Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (Nominations Sep 22nd)
Polls: Benelux (Results), 1944 awards (Sep 23rd), 1964 (Sep 28th), Knockout competition (Round 1)
Challenges: Silent Era, 21st Century, Japan
Film of the Week: Reindeerspotting - pako Joulumaasta, October nominations (Sep 27th)

British Politics Lounge

Post Reply

May should ...

Poll ended at June 7th, 2019, 6:31 pm

remain
0
No votes
leave
10
45%
seek psychiatric help
12
55%
 
Total votes: 22

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

Re: British Politics Lounge

#2161

Post by xianjiro » September 12th, 2019, 9:22 pm

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 5:33 pm
xianjiro wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 5:18 pm
Well, if anything, I hope the Irish and Scots have learned something put forward more concrete referenda than "Should Ireland be reunified?" and "Should Scotland leave the UK?"
A referendum has to present a dichotomy. One can criticise the pre-referendum planning and arrangements (or lack thereof!) but voters have to be asked rather a stark and simplistic overview that can be fleshed out. I don't think that's ever going to really change.
Nonsense! We have no general question referenda in my state - do you support a woman's right to an abortion - Yes or No? Instead, voters are given the text of the rewrite of either legal statute or constitutional amendment and asked to vote on that. Even if legislators aren't willing to put together a referendum - say for physician assisted suicide or legalization of either medical marijuana or its recreational use - a citizen can draft the legislation, collect signatures, and the voters get to read and approve or disapprove of the actual legislation. So, in all the cases I've cited above, citizens have written code and voters have either :thumbsup: or :down: .

for example: Recreational use - full text of ballot measure

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2162

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 12th, 2019, 9:32 pm

Written code, as you put it, isn't necessarily possible in cases where there are so many unknowables.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2163

Post by xianjiro » September 12th, 2019, 10:36 pm

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 9:32 pm
Written code, as you put it, isn't necessarily possible in cases where there are so many unknowables.
You said, "...but voters have to be asked rather a stark and simplistic overview that can be fleshed out. I don't think that's ever going to really change."

And I said that isn't true and provided a relevant example.

If you ask voters, "Should the island of Ireland be reunified - Yes or No?" I'd say that is entirely too vague - like the Brexit question - and you will have voters voting yes with the idea that NI would be dissolved and absorbed into the RoI, another who'd vote yes with the idea that the RoI would be dissolved and the republic returned to it's rightful place as England's second colony, another would vote yes thinking that somehow a magical hybrid would be created as a completely independent entity under the British Crown but with Westminster exercising no legislative control over the Irish island, and another voting yes believing unicorns and dragons will return.

If you want to gauge public support for an issue, do a poll. If you're going to ask for substantive change to the state's existence, you've got to offer a concrete proposal. While it may be nearly impossible to include all relevant changes in statue and foundation documents, you have to provide voters with a realistic plan: "Should Northern Ireland and it's governmental institutions be dissolved and absorbed by the Republic of Ireland - Yes or No?" Such would provide voters with a clear choice - NI would cease to be a part of the UK and it's institutions would be replaced by their equivalents in the RoI. While the question is simple, it contains a very reasonable question and provides a clear road for what will happen when a voter says yes.

@brokenface offered much more realistic questions for voters re: Brexit. I'd add, "Do you approve and wish to implement May's negotiated exit or do you want to leave the EU with no deal on 31 October?" That would provide voters with a clear choice that respected the results of the earlier referendum as well as Parliament's role.

And btw, both with statute changes that are approved via the ballot and through the legislative/executive process, changes are subject to judicial review and aren't negated because later on someone finds a conflict elsewhere in the law. Usually the legislature is more than happy to change whatever statute exists to reflect the clear intent of the voters. No one is saying every eventuality has to be provided for in the text of the question - no amendment can anticipate every eventuality.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2164

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 12th, 2019, 11:50 pm

I would have thought it was obvious that what I was referring to was the fact that the question posed to voters had to be stark and simple, in terms of making things as understandable as possible.

We had a good example here in Ireland last year in the Abortion referendum where the constitution was changed in a Yes/No type referendum. The government indicated beforehand the wording of legislation that would be inserted if the people approved of its proposal. This sort of clarity is of course welcome.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2165

Post by xianjiro » September 13th, 2019, 12:02 am

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 11:50 pm
I would have thought it was obvious that what I was referring to was the fact that the question posed to voters had to be stark and simple, in terms of making things as understandable as possible.

We had a good example here in Ireland last year in the Abortion referendum where the constitution was changed in a Yes/No type referendum. The government indicated beforehand the wording of legislation that would be inserted if the people approved of its proposal. This sort of clarity is of course welcome.
Well, unfortunately we are discussing referenda in the extreme amorphous style of Brexit. I assumed that's what you meant by "stark and simple."

Granted, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" seems to be equally "stark and simple" - in or out - we have learned that anything could be further from the truth. "I didn't vote for no deal," someone will say. Another will say, "Out won. Article 50 has been invoked. Why didn't we leave in March without a deal?"

This vague question is ultimately the whole problem. Asking vague questions of tectonic import must be avoided at all costs in the future. This has been a fiasco. It has impacted many businesses and lives both inside and outside the UK. It is the epitome of democratic stupidity. It is voter indicated and Tory imposed herpes - the pain just keeps on returning.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2166

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 13th, 2019, 12:11 am

Just out of interest, what question do you think should have been asked in 2016?
That's all, folks!

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2167

Post by xianjiro » September 13th, 2019, 1:01 am

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 12:11 am
Just out of interest, what question do you think should have been asked in 2016?
That's a good one! Especially given that people thought it wouldn't pass and the UK couldn't 'pre-negotiate' a deal. So I would have expanded the question used to include a date when A.50 would have been invoked, included some general parameters about what kind of deal the government should seek (or even explicitly state "leave without a deal"), require the deal be approved by Parliament and if no deal can be reached and approved by parliament within the two year A.50 timeframe, return to the voters to ask if the UK should leave without a deal by a certain date. Under general parameters, here are some options that could have been used: "leave with no deal"; "negotiate a separation which would provide a relationship similar to that of Norway, Canada, or Switzerland (or whichever country would have provided an example); idk, whoever decided it was a good idea to take this issue to voters must have had an idea of what leave should look like, somehow that should have been articulated as part of the question - not only as speculation by all and sundry during the campaign.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2168

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 13th, 2019, 1:14 am

xianjiro wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:01 am
RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 12:11 am
Just out of interest, what question do you think should have been asked in 2016?
That's a good one! Especially given that people thought it wouldn't pass and the UK couldn't 'pre-negotiate' a deal. So I would have expanded the question used to include a date when A.50 would have been invoked, included some general parameters about what kind of deal the government should seek (or even explicitly state "leave without a deal"), require the deal be approved by Parliament and if no deal can be reached and approved by parliament within the two year A.50 timeframe, return to the voters to ask if the UK should leave without a deal by a certain date. Under general parameters, here are some options that could have been used: "leave with no deal"; "negotiate a separation which would provide a relationship similar to that of Norway, Canada, or Switzerland (or whichever country would have provided an example); idk, whoever decided it was a good idea to take this issue to voters must have had an idea of what leave should look like, somehow that should have been articulated as part of the question - not only as speculation by all and sundry during the campaign.
Thanks, xianjiro. It all sounds so frightfully complicated, doesn't it?
That's all, folks!

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2169

Post by xianjiro » September 13th, 2019, 1:32 am

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:14 am
xianjiro wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:01 am
RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 12:11 am
Just out of interest, what question do you think should have been asked in 2016?
That's a good one! Especially given that people thought it wouldn't pass and the UK couldn't 'pre-negotiate' a deal. So I would have expanded the question used to include a date when A.50 would have been invoked, included some general parameters about what kind of deal the government should seek (or even explicitly state "leave without a deal"), require the deal be approved by Parliament and if no deal can be reached and approved by parliament within the two year A.50 timeframe, return to the voters to ask if the UK should leave without a deal by a certain date. Under general parameters, here are some options that could have been used: "leave with no deal"; "negotiate a separation which would provide a relationship similar to that of Norway, Canada, or Switzerland (or whichever country would have provided an example); idk, whoever decided it was a good idea to take this issue to voters must have had an idea of what leave should look like, somehow that should have been articulated as part of the question - not only as speculation by all and sundry during the campaign.
Thanks, xianjiro. It all sounds so frightfully complicated, doesn't it?
Yes, that it does - but untangling something governed by a number of international treaties and agreements, is, by nature, "so frightfully complicated" and thus, that should be reflected in what is being asked of voters. Instead we had "leave or remain?" What could have been made simpler or vaguer than that? Without a complicated question, voters were able to believe whatever fairy story they wanted about leave.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2170

Post by xianjiro » September 13th, 2019, 1:37 am

and just for clarity, I think whomever was responsible for the question - I understand that to be Cameron's government - they should have articulated a single vision. So when I said, Canada, Norway, or Switzerland, I was thinking the authors should have picked one as a roadmap with a fairly specific timeline that the government could live with.

And while I sort of understand why Cameron quit, I personally think he should have faced the fractious symphony unleashed during his tenure.

What next, "Should the government be required to make every Briton a millionaire?" :thumbsup:

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2171

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 13th, 2019, 3:29 am

xianjiro wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:37 am
and just for clarity, I think whomever was responsible for the question - I understand that to be Cameron's government - they should have articulated a single vision. So when I said, Canada, Norway, or Switzerland, I was thinking the authors should have picked one as a roadmap with a fairly specific timeline that the government could live with.

And while I sort of understand why Cameron quit, I personally think he should have faced the fractious symphony unleashed during his tenure.

What next, "Should the government be required to make every Briton a millionaire?" :thumbsup:
I think we can all agree (perhaps even Cippenham!) that Cameron's government bungled things to a quite extraordinary extent.
That's all, folks!

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2172

Post by Cippenham » September 13th, 2019, 5:05 am

Roger, they did but Cameron always was clever and got a way with a lot, he never dreamed he would lose the referendum. He thought he could get away with saying the EU was reformed but he knew it was not.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2173

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 13th, 2019, 5:17 am

Cippenham wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 5:05 am
Roger, they did but Cameron always was clever and got a way with a lot, he never dreamed he would lose the referendum. He thought he could get away with saying the EU was reformed but he knew it was not.
I remember him repeating that mantra about pursuing change within a reformed EU. The fact that he had also refused to allow the Civil Service make plans for the effects of Brexit shows that he didn't believe that the result would go the way it did.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6539
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2174

Post by xianjiro » September 13th, 2019, 6:09 am

Alas, one would hope even politicians paid some mind to annoying aphorisms like, "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."

Then again, I guess not.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1491
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2175

Post by matthewscott8 » September 13th, 2019, 6:29 am

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 11:07 am
Cippenham wrote:
September 11th, 2019, 6:49 pm
David Starkey the historian has accused remainers acting against the constitution in that they are not respecting the result of the 2016 referendum. Ignore the legal and other points against the government as fundamentally the referendum result must be respected first or the remainers are the ones acting illegally. They perhaps should be considered traitors too but that is open to discussion. In fact it could be argued it was illegal to delay leaving the EU beyond March. The break with the EU can be compared to the break with Rome by Henry VIII and some of the same arguments are used. Why does Henry have to leave jurisdiction of Rome to get a divorce? Because The Church courts were superior to ours just as we must leave the EU for our laws to be supreme. The idea being pursued by remainers led by Bercow that parliament sovereignty can be used to deny national sovereignty is an absurd contradiction. Parliamentary sovereignty only makes sense in an independent nation state. Otherwise it is meaningless verbiage. The crisis is due to not working out the relationship between an idea of popular sovereignty and what parliamentary sovereignty is.
I like a lot of this, Cippenham. Very thoughtfully put.
I'm not sure any of it is true though. Firstly the referendum wasn't binding so there's no legal or constitutional issue. Cameron said he'd respect it but he resigned and we've had an election since.

I think the Henry VIII metaphor is a powerful one. We left the Catholic Church behind because it was convenient for an elite, and it was a culturally devastating act that resulted in us destroying all our Mediaeval art and abbeys, and us becoming an intellectual backwater of a country where new ideas and fashions were not welcome. All because an ego maniac in the middle wanted to treat women as accessories. Current egomaniac seems to have the same problem.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2176

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 13th, 2019, 8:06 am

matthewscott8 wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 6:29 am
RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 11:07 am
Cippenham wrote:
September 11th, 2019, 6:49 pm
David Starkey the historian has accused remainers acting against the constitution in that they are not respecting the result of the 2016 referendum. Ignore the legal and other points against the government as fundamentally the referendum result must be respected first or the remainers are the ones acting illegally. They perhaps should be considered traitors too but that is open to discussion. In fact it could be argued it was illegal to delay leaving the EU beyond March. The break with the EU can be compared to the break with Rome by Henry VIII and some of the same arguments are used. Why does Henry have to leave jurisdiction of Rome to get a divorce? Because The Church courts were superior to ours just as we must leave the EU for our laws to be supreme. The idea being pursued by remainers led by Bercow that parliament sovereignty can be used to deny national sovereignty is an absurd contradiction. Parliamentary sovereignty only makes sense in an independent nation state. Otherwise it is meaningless verbiage. The crisis is due to not working out the relationship between an idea of popular sovereignty and what parliamentary sovereignty is.
I like a lot of this, Cippenham. Very thoughtfully put.
I'm not sure any of it is true though. Firstly the referendum wasn't binding so there's no legal or constitutional issue. Cameron said he'd respect it but he resigned and we've had an election since.

I think the Henry VIII metaphor is a powerful one. We left the Catholic Church behind because it was convenient for an elite, and it was a culturally devastating act that resulted in us destroying all our Mediaeval art and abbeys, and us becoming an intellectual backwater of a country where new ideas and fashions were not welcome. All because an ego maniac in the middle wanted to treat women as accessories. Current egomaniac seems to have the same problem.
Wow, that's quite an amusing and pithy take on anti-Catholicism in England. Made me smile and nod in appreciation.

:cheers:
That's all, folks!

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2177

Post by Cippenham » September 13th, 2019, 11:37 am

I was always a fan of Henry 😁

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1491
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2178

Post by matthewscott8 » September 13th, 2019, 12:05 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 11:37 am
I was always a fan of Henry 😁
it's not a question of being a fan of Henry. The point is that his reign ushered in a dark age. The same thing is pertinent now, don't let your love for a profligate floppy hairdo buffoon usher in a new dark age. Henry wasn't trying to destroy the UK, it was an unintended consequence. Just like boris doesnt really care one way or another about Brexit, he just wants to be in charge.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2179

Post by Cippenham » September 13th, 2019, 8:37 pm

Henry 8 You could argue this was the king who reinvented England remaking England and eventually led to the Elizabethan renaissance with the likes of Marlowe and Shakespeare. Far from dark ages he formed a new sense of national identity and helped bring on the Reformation away from the dead hand of Rome. He was the father of the Royal Navy, a force who later played a major role in defeating the Armada. He was a strong leader but yes we now see his flaws but he was also a serious intellectual. He left an extraordinary legacy, the end of the medieval and start of the modern.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2180

Post by Cippenham » September 13th, 2019, 8:39 pm

In the same way Brexit can lead to our greatness far superior than under the dead hand if the EU. Free to form new alliances and to be once more a proud independent nation

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2181

Post by Cippenham » September 13th, 2019, 8:41 pm

Far from destroying, Henry’s reign led to some of the greatest achievements in our history.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2813
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2182

Post by Onderhond » September 13th, 2019, 8:42 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 8:39 pm
In the same way Brexit can lead to our greatness far superior than under the dead hand if the EU. Free to form new alliances and to be once more a proud independent nation
Lolol

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2183

Post by Cippenham » September 13th, 2019, 8:48 pm

How would you like your laws made by other countries and by unelected bureaucratic people not acting in your interests.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2184

Post by Cippenham » September 13th, 2019, 8:51 pm

Boris is very much on the liberal left apart from being pro Brexit, he cannot spend public money fast enough. This is where I differ, I want to literally close many useless government departments and cut public spending by a lot.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2813
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2185

Post by Onderhond » September 14th, 2019, 12:00 am

Cippenham wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 8:48 pm
How would you like your laws made by other countries
Don't care, as long as they're acting in my interest.
Cippenham wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 8:48 pm
and by unelected bureaucratic people
Don't care,, as long as they're acting in my interest.
Cippenham wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 8:48 pm
not acting in your interests.
Either way this is the case.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2186

Post by Cippenham » September 14th, 2019, 4:18 am

They are not repeat not acting in our interests, but their own and that of Germany and France. We did not choose to allow our money to subsidise inefficiency of farmers elsewhere for Example.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2187

Post by Cippenham » September 14th, 2019, 4:50 am

Brexit is also a stand against racism. If we have a points based immigration we no longer discriminate in favour of mainly white immigrants from Europe against people of other races from non European countries.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2813
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2188

Post by Onderhond » September 14th, 2019, 7:44 am

Cippenham wrote:
September 14th, 2019, 4:18 am
They are not repeat not acting in our interests
Farage and Johnson aren't either. To think otherwise is naive.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13058
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#2189

Post by brokenface » September 14th, 2019, 11:21 am

Cippenham wrote:
September 14th, 2019, 4:50 am
Brexit is also a stand against racism. If we have a points based immigration we no longer discriminate in favour of mainly white immigrants from Europe against people of other races from non European countries.
Oh come on, this is an insultingly stupid re-write of history. Do you remember the referendum? Scare posters about Turkey joining the EU. It was not 'vote Brexit to allow more non-white immigrants from outside the EU'. It was 'vote Brexit to shut our borders and keep out Muslims'

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2190

Post by Cippenham » September 15th, 2019, 6:42 am

Our interests is to leave the EU so we can make own decisions left or right, in that sense Boris and Nigel Farage are in our interests, if you want socialism the EU won’t really allow it much for example. Tony Benn and previously Corbyn were leavers. But once we leave we can choose our own government left or right without EU control.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2191

Post by Cippenham » September 15th, 2019, 6:45 am

That is why true socialists should vote for The Brexit party in the north . Just ask Claire Fox.

Also see this, do you think the EU rules allow public ownership in the away Corbyn wants it, think again.

https://semipartisansam.com/2016/03/03/ ... or-brexit/

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2813
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2192

Post by Onderhond » September 15th, 2019, 7:52 am

Cippenham wrote:
September 15th, 2019, 6:42 am
Our interests is to leave the EU so we can make own decisions left or right
You're just exchanging a broader group of people for a smaller one. If you want personal authority, what's the point of having an half-hearted island group coalition called Great-Britain? Go back to self-governing communes if you don't like the idea of having to care about people that's aren't close geographically?

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2193

Post by Cippenham » September 15th, 2019, 10:24 am

What’s the point in having an independent country called Australia, Japan , Russia, New Zealand or the United States. Come on, it’s so you can decide your own destiny.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2813
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2194

Post by Onderhond » September 15th, 2019, 10:35 am

Cippenham wrote:
September 15th, 2019, 10:24 am
What’s the point in having an independent country called Australia, Japan , Russia, New Zealand or the United States. Come on, it’s so you can decide your own destiny.
As a citizen of a country you can't decide anything at all. You're just a single vote amongst millions, electing a representative who then goes off on his own and can still decide things that aren't in line with your own interests. That's what countries/democracies are. Europe is just a collection of countries, just like a country is just a collection of provinces, counties, cities and villages.

I don't mind nationalism ... when watching sports, but apart from that it's a pretty silly notion.

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1308
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#2195

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 15th, 2019, 11:31 am

Onderhond wrote:
September 15th, 2019, 10:35 am
Cippenham wrote:
September 15th, 2019, 10:24 am
What’s the point in having an independent country called Australia, Japan , Russia, New Zealand or the United States. Come on, it’s so you can decide your own destiny.
As a citizen of a country you can't decide anything at all. You're just a single vote amongst millions, electing a representative who then goes off on his own and can still decide things that aren't in line with your own interests. That's what countries/democracies are. Europe is just a collection of countries, just like a country is just a collection of provinces, counties, cities and villages.

I don't mind nationalism ... when watching sports, but apart from that it's a pretty silly notion.
So.... what you're saying is that you're not in favour of a United States of Europe just as you're not in favour of a United Kingdom and that both lead to disenfranchisement but that a United States of Europe would lead to more disenfranchisement since it is larger, but that it's better as there are wise and benevolent people running the United States of Europe and the disconnected voters are too far away and too unaware to know that the interests of the whole United States of Europe are being considered equally?

Perhaps I'm just dim-witted but it seems to me that you're arguing for extreme localism and free-handed globalism at the same time.
That's all, folks!

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 12340
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#2196

Post by Cippenham » September 15th, 2019, 11:41 am

No to Onderhond. We need populist nationalism, that is exactly what we want

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 9906
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#2197

Post by St. Gloede » September 15th, 2019, 11:44 am

He's asking why on earth the UK is the union of countries Cippenham arbitrarily joins together.

It is of course because this is his arbitrarily constructed/cultivated identity.

He could just as well have argued for England to leave the UK so that they can make their own decisions.

Onderhond is pointing out that his UK "we/us" is just as valid as the EU we/us, the England we/us or the Birmingham we/us.

He is not making the point that leaders are benevolent or acting in the interest of the people, only that this won't change based on the size itself.

If Cipp wanted autonomy he could take this down to the level of his country, England, as opposed to the United Kingdom, or take it further down; as the smaller the community, the more power each vote has. Onderhond is simply dissecting the argument and showing it as invalid on its own. It is a question of degree.

At the end of the day Cippenham is just playing arbitrary identity politics where he has decided that the identity that matters and unites "his people" is the British identity.

Of course to other Brits the valid identity may be European, English, Scottish, Catholic, Muslim, Cumbrian, Londoner, etc.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2813
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2198

Post by Onderhond » September 15th, 2019, 12:25 pm

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote:
September 15th, 2019, 11:31 am
So.... what you're saying
What I'm saying is what I've said. Your summary contains nothing of what I've said, so I'm not going to even bother with it.
Props to St. Gloede for explaining it for me further in detail. :poshclap:

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2813
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2199

Post by Onderhond » September 15th, 2019, 12:28 pm

Cippenham wrote:
September 15th, 2019, 11:41 am
No to Onderhond. We need populist nationalism, that is exactly what we want
Maybe you should form a nation with the 51% of the 60% that turned up for the referendum then. Clearly the others don't want it.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1491
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#2200

Post by matthewscott8 » September 15th, 2019, 12:35 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 15th, 2019, 11:44 am
He's asking why on earth the UK is the union of countries Cippenham arbitrarily joins together.

It is of course because this is his arbitrarily constructed/cultivated identity.

He could just as well have argued for England to leave the UK so that they can make their own decisions.

Onderhond is pointing out that his UK "we/us" is just as valid as the EU we/us, the England we/us or the Birmingham we/us.

He is not making the point that leaders are benevolent or acting in the interest of the people, only that this won't change based on the size itself.

If Cipp wanted autonomy he could take this down to the level of his country, England, as opposed to the United Kingdom, or take it further down, as the smaller the community, the more power each vote has. Onderhond is simply dissecting the argument and showing it as invalid on its own. It is a question of degree.

At the end of the day Cippenham is just playing arbitrary identity politics where he has decided that the identity that matters and unites "his people" is the British identity.

Of course to other Brits the valid identity may be European, English, Scottish, Catholic, Muslim, Cumbrian, London er, etc.
I've pointed this stuff out numerous times to him but he ignores it. English identity is something he doesnt question. Has also said he's Euopean before which made me laugh.

Post Reply