Crosswords1 min ago
Freeeeeedom!
325 Answers
what else can I say........
Answers
Jim360 - “The defeat, such as it was, owes more to the leaders of the Remain campaign than it does to the rank-
01:01 Sat 01st Feb 2020
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Returning to said conversation: I wasn't blaming exclusively the leadership of the Remain campaign for losing the vote, in 2016 or (even more significantly) 2019. But they do have a lot to answer for in the way they conducted it, and the way that the aftermath was handled.
As to some of the rest of birdie's points:
//(and I am assuming you're a UK resident here – forgive me if that is not the case)... //
I am.
// Why do you think it's a good idea to have our laws be subservient to EU law? EU law takes primacy over UK law. The EU can, and have, overridden UK law. The EU Parliament is a Parliament in name only. It cannot amend, repeal or make laws. That is done by the EU Commission. Not the Parliament. //
The first part can be answered by saying that it was "our" choice to enter into that arrangement, either explicitly in 1975 -- yes, I know that questions of sovereignty may not have been properly articulated then, and that the sort of research that may have answered those questions was harder in the 1970s, but still, it has always been a stated aim of the EC/EU to move towards political integration -- or implicitly, by continuing to lend our support in elections to governments who were happy with said arrangements. Even when Thatcher delivered her "No. No. No!" to aspects of what would become Maastricht, there wasn't any question of leaving -- and then when Major delivered on that he received quite the endorsement in the subsequent election.
My point then is that the supremacy of EU law over UK law was something that we had consented to. In those circumstances the person in ultimate control was still the UK, because the supremacy lasts only as long and extends only as far as it so chooses. That was the purpose of the now-repealed 1972 European Communities Act, for example.
I suppose a secondary response is more of a philosophical one: national sovereignty, in some areas at least, makes increasingly less sense in an increasingly integrated world. On those grounds alone I regret the re-assertion of national over supranational sovereignty.
// The EU Parliament is a Parliament in name only. It cannot amend, repeal or make laws. That is done by the EU Commission. Not the Parliament. If you don't like a particular member of the EU Commission, can you remove them from office in a vote? No you cannot. //
Here to some extent I agree with you, although I don't think it's so bad as you're painting it. The EU Commission is still accountable to Parliament and to the EU Council, although individual members are only accountable to the President of the Commission. This can (and should) be reformed, but then again the reforms that would be needed would serve either to increase the potential clash between national/supranational institutions, or make the EU essentially irrelevant. But the EU in its present form is only 28 years old (11 if you count starting from the Treaty of Lisbon), and is full of contradictions.
I've waffled. I suppose in short my point is that the EU has its flaws but those flaws can over time be addressed, and better to do so from within than without.
As to some of the rest of birdie's points:
//(and I am assuming you're a UK resident here – forgive me if that is not the case)... //
I am.
// Why do you think it's a good idea to have our laws be subservient to EU law? EU law takes primacy over UK law. The EU can, and have, overridden UK law. The EU Parliament is a Parliament in name only. It cannot amend, repeal or make laws. That is done by the EU Commission. Not the Parliament. //
The first part can be answered by saying that it was "our" choice to enter into that arrangement, either explicitly in 1975 -- yes, I know that questions of sovereignty may not have been properly articulated then, and that the sort of research that may have answered those questions was harder in the 1970s, but still, it has always been a stated aim of the EC/EU to move towards political integration -- or implicitly, by continuing to lend our support in elections to governments who were happy with said arrangements. Even when Thatcher delivered her "No. No. No!" to aspects of what would become Maastricht, there wasn't any question of leaving -- and then when Major delivered on that he received quite the endorsement in the subsequent election.
My point then is that the supremacy of EU law over UK law was something that we had consented to. In those circumstances the person in ultimate control was still the UK, because the supremacy lasts only as long and extends only as far as it so chooses. That was the purpose of the now-repealed 1972 European Communities Act, for example.
I suppose a secondary response is more of a philosophical one: national sovereignty, in some areas at least, makes increasingly less sense in an increasingly integrated world. On those grounds alone I regret the re-assertion of national over supranational sovereignty.
// The EU Parliament is a Parliament in name only. It cannot amend, repeal or make laws. That is done by the EU Commission. Not the Parliament. If you don't like a particular member of the EU Commission, can you remove them from office in a vote? No you cannot. //
Here to some extent I agree with you, although I don't think it's so bad as you're painting it. The EU Commission is still accountable to Parliament and to the EU Council, although individual members are only accountable to the President of the Commission. This can (and should) be reformed, but then again the reforms that would be needed would serve either to increase the potential clash between national/supranational institutions, or make the EU essentially irrelevant. But the EU in its present form is only 28 years old (11 if you count starting from the Treaty of Lisbon), and is full of contradictions.
I've waffled. I suppose in short my point is that the EU has its flaws but those flaws can over time be addressed, and better to do so from within than without.
Trying to address the EU's flaws from within has been tried, for decades, but the flaws go right to the heart of the EU philosophy. So keen was Europe to lower the risk of internal conflict after two world wars that they understandably but mistakenly grabbed a united federal Europe as a solution. Reducing noble nations to the level of minor regions within it, and allowing other regions with different ideas to overrule the laws of a minority of dissenting regions. But it was presented to us as an economic union instead. Had it just concentrated on trade it could probably be made fit for purpose, but while it insists it's a path to a single Europewide nation, it has no chance of flaws being addressed. One must know when to call it 'a day', and find a better path forward.
// I'll post as I see fit, Jim - just as you do. //
Indeed, but in both our cases we should still be mindful of where we are posting, shouldn't we? Repeated attempts at character assassination are hardly within the spirit of AB.
Also, the EU's flaws will still be our problem even when we're out. As long as it exists, we will need to deal extensively with the EU. Better, in my judgement at least, to deal with them *and* try to shape them at the same time. I appreciate this isn't the most persuasive argument in the world, but then -- well, that's perhaps also why we are where we are now. And at least it's an honest explanation of my own views.
Indeed, but in both our cases we should still be mindful of where we are posting, shouldn't we? Repeated attempts at character assassination are hardly within the spirit of AB.
Also, the EU's flaws will still be our problem even when we're out. As long as it exists, we will need to deal extensively with the EU. Better, in my judgement at least, to deal with them *and* try to shape them at the same time. I appreciate this isn't the most persuasive argument in the world, but then -- well, that's perhaps also why we are where we are now. And at least it's an honest explanation of my own views.
Jim, Character assassination is constructed. I’ve constructed nothing. As for the spirit of AB, best you let that one lie.
// the EU's flaws will still be our problem even when we're out. As long as it exists, we will need to deal extensively with the EU. .//
No more than anyone else’s problems are our problem. We’ll need to deal extensively with the rest of the world too but we don't need to be governed by their rules to do it.
// the EU's flaws will still be our problem even when we're out. As long as it exists, we will need to deal extensively with the EU. .//
No more than anyone else’s problems are our problem. We’ll need to deal extensively with the rest of the world too but we don't need to be governed by their rules to do it.
//11.43 , think idiot M is grinding his gears again. Haha.//
Reporting for duty, Sah!
Here are some reasons for me vilifying you and your partner in crime, Gully.
You make blanket statements with no intention of having any discussion to back them up.
You seem to scour the left wing press for random links to post willy-nilly, taking them for the gospel truth, dismissing anyone who may question them. (There are some who do the same with the right wing press, but they can back up their post with sensible discussion (or hide behind NJ while he does)).
You seem to thrive on taking on the role of political pantomime villain. Your whole persona is "I am right, and anyone who disagrees is deluded." It's fine to have faith in your convictions, but you are blind to any suggestion otherwise. You know how Theland can be when discussing creationism/evolution? A bit like that (Sorry TL).
You don't know when to give up. The battles over, Brexit is done, we're out of the EU. Maybe you're still grieving and you haven't reached acceptance yet? I don't know.
I was a Remainer. I'm not any more. Do you know why? There's nothing to remain to. That discussion is over and the only thing we have left is to pull together and work for the future. No more us and them, we're all in the same boat now and rowing in different directions is utterly futile.
Reporting for duty, Sah!
Here are some reasons for me vilifying you and your partner in crime, Gully.
You make blanket statements with no intention of having any discussion to back them up.
You seem to scour the left wing press for random links to post willy-nilly, taking them for the gospel truth, dismissing anyone who may question them. (There are some who do the same with the right wing press, but they can back up their post with sensible discussion (or hide behind NJ while he does)).
You seem to thrive on taking on the role of political pantomime villain. Your whole persona is "I am right, and anyone who disagrees is deluded." It's fine to have faith in your convictions, but you are blind to any suggestion otherwise. You know how Theland can be when discussing creationism/evolution? A bit like that (Sorry TL).
You don't know when to give up. The battles over, Brexit is done, we're out of the EU. Maybe you're still grieving and you haven't reached acceptance yet? I don't know.
I was a Remainer. I'm not any more. Do you know why? There's nothing to remain to. That discussion is over and the only thing we have left is to pull together and work for the future. No more us and them, we're all in the same boat now and rowing in different directions is utterly futile.
//There's nothing to remain to. That discussion is over //
I've received several posts on my FB feed, imploring me to sign up to a campaign to get "citizen's associate EU membership". since the EU Parliament itself is not supporting such a move, the campaign will probably have as much success as me campaigning for a revival of Ceefax.
http://
I've received several posts on my FB feed, imploring me to sign up to a campaign to get "citizen's associate EU membership". since the EU Parliament itself is not supporting such a move, the campaign will probably have as much success as me campaigning for a revival of Ceefax.
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.