Brexit

[abbey road d enfer]

abbey road d enfer
I think you're a bit irritated,

I'm not irritated; I just notice that you consistently bark at the wrong tree.
You think that I'm blaming Putin only, and you defend him by saying that others are doing worse things.
Can't you understand that I don't like Putin, but I don't like many others, Bush, Trump, Erdogan, Johnson, Le Pen, and so on, but not for the same reasons. They all have different forms of sin.
The fact that I dislike Putin doesn't mean that I support Trump, or vice-versa.

Have you ever heard his speaches?

I told you already that I have. I haven't dreamt that. Not the exact words indeed (I said it was some kind of caricature), but the meaning was clear, which is worse IMO.

And again: "Contribution to the world", why western people always think about they are the only ones who made something to "the world". Coca-cola? iPhone? Blood in the middle east?

You're doing again the same mistake. I said that there are only two great countries at the moment. Great does not mean that I admire them; it's just a fact, they are influent in terms of economy and creativity. Russia is not in the same league, and Putin is trying to make Russia great again, but because Russia doesn't have the economic power and the influence, he chose to use the military to do so. 

"Russia by doing things that affect the lives of other countries' people"- are you sure you've wanted to mention Russia? Perhaps there must be some other countries? 

And one more time, it's not because there may be other countries that I must ignore what Russia does. It's like a thief gets caught and says "you can't blame me, there are many others like me" Dumb, innit?

Or perhaps we must act in the same way? Do you want our army to make peace in the east of Ukrain? They will just enter the territory and thousands of russian people will start normal living, as it was in Crimea.

My understanding is that Putin felt he had to invade Crimea because "Russians" were unwell (nobody knows to what extent, were they tortured, or forbidden to speak Russian, or what?). I could understand that on a moral standpoint, but in the context of international laws, that is not correct. That makes him a delinquent, just like Assad or Nethaniaou. How is the international community supposed to react?

You said we must swallow. Sure we swallow, and will swallow again. We have very long tradition of self-flagellation, it's so strong that you hardly even can imagine it, I assure you.

That's not what I saw in the interviews.

A typical self-made American, American dream: a commoner who became a president of the Unites States.

Are you joking? His millionaire father gave him a million bucks when he was in his early twenties to start a business which happened to be in real estate, like his father... so basically, he inherited his dad's business.

  Trump infringes their rights here in Europe?

As I wrote earlier, I am more concerned about the consequences for Europe of Putin's actions, at the moment. BTW Trump has de facto killed the TTIP, which was great threat coming.

"The dog barks, but the caravan moves on". Russian (or Uzbek? doesn't matter, we all the same people) proverb. As promised.

We have the same; it's supposed to be from the saharian Bedouins; each one his legends. I suspect all people living in a desert end up with similar philosophies.

PS: BTW where are you from - Marcelland... (?)

Wherever I put my hat...that's my home.

 

[ungifted]

Sure, I understood you at once. I hope you've got my standpoint too.
Cheers!
PS: Couldn't find Marcelland. Marcel, France? Sorry my ignorance.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

PS: Couldn't find Marcelland. Marcel, France? Sorry my ignorance.

Marcelland is the place where I am; when i'm in France, it's a part of France, when I'm in New Orleans, it's a part of Louisiana.

 

[ungifted]

I see, thank you.

 

[Script]

The British Supreme Court decided that parliament has a right to vote on Brexit suggestion. That is a good day for British democracy (rule of law / constitutional legality). I am only referring to the legal side of the process -- not the outcome of the referendum  8)

 

[abbey road d enfer]

The British Supreme Court decided that parliament has a right to vote on Brexit suggestion. That is a good day for British democracy (rule of law / constitutional legality). I am only referring to the legal side of the process -- not the outcome of the referendum  8)

Does it mean that Maggie's * Theresa's decision to have a hard break may be overruled?

*I'm joking here; I know May is not like Thatcher, but she has to pretend she is

 

[DaveP]

Does it mean that Maggie's * Theresa's decision to have a hard break may be overruled?

Probably not,  The labour party will not oppose her, so she should have a majority for the article 50 vote.

I think you should bear in mind that a hard brexit is not what she wants, it's all she is going to get.  She has simply realised that fact and is trying to break it gently to the population.

DaveP

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I think you should bear in mind that a hard brexit is not what she wants, it's all she is going to get.  She has simply realised that fact and is trying to break it gently to the population.

DaveP

That's interesting. I know that she doesn't want a hard brexit, and even that she didn't want any brexit at all. My understanding was that her speech was one of domestic policy, addressed to satisfy the Brexit partisans and reassure the population that the democratic vote was respected. You seem to imply almost the contrary!?

[rant] I read about this David Davis guy; he's not really known here, he doesn't make the headlines like Farrage or Johnson. He seems to me like these guys who say: "let's do this", but actually does nothing and relies on lackeys to do the actual work. All mouth no hands (to be polite). Well it's just ranting, I don't care, as long as he stays on his side of the Channel. [/rant]

 

[DaveP]

David Davis is a failed leadership contender, he has influence but insufficient charisma to be a prime minister.

DaveP

 

[Script]

Only thing that sounds a bit fishy to me it why local parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Ireland are not going to have a say in this. Any (legal) reasons for this?

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Only thing that sounds a bit fishy to me it why local parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Ireland are not going to have a say in this. Any (legal) reasons for this?

Yeah, I noticed that, too.
Apparently, they are "devolved" administrations. I had to look in the dictionary. It looks like it's somewhat derogatory...
I guess DaveP is better capable than me of shedding light on this.

 

[DaveP]

As far as I understand it, devolved government means that they are given a budget (about 10% more than the English per person figure under the Barnett formula).  They are then free to spend it on issues that the local population prefer.

In the case of Wales, they pay for free prescriptions, Scotland pays for free university education, I believe.

All other issues like defence and foreign policy are managed by the UK parliament.

Scotland wants to remain in the EU but as there are only 4 million of them, so it is unlikely they will prevail over the 60 million English voters.

This could cause another Scottish referendum to leave the UK, but it is very unlikely that Spain would allow that to happen because they fear the same issue with Catalonia.  Scottish oil is not likely to sustain them now either since it is no longer $100/barrel.

DaveP

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Scottish oil is not likely to sustain them now either since it is no longer $100/barrel.

What about haggis?

 

[Script]

Devolved governments, I see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question#English_devolution

But no devolved English government... whatever that entails. Looks like the "union" has never been a union of fully equal partners in the first place, haha!

Scotland wants to remain in the EU but as there are only 4 million of them, so it is unlikely they will prevail over the 60 million English voters.

;D
That may very well be, but it has never been up to the 'people' to decide on a legally binding 'remain' or 'exit', no matter how often that is and has been claimed. It has always been up to the parliament to make that decision (rule of law). Representative democracy, I believe that is. It is most probably far from ideal (most likely even worthy of improvement), but it is what it is.

So, after all, it was and is a legal question as well as one of national and international credibility. The rest is the people's opinion and sentiment (both emotional and intellectual). It's good that the British government has started to listen to it (now that they are cornered), but I still think they are listening to 'the people' (or rather those who bothered to vote: statistically a minority compared to total population) for the wrong reason and cause.

On the other hand, I think all other EU countries would have done themselves a huge favour had they closed the door for Britain shortly after WWII

Hard Brexit, yeah -- cornered by the EU and cornered by a statistic minority of true leavers (plus revenge voters), forced to do something they probably don't really want to do. Unfavourable situation for the government (How satisfying to observe frrom the outside that must be for some!) and sure not a highlight in the history of democracy.

Wasn't there a Marmite war between Unilever and... ah, what the heck! Bon appetit!

 

[DaveP]

On the other hand, I think all other EU countries would have done themselves a huge favour had they closed the door for Britain shortly after WWII

De Gaulle did just that, we had to wait until he had died to join.  He hated Britain because of his position in the war, even though we lost 2000 men/week liberating his country for him!

There was never a problem while it was a common market, we had common standards for goods and services and no customs tariffs, it was when we lost control of the borders and the courts that the problems started.

DaveP

 

[Script]

Read the other day that the UK will have to 'discuss' a total of 21,000 laws before leaving the EU after two years. That 40 laws a day.

And that the EU will ask for an outstanding 60 billion EUR for pending obligations.

Uh .

 

[DaveP]

They are initially going to vote all the EU laws into UK law in one block, then after we have left they will change the ones they want to change.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

They are initially going to vote all the EU laws into UK law in one block, then after we have left they will change the ones they want to change.

DaveP

Seems like a missed opportunity to scrub off some undesirable legislation. In the future it will probably be harder. How often do legislatures remove laws?

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

Read the other day that the UK will have to 'discuss' a total of 21,000 laws before leaving the EU after two years. That 40 laws a day.

And that the EU will ask for an outstanding 60 billion EUR for pending obligations.

Uh .

The EU does not create laws. It creates regulations that each country must embody in its own law. AFAIK, all the EU regulations are already enshrined in English law. Every EU country does the same. I cannot think of anything EU that is enshrined an any other law.

Cheers

Ian

 

[DaveP]

Seems like a missed opportunity to scrub off some undesirable legislation. In the future it will probably be harder. How often do legislatures remove laws?
JR

The problem is, that there is not the time to discuss these laws before the Brexit process starts.  Also, 45 years worth of legislation cannot be discussed over a short time frame.

The main gain will be that the EU court will no longer be the final arbeiter in matters of justice, that will devolve to the UK supreme court.  Much of the legislation, as Ian says, covers regulation on common standards which allows goods and services to be sold to the EU, it's very unlikely that these will be changed as it would stop exports to the EU.

DaveP