Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argumemnon said:
Here's two:

1) The EU's parliament cannot propose laws, only vote on them. That sounds far less democratic than the UK's own parliamentary system,
Click to expand...
EU laws originate from the commission. The commission has 28 commissioners put forward by the government of each country. They each have a policy area and put forward laws with are voted on by representatives of the public and governments.
I fail to see how that is less democratic than the Uk situation where ministers selected by the prime minister put forward laws which are voted on by representatives of the public and the lords and ladies of the land.

If the Uk model was in Europe the MEP with the most support would be leader and they would pick the people to lead each policy area. What you would see is people taking decisions based on political leaning rather than geographical interests.
If you care about Britain the EU model is best. If you care more about socialism or any other political ideal then the Uk model is the one to go for.
 
Argumemnon said:
Here's two:

1) The EU's parliament cannot propose laws, only vote on them. That sounds far less democratic than the UK's own parliamentary system, and leaving the EU would allow the UK to maintain a firmer grip on its own laws and regulations. I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to want to control its own legal system.
Click to expand...

Not legitimate. The UK has a parliament wether or not it's in the EU. It's not a question of either or.

Argumemnon said:
2) Within the EU, the UK cannot refuse migrants that were vetted by other EU countries. I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to want to have control over its own borders, and that has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia.
Click to expand...

That's odd, because other EU countries refuse vetted immigrants. What makes the UK special in this regard?

Argumemnon said:
It would be irresponsible to not have a plan once article 50 is invoked.
Click to expand...

So it's responsible to not let people know what they vote for and telling porkies instead?

Argumemnon said:
It wouldn't be irresponsible to not have a plan when you're only in the process of asking people whether or not they want to stay in the EU.
Click to expand...

And that's still not what the leave campaign were doing, no matter how many times you repeat it.
 
Argumemnon said:
Here's two:

1) The EU's parliament cannot propose laws, only vote on them. That sounds far less democratic than the UK's own parliamentary system, and leaving the EU would allow the UK to maintain a firmer grip on its own laws and regulations. I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to want to control its own legal system.

2) Within the EU, the UK cannot refuse migrants that were vetted by other EU countries. I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to want to have control over its own borders, and that has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia.
Click to expand...

1. Doesn't sound any less, let alone far less, democratic to me. If anything it sounds like a system that allows the democratically elected governments of each member state to have greater influence on the laws being developed at EU level. Where do the UK laws originate from? The House of Commons? Not really. They are developed by the Government departments responsible and then voted on in the Commons and the unelected Lords.

2. Not quite sure what you are getting at. The UK can refuse people if they have good reason to. What is the concern that you have over not being able to refuse entry? One that isn't based on xenophobia and racism of course.
 
Argumemnon said:
.........Let me ask you a question, then: were you in favour of Remain from the beginning? If you were, your comment there might be due to you focusing on Remain arguments and characterisations of the Leave arguments. I was undecided right up to the end of the day on the 23rd, so I heard arguments from both sides.
Click to expand...

Me too. The day before, to be fair, but the same principle. Those suffering apoplexy at straightforward answers which don't suit their views on the matter may well have spent the campaign living and breathing confirmation bias. That some people listened to both sides, thought the whole question was quite finely balanced with good arguments on both sides just doesn't compute with some. With all the invective coming from the Remain posters on here, well, the ones I can see anyway, I'm pretty confident that most minds were made up prior to the campaign.
 
abaddon said:
Wait, what? Remain is exactly the status quo. How do we not have a real live model of that?
Click to expand...

The Don means that in say 5 years time we won't have a Remain version of the economy to directly compare with a Leave version. To make a valid comparison we'll have to take a stab at how well the economy would have been performing if we had stayed in the EU.
 
Francesca R said:
Are you claiming that the Remain campaign did not lie?

This is yes or no.

You apparently have terrible problems with yes or no . . . .
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were the lord of conversation here.

No.

I'm claiming exactly what I said that I am claiming in the post you quoted. Shouldn't be difficult for you to decypher.
 
There were actually two Brexit plans:

(1) BJ was going to dethrone someone and celebrate by jerking his head around even more idiotically in front of cameras and mikes.
(2) Nigel, or to use his full title, that punk Nigel, was going to goose step around town and stare down brownies.

BJ may have been done in, but Nigel is out there thumbing it at everyone. So, about 50% of the achievable easy goals have been met.

...Oh, you mean actual plans for the country? To quote the Queen, "Oh, please."
 
MikeG said:
That some people listened to both sides, thought the whole question was quite finely balanced with good arguments on both sides just doesn't compute with some..
Click to expand...

No. That some people listened to both sides, claim there were sound arguments on both sides and yet decline to provide them while repeatedly insisting that they are there does not compute.

That some people won't even admit which side of the argument they agree with is even more amusing.
 
Argumemnon said:
were you in favour of Remain from the beginning?
Click to expand...
I was, yes. Since the prospect of a referendum first came up (2013). Not that you asked me.

The leave campaign never really gave me any argument to evaluate. Particularly not immigration. I would fault (and have faulted) the remain campaign for agreeing that immigration was something that was a cost and should be brought down. And for stating that fiscal policy would have to be contractionary on a leave vote when it was pretty obvious it would have to be the opposite on the basis of all precedents (even if the precedents aren't similar). And for basically saying that staying in the EU was the least bad of two bad options.

I don't think the campaign was edifying on either side to be honest. Actually to be more accurate it was a load of crap.
 
Francesca R said:
I was, yes. Since the prospect of a referendum first came up (2013). Not that you asked me.

The leave campaign never really gave me any argument to evaluate. Particularly not immigration. I would fault (and have faulted) the remain campaign for agreeing that immigration was something that was a cost and should be brought down. And for stating that fiscal policy would have to be contractionary on a leave vote when it was pretty obvious it would have to be the opposite on the basis of all precedents (even if the precedents aren't similar). And for basically saying that staying in the EU was the least bad of two bad options.

I don't think the campaign was edifying on either side to be honest. Actually to be more accurate it was a load of crap.
Click to expand...

Do you think if the remain campaign had tried to present immigration as a positive it would have been successful? (Successful in the sense of making more people vote remain, not necessarily enough for remain to win)
I dont really have an idea, but based on the many vox pops on the BBC I suspect not.
 
MikeG said:
That some people listened to both sides, thought the whole question was quite finely balanced with good arguments on both sides just doesn't compute with some.
Click to expand...
Correct. I would understand it if they could give coherent reasons why it was balanced and what good arguments came from leave. I didn't hear any, and no-one who apparently did can provide any. You admit you don't have one, your main reason is niche. A bit like me wanting to leave the UK and move to Afghanistan because Prince Philip said something racist.
 
The Don said:
Riiiight, so economic models are reliable enough to demonstrate that Brexit was an economic triumph but are so unreliable that they cannot be used to demonstrate the economic consequences of Brexit in advance. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am talking about in 5 years time taking an projected view of where the economy would have been had we remained in the EU. There are 5 years of world events and such that we have no idea about now that will have an effect on the economy. Surely we can take an educated guess, or at least qualified people will be able to. Then we can compare the actual real state of the economy at that point in 5 years time, to what might have been had we Remained.

Perhaps events will be too complicated and we'll never be able to know.

Economic models are, imo, like weather forecasts. Close to correct in the short term, very unreliable in the long term.

I have always maintained that the good from Brexit is long term (10-20+years away) and for that timeframe economic models are unreliable to the point of useless.

I believed the economists and so on predicting recession and uncertainty in the short term. I don't care so much about the short term.
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
Do you think if the remain campaign had tried to present immigration as a positive it would have been successful? (Successful in the sense of making more people vote remain, not necessarily enough for remain to win)......
Click to expand...

I really don't think so. I suspect that the sort of people who had immigration as their highest priority in their voting decision-making process were most unlikely to be listening to any arguments that Remain made. In much the same way that people who had economics as their only priority were unlikely to be listening to any Leave arguments.
 
Lothian said:
Please explain what the leave campaign promises were if they were not ....er.....promises of action.
Click to expand...

Campaign promises are campaign promises.

They are the half truths and exaggerations etc that politicians tell you to try to win your vote.

Saying "We will do X" does not in any way mean that they know how to go about actually doing X or that they have planned in advance how X might be achieved.

They damn well should have had a plan, and I hope that there are teams of civil servants scrambling like **** as I type to work out a sensible plan. While the Tories work out who the new PM who's going to be they have a window of a month or so to work out the outline.
 
Ambrosia said:
I have always maintained that the good from Brexit is long term (10-20+years away) and for that timeframe economic models are unreliable to the point of useless.
Click to expand...
So what is your opinion based on? Mindless optimisation or on particular changes that you think will make life better. If the latter what specificly do you see being different?
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
Do you think if the remain campaign had tried to present immigration as a positive it would have been successful? (Successful in the sense of making more people vote remain, not necessarily enough for remain to win)
I dont really have an idea, but based on the many vox pops on the BBC I suspect not.
Click to expand...
I think so (it would make remain look more attractive) but would have required a large U-turn on the part of may campaign leaders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom