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.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.

Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?

Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.

You just know that should a UK government be of the mind to drop the veto in return for some short term gains, the public wouldn’t have a referendum offered to them on it. Just like they haven’t put referenda to us for pretty much anything they sign at the EU. No wonder many voters seized their one opportunity with both hands when it was actually offered. A shame that the only choice we’ve ever really been given control over is in or out, and not more over time that allow a more moderate position to evolve.

I don't think the EU wants member nations not to have a veto. Despite what some Brexiteers keep saying, the EU is a democratic organisation that proceeds by forming consensus and thereby allows disagreeement.

If we want not to have a veto we can join EFTA the same as Iceland and Norway.

We have a representative democracy because government by referendum is stupid and unworkable.

The DUP do not represent a single constituent who actually lives on the border. (Green areas voted Sinn Fein).

They will not accept ANY regulatory divergence with the rest of the UK.


Except on same-sex marriage, abortion and any other things like this.



Still at least the rest of our political parties can step up and

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/937944871847038977

Calling all those complaining that their party is not on @BBCr4today today : the DUP, Tory & Labour press offices asked their spokespeople not to appear

..e.rrmmm ??


what a fething shambles.

The obvious solution is for the whole UK to remain within the customs union.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The obvious solution is for the whole UK to remain within the customs union.

No question, but Brexit policy is being dictated by people with the perspective that DINLT was setting out yesterday: even were Brexit to become an unquestionably negative process in their own view, they'd stick to their guns rather than back down.

Well according to that map the borders obviously don't care about what the UK gov gets up to or they would have voted for a party who actually takes their seats :p

 r_squared wrote:
So ,no confidence and won't supply. Can we get our £1bn back now?

HMRC haven’t given any of it out yet anyway.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
I'd be interested to know why you felt being apart of the EU with veto power, a seat around the table, elected MEP's etc jeopardized Britain's national sovereignty in anyway.

(Apart from meaningless, abstract Daily Mail soundbites like 'United States of Europe' obviously)

Because power will be centralized over time, and our powers of veto and our influence will be gradually eroded.

So nothing then... except for your irrational, unsubstantiated, fear of something neither proven or shown. Makes sense. The fear of something that doesn't exist. Typical Brexiteer. Remember to lock your doors buddy.

I don't think that line of reasoning advances the situation. The borders counties are UK citizens and have the right to elect whatever candidates they want, even if they elect the awkward squad.

They also have a devolved parliament in Stormont (currently suspended) and voted in the EU referendum (and presumably still have an MEP.)

So there is lots of democracy and their views should be taken into account the same as everyone else.

Never forget, we could've used our Veto on stuff like, I dunno, power being allegedly centralised over time.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think that line of reasoning advances the situation. The borders counties are UK citizens and have the right to elect whatever candidates they want, even if they elect the awkward squad.

They also have a devolved parliament in Stormont (currently suspended) and voted in the EU referendum (and presumably still have an MEP.)

So there is lots of democracy and their views should be taken into account the same as everyone else.

I was being sarcastic. Hence the tounge. But yes, they have the right to vote for anyone they see fit. And are Probably happier with the devolved government once it starts up again.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Because power will be centralized over time, and our powers of veto and our influence will be gradually eroded.

The United Kingdom is one of the most centralised states in the Western world, and has no formal mechanism whereby a member nation may leave the union. Yet in the last hundred years:
- the Republic of Ireland has seceded after a violent conflict
- Northern Ireland has remained a part of the union despite a lower level violent conflict
- Scotland has had two peaceful independence referenda, each time voting to remain in the union
- ongoing campaigns for Independence for Wales and Cornwall which have never achieved sufficient popularity to require a referendum, but have not been suppressed.
- the UK has agreed an international treaty (the Good Friday Agreement) whereby dual referenda may transfer Northern Ireland to the Republic

Your theory of the inevitably of the veto being eroded and the members of the EU losing the ability to leave seems quixotic based on relatively recent UK history.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've been anti-EU years, and for better or for worse, I've hitched my wagon to Brexit. I shall support my position come what may. To do otherewise would be hypocrisy of the highest order.

That's what I expected - no matter what happens you'll stick to Brexit. I'd respect you a whole lot more if you were still backing Brexit because you believe it to be the correct thing, and were willing to consider that you may have been wrong, even if you decide you aren't.

There's nothing righteous about stubbornly sticking to something you think is a bad idea purely so someone on the internet doesn't think you're a hypocrite. if you can't see the other side, is it even worth trying to engage in debate?

I'd like to think that I admit to being wrong where it's been pointed out, and I'm sure I've apologised for it on this very thread.

For better or worse, we're all hitched to the wagon of Brexit. I just hope someone can find a way to make it work; because in all honesty I really don't want to have to move to Germany.

I've been to Germany a few times - nice place, and living there wouldn't be a death sentence.

As for Brexit, let me make myself clear: I still support it. Damn right I do!

Just because we have a party that couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard in government, doesn't make it a bad idea.

The idea is good, the execution is sadly, not going as it should.

Forget Ireland here for a minute, the media are reporting that citizens' rights are still an issue, because of the EU's Kamikaze insistence that the ECJ have a role...

Feth that! It would totally defeat the purpose of Brexit.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I shall support my position come what may. To do otherewise would be hypocrisy of the highest order.

Another word for what you're doing is "fanaticism", or "zealotry". You just admitted yourself that nothing can make you change your mind.

Changing your mind over new evidence is not hypocrisy, it's what reasonable people do all the time.

I've yet to see you backtrack on anything regarding the EU and its actions. Fanaticism is a strong word, but if we are to use it, then it could equally be applied to the Remain side as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollow wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Erh, that's the point of the EU. They act together as one whole and hence they get a better deal for everyone which includes trade deals, environmental issues and...er...agreements with countries that think they are bigger than they really are.

Dear God Thank You! This is something that has been driving me nuts. When Brexiteers say things like "The EU just want to bully and punish us, whilst only thinking about themselves!"... YES! They do, that's the whole point! Being in the EU means that we all benefit from being able to throw our collective weight about. Do you think the US, China, Russia, Brazil etc give a hoot about being Mr Nice at the negotiating table? Being within the EU allows all the EU countries to have each others back and collectively bargain. Breaking away from it is doing to leave the UK incredibly vulnerable.

Surprisingly, I agree with this, which is why I want the UK to play hardball as well. But when you've got a Remain supporting PM leading the charge, who's heart is clearly not in it, this is what you get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.

Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?

Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.

You just know that should a UK government be of the mind to drop the veto in return for some short term gains, the public wouldn’t have a referendum offered to them on it. Just like they haven’t put referenda to us for pretty much anything they sign at the EU. No wonder many voters seized their one opportunity with both hands when it was actually offered. A shame that the only choice we’ve ever really been given control over is in or out, and not more over time that allow a more moderate position to evolve.

I don't think the EU wants member nations not to have a veto. Despite what some Brexiteers keep saying, the EU is a democratic organisation that proceeds by forming consensus and thereby allows disagreeement.

If we want not to have a veto we can join EFTA the same as Iceland and Norway.

We have a representative democracy because government by referendum is stupid and unworkable.

Naturally, I disagree. If the referendum did one good thing, it highlighted the gap between the chatterinc lasses and the political elite, and the rest of Britain.

How can you have representative democracy when the majority of politicians and the civil service believe in the EU body and soul, whilst the rest of the country believes in Brexit?

If we had a Conservative party that was truly Conservative, and a Labour party that was socialist, instead of the poison of Blairism that has infected , then we might have a proper representative democracy.

You rather overstate the case.

Less than 52% of the voters picked Leave.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I've been to Germany a few times - nice place, and living there wouldn't be a death sentence.

Me too. I'd just rather stay in Scotland.

As for Brexit, let me make myself clear: I still support it. Damn right I do!

Yeah you made that clear. Why though?

Just because we have a party that couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard in government, doesn't make it a bad idea.

It really does. But we've been over that before. Execution is linked to ideas - it may be a good idea in theory, but with an incompetent wielding the hammer it's a bad idea. Would Brexit have been a good idea with a competent government? Definitely. Is it a good idea with this gakshow? No chance.

The idea is good, the execution is sadly, not going as it should.

Just like we warned you. Very few people on the Remain side are surprised by how anything has gone; it's so painfully obvious.

Surprisingly, I agree with this, which is why I want the UK to play hardball as well. But when you've got a Remain supporting PM leading the charge, who's heart is clearly not in it, this is what you get.

I actually agree here, sort of. It's hard to believe that May wants a Brexit, but it's also hard to play hardball without a ball or bat.

If the referendum did one good thing, it highlighted the gap between the chatterinc lasses and the political elite, and the rest of Britain.

Yet nothing will change because we've voted to give the political elite even more power. That board about social equality/mobility resigning because it's pointless is a good example of it.

How can you have representative democracy when the majority of politicians and the civil service believe in the EU body and soul, whilst the rest of the country believes in Brexit?

When just under 52% voted for it (not the rest of the country), a representative democracy would have about 52% of the politicians representing those 52%. We have some Brexiteers in the cabinet and they are even less capable than May. A narrow majority for a thing doesn't mean a government that's 100% behind that thing, especially when said thing is to collosally stupid and vague.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You rather overstate the case.

Less than 52% of the voters picked Leave.

And there's growing evidence that now Leave's lies are exposed, a significant number of that 52% of those that bothered to vote are in favour of changing said vote.

That's nowhere near the same as 'the rest of the country'.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

And there's growing evidence that now Leave's lies are exposed, a significant number of that 52% of those that bothered to vote are in favour of changing said vote.

Is there? So far, what I've seen (including what has been linked to thus far by both sides in this thread), few people have changed their minds one way or t'other. I've seen polls indicating a 5% change to leave, and also a 5% change to remain (often in the same month). The polls usually seem to indicate more people switching to 'Leave' up North, and more switching to 'Remain' down south.

Either way, it's hardly 'significant'. Just people flipflapping depending on their newspaper headline that week.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You rather overstate the case.

Less than 52% of the voters picked Leave.

That may be, but it's beyond the powers of a group of model soldier enthusiasts.

I suspect May's days are numbered, and that we'll probably end up with EFTA or something.

I agree with Ketara on this point about supposed reneging Leavers. There is no real evidence of a swing either way.

That said, everything is still in too much of a state of flux for people to really see what they might want to react to. Just look at yesterday's events which concern nothing more than the NI border situation. Reflect that the "divorce bill" also is not yet resolved, or the details of EU citizens rights, and all this is before we've even started the main body of negotiation.

When the terms of the final deal are settled, it would not be unreasonable to refer them to the country for ratification by referendum, then a vote in parliament to make them law.

 Ketara wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

And there's growing evidence that now Leave's lies are exposed, a significant number of that 52% of those that bothered to vote are in favour of changing said vote.

Is there? So far, what I've seen (including what has been linked to thus far by both sides in this thread), few people have changed their minds one way or t'other. I've seen polls indicating a 5% change to leave, and also a 5% change to remain (often in the same month). The polls usually seem to indicate more people switching to 'Leave' up North, and more switching to 'Remain' down south.

Either way, it's hardly 'significant'. Just people flipflapping depending on their newspaper headline that week.

It takes shift of less than two percentage points moving from leave to remain to change the result, though.

As it's been repeated often, the result was so thin as to fall within margin of error.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I shall support my position come what may. To do otherewise would be hypocrisy of the highest order.

Another word for what you're doing is "fanaticism", or "zealotry". You just admitted yourself that nothing can make you change your mind.

Changing your mind over new evidence is not hypocrisy, it's what reasonable people do all the time.

I've yet to see you backtrack on anything regarding the EU and its actions. Fanaticism is a strong word, but if we are to use it, then it could equally be applied to the Remain side as well.

That's a tu qoque, whether I've changed my mind on anything the EU has done or not is entirely irrelevant when we're discussiong YOUR statements. Stop trying to change the focus. Regardless of what anyone else may or may not have done, the fact remains that your statement above consists of a rejection of basic sanity.

To illustrate; if God Himself descended from on high tomorrow and said that Brexit was a bad idea, your statement would prevent you from changing your mind in the face of new evidence (in this case, God with a capital G). That's utterly irrational. Changing your opinion when presented with new or changed evidence is the basis of our entire scientific understanding, and you've just explicitly rejected it.

nfe wrote:
Trying to pull? Aye mate, pointing out that someone is deliberately misrepresenting the Westminster electoral system to try and invalidate a politician they dislike is downright underhanded.

Now that you've conceded that, though, the point you make is not a criticism of the EU. It's a criticism of a British government making a decision that you believe should have been given to the public. As I stated above, twice, that's perfectly fair, but it is absolutely not evidence of a government losing its ability to make decisions, nor of a threat that the EU is Going to forcibly create such a situation.

First of all, don't call me mate.

Second of all, it's true that we don't directly elect the PM. I concede that. However, we at least have a say on the matter via general elections. Gordon Brown never won a GE, and he was four years into a term as part of a governing party that was in power for 12 years and had worn out everyone's patience, so he really shouldn't have been signing us up to something as big as the Lisbon Treaty. That was the point I was trying to make.

And now that we are signed up to it, we can never go back on it except by leaving the EU altogether. And for me this is a criticism of the EU, because it perfectly demonstrates how it isn't answerable to ordinary voters. Instead, it only has to butter up a few people in high places to get what it wants. It's designed in such a way as to be a playground for politicians and bureaucrats to make their plans without having to worry about the voters.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I shall support my position come what may. To do otherewise would be hypocrisy of the highest order.

Another word for what you're doing is "fanaticism", or "zealotry". You just admitted yourself that nothing can make you change your mind.

Changing your mind over new evidence is not hypocrisy, it's what reasonable people do all the time.

I've yet to see you backtrack on anything regarding the EU and its actions. Fanaticism is a strong word, but if we are to use it, then it could equally be applied to the Remain side as well.

That's a tu qoque, whether I've changed my mind on anything the EU has done or not is entirely irrelevant when we're discussiong YOUR statements. Stop trying to change the focus. Regardless of what anyone else may or may not have done, the fact remains that your statement above consists of a rejection of basic sanity.

To illustrate; if God Himself descended from on high tomorrow and said that Brexit was a bad idea, your statement would prevent you from changing your mind in the face of new evidence (in this case, God with a capital G). That's utterly irrational. Changing your opinion when presented with new or changed evidence is the basis of our entire scientific understanding, and you've just explicitly rejected it.

Careful, the last time God got in the way of a Scotsman, he sued him.

I'd say it's a far harsher indictment of your own political system than the EU. You have a choice of the politicians you elect to represent you, after all.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You just know that should a UK government be of the mind to drop the veto in return for some short term gains, the public wouldn’t have a referendum offered to them on it. Just like they haven’t put referenda to us for pretty much anything they sign at the EU. No wonder many voters seized their one opportunity with both hands when it was actually offered. A shame that the only choice we’ve ever really been given control over is in or out, and not more over time that allow a more moderate position to evolve.

Yep. Like how Blair gave up a chunk of the rebate in return for CAP 'concessions'. Again, the EU only needs to get to one person (the PM) to get their way. That is completely unacceptable.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Yep. Like how Blair gave up a chunk of the rebate in return for CAP 'concessions'. Again, the EU only needs to get to one person (the PM) to get their way. That is completely unacceptable.

The PM isn't a dictator - this isn't a case of the USSR buttering up Mao.

It's a democratic organization that gets votes from other democratic organizations. Without knowing the details of this, presumably Blair had to convince his cabinet and Parliament to make the appropriate legislative changes, and the EU had to convince it's parliament to approve legislative change on it's end.

Any greivance you have here is with our political system - our elected representatives did the thing, not the EU. That there was no unwinding clause on the Lisbon treaty could be pointed at both - the EU didn't add one and our elected (by party) representative didn't insist on one.

David Davis is answering urgent questions in the Commons on the Brexit negotiations. He's claiming that "regulatory alignment" will apply to the whole of the UK (then why did the DUP object?) and that "alignment does not mean the same standards" it means regulations "that give similar results".

It's going to be deeply funny over the next few weeks reading Brexiteers working their way to the conclusion that following slightly rewritten EU rules, but not making them, is a triumph for British sovereignty, up yours Brussels, etc.

..state of that eh ?

 monarda wrote:
David Davis is answering urgent questions in the Commons on the Brexit negotiations. He's claiming that "regulatory alignment" will apply to the whole of the UK (then why did the DUP object?) and that "alignment does not mean the same standards" it means regulations "that give similar results".

Regulatory alignment is the only way we'd be allowed to trade to the EU, so it was always going to happen. That means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say, for anything that goes to the EU" and in reality means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say" because almost no-one is going to follow a different set of regulations for the domestic market.

This is the one main reason I'm against Brexit - that it's entirely pointless.

I'm on the move, so if anybody wants the link to this story, it's in The Guardian newspaper.

With probably the straightest face in political history, the EU have announced its tax haven blacklist. It seems Naminia is the place to go these days.

Personally, I'm very depressed. Where will I stash my loot?

I need a holiday. I was thinking Luxembourg, or Cyprus, or Malta...

Maybe I should stop off at Juncker's office en route for advice?

Seriously, this is why I can't be done with the EU. They're as two-faced as everybody else.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 monarda wrote:
David Davis is answering urgent questions in the Commons on the Brexit negotiations. He's claiming that "regulatory alignment" will apply to the whole of the UK (then why did the DUP object?) and that "alignment does not mean the same standards" it means regulations "that give similar results".

Regulatory alignment is the only way we'd be allowed to trade to the EU, so it was always going to happen. That means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say, for anything that goes to the EU" and in reality means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say" because almost no-one is going to follow a different set of regulations for the domestic market.

This is the one main reason I'm against Brexit - that it's entirely pointless.

In our dealings with the USA or say, Australia, which are also first world democracies, we'd need high standards as well. That's not unique to the EU.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In our dealings with the USA or say, Australia, which are also first world democracies, we'd need high standards as well. That's not unique to the EU.

Definitely; we'll need to comply with the standards of anyone we sell stuff to. It's just the EU is the most prominent and was the only one we could shape. We're now downgrading EU regulatory compliance to the same "do what we're told" level as everyone else.