Another new Brexit thread

[journolud]

But it is undeniable that they chose to make that commitment as it was seen as to have the potential to swing a significant percentage of votes to voting for them

Therefore it is undeniable that both PMs recognised that the issue of the EU was a significant matter to a great number of people - which simply proves the assertion that nobody cared about the EU before 2016 to be wrong

That they then duly won unexpected, particularly in 2015, majorities absolutely proves the assertion to be wrong

I think we would have to agree to differ on how much that particular part of a manifesto influenced people to vote the way they did.

 

[FlemishDuck]

With a bit of extra effort you can find the answer to your question in your own posts but please save yourself some time by reading Wiki on why countries are different to trading groups.

I think you need to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation

A confederation (also known as a confederacy or league) is a union of sovereign states, united for purposes of common action often in relation to other states.

Point is, it is perfectly valid for nation states to voluntarily place immigration within a larger confederalist structure. One has to understand that the legal basis of nation states is SELF DETERMINATION, it doesnt make it really discrimiatory one the basis of technical govermental structures if from a self determinalistic pov all nationality's within the confederacy identify as of the same identity. Atleast, not less discriminatory as the way nation states typicly handle foreign immigration.

explaining the context Nation States. The UK is one

I still disagree that the UK is simply a nation state in the classical sense, it's even in the bloody name it's a Union!!! Sure, it's a union founded by monarchistic means mostly afaik, but the UK is distincly a more multicultural and multigovermental entity compared to say ... Japan.

 

[Ban-jani]

She isnt winning anyway thankfully.

Well that’s beside the point you were making.

I don’t think they will either but they’ve got a chance, for once.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Swinson claiming a liberal democrat government would have a democratic mandate to revoke as the electorate had voted for it.

Anyone want to point out the problem with her argument there and her own behaviour this last 3 years re a democratic mandate and vote?

It's an entirely valid argument. No government is bound by the laws/policies of any prior government. The referendum and decision to implement it was a Cameron era policy. He opted to resign instead of implement it.

If Jo Swinson becomes PM then 3 Tory PM's will have either resigned ahead of or been voted out of office before implementing it. So should every PM be bound by the policy of the prior Tory governments - of course not. By that logic why are we still not arguing about the repeal of the corn laws.

Politics moves on.

 

[BobKowalski]

You can keep trying to put words into my mouth - even when I have been clear - but that is not how debating works (well of course these threads do sometimes prove me to be wrong there)

FlemishDuck was much more knowledgeable than you have been as he was explaining the context Nation States. The UK is one, Australia is one etc. - the EU is not

That sound you hear? It’s your own logic disappearing up your own arse.

 

[blueinsa]

Well that’s beside the point you were making.

I don’t think they will either but they’ve got a chance, for once.

I know, my second post was a different point.

 

[blueinsa]

It's an entirely valid argument. No government is bound by the laws/policies of any prior government. The referendum and decision to implement it was a Cameron era policy. He opted to resign instead of implement it.

If Jo Swinson becomes PM then 3 Tory PM's will have either resigned ahead of or been voted out of office before implementing it. So should every PM be bound by the policy of the prior Tory governments - of course not. By that logic why are we still not arguing about the repeal of the corn laws.

Politics moves on.

You miss my point, deliberately.

She says with a straight face that if more people vote for something then it should be done.

 

[Ban-jani]

I know, my second post was a different point.

Fair enough.

 

[BobKowalski]

You miss my point, deliberately.

She says with a straight face that if more people vote for something then it should be done.

If she is elected on a mandate for Remain then obvs the will of the people should prevail. And yes I did smirk a little when typing this.

 

[Rascal]

Oh for fuck's sake - is that how they do them? Please tell me this is a clarkie?

True mate, look up the app.

 

[Rascal]

'eye of the beholder' and all that Rascal - polling data is an inkblot test for adherents of political parties

I agree, but i answer the polls i do for you gov as though i am a Tory.

I doubt i am alone in that.

 

[Neville Kneville]

You miss my point, deliberately.

She says with a straight face that if more people vote for something then it should be done.

That's absolutely true.

We should certainly have left the EU, on a Norway or similar kind of deal, two years ago, which people such as myself would have reluctantly accepted (& I didn't even recognise the right to a referendum, to strip me of mine).

If the Tories campaign on 'no deal' & win an overall majority, then 'no deal' it is.

Imo, the majority will be a coalition of 'remain' or 'referendum' parties, so a referendum will be the compromise.

 

[dave_blue12]

Not seen this graphic before

 

[blueinsa]

If she is elected on a mandate for Remain then obvs the will of the people should prevail. And yes I did smirk a little when typing this.

Im glad you smirked.

Something tells me it isnt going to happen, at least the way Swinson wants anyway.

 

[1.618034]

Brexit has been a clusterfuck from the start and it's only got worse.

At last, Revocation is being talked about as policy and so, from now on, I'm no longer identifying as a "Remainer".

I'm a Revoker, and proud!

STOP BREXIT!

 

[BobKowalski]

Im glad you smirked.

Something tells me it isnt going to happen, at least the way Swinson wants anyway.

Not the way Swinson wants it no but they do have a clear, unambiguous message. And for people sick to death of Brexit it will cut through just as the Brexit Party’s clear message cuts through and like them she will be seeking to influence the Brexit outcome on those that are better positioned to form a Govt.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

I actually do, I am a member of YouGov, so I regularly do the polls, you get points for each one you do and when you accrue so many points you get £50

You can join it through their app.

Really .

 

[BobKowalski]

Brexit has been a clusterfuck from the start and it's only got worse.

At last, Revocation is being talked about as policy and so, from now on, I'm no longer identifying as a "Remainer".

I'm a Revoker, and proud!

STOP BREXIT!

I hear you brother. #votetorevoke

 

[mcfc1632]

And the US is a federation, whereas the Eu is something of a confederation. Both consist of a number of states. So how does for example moving between states in the USA relate to immigrating from outside the states? Would it be discrimiation if individual states i the US accepted more immigrants from other US states that from outside the US?



Well technicly Birtain is afaik a "royal union"? It is atleast a union of somewhat distinct cultural groups rather than centered around being the nation state of a certain nationalistic identity. (it shows during Brexit i must say) It's not like say Norway which is pretty much exclusivly inhabited by Norwegians.



Euh i feel you are heading into a field of semantics where you even have somewhat ill defined what the UK is within the perspective of nation states as to make an in conceived argument how states relate to con/federated unions thereof for what regards internal and external migration. I disagree both with the idea of the UK being the typical nation state and that distinction between internal and external immigration to be something usefully described as discrimination rather than simply "egoistic nationalistic interrests".



The problem as it is is that "the practicle reality NOW is that FoM applies". Meaning that in practice the EU serves as a confederation of states in that regard.

I accept the confederalist nature of the EU and as such that having a different policy for outside immigration does not result in "discrimination" by ay normative perception on the interrests of nation states or (con-)federations thereof.



Perhaps, but that is not the defacto state YET.

You make my argument for me.

Yes - the US is the United States of America

Yes the EU ideologues aspire for the EU to be the United States of Europe - but it currently is not and there are a lot of citizens of the EU that do not wish that ambition to be realised as they are quite happy living in a sovereign state.

In the UK - which is where my interests lie - the majority were so adamant in their view that they voted to leave the EU.

It really is quite simple - you see the EU as a 'super nation state' and wish for that - it is not and many do not want it to be

 

[blueinsa]

Brexit has been a clusterfuck from the start and it's only got worse.

At last, Revocation is being talked about as policy and so, from now on, I'm no longer identifying as a "Remainer".

I'm a Revoker, and proud!

STOP BREXIT!

Im no longer a leaver.

Im a leaver and stop remainers and revokers at all costs type of guy!