I have my finger ready.

1235»

Comments

  • RooK wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Said every troll, at first.

    I find your remarks to be nasty, unjustified and pathetic.

    I find your posts to be a horrifying santorum of idiocy and masturbation.

    I bow to you expert knowledge of the subject.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Said every troll, at first.

    I find your remarks to be nasty, unjustified and pathetic.
    Really? That's odd. They seemed spot-on to me.

    Of course you do. You piss in the same pot
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm not sure exactly what BlahBlah's point is, but for my money (ha ha) and indeed from what I hear from Welsh friends on t'interwebs, is that there's a certain amount of resentment in paying for a line to get people from Birmingham to London a little bit quicker, when the Welsh rail system is in desperate need of development. It just about works around Caerdydd, but Caerfyrddin, Caernarfon, Bangor, Aberystwyth, Abergwaun, Penfro - these are significant destinations but they're damned hard to get from one to the other of. The linking branches are missing.

    Similar resentment is shared in my neck of the woods. Hearing that they might only build the southern bit of HS2 makes the thing completely pointless to most of us. Indeed; it always did have limited utility - we can get to Leeds, Sheffield, London, Birmingham, York, Newcastle (if we're on the right side of the Pennines - Manchester, Preston, Carlisle if you're on the wrong side) quite easily and quickly enough already. What's missing is getting across the Pennines quicker than you could bloody cycle it. I exaggerate only slightly.

    Oh, yeah, Bradford could do with being treated as something more than a stop along a branch line with crappy slow rattlers as well.

    Preston is the right side but I understand your point
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Well this certainly moved from the OP.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Party in the Assembly wants =/= the Assembly wants. Otherwise you would have to say the Westminster parliament wants Scottish independence.
    Though, the Westminster Parliament clearly supports Scottish Independence. Why else push so hard for leaving the EU, against the clear wish of the people of Scotland, without even attempting to accommodate the concerns of (or, even consult with) the government of Scotland? It's difficult to imagine an approach that Westminster could take which would be more supportive of Scottish independence.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    They have stayed we will move forward as one nation. I think they include Scotland
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Party in the Assembly wants =/= the Assembly wants. Otherwise you would have to say the Westminster parliament wants Scottish independence.
    Though, the Westminster Parliament clearly supports Scottish Independence. Why else push so hard for leaving the EU, against the clear wish of the people of Scotland, without even attempting to accommodate the concerns of (or, even consult with) the government of Scotland? It's difficult to imagine an approach that Westminster could take which would be more supportive of Scottish independence.

    When the whole of the UK clearly voted to leave the EU, it's not feasible to allow parts of the UK to deny the wishes of the majority.
  • Until the whole of the UK has the chance to have their say on the proposal the government has put forward then we can't know the wishes of the majority.
  • Telford wrote: »
    When the whole of the UK clearly voted to leave the EU, it's not feasible to allow parts of the UK to deny the wishes of the majority.

    The use of the word 'clearly' is interesting here, as in any branch of statistics I'm aware of, the difference between Leave and Remain would fall within the margin of error.

    Under those circumstances, the vote to Remain, which was clearly demonstrated in both Scotland and NI, should be respected.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Perhaps Telford thinks that Scotland and NI are NOT part of the UK? In which case, presumably, he means just England and Wales...

    Anyway, what Alan and Doc Tor said.
  • Until the whole of the UK has the chance to have their say on the proposal the government has put forward then we can't know the wishes of the majority.

    The whole of the UK had a vote on this in 2016. Personally I think that a higher percentage should have been needed to make a fundimental change but both sides were happy with the rules before the event.
  • Were they? Citation needed, as the saying is...
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    When the whole of the UK clearly voted to leave the EU, it's not feasible to allow parts of the UK to deny the wishes of the majority.

    The use of the word 'clearly' is interesting here, as in any branch of statistics I'm aware of, the difference between Leave and Remain would fall within the margin of error.

    Under those circumstances, the vote to Remain, which was clearly demonstrated in both Scotland and NI, should be respected.

    Should we also respect the vote in all other parts of the UK which wanted 'Remain' ?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Perhaps Telford thinks that Scotland and NI are NOT part of the UK? In which case, presumably, he means just England and Wales...

    Anyway, what Alan and Doc Tor said.

    I have no idea why you think this. Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the UK and will remain so till they decide otherwise.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Perhaps Telford thinks that Scotland and NI are NOT part of the UK? In which case, presumably, he means just England and Wales...

    Anyway, what Alan and Doc Tor said.

    I have no idea why you think this. Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the UK and will remain so till they decide otherwise.

    *sigh*

    From Google:
    The decision by the electorate was to "Leave the European Union" which won by a majority of 1,269,501 votes (3.78%) over those who had voted in favour of "Remain a member of the European Union", with England and Wales voting to "Leave" while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to "Remain".

    Scotland and Northern Ireland are still part of the UK, last time I looked, so the whole of the UK did NOT vote to leave the EU. A less than 4% majority did vote Leave, I agree, but that really isn't, by anyone's standards, an overwhelming majority.

    Am I missing something here?
  • Clearly the UK must return into the ambit of the EU asap.
  • Indeed.

    Subject for another thread, I guess, but (supposing Brexshit does take place, which it will, barring the Parousia occurring over the weekend) what would it take to return to the EU fold?

    If they'd have us, that is, and I wouldn't blame them if they simply told us to Feck Off (again).
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    what would it take to return to the EU fold?

    Possibly as separate nations (Scotland and NI first, probably), fleeing moronic xenophobia.
  • Yes, I rather thought that - Scotland as an independent state, NI as part of the Republic.

    Well, I doubt if I'll live to see any move towards rejoining the EU. The Dark Years are likely to be my Last Years.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Holly wrote: »
    What I struggle to read though is that an established poster can tell another new poster that because he disagrees with his point of view he wishes him to 'choke to death'.

    I should like to point out that while @telford was using language that was less contentious, he was posting in a manner that I consider much, much more harmful than my honest emotional reactions and vivid imagery. He was perpetuating blatant falsehoods, and even admitted that the purpose was to be amused at our distress.

    He is, what is generally referred to, as a troll.

    Your discomfort at my modality does credit to your sense of propriety. However, you should be assured that my actions are not only well within the remit of Hell, they have a long history of helping the forum be resistant to the forms of manipulative interpersonal abuse that standard-class trolls tend to want to inflict.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Perhaps Telford thinks that Scotland and NI are NOT part of the UK? In which case, presumably, he means just England and Wales...

    Anyway, what Alan and Doc Tor said.

    I have no idea why you think this. Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the UK and will remain so till they decide otherwise.

    *sigh*

    From Google:
    The decision by the electorate was to "Leave the European Union" which won by a majority of 1,269,501 votes (3.78%) over those who had voted in favour of "Remain a member of the European Union", with England and Wales voting to "Leave" while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to "Remain".

    Scotland and Northern Ireland are still part of the UK, last time I looked, so the whole of the UK did NOT vote to leave the EU. A less than 4% majority did vote Leave, I agree, but that really isn't, by anyone's standards, an overwhelming majority.

    Am I missing something here?

    You are correct to say that the whole of the UK did not vote to leave. The vote to leave was not overwhelming but it was sufficient. All major parties agreed the rules before the vote. I get annoyed when I hear SNP politicians say that Scotland voted to remain. The truth is that in Scotland there was a majority vote to remain. This is not sufficient to block the UK from leaving but it should be sufficient to allow Scotland a referendum on independence
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Thank you.

    I agree re Scotland, BTW.
  • Telford wrote: »
    You are correct to say that the whole of the UK did not vote to leave. The vote to leave was not overwhelming but it was sufficient. All major parties agreed the rules before the vote. I get annoyed when I hear SNP politicians say that Scotland voted to remain. The truth is that in Scotland there was a majority vote to remain. This is not sufficient to block the UK from leaving but it should be sufficient to allow Scotland a referendum on independence
    The vote in England possibly was closer to "overwhelming", especially outside London. But that's irrelevant.

    The process was stupid, probably unconstitutional (except Parliament can rewrite the constitution at will) and certainly without precedent in the UK or most other nations. Some of us have been saying that 'til people get sick of hearing it for four year now. And, it wasn't supported by all the major parties, the SNP voted against the act.

    The question asked in the 2016 opinion poll is largely meaningless when it comes to defining the future of the nations of the UK. The question simply didn't define what "leaving the EU" meant, and the very short campaign period assigned didn't provide the opportunity for the pro-Leave groups to produce a definition of what that would mean. Until we find out what Leave means there's no way that the people of the UK could have a meaningful say. Does it mean staying in or out of the customs Union and Single Market, and if we leave whether UK regulations will continue to follow the EU standards and regulation; what it means for UK Universities and other Research Institutions participating in EU research programmes, whether non-UK EU students will be able to study here and whether UK students can study in the rest of the EU, would the UK still participate in programmes like ERASMUS; what would replace EU structural funds, or if they would be replaced; how this would affect fisheries; would the ECJ continue to have jurisdiction over various treaties that run in parallel to the EU, such as EURATOM; what sort of border will there be in Ireland; etc ...

    The normal process following UK convention would have been for one (or more) parties form a definitive position on EU membership, make that clear in their manifesto and if elected to government then they have the mandate needed to formulate an Act to implement that policy, which if accepted by Parliament would be put to the people. That process would mean that when we get a referendum the question is clearly defined, and if accepted by the people the government can go straight to enacting their policy. An alternative, similar to the way a referendum would be used in Switzerland for example, would be for a non-government group to do the work of defining what they want (in Switzerland as I understand it from talking to some Swiss citizens, that would require the production of an outline summary in a small booklet that gets delivered to all households), with the referendum then being advisory - the government would be obliged to respect the result, but also could after putting in effort to turn that outline into law concede that it's not actually possible to achieve.

    Show me the agreed policy of the official Leave campaign on the subjects listed above and other topics, and when that was presented to the people of the UK so we could spend a few weeks assessing it before the vote in 2016. If that document exists then maybe there could be a case made for the legitimacy of the 2016 vote. Then, we'll need to ask whether what the government is currently proposing is recognisable as what the people voted for in 2016. Of course, no such document exists. The closest we got was blatant falsehoods on the side of a bus. On most of the subjects I listed there was no agreement, and senior members of the official Leave campaign were saying contradictory things. It takes very little effort to find statements from the Leave campaign that would support leaving the EU while remaining in the CU and SM, remaining in regulatory alignment etc. And, likewise, very little effort to find statements from the Leave campaign supporting leaving both the CU and SM and ending regulatory alignment. How the fuck were the people expected to make an informed vote in those circumstances? And, if an informed vote was not possible then the result is meaningless.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Perhaps Telford thinks that Scotland and NI are NOT part of the UK? In which case, presumably, he means just England and Wales...

    Anyway, what Alan and Doc Tor said.

    I have no idea why you think this. Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the UK and will remain so till they decide otherwise.

    *sigh*

    From Google:
    The decision by the electorate was to "Leave the European Union" which won by a majority of 1,269,501 votes (3.78%) over those who had voted in favour of "Remain a member of the European Union", with England and Wales voting to "Leave" while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to "Remain".

    Scotland and Northern Ireland are still part of the UK, last time I looked, so the whole of the UK did NOT vote to leave the EU. A less than 4% majority did vote Leave, I agree, but that really isn't, by anyone's standards, an overwhelming majority.

    Am I missing something here?

    Usual Brexiteer story = 52 rounded up to 100.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    You are correct to say that the whole of the UK did not vote to leave. The vote to leave was not overwhelming but it was sufficient. All major parties agreed the rules before the vote. I get annoyed when I hear SNP politicians say that Scotland voted to remain. The truth is that in Scotland there was a majority vote to remain. This is not sufficient to block the UK from leaving but it should be sufficient to allow Scotland a referendum on independence
    The vote in England possibly was closer to "overwhelming", especially outside London. But that's irrelevant.

    The process was stupid, probably unconstitutional (except Parliament can rewrite the constitution at will) and certainly without precedent in the UK or most other nations. Some of us have been saying that 'til people get sick of hearing it for four year now. And, it wasn't supported by all the major parties, the SNP voted against the act.

    The question asked in the 2016 opinion poll is largely meaningless when it comes to defining the future of the nations of the UK. The question simply didn't define what "leaving the EU" meant, and the very short campaign period assigned didn't provide the opportunity for the pro-Leave groups to produce a definition of what that would mean. Until we find out what Leave means there's no way that the people of the UK could have a meaningful say. Does it mean staying in or out of the customs Union and Single Market, and if we leave whether UK regulations will continue to follow the EU standards and regulation; what it means for UK Universities and other Research Institutions participating in EU research programmes, whether non-UK EU students will be able to study here and whether UK students can study in the rest of the EU, would the UK still participate in programmes like ERASMUS; what would replace EU structural funds, or if they would be replaced; how this would affect fisheries; would the ECJ continue to have jurisdiction over various treaties that run in parallel to the EU, such as EURATOM; what sort of border will there be in Ireland; etc ...

    The normal process following UK convention would have been for one (or more) parties form a definitive position on EU membership, make that clear in their manifesto and if elected to government then they have the mandate needed to formulate an Act to implement that policy, which if accepted by Parliament would be put to the people. That process would mean that when we get a referendum the question is clearly defined, and if accepted by the people the government can go straight to enacting their policy. An alternative, similar to the way a referendum would be used in Switzerland for example, would be for a non-government group to do the work of defining what they want (in Switzerland as I understand it from talking to some Swiss citizens, that would require the production of an outline summary in a small booklet that gets delivered to all households), with the referendum then being advisory - the government would be obliged to respect the result, but also could after putting in effort to turn that outline into law concede that it's not actually possible to achieve.

    Show me the agreed policy of the official Leave campaign on the subjects listed above and other topics, and when that was presented to the people of the UK so we could spend a few weeks assessing it before the vote in 2016. If that document exists then maybe there could be a case made for the legitimacy of the 2016 vote. Then, we'll need to ask whether what the government is currently proposing is recognisable as what the people voted for in 2016. Of course, no such document exists. The closest we got was blatant falsehoods on the side of a bus. On most of the subjects I listed there was no agreement, and senior members of the official Leave campaign were saying contradictory things. It takes very little effort to find statements from the Leave campaign that would support leaving the EU while remaining in the CU and SM, remaining in regulatory alignment etc. And, likewise, very little effort to find statements from the Leave campaign supporting leaving both the CU and SM and ending regulatory alignment. How the fuck were the people expected to make an informed vote in those circumstances? And, if an informed vote was not possible then the result is meaningless.

    Yes I agree with this. Nothing was sorted at all. People voted with no real idea what it meant. The biggest player in his was emotion. Followed by jingoism.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Perhaps Telford thinks that Scotland and NI are NOT part of the UK? In which case, presumably, he means just England and Wales...

    Anyway, what Alan and Doc Tor said.

    I have no idea why you think this. Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the UK and will remain so till they decide otherwise.

    *sigh*

    From Google:
    The decision by the electorate was to "Leave the European Union" which won by a majority of 1,269,501 votes (3.78%) over those who had voted in favour of "Remain a member of the European Union", with England and Wales voting to "Leave" while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to "Remain".

    Scotland and Northern Ireland are still part of the UK, last time I looked, so the whole of the UK did NOT vote to leave the EU. A less than 4% majority did vote Leave, I agree, but that really isn't, by anyone's standards, an overwhelming majority.

    Am I missing something here?

    Usual Brexiteer story = 52 rounded up to 100.

    O of course. I'd forgotten about the New Math.
    Hugal wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You are correct to say that the whole of the UK did not vote to leave. The vote to leave was not overwhelming but it was sufficient. All major parties agreed the rules before the vote. I get annoyed when I hear SNP politicians say that Scotland voted to remain. The truth is that in Scotland there was a majority vote to remain. This is not sufficient to block the UK from leaving but it should be sufficient to allow Scotland a referendum on independence
    The vote in England possibly was closer to "overwhelming", especially outside London. But that's irrelevant.

    The process was stupid, probably unconstitutional (except Parliament can rewrite the constitution at will) and certainly without precedent in the UK or most other nations. Some of us have been saying that 'til people get sick of hearing it for four year now. And, it wasn't supported by all the major parties, the SNP voted against the act.

    The question asked in the 2016 opinion poll is largely meaningless when it comes to defining the future of the nations of the UK. The question simply didn't define what "leaving the EU" meant, and the very short campaign period assigned didn't provide the opportunity for the pro-Leave groups to produce a definition of what that would mean. Until we find out what Leave means there's no way that the people of the UK could have a meaningful say. Does it mean staying in or out of the customs Union and Single Market, and if we leave whether UK regulations will continue to follow the EU standards and regulation; what it means for UK Universities and other Research Institutions participating in EU research programmes, whether non-UK EU students will be able to study here and whether UK students can study in the rest of the EU, would the UK still participate in programmes like ERASMUS; what would replace EU structural funds, or if they would be replaced; how this would affect fisheries; would the ECJ continue to have jurisdiction over various treaties that run in parallel to the EU, such as EURATOM; what sort of border will there be in Ireland; etc ...

    The normal process following UK convention would have been for one (or more) parties form a definitive position on EU membership, make that clear in their manifesto and if elected to government then they have the mandate needed to formulate an Act to implement that policy, which if accepted by Parliament would be put to the people. That process would mean that when we get a referendum the question is clearly defined, and if accepted by the people the government can go straight to enacting their policy. An alternative, similar to the way a referendum would be used in Switzerland for example, would be for a non-government group to do the work of defining what they want (in Switzerland as I understand it from talking to some Swiss citizens, that would require the production of an outline summary in a small booklet that gets delivered to all households), with the referendum then being advisory - the government would be obliged to respect the result, but also could after putting in effort to turn that outline into law concede that it's not actually possible to achieve.

    Show me the agreed policy of the official Leave campaign on the subjects listed above and other topics, and when that was presented to the people of the UK so we could spend a few weeks assessing it before the vote in 2016. If that document exists then maybe there could be a case made for the legitimacy of the 2016 vote. Then, we'll need to ask whether what the government is currently proposing is recognisable as what the people voted for in 2016. Of course, no such document exists. The closest we got was blatant falsehoods on the side of a bus. On most of the subjects I listed there was no agreement, and senior members of the official Leave campaign were saying contradictory things. It takes very little effort to find statements from the Leave campaign that would support leaving the EU while remaining in the CU and SM, remaining in regulatory alignment etc. And, likewise, very little effort to find statements from the Leave campaign supporting leaving both the CU and SM and ending regulatory alignment. How the fuck were the people expected to make an informed vote in those circumstances? And, if an informed vote was not possible then the result is meaningless.

    Yes I agree with this. Nothing was sorted at all. People voted with no real idea what it meant. The biggest player in his was emotion. Followed by jingoism.

    This (and what Alan said).
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    You are correct to say that the whole of the UK did not vote to leave. The vote to leave was not overwhelming but it was sufficient. All major parties agreed the rules before the vote. I get annoyed when I hear SNP politicians say that Scotland voted to remain. The truth is that in Scotland there was a majority vote to remain. This is not sufficient to block the UK from leaving but it should be sufficient to allow Scotland a referendum on independence
    The vote in England possibly was closer to "overwhelming", especially outside London. But that's irrelevant.

    The process was stupid, probably unconstitutional (except Parliament can rewrite the constitution at will) and certainly without precedent in the UK or most other nations. Some of us have been saying that 'til people get sick of hearing it for four year now. And, it wasn't supported by all the major parties, the SNP voted against the act.

    The question asked in the 2016 opinion poll is largely meaningless when it comes to defining the future of the nations of the UK. The question simply didn't define what "leaving the EU" meant, and the very short campaign period assigned didn't provide the opportunity for the pro-Leave groups to produce a definition of what that would mean. Until we find out what Leave means there's no way that the people of the UK could have a meaningful say. Does it mean staying in or out of the customs Union and Single Market, and if we leave whether UK regulations will continue to follow the EU standards and regulation; what it means for UK Universities and other Research Institutions participating in EU research programmes, whether non-UK EU students will be able to study here and whether UK students can study in the rest of the EU, would the UK still participate in programmes like ERASMUS; what would replace EU structural funds, or if they would be replaced; how this would affect fisheries; would the ECJ continue to have jurisdiction over various treaties that run in parallel to the EU, such as EURATOM; what sort of border will there be in Ireland; etc ...

    The normal process following UK convention would have been for one (or more) parties form a definitive position on EU membership, make that clear in their manifesto and if elected to government then they have the mandate needed to formulate an Act to implement that policy, which if accepted by Parliament would be put to the people. That process would mean that when we get a referendum the question is clearly defined, and if accepted by the people the government can go straight to enacting their policy. An alternative, similar to the way a referendum would be used in Switzerland for example, would be for a non-government group to do the work of defining what they want (in Switzerland as I understand it from talking to some Swiss citizens, that would require the production of an outline summary in a small booklet that gets delivered to all households), with the referendum then being advisory - the government would be obliged to respect the result, but also could after putting in effort to turn that outline into law concede that it's not actually possible to achieve.

    Show me the agreed policy of the official Leave campaign on the subjects listed above and other topics, and when that was presented to the people of the UK so we could spend a few weeks assessing it before the vote in 2016. If that document exists then maybe there could be a case made for the legitimacy of the 2016 vote. Then, we'll need to ask whether what the government is currently proposing is recognisable as what the people voted for in 2016. Of course, no such document exists. The closest we got was blatant falsehoods on the side of a bus. On most of the subjects I listed there was no agreement, and senior members of the official Leave campaign were saying contradictory things. It takes very little effort to find statements from the Leave campaign that would support leaving the EU while remaining in the CU and SM, remaining in regulatory alignment etc. And, likewise, very little effort to find statements from the Leave campaign supporting leaving both the CU and SM and ending regulatory alignment. How the fuck were the people expected to make an informed vote in those circumstances? And, if an informed vote was not possible then the result is meaningless.

    I cannot disagree with this but I am obliged to point out that the EU refused to discuss anything with us untill we had triggered article 50. They would have certainly have refused to discuss anything with us before the vote.

    I also agree with Bishops finger
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Telford wrote: »
    <snip>I cannot disagree with this but I am obliged to point out that the EU refused to discuss anything with us untill we had triggered article 50. They would have certainly have refused to discuss anything with us before the vote. <snip>

    That might well have been the case, but it doesn’t mean there couldn’t have been agreement in advance of the referendum about what we were going to go for - even if in reality some of that could not in the end be achieved.
  • As it is, the invention of a single word made very disparate groups sound like they agreed. There was a total failure of investigation and challenge, but it was the word itself that won the argument. I have never hated facile neologisms as much as that word.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    <snip>I cannot disagree with this but I am obliged to point out that the EU refused to discuss anything with us untill we had triggered article 50. They would have certainly have refused to discuss anything with us before the vote. <snip>

    That might well have been the case, but it doesn’t mean there couldn’t have been agreement in advance of the referendum about what we were going to go for - even if in reality some of that could not in the end be achieved.

    This was the responsibility of Parliament before the referendum.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Specifically, I would have said, the responsibility of the government. It should not have called a referendum before it had clearly defined the options. The ridiculous phrase ‘Brexit means Brexit’ originated because no one had actually decided precisely what Brexit should mean.
  • Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    <snip>I cannot disagree with this but I am obliged to point out that the EU refused to discuss anything with us untill we had triggered article 50. They would have certainly have refused to discuss anything with us before the vote. <snip>

    That might well have been the case, but it doesn’t mean there couldn’t have been agreement in advance of the referendum about what we were going to go for - even if in reality some of that could not in the end be achieved.

    This was the responsibility of Parliament before the referendum.
    As @BroJames said, more so the responsibility of government, Parliament would ideally agree with that (so that in the event of a referendum vote in favour there's no doubt that Parliament won't block progress). But, before that there would need to be a government supporting it, remember in 2015 the government was elected on a pre-EU membership manifesto so wasn't going to produce a policy for leaving the EU. That would have needed the election of a majority of MPs from a party favouring leaving the EU, which in turn would have needed parties who support that idea, which we didn't have in 2015 as UKIP were the only party of any size advocating that and they couldn't win any seats.

    There would be no need for the EU to be discussing anything at that stage, the discussions would be internal to the UK. Though, I'm sure there would be informal comments on what might or might not be acceptable and possible. At the end of the day, the only thing that the government can put to the people is what they would try and secure in negotiations. The questions that would be appropriate to consider during the campaign are a) do we consider it a good end point to seek, b) how achievable the aim is, and c) if the aim isn't achieved is the likely "plan B" acceptable?

    We can look at the 2014 referendum in Scotland as a demonstration of how the process would work in a much better way than the 2016 vote. A proposal from the Scottish government building on decades of SNP campaigning for independence, a majority of MSPs in successive Parliaments in favour of independence, 8 years of wide ranging consultation and political discussion leading to a brief summary of what the government would seek to achieve supported by Parliament, and that summary published as the question we were asked, and the campaign including both whether this was a desirable end and whether the plan was achievable (eg: would using the pound work? would EU membership be a frictionless transition?). Compare that with a government of a party that largely supported EU membership, which had never campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, a minority of MPs in favour of leaving the EU, a few weeks of discussion within a hastily formed Leave campaign group, and summary that fit's on the side of a bus.
  • Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    <snip>I cannot disagree with this but I am obliged to point out that the EU refused to discuss anything with us untill we had triggered article 50. They would have certainly have refused to discuss anything with us before the vote. <snip>

    That might well have been the case, but it doesn’t mean there couldn’t have been agreement in advance of the referendum about what we were going to go for - even if in reality some of that could not in the end be achieved.

    This was the responsibility of Parliament before the referendum.
    As @BroJames said, more so the responsibility of government, Parliament would ideally agree with that (so that in the event of a referendum vote in favour there's no doubt that Parliament won't block progress). But, before that there would need to be a government supporting it, remember in 2015 the government was elected on a pre-EU membership manifesto so wasn't going to produce a policy for leaving the EU. That would have needed the election of a majority of MPs from a party favouring leaving the EU, which in turn would have needed parties who support that idea, which we didn't have in 2015 as UKIP were the only party of any size advocating that and they couldn't win any seats.

    There would be no need for the EU to be discussing anything at that stage, the discussions would be internal to the UK. Though, I'm sure there would be informal comments on what might or might not be acceptable and possible. At the end of the day, the only thing that the government can put to the people is what they would try and secure in negotiations. The questions that would be appropriate to consider during the campaign are a) do we consider it a good end point to seek, b) how achievable the aim is, and c) if the aim isn't achieved is the likely "plan B" acceptable?
    The referendum was supported by the government and the opposition.
    We can look at the 2014 referendum in Scotland as a demonstration of how the process would work in a much better way than the 2016 vote. A proposal from the Scottish government building on decades of SNP campaigning for independence, a majority of MSPs in successive Parliaments in favour of independence, 8 years of wide ranging consultation and political discussion leading to a brief summary of what the government would seek to achieve supported by Parliament, and that summary published as the question we were asked, and the campaign including both whether this was a desirable end and whether the plan was achievable (eg: would using the pound work? would EU membership be a frictionless transition?). Compare that with a government of a party that largely supported EU membership, which had never campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, a minority of MPs in favour of leaving the EU, a few weeks of discussion within a hastily formed Leave campaign group, and summary that fit's on the side of a bus.

    Nevertheless, for the vast majority of Scottish voters it was merely a question of whether they wanted independence or not
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    The whole thing was made even more of a mess by the uncertainty of the role of the government versus the role of Parliament.

    I've already expressed my view some time ago that this was made even worse by the UK courts making decisions about treaty-making power that in at least one case I consider fundamentally wrong in principle (and I also think it's a classic demonstration of the way that courts tend to focus on the outcome they want and then argue their way to get there).

    The UK sometimes prides itself on the supposed benefits of having an unwritten constitution. But when it comes to situations like this, it's a major liability. Nobody quite knows the rules for the big questions raised by either Brexit or moves to independence.

    For starters, the whole 4-countries-in-one arrangement is almost uniquely strange, and then the European Union is a weird beast too. Is it any wonder that when a sort-of-slightly-federal state decides whether or not to leave the other semi-federation it's part of, just after one part of the state was persuaded to stay, things got messy?
  • 'Brexit means Brexit' is a classic Humpty-Dumptyism. 'The question is, "Who's to be master - that's all."' Well, we know now.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    For starters, the whole 4-countries-in-one arrangement is almost uniquely strange, and then the European Union is a weird beast too. Is it any wonder that when a sort-of-slightly-federal state decides whether or not to leave the other semi-federation it's part of, just after one part of the state was persuaded to stay, things got messy?
    Albiet one where almost every country is uniquely strange. Belgium's divisions are particularly relevant to us.
    Take Crimea, in the last 100 years it's been:
    An Autonomous Republic, in a federation in a union
    A Province (equiv to Aus State?) in a federation in a union [combined with a genocide]
    A province in a republic in a union
    An autonomous republic in a republic in a union (very briefly)
    Then an independent Republic
    An (by choice) autonomous republic in a republic
    Then I'm not sure what in a republic (but with the president removed, laws overridden and constitution cancelled)
    Then an autonomous republic
    Then either two somethings in a federation or temporarily occupied
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    jay_emm wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    For starters, the whole 4-countries-in-one arrangement is almost uniquely strange, and then the European Union is a weird beast too. Is it any wonder that when a sort-of-slightly-federal state decides whether or not to leave the other semi-federation it's part of, just after one part of the state was persuaded to stay, things got messy?
    Albiet one where almost every country is uniquely strange. Belgium's divisions are particularly relevant to us.

    Yes, well, when Flanders and Wallonia start competing in sporting competitions against us (or maybe we should send 6-8 teams to the football and rugby and league rather than just the one) the parallel will be more extensive.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    orfeo wrote: »

    For starters, the whole 4-countries-in-one arrangement is almost uniquely strange, and then the European Union is a weird beast too. Is it any wonder that when a sort-of-slightly-federal state decides whether or not to leave the other semi-federation it's part of, just after one part of the state was persuaded to stay, things got messy?

    An interesting view from 'outside', I think... :grimace:
    orfeo wrote: »
    jay_emm wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    For starters, the whole 4-countries-in-one arrangement is almost uniquely strange, and then the European Union is a weird beast too. Is it any wonder that when a sort-of-slightly-federal state decides whether or not to leave the other semi-federation it's part of, just after one part of the state was persuaded to stay, things got messy?
    Albiet one where almost every country is uniquely strange. Belgium's divisions are particularly relevant to us.

    Yes, well, when Flanders and Wallonia start competing in sporting competitions against us (or maybe we should send 6-8 teams to the football and rugby and league rather than just the one) the parallel will be more extensive.

    For a moment, I thought you meant Flanders and Swann, who did, of course, sing something relevant to today's train-wreck.

    Here's the version sung to an American audience:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8

    There's another version somewhere, with more of Flanders' comical preamble, but I can't offhand find it.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Here’s the same song for a British (largely English?) audience: https://youtu.be/KLee4QyhO7c
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Thanks @BroJames - that's the one! Could have been written by Bonkers Boris...

    'German, German Overalls'.... :mrgreen:

    (But I love Flanders' remark, at the Broadway concert, that, if it wasn't for the English, the Americans would all be Spanish!)
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Yes, well, when Flanders and Wallonia start competing in sporting competitions against us (or maybe we should send 6-8 teams to the football and rugby and league rather than just the one) the parallel will be more extensive.
    And when important decisions require a national and regional majorities. the parallel will also be more extensive!
    I don't question the uniqueness just the uniqueness of being uniquene.
  • edited January 2020
    As it is, the invention of a single word made very disparate groups sound like they agreed. There was a total failure of investigation and challenge, but it was the word itself that won the argument. I have never hated facile neologisms as much as that word.

    Brexit - putting the jism in neologism since 2016
This discussion has been closed.