One of the saddest side effects of Brexit could be that future generations are less likely to spend time living and working abroad for a part of their life, when they could go and come back with a better understanding of what life is like in other European countries.
As we can see on here, there is a lot of ignorance (wilful or otherwise) of what the life experience and aspirations are in other countries which in turn leads to incorrect assumptions about their mindset. Programmes like Erasmus and the general right to go to work and live in another EU country can help to counter the incorrect and unhelpful stereotypes that we see and can allow for greater cultural understanding - exactly what is needed at the moment, as the whole Brexit debate shows
Every insult makes me more convinced and determined. It makes me more determined to stick up for the 17.4 million who are being slowly screwed over by people working against democracy.
The UK has lagged behind many EU countries in having equal voting rights for men and women in National Elections. The EU countries that were more 'democratic' before the UK became 'democratic' are:
Latvia. Finland. Denmark. Estonia. Lithuania. Austria. Germany. Hungary. Poland. Sweden. Luxembourg. Holland. Czech Republic and Slovakia. (At the time they introduced equal voting rights they were one country.) Republic of Ireland (initially as the Irish Free State. (This particular aspect of 'democracy' was introduced there immediately rule from Westminster stopped.)
So those who may or may not be working towards remain, are working to maintain alliance with countries that have more enlightened democratic histories than the UK.
In terms of democratic representation for 50% of the population 15 of the current 28 EU nations got there way before the UK.
Your position could be argued that the 17.4 million brexit voters are the ones working against democracy.
Are you prepared to argue otherwise?
So the majority in a democratic vote are working against democracy and the minority who are preventing the majority decision being carried out are the democrats? Orwell would have loved that.
If you think we only have rights in this country on the whim of what the EU has or hasn't let us have then you are only exposing your complete ignorance of what the EU can or cannot do.
Please give me a single example of a right that the EU has unilaterally given or taken from you.
I never got to vote on freedom of movement into this country, neither did you, until 2016 when a majority voted against it.. Now, that decision is on its way to being reversed with the support of people like you. So don't try to tell me you are the democrat and I am not.
1) So you are against the right of freedom of movement to be given to you?
2) Yes, you did get a chance to vote on it. You vote for MPs who make up the Parliament who approved freedom of movement and you vote for MEPs in the Parliament that regulates that right.
3) in 2016 the official Leave campaigns and all leading Brexiters stood on a platform where they defended our place in the single market and ergo freedom of movement. Therefore no one voted in 2016 to end freedom of movement, that was not on the ballot paper.
The fact is I am a democrat because I actually understand how our democracy works and want to defend it from those who defraud the electorate, and you are in favour of politicians and populists who undermine democracy. Whatever that makes you, it is certainly not someone who is pro-democracy.
Because you know better than the majority? That is very democratic.
Every insult makes me more convinced and determined. It makes me more determined to stick up for the 17.4 million who are being slowly screwed over by people working against democracy.
The UK has lagged behind many EU countries in having equal voting rights for men and women in National Elections. The EU countries that were more 'democratic' before the UK became 'democratic' are:
Latvia. Finland. Denmark. Estonia. Lithuania. Austria. Germany. Hungary. Poland. Sweden. Luxembourg. Holland. Czech Republic and Slovakia. (At the time they introduced equal voting rights they were one country.) Republic of Ireland (initially as the Irish Free State. (This particular aspect of 'democracy' was introduced there immediately rule from Westminster stopped.)
So those who may or may not be working towards remain, are working to maintain alliance with countries that have more enlightened democratic histories than the UK.
In terms of democratic representation for 50% of the population 15 of the current 28 EU nations got there way before the UK.
Your position could be argued that the 17.4 million brexit voters are the ones working against democracy.
Are you prepared to argue otherwise?
So the majority in a democratic vote are working against democracy and the minority who are preventing the majority decision being carried out are the democrats? Orwell would have loved that.
Yet your majority are suggesting that more democracy by way of a second democratic vote is anti democratic. Spike Milligan would have loved that.
Every insult makes me more convinced and determined. It makes me more determined to stick up for the 17.4 million who are being slowly screwed over by people working against democracy.
The UK has lagged behind many EU countries in having equal voting rights for men and women in National Elections. The EU countries that were more 'democratic' before the UK became 'democratic' are:
Latvia. Finland. Denmark. Estonia. Lithuania. Austria. Germany. Hungary. Poland. Sweden. Luxembourg. Holland. Czech Republic and Slovakia. (At the time they introduced equal voting rights they were one country.) Republic of Ireland (initially as the Irish Free State. (This particular aspect of 'democracy' was introduced there immediately rule from Westminster stopped.)
So those who may or may not be working towards remain, are working to maintain alliance with countries that have more enlightened democratic histories than the UK.
In terms of democratic representation for 50% of the population 15 of the current 28 EU nations got there way before the UK.
Your position could be argued that the 17.4 million brexit voters are the ones working against democracy.
Are you prepared to argue otherwise?
So the majority in a democratic vote are working against democracy and the minority who are preventing the majority decision being carried out are the democrats? Orwell would have loved that.
1) a quarter of the population voting in a referendum completely corrupted by illegal activity is not a majority
Every insult makes me more convinced and determined. It makes me more determined to stick up for the 17.4 million who are being slowly screwed over by people working against democracy.
The UK has lagged behind many EU countries in having equal voting rights for men and women in National Elections. The EU countries that were more 'democratic' before the UK became 'democratic' are:
Latvia. Finland. Denmark. Estonia. Lithuania. Austria. Germany. Hungary. Poland. Sweden. Luxembourg. Holland. Czech Republic and Slovakia. (At the time they introduced equal voting rights they were one country.) Republic of Ireland (initially as the Irish Free State. (This particular aspect of 'democracy' was introduced there immediately rule from Westminster stopped.)
So those who may or may not be working towards remain, are working to maintain alliance with countries that have more enlightened democratic histories than the UK.
In terms of democratic representation for 50% of the population 15 of the current 28 EU nations got there way before the UK.
Your position could be argued that the 17.4 million brexit voters are the ones working against democracy.
Are you prepared to argue otherwise?
So the majority in a democratic vote are working against democracy and the minority who are preventing the majority decision being carried out are the democrats? Orwell would have loved that.
1) a quarter of the population voting in a referendum completely corrupted by illegal activity is not a majority
2) you've never read Orwell
Not only do you know better than the majority, but you know my reading past. Wow, that is some impressive knowledge all round. You deserve to be a dictator.
Every insult makes me more convinced and determined. It makes me more determined to stick up for the 17.4 million who are being slowly screwed over by people working against democracy.
The UK has lagged behind many EU countries in having equal voting rights for men and women in National Elections. The EU countries that were more 'democratic' before the UK became 'democratic' are:
Latvia. Finland. Denmark. Estonia. Lithuania. Austria. Germany. Hungary. Poland. Sweden. Luxembourg. Holland. Czech Republic and Slovakia. (At the time they introduced equal voting rights they were one country.) Republic of Ireland (initially as the Irish Free State. (This particular aspect of 'democracy' was introduced there immediately rule from Westminster stopped.)
So those who may or may not be working towards remain, are working to maintain alliance with countries that have more enlightened democratic histories than the UK.
In terms of democratic representation for 50% of the population 15 of the current 28 EU nations got there way before the UK.
Your position could be argued that the 17.4 million brexit voters are the ones working against democracy.
Are you prepared to argue otherwise?
So the majority in a democratic vote are working against democracy and the minority who are preventing the majority decision being carried out are the democrats? Orwell would have loved that.
Yet your majority are suggesting that more democracy by way of a second democratic vote is anti democratic. Spike Milligan would have loved that.
Even many Remainers know, and say, that a second vote before the first is carried out is wrong.
They will still go along with it tho. And We will no longer have any right to call ourselves a democracy.
One of the amusing things about the call for a second referendum is the Remain argument that 'we' are better informed than before. They do not explain how 'they' managed to be so better informed the first time. Was there some secret tv channel with the truth on it that was denied to the majority? Or else why were they Remainers if the information was not available and the Leave propaganda was so effective? What they mean of course is that they are terribly clever and we are stupid and/or racist. Our best bet of winning another Leave result is that they keep going with this patronising insulting crap. That is why I love Fiiish so much.
Ask the Greeks, Poles,Hungarians and the Italians how sovereign they are. Italy has not had an elected Prime Minister since the last one was effectively deposed by the EU in 2011. You are entirely within your rights to be in favour of a federal Europe, but you cannot pretend that national sovereignty can exist alongside it, it is one or the other.
The Poles who in the latest opinion poll indicated that 82% of them think EU membership is a good thing? Or some different Poles, who exist on Planet Southbank?
I still have plenty of Hungarian former work colleagues in Budapest. They have no problem at all being in the EU. It is Orban and his cronies they are concerned about. They see EU membership as a welcome safety net.
Exactly. I might get round to listing some of the appalling things Orban has done in the last couple of years without any interference from "the EU". I expect your colleagues are desperately praying that some interference will actually take place.
Which comment effectively sums up the difference between your and my attitude to the EU more than any other on this thread. You will have to wait for Macron's Euro army before proper intervention obviously.
Can you help me out then?
You suggested, without any substantiation, that the Hungarians feel a loss of sovereignty as a result of their EU membership. The inference being that "the EU" "interferes" to stop the Hungarians making decisions about their country.
However, if I understand your latest post correctly you are mocking me for admitting that in fact orban has gotten away with a whole load of shit without the EU intervening.
Both cannot be true. Obvs.....
The simple difference between us is that I believe the nation state is the only possible current form of organisation which can provide citizens with democracy. And democracy is more valuable than any other consideration. Most people in capitalist society have no direct control over the economy. The only way they can influence it is through their vote (Or collective organisation which barely exists). Once that power is removed or diluted then we are reduced to hoping for the best intentions of undemocratically formed and unaccountable bureaucracies.
Is this idea of democracy more important than consumer rights, worker protection and the general economic state of the country then? I am not sure how having a referendum, thus promoting democracy, outweighs the importance of any of those. Also, how does the House of Lords, that great feudal tradition, fit into this?
Yes it is more important than any of those things. Rights only exist as rights if they are democratically won and held, if not they are things held or withheld on the decision of bureaucratic elites.
Sorry. I can’t make fuck all sense of that
The right to vote was not given to us. People like the Chartists and suffragettes struggled and sometimes died for it. For people these days to dismiss its importance and to say we get more 'rights' at the whim of the EU bureaucrats is tragic.
Ok right. That’s clear now. Complete bollocks but crystal clear.
The historical struggle for democracy is 'complete bollocks'? Look back just over the past few pages alone and you will see many people saying they trust EU bureaucrats to defend them more than our own Parliamentary system can.
I'm interested that you view the many different struggles, of different groupings, seeking different things, as a single and discrete British "struggle for democracy". Almost as if the struggle for democracy within the UK was a single and unique movement, operating in a vacuum, uninfluenced by wider ideas.
I'm not sure that that would be an entirely accurate viewpoint; there is a case to be made for (at least in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) viewing such struggles as part of a wider European and World phenomena. The Chartists came into being in a Europe of rapidly changing social, economic and political ideas, where revolutionary movements were not uncommon and, in the case of Ireland, the mass rallies and agitation of Catholic Association in the 1820s created a template for protest. Equally, the Suffragettes were part of a wider movement to achieve votes for women, which took in much of the then Empire, Scandinavia and (at least Northern) Europe.
I note with sadness that you have omitted reference to the sterling work of the National Monster Raving Loony Party, who campaigned in the 1960s that the voting age be reduced to 18 - is this not an important element of today's universal suffrage?
I'm even more intrigued by your constant referencing of EU bureaucrats either "whimsically" granting rights or being trusted to defend them, but then, that's because, as a Civil Servant, I am a bureaucrat. I fear that someone, somewhere, must have misinformed you.
Bureaucrats are merely officials in Government Departments/Offices. While the word bureaucrat is often used as a pejorative term, because, you know, we are all unfeeling sticklers for the rules, following protocols come what may, we don't have the kind of power that you allege.
Bureaucrats don't make policy decisions, whether in the EU Commission or the national Civil Services across Europe (though they will both draft and implement the laws that their political masters state that they desire).
If you want to point fingers at decision makers, try the politicians (both EU and National), the real priesthood of the "Will of the People", interpreting as they do, the Holy Writ of often imperfectly drafted manifesto commitments and referendum questions.
And, I have to say that I admire your defence of the ability, possibly even the willingness, of the UK Parliamentary system to defend the people of the UK. Why, if it hadn't been for Parliament since 2010,. bravely standing up for the poor, downtrodden and defenceless amongst us, can you imagine what horrible policies the EU would have "forced" upon the sweet and cuddly Conservative Party? The EU bureaucrats would probably have tried to introduce a deeply flawed and unfair universal benefits system, under the claim that a single, integrated, approach would "simplify" a complex network of benefits, or that those in Council housing with additional bedrooms should be penalised, or that the sick and the dying should be aggressively pursued by private companies to attempt to force them into work and relieve them of their benefits.
And, of course, in the wonderful UK version of democracy, every vote is of equal value (because there are no safe seats), and we wouldn't want to consider dangerous ideas like PR and/or lists that might be common in the EU. To say nothing of the House of Lords, it has only been the inimical influence of the EU bureaucrats, as I am sure you can evidence, that has prevented wholescale reform over the last few hundred years.
Because that's the most evil and cunning thing about the EU bureaucrats, even before they existed, they managed to prevent the UK from fully asserting its democratic credentials...
Every insult makes me more convinced and determined. It makes me more determined to stick up for the 17.4 million who are being slowly screwed over by people working against democracy.
The UK has lagged behind many EU countries in having equal voting rights for men and women in National Elections. The EU countries that were more 'democratic' before the UK became 'democratic' are:
Latvia. Finland. Denmark. Estonia. Lithuania. Austria. Germany. Hungary. Poland. Sweden. Luxembourg. Holland. Czech Republic and Slovakia. (At the time they introduced equal voting rights they were one country.) Republic of Ireland (initially as the Irish Free State. (This particular aspect of 'democracy' was introduced there immediately rule from Westminster stopped.)
So those who may or may not be working towards remain, are working to maintain alliance with countries that have more enlightened democratic histories than the UK.
In terms of democratic representation for 50% of the population 15 of the current 28 EU nations got there way before the UK.
Your position could be argued that the 17.4 million brexit voters are the ones working against democracy.
Are you prepared to argue otherwise?
So the majority in a democratic vote are working against democracy and the minority who are preventing the majority decision being carried out are the democrats? Orwell would have loved that.
You might have a point according to your personal definition of 'democracy'. However there are other aspects to 'democracy' too.
I have pointed out one above, but some of the arguments lined up in discussion regarding whether the UK EU referendum was 'democratic' or not are: (Some of the arguments are stronger than others but here goes)
The narrow majority is too slim to launch such seismic change.
In terms of eligible voters less than 50% voted leave, which is a threshold demanded by UK law in relation to industrial action by Union members.
Those between 16-18 were not allowed to vote as they had been in the Scottish independence referendum, despite the reasonable claim they might have regarding the vote affecting their future lives.
The binary vote was devoid of significant meaning.
Influences such as Obama, the Government leaflet, media saying stuff about leave or remain were very often tainted, misleading, or actual lies.
The operation of the campaigns were funded against the rules.
There had been 13 previous referenda in UK nations and regions, operated under differing 'democratic' structures, the 'democratic' results of which were sometimes in direct conflict with the brexit result.
Do you see where I am going with this? I have given at least eight reasons here as to why your certainty regarding democracy might not be rock solid. To declare in any way that the Brexit referendum was the supreme one, or the purest version of democracy you can get, is open to challenge, as I am demonstrating.
Orwell would probably have recognised the concept of the 'proles' being manipulated by forces of power, and he would have definitely seen resonances of the 'two minute hate' and the creation of a 'Goldstein' like receptacle (the EU) for all the things people feel negative about.
My last two posts discussing 'democracy', this one and the one previously about the examples of EU states being arguably more 'democratic' than the UK (let alone the case that can be made that the EU is more 'democratic' than the UK anyway), have not involved rudeness or name calling, but are if not a challenge to your beliefs regarding what is 'democratic', they are at least a reasoned case that there are other definitions than yours.
Every insult makes me more convinced and determined. It makes me more determined to stick up for the 17.4 million who are being slowly screwed over by people working against democracy.
The UK has lagged behind many EU countries in having equal voting rights for men and women in National Elections. The EU countries that were more 'democratic' before the UK became 'democratic' are:
Latvia. Finland. Denmark. Estonia. Lithuania. Austria. Germany. Hungary. Poland. Sweden. Luxembourg. Holland. Czech Republic and Slovakia. (At the time they introduced equal voting rights they were one country.) Republic of Ireland (initially as the Irish Free State. (This particular aspect of 'democracy' was introduced there immediately rule from Westminster stopped.)
So those who may or may not be working towards remain, are working to maintain alliance with countries that have more enlightened democratic histories than the UK.
In terms of democratic representation for 50% of the population 15 of the current 28 EU nations got there way before the UK.
Your position could be argued that the 17.4 million brexit voters are the ones working against democracy.
Are you prepared to argue otherwise?
So the majority in a democratic vote are working against democracy and the minority who are preventing the majority decision being carried out are the democrats? Orwell would have loved that.
Yet your majority are suggesting that more democracy by way of a second democratic vote is anti democratic. Spike Milligan would have loved that.
Even many Remainers know, and say, that a second vote before the first is carried out is wrong.
And even many Leavers know that carrying out a vote won by campaigning that resorted to criminal activity to get that result is wrong.
Of course democracy was an international movement. Our democracy is what matters to me most just now and your and Seth's arguments all amount to one view, widely shared I know. It is, you cannot trust the people and you cannot trust our Parliamentary system which exists to express the will of the people.
As it happens I am for proportional representation and the abolition of the House of Lords, but I would never say that because our system is not perfect that we should cede power to a distant unaccountable EU. That weakens the power of the people and makes our whole system weaker as a result.
Likewise I hate the argument that the'negotiations' have gone badly because of the EU's intransigence. Once again it is our feeble politicians blaming the EU for problems here, and effectively ceding the authority they got from the Referendum.
Ask the Greeks, Poles,Hungarians and the Italians how sovereign they are. Italy has not had an elected Prime Minister since the last one was effectively deposed by the EU in 2011. You are entirely within your rights to be in favour of a federal Europe, but you cannot pretend that national sovereignty can exist alongside it, it is one or the other.
The Poles who in the latest opinion poll indicated that 82% of them think EU membership is a good thing? Or some different Poles, who exist on Planet Southbank?
I still have plenty of Hungarian former work colleagues in Budapest. They have no problem at all being in the EU. It is Orban and his cronies they are concerned about. They see EU membership as a welcome safety net.
Exactly. I might get round to listing some of the appalling things Orban has done in the last couple of years without any interference from "the EU". I expect your colleagues are desperately praying that some interference will actually take place.
Which comment effectively sums up the difference between your and my attitude to the EU more than any other on this thread. You will have to wait for Macron's Euro army before proper intervention obviously.
Can you help me out then?
You suggested, without any substantiation, that the Hungarians feel a loss of sovereignty as a result of their EU membership. The inference being that "the EU" "interferes" to stop the Hungarians making decisions about their country.
However, if I understand your latest post correctly you are mocking me for admitting that in fact orban has gotten away with a whole load of shit without the EU intervening.
Both cannot be true. Obvs.....
The simple difference between us is that I believe the nation state is the only possible current form of organisation which can provide citizens with democracy. And democracy is more valuable than any other consideration. Most people in capitalist society have no direct control over the economy. The only way they can influence it is through their vote (Or collective organisation which barely exists). Once that power is removed or diluted then we are reduced to hoping for the best intentions of undemocratically formed and unaccountable bureaucracies.
Is this idea of democracy more important than consumer rights, worker protection and the general economic state of the country then? I am not sure how having a referendum, thus promoting democracy, outweighs the importance of any of those. Also, how does the House of Lords, that great feudal tradition, fit into this?
Yes it is more important than any of those things. Rights only exist as rights if they are democratically won and held, if not they are things held or withheld on the decision of bureaucratic elites.
Sorry. I can’t make fuck all sense of that
The right to vote was not given to us. People like the Chartists and suffragettes struggled and sometimes died for it. For people these days to dismiss its importance and to say we get more 'rights' at the whim of the EU bureaucrats is tragic.
Ok right. That’s clear now. Complete bollocks but crystal clear.
The historical struggle for democracy is 'complete bollocks'? Look back just over the past few pages alone and you will see many people saying they trust EU bureaucrats to defend them more than our own Parliamentary system can.
I'm interested that you view the many different struggles, of different groupings, seeking different things, as a single and discrete British "struggle for democracy". Almost as if the struggle for democracy within the UK was a single and unique movement, operating in a vacuum, uninfluenced by wider ideas.
I'm not sure that that would be an entirely accurate viewpoint; there is a case to be made for (at least in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) viewing such struggles as part of a wider European and World phenomena. The Chartists came into being in a Europe of rapidly changing social, economic and political ideas, where revolutionary movements were not uncommon and, in the case of Ireland, the mass rallies and agitation of Catholic Association in the 1820s created a template for protest. Equally, the Suffragettes were part of a wider movement to achieve votes for women, which took in much of the then Empire, Scandinavia and (at least Northern) Europe.
I note with sadness that you have omitted reference to the sterling work of the National Monster Raving Loony Party, who campaigned in the 1960s that the voting age be reduced to 18 - is this not an important element of today's universal suffrage?
I'm even more intrigued by your constant referencing of EU bureaucrats either "whimsically" granting rights or being trusted to defend them, but then, that's because, as a Civil Servant, I am a bureaucrat. I fear that someone, somewhere, must have misinformed you.
Bureaucrats are merely officials in Government Departments/Offices. While the word bureaucrat is often used as a pejorative term, because, you know, we are all unfeeling sticklers for the rules, following protocols come what may, we don't have the kind of power that you allege.
Bureaucrats don't make policy decisions, whether in the EU Commission or the national Civil Services across Europe (though they will both draft and implement the laws that their political masters state that they desire).
If you want to point fingers at decision makers, try the politicians (both EU and National), the real priesthood of the "Will of the People", interpreting as they do, the Holy Writ of often imperfectly drafted manifesto commitments and referendum questions.
And, I have to say that I admire your defence of the ability, possibly even the willingness, of the UK Parliamentary system to defend the people of the UK. Why, if it hadn't been for Parliament since 2010,. bravely standing up for the poor, downtrodden and defenceless amongst us, can you imagine what horrible policies the EU would have "forced" upon the sweet and cuddly Conservative Party? Why, the EU bureaucrats would probably have tried to introduce a deeply flawed and unfair universal benefits system, under the claim that a single, integrated, approach would "simplify" a complex network of benefits, or that those in Council housing with additional bedrooms should be penalised, or that the sick and should be aggressively pursued by private companies to attempt to force them into work and relieve them of their benefits.
And, of course, in the wonderful UK version of democracy, every vote is of equal value (because there are no safe seats), and we wouldn't want to consider dangerous ideas like PR and/or lists that might be common in the EU. To say nothing of the House of Lords, it has only been the inimical influence of the EU bureaucrats, as I am sure you can evidence, that has prevented wholescale reform over the last few hundred years.
Because that's the most evil and cunning thing about the EU bureaucrats, even before they existed, they managed to prevent the UK from fully asserting its democratic credentials...
They will still go along with it tho. And We will no longer have any right to call ourselves a democracy.
One of the amusing things about the call for a second referendum is the Remain argument that 'we' are better informed than before. They do not explain how 'they' managed to be so better informed the first time. Was there some secret tv channel with the truth on it that was denied to the majority? Or else why were they Remainers if the information was not available and the Leave propaganda was so effective? What they mean of course is that they are terribly clever and we are stupid and/or racist. Our best bet of winning another Leave result is that they keep going with this patronising insulting crap. That is why I love Fiiish so much.
You do realise everything you've written above is completely untrue, right?
They will still go along with it tho. And We will no longer have any right to call ourselves a democracy.
One of the amusing things about the call for a second referendum is the Remain argument that 'we' are better informed than before. They do not explain how 'they' managed to be so better informed the first time. Was there some secret tv channel with the truth on it that was denied to the majority? Or else why were they Remainers if the information was not available and the Leave propaganda was so effective? What they mean of course is that they are terribly clever and we are stupid and/or racist. Our best bet of winning another Leave result is that they keep going with this patronising insulting crap. That is why I love Fiiish so much.
You do realise everything you've written above is completely untrue, right?
Of course democracy was an international movement. Our democracy is what matters to me most just now and your and Seth's arguments all amount to one view, widely shared I know. It is, you cannot trust the people and you cannot trust our Parliamentary system which exists to express the will of the people.
As it happens I am for proportional representation and the abolition of the House of Lords, but I would never say that because our system is not perfect that we should cede power to a distant unaccountable EU. That weakens the power of the people and makes our whole system weaker as a result.
Likewise I hate the argument that the'negotiations' have gone badly because of the EU's intransigence. Once again it is our feeble politicians blaming the EU for problems here, and effectively ceding the authority they got from the Referendum.
I have listed several example of action above regarding 'democracy'. Which of those arguments amount to not trusting the will of the people? For example I have mentioned voting age, voted for women, contradictions between previous referenda and the brexit one, contradictions between UK law on Trade Union democratic procedures and National democratic procedures. There are a few. Are you really saying that all of the examples I have given in some detail this evening simply amount to not trusting the 'will of the people' without engaging with my arguments in any detail? Of course you are at liberty to make a sweeping dismissal if you wish, but to me it is behaviour that undermines the credibility of any positions you take. You would be right to boil it all down to 'you lost get over it', but if you use 'democracy' as a justification to ennoble that victory then be prepared for challenge, even if structuring a counter argument feels like a bit of a stretch for you.
Moving away from the confrontation for a moment. I have just been reading the latest blog by Laura Kuenssberg with her finger well placed on The Westminster pulse and it’s absolutely and completely clear that not a single person in the entire country has even the faintest idea of what’s going to happen next and after that and after that. The country has been paralysed and is a total shambles. The political classes have let all of us both leave and remain down in the biggest avoidable debacle in this country’s entire history. If it wasn’t happening right in front of my eyes I’d have trouble believing it wasn’t a wind up.
Of course democracy was an international movement. Our democracy is what matters to me most just now and your and Seth's arguments all amount to one view, widely shared I know. It is, you cannot trust the people and you cannot trust our Parliamentary system which exists to express the will of the people.
As it happens I am for proportional representation and the abolition of the House of Lords, but I would never say that because our system is not perfect that we should cede power to a distant unaccountable EU. That weakens the power of the people and makes our whole system weaker as a result. Likewise I hate the argument that the'negotiations' have gone badly because of the EU's intransigence. Once again it is our feeble politicians blaming the EU for problems here, and effectively ceding the authority they got from the Referendum.
I have never suggested that people cannot be trusted, though I may have mentioned more than a few that cannot be bothered. I will quite happily assert that I do not agree with the idea of a single monolithic entity known as "The People". An intelligent democracy recognises the need to avoid tyranny of the majority, and seeks to prevent imposition of overly partisan policies; there has been precious little evidence of that in the UK in recent years.
This is particularly the case in a situation, like the referendum or any recent General Election, where because of the turn out and/or the closeness of the decision, one party/Party seeks to interpret the result as providing them with carte blanche to act as they see fit. It would be just about fair enough if an absolute majority of those eligible to vote had supported the winning side (though I'm not sure that that has ever happened in my lifetime), but that is not currently the case.
The Parliamentary system in the UK, like all democratic systems, is only as good as the individuals elected to serve within it. So, in today's world, damn right I cannot trust Parliament - and I'm not sure that any sane person should ever "trust" any Parliament, the electorate should be willing to hold representatives to account.
You claim that the EU is unaccountable, I disagree absolutely with that viewpoint. The EU, if anything, because both national Governments and the EU Parliament have oversight, provides the electorate with additional democratic control, because there are two electoral opportunities to influence its actions in voting at General and EU Elections. And, I would recommend looking at the number of votes each Political Party needs to achieve to win each seat before I would hold up the UK as some sort of paragon of virtue. Few seats in Westminster actually decide the elections, with many voters effectively disenfranchised in their constituencies, because a donkey with the right colour rosette (witness Dominic Raab) could get elected.
None of this changes the fact that EU bureaucrats do not have the policy making powers that you have suggested, they remain servants of the member states and the Parliament.
They will still go along with it tho. And We will no longer have any right to call ourselves a democracy.
One of the amusing things about the call for a second referendum is the Remain argument that 'we' are better informed than before. They do not explain how 'they' managed to be so better informed the first time. Was there some secret tv channel with the truth on it that was denied to the majority? Or else why were they Remainers if the information was not available and the Leave propaganda was so effective? What they mean of course is that they are terribly clever and we are stupid and/or racist. Our best bet of winning another Leave result is that they keep going with this patronising insulting crap. That is why I love Fiiish so much.
You do realise everything you've written above is completely untrue, right?
Brilliant
Is it really? You come here spouting the same lies over and over again, call everyone who disagrees with you fascists then completely misrepresent any point you cannot counter. You find it impossible that anyone doesn't hate the EU as much as you and have repeatedly labelled all Remain voters as wanting to surrender all our rights and democracy to EU bureaucrats. It is completely hypocritical of you to accuse anyone else of being patronising or posting insulting crap.
For someone who bangs on about democracy as much as you do, you are really in favour of a lot of anti-democratic actions.
Moving away from the confrontation for a moment. I have just been reading the latest blog by Laura Kuenssberg with her finger well placed on The Westminster pulse and it’s absolutely and completely clear that not a single person in the entire country has even the faintest idea of what’s going to happen next and after that and after that. The country has been paralysed and is a total shambles. The political classes have let all of us both leave and remain down in the biggest avoidable debacle in this country’s entire history. If it wasn’t happening right in front of my eyes I’d have trouble believing it wasn’t a wind up.
Moving away from the confrontation for a moment. I have just been reading the latest blog by Laura Kuenssberg with her finger well placed on The Westminster pulse and it’s absolutely and completely clear that not a single person in the entire country has even the faintest idea of what’s going to happen next and after that and after that. The country has been paralysed and is a total shambles. The political classes have let all of us both leave and remain down in the biggest avoidable debacle in this country’s entire history. If it wasn’t happening right in front of my eyes I’d have trouble believing it wasn’t a wind up.
On this we can agree
Yes. If only we had stuck to the plan of negotiating a deal before triggering Article 50 then had a second vote on the deal.to avoid all this.
Who suggested that? Oh that anti-democratic, EU-loving unelected leftie commie fascist Remoaner bureaucrat Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Moving away from the confrontation for a moment. I have just been reading the latest blog by Laura Kuenssberg with her finger well placed on The Westminster pulse and it’s absolutely and completely clear that not a single person in the entire country has even the faintest idea of what’s going to happen next and after that and after that. The country has been paralysed and is a total shambles. The political classes have let all of us both leave and remain down in the biggest avoidable debacle in this country’s entire history. If it wasn’t happening right in front of my eyes I’d have trouble believing it wasn’t a wind up.
I'm interested that you view the many different struggles, of different groupings, seeking different things, as a single and discrete British "struggle for democracy". Almost as if the struggle for democracy within the UK was a single and unique movement, operating in a vacuum, uninfluenced by wider ideas.
I'm not sure that that would be an entirely accurate viewpoint; there is a case to be made for (at least in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) viewing such struggles as part of a wider European and World phenomena. The Chartists came into being in a Europe of rapidly changing social, economic and political ideas, where revolutionary movements were not uncommon and, in the case of Ireland, the mass rallies and agitation of Catholic Association in the 1820s created a template for protest. Equally, the Suffragettes were part of a wider movement to achieve votes for women, which took in much of the then Empire, Scandinavia and (at least Northern) Europe.
I note with sadness that you have omitted reference to the sterling work of the National Monster Raving Loony Party, who campaigned in the 1960s that the voting age be reduced to 18 - is this not an important element of today's universal suffrage?
I'm even more intrigued by your constant referencing of EU bureaucrats either "whimsically" granting rights or being trusted to defend them, but then, that's because, as a Civil Servant, I am a bureaucrat. I fear that someone, somewhere, must have misinformed you.
Bureaucrats are merely officials in Government Departments/Offices. While the word bureaucrat is often used as a pejorative term, because, you know, we are all unfeeling sticklers for the rules, following protocols come what may, we don't have the kind of power that you allege.
Bureaucrats don't make policy decisions, whether in the EU Commission or the national Civil Services across Europe (though they will both draft and implement the laws that their political masters state that they desire).
If you want to point fingers at decision makers, try the politicians (both EU and National), the real priesthood of the "Will of the People", interpreting as they do, the Holy Writ of often imperfectly drafted manifesto commitments and referendum questions.
And, I have to say that I admire your defence of the ability, possibly even the willingness, of the UK Parliamentary system to defend the people of the UK. Why, if it hadn't been for Parliament since 2010,. bravely standing up for the poor, downtrodden and defenceless amongst us, can you imagine what horrible policies the EU would have "forced" upon the sweet and cuddly Conservative Party? Why, the EU bureaucrats would probably have tried to introduce a deeply flawed and unfair universal benefits system, under the claim that a single, integrated, approach would "simplify" a complex network of benefits, or that those in Council housing with additional bedrooms should be penalised, or that the sick and should be aggressively pursued by private companies to attempt to force them into work and relieve them of their benefits.
And, of course, in the wonderful UK version of democracy, every vote is of equal value (because there are no safe seats), and we wouldn't want to consider dangerous ideas like PR and/or lists that might be common in the EU. To say nothing of the House of Lords, it has only been the inimical influence of the EU bureaucrats, as I am sure you can evidence, that has prevented wholescale reform over the last few hundred years.
Because that's the most evil and cunning thing about the EU bureaucrats, even before they existed, they managed to prevent the UK from fully asserting its democratic credentials...
I think that is the closest I have seen you to angry. And respect you all the more for it.
The right to vote was not given to us. People like the Chartists and suffragettes struggled and sometimes died for it. For people these days to dismiss its importance and to say we get more 'rights' at the whim of the EU bureaucrats is tragic.
So I assume you are OK with Remainers continuing the struggle, despite many setbacks, to have a second referendum on EU membership?
I would also assume that you are therefore in agreement with members of parliament from all sides wanting a meaningful vote on any deal that is made?
The right to vote was not given to us. People like the Chartists and suffragettes struggled and sometimes died for it. For people these days to dismiss its importance and to say we get more 'rights' at the whim of the EU bureaucrats is tragic.
So I assume you are OK with Remainers continuing the struggle, despite many setbacks, to have a second referendum on EU membership?
I would also assume that you are therefore in agreement with members of parliament from all sides wanting a meaningful vote on any deal that is made?
You should struggle for what you think is right of course. But having a second referendum before the first one is enacted is profoundly undemocratic.
Can you imagine had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM announced we were leaving anyway, how profoundly undemocratic that would have been and how shocked you and others would have been? Imagine that and then you will know how we Leavers feel.
What a wonderful thread this is. I think we should all make a commitment to continue the argument straight and long after the dust has settled on Brexit whatever way the mop flops. Can I be the first to say that if there is a second referendum then whoever loses should continue to to fight on and press for a third vote. The prospect of only having football to argue about is very unappealing.
I found this article in the Observer (France is deeply fractured. Gilets jaunes are just a symptom) very interesting and pertinent to your latest post. I don't know the author, but in quite a short article I think he nails the issue, not just in France, or the UK, but even here in CZ, and therefore probably just about everywhere in the developed world, to a greater or lesser extent. Recommended.
As you say, also relevant to the UK. I see the disaffected, marginalised and really all those who have rejected bureaucratic centrism as the possible basis for change. One of the reasons I voted for Brexit.
Labour shifted it's proposition towards the disaffected and marginalised some time ago. That's why it tends not to condemn Leave voters as wrong, racist, stoopid etc. Labour embrace that constituency as part of their own base and part of the target to grow their poll ratings and their legitimacy.
They have played the long game awaiting the arrival of the WA which has united Leave and Remain voters in condemnation of the deal. That article together with the views of Adam Tooze (mentioned earlier) takes us to the heart of the question about Western democracies and the post crash environment. And that's why many have backed Labour for the last couple of years. For they recognise a mass membership party which seeks to represent and serve voters across all strata of society.
Any viewer observing through an uber Remain lens might question why the Labour leadership is not on the front line of the People's vote march. Perhaps they are busy representing somebody living on minimum wage or zero hours contract who is about to have their benefits savaged by the application of universal credit. When we have the UN writing a report condeming austerity one wonders why interviewers interupt Corbyn to ask "but what about Brexit?"! Perhaps there is another constituency which is not obsessed with the Single Market and the associated four freedoms?
No system nor political segment is perfect and to expect that would be a leap of faith that the existentialists labeled as "philosophical suicide". Instead perhaps we might keep listening, reading and observing the development of the European and Brexit landscapes. We live in interesting times. Camus suggested that anybody wanting to look at the situation might embrace the chaos but it would be presumptious of me to quote with such a tiny understanding at this stage.
Superficially the debate today is about governments who go blah, blah, blah, but it's actually about a massive political and philosophical shift as a reaction to a wholly inadequate response to the crash. The Labour 2017 manifesto addressed all of those good things mentioned by @Red_in_SE8 and yet much of the discourse is on another plane. We might address the questions raised by neoliberalism too, but again the subject is vast and one can only touch on the bullet points.
Fortunately western culture has experts, thinkers and philosophers who in turn collaborate with politicians of all shades. As you yourself stated @PragueAddick in another post, if the audience isn't listening then is that their fault, or yours? And we who are part of a particular segment of that audience who engage - if we are not reading and thinking in different ways, is that the fault of somebody else or our own responsibility?
For this reason it is possible to understand the perspective contributed by @Southbank . Rather than beat him up over technical inaccuracies about the EU and it's workings let us recognise an authentic voice which is true to the sentiments expressed in the article. Tens of millions of European voters have a very different outlook and they have lost faith with the centre.
The right to vote was not given to us. People like the Chartists and suffragettes struggled and sometimes died for it. For people these days to dismiss its importance and to say we get more 'rights' at the whim of the EU bureaucrats is tragic.
So I assume you are OK with Remainers continuing the struggle, despite many setbacks, to have a second referendum on EU membership?
I would also assume that you are therefore in agreement with members of parliament from all sides wanting a meaningful vote on any deal that is made?
You should struggle for what you think is right of course. But having a second referendum before the first one is enacted is profoundly undemocratic.
Can you imagine had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM announced we were leaving anyway, how profoundly undemocratic that would have been and how shocked you and others would have been? Imagine that and then you will know how we Leavers feel.
Fair enough, but what if you look at the attempted enactment of the first referendum and surmise that it is nothing like what was promised. If we decide something and continue with it regardless of further evidence are we not acting exactly how China did during one of its many five year plans?
My quoting is fucked, apologies for having to bolderise everything!
Michael Gove has being saying that “there is now a risk of there being a second referendum “ Risk, risk What possible RISK is there in seeking the opinion of the voters of this land you slippery slimeball.
Comments
As we can see on here, there is a lot of ignorance (wilful or otherwise) of what the life experience and aspirations are in other countries which in turn leads to incorrect assumptions about their mindset. Programmes like Erasmus and the general right to go to work and live in another EU country can help to counter the incorrect and unhelpful stereotypes that we see and can allow for greater cultural understanding - exactly what is needed at the moment, as the whole Brexit debate shows
Orwell would have loved that.
That is very democratic.
2) you've never read Orwell
Wow, that is some impressive knowledge all round. You deserve to be a dictator.
They will still go along with it tho. And We will no longer have any right to call ourselves a democracy.
One of the amusing things about the call for a second referendum is the Remain argument that 'we' are better informed than before.
They do not explain how 'they' managed to be so better informed the first time. Was there some secret tv channel with the truth on it that was denied to the majority? Or else why were they Remainers if the information was not available and the Leave propaganda was so effective?
What they mean of course is that they are terribly clever and we are stupid and/or racist.
Our best bet of winning another Leave result is that they keep going with this patronising insulting crap.
That is why I love Fiiish so much.
I'm not sure that that would be an entirely accurate viewpoint; there is a case to be made for (at least in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) viewing such struggles as part of a wider European and World phenomena. The Chartists came into being in a Europe of rapidly changing social, economic and political ideas, where revolutionary movements were not uncommon and, in the case of Ireland, the mass rallies and agitation of Catholic Association in the 1820s created a template for protest. Equally, the Suffragettes were part of a wider movement to achieve votes for women, which took in much of the then Empire, Scandinavia and (at least Northern) Europe.
I note with sadness that you have omitted reference to the sterling work of the National Monster Raving Loony Party, who campaigned in the 1960s that the voting age be reduced to 18 - is this not an important element of today's universal suffrage?
I'm even more intrigued by your constant referencing of EU bureaucrats either "whimsically" granting rights or being trusted to defend them, but then, that's because, as a Civil Servant, I am a bureaucrat. I fear that someone, somewhere, must have misinformed you.
Bureaucrats are merely officials in Government Departments/Offices. While the word bureaucrat is often used as a pejorative term, because, you know, we are all unfeeling sticklers for the rules, following protocols come what may, we don't have the kind of power that you allege.
Bureaucrats don't make policy decisions, whether in the EU Commission or the national Civil Services across Europe (though they will both draft and implement the laws that their political masters state that they desire).
If you want to point fingers at decision makers, try the politicians (both EU and National), the real priesthood of the "Will of the People", interpreting as they do, the Holy Writ of often imperfectly drafted manifesto commitments and referendum questions.
And, I have to say that I admire your defence of the ability, possibly even the willingness, of the UK Parliamentary system to defend the people of the UK. Why, if it hadn't been for Parliament since 2010,. bravely standing up for the poor, downtrodden and defenceless amongst us, can you imagine what horrible policies the EU would have "forced" upon the sweet and cuddly Conservative Party? The EU bureaucrats would probably have tried to introduce a deeply flawed and unfair universal benefits system, under the claim that a single, integrated, approach would "simplify" a complex network of benefits, or that those in Council housing with additional bedrooms should be penalised, or that the sick and the dying should be aggressively pursued by private companies to attempt to force them into work and relieve them of their benefits.
And, of course, in the wonderful UK version of democracy, every vote is of equal value (because there are no safe seats), and we wouldn't want to consider dangerous ideas like PR and/or lists that might be common in the EU. To say nothing of the House of Lords, it has only been the inimical influence of the EU bureaucrats, as I am sure you can evidence, that has prevented wholescale reform over the last few hundred years.
Because that's the most evil and cunning thing about the EU bureaucrats, even before they existed, they managed to prevent the UK from fully asserting its democratic credentials...
However there are other aspects to 'democracy' too.
I have pointed out one above, but some of the arguments lined up in discussion regarding whether the UK EU referendum was 'democratic' or not are: (Some of the arguments are stronger than others but here goes)
The narrow majority is too slim to launch such seismic change.
In terms of eligible voters less than 50% voted leave, which is a threshold demanded by UK law in relation to industrial action by Union members.
Those between 16-18 were not allowed to vote as they had been in the Scottish independence referendum, despite the reasonable claim they might have regarding the vote affecting their future lives.
The binary vote was devoid of significant meaning.
Influences such as Obama, the Government leaflet, media saying stuff about leave or remain were very often tainted, misleading, or actual lies.
The operation of the campaigns were funded against the rules.
There had been 13 previous referenda in UK nations and regions, operated under differing 'democratic' structures, the 'democratic' results of which were sometimes in direct conflict with the brexit result.
Do you see where I am going with this? I have given at least eight reasons here as to why your certainty regarding democracy might not be rock solid. To declare in any way that the Brexit referendum was the supreme one, or the purest version of democracy you can get, is open to challenge, as I am demonstrating.
Orwell would probably have recognised the concept of the 'proles' being manipulated by forces of power, and he would have definitely seen resonances of the 'two minute hate' and the creation of a 'Goldstein' like receptacle (the EU) for all the things people feel negative about.
My last two posts discussing 'democracy', this one and the one previously about the examples of EU states being arguably more 'democratic' than the UK (let alone the case that can be made that the EU is more 'democratic' than the UK anyway), have not involved rudeness or name calling, but are if not a challenge to your beliefs regarding what is 'democratic', they are at least a reasoned case that there are other definitions than yours.
Are you prepared to argue the case in any detail?
Of course democracy was an international movement. Our democracy is what matters to me most just now and your and Seth's arguments all amount to one view, widely shared I know. It is, you cannot trust the people and you cannot trust our Parliamentary system which exists to express the will of the people.
As it happens I am for proportional representation and the abolition of the House of Lords, but I would never say that because our system is not perfect that we should cede power to a distant unaccountable EU. That weakens the power of the people and makes our whole system weaker as a result.
Likewise I hate the argument that the'negotiations' have gone badly because of the EU's intransigence. Once again it is our feeble politicians blaming the EU for problems here, and effectively ceding the authority they got from the Referendum.
For example I have mentioned voting age, voted for women, contradictions between previous referenda and the brexit one, contradictions between UK law on Trade Union democratic procedures and National democratic procedures.
There are a few.
Are you really saying that all of the examples I have given in some detail this evening simply amount to not trusting the 'will of the people' without engaging with my arguments in any detail?
Of course you are at liberty to make a sweeping dismissal if you wish, but to me it is behaviour that undermines the credibility of any positions you take.
You would be right to boil it all down to 'you lost get over it', but if you use 'democracy' as a justification to ennoble that victory then be prepared for challenge, even if structuring a counter argument feels like a bit of a stretch for you.
This is particularly the case in a situation, like the referendum or any recent General Election, where because of the turn out and/or the closeness of the decision, one party/Party seeks to interpret the result as providing them with carte blanche to act as they see fit. It would be just about fair enough if an absolute majority of those eligible to vote had supported the winning side (though I'm not sure that that has ever happened in my lifetime), but that is not currently the case.
The Parliamentary system in the UK, like all democratic systems, is only as good as the individuals elected to serve within it. So, in today's world, damn right I cannot trust Parliament - and I'm not sure that any sane person should ever "trust" any Parliament, the electorate should be willing to hold representatives to account.
You claim that the EU is unaccountable, I disagree absolutely with that viewpoint. The EU, if anything, because both national Governments and the EU Parliament have oversight, provides the electorate with additional democratic control, because there are two electoral opportunities to influence its actions in voting at General and EU Elections. And, I would recommend looking at the number of votes each Political Party needs to achieve to win each seat before I would hold up the UK as some sort of paragon of virtue. Few seats in Westminster actually decide the elections, with many voters effectively disenfranchised in their constituencies, because a donkey with the right colour rosette (witness Dominic Raab) could get elected.
None of this changes the fact that EU bureaucrats do not have the policy making powers that you have suggested, they remain servants of the member states and the Parliament.
For someone who bangs on about democracy as much as you do, you are really in favour of a lot of anti-democratic actions.
Who suggested that? Oh that anti-democratic, EU-loving unelected leftie commie fascist Remoaner bureaucrat Jacob Rees-Mogg.
I'm not sure that that would be an entirely accurate viewpoint; there is a case to be made for (at least in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) viewing such struggles as part of a wider European and World phenomena. The Chartists came into being in a Europe of rapidly changing social, economic and political ideas, where revolutionary movements were not uncommon and, in the case of Ireland, the mass rallies and agitation of Catholic Association in the 1820s created a template for protest. Equally, the Suffragettes were part of a wider movement to achieve votes for women, which took in much of the then Empire, Scandinavia and (at least Northern) Europe.
I note with sadness that you have omitted reference to the sterling work of the National Monster Raving Loony Party, who campaigned in the 1960s that the voting age be reduced to 18 - is this not an important element of today's universal suffrage?
I'm even more intrigued by your constant referencing of EU bureaucrats either "whimsically" granting rights or being trusted to defend them, but then, that's because, as a Civil Servant, I am a bureaucrat. I fear that someone, somewhere, must have misinformed you.
Bureaucrats are merely officials in Government Departments/Offices. While the word bureaucrat is often used as a pejorative term, because, you know, we are all unfeeling sticklers for the rules, following protocols come what may, we don't have the kind of power that you allege.
Bureaucrats don't make policy decisions, whether in the EU Commission or the national Civil Services across Europe (though they will both draft and implement the laws that their political masters state that they desire).
If you want to point fingers at decision makers, try the politicians (both EU and National), the real priesthood of the "Will of the People", interpreting as they do, the Holy Writ of often imperfectly drafted manifesto commitments and referendum questions.
And, I have to say that I admire your defence of the ability, possibly even the willingness, of the UK Parliamentary system to defend the people of the UK. Why, if it hadn't been for Parliament since 2010,. bravely standing up for the poor, downtrodden and defenceless amongst us, can you imagine what horrible policies the EU would have "forced" upon the sweet and cuddly Conservative Party? Why, the EU bureaucrats would probably have tried to introduce a deeply flawed and unfair universal benefits system, under the claim that a single, integrated, approach would "simplify" a complex network of benefits, or that those in Council housing with additional bedrooms should be penalised, or that the sick and should be aggressively pursued by private companies to attempt to force them into work and relieve them of their benefits.
And, of course, in the wonderful UK version of democracy, every vote is of equal value (because there are no safe seats), and we wouldn't want to consider dangerous ideas like PR and/or lists that might be common in the EU. To say nothing of the House of Lords, it has only been the inimical influence of the EU bureaucrats, as I am sure you can evidence, that has prevented wholescale reform over the last few hundred years.
Because that's the most evil and cunning thing about the EU bureaucrats, even before they existed, they managed to prevent the UK from fully asserting its democratic credentials...
I think that is the closest I have seen you to angry. And respect you all the more for it.
Strike the civil servant and you strike the rock.
The right to vote was not given to us. People like the Chartists and suffragettes struggled and sometimes died for it. For people these days to dismiss its importance and to say we get more 'rights' at the whim of the EU bureaucrats is tragic.
So I assume you are OK with Remainers continuing the struggle, despite many setbacks, to have a second referendum on EU membership?
I would also assume that you are therefore in agreement with members of parliament from all sides wanting a meaningful vote on any deal that is made?
So I assume you are OK with Remainers continuing the struggle, despite many setbacks, to have a second referendum on EU membership?
I would also assume that you are therefore in agreement with members of parliament from all sides wanting a meaningful vote on any deal that is made?
You should struggle for what you think is right of course.
But having a second referendum before the first one is enacted is profoundly undemocratic.
Can you imagine had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM announced we were leaving anyway, how profoundly undemocratic that would have been and how shocked you and others would have been? Imagine that and then you will know how we Leavers feel.
The prospect of only having football to argue about is very unappealing.
They have played the long game awaiting the arrival of the WA which has united Leave and Remain voters in condemnation of the deal. That article together with the views of Adam Tooze (mentioned earlier) takes us to the heart of the question about Western democracies and the post crash environment. And that's why many have backed Labour for the last couple of years. For they recognise a mass membership party which seeks to represent and serve voters across all strata of society.
Any viewer observing through an uber Remain lens might question why the Labour leadership is not on the front line of the People's vote march. Perhaps they are busy representing somebody living on minimum wage or zero hours contract who is about to have their benefits savaged by the application of universal credit. When we have the UN writing a report condeming austerity one wonders why interviewers interupt Corbyn to ask "but what about Brexit?"! Perhaps there is another constituency which is not obsessed with the Single Market and the associated four freedoms?
No system nor political segment is perfect and to expect that would be a leap of faith that the existentialists labeled as "philosophical suicide". Instead perhaps we might keep listening, reading and observing the development of the European and Brexit landscapes. We live in interesting times. Camus suggested that anybody wanting to look at the situation might embrace the chaos but it would be presumptious of me to quote with such a tiny understanding at this stage.
Superficially the debate today is about governments who go blah, blah, blah, but it's actually about a massive political and philosophical shift as a reaction to a wholly inadequate response to the crash. The Labour 2017 manifesto addressed all of those good things mentioned by @Red_in_SE8 and yet much of the discourse is on another plane. We might address the questions raised by neoliberalism too, but again the subject is vast and one can only touch on the bullet points.
Fortunately western culture has experts, thinkers and philosophers who in turn collaborate with politicians of all shades. As you yourself stated @PragueAddick in another post, if the audience isn't listening then is that their fault, or yours? And we who are part of a particular segment of that audience who engage - if we are not reading and thinking in different ways, is that the fault of somebody else or our own responsibility?
For this reason it is possible to understand the perspective contributed by @Southbank . Rather than beat him up over technical inaccuracies about the EU and it's workings let us recognise an authentic voice which is true to the sentiments expressed in the article. Tens of millions of European voters have a very different outlook and they have lost faith with the centre.
So I assume you are OK with Remainers continuing the struggle, despite many setbacks, to have a second referendum on EU membership?
I would also assume that you are therefore in agreement with members of parliament from all sides wanting a meaningful vote on any deal that is made?
You should struggle for what you think is right of course.
But having a second referendum before the first one is enacted is profoundly undemocratic.
Can you imagine had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM announced we were leaving anyway, how profoundly undemocratic that would have been and how shocked you and others would have been? Imagine that and then you will know how we Leavers feel.
Fair enough, but what if you look at the attempted enactment of the first referendum and surmise that it is nothing like what was promised. If we decide something and continue with it regardless of further evidence are we not acting exactly how China did during one of its many five year plans?
My quoting is fucked, apologies for having to bolderise everything!
Risk, risk What possible RISK is there in seeking the opinion of the voters of this land you slippery slimeball.