Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeG said:
Not only that, but because there is a cabinet and shadow cabinet at the time of a national election, one has a fairly good idea of who the cabinet ministers will be. I doubt anyone has ever had any idea who an incoming government would nominate as an EU commissioner.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we can assume that given the upcoming election of a new party leader by the Tories and therefore a new Prime Minister that we have any idea of what their cabinets might look like.
 
Look, this shouldn't be a topic that invites so much personalisation. To summarise:

A) The people of the UK have the right for self-determination. If they decide that the EU is no longer favourable for them, for whatever reason, then they should have the ability to vote to leave, especially since they are already a sovereign nation. But the two reasons that I find compelling are:

1) That the EU's democratic system is unsatisfactory.

2) That the UK should have a greater control over its laws and regulations, and immigration policies.

None of this is controversial, unjustified or illigitemate, and insisting that they are caused by ignorance and xenophobia is foolish, and shows an unwillingness to understand other people's viewpoints and reasoning.

I wanted to discuss these reasons and the future of the UK and EU following the vote, but that seems impossible because most posters have already made up their mind, cannot abide by differing opinions, and appear to need to dismiss the opposition rather than engage them in civil debate.
 
MCel58 said:
I wonder if we can assume that given the upcoming election of a new party leader by the Tories and therefore a new Prime Minister that we have any idea of what their cabinets might look like.
Click to expand...

You appreciate that the context of my post was in relation to elections? There is no upcoming election.
 
Argumemnon said:
Look, this shouldn't be a topic that invites so much personalisation. To summarise:

A) The people of the UK have the right for self-determination. If they decide that the EU is no longer favourable for them, for whatever reason, then they should have the ability to vote to leave, especially since they are already a sovereign nation. But the two reasons that I find compelling are:

1) That the EU's democratic system is unsatisfactory.

2) That the UK should have a greater control over its laws and regulations, and immigration policies.

None of this is controversial, unjustified or illigitemate, and insisting that they are caused by ignorance and xenophobia is foolish, and shows an unwillingness to understand other people's viewpoints and reasoning.

I wanted to discuss these reasons and the future of the UK and EU following the vote, but that seems impossible because most posters have already made up their mind, cannot abide by differing opinions, and appear to need to dismiss the opposition rather than engage them in civil debate.
Click to expand...

Hear hear......
 
Argumemnon said:
None of this is controversial, unjustified or illigitemate, and insisting that they are caused by ignorance and xenophobia is foolish, and shows an unwillingness to understand other people's viewpoints and reasoning.
Click to expand...

Actually point 1 is all three, seeing as EU is at least as democratic as the UK, yet you don't take an issue with that.

Point 2 is meaningless unless you can specify in which laws EU is a hindrance, and how should the things stand.

I wanted to discuss these reasons and the future of the UK and EU following the vote
Click to expand...

The evidence of that is sorely lacking.

McHrozni
 
Argumemnon said:
Look, this shouldn't be a topic that invites so much personalisation. To summarise:

A) The people of the UK have the right for self-determination. If they decide that the EU is no longer favourable for them, for whatever reason, then they should have the ability to vote to leave, especially since they are already a sovereign nation. But the two reasons that I find compelling are:

1) That the EU's democratic system is unsatisfactory.

2) That the UK should have a greater control over its laws and regulations, and immigration policies.

None of this is controversial, unjustified or illigitemate, and insisting that they are caused by ignorance and xenophobia is foolish, and shows an unwillingness to understand other people's viewpoints and reasoning.

I wanted to discuss these reasons and the future of the UK and EU following the vote, but that seems impossible because most posters have already made up their mind, cannot abide by differing opinions, and appear to need to dismiss the opposition rather than engage them in civil debate.
Click to expand...

Nobody has questioned that the UK can vote to leave the EU if it wants to. What has been questioned is the soundness of the reason for wanting to.

Both of your 'compelling reasons' are in fact controversial and so far unjustified because you have not, as yet, justified them. All you have done is repeatedly assert them.

The arguments were not called ignorant or xenophobic because they were disagreed with they were called ignorant because they demonstrated a lack of understanding of the topic (you at first insisted Serbia could determine UK law then changed it to Poland) and have failed to adjust your reasoning when shown to be incorrect. They were called xenophobic because they painted foreigners as somehow 'risky' and you refused to specify exactly what you meant.

If you wanted to discuss the reasons then please do so. You've been asked several times to expand or clarify and refuse to do so and merely insult those who disagree.

Charging in to a conversation, demonstrating your ignorance and then insisting everyone else is wrong and can't discuss things properly is not conducive to reasoned debate.

Can we agree that Serbia cannot determine UK law?
Can we agree that Poland cannot determine UK law?
Can we agree that the Lords is unelected as are cabinet and the civil servants who write the laws and the party members who determine what is policy and isn't?
Can we agree that the UK is able to refuse entry to anyone if they have a compelling reason to?

These are all simple statements of fact and should not even be the topic of discussion let alone debate.
 
Lothian said:
Everytime there is a change of Government the defence minister and commissioner changes.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works.
The Commissioners change when there's a new EU Parliament, so after the EU elections.
So the UK Commissioner is chosen by whoever is in power at that time.
 
Argumemnon said:
Look, this shouldn't be a topic that invites so much personalisation. To summarise:

A) The people of the UK have the right for self-determination. If they decide that the EU is no longer favourable for them, for whatever reason, then they should have the ability to vote to leave, especially since they are already a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...
Of course people can vote to leave. However people should not be forced to change their minds because they are in the slight minority. In UK politics the losing parties in General elections and their supporters carry on pushing their agenda until the next General election. Pro-EU voters should similarly be allowed to point out where Brexit fails and where EU membership offers a better option.

But the two reasons that I find compelling are:

1) That the EU's democratic system is unsatisfactory.

2) That the UK should have a greater control over its laws and regulations, and immigration policies.

None of this is controversial, unjustified or illigitemate, and insisting that they are caused by ignorance and xenophobia is foolish, and shows an unwillingness to understand other people's viewpoints and reasoning.
Click to expand...
These are both controversial as others have said. To suggest that the only way these reasons have been criticised is by labelling you ignorant and xenophobic is wrong. You have had pointed out how the UK system is far less Representative and democratic than that of the EU.

With regard to the second point do you agree that London should have a greater control over its laws and regulations, and the ability to limit non-Londoners entry into the capital?
Similarly do you agree that Cleveland should have a greater control over its laws and regulations, and the ability to limit entry of non residents into the region?

If you do and you support independence for those two areas then fine. If not, l see an inconsistency in this particular argument and wonder how you can explain the difference.

I wanted to discuss these reasons and the future of the UK and EU following the vote, but that seems impossible because most posters have already made up their mind, cannot abide by differing opinions, and appear to need to dismiss the opposition rather than engage them in civil debate.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a mirror might be useful at this point.
 
Members of the UK cabinet are (usually) elected. We don't get to vote for which MP gets which cabinet post, but at least the MP has to be elected to parliament first.

EU commissioners are appointed and may never have stood for any election in their entire lives. Our current UK EU commissioner is such a person.

I admit that a member of the UK cabinet need not be elected either - they could be unelected members of the House of Lords, though this hasn't happened so often recently.

And, of course, with our first past the post voting system, being elected to a safe seat doesn't mean much. Voters in a safe Tory seat would vote for a dustbin if you pinned a Tory rosette on it.
 
ceptimus said:
Members of the UK cabinet are (usually) elected. We don't get to vote for which MP gets which cabinet post, but at least the MP has to be elected to parliament first.

EU commissioners are appointed and may never have stood for any election in their entire lives. Our current UK EU commissioner is such a person.

I admit that a member of the UK cabinet need not be elected either - they could be unelected members of the House of Lords, though this hasn't happened so often recently.

And, of course, with our first past the post voting system, being elected to a safe seat doesn't mean much. Voters in a safe Tory seat would vote for a dustbin if you pinned a Tory rosette on it.
Click to expand...

Members of the cabinet are only elected by their constituency voters (and perhaps even only a minority of them). And not to the post, which is important.

So only 35,000 people in Maidenhead voted for Theresa May and on the back of that she is able to dictate to the entire country (and beyond) what our immigration policy is (for example)? Is it right that the people of Maidenhead get to dictate to the entire UK whether they can allow Chinese people to live there? The people of Maidenhead don't have the same culture as me or the same concerns or interests as me after all.

And now those same 35,000 people plus a few more get to determine who the PM is and thus what the entire Brexit deal will now be.

And if I don't like her policies what can I do to change it? Nothing.

(Just to be clear, the above is not strictly my view but just a highlighting of how the 'principles' at play seem to be based on double standards)
 
McHrozni said:
Actually point 1 is all three, seeing as EU is at least as democratic as the UK, yet you don't take an issue with that.
Click to expand...

I disagree that this is the case, which is why I don't take issue with it.

Point 2 is meaningless unless you can specify in which laws EU is a hindrance, and how should the things stand.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You are conflating discussing the principle of self-determination with discussing specific problems with particular laws or regulations. I am talking about the former, and you are requesting me to support the latter.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Both of your 'compelling reasons' are in fact controversial and so far unjustified because you have not, as yet, justified them.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that this means that you are opposed to the idea of national self-determination? That you think it is not a justifiable concern?

Lothian said:
Of course people can vote to leave. However people should not be forced to change their minds because they are in the slight minority.
Click to expand...

No one said they had to change their minds, but they have to accept the result of the democratic process, unless you are somehow opposed to that process.

These are both controversial as others have said.
Click to expand...

Once again: if self-determination is controversial, then it stands to reason that one side of the argument is opposed to the idea of self-determination.

To suggest that the only way these reasons have been criticised is by labelling you ignorant and xenophobic is wrong.
Click to expand...

No, that's exactly how the conversation has gone so far.

With regard to the second point do you agree that London should have a greater control over its laws and regulations, and the ability to limit non-Londoners entry into the capital?
Click to expand...

London is not a country.

Perhaps a mirror might be useful at this point.
Click to expand...

Support that with citations, please: show where I've engaged in such behaviour here.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Scotland will still be in the EU so we'll be fine, thanks ;)
Click to expand...
A good point.
Is there any distinctly "English" food of value?

MikeG said:
Completely neutral non-snidey comment this, but I would be interested in hearing some feedback from you about his/ her thoughts regarding the suggestion we are talking about, and also on any other possible ways of getting through the absolute mountain of civil service work that Brexit will entail. The guy I listed to on R4 the other day said there was 5 years work for the civil service in doing this, assuming they gave no time to any other work at all....unless they went for the option of enshrining everything into UK law first, and then weeding out the stuff the politicians didn't want retained.
Click to expand...
A quick summary would be "Hah, ha, thank **** it's not us."
He's Irish.
 
Francesca R said:
You think that Osborne-Cameron told the truth about taxes rising and spending being cut after a leave vote? Which Osborne then ruled out on Monday 27th. <snip>
Click to expand...
For the moment.
I notice you haven't cited any other supposed lies

Francesca R said:
Are you actually on a mission to try to show that the Remain camp did nothing nowhere no-time wrong? How spectacularly silly.
Click to expand...
Again, where are the lies you claim were told by the Remain advocates?
 
Darat said:
Problem is of course that Osbourne deliberately phrases this in a way that he knows will be misunderstood by the folk who don't pay that much attention they will have heard "lower debt".
Click to expand...
It's almost as if he was some sort of politician.
:eek:
 
MikeG said:
I have 7. I can only name 2, and I'm very interested in politics. You have 4, so your task is much easier. So yes, not being able to name your MEPs, plural, is likely to be for very different reasons than not being able to name your MP.
Click to expand...
Meh, I can name all my TDs and MEPs and have been able to back several decades. I've known several of them well, one was a neighbour, the son of another married my sister.
 
McHrozni said:
Yeah, that's depressingly true. One of the greatest arguments against democracy is a ten minute talk with the average voter. Certainly direct democracy - so commonly assumed to be more democratic than representative democracy - would truly be miserable failure, for another century at least.
Click to expand...
Hence my interest in alternate systems, such as multiple votes. Something to compensate for the stupidity and ignorance of the average voter.

McHrozni said:
The conundrum UK is in now is rather painful. It's fairly clear the rest of EU has started to work on it's plans to pry away as much a British finance and other economy as possible, whereas the UK doesn't even know what kind of a deal it ultimately wants and is unlikely to get to an agreement on it anytime soon.
Click to expand...
:) Oh yes, the knives are being sharpened, office space is being scouted, quite conversations are being had.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom