• European dismay at UK 'chaos and confusion' over Brexit
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=David29;52922046]Your argument loses its credibility somewhat given how in favour of Scottish Independence you were. Should we have ignored there Scottish Referendum if the result had favoured leaving the Union?[/QUOTE] If the Scottish referendum was a mere 2 percentage points apart? Probably, yeah. Because that's a really fucking close outcome and either needs to be re-run to get the rest of the population to actually take it seriously or needs more discussion as to a decent compromising solution to the problem. Making a huge, drastic, self-harming decision like breaking out of unions because a mere 2% more of half the voting age population decided they wanted to leave is not how a sane, rational government should go about things. (and this isn't even getting into the outright lies the leave campaign was founded on lmao. or the murder. or the almost entirely likely russian involvement. or the wanton racism from the party that basically founded the movement. there's a lot of reasons the leave vote is probably total shite)
[QUOTE=hexpunK;52922209]If the Scottish referendum was a mere 2 percentage points apart? Probably, yeah. Because that's a really fucking close outcome and either needs to be re-run to get the rest of the population to actually take it seriously or needs more discussion as to a decent compromising solution to the problem. Making a huge, drastic, self-harming decision like breaking out of unions because a mere 2% more of half the voting age population decided they wanted to leave is not how a sane, rational government should go about things. (and this isn't even getting into the outright lies the leave campaign was founded on lmao. or the murder. or the almost entirely likely russian involvement. or the wanton racism from the party that basically founded the movement. there's a lot of reasons the leave vote is probably total shite)[/QUOTE] And hey, give us our due, at least we didn't turn "What is the UK?" into the most googled term after IndyRef - we [b]knew[/b] what we were voting on. Unlike Brexit.
[URL="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/26/hard-won-kinship-between-britain-and-ireland-brexit-idiocy?CMP=share_btn_tw"]Fintan O'Toole perfectly surmises my thoughts.[/URL] [QUOTE]When people are screwing up, they tend to take their rage and frustration out on their nearest and dearest. If, as seems increasingly likely, the European Union summit on 15 December does not give the go-ahead for talks on a post-Brexit trade deal, we already know who’s going to get the blame. It will be all Ireland’s fault. The Sun this month gave the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, fair warning, advising him to “shut your gob and grow up” and stop “disrespecting 17.4 million voters of a country whose billions stopped Ireland going bust as recently as 2010”. Boris Johnson, in Dublin, delivered a slightly more diplomatic version of the same message. The Irish should stop worrying about a hard border being reimposed on their island, trust all the lovely reassurances they have received from the British government and make the necessary declaration that “sufficient progress” has been made on the issue for substantive talks to go ahead. ... To grasp the full stupidity of this situation, remember that Ireland is actually Britain’s best friend on the other side of the negotiating table. This is partly because, before the Brexit referendum, Anglo-Irish relations were warmer than at any time in the long and often bitter history of mutual entanglement. The two governments worked hand in glove on the Northern Ireland peace process and developed a genuine trust. They also co-operated very closely within the European Union. But even leaving friendship aside, Ireland has an overwhelming interest in making Brexit as painless as it possibly can be. A bad Brexit will destabilise Northern Ireland and damage the Republic’s economy, in which most small and medium-size companies depend heavily on the British market. It is thus quite a feat for the Brexiters to turn their most sympathetic ally into the scapegoat for their own most egregious failures. They’ve pulled it off by utilising their most remarkable skill: sheer incompetence. They have known since 29 April, when the European commission issued its negotiating guidelines, that credible proposals on the Irish border were a basic condition that had to be satisfied before trade talks could start. This could not have been more explicit. Time after time, the lead EU negotiator, Michel Barnier, has made it clear that “the unique situation on the island of Ireland requires specific solutions”. But in any case, one would expect Britain to be just as insistent. It has grave responsibilities to its own citizens in Northern Ireland and to the Belfast agreement, by which it is legally and morally bound. Yet the British have done essentially nothing. Johnson’s referendum stump speech boasted of selling French knickers to France and boomerangs to Australia, but even he did not anticipate one of the biggest export successes of Brexit: selling blarney to Ireland. In six months, Britain has produced one flimsy paper on the border question, published in August to almost universal derision. ... At that same hearing, the woman charged with planning for Britain’s post-Brexit borders, Karen Wheeler, was asked an apparently soft question: “Obviously, we have the situation of Northern Ireland and the land border there; we have 300 crossing points where people and goods can freely move. From your point of view, in your team’s planning, what are the specific challenges associated with planning for these changes between the UK and southern Ireland?” Her reply was breathtaking: “I am not really able to say. That area is not within the scope that we in the border planning group have been working on. The arrangements on Ireland are still subject to negotiations and ministerial discussion, so that has not come within our scope at this stage.” What Wheeler was saying is that not only does Britain not have specific plans for the Irish border – it has not even begun to consider what those plans might be. When the PAC’s chair, Meg Hillier, suggested that this was “pretty poor”, Thompson jumped in: “We need the political process to go a bit further before we can fully get into understanding it.” ... So what is the Irish government supposed to do? What happens with the border is a vital national interest. Ireland is desperate to hear what Britain has in mind. Instead, it has been told not to worry its pretty little head about it, but trust in the reassurances of its betters. It is being placed in the position of a 1950s wife, whose husband is betting the house on a horse race while he tells her, with increasingly irritation, to stop worrying because the nag is sure to romp home. Behind this reckless arrogance, there is an assumption that Ireland is an eccentric little offshoot of Britain that must shut its gob and stop asking awkward questions. It is, in fact, a sovereign country with the full backing of 26 other EU member states – and how strange it is that we have reached a point where this comes as an unpleasant surprise to so many people in London.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52921969]When they genuinely don't and every damn expert is saying we're fucking retarded? You might have a point. And considering that 49% (roughly) of the population did not vote, a win of 52% (of the 51% that did vote) is pretty much margin of error shit, as people have said. So you've got a weak mandate in an advisory referendum and the actually informed experts in economics etc screaming that we're out of our mind. The solution? Don't rush into it, but appoint a team to see if the advisory referendum (as all our referenda ARE) to see if it is worth pursuing.[/QUOTE] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1582969[/url] [QUOTE=Craigewan;52808212]As a Scot, this guy gets it. And the plan was always to go ahead even if the UK Gov' didn't approve, because Right to Self Determination > Westminster approval.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=David29;52926235][URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1582969[/URL][/QUOTE] stop hammering a square shape into a circular hole dropping membership of the EU is not the same thing as becoming an independent sovereign nation this comparison is so stupid if you think the situation between scotland and england is/was the same as the situation between the EU and the UK, then you're just atrociously misinformed [editline]27th November 2017[/editline] and for the record: i thought the scottish referendum was stupid because there wasn't a plan in place for how scotland was going to handle the change economically which is exactly the same situation with brexit the difference with the scottish referendum is that there is a legitimate question of self-determination, not a faux one
[QUOTE=David29;52926235][url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1582969[/url][/QUOTE] Also, the position you're referring to is about HAVING a referendum. And so, look at that, my two positions are reconciled, because I am not talking about the outcome at all, or the kind of result that would be necessary for it to be recognised as valid grounds for moving to independence. Which as Cloak Raider says is a legitimate part of self-determination.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52926255]stop hammering a square shape into a circular hole dropping membership of the EU is not the same thing as becoming an independent sovereign nation this comparison is so stupid if you think the situation between scotland and england is/was the same as the situation between the EU and the UK, then you're just atrociously misinformed [editline]27th November 2017[/editline] and for the record: i thought the scottish referendum was stupid because there wasn't a plan in place for how scotland was going to handle the change economically which is exactly the same situation with brexit the difference with the scottish referendum is that there is a legitimate question of self-determination, not a faux one[/QUOTE] Please elaborate on how leaving one Union is a matter of self-determination, but leaving another isn't. [QUOTE=Craigewan;52926283]Also, the position you're referring to is about HAVING a referendum. And so, look at that, my two positions are reconciled, because I am not talking about the outcome at all, or the kind of result that would be necessary for it to be recognised as valid grounds for moving to independence. Which as Cloak Raider says is a legitimate part of self-determination.[/QUOTE] Am I right interpreting, then, that the UK is at least entitled to a referendum?
[QUOTE=David29;52926287]Please elaborate on how leaving one Union is a matter of self-determination, but leaving another isn't. [/QUOTE] congratulations, you've identified that the word union is used in both cases do you honestly think the european union and the United Kingdom are the same thing? pop quiz, try to guess which of the following scotland has control over in the union, and which one the UK has control over in the EU. fiscal, monetary and economic policy control over currency telecommunications consumer and employment rights education funding extradition, national security and data protection transport regulation constitutional matters defence nationality it's a trick question, all of the above are matters that the UK has control over in the EU as a sovereign nation, and Scotland has no control over in the UK.
[QUOTE=David29;52926287]Please elaborate on how leaving one Union is a matter of self-determination, but leaving another isn't. Am I right interpreting, then, that the UK is at least entitled to a referendum?[/QUOTE] And where did you get the impression from any of us that we weren't entitled to a referendum? The referendum was ill-judged, ill-informed and voted on by a small proportion of the british people for something so momentous, that most people didn't understand, which makes the margin of error results all the more concerning when people like you trumpet it as some massive victory - especially when the case keeps rolling on for why it is such a terrible idea. Also, the EU is not an issue of self-determination because the EU does not impact our sovereignty in any meaningful way.. except, if you consider our ability to effect international circumstances that will affect us no matter what, in a net negative if we choose to leave it.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52926298]congratulations, you've identified that the word union is used in both cases do you honestly think the european union and the United Kingdom are the same thing?[/QUOTE] Will you address the question? [editline]27th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Craigewan;52926300]And where did you get the impression from any of us that we weren't entitled to a referendum? The referendum was ill-judged, ill-informed and voted on by a small proportion of the british people for something so momentous, that most people didn't understand, which makes the margin of error results all the more concerning when people like you trumpet it as some massive victory - especially when the case keeps rolling on for why it is such a terrible idea. Also, the EU is not an issue of self-determination because the EU does not impact our sovereignty in any meaningful way.. except, if you consider our ability to effect international circumstances that will affect us no matter what, in a net negative if we choose to leave it.[/QUOTE] I am just clarifying that fact.
[QUOTE=David29;52926303]Will you address the question?[/QUOTE] Already have sunshine, and I'll add to it. The UK is an independent state already, always has been, always will be. The EU is an alliance of nations, leaving it (or not) is not an issue of self-determination because the UK is already an independent nation state. Compared to Scotland, which is a historical nation with social, economic and cultural differences to the rest of the UK, but does not actually exist as a separate entity in any way, shape or form. Wanting to leave the UK is an issue of self-determination because that, if it happened, would create a new independent nation.
[QUOTE=David29;52926303]Will you address the question? [/QUOTE] answer the question what do you think the difference between the UK union and the european union is: here's a hint, I've given you a list above already!
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52926311]Already have sunshine, and I'll add to it. The UK is an independent state already, always has been, always will be. The EU is an alliance of nations, leaving it (or not) is not an issue of self-determination because the UK is already an independent nation state. Compared to Scotland, which is a historical nation with social, economic and cultural differences to the rest of the UK, but does not actually exist as a separate entity in any way, shape or form. Wanting to leave the UK is an issue of self-determination because that, if it happened, would create a new independent nation.[/QUOTE] Going to have to agree to disagree, then. I will concede that Scotland's referendum was more about sovereignty - but I believe there are sovereignty issues within the EU that the UK should be allowed to decide on.
Question: was the Scottish Referendum a binding one?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52926374]Question: was the Scottish Referendum a binding one?[/QUOTE] Don't believe so, I'm about 80% certain it was an advisory one. However, how the ScotGov might have treated it and how Westminster would have would be very different, no doubt.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52926384]Don't believe so, I'm about 80% certain it was an advisory one. However, how the ScotGov might have treated it and how Westminster would have would be very different, no doubt.[/QUOTE] What is wrong with everyone in the UK (and a lot of the world, actually) where non-binding referendums are allowed to happen? All referendums should be binding - like they are in my country. Because then politicians wouldn't fuck around and wouldn't rush into these things. There should also be a neutral referendum commission giving out the facts to every household and presenting what will ACTUALLY happen if something is passed. You wouldn't have this bollocks anyway.
[QUOTE=Blueleaf;52916672]It's pretty bad when "at least he didn't fuck up when he visited us" is probably the nicest thing you could say about our Foreign Secretary.[/QUOTE] It's even more funny when you consider the state of our politics at this time.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52926397]What is wrong with everyone in the UK (and a lot of the world, actually) where non-binding referendums are allowed to happen? All referendums should be binding - like they are in my country. Because then politicians wouldn't fuck around and wouldn't rush into these things. There should also be a neutral referendum commission giving out the facts to every household and presenting what will ACTUALLY happen if something is passed. You wouldn't have this bollocks anyway.[/QUOTE] They're already rushing into it. If this referendum had been binding the situation would be the same but with no way out. I think non-binding referendums have their uses, but it's decisively different from binding ones. They'd be for when you want to know what the people think to decide how to approach an issue. A binding one would be for when you already have solutions on the table and ask the people which one they prefer. Brexit referendum spelled pretty clearly that almost 50% of people oppose something that affects everyone severly, and that is too much, so very careful consideration and planning would be the approperiate course of action.
If I woke up tomorrow morning and we were in some kind of penultimate pre-final-boss riot mode where everything was burning down and I had to do quick time events to dodge falling pillars because of Brexit I would not be surprised. This has become a shocking car-crash. A slow car crash, though, where every time the bonnet bounces off the limestone walls ahead because of the slow crawl of the wheels, the driver just guns it into reverse and sloooowly edges back toward the wall.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.