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.
Witzkatz wrote: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.
On the other hand there's the "respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity" part (that you mentioned) that's about keeping local or regional culture alive. I think the EU even protects some local foods against copycats and helps financially with upkeep/restoration of historically important buildings (that would otherwise not survive), stuff like that.
welshhoppo wrote:It might be different on the mainland.
At least that the way I've heard it.
Can any Europeans comment on it? I'm legitimatly curious. How often will someone respond with I'm European rather than their nationality. Or their local nationality I.e Welsh or Barvarian?
The only people I know of who attach importance to "European values" as a singular thing are US based alt-right/Neo-Nazi doofuses who think there is some sort of white homogeneous culture or identity in Europe instead of hundreds (or thousands?) little groups that sometimes made alliances but were, until recently, regularly very angry with each other.
Personally it's "German" when talking to people outside of Germany and "Bavarian" when talking to people inside of Germany but outside of Bavaria, and "Münchner" to people inside Bavaria but outside of Munich, and so on.
Witzkatz wrote:On the other hand, I have met tons of Germans happily engaging in semi-friendly rivalry between Bavaria, the North, West and East and whatnot else.
Jadenim wrote: No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does. That does not answer why you think that is a bad thing.
The ECJ simply upholds the law. Our politicians still write the laws. So my question remains, why is this a bad thing?
Well that's personal opinion, hence why we are arguing over it.
I like parliamentary sovereignty, I think our country needs it. Hence why we are one of the oldest democracies on earth. ANYTHING that is an external threat to that I'm not fussed on. The ECJ has primacy, which is a threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty, hence I don't like it. I do like the idea of a foreign court holding power over the government when our own courts do not.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Jadenim wrote: No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does.
I disagree, it should be considered 'deferral' rather than 'primacy'. A lot on the Leave side point to that EU courts hold more power than UK courts, but they do not (and get bees in their bonnet about how we hence don't have control). But the reality is you can't have an international set of laws and have decisions made at the state level as that leads to different interpretations across the EU which is against the principles that these laws apply equally across the different states. All they do is make decisions on EU law. The UK courts are bound to UK law which for some areas transcribes EU law. The UK is meant to implement EU legislation directly and Directives indirectly (in how the UK sees fit). However that can leave issues in how it is interpreted. The ECJ then makes judgements on the interpretation of EU law which can then apply to all states. the reason that the ECJ is usually the last to be called on for certain aspects is because of the relation of EU law to UK law. As I've pointed out the ECJ does not have deferral rights on things like burglary because there is no EU legislation or directives on such things.
It is also not like that there aren't other international courts and laws that we also defer laws to (e.g. the Hague). That is because they deal with issues that are wider than individual countries. Yet out courts also defer certain decisions in that regards. From some of these arguments put forward about 'primacy' these same people should also be arguing that we leave the international court of justice, but there is no mention of this. Hence it is just another 'excuse' to leave the EU without really detailing why. There are no examples that have been provided as to why the ECJ is a bad idea. I can put forward a recent example on UK surveillance laws that effectively allows the government to access everything you might do regardless of whether there is any suspicion or not. It was deemed illegal by the ECJ due to EU law. This was a good decision for the populace - yes there are bad people out there but mass surveillance is not the solution and reduces the ability of any individual to run their life privately (and lets face it the Tories are likely to start using the information for other things). However I have yet to see someone come forward with an example of why the ECJ is a bad idea and should be opposed.
I like parliamentary sovereignty, I think our country needs it. Hence why we are one of the oldest democracies on earth. ANYTHING that is an external threat to that I'm not fussed on. The ECJ has primacy, which is a threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty, hence I don't like it. I do like the idea of a foreign court holding power over the government when our own courts do not.
Then you would agree then that the Wrexit vote actually means nothing and was advisory only and the MPs should have decided (and should always have been decided) about the EU (and not a daft politically motivated referendum).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/12 10:34:58
"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
Jadenim wrote: No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does. That does not answer why you think that is a bad thing.
The ECJ simply upholds the law. Our politicians still write the laws. So my question remains, why is this a bad thing?
Well that's personal opinion, hence why we are arguing over it.
I like parliamentary sovereignty, I think our country needs it. Hence why we are one of the oldest democracies on earth. ANYTHING that is an external threat to that I'm not fussed on. The ECJ has primacy, which is a threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty, hence I don't like it. I do like the idea of a foreign court holding power over the government when our own courts do not.
I think this illustrates the problem quite well. Folk are getting a bee in their bonnet about being asked the same question but the answer to it is always insufficient. The answer to 'why does it matter if the ECJ can overrule British law?' is simply 'because our parliament should be sovereign'. That's not an answer to why unless you set out why our parliament's sovereignty is the priority, and how exactly our parliament's revocable decision to adhere to another authority constitutes a loss of sovereignty.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Marr: "What was Zaghari-Ratcliffe doing in Iran?"
Gove: "I don't know"
How can Gove go on Andrew Marr without being briefed on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliff? Genuinely astounded. But hey, it's a fitting day for a British government to keep chuckling its citizens under the bus, eh?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/12 11:11:43
Exactly. We're trying to understand *why* it's actually an issue. We know leavers think it's a problem.
As I see it, the minor loss in sovereignty is just something you need to do in order to be part of a bigger relationship. The only things we defer to the eu on are the things that are required to provide the level playing ground for a free trade bloc. Environment, safety, workers rights and contract law.
The other thing is that to maintain access to this massive market we're going to have to adhere to their standards anyway. So leaving loses us more sovereignty than we gain. At least in the EU we can help set the standards.
When I got married, I lost some amount of personal sovereignty; what I do on my days off, what I have for dinner, how long I can get out of a pair of underwear. Do I mind? Hell no; the tiny loss us nothing compared to the gains.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/12 11:41:45
James Dyson on a post Brexit UK: It should be easier to hire and fire and Corporation Tax should be eliminated.
That'll show those out of touch elites eh ?
Meanwhile Alex Salmond is hosting a chat show on Russia Today from November onwards.
WTF is going on in the world eh ?
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,
Herzlos wrote: Exactly. We're trying to understand *why* it's actually an issue.
I think that you will never obtain what you feel to be a satisfactory answer, primarily because you have different preferences and priorities to other people. Like all things in life, really. If other people processed and catalogued information in precisely the same fashion as you do, they would have an identical opinion on things. This question ultimately boils down to 'At what level do I prefer my various differing governmental responsibilities to be allocated', and people will have different thoughts and feelings on the subject. As you have your own opinions, you'll only be able to empathise with those holding priorities similar to your own. Anything else you'll naturally discard, because if something was a priority to you, it would already have been included in your own opinion.
In other words, you ain't got a hope of understanding the other side Jack, any more than they do you.
It's a smaller scale version of why we boggle at Romans for taking citizenship and public standing so seriously, old school samurai for committing seppuku in shame, the current Chinese cultural emphasis on 'face'. You can grasp that people hold values differently to you, but their reactions and their reasons for doing so are inherently alien. Their mentalities and priorities are just different to yours. It's the same on this particular subject to a smaller degree. All you can ultimately do is just accept that people have different thoughts and motivations to yourself. You're free to think it silly, in the same way you might regard a Chinese person who goes out of their way to appear poor for reasons of face as daft. At the end of the day though, it would be a rum old world if we all thought the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/12 12:10:32
Tony Benn's famous letter from 1975 eloquently presents the case for leaving the EU. It's in the spoiler tags and worth a read if you haven't read it before.
I'm happy to admit that it was an influence on my personal opposition to the European project.
It's a response to people who think that the ECJ having a say in internal British affairs is no big deal...
Spoiler:
In 1975 you will each have the responsibility of deciding by vote whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Common Market: or whether we should withdraw completely, and remain an independent self-governing nation. That decision, once taken will almost certainly be irreversible.
In both the 1974 general elections I fully supported our manifesto commitment on the handling of the Common Market question. The present Government is now engaged in renegotiating the terms of entry along the lines set out in those Manifestos and is solemnly pledged, whatever the Outcome of those negotiations, to see to it that the final decision will be taken by the British people.
But we must recognise that the European Community has now set itself the objectives of developing a common foreign policy, a form of common nationality expressed through a common passport, a directly elected assembly and an economic and monetary union which, taken together, would in effect make the United Kingdom into one province of a Western European state.
Britain’s continuing membership of the Community would mean the end of Britain as a completely self-governing nation and the end of our democratically elected parliament as the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom.
I am writing, not to argue a case, but to explain — as best I can — what effect British membership of the Common Market has had upon the constitutional relationship between a member of Parliament and his constituents. The Parliamentary democracy we have developed and established in Britain is based, not upon the sovereignty of Parliament, but upon the sovereignty of the People, who, by exercising their vote lend their sovereign powers to Members of Parliament, to use on their behalf, for the duration of a single Parliament only — Powers that must be returned intact to the electorate to whom they belong, to lend again to the Members of Parliament they elect in each subsequent general election. Five basic democratic rights derive from this relationship, and each of them is fundamentally altered by Britain’s membership of the European Community,
First: Parliamentary Democracy means that every man and woman over eighteen is entitled to vote to elect his or her Member of Parliament to serve in the House of Commons; and the consent of the House of Commons is necessary fore Parliament can pass any act laying down new laws or imposing new taxation on the people. British Membership of the Community subjects us all to laws and taxes which your Members of Parliament do not enact, such laws and taxes being enacted by Authorities you do not directly elect, and cannot dismiss through the ballot box.
Second: Parliamentary Democracy means that Members of Parliament who derive their power directly from the British people, can change any law and any tax by majority vote, British Membership of the Community means that community laws and taxes cannot be changed or repealed by the British Parliament, but only by Community authorities not directly elected by the British People.
Third: Parliamentary Democracy means that British Courts and Judges must Uphold all laws passed by Parliament; and if Parliament changes any law the courts must enforce the new law because it has been passed by Parliament Which has been directly elected by the people. British Membership of the Community requires the British Courts to uphold and enforce community laws that have not been passed by Parliament, and that Parliament cannot change or amend, even when such laws conflict with laws passed by Parliament, since Community law over-rides British Law.
Fourth: Parliamentary Democracy means that all British governments, ministers and the civil servants under their control can only act within the laws of Britain and are accountable to Parliament for everything they do, and hence, through Parliament to the electors as a whole. British Membership of the Community imposes duties and constraints upon British governments not deriving from the British Parliament; and thus, in discharging those duties Ministers are not accountable to Parliament or to the British people who elect them.
Fifth: Parliamentary Democracy because it entrenches the rights of the people to elect and dismiss Members of Parliament, also secures the continuing accountability of Members of Parliament to the electorate, obliging Members of .Parliament to listen to the expression of the British people’s views at all times, between, as well as during, general elections, and thus offers a continuing possibility of peaceful change through Parliament to meet the people’s needs. British Membership of the Community by permanently transferring sovereign legislative and financial powers to Community authorities, who are not directly elected by the British people, also permanently insulates those authorities from direct control by the British electors who cannot dismiss them and whose views, therefore, need carry no weight with them and whose grievances they cannot be compelled to remedy.
In short, the power of the electors of Britain, through their direct representatives in Parliament to make laws, levy taxes, change laws which the courts must uphold, and control the conduct of public affairs has• been substantially ceded to the European Community whose Council of Ministers and Commission are neither collectively elected, nor collectively dismissed by the British people nor even by the peoples a all the Community countries put together.
These five rights have protected us in Britain from the worst abuse of power by government; safeguarded us against the excesses of bureaucracy; defended our . basic liberties; offered us the prospect of peaceful change; reduced the risk of civil strife; and bound us together by creating a national framework of consent for all the laws under which we were governed. We have promised a ballot box decision because all these rights are important, and none should be abandoned without the explicit consent of the people.
I am, of course, not here addressing myself to the general political or economic arguments for or against entry, nor commenting on the view that the advantages of membership might outweigh the loss of democratic rights that I have described. But no one who votes in the ballot box should be in any doubt as to the effect British membership has had, and will increasingly continue to have, in removing the power the British people once enjoyed to govern themselves.
Having campaigned so long to win for you the right to have a referendum I am proud to serve in a government that has promised that the final decision will be made by all the electors through the ballot box. The whole nation, and all political parties, are divided on the Common Market question. We must respect the sincerity of those who take a different view from our own. We should all accept the verdict of the British people whatever it is, and I shall certainly do so.
But from now, until that decision is taken, we all have a responsibility to discuss the issues openly, calmly and seriously, and it is in this spirit that I am writing to you as your Member of Parliament over the last twenty-four years.
Tony Benn MP - 1975
"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
Analysis by the SMMT suggests that under WTO tariffs, the UK motor
industry faces a £4.5 billion tariff cost for cars alone, which could add at least an annual £1.8
billion to exports and £2.7 billion to imports
... most of it ain't pretty.
You'll be astonished to discover they want .. wait for it .. a special deal !
along with every single other fething industry in the country -- with the exception of Blue passport manufacturers.
Headline writers dream of course :
Guardian: Car industry says: Brexit stalls
Times: Motor Giants demand Brexit gear shift
Express: Can Diana Memories Cure Cancer !?
meantime we can expect a lot more of
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/12 12:36:04
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,
There's a growing concern in the catering industry, which employs a lot of EU staff, who are leaving faster and joning slower than before the referendum.
It's a lot easier to train waiters and chefs than nurses and surgeons, of course, so this might end up being a good thing in the medium term.
Jadenim wrote: No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does. That does not answer why you think that is a bad thing.
The ECJ simply upholds the law. Our politicians still write the laws. So my question remains, why is this a bad thing?
Well that's personal opinion, hence why we are arguing over it.
I like parliamentary sovereignty, I think our country needs it. Hence why we are one of the oldest democracies on earth. ANYTHING that is an external threat to that I'm not fussed on. The ECJ has primacy, which is a threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty, hence I don't like it. I do like the idea of a foreign court holding power over the government when our own courts do not.
What did you think of May's attempt to declare Article 50 without reference to Parliament?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/12 12:53:09
Christopher Columbus: The EU hasn't been invented yet. Better stay on dry land.
George Washington: Without the diplomatic recognition of the EU, we'd better rip up that declaration of independence and beg for mercy.
Isaac Newton: The apple falling on my head doesn't comply with EU food standards. Better put it back on the tree.
George Stephenson: This steam engine is breaking every EU health and safety code in the book. Better put The Rocket back in the garage.
Albert Einstein: E=MC2? No, it's EU=MC2.
There's a narrative going on here that nobody, ever, in the entire history of the human race was capable of doing anything until the EU came along.
The problems that kilkrazy and reds8n highlight are not insurmountable problems.
Is it beyond the wit of the British people to solve these problems of reduced staff or concerns from car makers etc etc ?
No and no.
"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
Newton's apple being one of the ones descended from the ones brought over & cultivated by the Romans and their free trade nonsense.
Stephenson of course consulted on the developments of railways in both Belgium & Spain and who oversaw the exporting of the standard gauge to both Europe and the USA in order to maximise trading options.
He regarded nationalism as a ”disease" and wanted to see a world without borders, with one international government having power over individual states. Even during World War I, he supported the possible creation of “United States of Europe”, and was very much on board the formation of the League of Nations in 1919, and the subsequent United Nations, which came about in 1945.
He predicted limitations on the power of the U.N., which have proven to be correct. He saw an advisory organization that answers to national governments as ultimately being toothless, unable to stop wars or have significant power. Only a world government could have that level of impact
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,
There's a narrative going on here that nobody, ever, in the entire history of the human race was capable of doing anything until the EU came along.
Which, of course, means you'll have no issue pointing out where someone is pushing that narrative, no? As in providing evidence for this claim.
Besides, what would Einstein or Newton know? They're EXPERTS , and I'm told the British people have had enough of those.
I'm not going to do all the work for you.
Check out this newspaper: theguardian.com It's pro-EU by the way. VERY Pro-EU
Start your search in the opinion articles from June 24th 2016 onwards.
A common theme occurs time after time: British people will lose working rights, trade union rights, human rights, abortion rights, maternity rights, environmental rights, travel rights, Brexit will destroy the world, Ireland will float off towards America, Coca-Cola will stop selling Coca Cola to the UK, British cows will stop producing milk, grass will turn from green to blue, aliens will invade Brexit Britain, Polish plumbers will be burnt at the stake, Russia will invade Britain, Hadrian's wall will collapse, and so on and so on....
And all of the above will occur because Britain is leaving the EU...
"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
Jadenim wrote: No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does. That does not answer why you think that is a bad thing.
The ECJ simply upholds the law. Our politicians still write the laws. So my question remains, why is this a bad thing?
Well that's personal opinion, hence why we are arguing over it.
I like parliamentary sovereignty, I think our country needs it. Hence why we are one of the oldest democracies on earth. ANYTHING that is an external threat to that I'm not fussed on. The ECJ has primacy, which is a threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty, hence I don't like it. I do like the idea of a foreign court holding power over the government when our own courts do not.
But our own courts do have power over Parliament, where parliament is not abiding by the law of the land. Hence that whole court case where our own, democratically elected government, was forced to hold a vote on article 50 when they didn't want to, because that's what the law says.
So the issue to me is around whether or not we have sufficient democratic input into those laws, not which judge tells you whether you have to obey them. Hence my "so what if the ECJ has primacy" comment; it's a red herring, trying to give the impression that the institution is an over bearing dictatorship, when all the ECJ does is tell you to obey the law as decreed by your politicians.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
I'm reluctantly reaching the conclusion that some people won't leave the house in the morning unless they get a phone call from Brussels giving them permission...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/12 13:43:32
"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
Seems far more like you're gleefully casting aspirations given your posting history on the topic, constant refusal to support any statements, and enthusiasm for making as many reductio ad absurdum arguments surrounded by as many laughing emoticons as possible Do you fancy presenting some of the evidence that makes you feel that way (evidence a more more specific and useful than'read everything published in the Guardian in the last 18 month' or 'just look at this thread').
EDIT: lest someone be saddened by the most gentle of jibes.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/11/12 15:30:59
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm reluctantly reaching the conclusion that some people won't leave the house in the morning unless they get a phone call from Brussels giving them permission...
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
...
It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.
Translation: political elite of member nations devised more ways of insulating themselves from the ordinary voters they clearly despise.
You don't need to translate for other users. He was clear what he meant. Thanks
There's a narrative going on here that nobody, ever, in the entire history of the human race was capable of doing anything until the EU came along.
That might be what you've been hearing but it's absolutely not what anyone has been saying. A classic strawman.
The UK will not end outside of the EU. Life will undoubtedly be worse in the short and medium term. The resulting austerity drive will mean more of the poor, sick, disabled and elderly will die than they otherwise would.
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
...
It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.
Translation: political elite of member nations devised more ways of insulating themselves from the ordinary voters they clearly despise.
You don't need to translate for other users. He was clear what he meant. Thanks
What I’m saying is, in the past DINLT (brexiteer) was told off for translating someone else’s post. Now that nfe (remainer) is doing the same, will he be told off as well?
The difference being that DINLT was making a blatant attack on the Remain side, while Killkrazy was outlining an argument that got willfully distorted.
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.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The difference being that DINLT was making a blatant attack on the Remain side, while Killkrazy was outlining an argument that got willfully distorted.
Kilkrazy has nothing to do with this. His problem was actively ignoring Mad Dok Grotsnik’s ‘blatant attack’ on the leave side, a separate issue. But the two of them together along with Redsn8’s dig about us being cultists show that in this thread there isn’t a level playing field. Mods ignore or even contribute to general attacks on the leave side (I’ve reported them all to no avail) but come down like a tonne of bricks if a leaver says anything even remotely out of line.
To anyone in here who backs leave; if things don’t improve I strongly recommend we boycott this thread. How can we argue in good faith under those kinds of conditions?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/12 16:29:48
That may be, but this is what I can never comprehend: what business is it of the EU to tell a nation what it can and can't do with its own rail services?
...
It is the business of the EU because the countries that decided to form and become of the EU decided it is the business of the EU.
Translation: political elite of member nations devised more ways of insulating themselves from the ordinary voters they clearly despise.
You don't need to translate for other users. He was clear what he meant. Thanks
In this quote Kilkrazy is making an argument and DINLT is twisting it to suit his own view better, and is promptly told to stop. This is quite different from someone calling out an attack for what it is, which is what happened in the post you wanted the mods to slam down on; DINLT has made the "argument" that the Remain side wants Brussels approval for everything several times in the past; it's obvious that this isn't something he's "reluctantly reaching the conclusion" of, it's a view he's expressed multiple times already. As such, it is not an argument but rather an attack on the Leave side, which means calling it out as such is not a distortion or a reinterpretation of what someone's been saying.
FWIW I agree with you that we could do with a lot less petty sniping, but you're defending DINLT sniping while calling out sniping, which makes you appear hypocritical.
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.
