Brexit

[Carbomb]

38 minutes ago, CavemanLynn said:

I wonder if May is secretly wearing baby blue trunks.

Being politics, there's a lot of posturing going on here. The UK is actually a pretty strong economy, so as one poster stated earlier, the EU are going to make it as ugly as possible for us to leave, because a) they want to hold onto us, even as a gateway into other markets, and b) to put the willies up any other EU countries considering also splitting. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a shitstorm until D-Day, then suddenly deals come out of both sides to allow the stock markets to stabilise and limit damage over the next few years it'll take to uncouple.

As I was saying a few posts up in response to that, I think it could be the opposite. The EU might want to be seen as reasonable and friendly, because they know that, with generational shift, we'll probably be back again in at least a couple of decades, if not sooner. They won't want to risk driving us further into the arms of the US, to become a fully-fledged member of their bloc.

[David]

On 3/14/2019 at 7:05 PM, Fog Dude said:

We have as much control over the 'outfit' in Brussels as we do over the shower of shit in Westminster. We don't elect the Queen, judges, civil servants or the House of Lords (or the WTO, NATO, Commonwealth etc. for that matter) so why would you expect to elect the Council, Commission and ECJ directly? At least European Parliament elections use a form of PR, whereas the Commons is still stuck with archaic first-past-the-post.

Well, in that case having two layers of this shit is fine then, right? 

No, it's not. Why is it that people assume if you question the democratic nature of the EU you're automatically a Union Jack waving disciple of the British political system? I'm certainly not a fan of the system we have in the UK, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with another layer of bureaucracy simply because our own system is the shits.

Give me a referendum on binning the House of Lords and I know which way I'll be voting. Same goes for the Monarchy, get that to fuck while we're at it.

If and when we leave the EU, we absolutely should be looking at the shitshow that we've seen from our own politicians in the run up to the leaving date, and we should be holding each and every one of them accountable.

Do we need political reform in the UK to get rid of an old system that's no longer even close to being fit for purpose? Absolutely. And hopefully that's next on the agenda.

On 3/14/2019 at 11:10 PM, Carbomb said:

I see your point, but am not entirely sure how far I agree with it. The way the EU treated Greece isn't likely to be the same way they'd treat the UK, for the very simple fact that the UK is a major economy, even now.

Yeah, but that's akin to watching the bully smash fuck out of the little kid on the playground and take solace in the fact that they probably won't do the same to us because we're a bit bigger and can fight back a bit more.

On 3/14/2019 at 11:10 PM, Carbomb said:

I get they might want to make an example of leavers, but at the same time, the EU's a long-term project, for better or worse, and I get the impression they'll be looking at this as a temporary arrangement, during which time they'll give us our space to see other people, take some alone-time to have a think about what we want in life, and avoid pissing us off because they're entertaining the hope we'll come back and have awesome make-up sex (alright, I'm taking the analogy too far, but you get my meaning). 

I sincerely hope you're right, and what I really hope happens is that the EU countries, including the UK, ask themselves why there are enough people pissed off about the current system to actually make this kind of thing a reality. And the classic answer of "well, it's racists and bigots who don't like immigration" isn't an answer that's going to work in my opinion. This is a democracy apparently, and even those who don't follow the political world with the fervour that some others do are still entitled to a say.

I'm hoping that this whole carry-on, with us leaving, will eventually result in changes both at home and in Europe. 

Could it shock the EU into looking inwards and asking why it happened? Will we see less attempts to create a United States of Europe? More autonomy for members nations? I certainly hope so. In my opinion the EU should be nothing more than a facilitator for smooth trade between nations for the most part.

Has it taken this whole shitfest for the British people to realise that our current system isn't fit for purpose anymore? Will we see the eventual breakup of the traditional Labour and Conservative dominance of our political system? We can only hope. I'm not the only person out there who isn't really arsed to vote because there's no party that makes me want to actually walk to the polling station.

In an ideal world we'd see some changes at home, which would provide a new Government with a mandate to go to the EU and say "Okay, we think this is where the problem lies. If you're interested in the UK coming back into the fold we'll need to look at making a few changes to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again in a few years."

At that point you'd hope that other EU nations with growing numbers of disillusioned citizens would follow suit and we can drag this whole load of nonsense into the modern era.

On 3/14/2019 at 7:36 PM, Keith Houchen said:

I believe that is the second most popular cocktail in Glasgow so he'll be having them when he comes home after his EU sojourn.

Just like the current situation with the UK and the EU, the EU nations I spend time in don't want me to leave either. Think they like the wedge I hand over to them in tax.

[Fog Dude]

1 hour ago, David said:

Well, in that case having two layers of this shit is fine then, right? 

No, it's not. Why is it that people assume if you question the democratic nature of the EU you're automatically a Union Jack waving disciple of the British political system? I'm certainly not a fan of the system we have in the UK, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with another layer of bureaucracy simply because our own system is the shits.

Give me a referendum on binning the House of Lords and I know which way I'll be voting. 

Do we need political reform in the UK to get rid of an old system that's no longer even close to being fit for purpose? Absolutely. And hopefully that's next on the agenda.

Has it taken this whole shitfest for the British people to realise that our current system isn't fit for purpose anymore? Will we see the eventual breakup of the traditional Labour and Conservative dominance of our political system? We can only hope.

Having multiple layers of governance is generally the way of things, yeah. Brussels feels more remote than Westminster because it's further away and it's a higher level of government. By the same token, Holyrood should feel more distant than Glasgow City Council.

All those institutions have some horrendous people in them, and also some who aren't entirely self-serving but are still human beings who make mistakes and sometimes hit a brick wall of vested interests and cliques. You can question the democratic nature of any organisation, since none of them is ever likely to be a perfect democracy that somehow manages to please all of its people all of the time. If you specifically and repeatedly choose to single out just the EU institutions for criticism, including the one directly elected by proportional representation, then you're placing yourself alongside those flag-waving disciples whether you like it or not. The only reason to hold the EU to different standards from the UK and Scottish Parliaments is nationalism, plain and simple.

I'd sooner reform the upper house than abolish it but they've been trying to do that for 108 years, so I can understand just getting fed up and wanting to can it.

I agree with the bit in bold though. I hope it's been a wake-up call as to how our system barely stumbled along for decades and that those in power realise we need genuine reform with issues no longer decided along party lines and political conventions able to be broken since they were always at the mercy of unscrupulous bastards. We need properly codified rules because politicians can no longer be trusted to act honourably (if indeed they ever could). 

[David]

19 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

Having multiple layers of governance is generally the way of things, yeah. Brussels feels more remote than Westminster because it's further away and it's a higher level of government. By the same token, Holyrood should feel more distant than Glasgow City Council.

Oh, I get that. What I'm against is having multiple layers of governance simply for the sake of it. 

Again, as I mentioned previously, my hope is that we see less bureaucracy and a more streamlined, accountable system eventually emerge. A politics 2.0 if you will, where more decision making and responsibility is placed in the hands of the democratically elected officials. I'm fed up with mostly elderly white men in suits carving a very good living for themselves from taxpayers money for doing virtually fuck all. Most of these organisations and bureaucrats aren't needed.

We also need far more transparency, and that goes for government on both an EU and national level.

19 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

If you specifically and repeatedly choose to single out just the EU institutions for criticism, including the one directly elected by proportional representation, then you're placing yourself alongside those flag-waving disciples whether you like it or not. The only reason to hold the EU to different standards from the UK and Scottish Parliaments is nationalism, plain and simple.

But I don't single out the EU for criticism. When the Scottish independence referendum was in full swing I was consistently singling out problems and issues I had with both the Scottish government and the UK government. I'm singling out the EU because this is the Brexit thread, and it's the hot topic of the day.

Like I said, once it's all done and dusted we can, and most definitely should, move on to examine our own political landscape, and how our elected representatives acted during the whole episode.

I do sincerely hope that within the next ten years or so we look back at this period of time as a breaking point, where we eventually went on to see reform both in domestic politics and in how the EU functions.

Edited March 16, 2019 by David

[Brewster McCloud]

What's wrong with the monarchy? The Queen doesn't bother you that much, does she? It's not like she actually does anything, apart from pull in tourists and improve the economy. 

[Carbomb]

2 hours ago, David said:

Give me a referendum on binning the House of Lords and I know which way I'll be voting. Same goes for the Monarchy, get that to fuck while we're at it.

I absolutely agree on the monarchy, but given the rise in nationalist fervour, I think we're further away from that than ever. I know not everyone who voted for Brexit is a racist or xenophobe (hell, I almost voted Leave myself), but I do believe the vast majority did vote Brexit out of either racism/xenophobia, or, at best, out of some kind of pernicious fear and anger at the wrong people, manifested as nationalism.

As to the House of Lords, whether it's binned or reformed, I don't think an elected second chamber is the way to go, because they'll just end up behaving the same way as so many MPs do, operating along careerist lines rather than out of a true sense of duty or responsibility. Obviously, I don't believe positions should be inherited, and I certainly think the Church of England can either get the fuck out, or we replace a big chunk of the Lords Spiritual with major representatives of other religious communities in the UK (I lean towards the former).

Personally, I'd say Lords (or Senators or whatever we'd call upper house members) should be appointed by independent committee, and candidates be chosen as luminaries from specified areas of society, each of which has an allotted number that can represent them, say five. So, for example, people who are recognised for their services to public healthcare, some for local governance/community/social welfare, some for culture, some for diplomacy/foreign affairs, some for industry, some for agriculture, some for scientific development/research/invention, some for defence, some for charities, some for ecology/conservation, some for education, some for law, and so on. No more than a set number for each field, to prevent too much of one field dominating for its interests.

[Carbomb]

18 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

What's wrong with the monarchy? The Queen doesn't bother you that much, does she? It's not like she actually does anything, apart from pull in tourists and improve the economy. 

That's one of the oldest lies that's ever been told about the monarchy. It's never been quantifiable, and the only indicators there are at all show that non-royal visitor attractions pull in way more than the royal ones. Link here to data provided by Republic: https://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/its-good-tourism

Also, are people really going to stop coming to the country of Stonehenge, the Beatles, Shakespeare, the British Museum, Edinburgh Castle, Hadrian's Wall, etc., just because a certain family aren't recognised as our rulers any more?

Additionally, it's not just about what the monarchy costs and what they're able to do, it's what they represent - ideas have power, and they shape how people think and react to things. Once you accept the idea that someone can be accorded status, privilege, wealth, and a guarantee by law that, no matter how mediocre they might be, they won't ever be allowed to fail (something every other family around this country isn't accorded), you accept the notion that there's someone who, for mystic reasons, you have to bow to because they wear a big jewelled hat and because some priests waved their hands at them.

Given how much we bang on about meritocracy and democracy in this country, it's a regressive way of thinking. Culture, in academic terms, is the construction and signification of meaning, and, as long as we have a culture that accepts what a monarchy means, we will always fall short in trying to reform this country for the betterment of everybody, because, in its purest form, we're just subliminally accepting a belief that, for some reason we can't put our finger on, there's a group of people better than us by birth, and that by turn subliminally extends to the structure of aristocracy and the class system.

EDIT: Oh, and that fucking national anthem can fuck the fuck off too. I'm not massively patriotic, but I'd be prouder of a country that proclaims its people are what make it, not one bloody person.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Carbomb

[Brewster McCloud]

The two biggest factions voting leave were the elderly (who regard Europe as the enemy and think it somehow saps Britain's power) and those without much education who thought them foreigners were nicking their jobs. I imagine a referendum on abolishing the monarchy - not that it will ever happen - would see the great British public voting overwhelmingly to keep it as it simply doesn't affect people's lives in any meaningful way. Old Liz is little more than a figurehead; even if you object to the whole "better by birth" thing on moral grounds, it hardly makes a difference to everyday life. It's also not like countries with monarchies perform any worse than republics. 

[gmoney]

People flock to Salisbury Cathedral every day in their thousands. 

[Fog Dude]

12 minutes ago, David said:

Oh, I get that. What I'm against is having multiple layers of governance simply for the sake of it. 

Again, as I mentioned previously, my hope is that we see less bureaucracy and a more streamlined, accountable system eventually emerge. A politics 2.0 if you will, where more decision making and responsibility is placed in the hands of the democratically elected officials. I'm fed up with mostly elderly white men in suits carving a very good living for themselves from taxpayers money for doing virtually fuck all. Most of these organisations and bureaucrats aren't needed.

We also need far more transparency, and that goes for government on both an EU and national level.

How few layers is too few though? Round here there's a parish council, district council and county council with the UK and (for the moment) EU Parliaments above that. That arguably is one too many but it's one of the local ones that might need getting rid of. Every time an authority has a boundary review in England it ends up with fewer seats, and some are being forcibly merged just to save central government money. Not having as many politicians is always a popular headline-grabbing move, but it also means less representation and less accountability. Neither of those is a good thing in my book. It affects the delivery of services that people rely on in a negative way.

A lot of public sector bureaucracy and some entire organisations aren't really necessary to make the world go round, but the same is true in the private sector. That's probably part of a wider discussion and not just related to Brexit, mind. The UK government has been at the forefront of taking power out of the hands of elected officials with academies, local health trusts, privatisation of utilities etc (aside from the Police Commissioner gimmick down here, I suppose). Contrary to reports, the EU didn't force them to give responsibility for running those services to profit-making companies. It was an entirely domestic decision.

I think the EU is probably the more transparent of those two layers of government, even if there's always room for improvement. There wasn't even such thing as a secret document at EU level until its member states agreed to start co-operating on security matters. We just don't hear about any of the positive stuff in the media, just things about accounts not being signed off and straight bananas instead.

Quote

But I don't single out the EU for criticism. When the Scottish independence referendum was in full swing I was consistently singling out problems and issues I had with both the Scottish government and the UK government. I'm singling out the EU because this is the Brexit thread, and it's the hot topic of the day.

Yeah, fair enough. Although mentioning the Lords and the Windsors seems to have dragged some other posters off topic! 

Quote

 

Like I said, once it's all done and dusted we can, and most definitely should, move on to examine our own political landscape, and how our elected representatives acted during the whole episode.

I do sincerely hope that within the next ten years or so we look back at this period of time as a breaking point, where we eventually went on to see reform both in domestic politics and in how the EU functions.

 

Can't argue with any of that. The only difference is I hope the moment it's all done and dusted is when we either revoke Article 50 or rejoin the EU. 

[Carbomb]

10 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

The two biggest factions voting leave were the elderly (who regard Europe as the enemy and think it somehow saps Britain's power) and those without much education who thought them foreigners were nicking their jobs. I imagine a referendum on abolishing the monarchy - not that it will ever happen - would see the great British public voting overwhelmingly to keep it as it simply doesn't affect people's lives in any meaningful way. Old Liz is little more than a figurehead; even if you object to the whole "better by birth" thing on moral grounds, it hardly makes a difference to everyday life. It's also not like countries with monarchies perform any worse than republics. 

From Republic (sorry for not typing it out myself, but they've pretty much made all the arguments I would make, no need to re-invent the wheel. Plus I need to get off this computer soon.)

"Opposition to the monarchy isn't about money, it's about principles. If the monarchy cost nothing, we would still campaign for an elected head of state because hereditary public office has no place in a democracy.

Nevertheless, the British monarchy is expensive – very expensive. With an estimated annual bill to the taxpayer of £300m, the Queen and her family cost over 100 times more than the Irish president."

https://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/it-doesnt-cost-much-–-its-great-value-money

Also:

"The Queen certainly does have power, including the power to sign international treaties and deploy British troops abroad. It's true that most of these 'royal prerogative powers' are today exercised by government, but that in itself is a serious problem. These powers have been transferred directly from the monarch to the prime minister and don't need the approval of parliament, effectively shutting out the British people from important decisions. That is fundamentally anti-democratic – and it can only happen because we have a monarchy.

The Queen and Prince Charles also have the power to veto bills that affect their private interests. Official legal advice makes clear that Queen's and Prince's Consent (as the 'royal veto' is officially known) is not a mere formality. The process by which consent is obtained provides a clear opportunity for the Queen and the Prince of Wales to influence the shape and content of a bill before it reaches Parliament.

Then there's the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. At one point all the power in the land was held by the king or queen. Over time that power moved to parliament and is now held collectively by 650 MPs. However, the fundamental nature of that power hasn't changed – parliament can make or scrap any law it likes, just as the monarch could in the past. This means our freedoms are never really guaranteed because parliament can always decide to remove them. Again, this a direct result of having a monarchy."

https://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/it-has-no-power-–-its-just-decoration

Edited March 16, 2019 by Carbomb

[Brewster McCloud]

21 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

That's one of the oldest lies that's ever been told about the monarchy. It's never been quantifiable, and the only indicators there are at all show that non-royal visitor attractions pull in way more than the royal ones. Link here to data provided by Republic: https://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/its-good-tourism

Also, are people really going to stop coming to the country of Stonehenge, the Beatles, Shakespeare, the British Museum, Edinburgh Castle, Hadrian's Wall, etc., just because a certain family aren't recognised as our rulers any more?

Additionally, it's not just about what the monarchy costs and what they're able to do, it's what they represent - ideas have power, and they shape how people think and react to things. Once you accept the idea that someone can be accorded status, privilege, wealth, and a guarantee by law that, no matter how mediocre they might be, they won't ever be allowed to fail (something every other family around this country isn't accorded), you accept the notion that there's someone who, for mystic reasons, you have to bow to because they wear a big jewelled hat and because some priests waved their hands at them.

Given how much we bang on about meritocracy and democracy in this country, it's a regressive way of thinking. Culture, in academic terms, is the construction and signification of meaning, and, as long as we have a culture that accepts what a monarchy means, we will always fall short in trying to reform this country for the betterment of everybody, because, in its purest form, we're just subliminally accepting a belief that, for some reason we can't put our finger on, there's a group of people better than us by birth, and that by turn subliminally extends to the structure of aristocracy and the class system.

EDIT: Oh, and that fucking national anthem can fuck the fuck off too. I'm not massively patriotic, but I'd be prouder of a country that proclaims its people are what make it, not one bloody person.

3

It's not a lie: plenty of people visit the UK because they're interested in the whole medieval system of kings, queens and castles. Of course, they'd still visit without them, but it's a big part of the existing package. And "fail" at what, exactly? Waving to crowds? Making a speech at Christmas? I don't recall ever bowing to the queen, and I'm sure you haven't had to either. I don't imagine anyone younger than my grandparents' generation actually thinks the monarchy are better by birth; they're a tabloid sideshow who "lead" the armed forces. Do you really think, Carbomb, that the royal family "shape how people think and react to things"?

And, meritocracies are overrated; Singapore has one but they also whack criminals with canes and execute people for taking drugs, nor do their citizens seem particularly happy or get to enjoy a free press. A rather sterile place it is. 

Does this republican website have any specific examples of Liz or Phillip interfering in the UK's political process detrimentally at any point?

The anthem is wank, though, I grant you.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Brewster McCloud

[Carbomb]

1 minute ago, Brewster McCloud said:

It's not a lie: plenty of people visit the UK because they're interested in the whole medieval system of kings, queens and castles. Of course, they'd still visit without them, but it's a big part of it the package. And "fail" at what, exactly? Waving to crowds? Making a speech at Christmas? I don't recall ever bowing to the queen, and I'm sure you haven't had to either. I don't imagine anyone younger than my grandparents' generation actually thinks the monarchy are better by birth; they're a tabloid sideshow who "lead" the armed forces. Do you really think, Carbomb, that the royal family "shape how people think and react to things"?

It is a lie, for the stats I just quoted you. Also, look at France - now officially the most visited country in the world, and they got rid of their monarchy over 200 years ago. Plenty of people still visit the chateaux, the Louvre, Versailles, Notre Dame, etc.

And come on - I'm pretty sure you know what I mean by "fail", which is a general sense: that a family could experience hardship or adversity from either their own failure to do well or from misfortune.

And yes, as I said earlier, I do think they shape how people think and react to things, or I wouldn't have said it. Culture is a significant method via which to exercise soft power, and we see it all the time throughout the world.

1 minute ago, Brewster McCloud said:

And, meritocracies are overrated; Singapore has one but they also whack criminals with canes and execute people for taking drugs, nor do their citizens seem particularly happy or get to enjoy a free press. A rather sterile place it is. 

Yes, Singapore is the only example of a meritocracy, and therefore we should abandon the whole idea. And other meritocracies are imperfect, and therefore we should give up on them and not see them as constant works in progress where we make efforts to do and be better.

[Fog Dude]

12 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

"It's true that most of these 'royal prerogative powers' are today exercised by government, but that in itself is a serious problem. These powers have been transferred directly from the monarch to the prime minister and don't need the approval of parliament, effectively shutting out the British people from important decisions.

Then there's the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. At one point all the power in the land was held by the king or queen. Over time that power moved to parliament and is now held collectively by 650 MPs. However, the fundamental nature of that power hasn't changed – parliament can make or scrap any law it likes, just as the monarch could in the past. This means our freedoms are never really guaranteed because parliament can always decide to remove them. Again, this a direct result of having a monarchy."

All of the above is an argument for a codified constitution more than anything. I only mentioned old Liz in passing as an example that not everything in the UK is directly elected, since eurosceptics only seem to have a problem with that at EU level (and if we did suddenly start electing Commissioners and ECJ judges, they'd complain it was taking on the form of a superstate). 

8 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

And, meritocracies are overrated; Singapore has one but they also whack criminals with canes and execute people for taking drugs, nor do their citizens seem particularly happy or get to enjoy a free press. A rather sterile place it is. 

Not sure where you get the idea that Singapore is a meritocracy. Who gets to decide what 'merit' is anyway? One of the reasons Brexit needs to be stopped is to prevent an experiment in which Britain becomes like Singapore economically on a massive scale. That said, not a lot of people realise that most Singaporeans actually live in social housing! The death penalty part is another thing we should want to avoid. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Fog Dude
Waddle-ism

[Carbomb]

1 minute ago, Fog Dude said:

All of the above is an argument for a codified constitution more than anything. 

Absolutely. I'd actually rather we had a figurehead like the Irish president, who has on occasion used the powers he/she was given for the purposes they were meant.