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.

Do we just need some time alone to discover ourself as a nation? We have got a lot of internal issues we need to sort out.

Herzlos wrote:
Do we just need some time alone to discover ourself as a nation? We have got a lot of internal issues we need to sort out.

"You deserve better and so do I."

The key question is what are the "issues".

In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)

Will leaving the EU solve these problems?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key question is what are the "issues".

In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)

Will leaving the EU solve these problems?

Probably not. I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries.


And I also hope that this allows us to take the massive scapegoat that hangs around parliament and shoot it like its Old Yeller.

Herzlos wrote:
Do we just need some time alone to discover ourself as a nation? We have got a lot of internal issues we need to sort out.

Unfortunately what we will discover is a marginalised backwater with massive civil disunity and an entire generation abandoned to scrounge from the scraps the rest of the world leave behind.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key question is what are the "issues".

In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)

Will leaving the EU solve these problems?

Probably not. I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries.

This is nonsensical twaddle. EU Parliament is democratically elected by the populace of the EU. I could point out that you must acknowledge this due to the Wrexit negotiations - whether they proceed or not is down to a vote from these same representatives. The commission puts forward a recommendation and they vote on it. If the EU is undemocratic and decisions are just made by unelected officials then why these strict deadlines?

I'd also point out that you seem to be happy with:-

NATO
UN
WTO

all of which are much less democratic but also meddle in other countries, are you opposed to these as well?

 Whirlwind wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key question is what are the "issues".

In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)

Will leaving the EU solve these problems?

Probably not. I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries.

This is nonsensical twaddle. EU Parliament is democratically elected by the populace of the EU. I could point out that you must acknowledge this due to the Wrexit negotiations - whether they proceed or not is down to a vote from these same representatives. The commission puts forward a recommendation and they vote on it. If the EU is undemocratic and decisions are just made by unelected officials then why these strict deadlines?

I'd also point out that you seem to be happy with:-

NATO
UN
WTO

all of which are much less democratic but also meddle in other countries, are you opposed to these as well?

Haven't we just been over this on the last few pages? Also none of those are massive multinational policital systems. Ones a Trade Organisation, the other is in case the Russians fall to Communism again and the last is a Gentlemans agreement club more or less.

I suppose it depends on what you call "political". A lot of people get very exercised about the politics of the UN, for instance.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key question is what are the "issues".

In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)

Will leaving the EU solve these problems?

Probably not. I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries.

This is nonsensical twaddle. EU Parliament is democratically elected by the populace of the EU. I could point out that you must acknowledge this due to the Wrexit negotiations - whether they proceed or not is down to a vote from these same representatives. The commission puts forward a recommendation and they vote on it. If the EU is undemocratic and decisions are just made by unelected officials then why these strict deadlines?

I'd also point out that you seem to be happy with:-

NATO
UN
WTO

all of which are much less democratic but also meddle in other countries, are you opposed to these as well?

You still don't get it, do you? You still do not understand why people oppose the EU.

None of those institutions are a threat to national sovereignty and independence.
One is a military alliance with a narrow purpose (containing Russia).
One is an international assembly that barely functions and is little better than a talking shop.
And one is a trade organisation.

None of those entities are a political union which seeks to politically integrate 28 European Nations in all matters financial, economic, political, cultural, governmental, military...

If you don't understand us Brexiters and what we think, how the feth do you expect to defeat us? Read some Sun Tzu man! Know your enemy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I suppose it depends on what you call "political". A lot of people get very exercised about the politics of the UN, for instance.

Yes, but its not a political union that undermines the national independence of its Member States, is it?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key question is what are the "issues".

In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)

Will leaving the EU solve these problems?

Probably not. I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries.

This is nonsensical twaddle. EU Parliament is democratically elected by the populace of the EU. I could point out that you must acknowledge this due to the Wrexit negotiations - whether they proceed or not is down to a vote from these same representatives. The commission puts forward a recommendation and they vote on it. If the EU is undemocratic and decisions are just made by unelected officials then why these strict deadlines?

I'd also point out that you seem to be happy with:-

NATO
UN
WTO

all of which are much less democratic but also meddle in other countries, are you opposed to these as well?

You still don't get it, do you? You still do not understand why people oppose the EU.

None of those institutions are a threat to national sovereignty and independence.
One is a military alliance with a narrow purpose (containing Russia).
One is an international assembly that barely functions and is little better than a talking shop.
And one is a trade organisation.

None of those entities are a political union which seeks to politically integrate 28 European Nations in all matters financial, economic, political, cultural, governmental, military...

If you don't understand us Brexiters and what we think, how the feth do you expect to defeat us? Read some Sun Tzu man! Know your enemy.

No, that wasn't your point and to reiterate you stated :-

"I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries."

And I pointed out that a) the EU is democratic, b) there are other organisations that are not democratic but do meddle in other countries (basically militarily - Afghanistan for example has nothing to do with Russia); the UN does much more than be a talking shop and implements global sanctions, policies etc; and a trade organisation that forces trade rules on every country where there no agreement in place. Yes you have no issues with these. That makes your original point invalid as the reason you stated you do not apply to other organisations. That would imply other motives for leaving and this is a convenient argument that is brought up to try reinforce you view, yet when looked at logically makes no sense because of other things you are not opposed to.

And when has the EU ever been a threat to national sovereignty and independence?

The EUs while sctick is removing control from national sovereignties.

Hence the EU courts being higher than national courts, having to follow EU directives.

The whole issue in Britain is that we believe in Parliamentary Sovereignty and how parliament is the highest power in the land. But that mind set doesn't work with the EU around.

Talk about failures in understanding points of view is somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?

nfe wrote:
Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?

ANY political union undermines national independence. Do you think Scotland as a member of the United Kingdom has national independence? Do you think Texas has National Independence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
The EUs while sctick is removing control from national sovereignties.

Hence the EU courts being higher than national courts, having to follow EU directives.

The whole issue in Britain is that we believe in Parliamentary Sovereignty and how parliament is the highest power in the land. But that mind set doesn't work with the EU around.

I don't want ANY entity to be a higher power than Parliament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:
No, that wasn't your point and to reiterate you stated :-

Not it wasn't, that was Welshhoppo not me.

And when has the EU ever been a threat to national sovereignty and independence?

From the day it was founded. Its a political union, with a mission statement of "Ever Closer Union". Its very existence is a threat to national sovereignty and independence, because its very purpose is to [slowly] erase national sovereignty and independence and bind the nations of Europe together.

nfe wrote:
Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?

Except your wrong. I was talking about parliamentary sovereignty.


https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

Go read the developments affecting Parliamentary Sovereignty section. What multinational organisation does it mention?

 welshhoppo wrote:

nfe wrote:
Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?

Except your wrong. I was talking about parliamentary sovereignty.


https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

Go read the developments affecting Parliamentary Sovereignty section. What multinational organisation does it mention?

Good thing I wasn't responding to you, eh?

nfe wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

nfe wrote:
Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?

Except your wrong. I was talking about parliamentary sovereignty.


https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

Go read the developments affecting Parliamentary Sovereignty section. What multinational organisation does it mention?

Good thing I wasn't responding to you, eh?

Parliamentary sovereignty is the very basis of our national independence. The EU undermine's Parliamentary sovereignty. Ergo it is a threat to our national independence.

You might not care, but I do.

The talk of "ever closer political union" as the EU mission statement made me google whether there actually is a mission statement resembling something like that.

I'm not sure if this has been in this thread before - I've been reading from the start and can't remember seeing it before - here are the goals as stated by the EU currently:

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en#goals_and_values_of_the_eu

Goals

The goals of the European Union are:

promote peace, its values and the well-being of its citizens;
offer freedom, security and justice without internal borders;
sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive market economy with full employment and social progress, and environmental protection;
combat social exclusion and discrimination;
promote scientific and technological progress;
enhance economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among member countries;
respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity.

I'm guessing the points "without internal borders" and "cohesion and solidarity" could be seen as code for "ever closer political union", but it's a stretch to me to see this as a mission statement that is a "clear threat" to sovereignity and independence.

nfe wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

nfe wrote:
Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?

Except your wrong. I was talking about parliamentary sovereignty.


https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

Go read the developments affecting Parliamentary Sovereignty section. What multinational organisation does it mention?

Good thing I wasn't responding to you, eh?

.

I know, I was responding to you. Sovereignty isn't a vague and barely understood concept. It's clear as Crystal in this country due to a lack of a codified constitution. I gave you the definition straight from the horses mouth. And it's been that way for a couple of centuries now.

 welshhoppo wrote:
The EUs while sctick is removing control from national sovereignties.

Hence the EU courts being higher than national courts, having to follow EU directives.

The whole issue in Britain is that we believe in Parliamentary Sovereignty and how parliament is the highest power in the land. But that mind set doesn't work with the EU around.

EU courts aren't 'higher' than anyone's courts. It's a misnomer to think this. It's about whether laws have been applied fairly and correctly and is an independent view. The reason they are generally gone to last is because they deal with conceptual points of law and that they are being applied fairly and consistently without political or business interference. For example our government has mooted that after Wrexit they want to make parliament higher than the courts. That can lead to political decisions (caving to public pressure) being made on judgements rather than what is enshrined in law.

The ability as to whether you can take something to the EU courts is subject to your own courts (basically a reasoned opinion) agreeing that this is an issue that has wider EU implications in the interpretation of law. The UK courts have primacy, it is their decision as to whether it can be taken or not. If they do not believe there is a case you cannot take it. If you were convicted of burglary in a UK court, the EU courts will not get involved if you tried to take it to them (and wouldn't even be allowed to), this is a state matter. On the other hand if their is an issue about whether as a member state we are not taking forward actions as we have democratically agreed to as part of the EU (e.g. air pollution) then that can be grounds to take the UK government to ECJ if the UK High Court thinks there is grounds to do so.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

nfe wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

nfe wrote:
Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?

Except your wrong. I was talking about parliamentary sovereignty.


https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

Go read the developments affecting Parliamentary Sovereignty section. What multinational organisation does it mention?

Good thing I wasn't responding to you, eh?

Parliamentary sovereignty is the very basis of our national independence. The EU undermine's Parliamentary sovereignty. Ergo it is a threat to our national independence.

You might not care, but I do.

I don't care, but that aside, you're still presenting a subjective position as objective, and then arguing on the basis that it is unchallenged.

First, in an absolutist sense, yes, any union undermines national independence. However, unless you advocate an isolationist UK, this is irrelevant. What we're really talking about is the level to which that loss of independence is acceptable.
Second, the loss of degrees of independence is not synonymous with a loss of sovereignty unless it occurs through external, irrevocable force.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Parliamentary sovereignty is the very basis of our national independence. The EU undermine's Parliamentary sovereignty. Ergo it is a threat to our national independence.

The EU does not undermine out national independence. Even the Wrexit government released a white paper on this and stated in the first couple of pages that it doesn't. This is our UK governments view. How can you argue that the EU undermines this when the own organisation you are trying to protect doesn't agree with you?

 Witzkatz wrote:
The talk of "ever closer political union" as the EU mission statement made me google whether there actually is a mission statement resembling something like that.

I'm not sure if this has been in this thread before - I've been reading from the start and can't remember seeing it before - here are the goals as stated by the EU currently:

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en#goals_and_values_of_the_eu

Goals

The goals of the European Union are:

promote peace, its values and the well-being of its citizens;
offer freedom, security and justice without internal borders;
sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive market economy with full employment and social progress, and environmental protection;
combat social exclusion and discrimination;
promote scientific and technological progress;
enhance economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among member countries;
respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity.

I'm guessing the points "without internal borders" and "cohesion and solidarity" could be seen as code for "ever closer political union", but it's a stretch to me to see this as a mission statement that is a "clear threat" to sovereignity and independence.

Its in the Solemn Declaration of the European Union 1983.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Trying to tell the guy with a law degree that he doesn't know his law isn't the best idea.

The ECJ has primacy over national courts. It has too otherwise the whole system doesn't work. You couldn't have an equal or lesser court telling a national court or parliament what to do because then the whole system doesn't work.

Have a read of this.

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/eulaw-ecj-primacy.shtml

Put it this way, the ECJ has the ability to overturn Supreme Court (previously HoL) rulings, and even affect parliamentary acts.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Trying to tell the guy with a law degree that he doesn't know his law isn't the best idea.

Appealing to qualifications is never a good idea

nfe wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Trying to tell the guy with a law degree that he doesn't know his law isn't the best idea.

Appealing to qualifications is never a good idea

Hey, I've got to use it somehow. It might as well be for bragging rights on the internet.

Can anyone name any national identity that has been lost due the eu?

We also had a veto, and everything was run via the parliament. Some people are at pains to imply the eu is sone sort of dictatorship that steamrolls the member states but it just isn't.

Herzlos wrote:
Can anyone name any national identity that has been lost due the eu?

We also had a veto, and everything was run via the parliament. Some people are at pains to imply the eu is sone sort of dictatorship that steamrolls the member states but it just isn't.

I think the idea is that the national states haven't lost their national identity yet. But the push for intergrarion means it might happen in the future.


Hence the whole we are European thing. Rather than we are British, we are French etc.

Ah, thanks for the heads-up. Found it now.

On the topic of national identity, and since I was just reading that document - apart from the whole "European spirit" thing, there's also lines like the following...

examination of the advisability of undertaking joint action to protect, promote and safeguard the cultural
heritage;

...which don't make it sound like there's a desire to undo national identity and culture, but rather build - on top of that - a second cultural awareness as "Europeans", I guess.

I don't buy any nonsense about losing national identity. People cheerfully (and indeed, sometimes aggressively!) identify as Doric, Scottish, British. and European, or Cornish, English, British and European, or Bavarian, German, and European or whatever else. People hold national identities derived from communities that pre-date the Roman Empire and have survived more or less through dozens of political unions, shifting borders, invasions, and occupations. That being part of the EU risks losing Britishness is farcical. Almost as farcical as believing Britishness is an identifiable thing. It's hard to see that fear as borne of anything other than 'now my village has an Aldi and no local Butchers' or 'several kids in my granddaughter's class have difficult-to-pronounce names'.

Exactly. If the Romans couldn't wipe out national identity at the point of a sword, how will the eu manage it with national consent?

The EU supports national identity which isn't at odds with trying to make interaction seamless

The EU is bad because it's a supranational organisation that will submerge individual national identity. At the same time it's bad because the nations of Europe are too greatly different to each other to be able to work together within the EU.