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.
It depends, are British nationals resident in Spain still entitled to appeal the the ECJ? Can an American living in Spain do the same? If the Brit can, and the American cannot, then that looks like equivalency for out expats as they are able to access a level of Law that a fellow non-EU resident could. If you catch my meaning.
Personally, I'm not sure, hence the question.
The answer is yes to both. The American can, because Spain is within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
I reckon this is the real reason Phil has dialed back on the PAs.
Whilst they're better than the old dot matrix ones they can still be right fethers to unjam and then there's the whole driver update fiasco to consider as well.
Gonna cost us a small fortune in cartridges I think* -- might buy some shares in them tomorrow -- but fair play to Liz for agreeing to help out.
* about £350M a week perhaps.. athankyouverymuch
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
However, this is only to rehash the gakky stupidity of Cameron and the lies of the Leave campaigns. The best way to resolve it is to have a second referendum when the details of the Brexit proposal are clear.
How is it possible to give clear Brexit proposals as to what staying and leaving mean prior to a referenda though, when the only way they'll become known is after two years of negotiation on the basis of leaving? Not trying to be awkward, but I don't see how that's possible.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/13 19:12:57
However, this is only to rehash the gakky stupidity of Cameron and the lies of the Leave campaigns. The best way to resolve it is to have a second referendum when the details of the Brexit proposal are clear.
This is probably both the wisest and most honest course of action.
Vote again when the people actually know what they're voting about and how it will affect them, pro's and con's for both bremain and brexit.
No matter how many referendums you run, no matter how much you dilute the question in five directions, you actually can't please everyone. It's a clusterfeth of tremendous proportions. I think the way you can please the largest chunk of the country is to go with the 52% at this point, purely on the basis that 'Leave' is quite unequivocal. Even that gives you problems though, because then it breaks down to into 'Hard or soft Brexit', and you have to face the issue; is a soft Brexit more or less equivalent to staying in most regards?
This is my personal sticking point: you hadn't even decided what leaving the EU would look like. You got a vote between one known factor and one unknown factor. How is that helpful for any sane purpose at all?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
It depends, are British nationals resident in Spain still entitled to appeal the the ECJ? Can an American living in Spain do the same? If the Brit can, and the American cannot, then that looks like equivalency for out expats as they are able to access a level of Law that a fellow non-EU resident could. If you catch my meaning.
Personally, I'm not sure, hence the question.
The answer is yes to both. The American can, because Spain is within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
So, an EU national in the UK will not have equivalency with a Brit ex-pat in the EU if they cannot appeal to the ECJ in the UK after we leave. What are we going to offer in recompense for this loss of access to this level of Law? Or are we not going for equivalency?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
You will and should be subject and have access to the Law of the land you choose to reside in. If you wish to be subject to the Law of the EU...you should live in the fething EU.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/13 19:55:02
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Leave did win, they got more votes. I'd focus the argument on the fact that winning an advisory referendum with a narrow majority is a really shaky ground to claim a mandate on, especially when one of the alternatives are essentially "change the status quo" without specifying how.
The problem is that even if you say, 'Okay, let's take the views of the Remainers' into consideration, it just dilutes the question further. Do they want a vote for continual full involvement in Europe? To remain but try and renegotiate specific aspects? And if you remain in anyway, how do you begin to accomodate that 52% of the vote who explicitly voted to leave?
On reflection, the government should have stated clearly that the referendum was advisory, and that the result would be taken into consideration but not acted upon as a binary in out. It was a way to "take the temperature" of the country and use that to work out what to do next.
Realistically, with the referendum result, they could have gone back to the EU and said "look this is what the people of the UK feel" it's dicey and with the rise of anti EU feeling in other countries, real reforms could have been enacted.
That, or we could have started exercising some of the controls of our borders which we hadn't done under EU law to address the concerns of the population of the UK. Basically, actually taken a note of people's feelings and acted on them in a positive and constructive way rather than the bloody mess they've made of everything so far.
But we didn't do that, and we're here now, and everyone is shouting and worried and basically clueless. So that went well.
So, the individuals who moved here before we pulled the rug out from under them just get told "tough, feth off if you don't like it?"
With all due respect, yes. As I mentioned before, if I move to Gibraltar now, and they declare independence in five years, I wouldn't start demanding that British courts would hold jurisdiction over me. I'd accept that I either needed to apply for citizenship, deal with the law of the land as it now stood, or move. I wouldn't dream of having the arrogance to think that the British Government should start telling the new Gibraltarian Government that their new laws shouldn't apply to me, on account of the fact that when I moved there I wasn't expecting them to declare independence.
Why? Because it would be their bloody country! And that's using as an example a territory that is literally several steps further integrated than we ever were into the EU.
I repeat, the only cases where this sort of thing has occurred outside of diplomats, international science projects, and one off well reasoned personal exemptions, are in cases of colonialism and military bullying.
To flip it around, if we'd stayed in the EU and I'd be in Greece when the Greeks opted to leave? I wouldn't seriously expect for one second for the Greeks to somehow make a super special case where I'd get to be under their law even though Greece had left. Or the French. Or anyone.
As of yet, nobody has given me a single good reason why EU legal jurisdiction should continue to apply for EU citizens in the UK after exit beyond 'They thought we were part of the EU when they moved here, and they might not want to live under slightly different laws'. To which I say, well, sorry about that. But that's not really a sufficiently good enough reason to subvert the democratic rule of British law, y'know? People think lots of things when they move to different countries, but this is the first time I've ever heard it used as a justification for excluding people from the local legal system and using a foreign one.
If they don't like the laws here, they can claim citizenship, and vote to influence our laws like everyone else who lives here. Or they can go somewhere else that fits their tastes better. Much like me, and every other bloody native on this island. I don't get to pick to have specific US laws and courts apply to me because I like them better, why should the person living next door have that option?
So, the individuals who moved here before we pulled the rug out from under them just get told "tough, feth off if you don't like it?"
With all due respect, yes. As I mentioned before, if I move to Gibraltar now, and they declare independence in five years, I wouldn't start demanding that British courts would hold jurisdiction over me. I'd accept that I either needed to apply for citizenship, deal with the law of the land as it now stood, or move. I wouldn't dream of having the arrogance to think that the British Government should start telling the new Gibraltarian Government that their new laws shouldn't apply to me, on account of the fact that when I moved there I wasn't expecting them to declare independence.
Why? Because it would be their bloody country! And that's using as an example a territory that is literally several steps further integrated than we ever were into the EU.
I repeat, the only cases where this sort of thing has occurred outside of diplomats, international science projects, and one off well reasoned personal exemptions, are in cases of colonialism and military bullying.
To flip it around, if we'd stayed in the EU and I'd be in Greece when the Greeks opted to leave? I wouldn't seriously expect for one second for the Greeks to somehow make a super special case where I'd get to be under their law even though Greece had left. Or the French. Or anyone.
As of yet, nobody has given me a single good reason why EU legal jurisdiction should continue to apply for EU citizens in the UK after exit beyond 'They thought we were part of the EU when they moved here, and they might not want to live under slightly different laws'. To which I say, well, sorry about that. But that's not really a sufficiently good enough reason to subvert the democratic rule of British law, y'know? People think lots of things when they move to different countries, but this is the first time I've ever heard it used as a justification for excluding people from the local legal system and using a foreign one.
If they don't like the laws here, they can claim citizenship, and vote to influence our laws like everyone else who lives here. Or they can go somewhere else that fits their tastes better. Much like me, and every other bloody native on this island. I don't get to pick to have specific US laws and courts apply to me because I like them better, why should the person living next door have that option?
OK, to clarify, this is what's being said...
European court of justice
The ECJ should not be allowed to rule on UK cases that will not be before the court on the day Britain leaves the EU, the Brexit department said.
The position puts the UK at odds with Brussels’ negotiating position that the ECJ should continue to have jurisdiction over cases that originate in UK courts before Britain’s departure date. Cases before the ECJ can take many years to be resolved.
The UK’s position paper on the ECJ says the court should not be able to hear UK cases from the day after Britain leaves the EU, but could still rule on UK law if the cases begin before the departure date.
So, the EU have stated that they only want to continue with cases brought to the ECJ before the UK leaves the EU. That would seem reasonable. If someone is mid way through a complex legal case that has been put before the court, it should be allowed to play out, as at the time of the complaint, the ECJ was asked by the parties involved to make a judgement.
After the UK leaves, no further cases maybe brought to the ECJ.
This seems reasonable, and about what I would expect from any transitional agreement. It's not placing primacy of the ECJ over the UK in anything other than in a limited number if case that would be already in motion before we leave.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/13 22:24:03
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
You're looking at a different issue to me. To quote from official European Council Guidelines:
Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights derived from EU law at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union will be the first priority for the negotiations. Such guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, including the right to acquire permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence. Citizens should be able to exercise their rights through smooth and simple administrative procedures.
Barnier has tweeted:-
“EU goal on citizens rights: same level of protection as in EU law. More ambition, clarity and guarantees needed than in today’s UK position.”
From Mr Juncker
Juncker later added that he could not see how the European court of justice could be excluded from being involved in the protection of the rights of EU nationals after the UK leaves the bloc in 2019. The UK wants the supreme court to be the arbiter of any disputes rather than the court in Luxembourg.
The Commission should have full powers for the monitoring and the Court of Justice of the European Union should have full jurisdiction corresponding to the duration of the protection of citizen's rights in the Withdrawal agreement.
In its report on The Human Rights Implications of Brexit, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) expresses great fear that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will do significant damage to the constitutional framework for protecting human rights. For reasons outlined in our submission to the JCHR, the report’s fear is misplaced and betrays important misunderstandings about human rights and their foundations. Fundamental human rights are not created by treaties with foreign powers. They are moral truths that states should recognise and to which they should give effect. The UK has long had an enviable reputation for securing rights and for doing so by way of the ordinary processes of parliamentary democracy and common law adjudication.
Human Rights after Brexit
The obvious answer to the JCHR’s anxiety about how rights will be protected after Brexit is that they will once again be secured by a sovereign Parliament, acting within a mature political tradition and answerable to the electorate, and by an executive that is accountable to Parliament and subject to the ordinary law of the land, including the rulings of independent courts.
The report is wrong to assert that membership of the EU has been pivotal to the UK’s record of rights protection and that withdrawal puts the future of rights protection in doubt. Equally mistaken is the JCHR’s unwarranted assumption that the UK would not have acted to secure certain rights but for EU involvement. On top of this, the JCHR wrongly assumes that rights are best protected by supranational rights adjudication. Rather than being viewed as a guardian of rights, the Luxembourg Court is best understood as a motor of integration which almost always resolves legal questions in a pro-Union – i.e. more rather than less integrationist – fashion. Its expansive interpretations of the scope and content of EU fundamental rights should be seen above all as policies strengthening and expanding its own jurisdiction and its reach into the national laws of member states.
The basic point of Brexit is that UK institutions will now be responsible for how the UK is governed. It is striking that the JCHR shies away from this responsibility by lamenting the prospect that developments in EU law and the case law of the CJEU will no longer automatically take effect in the UK.
The Committee’s fear about the future of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should be seen in this light. The Charter’s scope is uncertain and its content is vague. It is a vehicle for a great expansion of judicial power and it should have no place in UK parliamentary democracy. The Great Repeal Bill should bring to an end its continuing force in our law.
After Brexit, it will be for Parliament to decide whether to depart from the legal status quo. It is therefore absurd for the JCHR to demand that before triggering Article 50 the Government should itemise the rights that EU law protects and its intentions in relation to each of them. This would be a colossal waste of time and wholly premature. The Government cannot itself repeal laws it thinks undesirable – it will be for each successive Parliament to decide how or if to change the law.
The JCHR draws attention to the risk that Parliament may empower ministers to change the law by way of sweeping Henry VIII clauses. This is a real risk and warrants caution. However, the complexity of law reform after Brexit will require a combination of primary and secondary lawmaking and the trick will be to confine and focus the latter, not to eschew it altogether.
Residency Rights
The main substantive recommendation in the Committee’s report is that the Government unilaterally guarantee permanent residence to all those EU nationals legally resident in the UK. To do otherwise, the JCHR suggests, would be wrongly to treat fundamental human rights as bargaining chips.
However, there is clearly no fundamental human right on the part of all EU nationals resident in the UK at present to remain permanently in the UK. The rights of legal residence such nationals now enjoy are obviously rights that are contingent on the continuing force of the EU treaties. The JCHR’s proposal is to confer a novel right on EU nationals. The right is not less novel simply because Article 8 of the ECHR is likely to be called in aid to challenge attempts to uphold clear migration law.
Notwithstanding the JCHR’s muddled legal analysis, it would of course be very wrong to disrupt the lives of the many EU nationals who have settled here. And no one has proposed doing so. However, it may well be premature – or extravagant – to confer new rights of permanent residence on all EU nationals now lawfully resident in the UK unilaterally.
It would be premature without first considering reciprocity with the relevant member states, which may be necessary to discharge the responsibility of British authorities to secure the rights of UK citizens living abroad. It would be extravagant if it failed to distinguish EU nationals who are recently arrived from those who are long-settled and, especially, if it ignored the risk to others that some EU nationals may pose, risks that EU law has forbidden the UK from addressing.
The JCHR is quite right that settling residence rights is very important. But as the JCHR itself notes, the Government agrees and is already making this a priority. The Government might usefully assure EU nationals resident in the UK that it intends to define and establish the right of EU nationals to remain, but nothing in the JCHR’s report provides any compelling reason for it to go further at this stage.
Conclusion
Overall, the JCHR’s alarmism about human rights after Brexit is misplaced. Not only alarmist, the JCHR’s report rests on one mistaken assumption after another. Above all, it assumes without evidence that the UK would not have sought to secure certain rights but for our membership of the EU, which in turn leads it to wrongly assume that there will be a ‘net loss’ of rights protection following withdrawal from the EU. In this, the JCHR singularly fails to recognise the opportunity for withdrawal to improve the constitutional arrangements by which human rights are protected within the UK. No state has a perfect record, but the UK’s record of protecting fundamental rights is the match of most countries in the EU and beyond. Following Brexit, the JCHR itself will have an important role to play in the architecture of rights protection in the UK. We hope that at that time the JCHR will be less dewy-eyed about the EU and exhibit a better grasp of the proven capacity of our parliamentary democracy to respect and enhance human rights protection and the rule of law.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2017/07/13 23:01:25
Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree.
This statement was not a line in a George Orwell novel, nor was it made by a third world dictator or an authoritarian government; it is written in the current British government’s manifesto. Shortly after that manifesto was launched and in the aftermath of a devastating terror attack on Westminster bridge that left seven people dead, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and blamed the internet.
She claimed that regulation was needed because it would “deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online” and said that technology firms are not doing enough. “We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed – yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide,” she said.
Some claimed that blaming the internet for a terror attack was a poor response from the country’s leader, others debated whether technology companies actually can do more, but few pointed out the potentially terrifying implications of such regulation.
The Prime Minister’s attempt to gain more power by calling for a general election failed spectacularly and left her clinging onto power by her fingertips. She was forced to pull many of her manifesto promises, but internet regulation remained. And it appears to have become one of her main goals as she tries to stabilise her government and reassert the party-manufactured notion that she is a strong leader.
If she is successful in implementing the policy, it is not clear what internet regulation in Britain would look like but based on recent remarks the best comparison may be The Great Firewall of China. China’s regulation measure censors the internet by criminalising certain online comments, blocking select website content, filtering out key words in searches and prohibiting certain politically sensitive discussions. When Theresa May was asked if this is the kind of regulation she is looking to introduce, she simply replied “let’s work with the companies.”
Charlie Smith, who runs Great Fire, an organisation which centres on circumventing the restrictions on China’s internet and helps provide citizens access to sites such as Google and The New York Times, told Global Comment what this kind of regulation would mean.
“First thing would be to tell non-UK internet companies that if they want to operate in the UK then they need to abide by local laws,” he said. “If they agree to that, they have to set up local entities. These entities would be responsible for censoring their own content in accordance with the law and establishing a team to oversee and censor user-generated content. Failure to follow the law will result in jail time for company executives. If non-UK companies do not agree to this, then their websites will be blocked in the UK. The UK will then place heavy restrictions on the use of circumvention tools and will block and disrupt most of them. Local employees of circumvention tool providers may be placed in jail.”
These measures would come at a great cost to British taxpayers and would likely have no impact on a terrorist group’s ability to operate. Mr Smith said that since the implementation of regulation in China there have been no known examples of terrorism or extremism being prevented. “There are no examples that I can point to,” he said. “In fact, the Chinese authorities took extreme measures in some parts of the country and shut down the internet completely when they felt that they did not have adequate control over it. These actions upset the entire society, not just groups that the authorities were targeting.”
While the UK government is using extremism to justify implementing internet regulation, their real motive is far more likely to be control of political dissent and censorship. It is already apparent based on recent policies that the government’s primary goal is not fighting extremism. In 2014, under David Cameron, the Conservative government implemented a censorship measure that had no relationship at all to combating terrorism, instead it was one of the strictest restrains on pornography in the west.
Mr Cameron said certain forms of legal pornography was “corrupting childhood” and “normalising sexual violence against women” and so he implemented a policy which requires internet service providers to prohibit citizens from accessing certain websites by default. They are now required to ‘opt-in’. But pornography is not the only thing being blocked. In 2013, the New Statesman magazine reported that O2 were blocking the Childline and Refuge websites and BT was blocking gay and lesbian content.
And in July 2013 the Open Rights Group said the UK was “sleep walking into censorship”. It found that the ‘opt-in’ filters would include content far beyond pornography, such as smoking, alcohol, web forums, eating disorders and web blocking circumvention tools. Mrs May is likely to take this further based on her accusations that technology firms, including YouTube and Facebook, have been dragging their feet and failing to remove extremist material.
The problem is also the definition of ‘extremist’ material; who decides on what that term means? In China many citizens are oblivious to the fact their government is oppressing the Tibetan community because information is censored and Tibetans are deemed ‘separatists’. Thousands of Tibetans have been arbitrarily detained and tortured for ‘crimes’ such as speaking about political matters or owning a photograph of the Dalai Lama, a person China effectively sees as an extremist.
If the British government were to be given the same legal ability to regulate, then who is to say that certain news stories which may harm the party politically will not be ‘regulated’. For example, reports of Britain’s massive weapons sales fueling the conflict in Yemen, causing the death of thousands of civilians and leading to the world’s worst cholera outbreak, could be deemed ‘extremist’ material because it could harm the government’s agenda. The same goes for any of Britain’s deepened relations with some of the world’s repressive regimes including Bahrain, Israel, Uzbekistan and Turkey.
There is also the question of when would it end. If regulation is brought in to combat extremism when could that battle ever be over? How is it possible to ever say extreme views have been eliminated from society? Instead these measures would be permanent.
Mr Smith added: “Again, if you take China as an example, the authorities claim that everyone is happy in all regions in China yet information restrictions must remain in place to maintain this stability. So, no, these restrictions would likely last for a long time and would be helped along if UK citizens just accepted these changes as the ‘new normal’.”
Even the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Max Hill QC, has stated: “We do not live in China, where the internet simply goes dark for millions when government so decides. Our democratic society cannot be treated that way.” The Conservative government has already developed the most intrusive surveillance apparatus of any democracy on the planet in the form of the Investigatory Powers Bill or Snoopers Charter.
And Mrs May has said she is willing to rip up human rights law, a comment the UN human rights chief called a “gift” to every despot who “shamelessly violates human rights under the pretext of fighting terrorism” If policies such as these were to be combined with the regulation and censorship of the internet, then how much longer can the country truly be regarded a democratic society and not a veiled totalitarian state?
Suppression of freedom of speech and control of information is a hallmark of a totalitarian government in order to enforce the government’s view of reality and this is often implemented under the pretext of national security and defence. Keeping citizens safe should always be a priority for a government and the battle against extremist ideologies is a complicated and challenging problem that today’s world faces. But censorship, state control, and the destruction of human rights is not only not the way to achieve it but, as history has shown, it may lead to something far more dangerous.
Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour party, gave a speech which was praised by many but demonised by the state, whose policies it threatened. Rather than blame the internet, Mr Corbyn connected the cause of terrorism to the west’s continual and dangerous regime change attempts abroad.
He said: “Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home. That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions. But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people, that fights rather than fuels terrorism. Protecting this country requires us to be both strong against terrorism and strong against the causes of terrorism. The blame is with the terrorists, but if we are to protect our people we must be honest about what threatens our security.”
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Just a thought, if a second referendum is called on the eu it'll need three questions:
1. Accept deal and leave.
2. Reject deal and leave.
3. Reject deal and stay.
I don't know if it'll be possible to frame it this way but it's the only fair solution I see. I don't want the (possibly deliberately) crap deal they'll come up with to be used as an excuse to stop Brexit and carry on being members of the EU.
That seems like the most transparent way of doing it, although you'd have to define what leaving while rejecting the deal would mean. Presumably WTO rules?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Future War Cultist wrote: Just a thought, if a second referendum is called on the eu it'll need three questions:
1. Accept deal and leave.
2. Reject deal and leave.
3. Reject deal and stay.
I don't know if it'll be possible to frame it this way but it's the only fair solution I see. I don't want the (possibly deliberately) crap deal they'll come up with to be used as an excuse to stop Brexit and carry on being members of the EU.
This has been suggested already several times, so I'm glad to see we are bringing you round to our way of thinking!
The other thing that would be needed is an *independent* assessment of each of the options showing the risks, costs, benefits, disadvantages of each of the options. This would be instead of the politicians who have their own interest at heart making up any old bull gak as slogans (e.g. £350m a week for the NHS, WWIII will start tomorrow etc). This way the public have an independent way of challenging what tripe the MPs are saying.
In other news NHS nursing is showing even more of a problem in the future. UCAS applications to nursing courses have dropped 19% in a year...(4% over all courses).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/14 18:01:46
"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
Well if a second referendum is forced, I would at least like the option to reaffirm my original choice.
And I'll say this, going back on it now will have severe consequences. No doubt the eu would require us to adopt the euro and join Schengen as conditions for return. And more money and more control too.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/14 19:56:32
A year on I am still deeply worried and pessimistic about the prospects of Brexit.
The Leave campaign hasn't managed to offer anything positive and concrete. It is a deeply gloomy prospect compared to the obvious significant problems and disadvantages of Brexit in the economic and diplomatic spheres.
At least I can pretty easily emigrate to Japan if it all goes down the pan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/14 19:58:42
Well if a second referendum is forced, I would at least like the option to reaffirm my original choice.
And I'll say this, going back on it now will have severe consequences. No doubt the eu would require us to adopt the euro and join Schengen as conditions for return. And more money and more control too.
We've not left yet, so there'd be no room for renegotiation at that point.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Sorry, could you link to where the EU explicitly said that British citizens living in the EU will be subject to British courts and law? I can't say I've seen it anywhere, but if it's entirely reciprocal, and the EU is explicitly offering to institute British law as being above EU law on the mainland in the same areas, I'm perfectly willing to retract everything I've said so far.
We're talking about citizen rights,, whether one court or another has final jurisdiction about certain matters is not a right.
We're talking about legal jurisdiction. That's the entire point. Saying 'British citizens in the EU have EU laws applicable to them' is not the flip side of 'EU citizens in Britain have EU law applicable to them'. That's the EU demanding we surrender legal primacy over their citizens in our country, but not offering the same in return. Saying that you'll permit your laws to apply within your own jurisdiction isn't a concession. That's the very definition of 'within your jurisdiction'.
Reciprocity would be 'British citizens in the EU have British laws applicable to them in the same areas EU citizens have EU laws applicable to them in Britain'. I repeat, has the EU offered this? If so and this can be demonstrated in a document from the EU (as you have asserted), I'm entirely willing to retract all my prior comments.
It's not about laws. Where has the EU stated that EU laws would apply in Britain? All the EU literature refers to individual rights.
It's about guaranteeing previously acquired rights. UK citizens living in the EU can appeal to a supranational court with a proven record of dictating against member states in individual rights issues.
EU citizens in the UK can appeal to whom? If the ECJ hits too close to May sovereignty red lines then the ECHR will do. Unless the UK wants to pull out of there as well.
Back on a related track, I've been thinking a lot about Sovereignty and I"ve tried to crystallise my thought.
I don't think sovereignty is as powerful a political tool as might be thought. I think there are forces in the world that are a lot more influential than national sovereignty, such as cultural change, and scientific advances, and economic factors.
To the extent that sovereignty is useful, I don't think it being concentrated in the hands of the government at Westminster is a very good thing.
Firstly, the House of Lords and FPTP makes Westminster a lot less democratic or representative than it should be.
Secondly, Westminster governments have made many incompetent choices over the years.
Thirdly, the UK is an increasingly federal-leaning organisation, and respect must be paid to the political situation of all the nations including England.
On the flip side of this coin, I am not so worried about sharing a degree of sovereignty with the EU. It is a democratic organisation within which we had a considerable leadership role and important allies.
Because of the veto system, and the need to get agreement of all the member nations, the EU has no way to force any single member to do something it really doesn't want to do.
Lastly, I think a supra-national authority such as the ECHR or the ECJ has an important role in taking legal decisions that are liable to be corrupted by regional politics at a lower level.
On balance I simply am not convinced that regaining sovereignty is worth all the problems we will encounter on the way.
I disagree. Sovereignty has been the building block of this island for centuries. Good men and women have fought and died to preserve it and is should not be squandered so cheaply.
For me, Brexit was never about economics, the ultimate question was this: who runs Britain? The British people or Brussels?
You can rightfully say that our political class did everything by the book when they took us into the EU, and it's true, but it was done by stealth, by gradualism, the frog in boiling water.
From the beginning of human civilization, there has been bureaucracy and it's a universal constant that bureaucracy expands and expands and takes and takes.
It happened to the Romans and it's happening to the EU - it's the nature of the beast.
As a student of American history, it's amazing to chart the growth of the Federal government from the 1780s to the present day. Yes, there are mitigating factors like population growth and more complex technology that needs regulated, but the Americans have spawned a monster that is probably impossible to slay now, without another revolution.
And so it is with Brussels. It started off with a coal and steel pact, then a common market, then a full blown EU, and now it's talking about an EU army , foreign policy, and so on...
Where does it end?
God yes, the UK has its problems, and if it were up to me, the Lords would be swept away tomorrow and a federal system implemented, but these are UK internal problems for the British people to change, should they choose to do so and it's far easier for the British people to change their own nation than a EU of 27 other nations...
This creeping centralisation of the Brussels bureaucracy and its consolidation of power, is something to be feared. I for one am very glad we got out whilst we could.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/15 08:33:34
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Oh, I forgot to mention that my second referendum proposal has a flaw; what happens if the remain option wins the single biggest share of the votes (49% for example) yet the combined total of the two remain options exceeds it (51%, split 27/24 for example). We would remain in the eu despite a bigger number of people wanting out.
So to counter that, I'd say that in order for remain to win it must beat the other two options combined. In other words, it as to achieve at least 51% of the total vote. At least then the majority choice wins out despite compromises. And for the record, this is why I think the whole hard Brexit soft Brexit thing is just a plot to stop it happening or to water it down as much as possible.
Hopefully this won't be too complicated to figure out. And this would only be in the chance that a second referendum becomes impossible to avoid. These conditions would be the only ones I'll accept.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/15 09:23:27
Oh, I forgot to mention that my second referendum proposal has a flaw; what happens if the remain option wins the single biggest share of the votes (49% for example) yet the combined total of the two remain options exceeds it (51%, split 27/24 for example). We would remain in the eu despite a bigger number of people wanting out.
So to counter that, I'd say that in order for remain to win it must beat the other two options combined. In other words, it as to achieve at least 51% of the total vote. At least then the majority choice wins out despite compromises. And for the record, this is why I think the whole hard Brexit soft Brexit thing is just a plot to stop it happening or to water it down as much as possible.
Hopefully this won't be too complicated to figure out. And this would only be in the chance that a second referendum becomes impossible to avoid. These conditions would be the only ones I'll accept.
People might not believe me on this, but I love Europe: the history, the culture, the people. I've been there many times and hopefully I shall visit many times in the future.
I'm not 100% anti-EU. It has done some good things, and I don't doubt the ethos behind it and the drive to preserve peace in Europe. It's a very noble goal.
Unfortunately, it has been badly executed, and from where I'm sitting, it does not like it could change, even if it wanted too.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Sorry DINLT -- you are speaking from emotion and you are wrong.
As great a Briton as Winston Churchill looked forward to a United States of Europe.
The future is not to be decided by what people thought 100 or 200 or 500 years ago.
To go back to the idea of a second (or perhaps third) referendum, firstly it needs to be made clear if the result of the referendum will be binding. Always remember that last year's referendum was not binding because in UK law referendums are not binding.
Secondly, the options need to be carefully worked out and stated.
It would be better to have only two options; Remain, or Leave on the stated terms. This will provide clarity.
As great a Briton as Winston Churchill looked forward to a United States of Europe.
Post-War pragmatism to give hope to the peoples of Eastern Europe languishing under the iron fist of Stalin.
As for your comment about emotion, good politics has always been about emotionalism - it's the driving force of politics.
I cite Patrick Henry's stirring speech to the rebels, Gandhi's attacks on the British Empire, and even our own Harold Wilson (The Labour party is a moral crusade or it is nothing) as evidence, and there are countless more examples.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/15 10:30:26
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
, foreign policy, and so on...
