Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: He may not have said it, but he's allowed it to continue, just like how the official brexit campaign allowed him to continue he's freelance campaign.
Strange how they've both profited off of each other, but when there's issues, the other can back off and say it was the other guy.
They did not "allow" him to continue his campaign. They had no right or power to stop him campaigning. They got official acknowledgement and the public funding, he did not.
The fact that they campaigned for the same thing does not make them responsible for each others promises.
But that's all silly anyway as there is no way that the UK will get a trade deal that doesn't include free movement of EU citizens and the right to work in the UK.
Anyone coming into the EU from outside needs to present official identity papers (i.e a passport) at border crossings. Unless the UK joins Schengen (hah!) then there will have to be a hard border.
But that's all silly anyway as there is no way that the UK will get a trade deal that doesn't include free movement of EU citizens and the right to work in the UK.
Anyone coming into the EU from outside needs to present official identity papers (i.e a passport) at border crossings. Unless the UK joins Schengen (hah!) then there will have to be a hard border.
I think a better solution would be to have N.Ireland join the schengen zone instead, and therefore there'll be a hard border between N.Ireland and the rest of the UK.
And yes that will be a huge boost for the Irish Republican cause. I'm ok with that, I think one day Ireland should be reunited.
Selym wrote: Le sigh. I named the misconception "Unable to leave the UK". As in, UK citizens would not be allowed to enter places like France or Germany for a holiday. Given that it is possible for a Brit to move to the US of A, it is unlikely that all movement of peoples would be blocked.
No, but if the EU really wants to give the finger to the UK, they might demand a visum though for any UK national travelling into the EU. That would be a lot of bureacratic hassle for a holiday.
@Selym I'm always confused when people say they don't like how the EU 'works' because I don't really know what you are objecting to?
>Lack of accountability. Decisions are made behind closed doors, and we are unable to asccertain who did what. Meaning that when the time comes to vote for MEP's, we have no idea what we are going to get.
That is not true. All it really takes to find out is a visit to the website of the relevant EU institutions and reading the reports about what they are working on and deciding about (all of which is made public). The problem is people simply aren't really interested in EU politics (not that I blame them for that, the EU is boring as hell) and don't bother reading anything. And then they complain there is a lack of information. Which is absolute bs. The EU even set up a "transparency portal" in an effort to make EU information even more accessible, but no one seems to have even noticed that.
Lack of accountability. Decisions are made behind closed doors, and we are unable to asccertain who did what. Meaning that when the time comes to vote for MEP's, we have no idea what we are going to get.
>Disproportionate representation. The UK has a larger population than many EU members, and its economic and military powers pre-Brexit were topping EU charts. And yet we got the same weight of representation as everyone else.
>This video:
>And this one:
Many decisions are taken behind 'closed doors' that happens in all governments, local, national and European. The idea is they are voting for the general policies/people and they implement the instructions or legislation is prepared and then voted on (take the UK for example it is the civil servants that actually write the legislation not the MPs for the most part). If everything is voted on then it would just be impractical and nothing would really ever get done. It's like organisations like the Environment Agency in this country; they make lots of decisions on a yearly basis that are done 'behind closed doors' that can have profound effects (how they spend their budget, where flood defences are built etc) and the person actually in charge is not voted on but rather allocated by the government.
The representation is reasonable given the differences in the sizes of the different countries, we get a proportion of the voting rights according to our population size (we have one of the largest numbers of MEPs with Germany, France, Italy) but that is skewed so that the largest countries can't just dominate the votes. Take Malta for example if you had a completely proportional voting rights they probably would have no MEPs which would seem unreasonable for any member state. If you only have one then you risk not having a fair representative of the countries voting populace (e.g. if 51% of the votes went to the blue party then the red party would get none). As such having a few members is meant to provide a selection of MEPs that fairly reflect the voting population. It does mean that large states have less MEPs relatively though but it does allow all states to have a voice (which if you didn't then you'd never have a union).
Not sure what you are trying to say with the videos. One was discussion of NF saying that he was voting against the commission because he didn't know who the people were - surely a better response would be to review who they were and make a recommendation as to why they were or weren't suitable for the job? Almost certainly they were proposed by the individual member states so from that perspective it is likely that our own MPs were partly responsible for the UK selection?
As for the second video it's just him cat calling and saying no one knows you and the chair asking him not to do that? Surely the whole conversation was initiated by NF in the first place and they might be doing something more useful if he hadn't done that?
I can accept that people aren't recognised and that it is not clear how decisions are made but then maybe by NF offering solutions that would have improved the EU. He could have suggested these things - if you just state over and over that you don't like the EU and will oppose everything then he's naturally going to get excluded from decision chains because he won't add anything to them, as such he diminishes the voice of the UK electorate which of course then means the voice that should be accountable for representing UK is nowhere to be seen (but will happily take the salary). Surely then NF should be accountable for not representing UK in the EU and making things worse by not actually being our voice that could improve those aspects of the EU.
On the other hand if had gone in and said "Folks I am not a supporter of the EU, I find the lack of accountability a problem and how decisions get made is not apparent. This is a problem the people that voted for me which think the same and unless things change the UK could leave the EU. This is what I propose....". Providing solutions is always better than just pointing out the failings (of which every authority has many). It's a bit like taking a leaky bucket and saying because it's leaking I don't like it hence I'm going to take this drill and drill some more holes in the bucket and then complain it's leaking even more hence you dislike it even more and hence I'm going to drill even more holes in it. We as a populace effectively voted in someone that was deliberately trying to obstruct the EU process and then reported back its not working. Then we like the EU less because of it - t's a self fulfilling prophecy.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
There will be unrest if Parliament overrules the plebiscite, but it might be preferable. It would be a very smart move for Labour as while it would alienate their traditional voting block, they have done that anyway and the middle classes will vote for them next general election if Corbyn also gets kicked to touch.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Saw a good point about the parliament petition to overrule the referendum...
Are the Parliament petitions limited to only British citizens? If not, then anybody from other countries could be singing that petition and we wouldn't know.
Are the Parliament petitions limited to only British citizens? If not, then anybody from other countries could be singing that petition and we wouldn't know.
According to the UK government petitions website only British citizens and UK residents may sign petitions.
Well, they are tracking where the votes are made (as seen by examining the petition data which is freely available on the petition page) and then I suppose they can cross reference the names given to eliminate non-UK citizens. There's also a check box which you have to click saying you are a british citizen or UK resident. Top security
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Nigel Farage disagreeing with the promise made by a separate Leave campaign that he had no influence and authority over does not in any way mean that it was a false promise. To my knowledge, the people who actually made that promise (i.e. Johnson's lot, the people who are going to form the next government and actually be in a position to keep or break that promise unlike Farage) have not retracted it (yet). There were two independent campaigns, making different promises.
I agree on this NF never said anything about the money in this context. There were two Leave campaigns because the Conservatives were never going to allow NF to run the main campaign. It would have effectively acknowledged (and approved) of his existence by the Conservatives which could result in a mass exodus to him at the next general election (and if NF had run the only whole campaign there might have been calls for an earlier one). Conveniently hence Boris stepped in after being pro-Europe for ever and a day previously - it effectively gave the Conservatives the lead which ever way the referendum went.
On the other hand NF did stand in front of a poster that was effectively the same as a 1930's Nazi poster but hey that's a tiny to an argument over the money right????
On the other hand the £350m argument was ridiculous. That's £5 a week on average. I'm fairly certain that if you had asked each of the Remain campaigners to pay an extra £5 per week to offset those that didn't want to pay it but allowing them to stay in the EU they would have said yes!
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
It'd be difficult. Rioting has gone down for far less that an EU flip, Cameron has made a statement of resignation based on the EU exit, and the world stage would look very harshly on the UK for it.
Nigel Farage disagreeing with the promise made by a separate Leave campaign that he had no influence and authority over does not in any way mean that it was a false promise. To my knowledge, the people who actually made that promise (i.e. Johnson's lot, the people who are going to form the next government and actually be in a position to keep or break that promise unlike Farage) have not retracted it (yet). There were two independent campaigns, making different promises.
I agree on this NF never said anything about the money in this context. There were two Leave campaigns because the Conservatives were never going to allow NF to run the main campaign. It would have effectively acknowledged (and approved) of his existence by the Conservatives which could result in a mass exodus to him at the next general election (and if NF had run the only whole campaign there might have been calls for an earlier one). Conveniently hence Boris stepped in after being pro-Europe for ever and a day previously - it effectively gave the Conservatives the lead which ever way the referendum went.
On the other hand NF did stand in front of a poster that was effectively the same as a 1930's Nazi poster but hey that's a tiny to an argument over the money right????
On the other hand the £350m argument was ridiculous. That's £5 a week on average. I'm fairly certain that if you had asked each of the Remain campaigners to pay an extra £5 per week to offset those that didn't want to pay it but allowing them to stay in the EU they would have said yes!
I think it is more that when we subtract the rebate and everything that the EU gave back, we paid £8.5 billion to the EU. Now that seems like a lot. Surely an extra £8billion will make a huge difference to the NHS? Yeah, no. The NHS budget is ~£116billion, that extra £8.5billion will not suddenly eliminate all waiting times and suddenly magic thousands of doctors and nurses into existence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 17:33:05
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Biggest problem with the NHS from my experience is how they handle managers. There was a medical records warehouse that had 5 floor managers, each of whom constantly argued with eachother, and kept wasting money without the other manager's agreement. The warehouse consumed its year's budget in about a month.
Future War Cultist wrote: Good point. Things like this are why electronic voting is currently a bad idea.
Really in this day and age? There's a lot more chance of issues with a postal vote than online voting. It would just be like banking or so forth. You are sent a polling card with a unique registration number and then several days later you get a unique passcode. It will only get sent to the registered address (and you have to register yourself). It's no more complicated or risky than online shopping or banking which I'm assuming you do?
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I think it is more that when we subtract the rebate and everything that the EU gave back, we paid £8.5 billion to the EU. Now that seems like a lot. Surely an extra £8billion will make a huge difference to the NHS? Yeah, no. The NHS budget is ~£116billion, that extra £8.5billion will not suddenly eliminate all waiting times and suddenly magic thousands of doctors and nurses into existence.
Not disagreeing with you at all - all I was trying to say was that I'm fairly convinced that those people wanting to remain would pay the extra £600 per year to stay within the EU. As most of the people preferring to leave are on lower incomes then realistically this should be the way it works anyway to ensure that there is a fairer distribution of wealth.
As for the MP trying to block the motion in parliament then it might even gain him more support. But even if he didn't then realistically he was voted in to represent the best for his constituents (and the customer is not always right) so in some ways he is obligated to put forward the motion. Even if he got voted out next time I'm sure he'll be satisfied that he did the best for his Country and electorate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Yes I do. And I was the victim of fraud once. So I know how easy it can be done.
So have I but it doesn't make me think that electronic voting is a bad thing. There are ways to minimise the risk and it's highly unlikely that a thief is going to be interested in you voting. It's only going to be organised groups that want to disrupt the proceedings and hence they are going to attack the voting system (DOS etc) not you directly.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/25 17:58:36
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Knight wrote: Are referendum results actually abiding for UK under their system?
No, it's more advisory. Failure to carry them out though is political suicide.
There is nothing to show that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Selym wrote: Le sigh. I named the misconception "Unable to leave the UK". As in, UK citizens would not be allowed to enter places like France or Germany for a holiday. Given that it is possible for a Brit to move to the US of A, it is unlikely that all movement of peoples would be blocked.
@Selym I'm always confused when people say they don't like how the EU 'works' because I don't really know what you are objecting to?
>Lack of accountability. Decisions are made behind closed doors, and we are unable to asccertain who did what. Meaning that when the time comes to vote for MEP's, we have no idea what we are going to get.
>Disproportionate representation. The UK has a larger population than many EU members, and its economic and military powers pre-Brexit were topping EU charts. And yet we got the same weight of representation as everyone else.
...
That isn't correct.
The number of seats is generally proportional to the population, except that some small countries are given some extra seats to ensure they have representation.
If you're talking about influence, the UK's influence deriving from its economic and military power derives from its economic and military power.
Knockagh wrote: Due to the so called scandalous defeat of Northern Ireland by Wales tonight we are starting a petition! I mean who calls 1-0 a defeat!!! Outrageous!
Congrats on strawmanning an argument that is so current.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 19:16:14
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Potentially the Scottish Parliament I could veto Brexit by withholding their consent to amend the 1998 Scotland act which binds the SP to act within EU law......
Of course Westminster could, and indeed will, simply force through the necessary legal changes but that would basically guarantee Scottish independence.....
NI and Wales could do the same.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/25 19:27:45
In no way shape or form does a Wales V NI rematch mean wales beats NI by 3 or more goals.
This fits perfectly well with the current argument:
More realistically how does re running the referendum result in increased voter turn out?
For consideration:
Voter turnout in UK General Elections:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm 1992 was the last time we had turnout of above 75% '..based a turnout less than 75% ...'
Silent Puffin? wrote: Potentially the Scottish Parliament I could veto Brexit by withholding their consent to amend the 1998 Scotland act which binds the SP to act within EU law......
Of course Westminster could simply force through the necessary legal changes but that would basically guarantee Scottish independence.....
That is interesting. And people couldn't even argue that it was undemocratic for Scotland to do so as Scotland voted to remain and the surest way to do that for Scottish MPs and MSPs would be to block it the amendment and so block the UK from exiting.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Knockagh wrote: Due to the so called scandalous defeat of Northern Ireland by Wales tonight we are starting a petition! I mean who calls 1-0 a defeat!!! Outrageous!
Congrats on strawmanning an argument that is so current.
You say that because you must be racist and illiterate were as I have a degree in sociology from the university of twatingham were I got drunk for 4 years and now I work in a bank. Being the intelligent chap that I am my countries goals are worth 3 from any other country. It's just not fair! Mummy always told me I was really clever considering.... You see listening to me is democracy.
Mr. Burning wrote: In no way shape or form does a Wales V NI rematch mean wales beats NI by 3 or more goals.
This fits perfectly well with the current argument:
More realistically how does re running the referendum result in increased voter turn out?
For consideration:
Voter turnout in UK General Elections:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm 1992 was the last time we had turnout of above 75% '..based a turnout less than 75% ...'
UK has never seen a party gain 60%+ of the popular vote. '....if the remain or leave vote is less than 60%...'
You can't compare a referendum between two polar opposites failing to hit a higher majority to a general election where there are many more than 2 parties running.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Silent Puffin? wrote: Potentially the Scottish Parliament I could veto Brexit by withholding their consent to amend the 1998 Scotland act which binds the SP to act within EU law......
Of course Westminster could simply force through the necessary legal changes but that would basically guarantee Scottish independence.....
That is interesting. And people couldn't even argue that it was undemocratic for Scotland to do so as Scotland voted to remain and the surest way to do that for Scottish MPs and MSPs would be to block it the amendment and so block the UK from exiting.
Not to be petty can the UK rescind Scottish powers and refuse to acknowledge a referendum to leave? If Scotland is ruled by Westminster it has little choice, other than to secede...and it still ends in a position where it has to apply for EU membership.
Heres a thought for the day. What does the SNP do, in the event of leaving the Union, if their application to join the EU is rejected my the other member states?
Mr. Burning wrote: In no way shape or form does a Wales V NI rematch mean wales beats NI by 3 or more goals.
This fits perfectly well with the current argument:
More realistically how does re running the referendum result in increased voter turn out?
For consideration:
Voter turnout in UK General Elections:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm 1992 was the last time we had turnout of above 75% '..based a turnout less than 75% ...'
UK has never seen a party gain 60%+ of the popular vote. '....if the remain or leave vote is less than 60%...'
You can't compare a referendum between two polar opposites failing to hit a higher majority to a general election where there are many more than 2 parties running.
The voter turnout is important.
The point remains, how does a re-run ensure a higher voter turnout?
72% voted on Thursday. Does a re-run spur that extra 3% to come out? What is the expected drop off rate from the 72% that already had their say?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/25 19:40:18
Silent Puffin? wrote: Potentially the Scottish Parliament I could veto Brexit by withholding their consent to amend the 1998 Scotland act which binds the SP to act within EU law......
Of course Westminster could simply force through the necessary legal changes but that would basically guarantee Scottish independence.....
That is interesting. And people couldn't even argue that it was undemocratic for Scotland to do so as Scotland voted to remain and the surest way to do that for Scottish MPs and MSPs would be to block it the amendment and so block the UK from exiting.
Not to be petty can the UK rescind Scottish powers and refuse to acknowledge a referendum to leave? If Scotland is ruled by Westminster it has little choice, other than to secede...and it still ends in a position where it has to apply for EU membership.
Heres a thought for the day. What does the SNP do, in the event of leaving the Union, if their application to join the EU is rejected my the other member states?
Well, they are already opening talks with the EU so they will probably have a deal in place when they call the referendum.
Which is exactly what should happen in the future, I think. After we have got these new deals negotiated but before we actually invoke article 50 to leave they should be released to the public, along with our current deals as part of the EU. Public can weigh up whether the new deal is better or worse and by how much and then vote in a final referendum. Give them hard facts to work with, instead of wishy-washy hand waving.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 19:41:40
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
