Current Affairs EU In or Out

[1966efc]

It could have been left out of the court and for Parliament to determine, the mess was created by going to the court. Poor governance as you claim was only in respect of the referendum because an out vote did not suit you.

I wonder if it had a reverse position would you still be saying the same, I doubt it. In addition you repeatedly not commented on a what a future EU would look like and how we would fit in. It is rubbish to say we have a veto, a change could be wrought by a majority of States. Or new legislation introduced in the EU parliament.

In fairness, he did. Alignment of tax laws, no borders, full participation in the monetary system, freedom of movement all of which would, in his opinion, lead to Europe's ability to share wealth with poorer regions / states, and enhance trade.

My opinion is that a very significant number of people in the U K would oppose the above and any government seeking to introduce any / all of these measures would be committing political suicide. Given that certainty, I don't see the merit in debating the possible accuracy of his views - better left to the egos of the World Economic Forum who doubtless hold a view.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

It could have been left out of the court and for Parliament to determine, the mess was created by going to the court. Poor governance as you claim was only in respect of the referendum because an out vote did not suit you.
.

If it hadn't have gone through the courts then May would have invoked article 50 without even consulting with Parliament on what terms she was intending to take us out of the EU.

The mess was created by the Tories either not correctly understanding or choosing to try and circumvent our constitutional process.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

Without wishing to speak on behalf of Esk, as the article I shared last night was saying, many of the solutions to grievances held by people are already within the power of our government. Were they governing better then they could do an awful lot without having to go through the upheaval of leaving the EU. My concern is that people are hoping Brexit will be the panacea when in reality the solution is doing some unglamorous things closer to home. The worst case scenario is that it makes the lot of those who voted for change significantly worse. The elites won't be effected either way as they never really are.

If they're aggrieved at our own Government then why have the extra layer - A layer that the people, or, in fact, our own government, don't have control over; but one that has control over our own?

You're an advocate of small government; or at least that's what you tell us...

 

[bring the ghost on]

I love it when you have these Leave voters who are constantly having a go at Remain voters with the "get over it" posts, as if Remain voters should have no say in how the country should proceed because of the referendum result:

You lost. Get over it.

But then, when the Leave voters lost the high court Article 50 hearing, it's suddenly a different story:

They are cutting across the machinery of State on a current Act of Parliament. They are acting outwith their powers.

Why don't the Leave voters just accept that a Parliamentary vote is needed on Article 50, and in their words, "get over it"?

The Leave voters have got precisely what they claimed to be voting for - British courts being able to make constitutional decisions, although it seems they only want the courts to make the decisions which suit them.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If they're aggrieved at our own Government then why have the extra layer - A layer that the people, or, in fact, our own government, don't have control over; but one that has control over our own?

You're an advocate of small government; or at least that's what you tell us...

I don't think they are aggrieved at our own government. They're aggrieved at the symptoms, but I'm not at all convinced they know what the cause of that is, much less what the cures could be.

Regarding the small government thing, I believe in complex systems. Even the most complex systems have rules by which they're governed, and it makes infinite sense to me that as we function in a global economy that we have a global set of rules. As I suspect few of those on the leave side could even name what the EU does, much less what laws we'll be 'taking back control of' it seems a rather spurious argument.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

I don't think they are aggrieved at our own government.

No?

Seems to me there's a march about every month over something or other, Bruce. It won't surprise me if there's a bit more than a march if the government once again override the will of the people.

 

[Toffeelover]

Without wishing to speak on behalf of Esk, as the article I shared last night was saying, many of the solutions to grievances held by people are already within the power of our government. do an awful Were they governing better then they could a lot without having to go through the upheaval of leaving the EU. My concern is that people are hoping Brexit will be the panacea when in reality the solution is doing some unglamorous things closer to home. The worst case scenario is that it makes the lot of those who voted for change significantly worse. The elites won't be effected either way as they never really are.

The comment on the elites is perfectly correct, they just do a bunk. Hot spot at the moment seems to be New Zealand.

Which government, the current one, the coalition or labour? For me they are all as bad as each other. What could any of the governments do without leaving the EU to address the concerns raised. Look at what happened to Cameron, he got the finger. It is nigh on impossible to bring about any sort of change in the EU, surely you concede that point?

Add to that exactly what is the solution than can be done closer to home, perhaps you should indentify what the unglamarous things are?

BTWE I trust your wife is recovering well. I have had to do exactly that for my wife a few months ago after a stroke, now back to nearly 100%. Was not helped with me having a double hernia operation 6 weeks ago.

 

[Toffeelover]

In fairness, he did. Alignment of tax laws, no borders, full participation in the monetary system, freedom of movement all of which would, in his opinion, lead to Europe's ability to share wealth with poorer regions / states, and enhance trade.

My opinion is that a very significant number of people in the U K would oppose the above and any government seeking to introduce any / all of these measures would be committing political suicide. Given that certainty, I don't see the merit in debating the possible accuracy of his views - better left to the egos of the World Economic Forum who doubtless hold a view.

I see where you are coming from, but some things as we know could be introduced by EU legislation. As for poorer regions, yes they probably need help, it seems that is the over riding desire why they wish to join the EU. But one has to consider where are the contributions coming from.

The UK has had a very high level of EU immigration, what help has the EU given us in terms of finance to help cope with that like housing, health, education, welfare?

 

[Toffeelover]

If it hadn't have gone through the courts then May would have invoked article 50 without even consulting with Parliament on what terms she was intending to take us out of the EU.

The mess was created by the Tories either not correctly understanding or choosing to try and circumvent our constitutional process.

There is that possibility but some how I do not think she would have got away with it, TBH. BTW what is our constitutional process. The government was elected to carry out the will of the electorate based on it's manifesto, the will of the people is to leave the EU so the government should act accordingly.

 

[magicjuan]

I love it when you have these Leave voters who are constantly having a go at Remain voters with the "get over it" posts, as if Remain voters should have no say in how the country should proceed because of the referendum result:


But then, when the Leave voters lost the high court Article 50 hearing, it's suddenly a different story:


Why don't the Leave voters just accept that a Parliamentary vote is needed on Article 50, and in their words, "get over it"?

The Leave voters have got precisely what they claimed to be voting for - British courts being able to make constitutional decisions, although it seems they only want the courts to make the decisions which suit them.

I voted leave and have no issue at all with A50 being through parliament.

There is an issue it seems with celebridee campaigners on both sides willy waving and the agenda again being set by the media.

I voted leave for a real change, not the namby pamby slap-fest taking place amongst the establishment now as they jostle for front pages, but a genuine sh*tstorm that would wake people up to the self serving system they ignorantly live under now, in general of course.

 

[magicjuan]

There is that possibility but some how I do not think she would have got away with it, TBH. BTW what is our constitutional process. The government was elected to carry out the will of the electorate based on it's manifesto, the will of the people is to leave the EU so the government should act accordingly.

A situation whereby a sovereign country has no written constitution but an assumed one, challenging a corporate entity with signed lawful and legal treaties (read contracts) with penalty clauses and you see the basis for this situation.

The laws of these lands are ad hoc and are interpreted to suit on demand. They are designed generally to protect property, business and the system, not the people. People may say the judiciary have acted in regards to brexit but it is just the chess moves being played out.

 

[Caolam]

Does no one see the irony here. The country voted to take power back from the European Parliament and place it in Westminster, the country voted to stop having European law makers telling British courts what to do and when the British courts say that Parliament has to make the decision suddenly we find that isn't what we want at all.

 

[1966efc]

I see where you are coming from, but some things as we know could be introduced by EU legislation. As for poorer regions, yes they probably need help, it seems that is the over riding desire why they wish to join the EU. But one has to consider where are the contributions coming from.

The UK has had a very high level of EU immigration, what help has the EU given us in terms of finance to help cope with that like housing, health, education, welfare?

I'd guess (and I'm attempting to be inside his head) he would assert that the U K would claim exemptions from E U dictat. Which would negate his point about everyone being in with everything for trade to benefit.

The fundamental flaw in all this, as far as I'm concerned, is that the ever closer union is deeply unattractive to a people who haven't experienced foreign rifles up their nostrils, lawless incarceration etc. on their doorsteps. Enthusiastic Euro federalists are, consciously or unconsciously attempting to build an edifice where intra continental war is impossible and trade will improve.

If the referendum had taken place in Ireland, I'd have been the ludest cheerleader for Remain. We had 800 years experience of noisy neighbours telling us what to do after all. For the people in the U K, their whole culture shouts, 'Proud independence' - hence the inability of even the leaders of Remain to say anything other than "It isn't perfect ... ", or "Noone gets more impatient than me with the bureaucracy".

 

[Toffeelover]

A situation whereby a sovereign country has no written constitution but an assumed one, challenging a corporate entity with signed lawful and legal treaties (read contracts) with penalty clauses and you see the basis for this situation.

The laws of these lands are ad hoc and are interpreted to suit on demand. They are designed generally to protect property, business and the system, not the people. People may say the judiciary have acted in regards to brexit but it is just the chess moves being played out.

Cheers mate, nice reply. Quite right about our legal system but also if ordinary folk like you and I had a grievance what chance have we got. Needs a lot of money to go to court that is also something that should be addressed. It seems most of the time that it is prerogative of the wealthy.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The comment on the elites is perfectly correct, they just do a bunk. Hot spot at the moment seems to be New Zealand.

Which government, the current one, the coalition or labour? For me they are all as bad as each other. What could any of the governments do without leaving the EU to address the concerns raised. Look at what happened to Cameron, he got the finger. It is nigh on impossible to bring about any sort of change in the EU, surely you concede that point?

Add to that exactly what is the solution than can be done closer to home, perhaps you should indentify what the unglamarous things are?

BTWE I trust your wife is recovering well. I have had to do exactly that for my wife a few months ago after a stroke, now back to nearly 100%. Was not helped with me having a double hernia operation 6 weeks ago.

Aye, she can only boil one egg on her head now rather than two Thanks for asking though. Regarding your question about steps though, I've mentioned them a few times in the thread. The disquiet seems in large part because people have lost out due to globalisation, whether that's people coming to Britain or jobs going elsewhere. There are several things that can help here.

1. Local government funding is currently managed centrally and dictated by census figures. As this is a once in a decade process, figures are always likely to be out of date and therefore local councils have little flexibility to respond to changes in their population. We do know where people live, how many go to school and so on, so it seems arcane that more money can't be given to local authorities to spend as they wish based on more responsive metrics.

2. Planning laws in Britain are widely regarded as being rubbish and riddled with NIMBY'ism, hence why we've had a property bubble for so long. Government after government have promised to build more houses, and they've all failed because they haven't touched planning laws. Something like a land value tax is something that could easily get Britain building (which might also help with lower skilled work incidentally)

3. There is also a big issue around adult education. Most career folks now suggest that school leavers will have 3-4 different careers in their lifetimes, so training them for one at school and then hoping that'll do the trick is very outdated. Indeed the Commons science and tech select committee said in a paper just last month that automation is likely to have a big impact on jobs, and it's therefore crucial that people can retrain effectively. Now, two things here. Firstly, the school curriculum might be better suited if it helps students learn how to learn so that they can then apply those skills throughout life rather than focusing on passing exams. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of state attention is on <21 education, and that applies for apprenticeships as well as more academic streams. It's not good, and having spoken to both the DWP and DoE recently about this, I'm not sure either have really grasped the important shifts we're seeing.

To illustrate, there is a pot of money at both EU and UK level designed to help people who lose their jobs due to globalisation. Our government told the EU they didn't need their pot as we have our own, but our pot has £1.5m in it, which I'm sure you'll agree won't exactly stretch very far.

So, three things that this government could do, none of which the EU has any influence over, and all of which would help tackle the causes of discontent aired during these various campaigns.

No?

Seems to me there's a march about every month over something or other, Bruce. It won't surprise me if there's a bit more than a march if the government once again override the will of the people.

It's a cry for help in a lot of instances. Take the march last night. That was largely a grumble about capitalism, which isn't something the government controls, but they want the government to do something about it (protectionism or something perhaps).