Brexit Bungle
|
Brexit Bungle
|
12-12-2018, 03:40 PM
(12-12-2018, 03:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Just gave it my best shot. Feel free to correct, fine tune, whatever. One side feels if Congress/Parliament doesn't agree with how the Citizenry vote they can drag their heels and force a revote The other side feels once the people have spoken you honor their choice in a democracy. ![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png) ![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png) 
12-12-2018, 03:59 PM
(12-12-2018, 03:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: One side feels if Congress/Parliament doesn't agree with how the Citizenry vote they can drag their heels and force a revote  (12-12-2018, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure you're qualified to give an unbiased recap of each side's stance. 
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif) Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self. 
12-12-2018, 04:20 PM
Is there still time or has the two year window passed?
As to this being a bungle, is it only a bungle because there is no deal? Great Britain voted to leave the EU, that vote should stand and Great Britain should follow through with the will of the people and find out if it will work for them or not. If it doesn't work out, then get together with the EU, find out if they will take you back and start the process of bringing up another vote to rejoin. Since there's no deal in place, it seems to me that the EU is being really petty. All ties should be cut, EU business and citizens get one month to leave and start fresh. If they don't want to do that, then since members of the EU, Great Britain and the United States are all allies, then get the United States to mediate/arbitrate so that the deal is fair for everyone. Let Great Britain find out if this was a good idea or not.
Song of Solomon 2:15
Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes. 
12-12-2018, 04:25 PM
(12-12-2018, 04:20 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Is there still time or has the two year window passed? (12-12-2018, 11:08 AM)Dill Wrote: Interesting. Looks like two separate consensuses, Whig and Tory, have built themselves around the issue of a Brexit revote. Suddenly, there is an oppressed minority.
12-12-2018, 04:55 PM
(12-12-2018, 04:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Gonna go with: You missed the point. That Dill is not "qualified to give an unbiased recap" but you are? 
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
12-12-2018, 05:48 PM
(12-12-2018, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What you're essentially saying is that if you don't like the results of a vote simply drag your feet on implementing the results until you can claim enough time has passed that a second vote is now needed. The second vote crowd are literally advocating for the complete subversion of the democratic process. Unfortunately, I cannot access your links at the moment. WaPo wants me to subscribe and my work computer does not have a working speaker. Not speaking for my Whig friends, what I am essentially saying is that there can be circumstances that legitimize a re-vote, just as there can be circumstances that lead one to rethink a marriage or a car purchase or any other decision. To acknowledge this is not, in itself, to advocate for "complete subversion of the democratic process." E.g., 18 U.S. states have recall provisions so that governors may be recalled if voters change their mind. That's how Schwartzenegger replaced Davis in CA, right? Without complete subversion of democracy. Surely the principle can be admitted. The question is then is what that means in a democracy when others don't want to re-vote. If my wife and I buy a car, and I discover the car salesman lied to me about its conditions--e.g., it gets half the advertised gas mileage--I don't feel especially bound to stand by the decision, once I realize it will cost more than I expected. I may want to return the car. But my wife voted too and she likes the car because it reminds of the one her parents used to drive . And she does doesn't like men telling her what to do. She want's to keep it. Even so, she probably would not defend her position by claiming "a sale/vote is a sale/vote regardless" or we have to honor contracts, honestly contracted or not, or we subvert the institution of market exchange. She would set to telling me why the benefits, in her view, offset the extra costs. Or why the salesman was not really lying. So for me the question is whether the Brexit vote is anything like the car analogy. You assume that people have only themselves to blame if they haven't informed themselves. I think that with voting, as with consumer purchases, we often don't have perfect information. It's not always our fault if we or our spouses are fooled--especially in the current political landscape in which people are bombarded by disinformation. And in the case of Brexit, it is possible the consequences may be grim enough to warrant a re-vote. Your final comment makes me wonder if your "repugnant argument" has a flip side. Would young remainers claim the oldsters don't care about the consequences of their vote because they won't be around? Ok to leave a mess for the next generation? I couldn't get to your source so I cannot see the full framing of "the older votes shouldn't count" argument. Did a remainer actually say that or did a journalist offer that as an implication of their position?
12-12-2018, 05:52 PM
(12-12-2018, 03:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unbiased recap. I get the impression you think I got your side right but my side wrong. Has anyone on the other side said actually said "citizens can drag their heels," or are you substituting your own characterization for their statements? Can you formulate an opponent's position so the opponent agrees you understand and have represented it correctly? That used to be a standard in philosophical debate.
12-12-2018, 08:29 PM
(12-12-2018, 04:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: That Dill is not "qualified to give an unbiased recap" but you are? Not at all: It was to illustrate that anyone involved in the debate is going to be biased. As I said: I'm goonna go with you missed the point.
12-12-2018, 08:35 PM
(12-12-2018, 05:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Unbiased recap. I get the impression you think I got your side right but my side wrong. You can get that feeling all you want; however, it is not true Citizens didn't drag their heels they voted; Parliament is the one dragging their heels. We are 1.5 years into the process and they cannot "figure it out". Sure: What would be your stance if the US voted to legalize Marijuana in a popular vote and the old white men in Congress didn't like it; so they drug their heels, tried to come up with ways it's a bad idea, and 2 years later after they've done nothing to act on the vote by the citizenry stated: "We're going to vote again"? 
12-12-2018, 10:32 PM
(12-12-2018, 04:20 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Is there still time or has the two year window passed? I'm curious about how you think the EU is being petty. Not that I disagree with them being petty, but given your post I feel like you may not understand that it is the British government that is dragging their feet on this. The issue is that they don't want to give up the benefits that come with EU membership. But there are requirements to those benefits, and those are what (in theory) the British people voted against with the Brexit vote. If they don't reach a deal, then the UK is severed from the EU without one as of 29 March, 2019. Both parties can agree to a two-year extension, but I don't think the EU will agree to it. (12-12-2018, 05:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Unfortunately, I cannot access your links at the moment. WaPo wants me to subscribe and my work computer does not have a working speaker. I read the whole thing, but I only pasted this for brevity. I don't disagree with most of what you say here. However, I disagree that the circumstances warrant another referendum vote in the case of the Brexit question itself. They voted to leave, and they elected a Parliament to handle the negotiations after that occurred.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
12-12-2018, 11:22 PM
(12-12-2018, 08:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can get that feeling all you want; however, it is not true Take the marijuana example and put in abortion. Do people not vote all the time to try and put people in to office to change the laws on legal abortion? The difference being of course there was not a national referendum on it but rather election after election of politicians running for or against it for years now. (12-12-2018, 10:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm curious about how you think the EU is being petty. Not that I disagree with them being petty, but given your post I feel like you may not understand that it is the British government that is dragging their feet on this. The issue is that they don't want to give up the benefits that come with EU membership. But there are requirements to those benefits, and those are what (in theory) the British people voted against with the Brexit vote. You both hit on what I have been saying: They voted in people to handle it...and they have not. What if new people are voted in because they run to reverse it? I'm not saying (and never once said in this thread) that it should be a national referendum again just because it hasn't been done yet, but rather if enough people change their minds and put in people to stop it or change it...is that not democracy? Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
12-13-2018, 12:31 AM
(12-12-2018, 10:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm curious about how you think the EU is being petty. Not that I disagree with them being petty, but given your post I feel like you may not understand that it is the British government that is dragging their feet on this. The issue is that they don't want to give up the benefits that come with EU membership. But there are requirements to those benefits, and those are what (in theory) the British people voted against with the Brexit vote. I say the EU is being petty simply because before the vote I remember multiple someone's from the EU on multiple occasions say they were going to make it hard on Great Britain if the vote passed. Great Britain is trying to negotiate and it appears that the EU is doing just that. Great Britain doesn't want to give up those benefits and the EU doesn't want to give any either. Both parties are being petty it seems and once the deadline comes, just sever those ties and move on. Great Britain will then be free to open negotiations with the rest of the world and I'm thinking the United States will absorb Great Britains imports, increase exports to Great Britain and maybe even slow trade with the EU. Could you imagine what that could do to Ikea alone?
Song of Solomon 2:15
Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.
12-13-2018, 01:05 AM
(12-12-2018, 11:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Take the marijuana example and put in abortion. I didn't expect you to answer the question posed; but rather to throw out a red herring. Once again the best you can reference is scheduled elections for politicians. Which is not the same at all.
12-13-2018, 02:06 AM
(12-13-2018, 12:31 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Great Britain will then be free to open negotiations with the rest of the world and I'm thinking the United States will absorb Great Britains imports, increase exports to Great Britain and maybe even slow trade with the EU. Could you imagine what that could do to Ikea alone? The "rest of the world" across oceans and continents? I'm pretty sure Britain is already free to "open negotiations" with them. Will they import US canned food and beef with no GMO labeling? Imagine you own and operate a shoe factory in Ashford. You're an hour from Dover, and the ferry from there is an hour to Calais. You can truck a semi loaded with shoes to the Continent pretty easily. Leave earlly, be in Paris by 2 pm. And no tariffs. Buy a load of leather the next day and drive it back to Ashford by 6 pm. Post Brexit maybe you've got some tariffs. Paying those is still probably cheaper than trying to ship that semi load to the US or Russia or China. And that is the extent of your "world trade." Profits down. Wages down too? Or take a step up. Suppose you are a car maker. You already have your products on the world market, selling your minis or Land Rovers or whatever in the U.S. and South Africa and Brazil. But France and Germany and Italy are serious markets. You've still got them, probably, but with the same tariffs non-EU members pay--10%. Profits down. It might even make sense to offshore some production. Relocate headquarters? Jobs gone? (Wild card here would Trump's threat to raise tariffs on EU cars to 20% last summer. That is pushing European countries work up lower tariffs plurilaterally for world wide car imports.) Scotland is chock full of remainers. Suppose it rethinks its Union with Britain because it wants to stay in the EU. Hammer blow to "Great" Britain, now just England, Wales and Northern Ireland. And tariffs on goods shipped to Scotland now too? Would IKEA pay tariffs to ship to Great Britain? Don't see why they would ship fewer goods to the U.S. because of British tariffs. Fewer Polish dentists in London though. Fewer Poles everywhere in GB. Britain for the British. Just my ruminations on market forces and the possible consequences of Brexit. 
12-13-2018, 06:11 AM
(12-12-2018, 10:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm curious about how you think the EU is being petty. Not that I disagree with them being petty, but given your post I feel like you may not understand that it is the British government that is dragging their feet on this. The issue is that they don't want to give up the benefits that come with EU membership. Yep. They want to leave, but keep all the good EU stuff regardless. It's not petty to tell them that's not how it works. Why should they have free access to our markets (also, financial markets) without contributing and without returning the courtesy? Why would the EU let their citizens settle freely all over Europe when they won't let other Europeans settle in their country? Etc. etc. They want a one-way street, they wanted it while in the EU and ironically often even got it so they would stay. Now that they leave regardless, I'd rather not keep it that way. That's not petty, that's just the EU not being a charitable organization for first-world outsiders.
12-13-2018, 09:54 AM
(12-13-2018, 01:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't expect you to answer the question posed; but rather to throw out a red herring. Once again the best you can reference is scheduled elections for politicians. Which is not the same at all. I answered you question. Your, how you say "red herring" of a question is not the same either as there are no national referendums in the US. And by simply switching to a real life situation (abortion vs marijuana) I showed how the citizens DO try and change laws through their votes. And someone else pointed out that states have recall elections to "change their results" too. It can happen. But if you want to keep just saying "they voted, its over, we can never vote again" feel free. I'm engaging in the discussion that there are variables at work to putting Brexit into effect. Not that people are INTENTIONALLY "dragging their feet" but that it was an ill-thought out proposition in the first place and therefore much harder to do. that leads to people thinking it is not worth doing. that leads people to vote for people who will try and fight to change it/nullify it. You know...democracy. That's all. But I never said they absolutely SHOULD do that...just that doing it would not be the end of democracy. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
12-13-2018, 10:05 AM
(12-12-2018, 11:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: You both hit on what I have been saying: They voted in people to handle it...and they have not. What if new people are voted in because they run to reverse it? Here is what I think the next referendum should be: on 29 March, if we have not reached an agreement to terms with the EU, do we extend the date by two years or sever at that point? I think that is the most fair way to put the question at this point. It means that they are still leaving, but it allows for more time for negotiation to help limit damage to the UK economy. (12-13-2018, 06:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yep. They want to leave, but keep all the good EU stuff regardless. It's not petty to tell them that's not how it works. Why should they have free access to our markets (also, financial markets) without contributing and without returning the courtesy? Why would the EU let their citizens settle freely all over Europe when they won't let other Europeans settle in their country? Etc. etc. This is my view, as well. EU membership comes with perks and responsibilities. For a long time, the EU allowed for the UK to get all the perks without taking on as many responsibilities as other full members. To me, if I were a citizen or an official in the EU, I'd be taking the same approach the EU has, here. The UK has received far more benefits than costs with regards to their EU relationship and they still want more. If they want to cut ties, then so be it, but why should the EU continue to give them benefits they have gotten for so long? But this isn't how many people in the UK see things, or how most in the US understand the relationship.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
12-13-2018, 10:51 AM
(12-13-2018, 09:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: 1. I answered you question. 1. No you didn't answer the question, you simply chose to change mine to be about election cycles. This was done to divert from the issue at hand aka Red Herring 2. For the final time, the issue at hand has nothing to do with election cycles; regardless how many times you try to draw the correlation. 3. Recall elections deal with....wait for it..........here it comes........officials elected during election cycles. Re-read point #2 4. Once again you are changing my words to try and give yours some merit. I never said it was over. I said the folks voted and it's the officials obligation to fulfill their wishes. Perhaps re-read point #1 5. No one said it would end democracy. Please re-read point #1
12-13-2018, 11:11 AM
(12-13-2018, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. No you didn't answer the question, you simply chose to change mine to be about election cycles. This was done to divert from the issue at hand aka Red Herring Sure I did...with an example of how your example happens all the time. Since you cannot provide an example of a national referendum in the US you chose to correlate it to a hypothetical situation. I explained that "voting to change the law" happens all the time. And, yes, within the voting cycle. Which is what I have been talking about with Brexit all along. (12-13-2018, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 2. For the final time, the issue at hand has nothing to do with election cycles; regardless how many times you try to draw the correlation. It does from what I am talking about as a, wait for it....hypothetical. I know you understand those. (12-13-2018, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Recall elections deal with....wait for it..........here it comes........officials elected during election cycles. Re-read point #2 As we have elections every year that's kind of a moot point. Recalls, by their nature, are to remove elected officials before their re-election time. (12-13-2018, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 4. Once again you are changing my words to try and give yours some merit. I never said it was over. I said the folks voted and it's the officials obligation to fulfill their wishes. Perhaps re-read point #1 Oh...you never said it was over...just that it had to be done because people voted and they can't vote on it again. (12-11-2018, 09:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The people have spoken and the onus is on Parliament to honor their choice; not try to change it. Sounds like it's over if you can't do anything to change it ever. But speaking of "changing words" you keep insisting that *I* am saying their SHOULD be a new referendum. Something I never said. (12-11-2018, 12:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, election cycles are Democracy. It has 0 to do with this issue. One for which you are advocating for. (12-11-2018, 01:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, nobody could ever accuse you of advocating for a re-vote. I had 0 idea what I was thinking. In fact you completely ignore my questions about other possibilities given the difficulty they are having in putting through BREXIT. If it goes through with or without a plan I cannot control nor am I "advocating" for anything. I have discussing how government works, how future elections might effect the results of the referendum and if things COULD change in the future. So I'm gonna say your used the right words about the wrong person: (12-12-2018, 04:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Gonna go with: You missed the point. You were correct that I misstated this though: (12-13-2018, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 5. No one said it would end democracy. Please re-read point #1 Correct...just make a complete sham of the democratic process. (12-10-2018, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ignoring that vote would make a compete sham of the democratic process. My bad. 
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
