Johnson warns EU against any 'Napoleonic' tariffs in no-deal Brexit

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

The issue is less who the Tory leader is but rather whether that person can push Hard Brexit through Parliament.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Not for me it’s not. 

 

The issue is a minority are choosing the country’s next leader. 

 

A man who has threatened to suspend the parliament elected by the majority to get through his interpretation of brexit. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Bluespunk

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

41 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

What the people want re terms of Brexit is decided in Parliament. Hilarious that.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

It's certainly not hilarious, as funny as anti-democratic types might find it. I have to wonder, if the tables were turned just how loud and widely heard the howls of 'cheaters' and 'fascists' would ring out?

 

It was after all, an exclusive, very unusual 'once in a generation' decision that was supposedly given to the people to decide, with the government promising (through verbal / written attestation many many times over) to implement the public's decision. The ensuing casuistry would be awful enough based on this fact alone, that we had a GE win for the Tories on the Brexit ticket to ensure it's actioning AND the vote within the HoP to invoke article 50 only adds insult to injury. It is by far the biggest blemish on our democracy and reputation in recent times. It's simply a disgrace - to anyone who cares about such fundamental things as this, anyway.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[AlexRich]

12 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

It's certainly not hilarious, as funny as anti-democratic types might find it. I have to wonder, if the tables were turned just how loud and widely heard the howls of 'cheaters' and 'fascists' would ring out?

 

It was after all, an exclusive, very unusual 'once in a generation' decision that was supposedly given to the people to decide, with the government promising (through verbal / written attestation many many times over) to implement the public's decision. The ensuing casuistry would be awful enough based on this fact alone, that we had a GE win for the Tories on the Brexit ticket to ensure it's actioning AND the vote within the HoP to invoke article 50 only adds insult to injury. It is by far the biggest blemish on our democracy and reputation in recent times. It's simply a disgrace - to anyone who cares about such fundamental things as this, anyway.

 

 

The decision to leave stated nothing about the terms of leaving, that was a decision that was to be decided by parliament. The Tories talk about their manifesto promise ... but seldom mention that the promise included leaving with a deal ... and as they failed to win a majority they didn’t get a full mandate for that manifesto. May delivered a Brexit deal. We would be out of the EU if that deal had been approved. It was rejected by Brexiteers and Remainers. 

 

 

 

 

 

[SheungWan]

Not for me it’s not. 
 
The issue is a minority are choosing the country’s next leader. 
 
A man who has threatened to suspend the parliament elected by the majority to get through his interpretation of brexit. 

The clash is whether suspension can be delivered. Alternatively, the new leader attempts to call an election. Either way, Parliament straddles the road. As for the Hard Brexiteers, they are more than happy to suspend or break anything that gets in their way.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

Yep, but I do like irony if the fact a minority of the country are getting a second vote to put a man into power who has said he will suspend a parliament elected by the majority of the country to impose a no deal brexit. 

That's what they will do if not blocked.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

21 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

The decision to leave stated nothing about the terms of leaving, that was a decision that was to be decided by parliament. The Tories talk about their manifesto promise ... but seldom mention that the promise included leaving with a deal ... and as they failed to win a majority they didn’t get a full mandate for that manifesto. May delivered a Brexit deal. We would be out of the EU if that deal had been approved. It was rejected by Brexiteers and Remainers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It stated NOTHING about the terms of leaving simply because it was spelled out as being a binary choice, leave or remain. In reality that simple binary choice wouldn't have seemed unattainable if the right person/people were in place to negotiatiate and run the operation from the off. Instead what we had was Maybot, Ollie Robbins and a littany of other remain MPs who back-tracked, u-turned, capitulated from the start, constantly lied / reneged and did their utmost to frustrate the public's decision.

 

'Setting out the conditions for a future poll, he said he would seek a "mandate" for a renegotiation and a referendum in the next Conservative election manifesto.

"And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in-or-out choice to stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether. It will be an in/out referendum."

But he said holding such a referendum now would be a "false choice" because Europe was set to change following the eurozone crisis and it would be "wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right".

Mr Cameron said he understood "the appeal" of Britain going it alone and he was sure the UK would survive outside the EU. But, he said, the UK must think "very carefully" about the implications of withdrawal for its prosperity and role on the international stage.

"If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return," he added.'  

 

???? We all know how this worked out.

 

 

 

'and as they failed to win a majority they didn’t get a full mandate for that manifesto' --

 

'The 2015 United Kingdom general election was held on 7 May 2015 to elect 650 members to the House of Commons. It was the first general election at the end of a fixed-term Parliament. Local elections took place in most areas on the same day. Polls and commentators had predicted the outcome would be too close to call and would result in a second hung parliament similar to the 2010 election. Opinion polls were eventually proven to have underestimated the Conservative vote as the party unexpectedly won an outright majority, which bore resemblance to its victory at the 1992 general election. Having governed in coalition with the Liberal Democrats since 2010, the Conservatives won 330 seats and 36.9% of the vote, this time winning a working majority of twelve seats.'

 

'May delivered a Brexit deal. We would be out of the EU if that deal had been approved' - now that IS hilarious! Thanks for brightening up my day. ???? 

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

That's what they will do if not blocked.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Ah, got to love brexitocracy. 

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The clash is whether suspension can be delivered. Alternatively, the new leader attempts to call an election. Either way, Parliament straddles the road. As for the Hard Brexiteers, they are more than happy to suspend or break anything that gets in their way. 

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

And as for the Rabid Remainers, they have been more than happy to try and undermine or dash the referendum vote since it was announced.

[vogie]

9 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The clash is whether suspension can be delivered. Alternatively, the new leader attempts to call an election. Either way, Parliament straddles the road. As for the Hard Brexiteers, they are more than happy to suspend or break anything that gets in their way.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Would that be too awful if the country got what they voted for?

[dick dasterdly]

47 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Not for me it’s not. 

 

The issue is a minority are choosing the country’s next leader. 

 

A man who has threatened to suspend the parliament elected by the majority to get through his interpretation of brexit. 

"The issue is a minority are choosing the country’s next leader."

 

Have you noticed what is happening re. the 'election' (.....) of top eu leaders?

 

e.g. the topic "Still no deal on top EU jobs despite all-night haggling"

 

Edit - I apologise for the over-sized print - I just copied and pasted the topic headline from the thread.

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"The issue is a minority are choosing the country’s next leader."

 

Have you noticed what is happening re. the 'election' (.....) of top eu leaders?

 

e.g. the topic "Still no deal on top EU jobs despite all-night haggling"

 

 

That system is that the elected representatives of each country chooses the person for that job. 

 

The process ongoing happens for this role, and many other EU positions, after each countries citizens across the EU choose their representatives. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Bluespunk

[vogie]

3 hours ago, petemoss said:

555. It's not me that you have to convince!

 

You still haven't explained the term "Spideys crystal ball" or is this Brexiteer speak like "Remoaner" and "Project Fear"?

Sorry, I have just noticed your 'edited post'

Spidey doesn't post anymore, anyway just between the two of us, he could start an argument in an empty house????.

He would tell us what was going to happen in years to come, hence the reference to "Spideys crystal ball" hope this clears up your confusion. Thanks ????

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Not for me it’s not. 

 

The issue is a minority are choosing the country’s next leader. 

 

A man who has threatened to suspend the parliament elected by the majority to get through his interpretation of brexit. 

 

21 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"The issue is a minority are choosing the country’s next leader."

 

Have you noticed what is happening re. the 'election' (.....) of top eu leaders?

 

e.g. the topic "Still no deal on top EU jobs despite all-night haggling"

 

Edit - I apologise for the over-sized print - I just copied and pasted the topic headline from the thread.

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That system is that the elected representatives of each country chooses the person for that job. 

 

The process ongoing happens for this role, and many other EU positions, after each countries citizens across the EU choose their representatives. 

So you only have a problem with "a minority are choosing the country’s next leader", as stated in your original post - until it comes to the eu?

Edited July 1, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[Bluespunk]

14 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

So you have no problem with "a minority are choosing the country’s next leader", as stated in your original post - until it comes to the eu?

Those allocating the roles must take into account the results of the EU elections (which all citizens are allowed to take part in)

 

From a bbc article on this very issue

 

”Under the "Spitzenkandidat" procedure the EU adopted in 2014, leaders are supposed to take into account which party won the most seats in the European Parliament when deciding roles including the European Commission presidency.”

 

I fully understand that key roles are decided by a party that wins an election and completely agree that there is nothing untoward in how the uks current coalition govt is choosing the next pm. 

 

It’s just that I find it ironic that a minority of the electorate are in the process of choosing a leader, who has, on more than one occasion, stated he will suspend a parliament elected by the majority, to force through his vision of brexit. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Bluespunk
Punctuation and wrong word used/cleared up confusing sentence

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

18 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Those allocating the roles must take into account the results of the EU elections (which all citizens are allowed to take part in)

 

From a bbc article on this very issue

 

”Under the "Spitzenkandidat" procedure the EU adopted in 2014, leaders are supposed to take into account which party won the most seats in the European Parliament when deciding roles including the European Commission presidency. “

'are supposed to take into account which party won the most seats in the European Parliament' - not exatcly cast iron, and has only existed since 2014 - with significant opposal coming from across the political/national spectrum.

 

'The centre-right European People's Party (EPP) got the most votes in the May elections, but it does not have a majority. French President Emmanuel Macron is among those opposing their candidate, Germany's Manfred Weber, and the "Spitzenkandidat" process in general.' 

 

The top EU appointments - especially for Commission Chief - sharpen not only national rivalries but also those between the European Council and the European Parliament which is the only directly elected EU institution' - which is as we all know, essentially toothless, as any legislation it votes to implement can be repealed by the EC. Democracy at work again within the EU cartel! 

 

 

The "Spitzenkandidat" procedure was launched by the parliament in 2014, so keeping it is a matter of pride for MEPs. However, Mr Macron stressed the need to nominate two men and two women for the four key posts.' - another win for equality of outcome and unabashed bureaucracy over the best candidate for the job / direct democracy!

 

'The European Council president is to be elected by the EU leaders by qualified majority, and should take office on 1 December. He/she chairs EU summits and steers the bloc's broad strategy, while the Commission deals with the fine details.' - READ: Makes all the decisions of any importance and who are, incidentally, unelected by the public and never have been.  

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[potless]

Last night on a news station. it was reported that the E.U. had secured a free trade agreement with Vietnam and that 99% of tariffs would be waived. If that report is true, then I wonder what excuse the E.U. would give for not offering the same or similar for the U.K. I dont know the details but I doubt if Vietnam would be subscribing to the E.U. coffers.

[Bluespunk]

10 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

'are supposed to take into account which party won the most seats in the European Parliament' - not exatcly cast iron, and has only existed since 2014 - with significant opposal coming from across the political/national spectrum.

 

'The centre-right European People's Party (EPP) got the most votes in the May elections, but it does not have a majority.

French President Emmanuel Macron is among those opposing their candidate, Germany's Manfred Weber, and the "Spitzenkandidat" process in general.' 

 

The top EU appointments - especially for Commission Chief - sharpen not only national rivalries but also those between the European Council and the European Parliament which is the only directly elected EU institution' - which is as we all know, essentially toothless, as any legislation it votes to implement can be repealed by the EC. Democracy at work again within the EU cartel! 

 

 

The "Spitzenkandidat" procedure was launched by the parliament in 2014, so keeping it is a matter of pride for MEPs. However, Mr Macron stressed the need to nominate two men and two women for the four key posts.' - another win for equality of outcome and unabashed bureaucracy over the best candidate for the job / direct democracy!

 

The European Council president is to be elected by the EU leaders by qualified majority, and should take office on 1 December. He/she chairs EU summits and steers the bloc's broad strategy, while the Commission deals with the fine details. - READ: Makes all the decisions of any importance and who, incidentally, is unelected by the public and never has been.  

 

 

 

All the decisions you list were made by representatives of those elected by the citizens of their countries in elections open to all. 

 

And more pertinent to my point, were made without suspending the EU parliament. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Bluespunk

[travelling wilbury]

It is all bluff 

without a deal u.k. can impose tarriffs on all those foreign cars and goods flooding into u.k remember we are a net importer from europe how long do you think it will take for europe to beg boris for a deal ? But if fact long term no deal means uk can start to make the goods we use not import them as now 

what happened to GREAT BRITAIN oh yes we joined the common market and could no longer compete in manufacturing anything.

Where is the great british car industry   the ship building  heavy industry and all the other industries britain once had  all we have now is financial services and banking and computer driven  services and look where banking got us. 

We pay billions to europe every week and what do we get in return  ?   Laws telling us we cannot make cornish pasties in devon and stupid shit like that WE DO NOT NEED THAT

the eu has made more laws that the u.k. blindly follow (most other countries ignore ) since u.k. joined in 197?  than u.k. did in over 1000 years and life did exist before europe.

Edited July 1, 2019 by travelling wilbury

[dick dasterdly]

9 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

All the decisions you list were made by representatives of those elected by the citizens of their countries in elections open to all. 

Exactly, the TINY minority of eu citizens allowed to vote in those decisions....

 

And yet you have a problem with the tory party electing a new PM?

Edited July 1, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Exactly, the TINY minority of eu citizens allowed to vote in those decisions....

 

And yet you have a problem with the tory party electing a new PM?

Read my post regarding your misguided statement regarding a problem with how the tories elect their leader and by default the pm. 

 

The decisions I refer to are made by leaders who must take into account the results of the open to all elections that elect the EU parliament. 

 

And as I say, these decisions are made without suspending the majority elected parliament.

 

johnson has threatened to do this on more than one occasion. 

 

 

That is the point i have raised in the posts you have responded to. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Bluespunk

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

37 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

All the decisions you list were made by representatives of those elected by the citizens of their countries in elections open to all. 

The European Commission and it's president are elected by reps. of each country, with qualified majority - but they are able to repeal any piece of legislation that these 'elected officials' who voted them into power then vote for - making them sole arbitors on a great many issues. They also sit (in secracy) with reps. of the largest corporations from across the continent and design much of the legal/commercial framework that will be put to the parliament, without an oversight committee of any kind. 

 

Our direct democracy as a single voter in the UK at any European election is automatically diluted given the fact that we share this platform with our neighbours under what is essentially a European conglomerate with the power to impose and repeal laws that will affect everyone within the 28 states. The voting blocs and electoral power given to different nations is skewed and has only become more so.

 

'In the Treaty on European Union, government representation in the lower house is based on both a principle of disproportionate electoral weight given to smaller countries, and on binding thresholds of minimum and maximum representation.² As a consequence, the European Parliament is at the low end in terms of electoral equality.'

 

'The "Spitzenkandidat" procedure was launched by the parliament in 2014, so keeping it is a matter of pride for MEPs. However, Mr Macron stressed the need to nominate two men and two women for the four key posts.' & 'French President Emmanuel Macron is among those opposing their candidate, Germany's Manfred Weber, and the "Spitzenkandidat" process in general.' That's REAL direct democracy for ya! 

And the latest insult -

 

'As EU citizens Britons have the right to be represented in the European Parliament but being forced to hold an election as they are about to cease being EU citizens is as insulting as it is humiliating.' 

 

Finally, the numerous divisions, councils, orders and commissions and their never=ending treaties bills, directives and blocs within this Kafkean institution of corruption and redundance are mind-numbing, faceless and unknowable bureaucracies - BY DESIGN. The less that is transparent and comprehendible of them and their workings to the publics at large - the better! 

Edited July 1, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[Bluespunk]

9 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

The European Commission and it's president are elected by reps. of each country, with qualified majority - but they are able to repeal any piece of legislation that these 'elected officials' who voted them into power then vote for - making them sole arbitors on a great many issues. They also sit (in secracy) with reps. of the largest corporations from across the continent and design much of the legal/commercial framework that will be put to the parliament, without an oversight committee of any kind. 

 

Our direct democracy as a single vote in the UK at any European election is automatically diluted given the fact that we share this platform with our neighbours under a what is essentially a European conglomerate with the power to impose and repeal laws that will affect everyone within the 28 states. The voting blocs and electoral power given to different nations is skewed and has only become more so.

 

'The "Spitzenkandidat" procedure was launched by the parliament in 2014, so keeping it is a matter of pride for MEPs. However, Mr Macron stressed the need to nominate two men and two women for the four key posts.' & 'French President Emmanuel Macron is among those opposing their candidate, Germany's Manfred Weber, and the "Spitzenkandidat" process in general.' That's REAL direct democracy for ya! ????

 

And the final insult -

 

'As EU citizens Britons have the right to be represented in the European Parliament but being forced to hold an election as they are about to cease being EU citizens is as insulting as it is humiliating.' 

 

In the Treaty on European Union, government representation in the lower house is based on both a principle of disproportionate electoral weight given to smaller countries, and on binding thresholds of minimum and maximum representation.² As a consequence, the European Parliament is at the low end in terms of electoral equality.

Finally, the numerous divisions, councils, orders and commissions and their neverending treatises, bills, directives and blocs within this Kafkean institution of corruption and redundance are mind-numbing, faceless and unkowable bureaucracies - BY DESIGN. The less that is transparent and comprehendible of them and their workings to the publics at large - the better! 

If the EU citizens don’t like the decisions their elected reps make, then they can vote for those who will make ones they like next time. 

 

As in the uk. 

 

And as as I say, my main point is Johnson’s threat to suspend a majority elected parliament to force through his version of brexit, despite the majority being excluded from the vote that makes him pm.  

 

Can you address that point please?

Edited July 1, 2019 by Bluespunk

[SheungWan]

Last night on a news station. it was reported that the E.U. had secured a free trade agreement with Vietnam and that 99% of tariffs would be waived. If that report is true, then I wonder what excuse the E.U. would give for not offering the same or similar for the U.K. I dont know the details but I doubt if Vietnam would be subscribing to the E.U. coffers.

Probably not a good idea then to default with a no-deal.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

27 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

If the EU citizens don’t like the decisions their elected reps make, then they can vote for those who will make ones they like next time. 

 

As in the uk. 

 

And as as I say, my main point is Johnson’s threat to suspend a majority elected parliament to force through his version of brexit, despite the majority being excluded from the vote that makes him pm.  

 

Can you address that point please?

 

'If the EU citizens don’t like the decisions their elected reps make, then they can vote for those who will make ones they like next time'. - They can, but as I have stated their ability to gain direct representation differs considerably depending on the nation they hail from - 

 

'In the Treaty on European Union, government representation in the lower house is based on both a principle of disproportionate electoral weight given to smaller countries, and on binding thresholds of minimum and maximum representation.² As a consequence, the European Parliament is at the low end in terms of electoral equality.'



and as I have stated - 'The European Commission and it's president are elected by reps. of each country, with qualified majority - but they alone are able to repeal any piece of legislation that these 'elected officials' who voted them into power then vote for - making them sole arbitors on a great many issues.'

 

The point you're making is one I understand - re: Johnson suspending parliament, he should not do so IMO, but equally we should not have reached such an impasse whereby there seems to be little other recourse, either.

 

'his version of brexit' is the crux of the issue. As many of us have stated innumerable times, this was a binary decision on the matter that was promised to be implemented by the government - themselves voted into office with the mandate to offer this decision to the public, this referendum result was won fairly and honestly, the result of which was subsequently ratified by MPs by their triggering of article 50 more than 2 years ago. 

 

Now, would you care to address any of the many issues I raised regarding the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Because I for one can't understand how any informed person can argue FOR the EU being a transparent and democratic institution and keep a straight face.

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[Bluespunk]

18 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

'If the EU citizens don’t like the decisions their elected reps make, then they can vote for those who will make ones they like next time'. - They can, but as I have stated their ability to gain direct representation differs considerably depending on the nation they hail from - 

 

'In the Treaty on European Union, government representation in the lower house is based on both a principle of disproportionate electoral weight given to smaller countries, and on binding thresholds of minimum and maximum representation.² As a consequence, the European Parliament is at the low end in terms of electoral equality.'



and as I have stated - 'The European Commission and it's president are elected by reps. of each country, with qualified majority - but they alone are able to repeal any piece of legislation that these 'elected officials' who voted them into power then vote for - making them sole arbitors on a great many issues.'

 

The point you're making is one I understand - re: Johnson suspending parliament, he should not do so IMO, but equally we should not have reached such an impasse whereby there seems to be little other recourse, either.

 

'his version of brexit' is the crux of the issue. As many of us have stated innumerable times, this was a binary decision on the matter that was promised to be implemented by the government - themselves voted into office with the mandate to offer this decision to the public, this referendum result was won fairly and honestly, the result of which was subsequently ratified by MPs by their triggering of article 50 more than 2 years ago. 

 

Now, would you care to address any of the many issues I raised regarding the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Because I for one can't understand how any informed person can argue FOR the EU being a transparent and democratic institution and keep a straight face.

 

I don’t share your concerns over what you feel are the problems with the democratic legitimacy of the EU.

 

I accept there are issues, but am confident in the elected representatives of the EU citizens to work on them.

 

I see what the EU parliament for what it is am happy to accept it for what it is, warts and all. 

 

I’m not too sure how your manifold concerns relate to my posts on johnson suspending parliament, though. 

 

I disagree with your assertion that there is little recourse to suspending parliament to force through a minority version of brexit. 

 

johnson could, for example, call an election with his vision of brexit as core tory policy. 

 

See how popular that is with the majority of the electorate. 

 

If he wins a majority then onward and upward with his goals. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Bluespunk
Modified and moderated my tone. Apologies if you read my initial post. It was poorly worded

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

28 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I don’t share your concerns over what you feel are the problems with the democratic legitimacy of the EU.

 

I accept there are issues, but am confident in the elected representatives of the EU citizens to work on them.

 

I see what the EU parliament for what it is am happy to accept it for what it is, warts and all. 

 

I’m not too sure how your manifold concerns relate to my posts on johnson suspending parliament, though. 

 

I disagree with your assertion that there is little recourse to suspending parliament to force through a minority version of brexit. 

 

johnson could, for example, call an election with his vision of brexit as core tory policy. 

 

See how popular that is with the majority of the electorate. 

 

If he wins a majority then onward and upward with his goals. 

 

'I don’t share your concerns over what you feel are the problems with the democratic legitimacy of the EU.

 

I accept there are issues, but am confident in the elected representatives of the EU citizens to work on them.

 

I see what the EU parliament for what it is am happy to accept it for what it is, warts and all.'

 

Fair enough, at least you're honest about it and are polite in your discourse, unlike many on here.

 

I can't understand how you feel that way to be honest, and I feel very strongly to the contrary, but we're entitled to our differences, of course.

Simply put - I feel that if Boris - or any PM for that matter, in this situation - were to prolong this process further it would become unbearable and quite untenable as an exercise in statehood and democracy. You may disagree with mine and many of the majority who voted for Brexit's view of the matter, but imagine for a moment that the result had gone the other way and that the majority of the establishment were NOT on the side of Remain but on the side of Leave, and that the same frustration to the result you voted for and won (fairly) was being denied - 3 years after it was confirmed. Forget assumptions of what might or might not happen in the future - they are simply assumptions.

 

How would you and most remainers react? I think I have a clear idea of how.

 

IMO this all has to end by Oct 31st for the sake of the UK - the longer it goes on, the more the division increases within our society and the more unstable the UK becomes. If you look at a number of polls (including the recent EU elections as a good barometer) it is clear that the margin for Leave parties is the same or slightly larger than it was in 2016. If it goes back to the public again in the form of GE or a 2nd referendum and the vote came back the same - then what? Would it be accepted? Is it not much more likely it would interfered with by those with influence? I would say so.

Point is - in doing so, I feel (as do many politicians) that the damage to our political system and notions of British democracy would be irrevocable and would create long lasting unrest and polarisation that would permeate many levels of an already damaged and divided society. 

 

'force through a minority version of brexit' - this can be argued all day long, but the fact remains - it was a binary choice to leave or remain, so any conjecture of it being a 'minority' view's version or a 'majority' view's version is, basically, academic. Especially since - as stated - the recent polls with the EU elections being the greatest indicator, indicate that the majority of the electorate still want to leave, knowing that a no deal is what the Brexit Party, UKIP  and the Tory government are all pushing for. 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

'I don’t share your concerns over what you feel are the problems with the democratic legitimacy of the EU.

 

I accept there are issues, but am confident in the elected representatives of the EU citizens to work on them.

 

I see what the EU parliament for what it is am happy to accept it for what it is, warts and all.'

 

Fair enough, at least you're honest about it and are polite in your discourse, unlike many on here.

 

I can't understand how you feel that way to be honest, and I feel very strongly to the contrary, but we're entitled to our differences, of course.

Simply put - I feel that if Boris - or any PM for that matter, in this situation - were to prolong this process further it would become unbearable and quite untenable as an exercise in statehood and democracy. You may disagree with mine and many of the majority who voted for Brexit's view of the matter, but imagine for a moment that the result had gone the other way and that the majority of the establishment were NOT on the side of Remain but on the side of Leave, and that the same frustration to the result you voted for and won (fairly) was being denied - 3 years after it was confirmed. Forget assumptions of what might or might not happen in the future - they are simply assumptions.

 

How would you and most remainers react? I think I have a clear idea of how.

 

IMO this all has to end by Oct 31st for the sake of the UK - the longer it goes on, the more the division increases within our society and the more unstable the UK becomes. If you look at a number of polls (including the recent EU elections as a good barometer) it is clear that the margin for Leave parties is the same or slightly larger than it was in 2016. If it goes back to the public again in the form of GE or a 2nd referendum and the vote came back the same - then what? Point is - in doing so, I feel (as do many politicians) that the damage to our political system and notions of British democracy would be irrevocable and would create long lasting unrest and polarisation that would permeate many levels of an already damaged and divided society. 

 

'force through a minority version of brexit' - this can be argued all day long, but the fact remains - it was a binary choice to leave or remain, so any conjecture of it being a 'minority' view's version or a 'majority' view's version is, basically, academic. Especially since - as stated - the recent polls with the EU elections being the greatest indicator, indicate that the majority of the electorate still want to leave, knowing that a no deal is what the Brexit Party, UKIP  and the Tory government are all pushing for. 

 

We are just going to have to disagree.

 

Should point out I am not a remainer.

 

Though entitled to vote at the time, I chose not too, as I had not lived in the uk for 21 years at the time.

 

I still do not live in the uk [though the rest of my immediate family continues to do so] and as I no longer consider myself british (I do remain an eu citizen though as I am entitled to possess another eu country’s passport), I will not vote in any future votes on the issue.

 

My posts are based on what I see happening in the uk, not on my personal circumstances. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Bluespunk

[SheungWan]

 
'I don’t share your concerns over what you feel are the problems with the democratic legitimacy of the EU.
 
I accept there are issues, but am confident in the elected representatives of the EU citizens to work on them.
 
I see what the EU parliament for what it is am happy to accept it for what it is, warts and all.'
 
Fair enough, at least you're honest about it and are polite in your discourse, unlike many on here.
 
I can't understand how you feel that way to be honest, and I feel very strongly to the contrary, but we're entitled to our differences, of course.
Simply put - I feel that if Boris - or any PM for that matter, in this situation - were to prolong this process further it would become unbearable and quite untenable as an exercise in statehood and democracy. You may disagree with mine and many of the majority who voted for Brexit's view of the matter, but imagine for a moment that the result had gone the other way and that the majority of the establishment were NOT on the side of Remain but on the side of Leave, and that the same frustration to the result you voted for and won (fairly) was being denied - 3 years after it was confirmed. Forget assumptions of what might or might not happen in the future - they are simply assumptions.
 
How would you and most remainers react? I think I have a clear idea of how.
 
IMO this all has to end by Oct 31st for the sake of the UK - the longer it goes on, the more the division increases within our society and the more unstable the UK becomes. If you look at a number of polls (including the recent EU elections as a good barometer) it is clear that the margin for Leave parties is the same or slightly larger than it was in 2016. If it goes back to the public again in the form of GE or a 2nd referendum and the vote came back the same - then what? Would it be accepted? Is it not much more likely it would interfered with by those with influence? I would say so.
Point is - in doing so, I feel (as do many politicians) that the damage to our political system and notions of British democracy would be irrevocable and would create long lasting unrest and polarisation that would permeate many levels of an already damaged and divided society. 
 
'force through a minority version of brexit' - this can be argued all day long, but the fact remains - it was a binary choice to leave or remain, so any conjecture of it being a 'minority' view's version or a 'majority' view's version is, basically, academic. Especially since - as stated - the recent polls with the EU elections being the greatest indicator, indicate that the majority of the electorate still want to leave, knowing that a no deal is what the Brexit Party, UKIP  and the Tory government are all pushing for. 
 

Leaving does not define the terms of leaving. That is the responsibility of Parliament. And if anybody disagrees take it up with their 'er.... MP.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

23 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

We are just going to have to disagree.

 

Should point out I am not a remainer.

 

Though entitled to vote at the time, I chose not too, as I had not lived in the uk for 21 years at the time.

 

I still do not live in the uk [though the rest of my immediate family continues to do so] and as I no longer consider myself british (I do remain an eu citizen though as I am entitled to possess another eu country’s passport), I will not vote in any future votes on the issue.

 

My posts are based on what I see happening in the uk, not on my personal circumstances. 

 

'I am not a remainer' - not technically, no, however I feel - given your opinions, that you would have voted that way, no?

 

'My posts are based on what I see happening in the uk, not on my personal circumstances' - in my view, that gives your take on the situation more credit. 'Normality Bias' and economic/financial partiality seem to be the basis for the vast majority of remainers arguments, that I have encountered. The democratic, social and sovereignty issues are nearly always second to their own pocket and what assumed hit it will take now or down the line.

 

I think Oct 31 will open a new chapter...but I don't believe it will be any happier, not for some time anyway. Harder times economically are coming and social mood is darkening. I think the cycle turned a couple of years ago....Brexit/Trump etc. are very much results rather than causes. This cycle is, at bottom, an economic cycle and much influenced by the central banks or attenuated I should say, with the ECB being a major contributor. The shocking increase in disparity in well-being in western countries is a direct result of Bank manipulation. The turning point could(or should)have been in 2007-9, but was cynically avoided - to our combined cost. Since then the problems and the debt have compounded and people have forgotten that the original causes of that were not addressed. I suspect that, due to passage of time and misinformation / ignorance of the facts, that most people think all was fixed and we returned to normal running. Far from it. Given what we are facing I think any prediction of even near-term future is very problematic. In the light of this Brexit is actually a more minor event, but because people are and will continue to be confused, it probably will get the blame for a lot of what may happen. Hopefully a clean break from the EU and it's controls will put UK in a position where we can act independently with wiser (political) heads making the going and have the power to do so. I can hope so anyway.

 

PS I don't include Boris as one of these 'wiser heads'

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[Rimmer]

A troll post and reply have been removed