Britain outside the EU

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

5 1/2 + years of it isn't a complaint, it's definitely whinging.

Particularly when the decision has been taken already!

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

I'm disappointed in your response Seph. Dismissing my contribution as a Remainer's whinge is a cop out. I use true fact as rationally as I can, and in some detail, because this subject doesn't deserve the intellectual laziness you just now deployed. Patriots cannot stand by and watch our country go down without comment and recommendations for the future.

I understand your disappointment. There are many valid points, as you mention, that can and will never be addressed in an honest debate. Why is this you might ask? The answer is both simple and complex at the same time: simple in so far that there are truisms that are self evident to an unbiased observer and complex in that, as you point out, requires a lot of research, thought and patience.

You will not find many here who will honestly address the fundamental failings of the Brexit process because they too invested. Whether their denial is deliberate or not is hard to tell for some, easy to tell for others.

---------- Post added at 15:08 ---------- Previous post was at 15:06 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

5 1/2 + years of it isn't a complaint, it's definitely whinging.

Some were "whinging" for 40+ years while we were part of the EU/Common Market. 5 years is nothing ..

---------- Post added at 15:11 ---------- Previous post was at 15:08 ----------

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Are you an activist? do you go out and protest your beliefs? Or do you think as a Patriot you do enough by discussing your beliefs on a technical based forum? If it is how I suspect and you do just express yourself in type then you are sitting by doing almost nothing

I am not sure I understand the point of your remark? Are you seeking to denigrate someone's views if they have not "protested" as you describe it.

---------- Post added at 15:17 ---------- Previous post was at 15:11 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

OK I have no problem with you complaining about something but when you persitently complain in a peevish or irritating way (as you do) then it is whinging.

But it is only irritating because you are uncomfortable/disagree with the points being raised.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Says the person who literally is unable to understand the point being made. Here's some bedside reading for you: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Supermajority



Of course, you don't need a qualified majority when you change the country but, it seems you do need one if you are a union member:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...ustrial-action



Sort of sums it up really

I see you're still going on about numbers ianch99.

It is irrelevant - what matters is that in 2016, over 1 Million more people voted for something opposite to something else, if over 1 Million people is not a "super" majority for a decision on something, no numbers ever matter at all.

You cannot force people to vote and never should be forced to vote, what we have learned over the last few days is that supposed liberal ideals are being eradicated by supposed liberals.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Says the person who literally is unable to understand the point being made. Here's some bedside reading for you: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Supermajority



Of course, you don't need a qualified majority when you change the country but, it seems you do need one if you are a union member:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...ustrial-action



Sort of sums it up really

Quite.

While I’m sure a few people on here will be taken in by your pomposity, I’m confident most will spot this little segue for what it is. We have only ever held one constitutional referendum in this country with even a quorum clause and it wasn’t the 1975 EU vote. As you’re such a fan of looking stuff up on the internet I’ll leave you to work out which one it was and why it, or anything like it, hasn’t been repeated.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, thank God for that!

Well, at least you have set out where you have come from, roughbeast. I would simply say that if a staunch follower of Jeremy Corbyn considers that he would be good at running the country then goes on to say that he thinks we should have remained in the EU, we Brexiteers must have got something right!

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:46 ----------



Just for the record, the Policing Bill does no such thing. What it does do is clamp down on disruptive protests, such as the ones we saw where Insulate Britain brought motorways to a halt. Peaceful protests that still allow people to carry on with their business will not be restricted under this legislation.

Most people were angry about these protesters making people late for work, to attend medical appointments, etc, and want to see this kind of disruption stopped. The government has listened to the people and introduced this Bill.

Just as the government listened when people said they wanted to be out of the EU. I think I’ve spotted a pattern here that indicates your attitude towards democracy. Am I right or am I right?

You are wrong. Corbyn would have led us out of the EU if he had become PM, despite the sentiments of the Labour Party as a whole. This makes your Corbyn point a moot one. I supported Corbyn's principled stance of honouring the referendum result, so what is your point about my attitude to democracy? Do I detect binary thinking on your part? If I am not wholly in a agreement with you, I must therefore be wholly against you? There are shades of grey in human affairs you know.

The clause in the policing bill that gives police the right to ban marches that might be noisy is an attack on the right to protest. Noisy doesn't equate to disruptive.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ho...rities-1407386


We have a long tradition of allowing marches, even if they are down main city roads. Police and marchers have, through cooperation usually ensured that marches are orderly and enable alternative routes for traffic etc. The consensus is that democracy is worth a bit of managed disruption. The government seeing the power of anti-Iraq war protests and the support for Remain marches, i.e. over 1 million. has decided that street protest might be a threat to them. They are looking for excuses to ban the lot.

In my experience, all protests are noisy. The word 'noisy' needs removing from the bill, and any word meaning noisy, because in the wrong hands it could be misused. Imagine if Farage's protest marches had been banned beforehand because they might be noisy. We would never hear the end of it.

If, on the other hand, protests involve criminal damage, violence, and even disruption that has not been negotiated between police and organisers, then the perpetrators should accept the consequences. We already have laws in place to deal with that. No change needed. If I joined an Insulate Britain, protest and glued myself to the road, I must accept my punishment for disrupting lives beyond the agreed limits. Banning protests beforehand should only occur if the protesting group is known for consistent law-breaking, criminal damage and violence against people. e.g. most EDL and Britain First marches, some Insulate Britain protests and the fringes of Farage marches and BLM marches.

In my time, the only violent protest I have been on was the one that became The Battle of Grosvenor Square. It was a march to the US embassy protesting the Vietnam War. I, a 21-year old, was one of those. who slipped through the police cordons and got as far as the embassy gates. I ended up in hospital having been whacked on the head by a member of the US military police. I was responsible for what happened to me, not the MP defending US territory. Oh, to be young and stupid again!

[Itshim]

It is rare for any vote to have the majority of the voting population support ie over 50.1% of voters supporting it . Perhaps of those that vote yes but total that could no

Originally Posted by Itshim

It is rare for any vote to have the majority of the voting population support ie over 50.1% of voters supporting it . Perhaps of those that vote yes but total that could no

Quorums are tricky because they incentivise disengagement as a campaign strategy and disenfranchise those who genuinely intend not to participate (because their lack of participation becomes de facto support for the status quo). Supermajorities are anti-democratic because they permit a long-standing, significant majority for a cause to nevertheless fail to deliver the settled view of that majority, for lack of the support of an arbitrary number of people. They’re also meaningless in the Westminster parliamentary system because any referendum can only ever be advisory, and ultimately any legally binding decision is always taken by 50% +1 of the votes in the House of Commons.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Quite.

While I’m sure a few people on here will be taken in by your pomposity, I’m confident most will spot this little segue for what it is. We have only ever held one constitutional referendum in this country with even a quorum clause and it wasn’t the 1975 EU vote. As you’re such a fan of looking stuff up on the internet I’ll leave you to work out which one it was and why it, or anything like it, hasn’t been repeated.

I won't rise to your childish baiting but thank you for proving my point.

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Itshim

It is rare for any vote to have the majority of the voting population support ie over 50.1% of voters supporting it . Perhaps of those that vote yes but total that could no

Supermajorities do not need to be an arithmetic number they are more varied. See here for examples: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Supermaj...upermajorities

What they do guard against is the ability of a vocal and well resourced minority hijacking decisions that impact large, nation-sized populations.

Here is a good example:

In 2016, the Constitution of Colorado was amended to require a 55% majority to pass new constitutional amendments by popular vote. It had previously been a simple majority

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:07 ----------

Originally Posted by roughbeast

You are wrong. Corbyn would have led us out of the EU if he had become PM, despite the sentiments of the Labour Party as a whole. This makes your Corbyn point a moot one. I supported Corbyn's principled stance of honouring the referendum result, so what is your point about my attitude to democracy? Do I detect binary thinking on your part? If I am not wholly in a agreement with you, I must therefore be wholly against you? There are shades of grey in human affairs you know.

The clause in the policing bill that gives police the right to ban marches that might be noisy is an attack on the right to protest. Noisy doesn't equate to disruptive.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ho...rities-1407386


We have a long tradition of allowing marches, even if they are down main city roads. Police and marchers have, through cooperation usually ensured that marches are orderly and enable alternative routes for traffic etc. The consensus is that democracy is worth a bit of managed disruption. The government seeing the power of anti-Iraq war protests and the support for Remain marches, i.e. over 1 million. has decided that street protest might be a threat to them. They are looking for excuses to ban the lot.

In my experience, all protests are noisy. The word 'noisy' needs removing from the bill, and any word meaning noisy, because in the wrong hands it could be misused. Imagine if Farage's protest marches had been banned beforehand because they might be noisy. We would never hear the end of it.

If, on the other hand, protests involve criminal damage, violence, and even disruption that has not been negotiated between police and organisers, then the perpetrators should accept the consequences. We already have laws in place to deal with that. No change needed. If I joined an Insulate Britain, protest and glued myself to the road, I must accept my punishment for disrupting lives beyond the agreed limits. Banning protests beforehand should only occur if the protesting group is known for consistent law-breaking, criminal damage and violence against people. e.g. most EDL and Britain First marches, some Insulate Britain protests and the fringes of Farage marches and BLM marches.

In my time, the only violent protest I have been on was the one that became The Battle of Grosvenor Square. It was a march to the US embassy protesting the Vietnam War. I, a 21-year old, was one of those. who slipped through the police cordons and got as far as the embassy gates. I ended up in hospital having been whacked on the head by a member of the US military police. I was responsible for what happened to me, not the MP defending US territory. Oh, to be young and stupid again!

But Corbyn was conflicted and deceived many in the lead up the the referendum. He was always anti-Europe and always has been, mainly due to the limits placed on union powers by the EU. He saw the UK, out of the EU, as a place he could deliver his unfettered Socialist utopia. Although his naivety was evident to all except his inner circle of his "Jeremy, you are brilliant" cabal, he succeeded in hamstringing the Remain campaign which he was, on paper, a lead member. His lack of honesty, a common theme at the time, betrayed many of those he lead.

Your points about noisy protests is a good one. The police have said they already have the legal powers to address the issues this new bill pretends to address. The powers are clearly aimed to suppress legal opposition.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I won't rise to your childish baiting but thank you for proving my point.

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------



Supermajorities do not need to be an arithmetic number they are more varied. See here for examples: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Supermaj...upermajorities

What they do guard against is the ability of a vocal and well resourced minority hijacking decisions that impact large, nation-sized populations.

Here is a good example:



---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:07 ----------



But Corbyn was conflicted and deceived many in the lead up the the referendum. He was always anti-Europe and always has been, mainly due to the limits placed on union powers by the EU. He saw the UK, out of the EU, as a place he could deliver his unfettered Socialist utopia. Although his naivety was evident to all except his inner circle of his "Jeremy, you are brilliant" cabal, he succeeded in hamstringing the Remain campaign which he was, on paper, a lead member. His lack of honesty, a common theme at the time, betrayed many of those he lead.

Your points about noisy protests is a good one. The police have said they already have the legal powers to address the issues this new bill pretends to address. The powers are clearly aimed to suppress legal opposition.

You are right, Corbyn had a long-held anti-EEC stance, mostly because he regarded it as a capitalist club,which it was. However, after Maastricht and the dawn of the EU, it became a different animal. Features, such as the Social Chapter, gradually morphed the EU into an increasingly socialistic enterprise with protection for worker rights, human rights and the environment.

When Corbyn saw that he could become leader of the Labour Party and thereby PM he developed a vision. His ambition was to become PM in an EU member state and to use that position to drive the reform of the EU from a socialist perspective. A first step would have been to create a socialist alliance of MEPs from all countries of the EU. This would have enough collective voting power to push through badly needed reforms, thus addressing Corbyn's criticisms of the EU. I know this because I took part in a discussion group led by him in 2014. He was passionate about this. It was natural that he would be in the Remain camp thereafter.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

You are right, Corbyn had a long-held anti-EEC stance, mostly because he regarded it as a capitalist club,which it was. However, after Maastricht and the dawn of the EU, it became a different animal. Features, such as the Social Chapter, gradually morphed the EU into an increasingly socialistic enterprise with protection for worker rights, human rights and the environment.

When Corbyn saw that he could become leader of the Labour Party and thereby PM he developed a vision. His ambition was to become PM in an EU member state and to use that position to drive the reform of the EU from a socialist perspective. A first step would have been to create a socialist alliance of MEPs from all countries of the EU. This would have enough collective voting power to push through badly needed reforms, thus addressing Corbyn's criticisms of the EU. I know this because I took part in a discussion group led by him in 2014. He was passionate about this. It was natural that he would be in the Remain camp thereafter.

All the above sounds entirely credible and I've no reason to disbelieve you. The issue I have is he just never seemed enthusiastic about the EU during the referendum campaign. That's why I saw him as being agnostic on the issue or potentially even a closet Leaver.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

You are right, Corbyn had a long-held anti-EEC stance, mostly because he regarded it as a capitalist club,which it was. However, after Maastricht and the dawn of the EU, it became a different animal. Features, such as the Social Chapter, gradually morphed the EU into an increasingly socialistic enterprise with protection for worker rights, human rights and the environment.

When Corbyn saw that he could become leader of the Labour Party and thereby PM he developed a vision. His ambition was to become PM in an EU member state and to use that position to drive the reform of the EU from a socialist perspective. A first step would have been to create a socialist alliance of MEPs from all countries of the EU. This would have enough collective voting power to push through badly needed reforms, thus addressing Corbyn's criticisms of the EU. I know this because I took part in a discussion group led by him in 2014. He was passionate about this. It was natural that he would be in the Remain camp thereafter.

Thanks for this insight. You obviously know more from the inside than I do. I can only go on his visibly weak performance during the campaign and observations like this:

https://www.markpack.org.uk/153744/j...corbyn-brexit/

It’s also the way to understanding his views on Brexit, as those too follow a long-run and consistent approach. He is, in short, a life-long Eurosceptic:

Jeremy Corbyn voted for Britain to leave the European Economic Community (EEC) in the 1975 European referendum.

Jeremy Corbyn opposed the creation of the European Union (EU) under the Maastricht Treaty – speaking and voting against it in Parliament in 1993. During the 2016 referendum campaign, Left Leave highlighted repeated speeches he made in Parliament opposing Europe during 1993.

Jeremy Corbyn voted against the Lisbon Treaty on more than one occasion in Parliament in 2008.
In 2010, Jeremy Corbyn voted against the creation of the European Union’s diplomatic service.

Jeremy Corbyn voted for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in 2011 (breaking the Labour whip to do so).

In 2011 Jeremy Corbyn also opposed the creation of the EU’s European Stability Mechanism, which helps members of the Euro in financial difficulties. (This vote is a good example of how Corbyn votes with hardcore Euro-sceptics. Only 26 other MPs joined him in voting against, and in their number are the likes of right-wing Euro-sceptics such as Peter Bone, Douglas Carswell, Bill Cash, Ian Paisley Junior and John Redwood.)

Jeremy Corbyn opposed Britain’s participation in the EU’s Banking Authority in 2012.

In 2016 his long-time left-wing ally Tariq Ali said that he was sure that if Corbyn was not Labour leader he would be campaigning for Britain to leave the EU, whilst his brother Piers Corbyn also said that Jeremy Corbyn was privately opposed to Britain’s membership of the European Union.

Jeremy Corbyn went on holiday during the 2016 referendum campaign and his office staff consistently undermined the Remain campaign. He refused to attend a key Remain campaign launch and also attacked government ministers for publicising the Remain case, saying they should also have promoted arguments in favour of Leave vote. The Director of the Remain campaign, himself a Labour member and candidate, said, “Rather than making a clear and passionate Labour case for EU membership, Corbyn took a week’s holiday in the middle of the campaign and removed pro-EU lines from his speeches”. During the referendum campaign, Leave.EU highlighted Corbyn’s attacks on Europe made in 1996.

The day after the European referendum in 2016, Jeremy Corbyn called for the immediate invocation of Article 50 – the two-year notice to leave the EU – much quicker than even Theresa May wanted.

In December 2016, Jeremy Corbyn voted in Parliament in favour of the UK leaving the EU and for the process to start no later than 31 March 2017.

Jeremy Corbyn three times voted in February 2017 in favour of the Prime Minister starting the process of leaving the European Union.

During the 2017 general election, the independent Channel 4 Factcheck service found very little difference between Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May over Europe.

In the summer of 2017, Jeremy Corbyn opposed Britain remaining in the Single Market. He even sacked from his team Labour MPs who voted in favour of membership of the Single Market.

In 2018, Jeremy Corbyn said he would try to make Brexit go ahead even if Labour won a general election before it happened.

In February 2019, Jeremy Corbyn set out how he was ready to back Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

In March 2019, writing in the Daily Mirror, Jeremy Corbyn repeated his support for Brexit, saying, “I will continue to reach out to get a decent Brexit deal”.

As the Labour Leave group wrote about Jeremy Corbyn in April 2016:

"Corbyn is a well known Eurosceptic, who voted against membership in 1975, voted against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, and voted against the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. Given his views he has made a number of strongly anti-EU comments over the years."

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

All the above sounds entirely credible and I've no reason to disbelieve you. The issue I have is he just never seemed enthusiastic about the EU during the referendum campaign. That's why I saw him as being agnostic on the issue or potentially even a closet Leaver.

Corbyn spent more time campaigning for Remain up and down the country than any other individual. He was tireless. He was virtually ignored by the media until the last two weeks of campaigning when Cameron and Osborne threw the towel in. By then it was too late.

[1andrew1]

Vey interesting article which covers UK's changing defence priorities. These are the EU related elements. (As always, non-subscribers should Google the headline for access)

Ukraine marks an end to Brexit illusions

The crisis hammers home the fact that the UK cannot escape its geography. Lofty dreams of reorienting British thinking with an Indo-Pacific tilt will now be subordinated as focus returns squarely to the overwhelming priority, which means recognising that the UK’s own security is inextricably linked with Europe’s....

The emergence over time of a newly militarily-equipped Germany as a major security power alongside France will change the calculations and could see Britain wielding less influence in Nato, if it cannot find a better way to work with the EU. This is even more true given the evidence of an EU ready to use its economic power for security ends. This is now a diplomatic imperative for the UK — and it also means repairing relations with France. Since the old E3 of France, Germany and the UK would be an E2+1, Britain might be better served by a quad which also includes a US, already working closely with Berlin and Paris.

https://www.ft.com/content/76614c19-...0-c7951ba2ef68

Or use 12 foot ladder…

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Vey interesting article which covers UK's changing defence priorities. These are the EU related elements. (As always, non-subscribers should Google the headline for access)


https://www.ft.com/content/76614c19-...0-c7951ba2ef68

That article is utter tripe - or worse. Why must the FT link UK's influence in NATO with Brexit or being EU members? So what - Germany is going to be "military-equipped"; what does that mean? And what shots would France/Germany call that the UK couldn't influence. Utter bollocks by the FT.

Andrew, I hope you don't subscribe to the words you quoted.