New security on the trump thread seems to be forcing the russian trolls over here. Never would have dreamed brexit would outlast trump, but honestly it’s a close race now.
I certainly think this british train wreck will draw EU closer, though.
New security on the trump thread seems to be forcing the russian trolls over here. Never would have dreamed brexit would outlast trump, but honestly it’s a close race now.
I certainly think this british train wreck will draw EU closer, though.
rekrunner wrote:
roscoe.. wrote:
You previously stated you disagreed with referendums and that people should not be consulted on issues such as this, the peasantry should not micro manage elected governments. I gave you a case of Switzerland who runs effectively using the system of regular referendums. Then once again you contradict yourself in the same post as you state you are happy with European level of representation. Well Switzerland is a European country so please refine your answer.
Once again, I was talking about the US and the UK, not Switzerland.
I do not disagree with referendums -- that is your misunderstanding entirely.
But, they do not fit in with the representative democracies like the UK and the US.
In other forms of government, when the people are informed, and not misinformed, public referendums are a useful tool of government.
Switzerland has a direct democracy, where referendums are not only part of their government, but mandatory.
Switzerland is not part of the European Union.
Yet, I am also happy with their level of representative democracy. Democracies don't make me unhappy.
Your position is very unclear then. You diasagree with the EU referendum, but you do not disagree with referendums. You are happy with democracy but do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum. I then asked you what system you would be happy with and you site the EU, despite each country having a different democratic system within the EU. Then when probed you suggest the UK system is fine but should not use referendums, despite this being a part of our democratic history with 13 referendums since 1973. You are all over the place here.
Question, what circumstances should a referendum be called based on your criteria?
You then site misinformation, well guess what it is for the people to decide there is always BS to see through and filter for the electorate. You know for example the recession that would last for years if the UK voted leave or the emergency budget or..............I could go on for ever here.
jesseriley wrote:
BTW roscoe, your lengthy posts are a dead giveaway you’re a professional troll. Real people can get to the point & have limited time.
Professional trolls and Russians coming onto letsrun to give you remoaners a kick in. Of course they are sweetheart!
rekrunner wrote:
roscoe.. wrote:
Right, so what would have happened on the 31st of January 2020 had no deal been in place and a deadline was not permitted?
I suppose that treaties are not legally binding either.
In your scenario, on the 31st of January, UK would still have two options: 1) leave with no deal; 2) revoke Article 50.
Option 1 would happen due to law as previously mentioned, the European Union Act 2018 and repeal of the EC act of 1972. Article 50 being triggered means that based on treaty and EU law (that is superior to UK law) the UK leaves on this date.
Option 2 would not be possible because of the above and no mandate for such an action.
Ultramarkus wrote:
roscoe.. wrote:
No you are wrong.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41859691The article you posted concerns GATT 24.
Please read the article you just posted. It says exactly what I tried to say earlier.
The BBC do try and make their articles easy to read. Hopefully if you study closely the large map with colours to match and the title of ‘who is trading with the UK on WTO rules’ you will see the US is in green and not blue.
Yes, the BBC know exactly what boris & trump will do, since the present is so chaotic.
Don’t forget to tell boris & trump; they certainly give the impression of not knowing, and if they knew they’d lie about it.
You did spell BBC correctly, good one!
Ultramarkus wrote:
Johnson has negotiated nothing yet.
So far all the negotiations were about the exit of the UK from the EU. And this will still continue starting in March. The EU made it clear that with this short time frame it will be a very rudimentary deal with a lot of things have to be negotiated in 2021 and beyond.
I think we will see a Brexit in name only because the UK will realize that they won't get the deal they wanted to get ( Being out of the EU but still have the same perks).
Again you have to separate the BS Boris Johnson or Farage babble the whole day and reality. In reality they won't get a good deal with the EU. They will get something but it will be a LOT worse than what they had when there where in the EU.
Soon they will have lots more immigrants because any country negotiating trade deals with them will bring that up to the table. India is a good example. They will ask to lower the standards on all kinds of things and they will ask for visas as well.
A highlights from this article:
... in a joint working paper drawn up by New Delhi and London last year, India identified EU rules on safety standards around food and drink as a major barrier to exporting more to the UK after Brexit, assuming UK rules are aligned with EU ones.
https://www.dw.com/en/india-the-eu-and-the-hard-realities-of-a-post-brexit-world/a-47126604
That is the whole point of Brexit, we do not want what we have with them at the moment. All we want is a FTA the like of high the EU have with Canada or Japan. This is in their interest as I explained before, we have a massive trade deficit with the EU.
If India asks for unreasonable concessions to Visas, or for us to lower our standards on food in return for a FTA we just walk away, that is how negotiatons work. We can continue to trade with India on WTO rules.
Brexit in name only you say so how would we still be in the customs union and single market once we leave, please explain.
Excellent trumpian logic. You do know trump takes orders from putin, right?
roscoe.. wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
In your scenario, on the 31st of January, UK would still have two options: 1) leave with no deal; 2) revoke Article 50.
Option 1 would happen due to law as previously mentioned, the European Union Act 2018 and repeal of the EC act of 1972. Article 50 being triggered means that based on treaty and EU law (that is superior to UK law) the UK leaves on this date.
Option 2 would not be possible because of the above and no mandate for such an action.
It's hard to speculate on hypotheticals, since a deal was agreed by both Parliament and the EU, but I suppose Parliament would have worked to submit a bill and pass an act blocking no-deal, similar to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, aka known as the Benn Act, the Benn Bill, and the Surrender Act, which would make "no-deal" (Option 1) unlawful lacking another Act of Parliament approving "no-deal".
roscoe.. wrote:
Your position is very unclear then. You diasagree with the EU referendum, but you do not disagree with referendums. You are happy with democracy but do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum. I then asked you what system you would be happy with and you site the EU, despite each country having a different democratic system within the EU. Then when probed you suggest the UK system is fine but should not use referendums, despite this being a part of our democratic history with 13 referendums since 1973. You are all over the place here.
Question, what circumstances should a referendum be called based on your criteria?
You then site misinformation, well guess what it is for the people to decide there is always BS to see through and filter for the electorate. You know for example the recession that would last for years if the UK voted leave or the emergency budget or..............I could go on for ever here.
My position is crystal clear. I do not disagree with the principle of referendums, provided the people are properly informed of the pros and the cons, and the consequences.
I never said I "do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum" -- another misunderstanding that is completely yours.
Democracies do not make me unhappy -- it was a stupid question.
I did say that the US and UK people should not be consulted on matters they have elected their representatives to decide.
As you put it, the people have lent their sovereignty to Congress, or to the Parliament (respectively).
The historical role of referendums in UK government, as described by Wikipedia:
"Referendums in the United Kingdom are occasionally held at a national, regional or local level. National referendums can be permitted by an Act of Parliament and regulated through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but they are by tradition extremely rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that they cannot be constitutionally binding on either the Government or Parliament, ..."
The number of national referendums since 1973 is three:
"Until the latter half of the twentieth century the concept of a referendum was widely seen in British politics as "unconstitutional" and an "alien device". As of 2018, only three national referendums have ever been held across the whole of the United Kingdom: in 1975, 2011 and most recently in 2016."
In my opinion, the EU referendum had several flaws:
1) While "remain" was clear, the "leave" option was ambiguous, with a spectrum of options ranging from hard to soft undecided
2) The UK people were both under-informed, and mis-informed
3) Many ex-pat citizens, those who would be most directly impacted, were not able to vote
With a better question, and an informed vote including all UK citizens, the EU referendum could have been fixed to give more meaningful guidance to the Government and Parliament.
Interesting history & analysis.
rekrunner wrote:
roscoe.. wrote:
Your position is very unclear then. You diasagree with the EU referendum, but you do not disagree with referendums. You are happy with democracy but do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum. I then asked you what system you would be happy with and you site the EU, despite each country having a different democratic system within the EU. Then when probed you suggest the UK system is fine but should not use referendums, despite this being a part of our democratic history with 13 referendums since 1973. You are all over the place here.
Question, what circumstances should a referendum be called based on your criteria?
You then site misinformation, well guess what it is for the people to decide there is always BS to see through and filter for the electorate. You know for example the recession that would last for years if the UK voted leave or the emergency budget or..............I could go on for ever here.
My position is crystal clear. I do not disagree with the principle of referendums, provided the people are properly informed of the pros and the cons, and the consequences.
I never said I "do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum" -- another misunderstanding that is completely yours.
Democracies do not make me unhappy -- it was a stupid question.
I did say that the US and UK people should not be consulted on matters they have elected their representatives to decide.
As you put it, the people have lent their sovereignty to Congress, or to the Parliament (respectively).
The historical role of referendums in UK government, as described by Wikipedia:
"Referendums in the United Kingdom are occasionally held at a national, regional or local level. National referendums can be permitted by an Act of Parliament and regulated through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but they are by tradition extremely rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that they cannot be constitutionally binding on either the Government or Parliament, ..."
The number of national referendums since 1973 is three:
"Until the latter half of the twentieth century the concept of a referendum was widely seen in British politics as "unconstitutional" and an "alien device". As of 2018, only three national referendums have ever been held across the whole of the United Kingdom: in 1975, 2011 and most recently in 2016."
In my opinion, the EU referendum had several flaws:
1) While "remain" was clear, the "leave" option was ambiguous, with a spectrum of options ranging from hard to soft undecided
2) The UK people were both under-informed, and mis-informed
3) Many ex-pat citizens, those who would be most directly impacted, were not able to vote
With a better question, and an informed vote including all UK citizens, the EU referendum could have been fixed to give more meaningful guidance to the Government and Parliament.
Can you answer my question then. Which referendum or in what circumstance would you agree with specifically and can you provide an example of one where both sides put out no disinformation?
rekrunner wrote:
roscoe.. wrote:
Your position is very unclear then. You diasagree with the EU referendum, but you do not disagree with referendums. You are happy with democracy but do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum. I then asked you what system you would be happy with and you site the EU, despite each country having a different democratic system within the EU. Then when probed you suggest the UK system is fine but should not use referendums, despite this being a part of our democratic history with 13 referendums since 1973. You are all over the place here.
Question, what circumstances should a referendum be called based on your criteria?
You then site misinformation, well guess what it is for the people to decide there is always BS to see through and filter for the electorate. You know for example the recession that would last for years if the UK voted leave or the emergency budget or..............I could go on for ever here.
My position is crystal clear. I do not disagree with the principle of referendums, provided the people are properly informed of the pros and the cons, and the consequences.
I never said I "do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum" -- another misunderstanding that is completely yours.
Democracies do not make me unhappy -- it was a stupid question.
I did say that the US and UK people should not be consulted on matters they have elected their representatives to decide.
As you put it, the people have lent their sovereignty to Congress, or to the Parliament (respectively).
The historical role of referendums in UK government, as described by Wikipedia:
"Referendums in the United Kingdom are occasionally held at a national, regional or local level. National referendums can be permitted by an Act of Parliament and regulated through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but they are by tradition extremely rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that they cannot be constitutionally binding on either the Government or Parliament, ..."
The number of national referendums since 1973 is three:
"Until the latter half of the twentieth century the concept of a referendum was widely seen in British politics as "unconstitutional" and an "alien device". As of 2018, only three national referendums have ever been held across the whole of the United Kingdom: in 1975, 2011 and most recently in 2016."
In my opinion, the EU referendum had several flaws:
1) While "remain" was clear, the "leave" option was ambiguous, with a spectrum of options ranging from hard to soft undecided
2) The UK people were both under-informed, and mis-informed
3) Many ex-pat citizens, those who would be most directly impacted, were not able to vote
With a better question, and an informed vote including all UK citizens, the EU referendum could have been fixed to give more meaningful guidance to the Government and Parliament.
So you agree with the result, yet the posting within this thread shows that you thought it was non legally binding, foolish to be called and misinformed (only on the leave side). You cannot have it both ways and you are starting to sound like the crazy lines and policies the Labour Party ended up with ahead of the recent election.
As he explained, a nationwide referendum breaks with precedent & oversimplifies with a binary choice.
rekrunner wrote:
roscoe.. wrote:
Your position is very unclear then. You diasagree with the EU referendum, but you do not disagree with referendums. You are happy with democracy but do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum. I then asked you what system you would be happy with and you site the EU, despite each country having a different democratic system within the EU. Then when probed you suggest the UK system is fine but should not use referendums, despite this being a part of our democratic history with 13 referendums since 1973. You are all over the place here.
Question, what circumstances should a referendum be called based on your criteria?
You then site misinformation, well guess what it is for the people to decide there is always BS to see through and filter for the electorate. You know for example the recession that would last for years if the UK voted leave or the emergency budget or..............I could go on for ever here.
My position is crystal clear. I do not disagree with the principle of referendums, provided the people are properly informed of the pros and the cons, and the consequences.
I never said I "do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum" -- another misunderstanding that is completely yours.
Democracies do not make me unhappy -- it was a stupid question.
I did say that the US and UK people should not be consulted on matters they have elected their representatives to decide.
As you put it, the people have lent their sovereignty to Congress, or to the Parliament (respectively).
The historical role of referendums in UK government, as described by Wikipedia:
"Referendums in the United Kingdom are occasionally held at a national, regional or local level. National referendums can be permitted by an Act of Parliament and regulated through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but they are by tradition extremely rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that they cannot be constitutionally binding on either the Government or Parliament, ..."
The number of national referendums since 1973 is three:
"Until the latter half of the twentieth century the concept of a referendum was widely seen in British politics as "unconstitutional" and an "alien device". As of 2018, only three national referendums have ever been held across the whole of the United Kingdom: in 1975, 2011 and most recently in 2016."
In my opinion, the EU referendum had several flaws:
1) While "remain" was clear, the "leave" option was ambiguous, with a spectrum of options ranging from hard to soft undecided
2) The UK people were both under-informed, and mis-informed
3) Many ex-pat citizens, those who would be most directly impacted, were not able to vote
With a better question, and an informed vote including all UK citizens, the EU referendum could have been fixed to give more meaningful guidance to the Government and Parliament.
You like pasting Wikipedia selectively yet do not provide the full story, a common trait of the remain fraction post result.
As I said 13 referendums in the UK since 1973. 3 involving the whole of the UK, 10 of which were for invidual UK countries. This does not preclude the 10 from being UK referendums or being part of the UK’s democratic history in recent decades.
For instance, a referendum was infamously successful for the nazis to get Austria to approve annexation (foreign influence was a factor there as well).
Markus made an additional point about a referendum needing to be formally binding, so that there would be serious scrutiny over foreign influence.
rekrunner wrote:
roscoe.. wrote:
Your position is very unclear then. You diasagree with the EU referendum, but you do not disagree with referendums. You are happy with democracy but do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum. I then asked you what system you would be happy with and you site the EU, despite each country having a different democratic system within the EU. Then when probed you suggest the UK system is fine but should not use referendums, despite this being a part of our democratic history with 13 referendums since 1973. You are all over the place here.
Question, what circumstances should a referendum be called based on your criteria?
You then site misinformation, well guess what it is for the people to decide there is always BS to see through and filter for the electorate. You know for example the recession that would last for years if the UK voted leave or the emergency budget or..............I could go on for ever here.
My position is crystal clear. I do not disagree with the principle of referendums, provided the people are properly informed of the pros and the cons, and the consequences.
I never said I "do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum" -- another misunderstanding that is completely yours.
Democracies do not make me unhappy -- it was a stupid question.
I did say that the US and UK people should not be consulted on matters they have elected their representatives to decide.
As you put it, the people have lent their sovereignty to Congress, or to the Parliament (respectively).
The historical role of referendums in UK government, as described by Wikipedia:
"Referendums in the United Kingdom are occasionally held at a national, regional or local level. National referendums can be permitted by an Act of Parliament and regulated through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but they are by tradition extremely rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that they cannot be constitutionally binding on either the Government or Parliament, ..."
The number of national referendums since 1973 is three:
"Until the latter half of the twentieth century the concept of a referendum was widely seen in British politics as "unconstitutional" and an "alien device". As of 2018, only three national referendums have ever been held across the whole of the United Kingdom: in 1975, 2011 and most recently in 2016."
In my opinion, the EU referendum had several flaws:
1) While "remain" was clear, the "leave" option was ambiguous, with a spectrum of options ranging from hard to soft undecided
2) The UK people were both under-informed, and mis-informed
3) Many ex-pat citizens, those who would be most directly impacted, were not able to vote
With a better question, and an informed vote including all UK citizens, the EU referendum could have been fixed to give more meaningful guidance to the Government and Parliament.
The past the post system and electoral system in the UK means that it is insufficient for questions and decisions such as the 2016 version. So for example a party may gain the support of the electorate on Brexit but not on health or schooling for example. The party with the least support on The EU gets into power, but the mandate for Brexit is not there. The mix of issues and stances in a general election does not give a sufficient mandate on issues such as this one that are binary (in or out of the EU institutions) and therefore the government quite rightly put it to the people as either they could not or would not decide themselves.
Additionally the point was made that UK has such a strong precedent of parliamentary process, that people have little familiarity with a referendum.
The “mix of issues” is what ensures broad-based governance in everyone’s interest, instead of dividing the nation (which was what happened, of course).
Referenda have been a huge success in the US on the very narrow issue of marijuana for personal use. Politicians & cops are completely out of touch on this issue, plus they’ve wasted billions of our money on it.
The people said, None of your business.
The contrast with the general & complex issue of brexit could hardly be greater.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Red Bull (who sponsors Mondo) calls Mondo the pole vaulting Usain Bolt. Is that a fair comparison?