Britain outside the EU

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

At the ballot box where you can get 5 million votes and not return a single MP, where the majority of votes are meaningless and the government formed with 100% of the power for 35% of the vote makes changes to peoples lives for the better (chums and donors) or worse (everyone else) with impunity for 5 years and it's dismissed with a glib we can vote them out

A very good point you make. Where 37% of the electorate decides the social & economic fate of a country for a generation or more and, when it ends up in the predicated train wreck, you get the glib "well, you can always vote them out".

---------- Post added at 21:42 ---------- Previous post was at 21:36 ----------

What I find quite sinister is the post truth revisionist gas-lighting with their justification of their [failed] position:

"Do you want to be part of a single European state with rules made in Brussels"

"Well naturally, lurking behind a lot of Europhilia is a belief that we’re somehow not up to the task of governing ourselves and we need the EU to bypass our own second rate governments"

The mainstream movement who wished to remain part of the EU never advocated for these positions yet out they trot to prop up the justification of where we have ended up. Pure sophistry.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

A very good point you make. Where 37% of the electorate decides the social & economic fate of a country for a generation or more and, when it ends up in the predicated train wreck, you get the glib "well, you can always vote them out".

---------- Post added at 21:42 ---------- Previous post was at 21:36 ----------

What I find quite sinister is the post truth revisionist gas-lighting with their justification of their [failed] position:

"Do you want to be part of a single European state with rules made in Brussels"

"Well naturally, lurking behind a lot of Europhilia is a belief that we’re somehow not up to the task of governing ourselves and we need the EU to bypass our own second rate governments"

The mainstream movement who wished to remain part of the EU never advocated for these positions yet out they trot to prop up the justification of where we have ended up. Pure sophistry.

You are being the sophist here by not answering the question.

It's quite simple, really: Do you want to be governed by rules made in Brussels?

Also, on your 37% point, what would have been your attitude had the REMAIN vote won the day on 37% of the eligible population?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You are being the sophist here by not answering the question.

It's quite simple, really: Do you want to be governed by rules made in Brussels?

Also, on your 37% point, what would have been your attitude had the REMAIN vote won the day on 37% of the eligible population?

Again, post truth deflection. You said:

"Do you want to be part of a single European state with rules made in Brussels?"

Which is it?

As to the 37% point, you are not getting the point. No referendum that changes the macro economic & social trajectory of a [G7] country should EVER be decided on such a low bar, in either direction. A supermajority allied with a minimum turnout was a must.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Again, post truth deflection. You said:

"Do you want to be part of a single European state with rules made in Brussels?"

Which is it?

<SNIP>

Do you want to be part of a single European state with rules made in Brussels?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Do you want to be part of a single European state with rules made in Brussels?

Capitalism states the market makes the rules. And badly.

The question is how big (or small) you want the counterweight of regulation.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's quite simple, really: Do you want to be governed by rules made in Brussels?

Why not? It couldn’t be any worse than the Tories or Labour.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Why not? It couldn’t be any worse than the Tories or Labour.

Surely, the better answer to my question "Do you want to be governed by rules made in Brussels?" would be:

No, of course not. I just want a UK government that is competent.

Only one thing sadder than someone who asks a loaded question, is someone who answers their own loaded question, because they lack the confidence that they may get a concurring answer…

---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:43 ----------

Anyhoo, interesting article from the IEA, that well-know loony left woke tree-hugging organisation*

https://iea.org.uk/why-brexit-was-a-...n-perspective/

Many libertarians supported Brexit, believing it would reduce governmental layers and bring power closer to the British people. They saw it as an opportunity to escape the control of Brussels’ technocracy, expecting increased autonomy and economic freedom. However, this article argues that Brexit, rather than decreasing government control, intensified it in the UK. Some libertarians supported Brexit due to a misunderstanding of the European Union’s essential nature and role.

The libertarian argument for Brexit was centred around the idea of eliminating the perceived excessive interference by the EU. Moreover, Brexit was seen as a form of secession, which is often favoured to promote a libertarian agenda. Supporters of Brexit envisioned a rejuvenated Britain, regaining sovereignty and experiencing fewer regulatory constraints. They imagined a country liberated from Brussels and Luxembourg, able to independently navigate its future, potentially leading to greater liberty and economic efficiency. However, this perspective failed to understand the EU’s function and the implications of breaking away from it.

The critique of the EU often portrays it as an overreaching superstate, taking over national sovereignty. This perspective, fuelled by the rhetoric of the EU Commission’s technocrats and the broader Brussels establishment, erroneously suggests ambitions for a European superstate – a misconception that played a role in the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU. This interpretation overlooks the true nature and purpose of the EU. Contrary to being an emerging superstate, the EU essentially operates as a collection of regimes designed to check excessive state power. The notion of the EU as a nascent absolute state is a misinterpretation of its real function: to regulate and balance state powers, particularly in economic matters.

The EU originates from the principle of vertical separation of power. Significantly, the EU allows for member withdrawal, underscoring its distinction from absolute states, which are characterised as indivisible. Membership in the EU involves states mutually restricting their arbitrary power – for example, of limiting international trade or controlling the movement of people. These are areas where government policies typically spill over from extensive domestic intervention. In an era where state power is more extensive than ever, the primary method for curbing such power is through a balance of power among states themselves.

The European Union’s foremost goal is to diffuse and limit power, rather than centralise it. This approach is evident in the EU’s efforts to curtail excessive state intervention in trade, capital movement, and the flow of people.

Spoiler: 

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Surely, the better answer to my question "Do you want to be governed by rules made in Brussels?" would be:

No, of course not. I just want a UK government that is competent.

It is a better question, but my answer is based on realism not dreams

[1andrew1]

DUP agrees deal with UK government to restore power-sharing to Northern Ireland

https://news.sky.com/story/dup-agree...eland-13059737

Good news for Northern Ireland but sovereignty purists will be waking up with a hangover this morning as the detail is unveiled. Those idealists seeking a bold, competent, swashbuckling government willing to take advantage of Britain's Brexit freedoms (whatever that means) will finally have to face up to the fact that we will now be a rule-taker from Brussels and won't be able to shape those rules as we did as an EU member. Labour and the Conservatives will follow this policy.

Have no doubt, this is indeed what it sounds like - a reduction in British sovereignty. We now have less of it than we did as an EU member as we don't have representation in Brussels to influence policies we have to adopt. However, sovereignty tick-boxers can console themselves with the argument that the country could throw this deal out at the ballot box if enough people voted for UKIP.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Only one thing sadder than someone who asks a loaded question, is someone who answers their own loaded question, because they lack the confidence that they may get a concurring answer…

---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:43 ----------

Anyhoo, interesting article from the IEA, that well-know loony left woke tree-hugging organisation*

https://iea.org.uk/why-brexit-was-a-...n-perspective/



Rather than taking the view of the EU loving IEA, we should look at the actual EU Treaty to which we subscribed, which runs contrary to what Hugh's IEA quote purported. I've emboldened the relevant passages that help make my point.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...=EN#d1e32-13-1

Spoiler: 

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Rather than taking the view of the EU loving IEA,

I think you lost your argument before you had a chance to make it with this mis-step.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Rather than taking the view of the EU loving IEA

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...or-hard-brexit

Rightwing thinktank breached charity law by campaigning for hard Brexit

Institute of Economic Affairs issued with legal warning over its Plan A+ Brexit document

A prominent rightwing thinktank has been accused of “misconduct and mismanagement” and issued with a formal legal warning by the Charity Commission after using its resources to campaign for a hard Brexit.

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) received the formal warning from the watchdog after publishing and campaigning for its Plan A+ hard Brexit proposal document. As a charity the IEA is banned from campaigning on political issues unrelated to its stated purpose of furthering education.

The commission, which regulates the charitable sector, said the publication was a clear attempt to campaign to influence government policy. The IEA launched Plan A+ at an event last September with endorsements from prominent pro-Brexit Conservative MPs, including the former Brexit secretary David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23322122

Brexit': IEA offers prize for UK exit plan from EU

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has announced that it is holding a competition to find the best plan for a UK exit from the European Union.

The free-market think tank said it would award its Brexit Prize to whoever came up with the best blueprint for the UK after the EU, covering the country's withdrawal and post-exit repositioning.

[Pierre]

I don't know if anyone currently commenting on this thread is aware.

If not I'll just remind you.

Brexit happened, we left the EU on the 31 January 2020 at 11:00 pm.

Just let that marinate in your head, take a deep breath and move on.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't know if anyone currently commenting on this thread is aware.

If not I'll just remind you.

Brexit happened, we left the EU on the 31 January 2020 at 11:00 pm.

Just let that marinate in your head, take a deep breath and move on.

No one's forcing you to read or participate in this thread. If you're finding the content triggering or tedious then stop following it.