|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Brexit - Should they stay or should they go? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
You didn't give a reason. That's why I question how rational your statement is. You're the one who seems to be making a silly assumption that " it wasn't the rational minds who wanted out of the EU".
Did I give a reason for considering their votes not to be rational?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
frako writes:
That means that their reasoning was different from yours, not that they were irrational.
Well given that they voted to pay the same tarifs to trade with the eu, but not get a voice in how the eu market is run, over paying tarifs geting some of the money back and having a vote on how the eu market is run. My guess is that they where not so rational.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Removed double post.
Edited by ringo, : Site hung up for ten minutes and didn't finish posting - or did it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Are you deliberately being evasive? Except that you did not question me. Okay, I'll question you now: Why did you claim that "it wasn't the rational minds who wanted out of the EU"? Notice the "Why" at the beginning and the question mark at the end. That is officially a question. Can I get an answer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
caffeine writes:
That's what I said.
EU law can override national law... caffeine writes:
So it's worse than I thought. Only "most" law requires the consent of the democratically-elected parliament. And the minority of member-state governments can be trampled on.
... but the Commission doesn't introduce law at a whim. Most law requires the consent of the democratically-elected parliament and a supermajority of member-state governments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
It isn't just about Human Rights, though, is it?
The thing is, the Human Rights Act is a UK law, we adopted the European Convention on Human Rights into our own legislation in 1998 but we've been using it since 1950.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
caffeine writes:
You're making more of a distinction between the Commission and the Parliament than I am. Personally, I don't care whether it's the left hand or the right hand that's doing the oppressing.
You said the European Commission can override national governments. caffeine writes:
You left out this bit:
All law requires the consent of the democratically-elected Parliament. Most law requires the consent of the democratically-elected Parliament and a supermajority of member-state governments. Some law requires the consent of the democratically-elected Parliament and 100% of the member-state governments.quote:But only in "some" cases. You think that's okay then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
caffeine writes:
I have always thought that the EU was a bad idea and I think the voters made the right decision - democracy over economics, as I have said before. I thought you were supporting Britain's exit from the EU, but it seems not, because almost half of voters wanted to remain - we can't trample on them, can we? Democracy does follow the will of the majority but it is the duty of the majority not to trample on minorities. Those who voted for Brexit are not trampling on the rights of those who voted against it. They're choosing local concerns over international concerns. We have similar situations here in Canada all the time with our federal system. Federations are always in danger of secession and/or collapse. Czechoslovakia came apart. Yugoslavia came apart. The Soviet Union came apart. The USA fought a civil war and narrowly avoided coming apart. There's no reason to think the Holy EU Empire will be any different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
How is that different from any other situation? There would be no point to having a vote if everybody got what they wanted. ... this is a situation in which it is impossible for both sides to get what they want. Edited by ringo, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Britain's "plan' to exit from the EU seems to be something like Quebec's plan to exit from Canada: keep all of the benefits and ditch all of the responsibilities. Hard to get agreement on a plan like that.
And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
~1.6 writes:
During the first referendum campaign in 1980, a businessman from Alberta paid for billboards all across Canada that said, "My Canada includes Quebec." A Canadian friend of mine told me the reason the Quebec referendum didn't pass is because they let the wrong Canadians vote.He's from Alberta btw. My response was - and still is - that my Canada barely includes Ontario. And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Pressie writes:
They should have done that a century ago. Their only realistic long-term deal that can work is for Britain to abandon Northern Ireland. ABE: Replied to the wrong poster somehow. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
caffeine writes:
That certainly is not the case in Canada. We have had minority governments fairly often and some people would argue that they are better than majority governments. This is the basis of the British constitution, that the Prime Minister must be able to command a majority in the House of Commons. As for a non-confidence vote against the Prime Minister, that would not be done in our Parliament. It would have to wait for a scheduled leadership review outside Parliament - and anybody lobbying against the Prime Minister would be subject to party discipline, including expulsion from the caucus.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NosyNed writes:
Yes, but that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the PM's own party voting non-confidence. Here, that would not be done in Parliament. If there was a minority government and the totality of the non-goverment parties voted against a confidence motion (like the budget, or an unspecific motion of confidence or I-don't-know-what-else) then the governor general will collapse the current government.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
caffeine writes:
Then why did PaulK call it a "Parliamentary" vote of non-confidence in Message 360? Surely what you're talking about would be a party vote or a caucus vote. The Tory party's no confidence vote was their own thing outside Parliament.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024