That's a high threshold to pass.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Is that what you think would have happened to Britain had it stayed in the EU? Considering that you claim Brexit is in Britain's interest, surely you should expect the outcome to be better than what was going to happen? Or is that too logical?
Hope is the denial of reality
The bottom line is that Brexit is not going to get anybody his or her country back. The sovereignty will no longer be pooled, but the UK will be subservient.
Congratulations America
That's cowardice and managed decline, we've had enough of that in the past.
Why should there not be a high threshold either direction? What would have to happen for you to consider as proof that Brexit was a good idea?That's a high threshold to pass.
The very nature of this change means that costs/uncertainty is likely to be "front loaded" and the opportunities that we are seeking are more long-term. So long-term I view the outcome as being better, which is why it will take a few years at least to judge. Judging after a week is ridiculous. What I said would be a failure because we'd have paid the costs without getting any of the expected benefits and with no sign of benefits to come.
If Brexit turns out to be economically cost/benefit neutral then it would still be a good thing as more democratic control and accountability is in itself a good thing. You have said in the past that you would not countenance EU style free migration into the USA calling the very idea "insane". You have refused to ever say you'd support other nations writing your laws, in the same way as under QMV the Eurozone can write our laws.
A quick Google search brings up this post from four years ago of Hazir gleefully gloating that QMV means we don't get a say over the writing of laws and the Eurozone will turn on the financial sector. That is not the first time or last either, it has been a repeated theme for years from Hazir that the UK is powerless within the EU and the Eurozone will use QMV to write our laws without us. I didn't think that was true and Hazir was wrong, but statistics in recent years that I saw during the campaign showed Hazir to be right. QMV laws is a bad thing in itself so if the cost/benefits are neutral then Brexit was a good idea. The EU has to be a positive in its own right to justify an end to democratic accountability. Leaving the EU is the only solution to the problem Hazir was gloating about here.
How much would you value your democracy for? How much better off (or neutral) would you have to be to allow non-Americans to write your laws against your democratic wishes? How many pieces of silver would you require to allow Mexico to be given free reign over changing your laws at will? For any discussion of the EU, consider the UK which is my nation to be America and the rest of the EU which is our neighbours Mexico. If you wouldn't give those powers away to your neighbours, why should we?
No it won't any more than Japan is subservient to China. I'd rather be Japanese than Chinese.
Loki perhaps here is a more pertinent to you issue of a proposed devastating regulation that was brought in to damage the city, that you personally brought up (at the end of page 1).
Timbuk2 called it "catastrophic"
You personally said "who the hell is coming up with these regulations" that "would ensure all corporate headquarters move out of Europe".
While Hazir again gloated that "@Timbuk; it's a QMV issue, 'ratification' is not really an issue. As far as I know the UK is the only country opposing the regulation, which means it can't stop it."
How much do you think we should value our own democracy? How much should we measure the "cost" of QMV were at will foreign nations can pass "catastrophic" regulations on us against our will?
The problem with you europhobes you get all emotional when somebody points out a glaring truth to you. I say that the relevance of the UK is limited and am accused of gloating, experts say that Brexit is a leap into the dark and they are accused of engaging in fear mongering. You never come with substantial arguments, everything you say first has to be draped in the flag of 'being the 5th largest economy' (well not any longer) , 'growing faster' (in a very specific timeframe) and the likes. Usually hardly relevant to the issue, but very effective in pulling the wool over an electorate that has been told lies, and bigger lies about the EU for 3 to 4 decades.
So much so that even your socalled 'europhiles' have this funny idea that the EU is un-democratic and Commission run. If there's one thing we have seen over the last years that the fact that the EU is too democratic and not enough centrally run is exactly what's wrong with it. We can't enforce a continent wide policy in quite the same way the US government can. Leaving us behind in the dust as we try to recover from the financial crisis that started in 2008. Whatever reform the EU needs is up in the air, what is obviously clear the needed reform is not any roll-back that is the stuff of chauvinist cavemen's wet dreams.
Congratulations America
The EU is undemocratic. My nation can be outvoted by foreignors without my electorate getting a say. You may call that democracy, hundreds of years of decolonisation disagree. The Americans had a revolution to be able to control their own laws and not have them dictated to them by those overseas. With power should come responsibility to your electorate.
The US is a country, the EU is not. Unless you want to come out as having a country called Europe why should anyone be "running" a continent?
As has been pointed out many times before; the fact that you can be outvoted doesn't mean something is undemocratic. 48% of your voters chose to stay in the EU, yet they are dragged to the exit. Democratic or not ?
Congratulations America
They're my compatriots who lost a vote in my nation.
Even if 100% of my compatriots vote the same way my nations law can be changed against our wishes. How is that democratic?
The American colonies wanted to rule themselves not be ruled by the British Parliamentarians. That was a desire for democracy too. The British Parliamentarians were elected (sort of, for that era) but not by American colonists.
If you voted differently to me then that is as irrelevant as if Loki votes different to me. You're not my compatriot.
Again if you think Europe is a country then that'd be different. But that is not what was sold to us.
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can be outvoted by England too, the UK is therefore undemocratic?
On a side note you say that it's in the USAs interest to have a trade deal with you. That may be so, but since you need it, I think you can expect them to dictate terms in their favour. After all, you need it, and trade deals aren't charity. Plus you're much smaller. The Chinese deal with Switzerland is also pretty lopsided for a reason.
Let's face it, if one party needs the deal far more than the other your negotiating position is hampered.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have all chosen to be in a country called the United Kingdom. If Scotland wants to control its own destiny it will have to become an independent country. They had a vote on that a couple of years ago and voted to be a part of the UK.
England and the UK have never chosen to be in a country called Europe. We were never asked to join a country called Europe. Again if we were voluntarily members of a country called Europe it would be different, but then we would need to determine if we want to be a part of a country called Europe. We were asked to join an Economic Community that morphed into a political union.
China has a population of 1.357 billion, Switzerland has a population of 8 million. China has 170 times as many people as Switzerland.
America has a population of 301 million, the UK has a population of 64 million. America has less than 5 times as many people as the UK.
I think I see a slight difference there. Plus we will be negotiating directly as ourselves to represent our 64 million people, not be represented by French farmers and German industry etc
I could imagine us reasonably swiftly signing a deal along the lines of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Prior to the referendum, did you believe that, in five years' time, if the UK chose to remain in the EU,
- you wouldn't have unrestricted access to the single market?
- you wouldn't be party to trade deals with any countries or regions outside the EU?
- your economy would be depressed?
- your unemployment situation would be like that of the Eurozone?
It would be surprising to say the least if you answer any of those questions with a "yes".
As a member of the EU you would be guaranteed free access to the single market.
You would also continue to benefit from all association-agreements the EU has with third countries/regions including current and upcoming FTAs.
Given your recent boasts in the discussions leading up to the referendum you cannot have expected the UK's economy to be unreasonably depressed in five years' time or for the coming five years.
For the same reason, you cannot have expected the UK's unemployment situation to have worsened to the point of matching that of the Eurozone today.
None of these factors should have any bearing on your future assessment of whether or not Brexit was a good idea.
All those things being equal, you should believe--as you appear to--that Brexit was a good idea regardless because in some way it lets you regain some of the sovereignty you handed over to the EU.
Ironically, by listing the aforementioned criteria in your response to Steely, you implied that the matter of sovereignty was trumped by issues pertaining to trade, the health of your economy, unemployment etc. In principle that's like acknowledging that selling your sovereignty would be acceptable to you if you were offered thirty-one pieces of silver and a half-off coupon at McDonald's. I'm pretty sure you didn't intend to imply that your sovereignty was for sale (and that it's only a matter of price) so perhaps it would better to be honest and say what you really believe.
Because I don't believe you really feel that any of the above would actually change your opinion on Brexit, I won't ask you to give us a more precise idea of how much depression and unemployment would be okay, how many and how good trade deals you'd require etc.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I thought you conquered them allNorthern Ireland in particular is there due to war IIRC. Have they ever voted about being a part of Ireland or the UK?
You didn't vote for it directly but you voted for politicians who approved the European position you were in. Which incidentally is also how your new trade deals will be negotiated.
Sure, but like I said you need them more than vice versa which hurts your negotiating position. Why wouldn't they go for a better deal for them if you're desperate, after all? Or do you have a particular reason why they would be nice for you? There's not much kindness in trade deals usually. For your country's sake I hope you're right, but I definitely wouldn't bet on it.
China has a population of 1.357 billion, Switzerland has a population of 8 million. China has 170 times as many people as Switzerland.
America has a population of 301 million, the UK has a population of 64 million. America has less than 5 times as many people as the UK.
I think I see a slight difference there. Plus we will be negotiating directly as ourselves to represent our 64 million people, not be represented by French farmers and German industry etc
I could imagine us reasonably swiftly signing a deal along the lines of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
No, yes, maybe and no.
Of course we would have access to the single market, that is the sole main benefit for remaining. If we lose that benefit without any new benefits then we've hurt ourselves. If we keep that benefit in our negotiations (which I think we will) and gain new benefits from our independence then that would be a prize worth winning.
As discussed the EU lacks meaningful agreements with third party nations outside of Europe. The opportunity to sign our own is the main economic benefit for leaving. If the benefits don't come to pass then we'll have taken a big risk without the reward.
I don't expect the economy to be depressed. If I did, then it wouldn't count as a reason Brexit had failed. For Brexit to fail then the situation must become worse than the status quo ante.
Again I do not expect our unemployment rate to match that of the failed Eurozone. If it does, we have failed.
I was asked what would represent failure. Each of these failures would represent failure, I don't know what is confusing about that. If there is no failure then Brexit was a good thing for extricating ourselves from the political morass without paying an economic price.
As for whether economics could trump sovereignty, I do rate economics very highly. Enough silver could tempt me, yes. There would have to be a clear economic benefit and or a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers. A case could be made for the latter, it never was in this campaign and the last few years have shown how far away we are from that naive ideal as ever before. Greeks are quite evidently Greeks and not the same as Germans.
Sure, and an economy over six times as large and growing. That will put you on a slightly more equal footing and it will perhaps even make it as easy for you to get a beneficial bilateral trade agreement as it was for Japan and the US to agree to a bilateral agreement despite their economies and population-sizes being much closer to each other. Oh wait, that didn't happen, instead we got a giant multilateral agreement in the form of the TPP.
I don't think that the ability to switfly get FTAs with the US is simply a matter of relative size wrt population and GDP. There has to be sufficient interest from both parties and a willingness to make concessions. The willingness to make concessions is likely to be greater for the smaller party (in this case the UK), and I believe, historically, the larger party (eg. the US or China) has tended to use that to its advantage.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northe...ferendum,_1973I thought you conquered them all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
We actually elected a government that promised a referendum on what was then the European Constitution (later the Lisbon Treaty) that gave away a lot of our vetoes and turned a lot of areas into QMV but that promise was reneged on and we ended up with it being ratified without a referendum that would have rejected it. Under traditional Parliamentary democracy "no Parliament can bind its successors" but no future government could reverse the betrayal of the last one by undoing Lisbon.You didn't vote for it directly but you voted for politicians who approved the European position you were in. Which incidentally is also how your new trade deals will be negotiated.
I don't think we are desparate, I think it would be nice to have, but not necessary. It is something that would not have rapidly happened within the EU so is a potential added bonus if we get it.Sure, but like I said you need them more than vice versa which hurts your negotiating position. Why wouldn't they go for a better deal for them if you're desperate, after all? Or do you have a particular reason why they would be nice for you? There's not much kindness in trade deals usually. For your country's sake I hope you're right, but I definitely wouldn't bet on it.
As we are two similar nations with a similar level of development and similar cultures I think a mutually beneficial deal should be reasonably uncomplicated to reach.
As I've already said I expect the TPP to form a reasonable starting point for negotiations, if we don't simply join that outright.
What I'm saying is that, as far as economic criteria go, you're setting the bar for Brexit's success very low and the bar for failure extremely high, to the point where we may as well disregard those criteria along with outcomes like "global economical collapse" and "nuclear holocaust" and focus on the one thing that does seem to matter. None of this "heads, I win; tails, you lose, unless London is destroyed by a giant meteor-strike," business.
This too is inconsistent as well as verging on dishonest. On the one hand, you say that enough silver could tempt you to pool some of your sovereignty. On the other hand, you simultaneously add the criterion "willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers".As for whether economics could trump sovereignty, I do rate economics very highly. Enough silver could tempt me, yes. There would have to be a clear economic benefit and or a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers. A case could be made for the latter, it never was in this campaign and the last few years have shown how far away we are from that naive ideal as ever before. Greeks are quite evidently Greeks and not the same as Germans.
What you're saying is that there would have to be:
EITHER
a clear economic benefit
AND
a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers
OR
just a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers
In other words, a clear economic benefit would clearly not be enough. Unless of course you're trying to say that for yet more silver you would be willing to disregard the willingness to become a European citizen as well, which I don't believe to be the case.
The comparison with the US is a little puzzling considering how a significant portion of people living in England think of themselves as either "English, not British" or "More English than British".
As for this:
As noted previously, in addition to the many association agreements the EU has with a large number of small countries, it also has FTAs in force with South Korea and Mexico, concluded negotiations on agreements with Canada and Singapore (undermined by your Euroskeptic pals but still on track for provisional implementation awaiting signing and ratification, good job btw on trying to sabotage that) and is hopefully nearing the conclusion of an agreement with Japan.As discussed the EU lacks meaningful agreements with third party nations outside of Europe. The opportunity to sign our own is the main economic benefit for leaving.
Last edited by Aimless; 07-06-2016 at 12:37 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I am setting the bar for failure of Brexit higher than what the Project Fear projected Brexit would cause. I haven't mentioned World War 3 or any of the other bullshit that was threatened.
Considering Remain were arguing that Leaving would cause an economic disaster if not war, I don't think suggesting an economic disaster would be a failure of Brexit is that unreasonable.
Yes. That's not dishonest. It's why the Scots joined the UK, they were economically bankrupt and needed bailing out following the failure of the Darien Scheme. Following Darien they agreed voluntarily (not via war) to merge with England and form a single United Kingdom and a single Parliament in Westminster. The pooling of sovereignty was explicitly agreed to as well as the economic advantages of getting bailed out post-Darien.This too is inconsistent as well as verging on dishonest. On the one hand, you say that enough silver could tempt you to pool some of your sovereignty. On the other hand, you simultaneously add the criterion "willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers".
Indeed.What you're saying is that there would have to be:EITHER
a clear economic benefitAND
a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New YorkersOR
just a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers
Case 1 If you already consider yourself a "citizen of Europe" then you likely voted Remain already. You're already there and economic advantages or disadvantages are moot.
Case 2 If you see yourself as British/English etc currently but if you could see an economic advantage to embracing Europe then you are willing to embrace European citizenry in order to receive that advantage then that is an alternative. Both though in this instance are what I would call independently Necessary but Insufficient Criteria. Only if both conditions are met (since you don't view yourself as European already) is being a citizen of Europe appropriate.
Case 3 If you see an economic advantage but refuse to embrace European citizenry in order to get that advantage then that is a die-hard Leave supporter. The economics is neither here nor there in that instance.
I view myself and most of Britain as being in position two. We're willing to embrace Europe if it's worth it. Pure cynical seeking of what is best, not a matter of die hard ideals either way. There are extreme supporters of 1 and 3 but they are a minority. I supported the EU for as long as I saw an economic advantage, earlier this year once I could no longer see an economic advantage* it was no longer worth it.
* The critical turning point in my thinking was learning that the EFTA nations could be in the Single Market AND sign free trade deals rather than wait for French farmers to agree to the lowest common denominator.
You'll have quite a bit of fun with that one, what with the Brexit being a bit incompatible with parts of it.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Is there anybody here besides Lewkowski who thinks a socialist party has ever ruled the USA?
Is there anyone at all who thinks WASP appeal goes very far any longer in the USA?
Congratulations America
Nope yet there are many 21st century socialist parties on continental Europe. Including some in government and these are supposed to be trusted to write our laws for us?
Thanks for proving my point for me. I want nothing to do with socialism. You've just demonstrated how I'm more politically similar to the USA than socialist Europe.
Why don't you just move to Switzerland, you got all that you want. We have never got a socialist majority since, well, ever.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
If it maintains pre-Brexit rates of economic growth and maintains a similar global stature, then at least you can say it's a wash. If Britain fails at those two things, then it's pretty damn hard to claim the move was a success. Furthermore, if this ultimately breaks up the EU and we end up with military disputes between former members, you'll have a lot to answer for.
My problem was with mass migration from poverty-stricken countries. That's only true of Romania and Bulgaria in the EU, and the UK had the option of restricting immigration from them. But guess what? Your democratic government chose not to invoke those restrictions. And now your "poorly educated" electorate decided to blame the EU for that outcome.If Brexit turns out to be economically cost/benefit neutral then it would still be a good thing as more democratic control and accountability is in itself a good thing. You have said in the past that you would not countenance EU style free migration into the USA calling the very idea "insane". You have refused to ever say you'd support other nations writing your laws, in the same way as under QMV the Eurozone can write our laws.
I have no problem with ceding sovereignty to an organization that shares similar norms and interests as the US, as long as the US gains something out of it. I would have no problem with some kind of a union with Canada and perhaps Australia, though I'm guessing the latter two would object for risk of being dominated by the US.A quick Google search brings up this post from four years ago of Hazir gleefully gloating that QMV means we don't get a say over the writing of laws and the Eurozone will turn on the financial sector. That is not the first time or last either, it has been a repeated theme for years from Hazir that the UK is powerless within the EU and the Eurozone will use QMV to write our laws without us. I didn't think that was true and Hazir was wrong, but statistics in recent years that I saw during the campaign showed Hazir to be right. QMV laws is a bad thing in itself so if the cost/benefits are neutral then Brexit was a good idea. The EU has to be a positive in its own right to justify an end to democratic accountability. Leaving the EU is the only solution to the problem Hazir was gloating about here.
Mexico is a corrupt, violent, marginally democratic third world country. To equate that with the EU is dishonest even by your standards. Would I be ok with someone like the WTO setting US trade policy? Quite happy.How much would you value your democracy for? How much better off (or neutral) would you have to be to allow non-Americans to write your laws against your democratic wishes? How many pieces of silver would you require to allow Mexico to be given free reign over changing your laws at will? For any discussion of the EU, consider the UK which is my nation to be America and the rest of the EU which is our neighbours Mexico. If you wouldn't give those powers away to your neighbours, why should we?
You're also conflating democracy with sovereignty, repeatedly. There's nothing undemocratic about the US telling the state of Alabama that blacks can't be discriminated against, or telling Texas to stop messing around with abortion. The Texans and Alabamans consented to be part of the US, which means consenting to its rules and norms. Democracy is about rules, not outcomes. As long as the proper procedures are followed, the country is being democratic. According to your bizarre logic, every decision that contradicts the preferences of any group, no matter how small, is an undemocratic decision. US tells Arkansas to desegregate = undemocratic. Illinois tells Chicago to spend more money on schools = undemocratic. New York City telling Staten Island that a garbage dump will be built there = undemocratic. You extend that far enough, and you can claim that any political decision that is not acceptable to you personally is undemocratic.
So no, there's nothing inherently undemocratic about you being forced to do things by the EU, as long as you agreed to QMV in the first place (which you did). Your conception of democracy is that of 19th century liberal nationalists, who believed that there was something magical about nations and that democracy can function only in the context of a nation ruling itself. These kind of views of democracy have long been displaced by a civic conception of democracy, which doesn't rely on imaginary notions of nationhood to legitimize democracy, but instead relies on equal rights and constitutional protections for all within a given territory, whether that territory coincides with a nation or not (and it rarely does).
Hope is the denial of reality
Also, the kind of direct voting the UK just demonstrated only shows that you guys don't want a democracy. You want an ochlocracy.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I love you too
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
http://www.politico.eu/pro/credibili...licy-at-stake/
Bad news for the EU as a coherent political entity. Probably even worse news for the British if they expect a new trade treaty with the EU in the next decade.
Hope is the denial of reality
Jesus. What are these guys doing... I mean, I understand what they're thinking, but ffs. Hopefully provisional application will help save the agreement.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Bad for the EU yes, more on unity than in the question if this deal with Canada is all that important. Not sure it will be bad for the Brits as a deal with them probably will have the purpose of changing as little as possible.
Congratulations America
If we maintain pre-Brexit rates of growth then given the non-growth advantages for not taking part in the EU we'd be better off surely? The purpose of sacrificing sovereignty was extra growth, if there was no extra growth then that sacrifice was in vain.
As for if the EU breaks up you're pointing your finger entirely in the wrong direction. We have been trying for decades in vain to improve the EU and change it. We have been passengers on a flawed ship on a journey we don't think is advisable and with increasingly taking on water through holes in the hull with an iceberg directly ahead. We've been suggesting a change of course but the captain rejected it. We've been pointing out problems in the ships design, but getting ignored. We've been trying to plug the holes but been told not to. And still more water is getting taken on and we're being told everything is OK. So now we're grabbing a lifeboat and abandoning ship. We may be in some choppy waters on a lifeboat rather than a ship, but if the ship sinks it's not our fault. Blame the captain, blame those who refuse to accept the need for change.
If the EU is worth keeping it will survive. If it isn't, it won't. If it isn't, then it's not because we gave up first after being repeatedly told we couldn't fix the problems.
How do you objectively define poverty?My problem was with mass migration from poverty-stricken countries. That's only true of Romania and Bulgaria in the EU, and the UK had the option of restricting immigration from them. But guess what? Your democratic government chose not to invoke those restrictions.
You are betraying your own ignorance in using this claim. "Education level" does not mean intelligence, it is amongst other things a proxy for age. My grandad survived WWII and after he left school joined the RAF under national service and after serving in Malaysia and other places for the RAF he returned to the UK and worked until he retired in the late 80s. Is he unintellegent for the fact that he like almost everyone else of his generation never went to university and instead left straight from school to serve in the military and then have a career?And now your "poorly educated" electorate decided to blame the EU for that outcome.
My father did go to university but even in his day it was rare, less than 10% of his generation did.
I too went to university (and did post-grad studies too) but by then it was not uncommon. Nowadays 50% of people go to university.
So great going, you're profiling age. I will not call my grandfather ignorant or unintelligent.
In America doesn't higher education trend with support for Sanders? I still don't FeelTheBern.
I didn't see you list France ... I too feel more akin with those you named.I have no problem with ceding sovereignty to an organization that shares similar norms and interests as the US, as long as the US gains something out of it. I would have no problem with some kind of a union with Canada and perhaps Australia, though I'm guessing the latter two would object for risk of being dominated by the US.
Luckily there is zero corruption in EuropeMexico is a corrupt, violent, marginally democratic third world country. To equate that with the EU is dishonest even by your standards. Would I be ok with someone like the WTO setting US trade policy? Quite happy.
The US is a country that they're a part of. If it was Mexico telling Alabama its race laws or Canada telling Texas its abortion policy you might have had a semblance of a point.You're also conflating democracy with sovereignty, repeatedly. There's nothing undemocratic about the US telling the state of Alabama that blacks can't be discriminated against, or telling Texas to stop messing around with abortion. The Texans and Alabamans consented to be part of the US, which means consenting to its rules and norms. Democracy is about rules, not outcomes. As long as the proper procedures are followed, the country is being democratic. According to your bizarre logic, every decision that contradicts the preferences of any group, no matter how small, is an undemocratic decision. US tells Arkansas to desegregate = undemocratic. Illinois tells Chicago to spend more money on schools = undemocratic. New York City telling Staten Island that a garbage dump will be built there = undemocratic. You extend that far enough, and you can claim that any political decision that is not acceptable to you personally is undemocratic.
No we didn't. We voted against allowing the transfer to QMV without a referendum, but that referendum didn't happen.So no, there's nothing inherently undemocratic about you being forced to do things by the EU, as long as you agreed to QMV in the first place (which you did).
There is nothing imaginary about a nation. Constitutional protections have been short circuited and broken.Your conception of democracy is that of 19th century liberal nationalists, who believed that there was something magical about nations and that democracy can function only in the context of a nation ruling itself. These kind of views of democracy have long been displaced by a civic conception of democracy, which doesn't rely on imaginary notions of nationhood to legitimize democracy, but instead relies on equal rights and constitutional protections for all within a given territory, whether that territory coincides with a nation or not (and it rarely does).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote