E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Looks like an independent Scotland would have a strong chance of becoming an EU member.

Verhofstadt is the guy in charge of the EU's chief Brexit negotiator.

 

A man who would get no say in if Scotland could rejoin the EU? says no reason lol.

He is irelivent, Spain will block any quick deals. And they will not be bypassed. The only way scotland gets a quick and painless entry is if all remaining members vote them in. Every single one. Spain will not do this.

Id also question if they could afford to leave the UK, They could not really keep the pound as currency and join the eu. No Oil money bigger defict than anywhere in the UK.

Either takes tax rises or cuts in services.

Thats the bit the SNP never mensions and have ignored in recent months when its been brought up. What would the tax level be at currently if they had left. One of the bigger players suggested between a 5-10% rate rise.

If Oil does not bounce back ( Lets be honest its not going to, Likely to drop back to pre historic lows in the next few months as production is still increasing) Scotland would have to find a way to make there economy work. There 2 biggest trade partners are England and Northern Ireland.

 

9-8-16
Hour 1 - Gerald Celente - It's Almost Over…

 

Thank goodness member states of the EU don't pool some sovereignty in decisions making processes then, and thank goodness they act like a superstate by never compromising or coming to collective agreements over what's best for the whole and not single members.

Stay or leave their boned either way, it would be down to a numbers game.

That's going to happen across the whole UK.

 

I love how Leavers argue that the EU is ruled by Germany, and the UK is totally powerless as a member, but when it suits them all of a sudden countries like Spain have huge influence on EU policy.

Anyway once Spain figures out that a much reduced UK allows them to make a play for Gibraltar, they may welcome Scotland with open arms.

 

It becomes objective the moment it is put in policy or law, up till that point it remains subjective, therefore free for interpretation and as I've said, malleable. This is one of the reasons for why we have laws in place to deal with these issues.

What you can't do is to pass laws on what people think and trying to get into peoples heads to find motive is Orwellian mind reading nonsense, also, it doesn't work. Which brings us back to objective racism and laws having been put in place to deal with it. Laws are there to deal with discrimination based on race and ethnicity. If everything was subjective creating laws would be impossible in the first place.

So..
If a policy and law is in place that are racist in intent it is...racist – one example would be the Jim Crow laws in the South - If you can't show me a policy or law that is racist in intent, it isn't racist.

Now we can agree to disagree.

The people of Gibraltar has twice made it clear they wish to remain in the Union, the Spaniards are not about to do something stupid Brexit or no Brexit, besides, England and Spain are both members of NATO. This whole issue was more a case of fearmongering from the establishment in an attempt to change the outcome of the vote.

Two different issues I think, one is about economic might and influence, the other about ownership of a piece of land, and claims made that dates back a long long time.

 

I think something is getting lost in translation because you're talking about something totally different from what I'm talking about.

Won't stop crazy politicians playing on nationalist sentiment in the electorate from trying.

I was talking about people arguing that the UK has no power in the EU, and then arguing that a much smaller player like Spain does (to block accession of an independent Scotland into the EU).

 

Which Union are we talking about? The European or British one.

I don't think anyone is suggesting Spain would go to war over Gibraltar, although like Scotland the EU referendum has thrown their association with the UK into question, there's a possibility of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar wanting to break away from the UK and stay in the EU, obviously that's very dependent on not only how sweet a deal the EU can offer but also if the UK would be willing to cede control.

 

Meanwhile, while the NHS has announced it is unable to maintain standards at current funding, Brexiteers seem to have officially dropped the "Fund the NHS instead" pledge and still seem to think that a default to WTO trading is an actual option. Except that one does not just simply default to the WTO:

And the new Brexiteer trade secretary does his bit to talk down the UK economy (I thought that was the job of 'bitter Remainers'?).

No wonder the EU thinks Britain is completely lost and doesn't know what it's doing.

 

No democracy isn't sacred, but its about the best way developed to enable apes to live together somewhat peacefully. Since its the best available any move away from it, towards other existing processes is going to be worse. Mob rule is at least rule by majority, which is still better than your preferred dictatorship. To liken the vote to mob rule is stupid anyway. Whether you like it or not it was still a democratic process. You will of course argue that it wasn't because the people were irresponsible or ignorant. That doesn't change the fact that a referendum is a democratic process. That is an immutable fact.

Its quite clear that your belittling of people comes from being a consultant and working with them. Consultants need to have all the answers, even when they don't. They have to have the answers not only for the patients but also for their subordinates. People's lives and futures are often on the line and so they need to get these things right all of the time and everyone is looking for them to deliver the goods. With that, comes a level of self confidence and arrogance and to be honest its probably not possible to do such a job without those attributes. Without them the consultants would crack. Of course having to always be right, having everyone always look at you for the answers, will also bring with it a certain amount of derision of others or sense of superiority.

Quite frankly to defer to technical experts is a sensible thing to do in most fields of work and walks of life. However politicians aren't technical experts are they (apart from at getting themselves elected)? Replace the consultants with Borris Johnson, who knows nothing about anything and see how many patients will say "oh you decide on my cancer treatment Borris, you know better than me". That's a closer reflection of the political setup, What works in medicine does not work in politics. Everything is different.

Much of the reading available was speculation on the what ifs. There was nothing concrete because there was no plan to scrutinise. If you stay in the EEA, this will happen. If you opt for the Norway approach, that will happen, if you light the fuse on article 50 within a week of the vote something else will happen. But since it's all up in the air and is still all up in the air, its quite easy to dismiss the speculation for what it is and that's exactly what happened.

UKIP aren't equally responsible. It was Cameron's job to run the country along with the rest of the government and he did it in such a catastrophically inept manner it really does boggle the mind. If UKIP came up with a plan it would be just as wishy washy, nationalistic and pie in the sky as their campaign was. No, the vote should have been over a proper exit plan that the government could actually execute. Be that developed in house or commissioned externally. The people were given a once in a generation opportunity. Once the referendum is over its over. No one is going to put it continually on their election manifesto once it has occurred. So even though the whole situation was half baked, the people had to take it for what it was or never get the opportunity again. That is entirely the fault of your beloved decision makers, the one that are responsible enough to run the country and make all the decisions on behalf of the rest of the peons that make up the general public. Your whole totalitarian approach is based on the idea that professional politicians are better than the general public, yet every branch of your government displayed utter ineptitude in dealing with the public, the EU and the referendum.

 

I think you keep putting words in my mouth. I criticise the referendum's validity, and basically get the reply: "If you criticise the referendum, you hate democracy. You don't hate democracy, do you?" No, I don't hate democracy. I think democracy is really important. So important that I think that it should be done right. Because history shows us that tyranny tends to start with corruption of the democratic process --a deviation from it, a move away from it, as you say (think about it).

Sorry, where did I say that I prefer dictatorship? But are you seriously trying to defend mob rule as a form of democracy now? See what I mean by: tyranny starts with corruption of the democratic process?

I never said that it wasn't. I just said that it wasn't done in a valid and informed way.

I'm sorry but if they are not experts on running the country, what are they doing, like, running the country? Explain to me again what a representative democracy means. And aren't they supposed to have a bunch of civil service expert advisors working for them?

You are now arguing that because there was no plan, the electorate couldn't possibly know what they were voting for. OK. So if I understand you correctly: this non-binding referendum which does not commit the government to anything and in which no promises were made (only this morning did Rees-Mogg argue on Radio 4 that the promises made by Vote Leave were not really promises because a referendum campaign cannot have a manifesto) by politicians who basically aren't experts and had no plan and was voted for by an uninformed electorate, should now be carried out on a 4% majority, come what may, because democracy.

It is not unusual to re-run a vote if it is deemed that there were problems with the democratic process. Because it's REALLY IMPORTANT to do it RIGHT.

No, I am saying that voters who chose not to vote in the referendum may have decided to defer their decision making to the government, which they consider the experts at making such complex decisions concerning the country. Not an unusual state of affairs in a representative democracy. And again (please get this right now), I was speculating about their thinking, not voicing my opinion about it.

 

Throughout this thread, with regard to the conservative Brexit strategy, I've repeated the phrase "Divide et Impera". Today our human rights are scrapped and our children will grow up under an increasingly sectarian education system. What I'm saying is that the "reading material" you should be paying attention to has not been conveniently labelled "Brexit".

We're talking about a class of people who routinely defrauded the taxpayer through their expenses, or...you know, **** kids and collude with the police to cover it up...so perhaps their statements of intent should be taken with at least a grain of salt? Look, the MO of the conservatives is to manufacture crises and divisions, then push through extremely unpopular neoliberal policies while everyone else is distracted by those more emotive issues.

The UK, and our lives, are now a neoliberal economic petri dish. Well done. I bet it didn't say any of that in the Brexit articles.

 

North Korea, Syria, and China hold elections, are they democratic and if so does that mean they're not dictatorships, i guess that's more a rhetorical question as i just wanted to highlight how democracy isn't a black & white thing.

 

Indeed. And the only defence an electorate has is its democratic vote. So be informed (be very informed), and insist on due democratic process. Every time democracy is treated in a slap-dash manner, watered down, co-opted, corrupted, it is killed a little.

 

I'm not saying mob rule is a replacement for democracy and I'm not following that line of discussion any more because your basically strawmanning with it. I think you like democracy just fine when its going your way. But when your pension is on the line and it isn't going your way, you want to remove decision making processes from the people (who your deride as stupid) and leave it in the hands of politicians who are not representative of those people. Your approach is a regression of democracy towards centralised control. I think you'd happily put whatever fat guy that runs north korea in charge if it meant saving that pension of yours.

They're running the country because they put themselves up for election and won. That's how it works. I think you've been hanging around monarchies too long

Yes that's what I'm saying, because democracy and that's what is happening, because democracy. You on the other hand would rather ignore the will of the people as they have stated in the referendum because you appear to only like democracy when it goes your way. A bit like the north Koreans.

They have a show and call it an election.

 

Look who's talking. And now you're just getting all ad hominem.

And how are these politicians not representative of the people if they are the government elected by them?

You cannot accuse a government of incompetence unless some competence is involved. And that vast civil service that advises them is basically just for show?

That is just another way of saying: "I'm ignoring your argument by accusing you of being insincere".

Are you saying that even if the democratic process was corrupted, the result should be treated as valid? Isn't that just sham democracy? Isn't that just, well, a show?

A bit like the show we had here and called a 'referendum', then.

 

I'm getting personal? Your pension is a common theme in this thread and something you've brought up a number of times. My argument is quite simply, when the out come is not in your favour you want to remove the mechanisms that afforded that outcome to occur, rather than live in a world where people disagree with you and the public get heard.

If there was competence involved then they would be competent.

You don't have an argument to ignore. Your point is merely: I don't like the outcome, lets have a do-over.

You got one more choice on the ballot paper than the north Koreans do, moving it from a show to actual democracy.

 

I'm not sure that's much different than how the referendum was conducted, sure there wasn't electoral fraud committed at the ballot box but when only 30% odd profess to being well informed and another 30% profess to being poorly informed or very poorly informed how democratic was it, on a percentage basis it seems it was only 70% democratic and that's before we get into the politicians, on both sides, who acted deplorably.

Is a show election really much different than an election where the electorate is lied to and (IMO) purposefully mislead and/or deceived.