The General Election in the United Kingdom

[woolley]

14 hours ago, RecklessAbandon said:

Typical "still got their head in the sand, saying nananananananana" but still can't point to a concrete benefit of Brexit outside of the sovereignty fallacy (you know, the one that the Tory government published a white paper about categorically stating that the sovereignty fallacy is just that, a fallacy).

This yet again. I do wonder whenever I see it whether those asserting it are foolish enough to believe it, or whether they think their readers are completely naive.

So one more time just for you. Sovereignty is everything. It embodies self-determination. It has been fought for over centuries and jealously guarded. It transcends all other considerations, however weighty.

The white paper to which you refer says that the UK Parliament has been sovereign throughout EU membership "but it has not always felt like that". Of course Parliament remained sovereign otherwise Brexit could not have happened. The EU trick and the reason "it has not always felt like that", as I suspect you know very well, is that member states are barred by EU treaty and legislation from fully exercising it. You cannot exercise sovereignty if the majority of your law is made by a foreign assembly and you have no option but to nod it through and accept it. The member states' sovereignty in the EU is a bit like a child's mobile phone which is confiscated by the school in the morning and is only given back when the child leaves at the end of the day. So theoretically they have a phone, but they might as well not have because they aren't allowed to use it.

This is demonstrably the case, for if it were otherwise Cameron would not have gone cap in hand to the EU to beg concessions that might have seen his Remain campaign over the line. He would have exercised the UK's sovereignty and made the changes unilaterally. He wasn't allowed to do that. Your point is baloney.

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, woolley said:

This yet again. I do wonder whenever I see it whether those asserting it are foolish enough to believe it, or whether they think their readers are completely naive.

So one more time just for you. Sovereignty is everything. It embodies self-determination. It has been fought for over centuries and jealously guarded. It transcends all other considerations, however weighty.

The white paper to which you refer says that the UK Parliament has been sovereign throughout EU membership "but it has not always felt like that". Of course Parliament remained sovereign otherwise Brexit could not have happened. The EU trick and the reason "it has not always felt like that", as I suspect you know very well, is that member states are barred by EU treaty and legislation from fully exercising it. You cannot exercise sovereignty if the majority of your law is made by a foreign assembly and you have no option but to nod it through and accept it. The member states' sovereignty in the EU is a bit like a child's mobile phone which is confiscated by the school in the morning and is only given back when the child leaves at the end of the day. So theoretically they have a phone, but they might as well not have because they aren't allowed to use it.

This is demonstrably the case, for if it were otherwise Cameron would not have gone cap in hand to the EU to beg concessions that might have seen his Remain campaign over the line. He would have exercised the UK's sovereignty and made the changes unilaterally. He wasn't allowed to do that. Your point is baloney.

What tangible difference has that sovereignty meant to any citizen? You don't have any more or less sovereignty as an individual, just a different bunch of lying suits to subvert it for you.

[Chinahand]

Tell that to the Tibetans and Uyghurs. 

[Chinahand]

And the Celts. 

[woolley]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

What tangible difference has that sovereignty meant to any citizen? You don't have any more or less sovereignty as an individual, just a different bunch of lying suits to subvert it for you.

You appreciate that this is a different matter to the point I was rebutting?

OK, the UK government is not wonderful, or even good, but it is within the power of the UK population to change that If they so desire. It is not in the power of the UK population, or even the UK government of the day, to change the will of the EU whatever that is or may be in the future. Perhaps you like what the EU does? It's a tremendous hostage to fortune to assume that you, your heirs and successors will continue to like what it does, always and for ever, as national sovereignty continues to be eroded by the ever expanding scope of QMV.

To paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt, our leaders may be bastards, but at least they are our bastards.

[HeliX]

8 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Tell that to the Tibetans and Uyghurs. 

The relationship between Tibet and China is entirely comparable to the relationship between the EU and the UK pre-referendum, of course.

[HeliX]

11 minutes ago, woolley said:

You appreciate that this is a different matter to the point I was rebutting?

OK, the UK government is not wonderful, or even good, but it is within the power of the UK population to change that If they so desire. It is not in the power of the UK population, or even the UK government of the day, to change the will of the EU whatever that is or may be in the future. Perhaps you like what the EU does? It's a tremendous hostage to fortune to assume that you, your heirs and successors will continue to like what it does, always and for ever, as national sovereignty continues to be eroded by the ever expanding scope of QMV.

To paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt, our leaders may be bastards, but at least they are our bastards.

I don't think it was a good tradeoff leaving the most important trading bloc on the planet and an important political entity which put the UK at the heart of global matters in order to gain the tiny amount of sovreignty we didn't retain by being a member. The UK still had a very, very large amount of sovreignty. Particularly by being one of the member states of the EU that was able to veto resolutions.

The comment about heirs and successors is interesting given you presumably think it was your right to decide to be out of the EU on their behalf...

Edited June 5 by HeliX

[woolley]

15 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I don't think it was a good tradeoff leaving the most important trading bloc on the planet and an important political entity which put the UK at the heart of global matters in order to gain the tiny amount of sovreignty we didn't retain by being a member. The UK still had a very, very large amount of sovreignty. Particularly by being one of the member states of the EU that was able to veto resolutions.

The comment about heirs and successors is interesting given you presumably think it was your right to decide to be out of the EU on their behalf...

You completely misunderstand the concept of sovereignty and self-determination, and have an extremely flippant disregard for something so fundamental. There is no such thing as "a tiny amount of sovereignty". It's like virginity. You either have it or you don't.

I didn't have a vote in the referendum, of course, but if I had, I would certainly have cast it to preserve the right to self-determination of future generations in preference to a few transitory fripperies that may come with EU membership for the time being. I would do so even at some minor inconvenience to myself, as we have property in Europe and travel frequently.

ETA: By the way, all EU states have equal rights to veto, but the matters on which it can be exercised are limited and becoming further eroded as time goes by. Study QMV.

Edited June 5 by woolley

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

You completely misunderstand the concept of sovereignty and self-determination, and have an extremely flippant disregard for something so fundamental. There is no such thing as "a tiny amount of sovereignty". It's like virginity. You either have it or you don't.

I didn't have a vote in the referendum, of course, but if I had, I would certainly have cast it to preserve the right to self-determination of future generations in preference to a few transitory fripperies that may come with EU membership for the time being. I would do so even at some minor inconvenience to myself, as we have property in Europe and travel frequently.

If the UK didn't have sovreignty it wouldn't have been able to leave the EU and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[woolley]

Just now, HeliX said:

If the UK didn't have sovreignty it wouldn't have been able to leave the EU and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Oh dear. Did you not read my reply to RecklessAbandon that you replied to in the first place? Attention span of a gnat.

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, woolley said:

Oh dear. Did you not read my reply to RecklessAbandon that you replied to in the first place? Attention span of a gnat.

I did, just wondering if you were going to notice that you're asserting we left the EU to gain something you admit we already had, and could have exercised at any point. So we left a good thing to obtain something we already had... for what? If we can do it at any point, what's the gain or reason to do it in 2016?

If the EU were threatening to remove our ability to leave the EU your argument would hold water - and a fair amount of water - but that's not the case.

Edited June 5 by HeliX

[woolley]

Just now, HeliX said:

I did, just wondering if you were going to notice that you're asserting we left the EU to gain something you admit we already had, and could have exercised at any point. So we left a good thing to obtain something we already had... for what? If we can do it at any point, what's the gain or reason to do it in 2016?

Sorry. If you did read it, zero for comprehension. I'll try to make it EVEN simpler for you. In the EU, a state has sovereignty but cannot exercise it unless it leaves.

[HeliX]

Just now, woolley said:

Sorry. If you did read it, zero for comprehension. I'll try to make it EVEN simpler for you. In the EU, a state has sovereignty but cannot exercise it unless it leaves.

Yes, I followed that in the original post. But this means that leaving to gain sovreignty with no other material gain is stupid. Even stupider if it comes at a loss of many things you then can't regain.

If the EU were putting through laws which were wholly bad for UK citizens and we were unable to stop that, leaving is a great idea.

If the EU were threatening to remove the right to leave, leaving is a great idea.

Leaving to gain sovreignty, which you already have and can exercise completely at any time by leaving, when there is no other good reason to, is daft.

[woolley]

5 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Yes, I followed that in the original post. But this means that leaving to gain sovreignty with no other material gain is stupid. Even stupider if it comes at a loss of many things you then can't regain.

If the EU were putting through laws which were wholly bad for UK citizens and we were unable to stop that, leaving is a great idea.

If the EU were threatening to remove the right to leave, leaving is a great idea.

Leaving to gain sovreignty, which you already have and can exercise completely at any time by leaving, when there is no other good reason to, is daft.

Not if you are one voice in 28 and QMV is increasing with ever increasing integration. The UK is better than that. Or it should be.

[HeliX]

Just now, woolley said:

Not if you are one voice in 28 and QMV is increasing with ever increasing integration. The UK is better than that. Or it should be.

But if it still wasn't doing anything that was harming us then sovreignty is not a reason to leave. Because we can do that any time. Doing it when we only stand to lose, and not gain, is not sensible. It'd be classed as -EV by any gambler..