflatbles. There was never any intention, nor was it possible, that they would make it to Europe in the boats. They set off because they thought that rescue ships would pick them up. The rescue ships are part of the problem, particularly as more people are encouraged to try by the rescue policy than can be picked up. The rescue policy is causing the deaths, sadly.
The individuals seeking to get to Europe do not get to choose the form of transport.
It is the traffickers who choose to use inflatables and other unseaworthy craft. Were there no EU rescue mission, they would still have no intention of getting as far as Italy itself, at best they would hope to get close enough to Lampedusa for Italy to have to rescue their human cargo.
The thing to remember is that the people traffickers were doing this already, before the EU mission was established. If they were lucky, migrants were rescued by commercial shipping. The EU has reacted to an existing problem, the traffickers will not stop if the EU vessels are removed. If the rescue mission was stopped, people will die who, otherwise, would have been saved.
If the traffickers gave a toss for the migrants they would try to sail from Tunisia, which is much closer to Italian territorial waters (either Pantelleria or Lampedusa), but they don't because the basket case that is Libya makes life much easier for them, whilst also making the sea crossing more dangerous for those being trafficked.
There is no easy and quick answer, that is also responsible and grown up, to the the problem of people being trafficked from Libya. The simple (IMHO simplistic) reaction, to simply stop providing the rescue mission is, at best amoral, and at worst a manifestation of the worst form of "I'm alright Jack" thinking, and many of those in the developed world espousing it as a solution represent a political world view that is nasty, brutish and utterly repellent.
I think we should all move on from the subject of EU measures to rescue people who are so utterly desperate to get themselves and their families to a place of potential safety they are prepared to gamble with their lives. The fact this was happening before the EU intervention and would doubtless continue after it's cessation is never going to be properly acknowledged in the cause of painting the EU as some ogre contributing to needless deaths.
The whole discussion is both very distasteful and more pragmatically irrelevent to the process of us leaving the EU. In a few months time we can come up with our policy on rescuing children, or leaving them to drown. Because that's the bottom line and that's what we voted for. Control.
Anyway, it seems the warnings about crops rotting in the fields (which isn't happening according to some) are still falling on deaf ears...
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
What utter nonsense. Something like 65% of Labour voters in the last election voted Remain in the referendum. Something like 87% of Labour members are remainers.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
Who knows, you might be right in a democracy. The 4 million voters (aka people) who voted UKIP and Green and only got two seats in 2015 might argue that the UK is not exactly much of a democracy.
I understand your concern and share it. But you are ducking the central problem. If the push factors are so great, then having a rescue system close to the coast of Africa means it becomes a ferry to Europe for the millions who wish to come here. Are you then proposing an effective open border between Africa and Europe? If you are, that is a position you need to argue for and also for far more resources to be put into the rescue mission, because otherwise even more people will drown as is happening this year. Having an inadequate rescue mission is the worst of all worlds-it encourages migrants to come but does not guarantee their rescue.
All I am arguing for, in the absence of a humane and effective means of preventing vessels from putting to sea in the first place, is a policy based, at least in part, on a degree of compassion.
Anyone rescued can and should be processed appropriately, to determine whether they should be welcomed as refugees or not - but that's a long way from advocating a free for all in the Mediterranean.
If the rescue mission is a pull factor at all, it is not something that causes migrants to leave their homelands (it would be very far down the list).
They will seek to cross, whether EU boats are there or not (it was their attempted, and often failed, crossings that led to the mission in the first place).
Remove the rescue mission and we know that people will die in its absence. Some die anyway, but at least that is something beyond our control.
I am profoundly unhappy with any policy decision taken that will knowingly lead to people dying, and that is precisely what will happen if the rescue mission is removed.
One more point and then I will let it rest. The migrants picked up by the boat thet ended up in Spain were picked up just off the Libyan coast in inflatbles. There was never any intention, nor was it possible, that they would make it to Europe in the boats. They set off because they thought that rescue ships would pick them up. The rescue ships are part of the problem, particularly as more people are encouraged to try by the rescue policy than can be picked up. The rescue policy is causing the deaths, sadly.
The individuals seeking to get to Europe do not get to choose the form of transport.
It is the traffickers who choose to use inflatables and other unseaworthy craft. Were there no EU rescue mission, they would still have no intention of getting as far as Italy itself, at best they would hope to get close enough to Lampedusa for Italy to have to rescue their human cargo.
The thing to remember is that the people traffickers were doing this already, before the EU mission was established. If they were lucky, migrants were rescued by commercial shipping. The EU has reacted to an existing problem, the traffickers will not stop if the EU vessels are removed. If the rescue mission was stopped, people will die who, otherwise, would have been saved.
If the traffickers gave a toss for the migrants they would try to sail from Tunisia, which is much closer to Italian territorial waters (either Pantelleria or Lampedusa), but they don't because the basket case that is Libya makes life much easier for them, whilst also making the sea crossing more dangerous for those being trafficked.
There is no easy and quick answer, that is also responsible and grown up, to the the problem of people being trafficked from Libya. The simple (IMHO simplistic) reaction, to simply stop providing the rescue mission is, at best amoral, and at worst a manifestation of the worst form of "I'm alright Jack" thinking, and many of those in the developed world espousing it as a solution represent a political world view that is nasty, brutish and utterly repellent.
Please! For the attention of all, let us move up a level from the language of judgement and recognise that this is both a microeconomy AND a major change factor in years ahead. Micro as people negotiate hurdles to arrive in Europe and, as posted before, we are looking at one million refugees a year.
That is where we are as Europeans. Yesterday Corriera della sera reported that the Alt-right League in Italy led by Salvini just hit 30% edging above Cinquestelle in the polls. That's up from 17% last March.
This off the back of some manoeuvres plus declining one NGO boat with 650 migrants to Spain via Malta.
Please take the time to understand the political philosophy behind Putin, Trump and Salvini as well as the drive behind the NGOs running the "ferries". This is incredibly complex, not least because Merkel is losing support - her Bavaria colleagues are possibly not that far from Salvini in their connection to local voter sentiment?
One can easily gain perspective by observing Trump gymnastics - first 2,000 children interned then he's all about the family...
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
What utter nonsense. Something like 65% of Labour voters in the last election voted Remain in the referendum. Something like 87% of Labour members are remainers.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
Who knows, you might be right in a democracy. The 4 million voters (aka people) who voted UKIP and Green and only got two seats in 2015 might argue that the UK is not exactly much of a democracy.
Thats not what is being argued here. Firstly the Labour Party stood at the election on the fact they backed Brexit.....ergo anyone voting for them is voting for brexit. Secondly we all know that first past the post is how our elections are fought & so any UKIP voters (and I was one of them last year) knew that their party wouldn't get the same number of seats as compared to the number of votes cast.
As for todays vote. I can't see what all the fuss is about. The result of the referendum was to leave.......the party in power has the mandate & the duty to deliver that the best way they can. I don't expect Boris Johnson to come to the House of Commons every time he agrees a foreign trade deal & ask if that is ok.....he is pur representative & we have to live by what he does.If we don't like it we can have our say at the next election.....and not before.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
What utter nonsense. Something like 65% of Labour voters in the last election voted Remain in the referendum. Something like 87% of Labour members are remainers.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
Who knows, you might be right in a democracy. The 4 million voters (aka people) who voted UKIP and Green and only got two seats in 2015 might argue that the UK is not exactly much of a democracy.
Thats not what is being argued here. Firstly the Labour Party stood at the election on the fact they backed Brexit.....ergo anyone voting for them is voting for brexit. Secondly we all know that first past the post is how our elections are fought & so any UKIP voters (and I was one of them last year) knew that their party wouldn't get the same number of seats as compared to the number of votes cast.
As for todays vote. I can't see what all the fuss is about. The result of the referendum was to leave.......the party in power has the mandate & the duty to deliver that the best way they can. I don't expect Boris Johnson to come to the House of Commons every time he agrees a foreign trade deal & ask if that is ok.....he is pur representative & we have to live by what he does.If we don't like it we can have our say at the next election.....and not before.
Indeed. Maybe Boris can solve the tail wagging the dog issue, otherwise brexit simply won't happen. Incidentally the argument is about the nature of democracy. Do you think the Australian (different) voting system is democracy?
tbh I don't really care how democracy works in other countries, only this one. I'm not in favour of the STV.....I don't wont my vote being passed onto someone else thank you very much.....even if I had to make them my 2nd or 3rd choice. We have quite a varied mix of parties (Green, UKIP, LibDem) & I doubt that any of those would tick my box.....so I couldn't tick theirs.
Its a bit like the house buying process in Scotland.....different to ours & has its good points & bad points. Neither is perfect - we have one way & they have another. neither is right or wrong.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
What utter nonsense. Something like 65% of Labour voters in the last election voted Remain in the referendum. Something like 87% of Labour members are remainers.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
Who knows, you might be right in a democracy. The 4 million voters (aka people) who voted UKIP and Green and only got two seats in 2015 might argue that the UK is not exactly much of a democracy.
Thats not what is being argued here. Firstly the Labour Party stood at the election on the fact they backed Brexit.....ergo anyone voting for them is voting for brexit. Secondly we all know that first past the post is how our elections are fought & so any UKIP voters (and I was one of them last year) knew that their party wouldn't get the same number of seats as compared to the number of votes cast.
As for todays vote. I can't see what all the fuss is about. The result of the referendum was to leave.......the party in power has the mandate & the duty to deliver that the best way they can. I don't expect Boris Johnson to come to the House of Commons every time he agrees a foreign trade deal & ask if that is ok.....he is pur representative & we have to live by what he does.If we don't like it we can have our say at the next election.....and not before.
As I said earlier, that is total nonsense. Just meaningless spin like the use of the term 'will of the people' when only 37% of the electorate voted Leave. To conclude that everyone who voted Labour at the last election were backing Brexit is taking disingenuous to a new level.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
What utter nonsense. Something like 65% of Labour voters in the last election voted Remain in the referendum. Something like 87% of Labour members are remainers.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
Who knows, you might be right in a democracy. The 4 million voters (aka people) who voted UKIP and Green and only got two seats in 2015 might argue that the UK is not exactly much of a democracy.
Thats not what is being argued here. Firstly the Labour Party stood at the election on the fact they backed Brexit.....ergo anyone voting for them is voting for brexit. Secondly we all know that first past the post is how our elections are fought & so any UKIP voters (and I was one of them last year) knew that their party wouldn't get the same number of seats as compared to the number of votes cast.
As for todays vote. I can't see what all the fuss is about. The result of the referendum was to leave.......the party in power has the mandate & the duty to deliver that the best way they can. I don't expect Boris Johnson to come to the House of Commons every time he agrees a foreign trade deal & ask if that is ok.....he is pur representative & we have to live by what he does.If we don't like it we can have our say at the next election.....and not before.
As I said earlier, that is total nonsense. Just meaningless spin like the use of the term 'will of the people' when only 37% of the electorate voted Leave. To conclude that everyone who voted Labour at the last election were backing Brexit is taking disingenuous to a new level.
Labour are not opposing brexit. if you are staunch remainer & wanted a say in how it should go or stop it together I suggest you should have voted for a party who thought likewise....like the Lib Dems. I'm Tory through & through and have only voted differently twice......once in 1997 when I thought that after 18 yrs in government it was a good idea someone else had a go (voted Lib Dem) and last year when I voted UKIP as I voted leave & didn't want a remainer (T May) in charge.
tbh I don't really care how democracy works in other countries, only this one. I'm not in favour of the STV.....I don't wont my vote being passed onto someone else thank you very much.....even if I had to make them my 2nd or 3rd choice. We have quite a varied mix of parties (Green, UKIP, LibDem) & I doubt that any of those would tick my box.....so I couldn't tick theirs.
Its a bit like the house buying process in Scotland.....different to ours & has its good points & bad points. Neither is perfect - we have one way & they have another. neither is right or wrong.
Well quite. You have acknowledged that there are different versions of 'democracy' in operation in different places. Southbank argues that 'it is the people who are sovereign in a democracy ' but my counter argument asks which people exactly? A good case can be made that in the UK many people are excluded. You argue that you're not interested in systems elsewhere, yet even domestically we have several different systems, which one of those systems has primacy depends on which argument you wish to win. I don't want a people's vote or second referendum, even though it might satisfy the 'people are sovereign' position, however to hold the referendum up as a vote that trumps everything else is not much of an argument given the alternative systems available. Brexit won, be happy, but to dress that victory up as some kind of triumph for democracy is simply not true in my view. It can easily be seen as a grubby and unsophisticated manipulated exercise in opinion surveying, conducted by a country with no respect for developed debate on a seminal issue. Brexit won (*see below) Now square it with a workable and practical solution on the border on the island of Ireland for starters. I don't blame you for not being able to, nobody can. So brexit is lost* not because of any vote, or any force undermining it, but because of the basic difficulties of practicalities.
tbh I don't really care how democracy works in other countries, only this one. I'm not in favour of the STV.....I don't wont my vote being passed onto someone else thank you very much.....even if I had to make them my 2nd or 3rd choice. We have quite a varied mix of parties (Green, UKIP, LibDem) & I doubt that any of those would tick my box.....so I couldn't tick theirs.
Its a bit like the house buying process in Scotland.....different to ours & has its good points & bad points. Neither is perfect - we have one way & they have another. neither is right or wrong.
But many of your fellow quitters argue that the EU is undemocratic, so the lack of proper representation of many people in the UK is equally or possibly even more undemocratic. You cherry picking bits here and there to argue about doesn't make the facts any different.
tbh I don't really care how democracy works in other countries, only this one. I'm not in favour of the STV.....I don't wont my vote being passed onto someone else thank you very much.....even if I had to make them my 2nd or 3rd choice. We have quite a varied mix of parties (Green, UKIP, LibDem) & I doubt that any of those would tick my box.....so I couldn't tick theirs.
Its a bit like the house buying process in Scotland.....different to ours & has its good points & bad points. Neither is perfect - we have one way & they have another. neither is right or wrong.
Well quite. You have acknowledged that there are different versions of 'democracy' in operation in different places. Southbank argues that 'it is the people who are sovereign in a democracy ' but my counter argument asks which people exactly? A good case can be made that in the UK many people are excluded. You argue that you're not interested in systems elsewhere, yet even domestically we have several different systems, which one of those systems has primacy depends on which argument you wish to win. I don't want a people's vote or second referendum, even though it might satisfy the 'people are sovereign' position, however to hold the referendum up as a vote that trumps everything else is not much of an argument given the alternative systems available. Brexit won, be happy, but to dress that victory up as some kind of triumph for democracy is simply not true in my view. It can easily be seen as a grubby and unsophisticated manipulated exercise in opinion surveying, conducted by a country with no respect for developed debate on a seminal issue. Brexit won (*see below) Now square it with a workable and practical solution on the border on the island of Ireland for starters. I don't blame you for not being able to, nobody can. So brexit is lost* not because of any vote, or any force undermining it, but because of the basic difficulties of practicalities.
totally agree with you.
I put the blame squarely with David Cameron & his Government. He gave us the referendum & he should have known the problems that would lie within it re the Irish border.
call me ignorant but it was not something I was aware off at the time & don't recall any major discussions about it during the campaigns and tv debates. Perhaps you were.
tbh I don't really care how democracy works in other countries, only this one. I'm not in favour of the STV.....I don't wont my vote being passed onto someone else thank you very much.....even if I had to make them my 2nd or 3rd choice. We have quite a varied mix of parties (Green, UKIP, LibDem) & I doubt that any of those would tick my box.....so I couldn't tick theirs.
Its a bit like the house buying process in Scotland.....different to ours & has its good points & bad points. Neither is perfect - we have one way & they have another. neither is right or wrong.
Well quite. You have acknowledged that there are different versions of 'democracy' in operation in different places. Southbank argues that 'it is the people who are sovereign in a democracy ' but my counter argument asks which people exactly? A good case can be made that in the UK many people are excluded. You argue that you're not interested in systems elsewhere, yet even domestically we have several different systems, which one of those systems has primacy depends on which argument you wish to win. I don't want a people's vote or second referendum, even though it might satisfy the 'people are sovereign' position, however to hold the referendum up as a vote that trumps everything else is not much of an argument given the alternative systems available. Brexit won, be happy, but to dress that victory up as some kind of triumph for democracy is simply not true in my view. It can easily be seen as a grubby and unsophisticated manipulated exercise in opinion surveying, conducted by a country with no respect for developed debate on a seminal issue. Brexit won (*see below) Now square it with a workable and practical solution on the border on the island of Ireland for starters. I don't blame you for not being able to, nobody can. So brexit is lost* not because of any vote, or any force undermining it, but because of the basic difficulties of practicalities.
totally agree with you.
I put the blame squarely with David Cameron & his Government. He gave us the referendum & he should have known the problems that would lie within it re the Irish border.
call me ignorant but it was not something I was aware off at the time & don't recall any major discussions about it during the campaigns and tv debates. Perhaps you were.
But from what you have said so far, even if you were aware, you would have voted the same way. If I am wrong, then you should be calling for another referendum where you can reverse that decision?
tbh I don't really care how democracy works in other countries, only this one. I'm not in favour of the STV.....I don't wont my vote being passed onto someone else thank you very much.....even if I had to make them my 2nd or 3rd choice. We have quite a varied mix of parties (Green, UKIP, LibDem) & I doubt that any of those would tick my box.....so I couldn't tick theirs.
Its a bit like the house buying process in Scotland.....different to ours & has its good points & bad points. Neither is perfect - we have one way & they have another. neither is right or wrong.
Well quite. You have acknowledged that there are different versions of 'democracy' in operation in different places. Southbank argues that 'it is the people who are sovereign in a democracy ' but my counter argument asks which people exactly? A good case can be made that in the UK many people are excluded. You argue that you're not interested in systems elsewhere, yet even domestically we have several different systems, which one of those systems has primacy depends on which argument you wish to win. I don't want a people's vote or second referendum, even though it might satisfy the 'people are sovereign' position, however to hold the referendum up as a vote that trumps everything else is not much of an argument given the alternative systems available. Brexit won, be happy, but to dress that victory up as some kind of triumph for democracy is simply not true in my view. It can easily be seen as a grubby and unsophisticated manipulated exercise in opinion surveying, conducted by a country with no respect for developed debate on a seminal issue. Brexit won (*see below) Now square it with a workable and practical solution on the border on the island of Ireland for starters. I don't blame you for not being able to, nobody can. So brexit is lost* not because of any vote, or any force undermining it, but because of the basic difficulties of practicalities.
totally agree with you.
I put the blame squarely with David Cameron & his Government. He gave us the referendum & he should have known the problems that would lie within it re the Irish border.
call me ignorant but it was not something I was aware off at the time & don't recall any major discussions about it during the campaigns and tv debates. Perhaps you were.
I actually raised it before the referendum vote on here at least. It was raised mildly by others to people like Farage, it was dismissed as a non issue. Indeed the line taken by Farage was there had been a non existent border since 1923 (not true that there were no checks by the way) so we revert to that. The two crucial bits are that the UK and ROI joined the EU at the same time, and then there was the Belfast Agreement. Those two things meant that there could never be a return to conditions in 1923. It is now the situation that from the UK perspective the ROI is de facto the EU yet in Ireland there are special circumstancs in relation to the UK, not least the distance of the land border and the over 200 crossing points...more crossing points than on the whole Eastern border of the EU with neighbouring countries.
yes, just post "soundbites" that in themselves don't prove anything. All taken out of context & simply shows that a couple of leavers think that we could follow the Norway model. By leaving the EU we HAVE to leave the single market / free movement of trade & people. Michel Barnier has said this on numerous occaisons.
Has he?
Reposting to fix the knock on effect of Golfie's broken quoting
Apologies if I've missed this in the intervening pages of why we shouldn't be doing what we can to stop small children drowning @golfaddick but have you got a source for your claim that Barnier has said multiple times we have to leave the single market on leaving the EU?
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
What utter nonsense. Something like 65% of Labour voters in the last election voted Remain in the referendum. Something like 87% of Labour members are remainers.
Not where I'm from. Rock solid Labour constituency voted 55% Leave.
On the brexit vote in Parliament today the Tory whips have calculated that they have the numbers, just. It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy. The people voted last year for two parties committed to Brexit. The Tory rebels are Remainers to a man and woman trying to use Parliament to overturn what the people voted for. It is pretty straightforward really.
What utter nonsense. Something like 65% of Labour voters in the last election voted Remain in the referendum. Something like 87% of Labour members are remainers.
What did the manifesto say? It seems any remainers voting labour should speak to some turkeys about xmas.
Comments
Anyone rescued can and should be processed appropriately, to determine whether they should be welcomed as refugees or not - but that's a long way from advocating a free for all in the Mediterranean.
If the rescue mission is a pull factor at all, it is not something that causes migrants to leave their homelands (it would be very far down the list).
They will seek to cross, whether EU boats are there or not (it was their attempted, and often failed, crossings that led to the mission in the first place).
Remove the rescue mission and we know that people will die in its absence. Some die anyway, but at least that is something beyond our control.
I am profoundly unhappy with any policy decision taken that will knowingly lead to people dying, and that is precisely what will happen if the rescue mission is removed.
"The UK will be kicked out of the European Arrest Warrant deal after Brexit, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said."
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44532500and
"Today we know that the UK is not ready to accept the free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the court and the Charter of Fundamental Rights - for the charter, this was confirmed last week by the House of Commons.
This means that the UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant.
The EU's remaining 27 countries would continue to share information from passenger name records and the UK would not have automatic access to EU-only police databases or those of countries in the Schengen zone, he said in a speech in Vienna.
Similarly, while the UK would be shown analysis done by Europol relating to live criminal investigations, it would not be able to "shape the direction" of the EU's law enforcement agency or other EU bodies... "
It is what they were voting for we're repeatedly told.
She has posted (IMHO) a very interesting and well-argued open letter about the vote this afternoon, as might be said in politics, I commend it to the House: https://mailchi.mp/9fdb5d1e08ba/heres-to-a-great-1598339.
It is their gamble to then have the 'sovereign' Parliament that brexit voters seemingly voted in favour of becomes a bystander whilst a narrow cabal of Tory nutcases decide the future of the country.
What nonsense.
It is the traffickers who choose to use inflatables and other unseaworthy craft. Were there no EU rescue mission, they would still have no intention of getting as far as Italy itself, at best they would hope to get close enough to Lampedusa for Italy to have to rescue their human cargo.
The thing to remember is that the people traffickers were doing this already, before the EU mission was established. If they were lucky, migrants were rescued by commercial shipping. The EU has reacted to an existing problem, the traffickers will not stop if the EU vessels are removed. If the rescue mission was stopped, people will die who, otherwise, would have been saved.
If the traffickers gave a toss for the migrants they would try to sail from Tunisia, which is much closer to Italian territorial waters (either Pantelleria or Lampedusa), but they don't because the basket case that is Libya makes life much easier for them, whilst also making the sea crossing more dangerous for those being trafficked.
There is no easy and quick answer, that is also responsible and grown up, to the the problem of people being trafficked from Libya. The simple (IMHO simplistic) reaction, to simply stop providing the rescue mission is, at best amoral, and at worst a manifestation of the worst form of "I'm alright Jack" thinking, and many of those in the developed world espousing it as a solution represent a political world view that is nasty, brutish and utterly repellent.
The whole discussion is both very distasteful and more pragmatically irrelevent to the process of us leaving the EU. In a few months time we can come up with our policy on rescuing children, or leaving them to drown. Because that's the bottom line and that's what we voted for. Control.
Anyway, it seems the warnings about crops rotting in the fields (which isn't happening according to some) are still falling on deaf ears...
https://independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-farmers-fruit-pickers-strawberries-immigration-seasonal-agricultural-workers-food-farm-a8406711.html
That is where we are as Europeans. Yesterday Corriera della sera reported that the Alt-right League in Italy led by Salvini just hit 30% edging above Cinquestelle in the polls. That's up from 17% last March.
This off the back of some manoeuvres plus declining one NGO boat with 650 migrants to Spain via Malta.
Please take the time to understand the political philosophy behind Putin, Trump and Salvini as well as the drive behind the NGOs running the "ferries". This is incredibly complex, not least because Merkel is losing support - her Bavaria colleagues are possibly not that far from Salvini in their connection to local voter sentiment?
One can easily gain perspective by observing Trump gymnastics - first 2,000 children interned then he's all about the family...
We live in interesting times!
As for todays vote. I can't see what all the fuss is about. The result of the referendum was to leave.......the party in power has the mandate & the duty to deliver that the best way they can. I don't expect Boris Johnson to come to the House of Commons every time he agrees a foreign trade deal & ask if that is ok.....he is pur representative & we have to live by what he does.If we don't like it we can have our say at the next election.....and not before.
Maybe Boris can solve the tail wagging the dog issue, otherwise brexit simply won't happen.
Incidentally the argument is about the nature of democracy. Do you think the Australian (different) voting system is democracy?
Its a bit like the house buying process in Scotland.....different to ours & has its good points & bad points. Neither is perfect - we have one way & they have another. neither is right or wrong.
You have acknowledged that there are different versions of 'democracy' in operation in different places.
Southbank argues that 'it is the people who are sovereign in a democracy ' but my counter argument asks which people exactly?
A good case can be made that in the UK many people are excluded.
You argue that you're not interested in systems elsewhere, yet even domestically we have several different systems, which one of those systems has primacy depends on which argument you wish to win.
I don't want a people's vote or second referendum, even though it might satisfy the 'people are sovereign' position, however to hold the referendum up as a vote that trumps everything else is not much of an argument given the alternative systems available.
Brexit won, be happy, but to dress that victory up as some kind of triumph for democracy is simply not true in my view. It can easily be seen as a grubby and unsophisticated manipulated exercise in opinion surveying, conducted by a country with no respect for developed debate on a seminal issue.
Brexit won (*see below)
Now square it with a workable and practical solution on the border on the island of Ireland for starters.
I don't blame you for not being able to, nobody can.
So brexit is lost* not because of any vote, or any force undermining it, but because of the basic difficulties of practicalities.
I put the blame squarely with David Cameron & his Government. He gave us the referendum & he should have known the problems that would lie within it re the Irish border.
call me ignorant but it was not something I was aware off at the time & don't recall any major discussions about it during the campaigns and tv debates. Perhaps you were.
The two crucial bits are that the UK and ROI joined the EU at the same time, and then there was the Belfast Agreement. Those two things meant that there could never be a return to conditions in 1923.
It is now the situation that from the UK perspective the ROI is de facto the EU yet in Ireland there are special circumstancs in relation to the UK, not least the distance of the land border and the over 200 crossing points...more crossing points than on the whole Eastern border of the EU with neighbouring countries.