Brexit (merged threads)

[Davie P]

^ yes, but even that bit of the quote needs context - Churchill shouted it during an argument with De Gaulle on the eve of D-Day. It wasn't in reference to the EU, and it wasn't made during a parliamentary speech.

 

Invoking "the spirit of Churchill" through selective quoting is standard political rhetoric, but Churchill was on the pro-European side of the conservative party and a leading proponent of European free trade.

 

What he would make of the Brexit debacle can only ever be speculation.

 

I think this article is a fair summary of the subject - What Churchill really thought about Britain’s place in Europe

Edited June 9, 2019 by Davie P

[Evil Inky]

^My apologies, Davy. It appears that you are quite correct, it was a bit of a stitch-up. However, he did state, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, "“If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea." Personally, I would prefer it if every country ditched the European Union - end of problem.

 

What problem do you believe this would solve?

[George.]

^^I may well have been wrong on Churchills views on Europe. If so, that shows just what Westminster really does to us and strengthens the fact that Britain has never been a democracy - and it's obvious that unless there are massive changes, it never will be any more democratic than it claims to be just now, if not worse.

 

When Britain took part in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in ‘57, what will the common man have known about what that meant to happen or what would be done, or what could possibly happen? When Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973, what did Joe Blogs know about what was happening? How much information was given to the population regarding the Maastricht Treaty, signed by Britain in ‘92? Were we given any info at all that was worth having?

 

It has to be accepted that there are huge areas regarding the E.E.C, the Common Market, the European Union and all the rest that have been masked. That has meant one thing. The common man, all too often, knows nothing regarding what action is taking place, what it means regarding finances relating to Joe Blogs, how many jobs will remain available or will disappear because the Euroboats have stripped our waters or the car manufacturers have dumped their factories and moved to Luxembourg? The questions go on eternally, and there are two very obvious reasons for that. We were never told what the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union could do to us, or not do to us, and we were not told anything about the good points, or the bad, regarding the E.E.C. We were lied to by omission – time and time and time again.

 

There’s a wee burn that flows down the hill and out into Urafirth a couple of hundred yards north of me. If we carry on as we are, it’ll be no more than a couple of months before the Eurofreaks are in there, and every single one of them will have a fishing rod with them.

 

Yet more reason to justify the fact that Jimmy Six got it very, very wrong.

 

 

What problem do you believe this would solve?

 

^Not so long ago there was a Spanish fishing boat about a mile, perhaps a mile and a half offshore in St. Magnus Bay. It had its nets out, stripping the fish out of our waters. That's just one of many, many things that could be solved. Then it would possibly be a bit more worthwhile to go out fishing.

 

There is of course one other problem. We are pretty used to enjoying the belief that we have democracy inflicted upon us, regardless. Then, of course, you have to ask, "Just how did Jean-Claude Junker get his job, who voted him in?"

Edited June 9, 2019 by George.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

@Davie P - Free trade with Europe is one thing; being subjected to EU directives is entirely a different matter completely.

[Capeesh]

NFU presidents opinion on a no deal Brexit...

".. a no deal scenario would be catastrophic for British agriculture.."

Are there any crofters on here? It would be interesting to hear their view.

[Davie P]

^^I may well have been wrong on Churchills views on Europe. If so, that shows just what Westminster really does to us and strengthens the fact that Britain has never been a democracy - and it's obvious that unless there are massive changes, it never will be any more democratic than it claims to be just now, if not worse.

 

When Britain took part in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in ‘57, what will the common man have known about what that meant to happen or what would be done, or what could possibly happen? When Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973, what did Joe Blogs know about what was happening? How much information was given to the population regarding the Maastricht Treaty, signed by Britain in ‘92? Were we given any info at all that was worth having?

 

So setting aside that we established a few posts ago that Britain wasn't a signatory of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in ‘57, and you still haven't explained why haven't you think Britain, one of the oldest democracies in the world, isn't in fact a democracy.....

 

 

 

The rest of your post raises an interesting point. I recall attempting to read the actual "Treaty on the European Union" (i.e. the 1992 Maastricht Treaty) document at the time. It was several hundred pages and written in fairly impenetrable legal language. I gave up after about 50 pages and remember thinking "why am I getting a vote on this when I don't understand it?"

 

It was the same as the Scottish Referendum. The SNP published a detailed circa 700 page pre-referendum document. It was certainly more readable than the Maastricht Treaty but I expect most people that voted didn't read much of it.

 

The point is that the information was freely available for both these referendums. But it is beyond reasonable expectation that the public will take the time to read and consider the source material in full in order to inform their vote. Therefore, we end up with political and media spin, prejudice, misinterpretation, and outright lies dominating the discussion, which in turn skews the vote.

 

Hence why we have elected representatives that we delegate the authority to digest and debate the legislation, and (hopefully!) act in our best interests.

 

Where Brexit differed from the previous referendums is that there was no detail as to what people were being asked to vote on. It was a notional concept, not well considered, actionable legislation (the Brexit referendum was officially 'pre-legislative'). And now that the detail is being worked through, pro-leavers are claiming that voters voted for proposals which simply weren't on the table at the time. No-one, not even the staunchest anti-EU politicians, were seriously campaigning for a No Deal Brexit, for example. 

[Davie P]

@Davie P - Free trade with Europe is one thing; being subjected to EU directives is entirely a different matter completely.

 

Indeed. But it's a moot point as the UK collaboratively drafted and agreed the EU directives. We are participants, rather than subjects

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

@Davie P, hardly a moot point given that we did not draft agree to all the EU Directives, not to mention future EU Directives, especially given that the UK voted to leave.

[George.]

^^Thank you for your reply, Davy.

 

You do put forward that Britain is one of the first democracies in the world. That presents a problem. As far as I know, Britain has never been a democracy – in any way whatsoever. It may well have claimed to be, but……..

 

It does ask for your opinion, it asks what you would like to happen and it asks you what you think would the best thing for it to do, and it has do this for a long, long time. Then, in my honest opinion, it does exactly what it wants to do – regardless.

 

IMHO, that kinda says it all. Britain never has been, is not at the moment, and never will be, in any way at all, democratic. That’s why we vote for this or that, and then they do what they want, regardless.

 

I mentioned before the fact that I believed that Jimmy Six got it wrong. Some things never change.

 

ps Don’t forget to send your Queen a birthday card. April next year but plenty time.

 

^And yes Davy, as I understand it, the UK collaboratively drafted and agreed the EU directives --- without asking the people that pay it, feed regardless and then bury it. They took the money and then did what they wanted to do, and they did it all collaboratively, as they chose to do it, and only as they chose to do it - regardless.

[Davie P]

You do put forward that Britain is one of the first democracies in the world. That presents a problem. As far as I know, Britain has never been a democracy – in any way whatsoever. It may well have claimed to be, but……..

 

I didn't say it is one of the first, but it is one of the oldest. No democracy can ever be perfect from the viewpoint of everyone franchised or affected, as any democracy has inherent compromises, but the UK is in fact and in practice a parliamentary democracy. You don't have to like it or even believe it. I'd be interested in any robust evidence you have that presents a case that the UK is not a democracy?

Edited June 10, 2019 by Davie P

[Davie P]

@Davie P, hardly a moot point given that we did not draft agree to all the EU Directives, not to mention future EU Directives, especially given that the UK voted to leave.

 

"Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.

 

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%."

 

From https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

 

I wouldn't say that amounts to us being "subjected to EU directives", rather it is an indication of our influence and how the EU is, in the vast majority of cases, in accord with UK priorities.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Davie P

[George.]

^^ You did state that Britain was one of the oldest democracies.

 

I didn't say it is one of the first, but it is one of the oldest. 

 

Therefore, by being one of the oldest it suggests that it was one of the first - pretty directly. Of course, as I understand it at that sort of time Britain didn't exist but the Jarl of Orkney, Thorfinn Rollo Einarsson, looked after the place pretty democratically in about the year 900 a.d. A couple of hundred years later there were others looking after their areas, Earl Morgund Mormaer, of Mar being the man that looked after the area around Stirling - pretty democratically. No Britain in sight.

 

Britain is no democracy. It never has been and never will be. To suggest otherwise is an insult.

 

It would be interesting, and possibly amusing, to see Westminster prove that Britain is in any way a democracy, and do it without telling lies.

Edited June 10, 2019 by George.

[hakama]

Well said.

[Ghostrider]

 

@Davie P, hardly a moot point given that we did not draft agree to all the EU Directives, not to mention future EU Directives, especially given that the UK voted to leave.

 

"Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.

 

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%."

 

From https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

 

I wouldn't say that amounts to us being "subjected to EU directives", rather it is an indication of our influence and how the EU is, in the vast majority of cases, in accord with UK priorities.

 

 

Or during the horse trading they were bought off one way or the other to 'toe the line'.

 

In a Europhile UK Parliament its hardly surprising that they get with whatever Brussels are selling this week, the problem arose, when they held a referendum which showed what the rest of us have suspected for a long time, that the UK population  is about as anti-EU as the UK Parliament is pro-EU. Consequently the argument that the UK Parliament's influence within the EU, and the UK Parliament's priority as far as the EU is concerned is the UK's population's influence and priorities is weak in the extreme.

 

Oh, the joys of holding votes on differing terms on the same subject relatively close together......add to the third vote involving the EU which we've just had returning roughly equal support for the Europhile parties, the anti-EU parties, and for two that seem to have no clue where they stand on the EU or anything else, and you have a right dog's dinner to wade through.

[Davie P]

^^ You did state that Britain was one of the oldest democracies.

 

I didn't say it is one of the first, but it is one of the oldest. 

 

Therefore, by being one of the oldest it suggests that it was one of the first - pretty directly. Of course, as I understand it at that sort of time Britain didn't exist but the Jarl of Orkney, Thorfinn Rollo Einarsson, looked after the place pretty democratically in about the year 900 a.d. A couple of hundred years later there were others looking after their areas, Earl Morgund Mormaer, of Mar being the man that looked after the area around Stirling - pretty democratically. No Britain in sight.

 

Britain is no democracy. It never has been and never will be. To suggest otherwise is an insult.

 

It would be interesting, and possibly amusing, to see Westminster prove that Britain is in any way a democracy, and do it without telling lies.

 

Geprge, I didn't say or imply that Britain was one of the first democracies. 'Democracy' as a defined principle of government has been been around since the ancient Greeks in the 7th century BCE. Many states have implemented (and often abandoned) it in various forms since then.

 

The history of British democracy can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215 with several key developments along the way - the establishment of the House of Commons in 1341, the the Civil War between King and Parliament in 1542, the extension of the franchise (i.e. those eligible to vote) in the mid 1800s beyond landowners and the wealthy in Scotland and England, and not until 1928 did women get the same voting rights as men.

 

I'm happy to discuss the origins and principles of UK democracy with you, but I feel it is a pointless exercise if you just claim it doesn't exist - I'm not sure that it is a logical position to adopt and I suspect you may just be saying it repeatedly for effect. Nevertheless, I feel that it is important to challenge factless opinion during political discussions.

 

Can I humbly suggest that you do some research on the history of democracy as a form of government? This article is quite a good primer on the origins through to Brexit - A brief history of democracy: Does it still convey the 'will of the people'?