Unite behind Brexit says May.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:42 pm

Sidney1st wrote:The anti-tory people on here are absolutely convinced all the laws that the EU introduced re workers rights will be taken out by the Tories and thrown in the bin.
They postively froth at the mouth when they've told everyone that.

It's an inevitability. It might not happen in this parliament but it will happen in a future Tory government. There's nothing mouth-frothy about it.

News items like this provide no assurances either - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 03051.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:46 pm

ablueclaret wrote:This is a Parliamentary democracy not a plebiscite democracy.
The referendum said leave but it is MP's that have the last say, they chose to dodge the bullets and go against their beliefs. That is the greatest of deceptions.

Utter garbage.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:48 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's an inevitability. It might not happen in this parliament but it will happen in a future Tory government. There's nothing mouth-frothy about it.

News items like this provide no assurances either - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 03051.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is it inevitable?
Political suicide if the Tories suddenly started stripping away workers rights, although I guess you'd like them to do it so you can sit there pointing out you were right.

Current legislation from the EU will be enshrined into UK law and then things will get reviewed.
Yes some things will probably be binned off, whilst others will be kept, but stating it's inevitable is laughable.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:09 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Is it inevitable?
Political suicide if the Tories suddenly started stripping away workers rights, although I guess you'd like them to do it so you can sit there pointing out you were right.

Current legislation from the EU will be enshrined into UK law and then things will get reviewed.
Yes some things will probably be binned off, whilst others will be kept, but stating it's inevitable is laughable.

I don't think you have an adequate appreciation for just how neo-liberal the Tory party has become. And I think it'll only get worse since there's no viable opposition, and then worse still if Scotland leaves the UK taking away dozens of non-Tory MPs from Parliament.

But that's just based on their ideology. They're going to have to make promises to certain industries in order to make the UK more attractive for investment and the creation of jobs, and what better way to do that than to make the creation and maintanence of jobs much cheaper and easier than it is today? So the neo-lib idology is there, with the consequences of Brexit the incentive is there, and with no viable opposition and the possibility of a permanent right-wing majority in Westminster the lack of negative consequences is there. So what is it about the Tories that makes you think they won't do this? And what is it about this kind of thinking that makes you think my mouth is foaming?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:11 pm

Did I specifically state you were frothing at the mouth?
No I didn't state you were, but other anti-tories give that impression when they're banging their drum.

Why don't I think the Tories will do this?
How do you think they'd get on at elections if they'd just ripped away various rights people have gotten used over the years?

So Scotland is helping us keep workers rights now are they?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:20 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Did I specifically state you were frothing at the mouth?
No I didn't state you were, but other anti-tories give that impression when they're banging their drum.

Why don't I think the Tories will do this?
How do you think they'd get on at elections if they'd just ripped away various rights people have gotten used over the years?

So Scotland is helping us keep workers rights now are they?

They'd get along just fine at elections if there's no viable opposition and if they are able to say "it's either this or there's no jobs because of Brexit" and have the proles believe them.

And yes, Scotland does help us keep workers' rights by making it harder for the Tories to do away with them while still keeping a parliamentary majority.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:23 pm

So Tories have been trying to get rid of rights already, before Brexit?
Ah good job the Scots are here to save us all.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:32 pm

Sidney1st wrote:So Tories have been trying to get rid of rights already, before Brexit?
Ah good job the Scots are here to save us all.

Errm, no numbnuts, because the EU laws prevent it.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:35 pm

Do you realise how confused you sound Charlie?
On one hand you are arguing that we should have the EU deciding how we are governed in Britain to protect the rights of the British people.
And on the other, you are arguing that Scottish matters should be decided by the Scottish people, and Westminster should keep their noses out.
All on the same thread

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:36 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Errm, no numbnuts, because the EU laws prevent it.

Make your mind up.

They've stated all current EU legislation will be enshrined into UK law/legislation.

You've stated that the Scots help us keep our rights, then state that EU laws prevent rights being stripped from us.
Which is it then?

At present, based on your comments, it isn't the Scots keeping my rights as a worker in place.

My own view is some things will change after Brexit, but I can't see the Tories ripping out all the rights that are in place, because they'd end up losing power to Labour again which is what happened after Maggie and Major dicked about with things like the Miners etc.

As it stands the Tories hold all the aces and giving them away is pretty daft.

USC · Post by **USC** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:38 pm

A couple of funny (ironic) points...

In breaking way from the EU (to stop those nasty Europeans telling us what to do) it is actually all those nasty Europeans who are going to determine, to a large part, our future; perhaps to a greater extent than they did when we were in the EU. We'll be going with a begging bowl in hand hoping for favourable terms.

And people who think it will stop "EU dictating what you can manufacture and sell" (earlier poster on here) will be disappointed when they learn that our exports to Europe will still have to comply with all associated EU laws (which will no longer have influence over)!

And all that's before we think about the potential break-up of the UK (next logical step) and all the Breximoaners it will create when they realize those nasty immigrants are still rolling in!

Still, I'm sure there are plenty that see all this as a few hundred billion Euros well spent!

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:58 pm

ablueclaret wrote:This is a Parliamentary democracy not a plebiscite democracy.

That's factually inaccurate. There is nothing in the British constitution, written or unwritten, that says plebiscites can't be held.

What you say is also paradoxical - you say it's a parliamentary democracy, and in another post you say that means parliament is sovereign. But now you're saying that when parliament uses its sovereignty to hold a plebiscite, it shouldn't - but why not? If Parliament is sovereign, it can order a plebiscite.

You may wish that this country was a parliamentary democracy which couldn't have referendums. But it isn't, it's a parliamentary that does have referendums.

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:06 pm

Of course referendums can be held but MP's are not bound by the result, and it's MP's who have the final say. Their remit is to run the country in our best interests. They were voted in by the electorate by and large on a remain agenda
They were quite within their rights, some might duty to say no to Brexit on the grounds they felt it would do harm to the nation.
There would then be a clash of wills and a General Election would have followed, that in my opinion is how it should have been to resolve the conflict between the views of our elected representatives and the population.
In other words the electorate had voted in opposite ways in the last general election to the WA they did in the referendum, it needed clarifying.

Caballo · Post by **Caballo** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:15 pm

ablueclaret wrote: They were voted in by the electorate by and large on a remain agenda

Were they? The majority were elected alongside a manifesto pledge of a referendum.

gtclaret · Post by **gtclaret** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:29 pm

ablueclaret wrote:This is a Parliamentary democracy not a plebiscite democracy.
The referendum said leave but it is MP's that have the last say, they chose to dodge the bullets and go against their beliefs. That is the greatest of deceptions.

But they already have had their say.They voted 6-1 in favour of a referendum.It would be consistent for the remains to ignore the result as you cannot support the EU and be democratic.If we remained we could abolish parliament cancel General Elections as they would be pointless.The EU needs to change.it has to be accountable and responsive to peoples concerns.The Euro is a mess ,causing mass poverty in southern Europe.Free movement is dangerous when there is so many poorer countries.It has to acknowledge the concerns of the individual nations.
Tony Benn said democracy is about who you are,what do you stand for and how do we get rid of you.The EU fails on all three.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:33 pm

ablueclaret wrote:In other words the electorate had voted in opposite ways in the last general election to the WA they did in the referendum, it needed clarifying.

And it was clarified. How clear do you want it?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:42 pm

dsr wrote:And it was clarified. How clear do you want it?

: crystal.jpg (44.33 KiB) Viewed 4490 times

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:47 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:They'd get along just fine at elections if there's no viable opposition and if they are able to say "it's either this or there's no jobs because of Brexit" and have the proles believe them.

And yes, Scotland does help us keep workers' rights by making it harder for the Tories to do away with them while still keeping a parliamentary majority.

I honestly respect the research you put into these forums at times IT, I personally am not as embroiled in the debate as you are, I don't have the depth of knowledge or have enough spare time to begin to take people on like yourself. BUT I do feel you're in danger of meeting yourself coming back on this one.

If the Tories behave as you claim they will, then it wont take them long to create a viable opposition!.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:25 pm

gtclaret wrote: Tony Benn said democracy is about who you are,what do you stand for and how do we get rid of you.The EU fails on all three.

Really not sure what you mean by this statement, or how the EU fails in any of those areas.
In general terms, it's very clear what the EU stands for and you either agree or don't,
The answer to the third is of course blindingly obvious - you trigger article 50. There's no law that says you have to remain in the EU and we - as a nation - voted to get rid.
I'm very clear who I am, and what I stand for, and I always exercise my democratic right in local, national and European elections to decide who will best represent my viewpoint. (Though of course, it has to be said, it often means voting for the best of a bad bunch).

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Damo wrote:May is in the process of taking back control of 19,000 EU laws.
Hope that brief statement helps you find an answer

True, although a bit of a look into how that is going to happen is a little more concerning. It's going to start by putting those 19,000 EU laws into UK law (I assume that's what everyone was hoping for). Then the likelihood is that they will be amended by ministers, without parliamentary scrutiny. May may be "taking back control" of these EU laws but our Parliament, the people elected to represent us, may well not be.

An article on it in the FT:

Brexit: why the Great Repeal Bill will be the Great Whitehall Power Grab
David Allen Green

Voltaire once said that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire (“ni saint, ni romain, ni empire“). Much the same can be said of the UK government’s Great Repeal Bill, which is to be the main legislative basis of the practical process of Brexit.

There is not yet a bill. There is no draft bill for consultation. There is not even a white paper, although there was news on Monday that one is on its way — a draft is, it seems, in circulation in Whitehall. It is about 50 pages long and will, it is said, be published when the Article 50 notification is made.

The bill is not about repeal, at least not primarily. Its primary purpose will be to place into local UK law almost the entirety of currently applicable EU law. In a wonderful paradox, the bill will, in effect, be the greatest single imposition of EU law in UK legal history. This is what “taking back control” has to mean in practice.

This exercise needs to be done because two years is not long enough to sort out all, or even many, of the statutory complications of Brexit: so the bill is a work-around to place EU law on a UK basis when the conduit of the European Communities Act 1972 can no longer be used when the EU treaties cease to apply in the UK.

That leaves the word “great”. Ministers no doubt want to evoke the “Great Reform Bill” of 1832. (There was also the “Great Education Reform Bill” of 1988, which was dubbed at the time the “Gerbill”.) Few UK statutes get called “great’, just as few British monarchs get the sobriquet “the Great”. And this is a good thing, as it keeps them in their place.

But the word may be accurate, though perhaps not in the way the government wants to pretend. To achieve what needs to be done, the government is likely to put forward a number of extraordinarily wide discretionary powers where ministers (in practice, officials) can repeal or amend whole shelves of primary and secondary legislation without much or any further legislative scrutiny.

This is not to deny the enormity of the legislative task before the government. Tens of thousands of pieces of legislation need to be considered and, if necessary, reset on a different legal basis or repealed. The Department for Exiting the European Union has identified 57 policy areas that will be affected by Brexit.

The process will be far more complicated than many realise — it will not be a mere switch of labels, from EU to UK law. Decolonisation legislative processes often meant little more than switching imperial-based law to domestic law. This is (I have been told by those who would know) what happened, for example, in Ireland after 1922 or Hong Kong after 1997. The initial step was incorporation of all the law on to a local basis, and then there was divergence over time.

Brexit will require more than this neat legislative switch. A great deal of EU law is about complex Union-wide processes: systems of mutual recognition, transfers of information and shared standards. Such elaborate legal and regulatory networks, dealing with topics from aerospace to pharmaceuticals, do not lend themselves to simple re-enactments. There is no discrete legal instrument where a search-and-replace for “EU” and “UK” will do the job. Brexit is not just about re-enacting EU law on a UK basis; it will be about the legal consequences of a number of messy procedural amputations.

The wide statutory discretions sought by the government are called “Henry VIII clauses”. This is maybe unfair on the old king: during his reign parliament developed significantly as an efficient element of the constitution. But he also benefited from the Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539, the great repeal act of its day which was for an earlier complicated disentanglement from the continent. (I think the reference to his name in this context is as much to do with his reputation for axes than any act.)

The problem with such clauses is that there are few checks and balances. Parliament is excluded, even though acts of parliament may be repealed under these clauses. Even before Brexit there was concern at these powers. The former lord chief justice Lord Judge said early last year:

“Unless strictly incidental to primary legislation, every Henry VIII clause, every vague skeleton bill, is a blow to the sovereignty of Parliament. And each one is a self-inflicted blow, each one boosting the power of the executive. Is that what we want? Is that how our constitutional arrangements must continue to develop? Should we allow the powers of the executive to increase and the sovereignty of Parliament to be diminished? [...] Save in a national emergency, only statute can repeal, suspend, amend or dispense with statute.”

But what would be the alternative to Henry VIII clauses if the legislative task of Brexit is to be achieved? It has taken about 45 years for the UK to legislate itself into its current position. To legally extract Britain from the EU cannot easily be done at speed, if it can be done at all. The only other way would be for parliament to do nothing else for as long as it takes. As one of the politicians most responsible for the creation of the EU single market once said in another context: there is no alternative.

This is why the Great Repeal Bill will, in truth, be the Great Whitehall Power Grab. Brexit will have to be as much about Whitehall taking power from Westminster as the UK taking back control from Brussels. And to those who complain, there is one simple question: how else can it be done?

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:17 pm

David Allen Green is a remoaner, his opinion is not valid.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:41 pm

claretandy wrote:David Allen Green is a remoaner, his opinion is not valid.

Fair enough how about Professor Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge, and Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/0 ... -thoughts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know Gove said that Britain is sick of experts but I think they still have their place.

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:02 pm

Whatever the outcome you can be sure that it will be hailed as a triumph, and accepted as one, if the Mail says it is, it is, we really are that gullible as a nation.

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:03 pm

If the Mail says a killer is innocent by God he is.

timshorts · Post by **timshorts** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:25 pm

aggi wrote: I know Gove said that Britain is sick of experts but I think they still have their place.

Britain may be sick of experts but it positively vomits at the sight/sound of Gove

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:12 pm

LoveCurryPies wrote:Will Brexit achieve the 350 million (per week) for the NHS as promised....No!

Will Brexit stop the number of people / migrants coming to live in the UK....No!

Will Britain return to a whites only, middle class society (I suspect many hoped so)....No!

We won't leave the EU for another 2 years and I think it will be many years before we really know if our trade will reduce and the economy and jobs be affected.

So will somebody remind me...why are we leaving the EU?

Sad day!

F
Will Brexit free us from the money grabbing, ineffective, inefficient, corrrupt, unaccountable UE. Emphatically YES

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:26 am

Sidney1st wrote:Make your mind up.

They've stated all current EU legislation will be enshrined into UK law/legislation.

You've stated that the Scots help us keep our rights, then state that EU laws prevent rights being stripped from us.
Which is it then?

At present, based on your comments, it isn't the Scots keeping my rights as a worker in place.

My own view is some things will change after Brexit, but I can't see the Tories ripping out all the rights that are in place, because they'd end up losing power to Labour again which is what happened after Maggie and Major dicked about with things like the Miners etc.

As it stands the Tories hold all the aces and giving them away is pretty daft.

Pretty much all of the workers' rights laws that are critical are already British law too. But the EU added an extra layer of protection against the Tories. There was no point previously trying to gut these because they'd fail, thanks to the EU, and look bad trying. And because Scotland are part of the UK it's easier to throw the Tories out for attempting it.

But we're leaving the EU which means the extra protection will be gone, and if Scotland leave the UK then it'll be much harder to kick the Tories out for removing workers' rights. And it'll be harder still with no viable political opposition in a FPTP system.

I don't believe for a second that all current EU legislation will be enshrined into UK law and I think anyone who believes them when they say this is gullible in the extreme.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:43 am

RocketLawnChair wrote:I honestly respect the research you put into these forums at times IT, I personally am not as embroiled in the debate as you are, I don't have the depth of knowledge or have enough spare time to begin to take people on like yourself. BUT I do feel you're in danger of meeting yourself coming back on this one.

If the Tories behave as you claim they will, then it wont take them long to create a viable opposition!.

What will the opposition look like without Scotland which sends 59 MPs to London, 56 of which are left or left leaning?

And it won't be a direct assault where all critical rights are removed at once. They'll be chipped away at through reductions here and limitations there like our personal freedoms and privacy have in the name of security, except this time it'll be in the name of job creation and the economy. And like our personal freedoms and privacy, once they're gone they're not coming back.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:50 am

Just think, if you moved to Scotland you wouldn't have these worries potentially.

That's assuming the SNP win the referendum.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:10 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:What will the opposition look like without Scotland which sends 59 MPs to London, 56 of which are left or left leaning?

And it won't be a direct assault where all critical rights are removed at once. They'll be chipped away at through reductions here and limitations there like our personal freedoms and privacy have in the name of security, except this time it'll be in the name of job creation and the economy. And like our personal freedoms and privacy, once they're gone they're not coming back.

So our personal freedoms and privacy have been chipped away at whilst we were members of the EU?

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:14 am

It seems workers rights are the new scare tactic.

Surely if we make these matters our own and then the tories stuff every worker labour will walk the following election ?

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:15 am

I have a picture in my mind of IT foaming at the mouth. He wakes up, after what little sleep he has, foaming at the mouth and goes through the day in some form of apoplectic rage whilst continuing to foam at the mouth. He continues to foam at the mouth whilst no doubt scouring the internet for all the really exciting stuff he comes on here to explain to the unworthy of UTC. It must make cleaning his teeth before he goes to bed a real chore. Do his nearest and dearest walk round in showerproof clothing, I wonder?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:15 am

Yes. They weren't protected like workers' rights are... obviously.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:19 am

Corky wrote:I have a picture in my mind of IT foaming at the mouth. He wakes up, after what little sleep he has, foaming at the mouth and goes through the day in some form of apoplectic rage whilst continuing to foam at the mouth. He continues to foam at the mouth whilst no doubt scouring the internet for all the really exciting stuff he comes on here to explain to the unworthy of UTC. It must make cleaning his teeth before he goes to bed a real chore. Do his nearest and dearest walk round in showerproof clothing, I wonder?

The reason you have this picture in your "mind" is because you can't think of anything constructive to add to the debate but don't like what i'm saying. So like any idiot you have to make personal attacks in place of an argument in an attempt to mock the person saying those things you don't like but can't disagree with.

It's basically a form of self-delusion and denial you're living in yet you want to project confidence, and this is the rather pathetic way you do it. You should speak to someone. I hope you do.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:20 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes. They weren't protected like workers' rights are... obviously.

That little stamping of feet there would suggest you don't really know the answer..... obviously

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:22 am

claretdom wrote:It seems workers rights are the new scare tactic.

Surely if we make these matters our own and then the tories stuff every worker labour will walk the following election ?

Well at least you agree that the idea of the Tories stripping workers' rights is scary. But as a "scare tactic", to what end do you think us evil liberals are attempting to scare people? If it's into being alert to any future encroachment on these rights then what's the problem with that?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:24 am

RocketLawnChair wrote:That little stamping of feet there would suggest you don't really know the answer..... obviously

The answer was "yes". It was the very first word of my post.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:27 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Well at least you agree that the idea of the Tories stripping workers' rights is scary. But as a "scare tactic", to what end do you think us evil liberals are attempting to scare people? If it's into being alert to any future encroachment on these rights then what's the problem with that?

I don't agree its scary as it won't happen, still at least it is the rights some are using now as a scare tactic that workers will lose, last summer it was their jobs in general. As I said if a party in this country stripped workers of their rights they couldn't possibly win an election (unless clown corbyn is still leading) so on what grounds do you see it happening. Have you any proof or facts which you are normally so demanding of when people make a statement.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:37 am

AblueTurtle, an unlikely pair but they have joined forces and are now fighting a (losing) rearguard action

Even on here you are the minority in the debate and its time you had some sense to recognize we are leaving and get on the bus because standing outside shouting at it is not going to stop it, or do you really believe you can, there is a timetable and we are on time, you and your whinging crew are merely noise with your nervous energy trying to alter things? King Kanute syndrome me thinks.

The little odious one can shout all she likes about another referendum but she's not getting one now, its called politics and the opposition parties will be swarming all over this negotiation. They will be shouting from the roof tops what they don't agree with as we drive down the bumpy road to the finish line. Not because they believe they can change anything but so they can be heard and score points with hope at the end of the day there will be an election and they can have slogans and spout what they would have done. MP's are elected officials and change regularly, I would only vote for someone who worked on a campaign that I agreed with and if they did not fulfil promises or at least appear very hard to try to, they would not get my vote again. At the end of the day many of these MP's are only interested in continuing in employment but I do accept some of them have principals but hopefully they are the ones you vote for in the first place based on similar principals.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:51 am

claretdom wrote:I don't agree its scary as it won't happen, still at least it is the rights some are using now as a scare tactic that workers will lose, last summer it was their jobs in general. As I said if a party in this country stripped workers of their rights they couldn't possibly win an election (unless clown corbyn is still leading) so on what grounds do you see it happening. Have you any proof or facts which you are normally so demanding of when people make a statement.

You are asking me to prove that over the next few election cycles the Tories will do something? You think that's a reasonable request?
And as i've explained, it won't be that rights are stripped all at once. They'll be chipped away at over time, just like the other rights we're losing like assembly and privacy.

And why is it that anything people like me warn against is a scare tactic? Does that mean when people warn against scrapping Trident that it can equally be dismissed as just a "scare tactic". Do you not see how damaging it is to discourse in this country to dismiss legitimate concerns out of hand like that?

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:57 am

If there is no proof then maybe your comments should be along the lines of "I think" or "I fear" rather than "they will"

I know you are a stickler for these kind of things

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:58 am

As you would expect your MP to do what they said they would at the General Election, then you would expect the majority of them to vote against Brexit when it was brought before Parliament. Instead they bowed to the will of the people, a very dangerous precedent.
You're very welcome to Brexit, nationalism doesn't do it for me, always full of hate and fire and like so many British institutions the closing of the eye to things better not seen.
We are a smaller, meaner, less friendly nation by taking this step, but it's been our direction of travel for years. It's the dysfunctional individualism of the US we yearn for, dystopian hedonism mixed with authoritarian liberalism, bounded by national superiority. Time for Great England.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:10 am

claretdom wrote:If there is no proof then maybe your comments should be along the lines of "I think" or "I fear" rather than "they will"

I know you are a stickler for these kind of things

No, i can tell the difference between opinion and fact. I can also tell when someone is presenting opinion as if it is fact (see pretty much any Rowls post), and it's that which I don't like.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:12 am

ablueclaret wrote:As you would expect your MP to do what they said they would at the General Election, then you would expect the majority of them to vote against Brexit when it was brought before Parliament. Instead they bowed to the will of the people, a very dangerous precedent.
You're very welcome to Brexit, nationalism doesn't do it for me, always full of hate and fire and like so many British institutions the closing of the eye to things better not seen.
We are a smaller, meaner, less friendly nation by taking this step, but it's been our direction of travel for years. It's the dysfunctional individualism of the US we yearn for, dystopian hedonism mixed with authoritarian liberalism, bounded by national superiority. Time for Great England.

For all the arguments against living under a government that bows to the will of the people, I reckon that living under a government that does not bow to the will of the people would be worse. Democracy, with all its faults, is still a good thing.

I don't think your last paragraph means anything- not in the real world, anyway. Care to translate for people that haven't swallowed a dictionary? Specifically, what is dystopian about hedonism, and how can liberalism be authoritarian?

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:12 am

Fair do's I follow you now, do as I say not as I do.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:20 am

claretdom wrote:Fair do's I follow you now, do as I say not as I do.

Why do you shitpost so much? It seems like every now and then i think we can actually have a discussion but then your inner 8-year old regains control of your mind.

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:28 am

In defence of ABC a society can be dystopian and hedonistic, at least H G Wells thought so. In fact any society can be considered as dystopian if taking its literal meaning as something that is unpleasant or bad -(anti-good).

Authoritarian liberalism - that's a more difficult concept to grasp. The nearest I can think is the concept of a strong state that espouses liberal economics more like the EU than the USA

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:38 am

Well Trump is undoubtedly authoritarian but also for total liberality in the finance and labour market. It's top down government with laissez-faire economics.

taio · Post by **taio** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:53 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:You are asking me to prove that over the next few election cycles the Tories will do something? You think that's a reasonable request?
And as i've explained, it won't be that rights are stripped all at once. They'll be chipped away at over time, just like the other rights we're losing like assembly and privacy.

If the EU laws are transitioned to domestic law and then repealed piecemeal by the Tories, for example legislation on workers' rights, then the electorate will have the option of replacing the government. I very much doubt this will happen anywhere near to the extent you are suggesting, but if it does happen then the democratic process can respond accordingly.

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:00 am

Always thought Governments should provide the electorate with a resume of all bills and legislative changes they have enacted in a year, so many go unnoticed into law.