Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, big thanks from The Netherlands!
He didn't actually mention the Dutch ;-)
Sorry! I would have done if I'd had Dutch friends.
UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU
601–610 of 649 posts
Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention the hypocrisy of voting to remain and then championing the effort to leave. UK politics is so broken right now.
> Not to mention the hypocrisy of voting to remain and then championing the effort to leave. I'm not sure if you're referring to Scotland/Indiref 2 - but there's no hypocrisy if the voter's intention in both cases is to remain in the EU. Maybe you're referring to Theresa May? If so, I fully agree.
I'm indeed referring to Theresa May, sorry for the confusion.
Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU
#603Earlier quoted context omitted.
Majorities often shift, and depend on other changes. E.g. Brexit probably means the end of the UK as we know it - it substantially increased the odds of Scottish independence, as England is far more right wing, but have been held in check by EU law. It may even mean a unified Ireland, as there's been a solid shift towards the Republican side in Stormont, and even some unionists seem to be disillusioned by how the con…
> Majorities often shift, and depend on other changes. Yes, but what's the alternative? Having countries run on "expert opinion" lest people shift their preferences later? When majorities shift they can always revert course in any case.
> Yes, but what's the alternative? Having countries run on "expert opinion" lest people shift their preferences later?
Requiring super-majorities for large constitutional changes, like most countries do.
> When majorities shift they can always revert course in any case.
Often that is not true. E.g. it is extremely unlikely the UK can ever get the same deal it had if it wishes to rejoin the EU later. Even if it gets offered the same deal, it requires unanimous approval - every single member state can veto.
Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU
#604Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting aside the lack of knowledge of the situation or what the EU actually is, the UK has nuclear weapons, the highest EU defence spending and a permanent UN security council seat. The EU has no army. What you propose would mean the end of the UN, the end of NATO, the end of the EU and a possible WW3. And Russia would probably 'liberate' a few border countries from the 'imperialistic EU' while that's all happening.
Its request should still be denied. I notice you have not in any way attacked my historical foundation, secessionist states. The implication that the UK would detonate a nuclear bomb over this is laughable on its face. Its request should be denied.
I'm not attacking it because it is stupid and shows a shocking lack of knowledge of the situation.
The EU is not a country, it is a trade union with aspirations to become a full political union one day. You're talking like it's the latter when it's not.
Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
The better question to ask is: Does Britain have identity as a nation? Various surveys indicates that a lot of people in the UK - across all the constituents parts - see themselves as more English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish than British. Many don't see themselves as British at all (ironically immigrants who have become citizens are far more likely to see themselves as British first than people born here). The British ident…
Britain is not a nation, it is an island, so the question doesn't really make sense to ask. It's impossible to be English, Welsh or Scottish and not be British; you can't choose geography.
You're being a pedant and intentionally obtuse, so let me be one too: While we often refer to the island as Britain, it's name has been Great Britain for many centuries.
The use of variations of Great Britain for the island dates at least as far back as Ptolemy - the use of variations of Britain alone (without some variation of "Great") quickly fell out of use around that time.
And as I'm sure you're perfectly aware, Britain is equally used to refer to the UK in common parlance. The history of using precursors of Britain (without "Great") to refer to a political entity dates back to the Romans, who started using Britannia to refer to the Roman province.
It was exceedingly clear from context that it was used to refer to the UK rather than the island. When talking about national identity, one also specifically talk about "British", which makes it more natural to use Britain rather than the UK.
Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU
#606Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with the structure of the EU is basically: How do you set up a supranational state without massive constitutional changes in all the member states? Because the appetite is not there for large constitutional changes. The result was basically a giant hack on top of the existing systems by leveraging the authority that the member state governments have to act as agents of their state in carrying out their du…
>>The problem with the structure of the EU is basically: How do you set up a supranational state without massive constitutional changes in all the member states? Because the appetite is not there for large constitutional changes. Perhaps, don't? If you can't take the people of a democracy with you on a project, perhaps it's best not to try and build such a thing anyway, and then end up with a hack? On the rest - I wo…
> If you can't take the people of a democracy with you on a project, perhaps it's best not to try and build such a thing anyway, and then end up with a hack?
The people have consistently voted for parties that wanted at least this level of integration. The problem has been that people disagree about how far to go, not that there has not been support for tighter integration.
Often to get from one local maxima to a higher local maxima you end up with options in between that are worse in various ways. Doesn't mean there aren't people who prefer to get there even if they're unable to get enough support to go further.
> On the rest - I would come to a similar state but from a different direction full autonomy for small democratic units, who voluntarily delegate some authority rather than get granted powers from "above"
That's how we got the EU.
Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU
#607Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with the structure of the EU is basically: How do you set up a supranational state without massive constitutional changes in all the member states? Because the appetite is not there for large constitutional changes. The result was basically a giant hack on top of the existing systems by leveraging the authority that the member state governments have to act as agents of their state in carrying out their du…
> How do you set up a supranational state without massive constitutional changes in all the member states? Considering it was never intended to be a state , I think your argument belies the source of the complaints..
Lots of people wanted it to become a state. The ideal of a European state as a way of preventing war in Europe dates back centuries, and has been regularly proposed again. The most serious recent proposal being Winston Churchill who specifically argued for a United States of Europe after the war.
Churchill's efforts were a major factor in the establishment of the Council of Europe (not EU), and the European Court of Human Rights (CoE; not EU) and what became the EEC/EU.
So while many people involved also did not want to go all the way, historically the origin of the EU includes a lot of people who went into it with the explicit goal of eventually turning it into a state.
A core principle ever since the Treaty of Rome in 1957 has been to create "an ever closer union". You can't do that without eventually ending up with a state.
Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU
#608Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>The problem with the structure of the EU is basically: How do you set up a supranational state without massive constitutional changes in all the member states? Because the appetite is not there for large constitutional changes. Perhaps, don't? If you can't take the people of a democracy with you on a project, perhaps it's best not to try and build such a thing anyway, and then end up with a hack? On the rest - I wo…
> If you can't take the people of a democracy with you on a project, perhaps it's best not to try and build such a thing anyway, and then end up with a hack? The people have consistently voted for parties that wanted at least this level of integration. The problem has been that people disagree about how far to go, not that there has not been support for tighter integration. Often to get from one local maxima to a hig…
I would argue that the delegation of powers and the dynamic of the power relationshio have been quite wrong in the case of the EU.
I agree, the people have voted for parties that had these policies. The problem is, people vote for the same two (occasionally three or four) parties regardless, and then expect them to change. Somewhat silly!
Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU
#609Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not of the total electorate almost 30% did not vote passing major constitutional changes on such a small majority is counter to all custom and practice - A local Allotment society would not pass a rule change like this.
Turnout was amongst the highest for any vote in recent history. What do you propose? Compulsory voting? Many were genuinely undecided and made a conscious decision to abstain.
The 1979 Scottish Devolution referendum (also 52:48 in favour) was not passed because Yes failed to meet a threshold of 40% of the electorate.
Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU
#610Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its request should still be denied. I notice you have not in any way attacked my historical foundation, secessionist states. The implication that the UK would detonate a nuclear bomb over this is laughable on its face. Its request should be denied.
I'm not attacking it because it is stupid and shows a shocking lack of knowledge of the situation. The EU is not a country, it is a trade union with aspirations to become a full political union one day. You're talking like it's the latter when it's not.
You grossly underestimate the long-term importance of it and its institutions. it's not just a "trade union" as a glance at its budget will show. Anyway we obviously have a different vision for it.