• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Brexit in a nutshell

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
It is hardly "democratic" to betray their own responsibilities as MPs, which include considering what they consider to be better for their constituencies and for the UK.

Labour is indeed in a confused situation. I wish Jeremy Corbyn stopped being so ambiguous and accepted already that he ought to campaign for Remain by way of the People's Vote referendum.

The Brexit party is obscene. No one should give an ear to Nigel Farage.

The Tories are dying, even I can see that. They are harming the UK enormously by keeping their grab in political power at this late time.

I mostly agree but the conservatives have chosen the vote of the referendum to campaign on and this alone wine get them votes.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Scale mostly, increase size and complexity of any 'project' it becomes exponentially more difficult to manage (see Euro v national currencies for example). Diseconomy of scale, muddled compromises based on horse trading, unintended consequences increase and effects become less predictable, inadequacies of leadership and decision-making magnified, etc.

Reduction of diversity makes systems fragile as the scale of errors is magnified and 'firebreaks' are removed.

Reduction of diversity reduces the potential to find better solutions as fewer options are tried.

Lack of Europe wide public sphere means lack of democratic accountability with different countries living in significantly different political realities.

Centralising power incentivises lobbyists/special interest groups to influence legislation.

Nationalism will likely increase as countries perceive they are getting a raw deal while others are getting favourable treatment, or countries feel their values are being subordinated to the values of others.

Power will be moved much further from the people and political leaders will be increasingly detached from those they are supposed to represent and the consequences of their decisions.

Top down attempts to remake (large parts of) the world don't have a great track record of succeeding and more often make things worse.

Erosion of different cultures makes the world a duller place (and a successful US of E would require this)

I could go on...

What do you think the advantages are?

I think most of these are based on assumptions. I see no reason why a united europe would for example mean the loss of individual cultures or diversity.

As for democratic set-up, that's a question of set-up. I agree it's too abstract today and still too much of a political construct.

As for the advantages...
Business wise, it gives us a far larger target market.
Internationally, it puts all of us in a much stronger position. Having to negotiate with Europe is tougher then having to negotiate with just a single country. It puts us in a far better position of engaging in competition with countries like China or the US. It also ensures more stability within europe. 2 members are far less likely to enter into conflict if they are part of a mutually beneficial common bigger picture as opposed to when they exist as isolated nations.

Europe has a long history of violent conflict. It's far less likely to return if europe is united in a common goal.
It used to be dictators who tried to unite europe by force (and indeed impose their own culture on the rest). A democratically united europe with respect to individual culture, where the members are part of the whole because they want to, is very very different from what we've had in the past.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
I think most of these are based on assumptions. I see no reason why a united europe would for example mean the loss of individual cultures or diversity.

As for democratic set-up, that's a question of set-up. I agree it's too abstract today and still too much of a political construct.

As for the advantages...
Business wise, it gives us a far larger target market.
Internationally, it puts all of us in a much stronger position. Having to negotiate with Europe is tougher then having to negotiate with just a single country. It puts us in a far better position of engaging in competition with countries like China or the US. It also ensures more stability within europe. 2 members are far less likely to enter into conflict if they are part of a mutually beneficial common bigger picture as opposed to when they exist as isolated nations.

Europe has a long history of violent conflict. It's far less likely to return if europe is united in a common goal.
It used to be dictators who tried to unite europe by force (and indeed impose their own culture on the rest). A democratically united europe with respect to individual culture, where the members are part of the whole because they want to, is very very different from what we've had in the past.
Agree with all of this. Loss of individuality and cultures is a total red herring
Even within the UK there are rivalries between towns Manchester/Liverpool; Newcastle/Sunderland; Glasgow/Edinburgh are prime examples; identity has not been lost.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
What planet are you living on?

Bois the Liar, who was elected by an unrepresentative 0.2% of the electorate, has shut down the properly elected Parliament to avoid scrutiny of his position to potentially force through a no-deal, for which he has no mandate (as even Gove previously admitted).

I have my doubts about the LibDems decision but if they were to win a majority (not likely but who can tell?), that would give them a mandate to carry out their manifesto pledges. That's flawed (because of FPtP) but it's a hell of a lot more democratic than what Boris the Liar is doing.

Brexit is not about personalities. It is about the will of the people.

Boris wishes to carry out the will of the people and I will continue to support him if he does not try to bring back Mrs May’s surrender treaty.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Suspending Parliament is democratic????
Lying about leaving EU benefits is democratic?
Cheating in the election is democratic?

You live in a fantasy world.

One of your heroes, John Major did the same to cover up the MPs expenses scandal.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Your fantasy world also has a strange perception of who my heroes are??? John Major !!!

I have great sympathy for Chuka.

He is going to have to do some gold medal winning mental gymnastics to justify his decision to join the loony Lib Dems.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
I have great sympathy for Chuka.

He is going to have to do some gold medal winning mental gymnastics to justify his decision to join the loony Lib Dems.
Why did you 'quote' my post. Your response ignores my post and sets off at a tangent.
Don't quote if you can't answer or respond to the post.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What planet are you living on?

Bois the Liar, who was elected by an unrepresentative 0.2% of the electorate, has shut down the properly elected Parliament to avoid scrutiny of his position to potentially force through a no-deal, for which he has no mandate (as even Gove previously admitted).

I have my doubts about the LibDems decision but if they were to win a majority (not likely but who can tell?), that would give them a mandate to carry out their manifesto pledges. That's flawed (because of FPtP) but it's a hell of a lot more democratic than what Boris the Liar is doing.
Brexit is not about personalities. It is about the will of the people.

Why on earth do you think that is, in any way at all, a response to my post? Did you even read it before quoting it?

Boris wishes to carry out the will of the people and I will continue to support him if he does not try to bring back Mrs May’s surrender treaty.

Sorry but the people have never voted on no-deal vers. May's deal. Both are technically in line with the referendum result but neither are anything like what was actually promised by the leave campaign, so, like I said before, it's Boris the Liar who has no mandate from the people for what he's doing.

If you had the slightest interest in the "will of the people" you'd be supporting another referendum on whatever the best deal is or remain - now that the facts are known.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Why on earth do you think that is, in any way at all, a response to my post? Did you even read it before quoting it?



Sorry but the people have never voted on no-deal vers. May's deal. Both are technically in line with the referendum result but neither are anything like what was actually promised by the leave campaign, so, like I said before, it's Boris the Liar who has no mandate from the people for what he's doing.

If you had the slightest interest in the "will of the people" you'd be supporting another referendum on whatever the best deal is or remain - now that the facts are known.

If you understood democracy, you would understand that another referendum is ludicrous until the current one has been enacted.

A General Election is what is required and is what has been offered.
 
:rolleyes:

Optimistic. Reminds me of how confident the Brexiteers were concerning how "easy" they would leave the EU.

:rolleyes:

EU countries really want to inconvenience millions of their own citizens while also damaging their economies over a non-controversial issue with a simple solution that requires no negotiation, they have long acknowledged is a priority and that they have already agreed to.

I think most of these are based on assumptions. I see no reason why a united europe would for example mean the loss of individual cultures or diversity.

It's not an 'assumption' to note that a USoE vastly increases the scale and complexity of governance. Nor that it reduces diversity in decision making. Nor that reduction of diversity makes systems fragile as the scale of errors is magnified and 'firebreaks' are removed. Nor that lack of Europe wide public sphere means lack of democratic accountability with different countries living in significantly different political realities. Nor that centralising power incentivises lobbyists/special interest groups to influence legislation, etc.

As for democratic set-up, that's a question of set-up. I agree it's too abstract today and still too much of a political construct.

It's not just a case of 'set up', it is the fact that there inherently undemocratic consequences of a USoE.

Lack of public sphere. Distance of government from people. Lack of influence of small countries. Diversity of countries/economies makes fair legislation difficult.

Agree with all of this. Loss of individuality and cultures is a total red herring
Even within the UK there are rivalries between towns Manchester/Liverpool; Newcastle/Sunderland; Glasgow/Edinburgh are prime examples; identity has not been lost.

A functioning democracy requires the existence of commonalities reinforced by a common public sphere, education, cultural identity, etc.

This doesn't lead to the disappearance of cultures, just the gradual erosion. Also the places you mention have very similar cultures, just local pride (the same thing that leads to national pride which creates problems for USoE).

This is why decentralised localism is better than abstract internationalism. Local identities are far more inclusive, and their diversity acts as a bulwark against nationalism, not an accelerant of it
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
If you understood democracy, you would understand that another referendum is ludicrous until the current one has been enacted.

Except you don't want it to just be enacted, do you? May's deal would (technically) enact the result. You can't get around the fact that it's actually impossible to deliver what was voted for, because it was a pack of lies.

What you actually mean is "enact" it in the way you want it to happen.

A General Election is what is required and is what has been offered.

Go back to the people except not in any way in which you think they might tell us something you don't want? There is a big single issue problem and we should let the people vote on the reality, not the lies.

Also, if Boris wasn't such a liar, we'd have had an election. Would you still be so keen on it being the solution if the LibDems win and cancel Brexit?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Right welcomes discourse in favour of the Lefts use of their de-platforming techniques.

I don't understand what you mean to say here, so I will not comment.

How can offering the people a free vote over who should rule them be called shameful?

When it is a transparent tactic to threaten the sovereignity of the House of Commons, which is paramount to the authority of the Prime Minister (such as it is) as well as to the 2016 referendum (which is flawed is many ways and never had legal binding powers to begin with).

How can you possibly compare the UK with a South American republic and expect to be taken seriously?
As it turns out, rather easily these days. How the standards have fallen...

Have you heard of the stunt double for a Prime Minister that is looking for a stunt double of his own for dangerous scenes... such as speaking for an audience in that dangerous place, Luxembourg?

What about that party leader who is promising to deliver his own unemployment at the expense of the UK's viability and lies shamelessly about the laws and meaning of operating nationwide trade under WTO rules?

I swear, I would be a lot more afraid of Brazil's public image after Dilma and Bolsonaro were it not for Trump and Brexit providing such excellent distractions.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
So far, Johnson and Farage in particular, are not trying to throw democracy under the bus.

If only you could say the same about Swinson and Chuka.
I wish I could look at your face when you type such things.

Can you possibly believe in their truth?
 
So I hear from some people.

The evidence has so far eluded me.

In other words: "I haven't made the slightest attempt to gain even a rudimentary understanding the topic I am discussing".

A cursory googling would provide you with more scholarly literature than you could ever read, never mind writings for the general public such as this article from the bastion of alt-right, little Englander Europhobia: The Guardian.

The shambles of Brexit diverts attention from the EU’s democratic deficit | Gary Younge
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
In other words: "I haven't made the slightest attempt to gain even a rudimentary understanding the topic I am discussing".

A cursory googling would provide you with more scholarly literature than you could ever read, never mind writings for the general public such as this article from the bastion of alt-right, little Englander Europhobia: The Guardian.

The shambles of Brexit diverts attention from the EU’s democratic deficit | Gary Younge

Oh, I made the attempt, oh epithome of wisdom. And I will be enormously grateful if you attempt not to be so grossly presumptous and disrespectful towards me in the future. It reflects badly on you, very badly indeed. And I hate to call you on such transparent foolishness. It wastes my time and I won't have it back, you know.

But the facts just aren't there to make my attempts worth the effort. You can't blame me for that.

Hopefully you will decide to come back to me with a less flippant tone in the future so that I may listen to you.

Looking forward to that time.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I made the attempt..But the facts just aren't there to make my attempts worth the effort. You can't blame me for that.

:shrug:

The democratic deficit has been a subject of scholarly debate and critique from right across the political spectrum for over 40 years. It's the kind of thing 1st year university students are told to write about as a gentle introduction to international politics, and also the kind of thing people do post-doc research on. It is not an obscure topic found only among the conspiratorial far-right that is so obviously ridiculous it can be dismissed practically out of hand.

Even those who are ardently pro-EU and think the benefits vastly outweigh the problems often note that there are problems with democratic legitimacy/accountability that really need to be improved. That these same issues have existed for decades is a legitimate reason for people to wonder if they ever will, and is thus a legitimate, rational reason to oppose EU membership.

They even created a TV station Euronews to try to address one of them (lack of public sphere) although with little success.

Hopefully you will decide to come back to me with a less flippant tone in the future so that I may listen to you.

You wouldn't listen anyway :D
 
Last edited:
Top