tommy1808 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

For people, I don't see how an open border between RoI and NI is any different post-Brexit to what's in place today. Given RoI is already outside the Schengen agreement and that the UK wants visa-free travel for EU citizens, the only difference post-Brexit would be that an EU citizen that travels to RoI, then crosses the 'non border' into NI would not have the right to live or work there that they do today.

Again one word: customs.

In order to take care of that, you have to have checkpoints. Bye bye open border. Unless the UK stays in the common market.

Best regards
Thomas

Exactly. The most relevant part of Jayafe's quote is this:

...This [the new paper] is a welcome concession to reality, but it is predicated on an even bigger unreality: the assumption that the EU will agree to something quite extraordinary: that a 500km external EU border with more than 200 crossing points will be effectively unpoliced. People and goods will pass over it without let or hindrance. Smugglers, people traffickers and terrorists will go on their merry way unmolested. Small companies will not have to do customs checks at all; large ones will operate a charming honour system in which they retrospectively declare the goods they have moved and pay their duties...

The proposal is unworkable. Either there is a border or there isn't, but this we'll pretend there is a border to appease the leavers but actually it won't be there is pure fantasy.

Smuggling and people trafficking would be rampant, and it goes totally against the secure our borders mantra May was elected on. The British public has made clear they don't trust the EU as enforcing their own borders, why would they change their mind now?

EU will agree to something quite extraordinary: that a 500km external EU border with more than 200 crossing points will be effectively unpoliced.

Well, it will still be a better state of affairs than the Mediterranean won't it?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

EU will agree to something quite extraordinary: that a 500km external EU border with more than 200 crossing points will be effectively unpoliced.

Well, it will still be a better state of affairs than the Mediterranean won't it?

The Mediterranean is international waters, not remotely comparable to the border in Irland. Refugess also as per international law don´t have to care about borders, nor can they be punished for doing so illegally nor can they be shipped back willy nilly.

And i don´t think there will be many UK refugees trying to get into Irland, so how is that relevant?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

EU will agree to something quite extraordinary: that a 500km external EU border with more than 200 crossing points will be effectively unpoliced.

Well, it will still be a better state of affairs than the Mediterranean won't it?

The Mediterranean is international waters, not remotely comparable to the border in Irland. Refugess also as per international law don´t have to care about borders, nor can they be punished for doing so illegally nor can they be shipped back willy nilly.

And i don´t think there will be many UK refugees trying to get into Irland, so how is that relevant?

best regards
Thomas

Off Topic - When Idi Amin His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular was on a nasty ethnic cleansing in Uganda, Great Britain took in quite a few refugees and housed them in Northern Ireland. This being before the good friday peace accord, so tensions were a little high. Rumour has it, they were begging to go back after about 10 days.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

EU will agree to something quite extraordinary: that a 500km external EU border with more than 200 crossing points will be effectively unpoliced.

Well, it will still be a better state of affairs than the Mediterranean won't it?

A very small number of the dinghies and decrepit ships used by refugees are actually able to cross the sea on their own. At "best" they make it to an Island that is closer to Africa than to Europe, it just happens to be an Italian island.

Dano1977 wrote:

Off Topic - When Idi Amin His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular was on a nasty ethnic cleansing in Uganda, Great Britain took in quite a few refugees and housed them in Northern Ireland. This being before the good friday peace accord, so tensions were a little high. Rumour has it, they were begging to go back after about 10 days.

Hilarious.

Granted, I wouldn't have trotted that story out if I was a Brexiteer. That was an interesting period, presumably illustrative of those glorious pre-EU days that the Brexiteers aspire to. If I'm not mistaken, the majority of people alive then ended up voting for Brexit. Their views towards immigrants (insofar as one can call a British Passport holder in Uganda an immigrant) is worth noting:

"In 1968, the Labour minister Richard Crossman supported his government’s immigration act, restricting Commonwealth citizens’ right of entry. He explained that though it was an ‘appalling violation of our deepest principles’, he was ‘an MP for a constituency in the Midlands, where racialism is a powerful force’. Andrew Kenny, who grew up in South Africa, remembered that incident as he recalled ‘the greatest political shock’ of his life when he came to England in 1972:

‘I believed that my fellow white South Africans were uniquely racist. A few months after my arrival, Idi Amin announced that he was going to expel all the Asians from Uganda. This startled me since it was quite contrary to my ideas about liberated black Africa. But what devastated me was the reaction of ordinary white British people, especially white workers, to the arrival of these frightened and unhappy brown people in England. There was massive hostility, a wave of racist hysteria worse than anything I had ever experienced in South Africa. It shook me to the core.’"

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/01/t ... -refugees/

Given that this was the attitude towards British passport holders (presumably more British than an EU National will ever be), the Ugandan episode suggests that perhaps the EU's insistence of maintaining an ECJ role as a safeguard isn't all that unreasonable after all. A Richard Crossman, willing to bow to anti-immigrant populism, is always a threat on the horizon, no?

ElPistolero wrote:

after all. A Richard Crossman, willing to bow to anti-immigrant populism, is always a threat on the horizon, no?

Oh I'd be more worried about a French war hero and president throwing thousands of his loyal soldiers under the bus than simply stopping people from a country that had been independent for 10 years coming to the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki#After_the_war

As a french born in Algeria, I wonder what your point is? Harkis that fought for France should be around 75 80 years for the youngest on average?

ElPistolero wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Off Topic - When Idi Amin His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular was on a nasty ethnic cleansing in Uganda, Great Britain took in quite a few refugees and housed them in Northern Ireland. This being before the good friday peace accord, so tensions were a little high. Rumour has it, they were begging to go back after about 10 days.

Hilarious.

Granted, I wouldn't have trotted that story out if I was a Brexiteer. That was an interesting period, presumably illustrative of those glorious pre-EU days that the Brexiteers aspire to. If I'm not mistaken, the majority of people alive then ended up voting for Brexit. Their views towards immigrants (insofar as one can call a British Passport holder in Uganda an immigrant) is worth noting:

"In 1968, the Labour minister Richard Crossman supported his government’s immigration act, restricting Commonwealth citizens’ right of entry. He explained that though it was an ‘appalling violation of our deepest principles’, he was ‘an MP for a constituency in the Midlands, where racialism is a powerful force’. Andrew Kenny, who grew up in South Africa, remembered that incident as he recalled ‘the greatest political shock’ of his life when he came to England in 1972:

‘I believed that my fellow white South Africans were uniquely racist. A few months after my arrival, Idi Amin announced that he was going to expel all the Asians from Uganda. This startled me since it was quite contrary to my ideas about liberated black Africa. But what devastated me was the reaction of ordinary white British people, especially white workers, to the arrival of these frightened and unhappy brown people in England. There was massive hostility, a wave of racist hysteria worse than anything I had ever experienced in South Africa. It shook me to the core.’"

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/01/t ... -refugees/

Given that this was the attitude towards British passport holders (presumably more British than an EU National will ever be), the Ugandan episode suggests that perhaps the EU's insistence of maintaining an ECJ role as a safeguard isn't all that unreasonable after all. A Richard Crossman, willing to bow to anti-immigrant populism, is always a threat on the horizon, no?

For the record. Freedom of movement wasn't an issue for me.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Oh I'd be more worried about a French war hero and president throwing thousands of his loyal soldiers under the bus than simply stopping people from a country that had been independent for 10 years coming to the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki#After_the_war

You mean like all those brave and loyal Gurkhas who served in the British Army but were discharged before 1997? Not that two wrongs make a right.

Either way, the Uganda episode is instructive in the Brexit context because British MPs abandoned principle for votes by caving to anti-immigrant populism. As a consequence, British passport holders had their rights revoked.

Leads to questions about the value of official British documents and schemes if rights can just be legislated away just to secure votes. On the basis of past British practice, the EU's ECJ safeguard seems inherently logical.

ElPistolero wrote:

You mean like all those brave and loyal Gurkhas who served in the British Army but were discharged before 1997? Not that two wrongs make a right.

Last time I checked they weren't being left behind in a warzone to be tortured and murdered by the people they had been fighting against.

Nice try, next time give it your all would you?

ElPistolero wrote:

Either way, the Uganda episode is instructive in the Brexit context because British MPs abandoned principle for votes by caving to anti-immigrant populism. As a consequence, British passport holders had their rights revoked.

You do know over 20,000 still of them emigrated here to Britain don't you? If you want to criticise anyone for violating their rights, blame Idi Amin for expelling them and places like Kenya and Tanzania for closing their borders rather than take any of them in. Did you know that the immigration legislation you are referring to was passed four years BEFORE Amin decided to expel his Asian population?

Do you not think the Labour party was stupid in 1949 to pass a nationality bill that gave all 1 billion people in the empire the right to move to such a small island that was still rebuilding after WWII? Yes thank you, I knew you'd agree with me.

ElPistolero wrote:

[Leads to questions about the value of official British documents and schemes if rights can just be legislated away just to secure votes.

Don't worry, we're all too aware of what that line of thinking leads to. Some of our European friends made some very good (bad?) demonstrations of that line of thinking once upon a time. Cost an awful lot of blood, sweat and tears to stop it.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

You mean like all those brave and loyal Gurkhas who served in the British Army but were discharged before 1997? Not that two wrongs make a right.

Last time I checked they weren't being left behind in a warzone to be tortured and murdered by the people they had been fighting against.

Nice try, next time give it your all would you?

ElPistolero wrote:

Either way, the Uganda episode is instructive in the Brexit context because British MPs abandoned principle for votes by caving to anti-immigrant populism. As a consequence, British passport holders had their rights revoked.

You do know over 20,000 still of them emigrated here to Britain don't you? If you want to criticise anyone for violating their rights, blame Idi Amin for expelling them and places like Kenya and Tanzania for closing their borders rather than take any of them in. Did you know that the immigration legislation you are referring to was passed four years BEFORE Amin decided to expel his Asian population?

Do you not think the Labour party was stupid in 1949 to pass a nationality bill that gave all 1 billion people in the empire the right to move to such a small island that was still rebuilding after WWII? Yes thank you, I knew you'd agree with me.

ElPistolero wrote:

[Leads to questions about the value of official British documents and schemes if rights can just be legislated away just to secure votes.

Don't worry, we're all too aware of what that line of thinking leads to. Some of our European friends made some very good (bad?) demonstrations of that line of thinking once upon a time. Cost an awful lot of blood, sweat and tears to stop it.

Yes, I do know that Britain grudgingly accepted less than 30% of the people affected. Perhaps you expect us to offer congratulations for accepting so many British passport holders despite their race/skin colour?

In any event, my point is simple: British legislators have shown a propensity in the past to revoke the rights of certain British passport holders in order to cater to racist and/or anti-immigrant populism. It would be foolish for the EU to ignore this precedent outright, particularly its potential consequences for EU nationals residing in the U.K. In the future. Consequently, the Uganda case suggests that the EU's insistence on an ECJ safeguard is eminently reasonable.

As for Gurkhas, are you lot still cheaping out on salaries and pensions? Because that'll tell us how much you really value the bravery and loyalty you're paying lip service to.

And with respect to the negative consequences of acquiring colonies and subjects, what type of response are you expecting? A sympathetic one?

Olddog wrote:

You forgot the goods part ?

Not at all.

tommy1808 wrote:

Again one word: customs.

Once it is known what agreement is, or isn't, reached, customs can be sorted. Personally, I expect it to look much like customs at most places in the UK (sparse and random).

ElPistolero wrote:

Yes, I do know that Britain grudgingly accepted less than 30% of the people affected. Perhaps you expect us to offer congratulations for accepting so many British passport holders despite their race/skin colour?

We took in vastly more than any other country did. Where was the generosity of all those wonderful "liberated" nations in Africa and Asia? Oh I forgot, they're even bigger racists than their former colonial masters were!

How about you congratulate us for the fact we took so many in when instead we could have washed our hands of the whole sorry affair given how long Uganda had been independent of Britain?

ElPistolero wrote:

In any event, my point is simple: British legislators have shown a propensity in the past to revoke the rights of certain British passport holders in order to cater to racist and/or anti-immigrant populism.

And European legislators have show a propensity for revoking the rights of certain passport holders up to the point of trying to systematically exterminating them, expelling them from Europe, marginalising them etc etc etc.

Perhaps we should just ask the UN to arbitrate instead since you obviously can't be trusted.

ElPistolero wrote:

As for Gurkhas, are you lot still cheaping out on salaries and pensions? Because that'll tell us how much you really value the bravery and loyalty you're paying lip service to.

Gurkha pensions are linked to Indian Army salaries. In addition, Gurkha's with four years service can now settle in the UK. Considering they are mercenaries that's a pretty good deal really isn't it? Rather than being forced back to Nepal they can settle in Britain with their family.

ElPistolero wrote:

And with respect to the negative consequences of acquiring colonies and subjects, what type of response are you expecting? A sympathetic one?

Well I suppose at least in our case most of the indigenous cultures are still in place. Now about all those native cultures in South America......

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Yes, I do know that Britain grudgingly accepted less than 30% of the people affected. Perhaps you expect us to offer congratulations for accepting so many British passport holders despite their race/skin colour?

We took in vastly more than any other country did. Where was the generosity of all those wonderful "liberated" nations in Africa and Asia? Oh I forgot, they're even bigger racists than their former colonial masters were!

How about you congratulate us for the fact we took so many in when instead we could have washed our hands of the whole sorry affair given how long Uganda had been independent of Britain?

ElPistolero wrote:

In any event, my point is simple: British legislators have shown a propensity in the past to revoke the rights of certain British passport holders in order to cater to racist and/or anti-immigrant populism.

And European legislators have show a propensity for revoking the rights of certain passport holders up to the point of trying to systematically exterminating them, expelling them from Europe, marginalising them etc etc etc.

Perhaps we should just ask the UN to arbitrate instead since you obviously can't be trusted.

ElPistolero wrote:

As for Gurkhas, are you lot still cheaping out on salaries and pensions? Because that'll tell us how much you really value the bravery and loyalty you're paying lip service to.

Gurkha pensions are linked to Indian Army salaries. In addition, Gurkha's with four years service can now settle in the UK. Considering they are mercenaries that's a pretty good deal really isn't it? Rather than being forced back to Nepal they can settle in Britain with their family.

ElPistolero wrote:

And with respect to the negative consequences of acquiring colonies and subjects, what type of response are you expecting? A sympathetic one?

Well I suppose at least in our case most of the indigenous cultures are still in place. Now about all those native cultures in South America......

Again, they were British passport holders. Not African passport holders. Not Asian passport holders. British passport holders. No other country ever had any sort of obligation to them. Canada took 6,000 in despite having no obligation to do so.

The quite obvious lesson here, again, is that British legislators have been known to abandon principle in order to cater to racism / anti-immigrant populism. It would be foolish for the EU to not take that into consideration while considering safeguards. Consequently, their insistence on a role for the ECJ remains eminently sensible.

I don't know why you keep referring to pre-EU European behaviour. It's clear as day that the EU was created to end all of that, and that it's succeeded in doing so. It's also clear that the EU has no interest in going back to the past. The only country that wants to go back to the pre-EU days is Britain. That's what Brexit was about. Complete with the same old anti-immigrant sentiment. Well, I guess it's the same people, so that makes sense.

I see the Gurkhas are now mercenaries. I suppose over two hundred years of service warrants that kind of dismissal. Well I guess it explains the racism of 1950s/60s Britain towards South Asians. After all, the Indian Army that fought for the British in the second world war was only, what, the largest volunteer army in history? Presumably you believe those South Asian VC winners were just out to make a quick buck at your expense?

I don't really know what Latin America has to do with any of this. I'm not sure that the philosophy behind Jallianwalla Bagh is any less condemnable than the ones justifying the worst of the atrocities out there.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Well I guess it explains the racism of 1950s/60s Britain towards South Asians.

Would you feel comfortable with millions of people from a distant land showing up suddenly on your door step in a manner that had never happened before?

just happened... where was your head burred?

best regards
Thomas

ElPistolero wrote:

Well I guess it explains the racism of 1950s/60s Britain towards South Asians.

Would you feel comfortable with millions of people from a distant land showing up suddenly on your door step in a manner that had never happened before?

ElPistolero wrote:

I don't know why you keep referring to pre-EU European behaviour. It's clear as day that the EU was created to end all of that, and that it's succeeded in doing so. It's also clear that the EU has no interest in going back to the past. The only country that wants to go back to the pre-EU days is Britain. That's what Brexit was about. Complete with the same old anti-immigrant sentiment. Well, I guess it's the same people, so that makes sense.

Oh it could be worse, we could have fascists running to be president and armed police harassing women wearing headscarves (France), Neo-Nazis in parliament (Golden Dawn in Greece), authoritarians running the country (Poland and Hungary), anti migrant movements in state parliaments (AFD in Germany), disagreements over the border when there isn't supposed to be one (Austria and Italy).

Yes, the mainland European sates can be very, very racist and authoritarian. It's why we need an arbitrator from outside the EU.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Well I guess it explains the racism of 1950s/60s Britain towards South Asians.

Would you feel comfortable with millions of people from a distant land showing up suddenly on your door step in a manner that had never happened before?

ElPistolero wrote:

I don't know why you keep referring to pre-EU European behaviour. It's clear as day that the EU was created to end all of that, and that it's succeeded in doing so. It's also clear that the EU has no interest in going back to the past. The only country that wants to go back to the pre-EU days is Britain. That's what Brexit was about. Complete with the same old anti-immigrant sentiment. Well, I guess it's the same people, so that makes sense.

Oh it could be worse, we could have fascists running to be president and armed police harassing women wearing headscarves (France), Neo-Nazis in parliament (Golden Dawn in Greece), authoritarians running the country (Poland and Hungary), anti migrant movements in state parliaments (AFD in Germany), disagreements over the border when there isn't supposed to be one (Austria and Italy).

Yes, the mainland European sates can be very, very racist and authoritarian. It's why we need an arbitrator from outside the EU.

To be honest, I'm not an ethno-nationalist so the appearance of millions of people from distant lands wouldnt, in fact doesn't, bother me. If you believe Britain is defined by a highly homogenous ethnic composition, rather than values and ideas, then yes, I suppose it would be uncomfortable for ethno-nationalists.

I live in a country that brings in a million people from distant lands every 3 years. The US gets around 1 million/year. For the most part, no one seems to be bothered because values and ideas take complete hold within a generation or two, but I suppose the ethno-nationalists on display at C'ville share the same discomfort you attribute to 1950s/60s Britain. Its a pity that skin colour becomes more important than common cause and solidarity the moment the enemy surrenders.

I think the ECJ has a good grip on EU states as far as rights are concerned, but I'm not remotely averse to a neutral international body replacing it. I think, given the Ugandan British citizen case, everyone will be satisfied as long as the fate of EU nationals is not left entirely at the discretion of Parliament.

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

Dano1977 wrote:

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

With that sort of people in the UK parliament it is disaster that we still have to wait up to 18 months to get rid of the UK in the EU.

prebennorholm wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

With that sort of people in the UK parliament it is disaster that we still have to wait up to 18 months to get rid of the UK in the EU.

Maybe you'd prefer Peter Shore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNpDVPH4Q5k

Tony Benn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrzfgUv3ZKk

Gaitskell?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vMVRWdJ-2w

Dano1977 wrote:

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

So poor British fishermen, Croatia, unelected eurocrats, complaining that Malta gets more influence per capita than the UK, blame-shifting to the EU.... same-old, same-old.

I thought this would be something new? I can't wait to have these men actually have to stand on their own without having the big bad EU scapegoat.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

With that sort of people in the UK parliament it is disaster that we still have to wait up to 18 months to get rid of the UK in the EU.

Maybe you'd prefer Peter Shore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNpDVPH4Q5k

Tony Benn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrzfgUv3ZKk

Gaitskell?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vMVRWdJ-2w

Enoch Powell
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... tive-party

prebennorholm wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

With that sort of people in the UK parliament it is disaster that we still have to wait up to 18 months to get rid of the UK in the EU.

Educated, speaks plainly, answers questions honestly and respected?

Better than EU suck ups like...

Blair
Clegg
Farron
Kinnock Jr
Osbourne

Make my day, get him as PM, so no more talks needed

Dano1977 wrote:

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

Doesn't he see a problem with democracy in the UK itself, with people voting Brexit while MPs were/are overwhelmingly against it ?

Aesma wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

Doesn't he see a problem with democracy in the UK itself, with people voting Brexit while MPs were/are overwhelmingly against it ?

Youtube is full of videos of JRM debating with anti brexit MP's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4MkzppLyN4

Aesma wrote:

Doesn't he see a problem with democracy in the UK itself, with people voting Brexit while MPs were/are overwhelmingly against it ?

How is this different from the previous votes by countries against EU initiatives / treaties outside of the UK, Ireland, France etc. all were required to vote again after a re-education process.

I'm hinting at the fact that "first by the post" isn't the definition of democracy. Does he listen to his constituents that don't agree with him ?

In France it's not much better, but there is hope as reform is coming.

par13del wrote:

`How is this different from the previous votes by countries against EU initiatives / treaties outside of the UK, Ireland, France etc. all were required to vote again after a re-education process.

You mean keep voting until you get the result you want? A.K.A. The Scottish Independence movement a la Queen Nicola(tm).

Dano1977 wrote:

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

Ah the Oxford Union, beautiful building, lovely people, at least 20 years ago. Went there to do several debate tournaments.

Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP is a good public speaker, a bit jealous I must admit, but if you look at the content, I am a bit disappointed.

Aesma wrote:

Doesn't he see a problem with democracy in the UK itself, with people voting Brexit while MPs were/are overwhelmingly against it ?

The vote in parliament to pass the legislation to hold the referendum was 544 to 53 in favour. Only the SNP opposed it. MPs can be against Brexit but they can hardly complain about people voting for it when they themselves voted to hold the referendum and when the government leaflet sent out stated the government would implement the result.

Of course it's only AFTER the referendum we got all this backsliding about needing a "supermajority" or talking about how the leave side only a certain percentage of the population as a whole (since when have we counted non-voters in a result?)

Aesma wrote:

I'm hinting at the fact that "first by the post" isn't the definition of democracy. Does he listen to his constituents that don't agree with him ?

Depends on how much he believes in this quote by Edmund Burke:

"When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people."

You're right of course that FPTP is not the definition of democracy.

But is having a four party coalition government in Holland that no one voted for anymore democratic?

Aesma wrote:

I'm hinting at the fact that "first by the post" isn't the definition of democracy. Does he listen to his constituents that don't agree with him ?

In France it's not much better, but there is hope as reform is coming.

JRM, is very highly regarded by his constituents.

In the 3 elections he has been in, He has increased his majority each time.In the last election, he took over 50% of the vote.

And he could be a future prime minister. Britain could use a leader that is willing to fight for the country and who would not give a penny to the EU. May is way too weak and has already given in way too much.

Dano1977 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I'm hinting at the fact that "first by the post" isn't the definition of democracy. Does he listen to his constituents that don't agree with him ?

In France it's not much better, but there is hope as reform is coming.

JRM, is very highly regarded by his constituents.

In the 3 elections he has been in, He has increased his majority each time.In the last election, he took over 50% of the vote.

A fine orator. But what will he do when he can't offload his responsibilities to the EU anymore? Because all I can hear now is a posher sounding version of the same regurgitated blame-shifting.

Will he be the first Tory to stand up and say "we were wrong in most of what we told you would happen after Brexit, let's brace up and try to make the best out of this mess" rather than point fingers.

JJJ wrote:

A fine orator. But what will he do when he can't offload his responsibilities to the EU anymore?

Is this an accurate statement, do members of the EU offload their countries responsibilities to the EU or are they required to relinquish those responsibilities to the EU as a condition of membership?

Political responsibilities. For a lot of politicians, all the problems come form EU all the good solutions come from them. Lies and lies...

par13del wrote:

JJJ wrote:

A fine orator. But what will he do when he can't offload his responsibilities to the EU anymore?

Is this an accurate statement, do members of the EU offload their countries responsibilities to the EU or are they required to relinquish those responsibilities to the EU as a condition of membership?

Your question is incomplete. Some you relinquish, some don't. For most the EU is just a working framework, each government still bears the responsibility of making the best of the situation. That's why some countries do better than others.

But when a British politican says "we can't have national railways" (you can), "we can't kick out EU benefit moochers" (you can), "common fisheries policy has kicked British fishermen to unemployment" (one more decade of overfishing and there wouldn't be any fish left). On three of the most controversial areas of government: education, welfare and health care the EU has no say at all. If the NHS and education is in shambles, that's on the UK. If there aren't enough social housing, that's still on the UK government.

JJJ wrote:

But when a British politican says "we can't have national railways" (you can), "we can't kick out EU benefit moochers" (you can), "common fisheries policy has kicked British fishermen to unemployment" (one more decade of overfishing and there wouldn't be any fish left). On three of the most controversial areas of government: education, welfare and health care the EU has no say at all. If the NHS and education is in shambles, that's on the UK. If there aren't enough social housing, that's still on the UK government.

Does make you wonder how DC got the mood of the electorate so wrong when he agreed to the referendum, he should have known that since he and his government were the problem the people would eventually hold someone to account, why not the EU?
In the election, even though the government increased its vote count, the result in the house was a reduced majority, still open to debate what that meant.
Maybe the people did not like strong and stable.....

Dano1977 wrote:

JRM, is very highly regarded by his constituents.

In the 3 elections he has been in, He has increased his majority each time.In the last election, he took over 50% of the vote.

The "Honourable Member for the Early 20th Century"?

Seems to me that his popularity derives from the same reasons as Brexit: nostalgia for imperialism/post-colonial melancholy.

I think most people prefer forward thinkers rather than folk mired in the past.

ElPistolero wrote:

Seems to me that his popularity derives from the same reasons as Brexit: nostalgia for imperialism/post-colonial melancholy.

I've not really met or comes across any leave supporters who were driven by nostalgia for empire.

In fact the people most obsessed with bringing up the empire are remain voters and all these touchy feely left wing types.

I suppose you are joking or you are not reading UK newspapers and more importantly the comments that follow them

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

I've not really met or comes across any leave supporters who were driven by nostalgia for empire.

In fact the people most obsessed with bringing up the empire are remain voters and all these touchy feely left wing types.

On the contrary, Brexiteers keep referring to it. Cant even count the number of references to deepen ties or increase trade with "Commonwealth" nations.

In case it's not obvious, the Commonwealth is an imperial construct, not a trade construct. Its a meaningless term to anyone who's left the Empire where it belongs - in the past. That is to say, all of the citizens and leaders of former colonies. Not that that's stopped UKIP - literally the Brexit party - or Tories from invoking it constantly.

For what it's worth, the Commonwealths history of trade is terrible. Unless you define trade as banning textile or salt production in India so you can sell English textile there instead. That might not work out so well these days.

You know the empire and commonwealth are two different things don't you?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

You know the empire and commonwealth are two different things don't you?

Moot point.

The latter has its roots in the former. Which makes UKIP's characterization of the Commonwealth as a 'precious pearl' in post-Brexit Britains 'oyster' smell of imperial nostalgia.

I'm sure invoking commonwealth ties with India will convince them to make concessions on whiskey tariffs and immigration.

Remember when Barroso compared building the EU to empire building?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Ralocq9uE

Not just Britain that's got imperial nostalgia is it?

So how much trade takes place within the Commonwealth, which contains countries in North America, Asia, Africa, will exclude the Caribbean for now. I was always under the impression that the UK essentially "abandoned the Commonwealth in the early 1980's to cultivate closer ties with the EU.
Most colonies became independent before the 1970's so UK influence on a colonial level has been negligible, even their two colonies in the Caribbean which they have been after for Tax Haven status has been a slog, maybe the DC government was not only lost in the EU but his colonies also?

[url]http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-to-uk-give-us-clarity-on-divorce-bill-or-brexit-talks-will-stall] Brussels to UK: Give us clarity on divorce bill or Brexit talks will stall[/url]

Britain must come forward with a proposal for how to calculate its EU exit bill or next week’s Brexit talks will come to a grinding halt, according to three senior diplomatic officials briefed on the negotiations.

At next week’s round of talks, according to the three senior officials spoken to by POLITICO, Brussels expects U.K. Brexit Secretary David Davis to provide precise details on which obligations in the EU budget it is willing to pay for — in short, a methodology for calculating the bill. Although Davis has acknowledged that Britain has financial obligations to the EU, which need to be resolved as part of the withdrawal process, a methodology is something the U.K. has thus far pointedly refused to provide.

It seems to sum up things nicely.

It has always been shocking to me that senior EU executives can peg the divorce bill at 60 billion and rising when they have no clue how it should be calculated because the UK has not said how it should be calculated.
The EU ensured that everything related to exit of the EU was clearly stated in Article 50, it is clear that the UK's financial obligations cease at the end of the two year period, so is it really how the bill will be calculated or how much money the UK will pony up before they leave?
The EU has a budget, they have rules and regulations governing their pensions and disbursements, we have seen pictures of their negotiators at the tables with tons of documents, the divorce bill is the first on the agenda, but they have no clue how the bill will be calculated and must wait for the UK, the country whose finances in some quarters is regarded as a mess, have no idea how the NHS will be funded, lack of housing, etc etc and the EU will allow the UK to come up with a formula?
Ok, that's clear to me looking in.

The EU has a formula and the result.

One day the UK will come up with a counter formula and a counter result.

Then something in between will be worked out.

Eventually.