And this is why May has to go. Windrush, hostile environment etc. And now it is crystal clear that May's objection to a minimum risk Norway option is freedom of movement. Many of us know that the UK could tighten up on controls as many other EU nations do. She is not only doing the bidding of her activists but she clearly believes in this agenda which is extremely damaging to the fabric of our society as well as to GDP. This since EU citizens earn more than the average, hold scarce skills and were educated abroad and may well retire abroad, i.e., they will make far less use of services.
In short it looks impossible to prosecute either a Norway option, a People's Vote or a No Brexit option whilst May remains in office. Therefore one possibility is that we tip precariously towards no deal, once the WA is defeated. And that this is then followed by a rethink. One can speculate more but probably more productive to wait until the glorious 12th to see how things are landing.
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.
My bit because quoting seems to have gone wrong.
Isn't the current problem that the result of the first referendum actually can't be enacted in practical terms? That is one of the reasons there is a campaign for another vote, a campaign incidentally I am not keen on at all. Theresa May and others have described an impasse. Very soon attempts to resolve that impasse will fall by the wayside one by one because the practical results of brexit (if control of the borders is one) conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. Leaving consciously or unconsciously on WTO terms will also conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. So the 'democratic' vote of 17.4 million people is effectively just as much a vote to break the GFA as it is to leave the EU. The Good Friday Agreement was ratified by a 'democratic' referendum in the UK.
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.
I don't think, based on what @southbank has told us about his personal circumstances (a successful business owner) as well as what he writes, and how he writes, that he fits the demographic described in that article at all. There are others on here who fit it much better. Either way, everybody is free to take each other's comments as they find them and on their own merits.
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.
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.
Edited to fix the knock on effect of Cordoban's mangled quoting.
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!
Edited to fix the mangled quoting
@Cordoban Addick the source of the problem is you've got an extra < /blockquote > ( without the added spaces I've included to make it visible) after the string of blockquote class statements at the top, and you've lost the final < blockquote class="Quote" rel="Southbank" > (again, without the 1st and last space) in that string to indicate that the first block of text is quoting him. Correcting that should fix the issue, although anyone who quotes the follow-ups will need to do the same.
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.
My bit because quoting seems to have gone wrong.
Isn't the current problem that the result of the first referendum actually can't be enacted in practical terms? That is one of the reasons there is a campaign for another vote, a campaign incidentally I am not keen on at all. Theresa May and others have described an impasse. Very soon attempts to resolve that impasse will fall by the wayside one by one because the practical results of brexit (if control of the borders is one) conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. Leaving consciously or unconsciously on WTO terms will also conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. So the 'democratic' vote of 17.4 million people is effectively just as much a vote to break the GFA as it is to leave the EU. The Good Friday Agreement was ratified by a 'democratic' referendum in the UK.
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.
I don't think, based on what @southbank has told us about his personal circumstances (a successful business owner) as well as what he writes, and how he writes, that he fits the demographic described in that article at all. There are others on here who fit it much better. Either way, everybody is free to take each other's comments as they find them and on their own merits.
And seeing as I'm on a roll, I've amended the quoting on this one as well, for future clarity.
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.
I don't think, based on what @southbank has told us about his personal circumstances (a successful business owner) as well as what he writes, and how he writes, that he fits the demographic described in that article at all. There are others on here who fit it much better. Either way, everybody is free to take each other's comments as they find them and on their own merits.
And seeing as I'm on a roll, I've amended the quoting on this one as well, for future clarity.
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
China is an autocratic police state that is incredibly intrusive into the lives of its citizens.
The EU is a collection of countries working together across economic and legal spheres, where each country remains fully sovereign, and 99% of the citizens living in the EU will never have any meaningful interaction with the EU-level authorities as all of their interactions will be at most at a national level.
I am a Remain voter, I have a far better understanding of our relationship with the EU than you will ever have and I can say without a doubt my democratic rights are in no way lessened by our EU membership.
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.
Would you be so kind as to explain this statement please, I don't know what you are referring to.
@Southbank, in all the excitement you seem to have missed my request for some background. I just wanted to check that that was deliberate and not accidental.
Or, alternatively, from someone with a little more expertise than a particular alt-right re-tweeter and possible ex-Pussycat Doll happily pushing untruths (like those that the rioting in Paris over the weekend had something to do with the EU, or that the visible police snipers, hardly a surprise following terror attacks like Bataclan, were positioned to shoot innocent protestors).... https://mobile.twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1068588896555024384
Since you've taken the trouble to bring this to our attention please could you substantiate the claim being made?
My reading of that thread and the document it apparently relates to is that it is a UN discussion document for an upcoming meeting. Are we going to leave the UN as well?
Nowhere does it seem to "criminalise speech that criticises migration" either...
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
China is an autocratic police state that is incredibly intrusive into the lives of its citizens.
The EU is a collection of countries working together across economic and legal spheres, where each country remains fully sovereign, and 99% of the citizens living in the EU will never have any meaningful interaction with the EU-level authorities as all of their interactions will be at most at a national level.
I am a Remain voter, I have a far better understanding of our relationship with the EU than you will ever have and I can say without a doubt my democratic rights are in no way lessened by our EU membership.
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.
Would you be so kind as to explain this statement please, I don't know what you are referring to.
@Southbank, in all the excitement you seem to have missed my request for some background. I just wanted to check that that was deliberate and not accidental.
Berlusconi was forced out because of EU pressure and no PM has been an elected politician since, all appointed (not by the EU of course)
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.
My bit because quoting seems to have gone wrong.
Isn't the current problem that the result of the first referendum actually can't be enacted in practical terms? That is one of the reasons there is a campaign for another vote, a campaign incidentally I am not keen on at all. Theresa May and others have described an impasse. Very soon attempts to resolve that impasse will fall by the wayside one by one because the practical results of brexit (if control of the borders is one) conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. Leaving consciously or unconsciously on WTO terms will also conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. So the 'democratic' vote of 17.4 million people is effectively just as much a vote to break the GFA as it is to leave the EU. The Good Friday Agreement was ratified by a 'democratic' referendum in the UK.
If Britain will not erect a hard border and neither will the Irish, as both have said-will Macron send his Euro army in to build it (when they have stopped taking out protesters in Paris). Seriously, where is it going to come from?
Regardless of what you think of him, I thought he spoke honestly and coherently on Brexit. Made more sense than any other politician over the past 3 years.
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
China is an autocratic police state that is incredibly intrusive into the lives of its citizens.
The EU is a collection of countries working together across economic and legal spheres, where each country remains fully sovereign, and 99% of the citizens living in the EU will never have any meaningful interaction with the EU-level authorities as all of their interactions will be at most at a national level.
I am a Remain voter, I have a far better understanding of our relationship with the EU than you will ever have and I can say without a doubt my democratic rights are in no way lessened by our EU membership.
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.
Would you be so kind as to explain this statement please, I don't know what you are referring to.
@Southbank, in all the excitement you seem to have missed my request for some background. I just wanted to check that that was deliberate and not accidental.
Berlusconi was forced out because of EU pressure and no PM has been elected since, all appointed (not by the EU of course)
Strictly speaking, no Italian Prime Minister is elected, including Silvio Berlusconi.
They are appointed by the President, but must have the confidence of the Parliament, and their term of office lasts for as long as the President retains confidence in them or they resign.
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.
I don't think, based on what @southbank has told us about his personal circumstances (a successful business owner) as well as what he writes, and how he writes, that he fits the demographic described in that article at all. There are others on here who fit it much better. Either way, everybody is free to take each other's comments as they find them and on their own merits.
I completely agree, all arguments should be taken on their merits, play the ball not the man. I explained a while back it is my family background not my personal circumstances which colour my political outlook, generally speaking. I have never felt part of any establishment group or either of the two political parties.
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
China is an autocratic police state that is incredibly intrusive into the lives of its citizens.
The EU is a collection of countries working together across economic and legal spheres, where each country remains fully sovereign, and 99% of the citizens living in the EU will never have any meaningful interaction with the EU-level authorities as all of their interactions will be at most at a national level.
I am a Remain voter, I have a far better understanding of our relationship with the EU than you will ever have and I can say without a doubt my democratic rights are in no way lessened by our EU membership.
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.
Would you be so kind as to explain this statement please, I don't know what you are referring to.
@Southbank, in all the excitement you seem to have missed my request for some background. I just wanted to check that that was deliberate and not accidental.
Berlusconi was forced out because of EU pressure and no PM has been elected since, all appointed (not by the EU of course)
The Italian PM, like in our country, has always been appointed you numpty.
And other lies we need to address:
1) there is no EU army
2) Macron certainly wouldn't be leading it if he was
3) and shooters have not been "taking out" fuel protestors in France
Seriously, where are you getting all this fake news from? Is there some kind of Beano for BNP types with all this nonsense in 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?
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.
My bit because quoting seems to have gone wrong.
Isn't the current problem that the result of the first referendum actually can't be enacted in practical terms? That is one of the reasons there is a campaign for another vote, a campaign incidentally I am not keen on at all. Theresa May and others have described an impasse. Very soon attempts to resolve that impasse will fall by the wayside one by one because the practical results of brexit (if control of the borders is one) conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. Leaving consciously or unconsciously on WTO terms will also conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. So the 'democratic' vote of 17.4 million people is effectively just as much a vote to break the GFA as it is to leave the EU. The Good Friday Agreement was ratified by a 'democratic' referendum in the UK.
If Britain will not erect a hard border and neither will the Irish, as both have said-will Macron send his Euro army in to build it (when they have stopped taking out protesters in Paris). Seriously, where is it going to come from?
If the UK cannot come up with a formulation that meets its stated intention, it's going to come from the, entirely reasonable, need for the UK and EU (which means Ireland) to protect their citizens by not allowing Uncle Tom Cobbley and all unfettered access. Because, as has been mentioned a few times, under WTO rules, in the absence of a trade agreement, an open border for one country's goods is an open border for all.
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
China is an autocratic police state that is incredibly intrusive into the lives of its citizens.
The EU is a collection of countries working together across economic and legal spheres, where each country remains fully sovereign, and 99% of the citizens living in the EU will never have any meaningful interaction with the EU-level authorities as all of their interactions will be at most at a national level.
I am a Remain voter, I have a far better understanding of our relationship with the EU than you will ever have and I can say without a doubt my democratic rights are in no way lessened by our EU membership.
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.
Would you be so kind as to explain this statement please, I don't know what you are referring to.
@Southbank, in all the excitement you seem to have missed my request for some background. I just wanted to check that that was deliberate and not accidental.
Berlusconi was forced out because of EU pressure and no PM has been elected since, all appointed (not by the EU of course)
Strictly speaking, no Italian Prime Minister is elected, including Silvio Berlusconi.
They are appointed by the President, but must have the confidence of the Parliament, and their term of office lasts for as long as the President retains confidence in them or they resign.
As you know, the Italian PMs since 2011 have not been elected politicians, but appointees. But please feel free to misrepresent what I said.
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.
My bit because quoting seems to have gone wrong.
Isn't the current problem that the result of the first referendum actually can't be enacted in practical terms? That is one of the reasons there is a campaign for another vote, a campaign incidentally I am not keen on at all. Theresa May and others have described an impasse. Very soon attempts to resolve that impasse will fall by the wayside one by one because the practical results of brexit (if control of the borders is one) conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. Leaving consciously or unconsciously on WTO terms will also conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. So the 'democratic' vote of 17.4 million people is effectively just as much a vote to break the GFA as it is to leave the EU. The Good Friday Agreement was ratified by a 'democratic' referendum in the UK.
If Britain will not erect a hard border and neither will the Irish, as both have said-will Macron send his Euro army in to build it (when they have stopped taking out protesters in Paris). Seriously, where is it going to come from?
If the UK cannot come up with a formulation that meets its stated intention, it's going to come from the, entirely reasonable, need for the UK and EU (which means Ireland) to protect their citizens by not allowing Uncle Tom Cobbley and all unfettered access. Because, as has been mentioned a few times, under WTO rules, in the absence of a trade agreement, an open border for one country's goods is an open border for all.
But Ireland has said it will not do it, so who will-or are you saying the Irish have no sovereignty in this context?
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
China is an autocratic police state that is incredibly intrusive into the lives of its citizens.
The EU is a collection of countries working together across economic and legal spheres, where each country remains fully sovereign, and 99% of the citizens living in the EU will never have any meaningful interaction with the EU-level authorities as all of their interactions will be at most at a national level.
I am a Remain voter, I have a far better understanding of our relationship with the EU than you will ever have and I can say without a doubt my democratic rights are in no way lessened by our EU membership.
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.
Would you be so kind as to explain this statement please, I don't know what you are referring to.
@Southbank, in all the excitement you seem to have missed my request for some background. I just wanted to check that that was deliberate and not accidental.
Berlusconi was forced out because of EU pressure and no PM has been elected since, all appointed (not by the EU of course)
Strictly speaking, no Italian Prime Minister is elected, including Silvio Berlusconi.
They are appointed by the President, but must have the confidence of the Parliament, and their term of office lasts for as long as the President retains confidence in them or they resign.
As you know, the Italian PMs since 2011 have not been elected politicians, but appointees. But please feel free to misrepresent what I said.
Well, you said that no PM had been elected since 2011, all I said is that PMs are not elected but appointed.
And, for what it is worth, the same thing happened in the 1990s - because no one political coalition had sufficient backing.
Because of the increasingly fractious state of Italian politics, as seen over recent decades, the appointment of non-Parliamentarians to the post of Prime Minister is something that will be likely to be more common rather than less.
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.
I don't think, based on what @southbank has told us about his personal circumstances (a successful business owner) as well as what he writes, and how he writes, that he fits the demographic described in that article at all. There are others on here who fit it much better. Either way, everybody is free to take each other's comments as they find them and on their own merits.
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."
At face value @Southbank is supporting the sentiments in the piece and this is consistent with his/her views expressed in the past relating to the sharp drop in % vote for centre left and centre right options across Europe. I don't think that whether Southbank sells diamonds or the big issue is really of any consequence to the actual point being discussed.
Just as my own background or that of my grandparents (of Belarusian descent on one side) colours my views but doesn't change the words on the page.
The point is that tens of millions of Europeans are shifting their votes away from traditional options in response to disillusion with the centrist prospectus. And that this is a real challenge for the establishment in many dimensions. Steve Bannan and the alt-right are making gains but aside from Italy they are not really on the radar just yet when it comes to the political economy - much to the disappointment of the Express and Telegraph who appear to celebrate every gain made by extremists.
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
China is an autocratic police state that is incredibly intrusive into the lives of its citizens.
The EU is a collection of countries working together across economic and legal spheres, where each country remains fully sovereign, and 99% of the citizens living in the EU will never have any meaningful interaction with the EU-level authorities as all of their interactions will be at most at a national level.
I am a Remain voter, I have a far better understanding of our relationship with the EU than you will ever have and I can say without a doubt my democratic rights are in no way lessened by our EU membership.
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.
Would you be so kind as to explain this statement please, I don't know what you are referring to.
@Southbank, in all the excitement you seem to have missed my request for some background. I just wanted to check that that was deliberate and not accidental.
Berlusconi was forced out because of EU pressure and no PM has been elected since, all appointed (not by the EU of course)
Strictly speaking, no Italian Prime Minister is elected, including Silvio Berlusconi.
They are appointed by the President, but must have the confidence of the Parliament, and their term of office lasts for as long as the President retains confidence in them or they resign.
As you know, the Italian PMs since 2011 have not been elected politicians, but appointees. But please feel free to misrepresent what I said.
Well, you said that no PM had been elected since 2011, all I said is that PMs are not elected but appointed.
And, for what it is worth, the same thing happened in the 1990s - because no one political coalition had sufficient backing.
Because of the increasingly fractious state of Italian politics, as seen over recent decades, the appointment of non-Parliamentarians to the post of Prime Minister is something that will be likely to be more common rather than less.
This. Southbank is purposefully misrepresenting the Italian political system to push far-right tropes.
The UK actually has the same situation: it is only by convention the sitting PM is an elected MP. In 1963 the PM came from the House of Lords.
Berlusconi being a Parliamentarian was not out of the norm but it was also not bound by convention either given, as you mentioned in your post, the fractious state of Italian politics throughout the 20th century.
Being a sitting Parliamentarian is no guarantee of being a more legitimate PM either, given Berlusconi's myriad of proceedings and convinctions against him due to corruption and illegal activity.
And the EU had zero input into either Berlusconi leaving or any PM that followed him, as this is all contained in the Italian Constitution and there is no provision for the EU or any other outside party to have any input in this process. So both from a legal and a de facto basis, the idea the EU has been installing Italian PMs since 2011 is, quite simply, a lie.
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.
My bit because quoting seems to have gone wrong.
Isn't the current problem that the result of the first referendum actually can't be enacted in practical terms? That is one of the reasons there is a campaign for another vote, a campaign incidentally I am not keen on at all. Theresa May and others have described an impasse. Very soon attempts to resolve that impasse will fall by the wayside one by one because the practical results of brexit (if control of the borders is one) conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. Leaving consciously or unconsciously on WTO terms will also conflict with the Good Friday Agreement. So the 'democratic' vote of 17.4 million people is effectively just as much a vote to break the GFA as it is to leave the EU. The Good Friday Agreement was ratified by a 'democratic' referendum in the UK.
If Britain will not erect a hard border and neither will the Irish, as both have said-will Macron send his Euro army in to build it (when they have stopped taking out protesters in Paris). Seriously, where is it going to come from?
If the UK cannot come up with a formulation that meets its stated intention, it's going to come from the, entirely reasonable, need for the UK and EU (which means Ireland) to protect their citizens by not allowing Uncle Tom Cobbley and all unfettered access. Because, as has been mentioned a few times, under WTO rules, in the absence of a trade agreement, an open border for one country's goods is an open border for all.
But Ireland has said it will not do it, so who will-or are you saying the Irish have no sovereignty in this context?
No, Ireland has sovereignty, which it shares, insofar as is necessary with its EU partners. Ireland, along with its partners, and the UK have agreed to the principle that there should be no hard border in Ireland.
As the country leaving the EU, it is up to the UK to suggest a means by which this can be achieved, because it is the UK's red lines that will otherwise require regulatory and customs infrastructure to be reintroduced.
The EU solution, should the UK not provide something workable, is the backstop. The EU and Ireland would be absolutely delighted if the UK can manage to meet its stated intention, but they are not prepared to take, on trust, the idea that untried, nay uninvented, technology can provide the answer in the immediate future.
Here's the thing. It is not in Ireland's interest to not introduce the sort of infrastructure than WTO MFN rules require, just to make life easy for the UK Government. The Irish economy relies far too heavily on its place within the EU for Ireland to be willing to do anything to undermine the Single Market by allowing unfettered and unmanaged access.
According to the ONS figures I've just read on the BBC net EU migration has fallen significantly compared to last year. BUT this has been almost exactly matched by a significant increase in non EU migration into the UK.
My concern with this is that EU citizens can just get in their car and drive back to their home town or somewhere else in Europe if they lose their job. It's not so easy if you've come from further afield to find work.
In the end leaving the EU is just going to leave us with a higher population and the need to keep the vicious circle of constant growth.
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.
This vote also removed my freedom to leave this country! Individual freedom is more important than democracy.
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?
I think you'll find democracy has not been as consistent in many of those countries as it has been in the UK.
Comments
In short it looks impossible to prosecute either a Norway option, a People's Vote or a No Brexit option whilst May remains in office. Therefore one possibility is that we tip precariously towards no deal, once the WA is defeated. And that this is then followed by a rethink. One can speculate more but probably more productive to wait until the glorious 12th to see how things are landing.
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.
My bit because quoting seems to have gone wrong.
Isn't the current problem that the result of the first referendum actually can't be enacted in practical terms? That is one of the reasons there is a campaign for another vote, a campaign incidentally I am not keen on at all.
Theresa May and others have described an impasse. Very soon attempts to resolve that impasse will fall by the wayside one by one because the practical results of brexit (if control of the borders is one) conflict with the Good Friday Agreement.
Leaving consciously or unconsciously on WTO terms will also conflict with the Good Friday Agreement.
So the 'democratic' vote of 17.4 million people is effectively just as much a vote to break the GFA as it is to leave the EU.
The Good Friday Agreement was ratified by a 'democratic' referendum in the UK.
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.
I don't think, based on what @southbank has told us about his personal circumstances (a successful business owner) as well as what he writes, and how he writes, that he fits the demographic described in that article at all. There are others on here who fit it much better. Either way, everybody is free to take each other's comments as they find them and on their own merits.
@Cordoban Addick the source of the problem is you've got an extra < /blockquote > ( without the added spaces I've included to make it visible) after the string of blockquote class statements at the top, and you've lost the final < blockquote class="Quote" rel="Southbank" > (again, without the 1st and last space) in that string to indicate that the first block of text is quoting him. Correcting that should fix the issue, although anyone who quotes the follow-ups will need to do the same.
https://mobile.twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1068588896555024384
My reading of that thread and the document it apparently relates to is that it is a UN discussion document for an upcoming meeting. Are we going to leave the UN as well?
Nowhere does it seem to "criminalise speech that criticises migration" either...
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.
My bit because quoting seems to have gone wrong.
Isn't the current problem that the result of the first referendum actually can't be enacted in practical terms? That is one of the reasons there is a campaign for another vote, a campaign incidentally I am not keen on at all.
Theresa May and others have described an impasse. Very soon attempts to resolve that impasse will fall by the wayside one by one because the practical results of brexit (if control of the borders is one) conflict with the Good Friday Agreement.
Leaving consciously or unconsciously on WTO terms will also conflict with the Good Friday Agreement.
So the 'democratic' vote of 17.4 million people is effectively just as much a vote to break the GFA as it is to leave the EU.
The Good Friday Agreement was ratified by a 'democratic' referendum in the UK.
If Britain will not erect a hard border and neither will the Irish, as both have said-will Macron send his Euro army in to build it (when they have stopped taking out protesters in Paris).
Seriously, where is it going to come from?
Regardless of what you think of him, I thought he spoke honestly and coherently on Brexit. Made more sense than any other politician over the past 3 years.
They are appointed by the President, but must have the confidence of the Parliament, and their term of office lasts for as long as the President retains confidence in them or they resign.
I explained a while back it is my family background not my personal circumstances which colour my political outlook, generally speaking. I have never felt part of any establishment group or either of the two political parties.
And other lies we need to address:
1) there is no EU army
2) Macron certainly wouldn't be leading it if he was
3) and shooters have not been "taking out" fuel protestors in France
Seriously, where are you getting all this fake news from? Is there some kind of Beano for BNP types with all this nonsense in it?
And, for what it is worth, the same thing happened in the 1990s - because no one political coalition had sufficient backing.
Because of the increasingly fractious state of Italian politics, as seen over recent decades, the appointment of non-Parliamentarians to the post of Prime Minister is something that will be likely to be more common rather than less.
Just as my own background or that of my grandparents (of Belarusian descent on one side) colours my views but doesn't change the words on the page.
The point is that tens of millions of Europeans are shifting their votes away from traditional options in response to disillusion with the centrist prospectus. And that this is a real challenge for the establishment in many dimensions. Steve Bannan and the alt-right are making gains but aside from Italy they are not really on the radar just yet when it comes to the political economy - much to the disappointment of the Express and Telegraph who appear to celebrate every gain made by extremists.
The UK actually has the same situation: it is only by convention the sitting PM is an elected MP. In 1963 the PM came from the House of Lords.
Berlusconi being a Parliamentarian was not out of the norm but it was also not bound by convention either given, as you mentioned in your post, the fractious state of Italian politics throughout the 20th century.
Being a sitting Parliamentarian is no guarantee of being a more legitimate PM either, given Berlusconi's myriad of proceedings and convinctions against him due to corruption and illegal activity.
And the EU had zero input into either Berlusconi leaving or any PM that followed him, as this is all contained in the Italian Constitution and there is no provision for the EU or any other outside party to have any input in this process. So both from a legal and a de facto basis, the idea the EU has been installing Italian PMs since 2011 is, quite simply, a lie.
As the country leaving the EU, it is up to the UK to suggest a means by which this can be achieved, because it is the UK's red lines that will otherwise require regulatory and customs infrastructure to be reintroduced.
The EU solution, should the UK not provide something workable, is the backstop. The EU and Ireland would be absolutely delighted if the UK can manage to meet its stated intention, but they are not prepared to take, on trust, the idea that untried, nay uninvented, technology can provide the answer in the immediate future.
Here's the thing. It is not in Ireland's interest to not introduce the sort of infrastructure than WTO MFN rules require, just to make life easy for the UK Government. The Irish economy relies far too heavily on its place within the EU for Ireland to be willing to do anything to undermine the Single Market by allowing unfettered and unmanaged access.
My concern with this is that EU citizens can just get in their car and drive back to their home town or somewhere else in Europe if they lose their job. It's not so easy if you've come from further afield to find work.
In the end leaving the EU is just going to leave us with a higher population and the need to keep the vicious circle of constant growth. This vote also removed my freedom to leave this country! Individual freedom is more important than democracy.