|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On July 07 2016 20:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 19:16 Dan HH wrote:On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK [want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear. Is it though? I don't think Britain is an outlier because your people care more about 'sovereignty' than other EU members. But it might have something to do with the fact that British people rank dead last in knowing even the most basic things about what the EU is and does: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_publ_en.pdfAnd it definitely has something to do with the fact that no other member's media publishes as many lies about the EU, with no loss in circulation regardless of how many hundreds of claims are undeniably proven lies: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/daily-chart-15Or how about the myriad of stories like this of people thinking this vote was about muslim immigration? When according to the last Eurobarometer the UK has 48% positive / 46% negative opinion of EU migrants, but 39% positive / 55% negative opinion of non-EU migrants? http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_anx_en.pdfBut worst of all is that all the leave arguments were things that can only happen if you leave EEA, not just EU. But this referendum was only about EU and that will be used by your political class to keep you in EEA. There will never be a referendum to leave EEA. Why are we even talking about muh sovereignty and migration when at best this will get you a pass to some fishing and agricultural regulations. I'm not suggesting that there aren't legitimate reasons to leave the EU, but I don't think you're even convincing yourself that this was an informed vote rather than an emotional vote, let alone convince others.. Really most anti brexit arguments have been stupid to a point ... Another posters asked me "do you believe it's positive to work with others ?" like it's really relevant to the subject, and now your argument is "You are dumb and uninformed". Yeah most basic citizens do not understand the complicated mess that is the EU and is uninformed on it. And why is it so ? It has a lot to do with how the EU is structured, with all those acronyms for every new plan / institution and whatelse, even the separation of powers in the european union is unclear, as powers are shared between institutions rather than split like in all other state. This administrative mess is also a serious grievance towards the EU, and the lack of information / simple understading of the EU is also a reason to vote against it.
I don't understand the "lack of information" argument. You can find information about everything on the EU website.
Yes, the EU is a complicated system, which is not surprising considering that it's 28 countries working together in a democratic system that tries to avoid giving too much power to a single group. The EU still tries it's best to be as transparent as possible and it provides huge amount of information about everything it does. You just have to look for it.
|
On July 07 2016 20:46 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 20:29 WhiteDog wrote:On July 07 2016 19:16 Dan HH wrote:On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK [want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear. Is it though? I don't think Britain is an outlier because your people care more about 'sovereignty' than other EU members. But it might have something to do with the fact that British people rank dead last in knowing even the most basic things about what the EU is and does: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_publ_en.pdfAnd it definitely has something to do with the fact that no other member's media publishes as many lies about the EU, with no loss in circulation regardless of how many hundreds of claims are undeniably proven lies: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/daily-chart-15Or how about the myriad of stories like this of people thinking this vote was about muslim immigration? When according to the last Eurobarometer the UK has 48% positive / 46% negative opinion of EU migrants, but 39% positive / 55% negative opinion of non-EU migrants? http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_anx_en.pdfBut worst of all is that all the leave arguments were things that can only happen if you leave EEA, not just EU. But this referendum was only about EU and that will be used by your political class to keep you in EEA. There will never be a referendum to leave EEA. Why are we even talking about muh sovereignty and migration when at best this will get you a pass to some fishing and agricultural regulations. I'm not suggesting that there aren't legitimate reasons to leave the EU, but I don't think you're even convincing yourself that this was an informed vote rather than an emotional vote, let alone convince others.. Really most anti brexit arguments have been stupid to a point ... Another posters asked me "do you believe it's positive to work with others ?" like it's really relevant to the subject, and now your argument is "You are dumb and uninformed". Yeah most basic citizens do not understand the complicated mess that is the EU and is uninformed on it. And why is it so ? It has a lot to do with how the EU is structured, with all those acronyms for every new plan / institution and whatelse, even the separation of powers in the european union is unclear, as powers are shared between institutions rather than split like in all other state. This administrative mess is also a serious grievance towards the EU, and the lack of information / simple understading of the EU is also a reason to vote against it. I don't understand the "lack of information" argument. You can find information about everything on the EU website. Yes, the EU is a complicated system, which is not surprising considering that it's 28 countries working together in a democratic system that tries to avoid giving too much power to a single group. The EU still tries it's best to be as transparent as possible and it provides huge amount of information about everything it does. You just have to look for it.
It's not about transparency, it's about clearly defining the powers. This is really a basic things in politics ... Yeah, in a democracy, you don't need to know what everybody does because it's a completly unending process, but you need to know who is accountable for what and who has power over what.
The fact that there are four heads (and more if you count the ECB), three "president" (four with the ECB) in the union has actually been used as an argument against it by the Brexit. If you look at recent history for exemple, the power shared between the commission and the council have changed, while the treaty have not - due to the necessity to face the crisis of the euro zone. It is even acknowledge by everybody that know a little about europe that the treaty are not clear enough and that the power split between those two institutions is unclear.
So how do you expect common citizen to care about the complicated european institutions when even when you know those it stays unclear to actually clearly define who does what.
On July 07 2016 20:42 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +the lack of information / simple understading of the EU is also a reason to vote against it. No. That is a reason get off your backside and learn about it. "I don't know about something, therefore I am against it." Has it really come to this.
The institutionnalisation of a democracy, through its constitution, is a really complex matter because it needs to be efficient, to be simple enough for everybody to clearly understand the important institutions / powers and thus powers needs to split the powers to prevent the system to evolve from a democracy to something else. Those three matters are completly opposed.
Ask yourself if the european institutions defined by the Lisbon treaty are actually responding to those three objectives, rather than pointing out the stupidity of your co-citizens.
My vision :
- it's not efficient because there's too many players ;
- it's not simple, the only institution that people vote for have almost no power ;
- the power is not split.
Funnily enough I'm in the process of writting a course on europe next year. You'd love the propaganda I put in their throat.
|
a thing that is not even mentioned here, is that even if/when people get somewhat more knowledgeable about this whole EU business, they could still reject everything calling it a lie.
everything is politics and politicians lie <- true argument and since they are not privy to those backstage games, it becomes way safer to reject it all.
|
On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear.
That sounds beautiful and all patriotic etc (not being sarcastic here). But the current key issue is that we have no plans or whatsoever for brexit at all. So are we supposed to be like 'oh we will figure it out, no worries'. This is 2016.
|
@WhiteDog: which % of people even clearly understands/is interested enough about politics on a national level?
|
On July 07 2016 21:54 Uldridge wrote:
@WhiteDog: which % of people even clearly understands/is interested enough about politics on a national level?
A huge majority of the people know, in each country, who is accountable, who is in power and which institution has which power, even if they do not vote at all. Aside from that, a big 30 % of the population barely vote on most election I'd say on average.
It has a lot to do with the youth of the europe, but also with the way it has been built, with shitty ass treaty wrote by "expertz" in bullshit in a top-down manner, rather than by famous and well respected politicians from all countries.
|
On July 07 2016 21:35 BurningSera wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear. That sounds beautiful and all patriotic etc (not being sarcastic here). But the current key issue is that we have no plans or whatsoever for brexit at all. So are we supposed to be like 'oh we will figure it out, no worries'. This is 2016.
A lot of people don't understand what is happening anyways. I gave up on trying to explain stuff 
Just a little reminder:
The UK will want access to the single market.
The negotiations will end up with the UK agreeing to free movement of people & finances.
The UK will have to agree on implementing the vast majority of EU legislation.
Effectively the UK will be part of the EU with almost exactly the same responsibilities, but no darn influence on future politics/legislation whatsoever.
|
On July 07 2016 22:00 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 21:54 Uldridge wrote:
@WhiteDog: which % of people even clearly understands/is interested enough about politics on a national level? A huge majority of the people know, in each country, who is accountable, who is in power and which institution has which power, even if they do not vote at all. Aside from that, a big 30 % of the population barely vote on most election I'd say on average. It has a lot to do with the youth of the europe, but also with the way it has been built, with shitty ass treaty wrote by "expertz" in bullshit in a top-down manner, rather than by famous and well respected politicians from all countries.
Source? Most people I know don't know shit about the political system. They don't even realise thst the legislative and executive are split because our executive always comes out of the parliamentary majority.in fact a lot of people hardly know the trias politica.
|
On July 07 2016 22:12 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 22:00 WhiteDog wrote:On July 07 2016 21:54 Uldridge wrote:
@WhiteDog: which % of people even clearly understands/is interested enough about politics on a national level? A huge majority of the people know, in each country, who is accountable, who is in power and which institution has which power, even if they do not vote at all. Aside from that, a big 30 % of the population barely vote on most election I'd say on average. It has a lot to do with the youth of the europe, but also with the way it has been built, with shitty ass treaty wrote by "expertz" in bullshit in a top-down manner, rather than by famous and well respected politicians from all countries. Source? Most people I know don't know shit about the political system. They don't even realise thst the legislative and executive are split because our executive always comes out of the parliamentary majority.in fact a lot of people hardly know the trias politica.
Source for which countries ? And for what ? People barely know the details of the way their political institution function, but they can usually name who has the power (the president / the parliament). In France there are some polls : in regards to who is the president, what is the role of the parliament, people give the right answers usually.
Here is an exemple ; 96 % of the people find who is the president.
http://www.csa.eu/multimedia/data/sondages/data2002/opi20020207e.htm
|
On July 07 2016 22:05 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 21:35 BurningSera wrote:On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear. That sounds beautiful and all patriotic etc (not being sarcastic here). But the current key issue is that we have no plans or whatsoever for brexit at all. So are we supposed to be like 'oh we will figure it out, no worries'. This is 2016. A lot of people don't understand what is happening anyways. I gave up on trying to explain stuff Just a little reminder: The UK will want access to the single market. The negotiations will end up with the UK agreeing to free movement of people & finances. The UK will have to agree on implementing the vast majority of EU legislation. Effectively the UK will be part of the EU with almost exactly the same responsibilities, but no darn influence on future politics/legislation whatsoever.
Wouldn't it be like confirming reality? They have the most opt-outs and their MEPs lose most in the European Parliament. It kind of explains why Britons think the EU threatens their sovereignty. It keeps evolving in the direction they don't want and they can't stop it.
|
You mean the person the media talks about and is basically the CEO of the country? That's certainly not an impressive thing to know, and knowing that does not qualify you to make a political based decision.
If people hardly care/know how their system works on a national (I'm even thinking about scaling that claim even down to the regional level); then why would they care about an overarching political system?
You can certainly have issues with a certain situation, even if you don't have any knowledge of situation or how it came to be. You can even discuss about that situation as much as you like. However, I don't think you should decide to do something about the situation unless you at the very least have some basic knowledge about the situation to assess how it will impact the cause of the decision made.
You don't go build a bridge based on the opinion of 1000 people that quickly glanced at the blueprints of said bridge, do you?
Would you reconstruct that bridge after it's made, when it turns out it has some flaws here and there, but you have no idea how the reconstructed bridge will look, where the debris will go, if the bridge will be better, howmuch it will cost, after you've made your claims for bridge reconstruction to those same 1000 people and a slight majority was in favour?
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear.
The British constitution allows for no transfer of sovereignty and any transfer of sovereignty that may appear is but the willful illusion of a transfer. All sovereignty in the United Kingdom springs from the person of the monarch. It could no more be divided than the person of Queen Elizabeth II herself. The British government might agree to consider itself bound by European law, as indeed it previously has done, but that does not mean that it is bound by European law, only that it chooses to consider itself to be bound. This is an important distinction. It can, at any time and for any reason, choose to no longer consider itself bound.
Those who fear the loss of sovereignty to Europe would do well to remember this.
|
On July 07 2016 23:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear. The British constitution allows for no transfer of sovereignty and any transfer of sovereignty that may appear is but the willful illusion of a transfer. All sovereignty in the United Kingdom springs from the person of the monarch. It could no more be divided than the person of Queen Elizabeth II herself. The British government might agree to consider itself bound by European law, as indeed it previously has done, but that does not mean that it is bound by European law, only that it chooses to consider itself to be bound. This is an important distinction. It can, at any time and for any reason, choose to no longer consider itself bound. Those who fear the loss of sovereignty to Europe would do well to remember this.
Your argument have no value really, the queen does not have any power, she might be the "monarch" but she can't even name a prime minister that does not have the majority in parliament...
It's also the funny expression of the complete misunderstanding that exist within europe, as for anybody in continental europe (I'm putting the island aside for a moment) the future of europe is necessarily bound to lead to some kind of federalism. It was a clear goal since the beginning, and only the brit thought it was "only" a common market.
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 08 2016 00:06 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 23:31 KwarK wrote:On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear. The British constitution allows for no transfer of sovereignty and any transfer of sovereignty that may appear is but the willful illusion of a transfer. All sovereignty in the United Kingdom springs from the person of the monarch. It could no more be divided than the person of Queen Elizabeth II herself. The British government might agree to consider itself bound by European law, as indeed it previously has done, but that does not mean that it is bound by European law, only that it chooses to consider itself to be bound. This is an important distinction. It can, at any time and for any reason, choose to no longer consider itself bound. Those who fear the loss of sovereignty to Europe would do well to remember this. Your argument have no value really, the queen does not have any power, she might be the "monarch" but she can't even name a prime minister that does not have the majority in parliament...
Can and has, Cameron didn't have an absolute majority in the parliament before this one, it was a coalition with the Lib Dems and yet he was still named Prime Minister. Literally the most recent PM. But thanks for showing your understanding of UK politics for us all.
As for whether or not the queen has any power, of course all her power is wielded by elected officials, we're a democracy, if the queen was just doing what the fuck she liked all the time we'd not be a democracy. You think I don't know that the UK is a democracy?
It doesn't matter if the queen wields her powers or if she allows others to wield them, that doesn't change the fundamental point that the person of the monarch is the source of all sovereignty. That is why parliament cannot impose any limitation on themselves or a future parliament, it is because parliament wield the powers of the monarch which are limitless and indivisible. The nature of the UK constitution precludes any division or transfer or powers. It simply cannot exist because the foundation it is all built on are the absolute powers of the monarch, wielded by parliament. A monarch may voluntarily agree not to do something or to allow another to do something but it is always within their power to change their mind.
Do you understand it now?
|
On July 08 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 00:06 WhiteDog wrote:On July 07 2016 23:31 KwarK wrote:On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear. The British constitution allows for no transfer of sovereignty and any transfer of sovereignty that may appear is but the willful illusion of a transfer. All sovereignty in the United Kingdom springs from the person of the monarch. It could no more be divided than the person of Queen Elizabeth II herself. The British government might agree to consider itself bound by European law, as indeed it previously has done, but that does not mean that it is bound by European law, only that it chooses to consider itself to be bound. This is an important distinction. It can, at any time and for any reason, choose to no longer consider itself bound. Those who fear the loss of sovereignty to Europe would do well to remember this. Your argument have no value really, the queen does not have any power, she might be the "monarch" but she can't even name a prime minister that does not have the majority in parliament... Can and has, Cameron didn't have an absolute majority in the parliament before this one, it was a coalition with the Lib Dems and yet he was still named Prime Minister. Literally the most recent PM. But thanks for showing your understanding of UK politics for us all. As for whether or not the queen has any power, of course all her power is wielded by elected officials, we're a democracy, if the queen was just doing what the fuck she liked all the time we'd not be a democracy. You think I don't know that the UK is a democracy? It doesn't matter if the queen wields her powers or if she allows others to wield them, that doesn't change the fundamental point that the person of the monarch is the source of all sovereignty. That is why parliament cannot impose any limitation on themselves or a future parliament, it is because parliament wield the powers of the monarch which are limitless and indivisible. The nature of the UK constitution precludes any division or transfer or powers. It simply cannot exist because the foundation it is all built on are the absolute powers of the monarch, wielded by parliament. A monarch may voluntarily agree not to do something or to allow another to do something but it is always within their power to change their mind. Do you understand it now?
You're playing on words, majority either directly or through coalition this is the same. I wonder what would happen if a monarch in modern UK decide to elect a prime minister that does not have any support in the parliament. The queen does not have the "power", it's just a play on words again, it's symbolic, and in fact the monarchy fought against the parliament, in the UK and everywhere else, before accepting it, because they lost power through this change : they did not "voluntarily decided to allow the british parliament to decide on things" like it's some simple and happy division of labor. It's a power struggle they lost 200 years ago.
Your point is entirely irrelevant, and again you misunderstand what is a democracy (like many in here) or what is sovereignty for that matter. Going back to europe, the UK did not "voluntarily" agree to pass on certain powers and is not "always in power to change their minds" : in fact, there are clear restriction and constraint put on national government to make sure they respect the law coming from europe and they can't reject a law that they feel is not beneficial to their citizens freely.
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 08 2016 00:22 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2016 00:06 WhiteDog wrote:On July 07 2016 23:31 KwarK wrote:On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear. The British constitution allows for no transfer of sovereignty and any transfer of sovereignty that may appear is but the willful illusion of a transfer. All sovereignty in the United Kingdom springs from the person of the monarch. It could no more be divided than the person of Queen Elizabeth II herself. The British government might agree to consider itself bound by European law, as indeed it previously has done, but that does not mean that it is bound by European law, only that it chooses to consider itself to be bound. This is an important distinction. It can, at any time and for any reason, choose to no longer consider itself bound. Those who fear the loss of sovereignty to Europe would do well to remember this. Your argument have no value really, the queen does not have any power, she might be the "monarch" but she can't even name a prime minister that does not have the majority in parliament... Can and has, Cameron didn't have an absolute majority in the parliament before this one, it was a coalition with the Lib Dems and yet he was still named Prime Minister. Literally the most recent PM. But thanks for showing your understanding of UK politics for us all. As for whether or not the queen has any power, of course all her power is wielded by elected officials, we're a democracy, if the queen was just doing what the fuck she liked all the time we'd not be a democracy. You think I don't know that the UK is a democracy? It doesn't matter if the queen wields her powers or if she allows others to wield them, that doesn't change the fundamental point that the person of the monarch is the source of all sovereignty. That is why parliament cannot impose any limitation on themselves or a future parliament, it is because parliament wield the powers of the monarch which are limitless and indivisible. The nature of the UK constitution precludes any division or transfer or powers. It simply cannot exist because the foundation it is all built on are the absolute powers of the monarch, wielded by parliament. A monarch may voluntarily agree not to do something or to allow another to do something but it is always within their power to change their mind. Do you understand it now? You're playing on words, majority either directly or through coalition this is the same. I wonder what would happen if a monarch in modern UK decide to elect a prime minister that does not have any support in the parliament. The queen does not have the "power", it's just a play on words again, and in fact the monarchy fought against the parliament, in the UK and everywhere else, before accepting it, because they lost power through this change : they did not "voluntarily decided to allow the british parliament to decide on things" like it's some simple and happy division of labor. It's a power struggle they lost 200 years ago. Your point is entirely irrelevant, and again you misunderstand what is a democracy (like many in here) or what is sovereignty for that matter. Going back to europe, the UK did not "voluntarily" agree to pass on certain powers and is not "always in power to change their minds" : in fact, there are clear restriction and constraint put on national government to make sure they respect the law coming from europe and they can't reject a law that they feel is not beneficial to their citizens freely.
You have no understanding of the British uncodified constitution if you really believe that Parliament couldn't unilaterally vote to dissolve all European law in the United Kingdom tomorrow. It is all voluntary and illusory. This isn't a debate we're having here, this is simply my attempt to educate you on how sovereignty within the United Kingdom works. You can continue to disagree if you like but you will be wrong.
|
Responding to WhiteDogs post.
Well they can but must be prepared to face consequences. Just as UK would if it did. Afterall it is a power struggle between countries and institutions. Poland could reject Eu laws same way as UK. The difference lays in real power not in wording of constitution.
|
|
|
On July 08 2016 00:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 00:22 WhiteDog wrote:On July 08 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2016 00:06 WhiteDog wrote:On July 07 2016 23:31 KwarK wrote:On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear. The British constitution allows for no transfer of sovereignty and any transfer of sovereignty that may appear is but the willful illusion of a transfer. All sovereignty in the United Kingdom springs from the person of the monarch. It could no more be divided than the person of Queen Elizabeth II herself. The British government might agree to consider itself bound by European law, as indeed it previously has done, but that does not mean that it is bound by European law, only that it chooses to consider itself to be bound. This is an important distinction. It can, at any time and for any reason, choose to no longer consider itself bound. Those who fear the loss of sovereignty to Europe would do well to remember this. Your argument have no value really, the queen does not have any power, she might be the "monarch" but she can't even name a prime minister that does not have the majority in parliament... Can and has, Cameron didn't have an absolute majority in the parliament before this one, it was a coalition with the Lib Dems and yet he was still named Prime Minister. Literally the most recent PM. But thanks for showing your understanding of UK politics for us all. As for whether or not the queen has any power, of course all her power is wielded by elected officials, we're a democracy, if the queen was just doing what the fuck she liked all the time we'd not be a democracy. You think I don't know that the UK is a democracy? It doesn't matter if the queen wields her powers or if she allows others to wield them, that doesn't change the fundamental point that the person of the monarch is the source of all sovereignty. That is why parliament cannot impose any limitation on themselves or a future parliament, it is because parliament wield the powers of the monarch which are limitless and indivisible. The nature of the UK constitution precludes any division or transfer or powers. It simply cannot exist because the foundation it is all built on are the absolute powers of the monarch, wielded by parliament. A monarch may voluntarily agree not to do something or to allow another to do something but it is always within their power to change their mind. Do you understand it now? You're playing on words, majority either directly or through coalition this is the same. I wonder what would happen if a monarch in modern UK decide to elect a prime minister that does not have any support in the parliament. The queen does not have the "power", it's just a play on words again, and in fact the monarchy fought against the parliament, in the UK and everywhere else, before accepting it, because they lost power through this change : they did not "voluntarily decided to allow the british parliament to decide on things" like it's some simple and happy division of labor. It's a power struggle they lost 200 years ago. Your point is entirely irrelevant, and again you misunderstand what is a democracy (like many in here) or what is sovereignty for that matter. Going back to europe, the UK did not "voluntarily" agree to pass on certain powers and is not "always in power to change their minds" : in fact, there are clear restriction and constraint put on national government to make sure they respect the law coming from europe and they can't reject a law that they feel is not beneficial to their citizens freely. Parliament couldn't unilaterally vote to dissolve all European law in the United Kingdom tomorrow.
No they cant. If they try lightning will strike them down from the skies. Its against the divine law. They have given up their souvenirity to the EU and now they have to bow to their overlords.
|
Just as we can, and so can everyone. Wording of constitution has little to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
