News3 mins ago
Revoke Brexit On Day One......
101 Answers
https:/
Well I do admire the clarity of our non dem friends but as we know there will not be an election before Halloween I assume she means she'll apply to rejoin in the unlikely even they get elected.
Well I do admire the clarity of our non dem friends but as we know there will not be an election before Halloween I assume she means she'll apply to rejoin in the unlikely even they get elected.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, I accept all that, but it's possible to reflect on a promise made and decide that perhaps it was a bad promise to make. cynical though it undoubtedly is. And besides, in the scenario we are talking about, at least 300 of the MPs making the decision to revoke would be entirely new MPs who had played no part in the earlier decision.
All of this comes about because the detail matters. It's no answer to say that "no deal" is the default when it, according to virtually every study, is going to be extremely disruptive and damaging; it is an entirely rational course of action to seek to avoid it -- and indeed that's the path that Boris Johnson and his current cabinet are at least claiming to follow. So if you reject the Withdrawal Agreement, which is also quite rational, then you need to come up with a plausible withdrawal that commands the support of (a) the EU, (b) Parliament, and (c) the country. In that order.
Perhaps Johnson will achieve this. More likely he will not. But a referendum that had nothing to say on the detail must, at some point, confront that. This goes back to the point about promise: the government, we were assured, would implement our decision. But that cannot have meant scribbling "Brexit brexit brexit" and regarding this as the end of the matter.
All of this comes about because the detail matters. It's no answer to say that "no deal" is the default when it, according to virtually every study, is going to be extremely disruptive and damaging; it is an entirely rational course of action to seek to avoid it -- and indeed that's the path that Boris Johnson and his current cabinet are at least claiming to follow. So if you reject the Withdrawal Agreement, which is also quite rational, then you need to come up with a plausible withdrawal that commands the support of (a) the EU, (b) Parliament, and (c) the country. In that order.
Perhaps Johnson will achieve this. More likely he will not. But a referendum that had nothing to say on the detail must, at some point, confront that. This goes back to the point about promise: the government, we were assured, would implement our decision. But that cannot have meant scribbling "Brexit brexit brexit" and regarding this as the end of the matter.
//...then you need to come up with a plausible withdrawal that commands the support of (a) the EU, (b) Parliament, and (c) the country. In that order.//
I rather thought that I was a free citizen. And that MPs sat in Parliament at my gift. And that European sots ought have no jurisdiction over me.
I thought your own speciality was high energy physics which I (such as I know about these things) suggests applied rather than theoretical. But where did servility fit in?
I rather thought that I was a free citizen. And that MPs sat in Parliament at my gift. And that European sots ought have no jurisdiction over me.
I thought your own speciality was high energy physics which I (such as I know about these things) suggests applied rather than theoretical. But where did servility fit in?
// I rather thought that I was a free citizen. And that MPs sat in Parliament at my gift. And that European sots ought have no jurisdiction over me. //
It's not about jurisdiction. Any future of the UK in or out of the EU still will be based on a mutual relationship with the EU, so, by definition, you will need to reach an agreement with them. More to the point, the EU doesn't negotiate with Parliament, but with the executive. As is perfectly proper, of course. Just as in our proposed future trade deals we would negotiate with the leaders of other countries, not their legislatures.
So you need the agreement of the EU on any future relationship. Then that agreement will need to be put to Parliament for ratification -- if nothing else because this is now mandated in law, per the EU (Withdraw) Act 2018. Yes, MPs sit on behalf of the people, but it is they who pass laws, not us.
So you need the agreement of the EU, and then of Parliament. And finally, Parliament will either directly or indirectly be accountable to the people for the agreement they support: directly in an election, or indirectly in a ratifying referendum.
This is the practical but more to the point the only way through the mess. It doesn't undermine your status as a free citizen. It's literally how democracies work, and always have worked.
I'm blessed if I know what physics has to do with any of this. Would that politics were as easy as that. And physics is impossible.
It's not about jurisdiction. Any future of the UK in or out of the EU still will be based on a mutual relationship with the EU, so, by definition, you will need to reach an agreement with them. More to the point, the EU doesn't negotiate with Parliament, but with the executive. As is perfectly proper, of course. Just as in our proposed future trade deals we would negotiate with the leaders of other countries, not their legislatures.
So you need the agreement of the EU on any future relationship. Then that agreement will need to be put to Parliament for ratification -- if nothing else because this is now mandated in law, per the EU (Withdraw) Act 2018. Yes, MPs sit on behalf of the people, but it is they who pass laws, not us.
So you need the agreement of the EU, and then of Parliament. And finally, Parliament will either directly or indirectly be accountable to the people for the agreement they support: directly in an election, or indirectly in a ratifying referendum.
This is the practical but more to the point the only way through the mess. It doesn't undermine your status as a free citizen. It's literally how democracies work, and always have worked.
I'm blessed if I know what physics has to do with any of this. Would that politics were as easy as that. And physics is impossible.
It's not my principal concern. It's just necessarily the first step. And, ironically, it's precisely because nations are sovereign that it's the first step. We aren't the only sovereign nation in play here. You can't come to an agreement on a future relationship with France, Germany, etc, if they don't also agree.
//It's not my principal concern//
I think it's sad that you and I couldn't agree on the central concern of our shared country, Jim.
That's one of our many differences, in't it? You (like Socrates) are a citzen of of the world. Unfortunately a man of more limited sentiments like me knows only one home. And when that home has been taken over by the replacement cultures I'm minus a home, aren't I?
No problem for a citizen of the world like you. When my home is lost in the scramble for Europe, where might I then go? Got a destination for me?
As a a citizen of the world there's (how do I put it?) a whole world out there. Which bit of of it will give me a decent home?
I think it's sad that you and I couldn't agree on the central concern of our shared country, Jim.
That's one of our many differences, in't it? You (like Socrates) are a citzen of of the world. Unfortunately a man of more limited sentiments like me knows only one home. And when that home has been taken over by the replacement cultures I'm minus a home, aren't I?
No problem for a citizen of the world like you. When my home is lost in the scramble for Europe, where might I then go? Got a destination for me?
As a a citizen of the world there's (how do I put it?) a whole world out there. Which bit of of it will give me a decent home?
Whether or not I'm a "citizen of the world" has nothing to do with it. Pragmatism and common sense should tell you that the UK's future will be intrinsically tied to the future of its closest neighbours. So it is in everybody's interests that we both agree to a deal of some nature.* But sovereign states work with each other through the executive first. So any deal will be agreed with the EU before it is agreed with Parliament. That's all I'm saying. That's nothing at all to do with whether or not I see myself as a citizen of the world.
*Even if you accept a No Deal outcome in the short term, it can still be only a stopping point on the route to finding a deal.
*Even if you accept a No Deal outcome in the short term, it can still be only a stopping point on the route to finding a deal.
OK, Jim.
I loved visiting Frnce both as a tourist and by way of work.
This is an honest question which I think you will struggle with to reply in kind. (I voted for Brexit on the basis of national sovereignty, not because I hate any class off European, and the imputation by AB low-life that I do does such low-life little credit, Jim, don't you agree?)
My question is that don't the UK and the EU want to leave as friends? OK, more realistically, this is a divorce, but don't we still want to leave on good terms rather than fractious ones?
Describe to me what I've seen in the last three years, Jim. It's not Kramer v Kramer stuff, is it?
I loved visiting Frnce both as a tourist and by way of work.
This is an honest question which I think you will struggle with to reply in kind. (I voted for Brexit on the basis of national sovereignty, not because I hate any class off European, and the imputation by AB low-life that I do does such low-life little credit, Jim, don't you agree?)
My question is that don't the UK and the EU want to leave as friends? OK, more realistically, this is a divorce, but don't we still want to leave on good terms rather than fractious ones?
Describe to me what I've seen in the last three years, Jim. It's not Kramer v Kramer stuff, is it?
//My question is that don't the UK and the EU want to leave as friends? OK, more realistically, this is a divorce, but don't we still want to leave on good terms rather than fractious ones?//
Yes we do, but....
https:/
Yes we do, but....
https:/
Jim, //I have the gall to talk about democracy because we still live in one.//
Clearly we don’t. One look at the recent performance our once great ‘Mother of all Parliaments’ should tell you that.
Jim’s not a citizen of the world. He wants to confine himself and this country to the stifling grip of the EU, and hold the rest of the world at bay.
Clearly we don’t. One look at the recent performance our once great ‘Mother of all Parliaments’ should tell you that.
Jim’s not a citizen of the world. He wants to confine himself and this country to the stifling grip of the EU, and hold the rest of the world at bay.
Further to leaving on "good terms", & spoken by a non UK citizen the US ambassador to London Woody Johnson, who has declared: “The people who built the greatest empire, the people who held off the Nazis, who contributed so much to the progress of mankind, you can go down a long list — they don’t need a lecture from anybody on how to run their country, and that includes Brussels.”
& certainly not by a idiotic representative of a tiny EU tax-haven.
& certainly not by a idiotic representative of a tiny EU tax-haven.
We very transparently do still live in a democracy, and I don't view being in the EU as confining, but apart from that you're entirely correct Naomi.
v-e: The last three years have been fractious, granted, but at worst I'll concede that it's down to *both* parties battling for their own interest. The UK in particular keeps embracing at the highest level of Brexit supporters language that evokes a war mentality, or, in Andrew Bridgen's words, the need to "bring the EU to heel". For their part, the EU has naturally been trying to protect the integrity of the Single Market -- but then we all knew that's what they'd want to do.
But even if you deplore the methods I would still defend the idea that both sides wanted, in principle, to leave on good terms. The problem is that both sides disagree on what good terms are, and in any case -- from my point of view -- the best terms are what we'd already started with.
v-e: The last three years have been fractious, granted, but at worst I'll concede that it's down to *both* parties battling for their own interest. The UK in particular keeps embracing at the highest level of Brexit supporters language that evokes a war mentality, or, in Andrew Bridgen's words, the need to "bring the EU to heel". For their part, the EU has naturally been trying to protect the integrity of the Single Market -- but then we all knew that's what they'd want to do.
But even if you deplore the methods I would still defend the idea that both sides wanted, in principle, to leave on good terms. The problem is that both sides disagree on what good terms are, and in any case -- from my point of view -- the best terms are what we'd already started with.
jim; //in any case -- from my point of view -- the best terms are what we'd already started with.//
If only we had that, I don't think there would be anything like the current dissent. What we "started with", was called the European Economic Community not, what by stealth we now have, which is an expansionist, self-protectionist, authoritarian, supranational organisation run by incompetent un- elected bureaucrats.
If only we had that, I don't think there would be anything like the current dissent. What we "started with", was called the European Economic Community not, what by stealth we now have, which is an expansionist, self-protectionist, authoritarian, supranational organisation run by incompetent un- elected bureaucrats.
Just because you personally can't take it seriously doesn't make it objectively non-serious. I mean what I say. When I can't type with a straight face I will let you know.
The best deal for the UK is inside the EU. Subscribing to the rules while being able to influence them is infinitely preferable to subscribing to the rules with no powers at all.
The best deal for the UK is inside the EU. Subscribing to the rules while being able to influence them is infinitely preferable to subscribing to the rules with no powers at all.
I can't believe for one second that you genuinely believe all these posts you have made. Somebody else... I would take it more seriously.
I know this has nothing to do with Physics, but the irrationality is literally incredible. You seem to begin with what you personally prefer and then tie yourself up in knots, inside, outside, backwards... to try to justify it. Even you can't agree with what you are writing here...
I know this has nothing to do with Physics, but the irrationality is literally incredible. You seem to begin with what you personally prefer and then tie yourself up in knots, inside, outside, backwards... to try to justify it. Even you can't agree with what you are writing here...
I don't see anything irrational in what I'm saying. I would be grateful if, rather than merely stating it to be the case, you could point to the specific points.
But then, you (and others) have long since given up doing that, preferring merely to pretend that it's so obviously self-evident that even *I* could see it... which is no argument at all.
It is perfectly rational to believe that the UK's best future lies inside the EU, that a No Deal exit is certainly far more damaging a future than any other alternative, that referendums are not indefinitely binding, etc etc.
But then, you (and others) have long since given up doing that, preferring merely to pretend that it's so obviously self-evident that even *I* could see it... which is no argument at all.
It is perfectly rational to believe that the UK's best future lies inside the EU, that a No Deal exit is certainly far more damaging a future than any other alternative, that referendums are not indefinitely binding, etc etc.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.