Jonathan Gault, this is for for you. Do you consider your native Britain to be an "international laughing stock?"

jesseriley wrote:

Brexit never had a peace plan in Ireland, never will.

Brexit is an emotion. There still is no plan.

So EU was mentioned twice in Good Friday & Brexit zero?

jesseriley wrote:

So EU was mentioned twice in Good Friday & Brexit zero?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!

For someone who said "remain had no plans", I'm surprised how much you can talk about the remainer plans. Make up your mind where you stand.

National elections and European elections should be different. It wouldn't make any sense for British or citizens of other EU member nations to directly vote in or out Juncker or Tusk. These various roles are elected by the member states, in a similar way that Britain choses its Prime Minister. The British people elect the people who elect the EU leaders.

Regarding your Honduras example, it is unprecedented that the US people would be consulted at any stage, regarding specific details and/or about membership in larger multi-national organizations (like NATO or the UN). The USA does not hold referendums. Were the US people consulted on details about NAFTA or the USMCA? Do US people vote in/out Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices? If people have objections, their only recourse is to write their Congressman, or take to the streets in public protest.

This whole notion that the public needs to micro-manage what they elected their representatives to manage seems unusual and unrealistic.

Your fishing tale is also looks like a red-herring. It is unclear whether Brexit will help the local fisherman, as UK negotiators will have to deal with the EU, the WTO (also unelected by the British people) and the UN (also unelected by the British people). Furthermore, both British imports and exports to the EU will be arguably become worse than the current free-trade arrangement.

Regarding your "cast in law" explanation, I would say you did not nail it. What is cast into law is that Parliament has to approve anything the UK Government does in this matter. If this were not the case, May's deal would have become effective upon agreement with the EU. But the point is moot -- although the referendum is legally non-binding, the UK government agreed to honor it, and ultimately the UK Government triggered Article 50, and the 2-year process to leave. They needed more than 2-years, because it was unclear what "leave" meant -- it still is.

Regarding Ireland, so long as the border remains in the sea, there will be no Good Friday Agreement issue.

Roscoe can’t even read.

Good Friday states that Ireland & UK are partners in EU. Until UK breaks the agreement, I guess.

rekrunner wrote:

roscoe. wrote:

Planning to remain and imposed central plans to align are two very different things.

In the UK the people lend their sovereignty to the parliament to govern. If they do not govern sufficiently we can elect them out once every 4 years. This is very different to the EU where for example no one in the UK or Europe can vote out Junker, Tusk etc.

National elections and European elections should be different. It wouldn't make any sense for British or citizens of other EU member nations to directly vote in or out Juncker or Tusk. These various roles are elected by the member states, in a similar way that Britain choses its Prime Minister. The British people elect the people who elect the EU leaders.

What on Earth are you talking about? For most people in the election the other week, the choice was between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn and their respective stands on Brexit. Yes, we can have unelected Prime Minsters, as Boris Johnson was until this month, but invariably there is an election within months of such a leadership change. The reason why it was delayed in the case of Boris Johnson was because Corbyn voted against a General Election (until finally relenting).

You'd prefer to live in a bureaucratic superstate where the 'democracy' involves the plebs choosing between two identical parties who then elect faceless individuals to actually run things.

Well guess what? We still live in a democracy and the British people voted.

Those who run society should be directly accountable through the ballot box. Anything else is about as democratic as the Soviet Union was.

You're a big fan of the Soviet Union aren't you Rekrunner? I'm sure you wish you were living in the 1970's German 'Democratic' Republic, maybe as an athletics coach feeding young athletes their drugs (for 'placebo' effect).

Raddison wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Britain is not an 'international laughing stock' any more than it was when it decided to be the only country to resist Hitler against seemingly impossible odds.

The only country??

So 40,000 Australians didn't die fighting alongside the Brits?

Or 43,000 Canadians?

Or 12,000 New Zealanders?

Or 12,000 South Africans?

Or 87,000 Indians?

Etc.

Etc.

Nice attempt to derail the thread and drive a wedge between myself and my Commonwealth friends here.

I was making a straighforward point about the choice Britain faced in 1940 and the current Brexit situation.

The countries you listed were all technically or completely (in the case of India) part of the British Empire.

Are you claiming that if Britain had decided after the fall of France, being the only country in Eurasia still resisting Hitler, to accept a peace deal, that Australia would have continued to be at war with Germany?

Britain was in imminent danger of being invaded and overrun in 1940. Many in the British parliament thought that we should 'accept reality' and arrange peace terms with Hitler.

A bit like the Remoaners claimign that Britain has to accept today it's an insignificant island that has to be part of a German dominated EU in order to survive the 21st century.

My point had nothing to do with the undoubted sacrifices that those countries made in the War through our shared history (which btw, you and other lefty doping apologists here accuse me of 'racism' for feeling closer to than the likes of Morocco or Ethiopia).

To answer the original question...yes Britain is a laughing stock.

There may be lots of debate as to the merits of Brexit, but simply put, people were voting on something that nobody knew quite what it was, and a **** show followed, that ended up with an idiot in charge.

That's enough really.

Welcome to the middle of the conversation. We were talking about leadership positions which were not elected directly by the people.

I will admit to being unfamiliar about many of the intricate and ceremonial details of the process of the UK government and election process, including the various roles of the monarchy, but what I'm talking about on Earth is similar to what I can find on Wikipedia:

"British prime ministers have never been elected directly by the public."

And in an article in the Economist:

"European voters chose MEPs who then picked the commission’s president, much as British voters choose MPs who then pick the prime minister."

The British public cannot directly oust Juncker or Tusk in the next election just like they cannot directly oust Johnson -- they can only take away party seats, and the parties do the rest. Hypothetically, if the public wants to elect Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, or Theresa May as the next Prime Minister, that can only happen by the will and the whims of the Conservative party.

Even in America, where citizens directly elect their president, it was the respective political parties that printed the menu, putting Trump's and Hillary's name on the ballot. These were arguably not the top two choices available in America. One of the drawbacks of a de-facto two-party system is that many voters end up choosing what they believe is the lesser-evil, rather than a candidate who is best qualified on the merits. Or even worse, for a country that fought for the people's right to vote, voter apathy sets in and many choose not to vote at all.

Regarding where I prefer to live, as a side note, I find it comically pathetic that you want to make it personal and try to label me as a "commie" -- as if we still lived in the post-war times of the last century where such propaganda techniques were so effective at appealing to people's emotions and fears.

Since you are interested in my personal preferences, recall I'm an American living in Europe. An open-border EU means I can travel with an American passport and a local residence card to many countries without the border checks of the past, thanks to a Schengen agreement -- except Britain. The switch to a single currency made things a lot simpler too, as I did not have to plan ahead to get French Francs, German Deutschmarks, Irish Punt, Dutch Guilder, Spanish Pesetas, Italian Lira, or Greek Drachma -- except Britain. Freedom of movement of people and goods simply reduces a lot of internal friction, much of which cancelled itself out anyway.

Regarding elections, I have never given it much thought, but my voice is truly under-represented. I can only vote in my local elections for mayor and city council, but as an American citizen, I can only vote in federal elections in the USA, and I am not eligible to vote in European national or union elections. Nevertheless, I am content with my treatment as a resident, and benefits, like healthcare and pension, even if I had no say in the matter. Regarding the UK and the EU, I speak as an outside passive observer with no personal consequence whatever the outcome.

I'm fine with the freedom of the Soviet Union to govern itself, if it excluded things like assassinations and for all countries, my preference would be the elimination of all the negative politics, the propaganda and general misinformation.

With respect to drugs for athletes, I recommend following the WADA Code and Guidelines, and if possible, high altitude training for natural stimulation of endogenic EPO and red-blood cell production. I have seen altitude studies realize as much as 6% increase in 5K time trial performances for a group of well trained runners -- while noting that it is hard to double-blind high altitude.

Coevett wrote:

Well guess what? We still live in a democracy and the British people voted.

I'll give you "representative democracy" and "constitutional monarchy" can be considered democracies.

But, I also ignored the role of the complex Electoral process which exists in both England and in America that can sometimes distort the will of the people.

The British conservatives won 56% of the seats while only winning 43.6% of the votes of the British people.

Similarly, Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary, and Bush Jr. lost the popular vote to Al Gore.

You really don't get it do you? Just as Brits get annoyed when Americans claim that they won the Second World War single handed so we members of other countries get annoyed when Brits claim they 'stood alone' or were the 'only' country to resist Hitler. Rather than admit your mistake you only compound it with the following patronizing statements:

So are you saying that Commonwealth countries had no free will or choice in their decisions to enter the War but rather had to obey their Imperial lords and masters? Most of the countries independently declared war on Germany, they could have sat it out and said European war, not our problem.

That would have been Australia's choice, not Britain's. Or are you implying that Australians are so weak willed that they would have buckled and begged for peace with the Nazis if big strong Britain wasn't there to protect them?

Here we go. When all else fails revert to the ad hominem attacks.

Perhaps this instructive tutorial will clear up the matter once and for all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFBgQpz_E80

Banging on about leave not having a plan is naive. Before the referendum every household in the UK received a leaflet from the government warning that if the UK voted to leave then we would be out of the EU’s insititions, including customs union and single market. So we all knew what we were voted for despite the subsequent patronising rhetoric. It was up to the government to enact that plan.

Now there was no party of leave that could or would act on the result of the referendum and in fact the parliament was made up of 70% remain supporting MPs. After 3.5 years of this rotten lot blocking and delaying the democratic result of the vote and trying to row back on their commitments we finally have a prime minister who respected and believes in leave and a party that have to toe this line. So yes we had and have a plan and that plan is out of the institutions and a negotiated free trade agreement with the EU akin to the deal with Canada.

I showed you how the result was cast in law in 2017 through the Miller case and you still suggest it is not legally binding, I guess there is no helping some.

What silly logic, you think that the UN and NATO are equivalent to the EU, ridiculous. These institutions do no pass on laws, tariffs and rules that are superior to domestic versions and impact people’s lives on a daily basis.

Also let’s take your democratic point further and see if it stacks up. So the people should only elect and have a say on the most local of levels, say town by town. Then the ladder up from there is a decision for these representatives to make, so they decide in the example of the US who governs at a regional level, then state level, then national wide level (president) and a block of pan American countries like the EU in theory. So you are happy that these top levels that hold the power and make the most important decisions are removed from the democratic will of the people. If you don’t like how any of the important people act then hey, no matter you can change your local representative that holds no power on these matter.

Regarding fisheries the UK, a coastal and fish rich nation has been abused by the EU’s common fisheries policy and all we want is the re establishment of the international laws on costal boundaries and fishing provision. Whether the government has the political skill and will to undo the damage remains to be seen, but I can guarantee that those that voted for leave held this a important factor.

roscoe. wrote:

Regarding fisheries the UK, a coastal and fish rich nation has been abused by the EU’s common fisheries policy and all we want is the re establishment of the international laws on costal boundaries and fishing provision. Whether the government has the political skill and will to undo the damage remains to be seen, but I can guarantee that those that voted for leave held this a important factor.

From what I understand about the fishing is, that most fish is sold to France. Once they are out of the EU the fish will be more expensive to sell. Not sure if that will help the British fishermen.

Fishing, mining, all these old trades are not coming back just because you are leaving the EU.

muumuu wrote:

To answer the original question...yes Britain is a laughing stock.

There may be lots of debate as to the merits of Brexit, but simply put, people were voting on something that nobody knew quite what it was, and a **** show followed, that ended up with an idiot in charge.

That's enough really.

It was out of the institutions, single market and customs union. It was not the fault of the people that voted leave that the poison parliament of the time have stood in the way and blocked the democratic right of the people. As soon as we were given a further democratic choice we chucked out these traitors and now have a government in power that respect the result. Democracy is good.

Boris comes across as a baffoon at times but he is no idiot, I can assure you. I am not his biggest fan but he is a winner and has the capacity to get things done. One of his finest assets is surrounding himself with the right people.

Most of my American friends are fully supportive of what we have decided, far from being a laughing stock.

Ultramarkus wrote:

roscoe. wrote:

Regarding fisheries the UK, a coastal and fish rich nation has been abused by the EU’s common fisheries policy and all we want is the re establishment of the international laws on costal boundaries and fishing provision. Whether the government has the political skill and will to undo the damage remains to be seen, but I can guarantee that those that voted for leave held this a important factor.

From what I understand about the fishing is, that most fish is sold to France. Once they are out of the EU the fish will be more expensive to sell. Not sure if that will help the British fishermen.

Fishing, mining, all these old trades are not coming back just because you are leaving the EU.

Mining no, fishing I can guarantee yes if we can undo the common fisheries policy

Why would the fish be more expensive, particularly if we can agree a free trade agreement. The French, Spanish and Dutch see the value in fishing in our waters, so why would we not decide to. If the French do not want to buy them then fine, we will sell them elsewhere.