Brexit Begins

[RandBlade]

Why not, if it is a democratic decision and your cargo-cult conception of democracy is your "#1 principle"?

It is reductio ad absurdum.

Genocide is the wrong thing to do whether it is legal or illegal.

[Khendraja'aro]

Considering that the ability of Parliament to overwrite international agreements is a principle I have long supported, why does the Government doing that and my willingness to see it happen show I have no principles? That is my principles in action.

Nice. So you also support China on reneging the Honkong deal with your country? Same principle.

[Aimless]

It is reductio ad absurdum.

Genocide is the wrong thing to do whether it is legal or illegal.

Similarly, violating an international agreement in the manner that was proposed here is also the wrong thing to do, whether it's legal or illegal. While that argument is related to "reductio ad absurdum", it is not. But it is a useful way to explore the limits of a stated position—in this case, the poorly considered position that "democracy" is one's "#1 principle". There are other more important principles on which modern democracy rests, among them the principles that safeguard the rights of humans to not eg. be subjected to atrocities, and, eg., the principles that safeguard norms of rule-of-law and truthfulness. You cannot have a properly functioning modern democracy without adherence to law and truth. Johnson and Co. negotiated and signed an agreement that they sold to voters as an excellent one that should be accepted as-is, preferably with no additional parliamentary oversight; for them to then turn around and unilaterally violate a key component of that agreement is a violation not only of international law but also of core democratic norms. If you dismiss that issue with some asinine assertion that it's okay to disregard such principles because "democracy" is your "#1 principle", it suggests you have an unprincipled and self-serving conception of democracy, under which atrocities can also be justified if they are the result of the democratically expressed will of the people—at which point the whole house of cards comes crashing down. This is not a theoretical concern; evil bastards have used precisely this sort of "will of the people" argument to justify horrific or just kinda gross acts throughout modern history.

[gogobongopop]

Similarly, violating an international agreement in the manner that was proposed here is also the wrong thing to do, whether it's legal or illegal. While that argument is related to "reductio ad absurdum", it is not. But it is a useful way to explore the limits of a stated position—in this case, the poorly considered position that "democracy" is one's "#1 principle". There are other more important principles on which modern democracy rests, among them the principles that safeguard the rights of humans to not eg. be subjected to atrocities, and, eg., the principles that safeguard norms of rule-of-law and truthfulness. You cannot have a properly functioning modern democracy without adherence to law and truth. Johnson and Co. negotiated and signed an agreement that they sold to voters as an excellent one that should be accepted as-is, preferably with no additional parliamentary oversight; for them to then turn around and unilaterally violate a key component of that agreement is a violation not only of international law but also of core democratic norms. If you dismiss that issue with some asinine assertion that it's okay to disregard such principles because "democracy" is your "#1 principle", it suggests you have an unprincipled and self-serving conception of democracy, under which atrocities can also be justified if they are the result of the democratically expressed will of the people—at which point the whole house of cards comes crashing down. This is not a theoretical concern; evil bastards have used precisely this sort of "will of the people" argument to justify horrific or just kinda gross acts throughout modern history.

[RandBlade]

Nice. So you also support China on reneging the Honkong deal with your country? Same principle.

I do not respect them doing it because I think it is the wrong thing to do.

I know they have the ability to do it though.

I know we do not have the ability to prevent them from doing it.

[RandBlade]

Similarly, violating an international agreement in the manner that was proposed here is also the wrong thing to do, whether it's legal or illegal. While that argument is related to "reductio ad absurdum", it is not. But it is a useful way to explore the limits of a stated position—in this case, the poorly considered position that "democracy" is one's "#1 principle". There are other more important principles on which modern democracy rests, among them the principles that safeguard the rights of humans to not eg. be subjected to atrocities, and, eg., the principles that safeguard norms of rule-of-law and truthfulness. You cannot have a properly functioning modern democracy without adherence to law and truth. Johnson and Co. negotiated and signed an agreement that they sold to voters as an excellent one that should be accepted as-is, preferably with no additional parliamentary oversight; for them to then turn around and unilaterally violate a key component of that agreement is a violation not only of international law but also of core democratic norms. If you dismiss that issue with some asinine assertion that it's okay to disregard such principles because "democracy" is your "#1 principle", it suggests you have an unprincipled and self-serving conception of democracy, under which atrocities can also be justified if they are the result of the democratically expressed will of the people—at which point the whole house of cards comes crashing down. This is not a theoretical concern; evil bastards have used precisely this sort of "will of the people" argument to justify horrific or just kinda gross acts throughout modern history.

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree but don't have the time to explain why right now sorry, but I think overadherance to "the law" is just as oppressive, amoral and wrong than the concerns you have with democracy.

[Aimless]

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree but don't have the time to explain why right now sorry, but I think overadherance to "the law" is just as oppressive, amoral and wrong than the concerns you have with democracy.

If you believe keeping your word—to your voters as well as to treaty partners—is "overadherence to the law", that says a lot about your character, and shows just how MAGA-esque your view of democracy is. Nobody respects a liar, and people who defend liars get even less respect.

[RandBlade]

If you believe keeping your word—to your voters as well as to treaty partners—is "overadherence to the law", that says a lot about your character, and shows just how MAGA-esque your view of democracy is. Nobody respects a liar, and people who defend liars get even less respect.

Like with the ratification of the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty?

How did the UK's promised referendum on the EU Constitution go before it became international law?
How did France and the Netherland's referendums go?

Respect is earnt.

[Hazir]

Like with the ratification of the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty?

How did the UK's promised referendum on the EU Constitution go before it became international law?
How did France and the Netherland's referendums go?

Respect is earnt.

Hey dumbo, just in case you didn't notice, you are not a member of the EU any longer. That you consistently elect liars and cheaters to rule you no longer is something we have to live with. Rather than treat them with velvet gloves we simply punish them when their lying and cheating bothers us. For the rest they are your problem

And again; you are no longer a member of the EU, how we do our business internally is no business of yours, stop rehashing your pre-referendum rubbish. You have been proven wrong and wrong again. And in the meanwhile you have exposed yourself as an enthousiastic supporter of liars and cheaters. Which puts you in the same category. Your moral compass is broken beyond repair.

It pleases me tremendously that the EU is already considering the UK in violation by the mere proposing of this law and is considering not only legal action but even sanctions on the UK, including canceling a wide range of agreements you would need to not sink into the sea after the end of this year.

Respect is lost easier you will learn.

[Hazir]

Nice. So you also support China on reneging the Honkong deal with your country? Same principle.

Exactly, Hong Kong is in the same country, same nation. And the vast majority of that nation probably never thought much of special treatment for one city.

[Hazir]

It is reductio ad absurdum.

Genocide is the wrong thing to do whether it is legal or illegal.

Genocide is a legal concept dumbo.

[Hazir]

Seems like the EU has formally demanded a change to the UKIM proposal, and is threathening legal actions and sanctions if the British government continues with it. If the changes have not been effected by the end of the month the EU will walk away from the Brexit talks. That's harder than I even expected.

Pound lost 2 cents in value against the euro in the last hours.

[gogobongopop]

Seems like the EU has formally demanded a change to the UKIM proposal, and is threathening legal actions and sanctions if the British government continues with it. If the changes have not been effected by the end of the month the EU will walk away from the Brexit talks. That's harder than I even expected.

Pound lost 2 cents in value against the euro in the last hours.

I get the feeling Johnson and Cummings want the EU to pull the plug. That way, with the right spin and rhetoric, they can play the easy blame game to their core supporters who will no doubt lap it up.

[RandBlade]

Bring it on.

[gogobongopop]

And it sets up an even more perfect exit for Johnson at the end of the year.

[Aimless]

I get the feeling Johnson and Cummings want the EU to pull the plug. That way, with the right spin and rhetoric, they can play the easy blame game to their core supporters who will no doubt lap it up.

That would've been easier to do (at least in the short term) if the EU had decided to only walk away. Sanctions and a legal challenge will make that more difficult, not least because all serious commentary will have to acknowledge the fact that those measures were in direct response to a treaty violation. Might also greatly hamper other negotiations. I am a little surprised tbh. I expected threat of legal challenge, but not any significant sanctions.

[Hazir]

I get the feeling Johnson and Cummings want the EU to pull the plug. That way, with the right spin and rhetoric, they can play the easy blame game to their core supporters who will no doubt lap it up.

That narrative is awfully popular in the UK. However, it holds no currency in the rest of the world. There the UK is either seen as a rule breaker or stupid for not knowing its place in the world. The sanctions the EU is toying with will bite and bite hard, and your government can't do anything to soften the pain. Nor can it expect help from outside. The Americans for starters are on the side of the EU on this.

LOL, even Lamont thinks the UKIM can't be defended. Lamont !!

[Aimless]

Click through for thread with a quick summary of the argument that this involved a violation of the ministerial code:

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

Click through for thread with a quick summary of the argument that this involved a violation of the ministerial code:

Twitter Link

The Cabinet Secretary (who is a civil servant not a politician) disagrees.

[gogobongopop]

Christ. All the money and time spent. The massive risk to our reputation and international standing. The law breaking.

What is the point? What really is the fucking point if it all?

Just think what else we could be doing.

I don't even know what the fucking benefits are.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

[Hazir]

Click through for thread with a quick summary of the argument that this involved a violation of the ministerial code:

Twitter Link

It's not really relevant what their lawyers say. We're not going to accept this and if they push through we'll impose sanctions. This time the Irish have most of Europe having their back.

[Hazir]

Christ. All the money and time spent. The massive risk to our reputation and international standing. The law breaking.

What is the point? What really is the fucking point if it all?

Just think what else we could be doing.

I don't even know what the fucking benefits are.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

The benefits are for a small number of people who know how to make money from the misery of nations. Don't worry about any of those benefits to ever trickle down.

[gogobongopop]

It'd probably help if we actually had someone who believed that Brexit was a good idea, and had a plan, in charge.

[Hazir]

It'd probably help if we actually had someone who believed that Brexit was a good idea, and had a plan, in charge.

What if you do¿

[RandBlade]

Christ. All the money and time spent. The massive risk to our reputation and international standing. The law breaking.

What is the point? What really is the fucking point if it all?

Just think what else we could be doing.

I don't even know what the fucking benefits are.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

The point is to be an independent, free, sovereign country that can make our own rules.

Which is what we're doing. This bill that has just been introduced is an exercise of that sovereignty. It is the point.

[RandBlade]

It's not really relevant what their lawyers say. We're not going to accept this and if they push through we'll impose sanctions. This time the Irish have most of Europe having their back.

Oooh sanctions. You're really scary, oh no!

Don't you realise how impotent and silly you sound? You've been banging on for years about how we were going to be brought to heel and you were going to write Brexit and we would follow your rules and . . . oops off we go ignoring your hollow threats. Nevermind.

[Being]

The point is to be an independent, free, sovereign country that can make our own rules.

Which is what we're doing. This bill that has just been introduced is an exercise of that sovereignty. It is the point.

So you think it appropriate to force your sovereignty on everyone you trade with? Another Opium War with your trading partners? Probably won't end well for you this time.

[Hazir]

Oooh sanctions. You're really scary, oh no!

Don't you realise how impotent and silly you sound? You've been banging on for years about how we were going to be brought to heel and you were going to write Brexit and we would follow your rules and . . . oops off we go ignoring your hollow threats. Nevermind.

Hèhè. Like you were threatened with sanctions before. You ain't seen nothing yet Dumbo.

So far an angry memo was enough to make your currency drop like a brick. A memo.

[Hazir]

The Cabinet Secretary (who is a civil servant not a politician) disagrees.

For those who do not know; the cabinet secretary who has been in that job for all of two days. Not the man who got booted out for not being a De Pfeffel flunky.

[RandBlade]

And so it begins . . .

Twitter Link