So Trump is working hard to alienate all the US's pals which will become known as U.SEXIT. (I'm copyrighting this and want millions for anyone else to say it) He will then abandon the G7 (China will take his place) and create the gang of 3 (already copyrighted) with Russia and North Korea.
Depends on how you define “open.” Russia is more than happy to openly ally with Trump because Putin is ten times smarter than him and playing him like a fiddle. It won’t be a real alliance in the sense that Russia is just taking advantage of the US behind the scenes, but they will publicly act like it’s some cooperative agreement publicly and kiss Trump’s needy ass if it’s good for them. I mean, basically they’ve been doing this for the last two years already.
Firstly, the UK did not vote against proportional representation. The UK voted against the Alternative Vote system, which is not a form of proportional representation. I don't think it's quite right to say the EU is reforming. It's expanding its influence and that inevitably leads to changes but the institutions of the EU were created in 1958 and essentially operate in the same way now as they did then. The most significant changes in the various treaties relate to the expansion of the Commission's remit. The Parliament point was simply an example of the EU not changing. Taking away the national veto has very little to do with how democratic the EU is. If anything removing the veto would probably make it less democratic (seeing as each veto is used by a democratically elected government). As the country outvoted most frequently the UK in particular would be crazy to agree to such a move. The main difference between the House of Lords and the Commission is that in the UK the elected House of Commons holds the real power and can overrule the unelected House of Lords. In the EU the opposite is true; it is the unelected Commission that holds the power because only the Commission can propose legislation. The stuff about EU citizens proposing legislation is effectively meaningless. There's a remarkable level of bureaucracy involved - you need seven people from seven different countries and then you have to gather a million signatures in a year, so it's even less significant than the requirement that certain petitions are discussed in Parliament. Even if you can get to this stage the ultimate decision about whether to do anything lies with the Commission and if they don't do what people want there is no power to remove them from office. The bit about the aim is partly correct. The aim is certainly to create a system that can override national governments. You're clearly in favour of this, which suggests there is little point discussing the topic any further, but your insistence that the EU wants to be more democratic shows a startling unwillingness to accept reality. The aim of the EU is clearly not to become more democratic - the EU has no interest in the views of ordinary people, which is why those ordinary people have consistently been lied to about its purpose (it was sold in the 70s as a "Common Market" when Heath and co were well aware of the drive towards political and monetary union - moves which a Treasury report from November 1970 admitted would leave the UK rather less independent than any of the 50 States of the USA). This is why the EU carried on regardless when the French and Dutch rejected the EU Constitution. This is why they've forced the Greek government to implement measures it was specifically elected to oppose. We will see what happens when they clash with the Italian government but there is no reason to believe they'll take the slightest bit of notice of them. I'm not really sure what your point about trade is. Nobody has suggested closing the borders, and of course trade and economies are affected by more than direct rules on trade. That's blindingly obvious. Hell, the weather can have a serious impact on trade in some circumstances. You don't NEED a European wide body to oversee the railways though. Common technical standards can and have been applied across European borders for decades. I mean even in the 1930s it was possible to get a train (the Orient Express) direct from Istanbul to Calais. There is no need to impose rules on how those railways should be owned or operated. As for the meaning of being "truly independent", I'm afraid you don't get to take my words and assign a meaning to them that you find convenient. Being a truly independent country does NOT mean living in a bubble. Being truly independent means operating in the same way as the vast majority of countries in the world - a country being able to govern itself and make its own laws and policies. The impact of the single currency (and associated rules) on countries like Italy, Greece and Spain - struggling financially while Germany booms - shows the folly of a one size fits all approach imposed by Brussels.
Yeah we're not going to agree. I just see your arguments as self contradictory and short sighted. You've once again pointed out individual nation's having to much power as a reason for the EU being undemocratic yet used the opposite argument later on. You talk about countries deciding their own rules then talk about common technical standards... Reading what you write I can only cone to the conclusion you don't know the meaning behind what you say or at least haven't thought it through..
Blimey boys, I think you've both thought it through quite enough! Ever thought of applying to the Brexit team? You may disagree, but then so do they. At least you'd have some knowledge on the subject!
Yeah, The people in the government individually know what they're doing. Problem is there's loads of different factions who want different things. Its why you keep hearing brexit means brexit even though brexit means different things to everyone. Same with independence and why what Puck said about it is many levels of bullshit.
Just because he doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't make it 'bullshit'. We all have different opinions and it's good to have a discussion about both sides but it politics so we are never going to all agree. Better to try to convince him of your view that label his opinion as bullshit. (Having said that I have read plenty of bullshit on this thread over time. )
He called it true independence which is is either factually wrong or rejecting everyone else is opinion. That's why its bullshit. His goals are fine, they're the same as mine more or less. I think his methods are counter productive but thats not what i'm calling bullshit.
The point about democracy is that in democratic states/institutions those in power should answer to the people of that state/institution. The Commission is the most powerful institution within the EU and is not accountable to the people. Whether France (or Germany or Bulgaria) is able to veto a treaty or other measure is largely irrelevant to that lack of democracy. In fact there's a reasonably good argument to be made that allowing the governments of other EU states to impose laws on France (or any country) when the democratically-elected government of France is opposed to those laws is about as undemocratic as it gets. Again, you’re assigning a meaning to my words that wasn't intended. I originally said “We haven't been a truly independent country for decades”. For the sake of clarity my meaning was that, while the UK has theoretically remained an independent country while in the EU, it has not truly been one because responsibility for a number of decisions and policies usually made, defined and administered by a nation state (negotiating trade deals, setting customs tariffs etc) has instead been taken by the EU. I went on to say it may take some time for the country to prepare to assume those responsibilities again. The term “independent country” is well understood and widely used when discussing nation states. Given the context I would have thought it would be fairly clear what I meant but rather than assume I’m using a well-known phrase that describes the usual condition of a nation state you’ve instead chosen to assign my statement an entirely different meaning and claim I’m asking for the UK to attain some strictly defined status that you say hasn’t been possible since the Stone Age. I could understand it if the term "truly independent" was also a well understood and widely-used term in discussions to describe a distinct position that country might find itself in but it just isn't.
It really, really isn't. I assure you every single person will have a different definition of what that means. there is only one true definition of independence and that is being completely self reliant, that means living in a bubble like north Korea tries to. Thats how politicians like to trick people. they use terms like independence, equality, freedom etc to convince you that they are thinking the same thing you are knowing you will associate whatever perfect vision for the term you have in your head with what they are saying. But as you can tell from Brexit and all this squabbling, every politician and brexiteer has a different definition of independence that they are fighting for. (also the majority of people on earth live in some form of union, so the usual state would be living in a union, which we will be anyway living in the United Kingdom...) As to the rest, the only way you can have democracy is if you have the power to enforce your mandate. you use the same argument for leaving the EU. The main thing is i see a load of train corporations getting together to create regulations without any democratic oversight at all far more undemocratic that having an EU wide regulation thats gone through an elected EU body. I see the US unilaterally imposing sanctions on UK companies and UK trade forcing us to stop without any oversight far more undemocratic than having rules that elected nation leaders have collectively come to an agreement on. In the EU we have a say on the things that affect us both from within our borders and from outside them. Whereas without them we may be able to control the what happens without our borders better, other countries are able to impose their will on us far more freely than they can now. We may try to come up with rules to trade with other individual nations ourselves, but when it comes down to it, we wont find a more like-minded group of countries to trade with than the EU. you say we disagree with them, but theres nobody else we disagree with less with that size of economy.
I think that the votes being cast, this week, with regards to Brexit, will confirm that Party and self preservation will be put before the people, as happens all too often in politics. People talk about Brexit giving us independence, yet MPs are coerced into voting in favour of things that the PM and a minority wants, rather than what the majority of the country needs.* How is that independent? * Sometimes they are the same, but that is possibly coincidental. Cynic? Me?
Respect. Putting country before party. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-tory-minister-phillip-lee-12687126
Did you respect IDS pre referendum for doing the same? Remember he resigned from a Pro-Brexit government.
