'EU' includes Euratom and Galileo, to name but two of many. I doubt if 1% of 'leave' voters had even heard of them and now our nuke supplies and GPS are under threat. Twats.
Last edited:
- Status
'EU' includes Euratom and Galileo, to name but two of many. I doubt if 1% of 'leave' voters had even heard of them and now our nuke supplies and GPS are under threat. Twats.
jeremyp
Philosopher
Perhaps you’d like to articulate what the importance of being able to make your own decisions as a country actually is. Can you explain the country is the most relevant level of government and not the continent or the county or the town or the street or the house?
My experience of Brexit is that I am losing a number of rights with respect to being able to travel and work freely where I like plus all our former allies in Europe are now our enemies. Furthermore, our government seems to want to repeal the Human Rights Act and a lot of EU employee protection. It seems to me that I personally am doing nothing but lose out of this.
This country that you apply special significance to was created by force. England was unified by the sword. Wales was annexed by the sword. Northern Ireland was annexed by the sword. Scotland was annexed by law but the governments of the day were not governments of the people and the main motivation appears to have been greed.
So tell me, what is your objection
ddt
Mafia Penguin
That's because Boris promised them they could have their cake and eat it too.
jeremyp
Philosopher
I think Boris has always known that Brexit would be a cluster ****. Look at his face in video on the day after the vote: he is not a happy bunny. I’m sure his plan was to support leave to build up a base from which to challenge for the leadership of the party. Unfortunately, he can’t publicly change his position without destroying what credibility he still has.
In which case, if it's that important to you, you should never engage in any international treaties whatsoever. Any international treaty is, by definition, a constraint on national sovereignty.
For some reason Leavers have fixated on the EU as beyond the pale as far as lost sovereignty (though I'm not clear on the extent given that the UK has voted in favour of almost all EU legislation as it pertains to the UK and has obtained exemptions for pretty much everything else) but aren't worried about being members of NATO (which commits us to go to war FFS, a step beyond bendy bananas in lost sovereignty IMO) or the Geneva conventions (that significantly curtail our military options and force all kinds of obligations on us).
IMO international treaties are part of being a good neighbour on the global scale. The Brexiteers to me sound like the kind of people who want to party until 4am with loud music and all kinds of disruption and then complain when a neighbour starts vacuuming at 9am.
Not really. But they will not consider the UK as a partner and the UK (and the UK citizen) will lose any preferential treatment they might have got while Member of the EU. They will not be treated differently than Australia, the USA or Chile for instance.
I know you like your quirky humor. Here's a good one from before the referendum, predicting what will happen after a leave vote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ne...ally-change-Britain-much-at-first-anyway.html
ddt
Mafia Penguin
I remembered that Boris had gone AWOL the whole long weekend after the referendum. But you mean this video, where he's leaving his house? You wouldn't be a happy clam either when there's so many people protesting out your door.
Whatever he may have thought, he consciously became the head of the Leave campaign, and more importantly, when he was the Torygraph correspondent in Brussels, 1989-1994, he kickstarted the whole genre of fake news about EU regulations. The least you guys can do if you ever want to return to the EU is to impale the guy and livestream the process.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Mid
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,123
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 69,539
Easy
Brexit means we close the borders to Europe. We don't want any of their cars, wine, cheese, salami, clothes, white goods, medical technology and certainly not any of their citizens.
From that same article:
How about?
ETA: And the piece by David Davis in the week before he
https://www.conservativehome.com/pl...0-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html
Actually that whole article is good for some black comedy
Last edited:
So you don't really care who makes the rules by which you live as long as you can travel?
The emphasis was on trade, with "closer union" being within the area of trade.
Can you explain why it shouldn't be? The UK has existed as a political entity for a fair amount of time, and has generally made decisions to the benefit of the constituents. Whilst there are always minorities who are dissatisfied with the level of control, so far they haven't been sufficiently numerous to cause a split at whatever level they feel appropriate, apart for Eire of course
Personally, I have confidence in the UK as the most appropriate level of government for the UK, whilst I have little confidence that decisions made at a continental level by whatever EU majority concensus exists at the time will be to the benefit of the UK, and may well be to the disbenefit of the UK.
People travelled and worked in Europe before the EU. True, you had to ask first, so yes it's likely to be more onerous, but not impossible.
The mainland European countries weren't our enemies then, they aren't now and won't be after Brexit.
I expect to find an equivalent protections enacted by the UK.
But if you really are a rootless traveller who cares little for who decides the rules you live by, then yes, you are losing out to a certain extent.
Indeed it was, so what? you could say the same for pretty much every existing mainland European country. As I pointed out above, it's been a fairly effective partnership, and better than being governed by the whole of Western Europe.
It's simply a matter of being able to leave. The UK could leave NATO, it could even reneg on the Geneva conventions, though I can't imagine a situation where that would be implemented. International treaties obviously involve cooperation and compromise, and so far so good, but they also include the ability to leave if the terms become too onerous for whatever reason. Ever closer union within the EU would inevitably eventually involve losing that ability, and that is what I call loss of sovereignty.
Please provide evidence for this.
Alternatively: If you believe that it is self-evident that the british public is incapable of understanding what a referendum is about, then what is the point of having one?
The UK is constitutionally unable to enact anything equivalent.
I doubt this would have any effect. Acts contrary to the conventions would mostly (or completely?) count as crimes against humanity. Should it ever come to a prosecution on such grounds, whether or not the UK had offically repealed the conventions would be irrelevant.
And yet parliament makes its own decisions all the time, except you know when the Brexiteers keep trying to short circuit the democratic process.
"Record numbers of nurses and midwives from EU27 countries quit Britain last year, fuelling fears that a Brexit brain drain will deepen the NHS’s already chronic staffing crisis.
A total of 3,962 such staff from the European Economic Area (EEA) left the Nursing and Midwifery Council register between 2017 and 2018. The register tracks who is eligible to work in those areas of healthcare in the UK.
The number of departures was 28% more than the 3,081 who left in 2016-17 and three times higher than the 1,311 who did so in 2013-14, the first year the NMC began keeping data on such departures. "
Entirely predictable, but was it made clear that 'leave' might have this kind of effect? I can't recall that happening.
A total of 3,962 such staff from the European Economic Area (EEA) left the Nursing and Midwifery Council register between 2017 and 2018. The register tracks who is eligible to work in those areas of healthcare in the UK.
The number of departures was 28% more than the 3,081 who left in 2016-17 and three times higher than the 1,311 who did so in 2013-14, the first year the NMC began keeping data on such departures. "
Entirely predictable, but was it made clear that 'leave' might have this kind of effect? I can't recall that happening.
If something bad could be predicted as a result of Brexit, you can bet project fear predicted it. They predicted so many bad things that you've most likely just forgotten the 'no nurses or doctors' prediction. It doesn't matter whether or not something was entirely predictable - they predicted lots of stuff that hasn't and won't happen - the only criteria was that the public would perceive the prediction as bad, preferably frightening.
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
Loss of sovereignty and self-determination to foreign interests (or hoards of immigrants) isn't a fear-based argumemt?
One can only invoke disdain for tactics of fear at the risk of hypocrisy in this case.
Regardless, post-script analysis of campaign claims is useless point scoring this late in the process. How to adjust to the "new normal" ought to be a much higher priority.
One can only invoke disdain for tactics of fear at the risk of hypocrisy in this case.
Regardless, post-script analysis of campaign claims is useless point scoring this late in the process. How to adjust to the "new normal" ought to be a much higher priority.
That's over and done with. Anything bad that does happen is a result of the vote and the incompetence of the government in implementing it. And even if crypto-remainers within government are influencing the process then they're steering it towards a hard, no-deal Brexit, whether they intend to or not.
Your position makes zero sense. 'Project Fear' isn't causing and won't cause the negative outcomes. Blaming it all on Project Fear is your way of escaping (your very small part of) the responsibility.
What is the "new normal"?
- Status