Dare we speak about "Brexit?"

Status
Closed
Oct 2011
24,083
Lago Maggiore, Italy
What you say is true, but so is joining the EU a quite complicated process with far reaching consequences that were never presented in any great detail to the voters in any of the countries that had a referendum to join

More over some who voted many years ago are now finding themselves in a completely different EU that they never voted for
Correct. But it's the difference between liberalism and populism [technical, not social]. A people votes to delegate the government of a country to a group of persons trusting that they will do the best for all.

Examples ...
How many Europeans did vote a referendum to stay in NATO or to go with Moscow?
When Italy, UK and France went on war against Libya ... did the electors of the three countries vote in a referendum to say if they agreed with that war?
When Blair sent the British Army to Iraq ... did the British people vote a referendum to agree or not?

I don't know, I'm just asking.

But this is liberalism: you vote a government delegating to it even the right to send you to fight a war in an other continent. Or to join EU ...

This is why we say that EU is a construction created by an up-bottom process. European peoples hadn't a say about. Governments decided to create the CECA and then the EC and then the EU. With Euro and all the rest.

But, actually [even if in the government I support there is a populist party], thinking well ... how many times governments really allow the People to express their opinion about what they are doing?
 
Oct 2013
12,297
Europix
'A Farage in every country': Barnier warns of existential threat to EU

Brexit negotiator urges pro-EU forces to defend the fragile union against populist forces

“We will have to fight against those who want to demolish Europe with their fear, their populist deceit,” he told more than 700 EPP delegates in Helsinki, before naming the former Ukip leader Nigel Farage.
I don't exactly see what's so extraordinary in Barnier's speech that makes it worth mentioning (and with huge polices)
 
May 2018
17
North Britain
AlpinLuke: ‘A people votes to delegate the government of a country to a group of persons trusting that they will do the best for all.’ That is the system we have, and we’re stuck with it as it is the government who has the guns; but we were not the authors of this system. Why should we trust our MPs?

Our system of government evolved over centuries in Britain. First, the king and aristocracy ruled; then Parliament displaced the king as sovereign, then the House of Commons displaced the House of Lords. Salaries for MPs only being introduced in 1911 at least meant an MP was not ‘in it for the money’. Being unsalaried also required them to have actual talent: to make money (as ex-Sergeant Major Cobbett did, financing himself through his writing) or to convince a patron that they were worthy of their support (as Burke convinced Lord Verney and William Hamilton), or to have made their fortune before entering politics (such as successful naval officers rich from prizes, like Sir Edward Pellew—who some believe the inspiration for Patrick O’Brian’s Jack Aubrey).

No such requirements for talent now exist. MPs are increasingly selected from shortlists selected due to physical attributes, e.g. ‘Labour: All-women shortlists not sexist’. They are increasingly associated with corruption, e.g. Oborne, P. (2006) Labour sleaze and Saint Gordon, Spectator; e.g. Lewis, J. (2012) Cabinet minister Baroness Warsi admits breaking cash rules, Daily Telegraph. And when not outright corrupt, they are milking the system for all their worth, e.g. (2011) Taken for a ride: As MPs’ expenses row drags on meet the member who claimed £4.80 for CYCLING to work, Daily Mail. And even when one finally turfs them out of office, they still cost us money: Wintour, P. (2015) Tony Blair’s police protection costs taxpayers millions, report claims, Guardian.

Why should anybody trust today’s MPs at all?

AlpinLuke: ‘When Blair sent the British Army to Iraq ... did the British people vote a referendum to agree or not?’ The power to declare war in Britain comes from the Royal prerogative with not even a parliamentary vote required. Although unnecessary, Blair sought and obtained parliamentary approval for the Iraq war in 2003; Cameron attempted to do likewise over Syria in 2013 and failed—and ignored at least the spirit of that vote by allowing foreign attached British personnel to participate in military action. Given what a colossal mess recent Western interventions have made of the Middle East, are you really contending that our governments of shortlisted Diversity Hires ignoring the people is a selling point?
 
Jan 2011
12,259
Correct. But it's the difference between liberalism and populism [technical, not social]. A people votes to delegate the government of a country to a group of persons trusting that they will do the best for all.

Examples ...
How many Europeans did vote a referendum to stay in NATO or to go with Moscow?
When Italy, UK and France went on war against Libya ... did the electors of the three countries vote in a referendum to say if they agreed with that war?
When Blair sent the British Army to Iraq ... did the British people vote a referendum to agree or not?

I don't know, I'm just asking.

But this is liberalism: you vote a government delegating to it even the right to send you to fight a war in an other continent. Or to join EU ...

This is why we say that EU is a construction created by an up-bottom process. European peoples hadn't a say about. Governments decided to create the CECA and then the EC and then the EU. With Euro and all the rest.

But, actually [even if in the government I support there is a populist party], thinking well ... how many times governments really allow the People to express their opinion about what they are doing?
That is all fine but then the same logic (i.e the people delegated the details of their decision to their reps) should work for Brexit. A main decision (to join the EU or in this case to leave it) has been taken by referendum, the government works out the details.....
 
Aug 2009
4,976
Londinium
Many people here are saying there wasn't a single leave position.

Was there a single remain position? Did all those who supported remain want a federal Europe, becoming more of a state than it already is? The "ever closer union" is a vague statement and not included within any of the remain arguments put forward (vote remain and we will be in a ever closer union wasn't written on buses).

There is a good case to be heard that a remain vote would have only been applicable to the EU of 2016, any further changes to the EU would require a new in/out referendum (which of course wouldn't be allowed).

There not being a single leave position is just another moot point brought in to justify opposition to Brexit.
 
Aug 2009
4,976
Londinium
C'mon, Baldastic! What "force field"?
The channel is large enough and the currents + weather are usually bad enough for making any reasonable person to think twice before organizing a armed landing. Honestly, why there was no enemy army putting foot in British soil since Normands?
Aknowledging that doesn't diminish what the Brits achieved!
It's exactly what I am keeping saying. The "Continentals" had to continueslly fight against themselves and against others.
You can take as another example my previous post on Cossacks.
Really, how many times in the last millennia was a British democratic advance blown into pieces by a foreign power that occupied the British Islands?
_________
Let's drop it, or continue in private, cause I think I'm derailing the thread even more than I usually do
I think you've missed my points entirely on this one. Happy to discuss on a thread separate thread.
 
Oct 2011
24,083
Lago Maggiore, Italy
That is all fine but then the same logic (i.e the people delegated the details of their decision to their reps) should work for Brexit. A main decision (to join the EU or in this case to leave it) has been taken by referendum, the government works out the details.....
All the democratic systems around are a mix of populism and liberalism. Usually liberalism is dominating nowadays. For example, about Brexit, the government has conceded the referendum. In UK there are no procedures for the citizens to force the government to convene a referendum [and in UK referenda are not binding, btw, while in Italy they are and the citizens can make a referendum even despite the opposition of the government].

So we have had:

* a liberalist action by the government who has conceded the referendum
* a populist excercise of direct democracy [citizens have voted to decide]
* a liberalist process where it's the government to negotiate and it's not said that the people will have a say about the possible agreement
 
Aug 2010
14,449
Wessex
Of course Macron's right, the EU needs an army to protect it against the USA among things as he said, I hope he'll give due warning to Trump when he next sees him, that'll have those Yanks quaking in their boots. “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America"!!
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions