Merged Now What?

[Ambrosia]

fixed

While it's a French name there are a number of pates that are English in origin.

English and French cuisines are very closely related.

There's also quite a number of English foods that have French names that originated in England. Creme Brulee is the most well known. (tho the French English and Spanish are all still arguing over that one)

 

[TubbaBlubba]

That can't over-ride the rule of law without, again, another constitutional crisis.

How would it over-ride the rule of law? The action would neither be extralegal (the power to dissolve parliament is well-established, albeit the conditions of its legitimate invocation are debatable), nor would it undermine the power of the courts to interpret law, nor would it violate equality under the law.

What particular principle of UK Rule of Law do you feel it would violate?

 

[Ambrosia]

When was this "golden age" of pub grub ? IMO it's as good, if not better, now than it has ever been.

There's still lots of good gastro pubs out there that serve traditional English pub grub. I've worked in a few of them. There's just less of them than there used to be.

I work in event catering at present and often have the joys of staying at a Travelodge that's parked next to a Harvester or a Beefeater, and the menus at those places is soul destroying (as is the beer, but I digress)

 

[The Don]

There's still lots of good gastro pubs out there that serve traditional English pub grub. I've worked in a few of them. There's just less of them than there used to be.

Evidence ?

Round here we can't seem to move without tripping over a gastropub and more pubs are offering food all the time.

I work in event catering at present and often have the joys of staying at a Travelodge that's parked next to a Harvester or a Beefeater, and the menus at those places is soul destroying (as is the beer, but I digress)

Even a Harvester or Beefeater is streets ahead of average pub food in the 70's and 80's. Sure there were a handful of gastropubs but the food in your average chain pub was either non-existent or dire.

If you stayed in the equivalent of a Travelodge back then you wouldn't have had a pub serving low-average food right next door, instead you'd have had to traipse into town to try and find somewhere to eat.

I think you're comparing a comparatively small number of pubs that served food (the town I grew up in had 28 pubs, only 5 or which served food and only two of which you'd actually want to eat in) to today, when a much greater proportion serve food.

 

[Lothian]

That can't over-ride the rule of law without, again, another constitutional crisis.

The best thing about you having me on ignore is that you you can't see how much you are embarrassing yourself. I provided a link to the law in post 1827. It would not be breaking the law to have an early election. Nor would it cause a constitutional crisis. The law, you even cited it, specifically allows early elections

The law is really short, only 7 sections. Section 2 says

An early parliamentary general election is to take place if—

(a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (2), and

(b)if the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).

(2)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) is—

“That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”

So that is it, a motion and vote and that is it.

Simples.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... To summarise:

Thanks, because I found it hard to triangulate your statements until now.

A) The people of the UK have the right for self-determination. If they decide that the EU is no longer favourable for them, for whatever reason, then they should have the ability to vote to leave, especially since they are already a sovereign nation....

That is agreed; that's what the social contract is all about.

But the two reasons that I find compelling are:
1) That the EU's democratic system is unsatisfactory.

The question is if it is in its final form or is unfixable, and if the current situation is intolerable. Today we have nation-states withholding power from EU governing bodies, with lots of game playing. Yet this is an inevitable phase through with the EU must pass, not the intended end state of affairs.

The current situation politically (level of democratic governance) does not seem so dire, given the explanations provided in this thread. What does seem undeniable, and this is common to other parts of the globe, is the uneasy adaptation to high structural unemployment (automation, global labor surplus).

2) That the UK should have a greater control over its laws and regulations, and immigration policies.

Also not in dispute, but requiring the same observations as before. A transition to being a state in a United States must by nature involve a degree of "federal" superseding law, but does not signify a total loss of voice.

None of this is controversial, unjustified or illigitemate, and insisting that they are caused by ignorance and xenophobia is foolish, and shows an unwillingness to understand other people's viewpoints and reasoning.

On your part they are not. Where I disagree is with regards to the voters themselves. Enough has been made known pre- and post-voting to indicate xenophobia was definitely in play. For all? No. For perhaps the least informed, who were many? Yes.

I wanted to discuss these reasons and the future of the UK and EU following the vote, but that seems impossible because most posters have already made up their mind, cannot abide by differing opinions, and appear to need to dismiss the opposition rather than engage them in civil debate.

I had to wait until this post of yours to make head or tail of what you wanted to discuss. It can't be only everyone else that is failing to communicate.

 

[catsmate]

How about the House of Commons passing the following motion in parliament “That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”

It is hardly rocket science.

That requires a two-thirds majority while a no-confidence vote needs only a simple majority.

 

[Belz...]

Lets try a different tack and see if we can agree on something.

Sure. I love agreeing on stuff.

Would you agree that if 1 and 2 above are your concerns then leaving the EU and 'joining' the EEA will not fix them?

Based on what little I know about the EEA, yes.

 

[Lothian]

That requires a two-thirds majority while a no-confidence vote needs only a simple majority.

Indeed but MikeG's claim was that there was no way to have an early election and it would me unconstitutional to do so.

 

[Belz...]

The question is if it is in its final form or is unfixable, and if the current situation is intolerable.

It might be currently tolerable, but the lack of control over the course the EU takes in the future is cause for concern, in my opinion. As for being fixable, this again depends on how much influence the electorate can have over the commission.

A transition to being a state in a United States must by nature involve a degree of "federal" superseding law, but does not signify a total loss of voice.

Agreed, though I don't think Europe is in any way comparable to the thirteen colonies in terms of unified cultures and common goals and practices. Although I used to think differently, I really don't think this alliance can work and last unless we somehow mix the populations of europe into a single bag, which would, ironically, reduce diversity by creating a single culture.

On your part they are not. Where I disagree is with regards to the voters themselves. Enough has been made known pre- and post-voting to indicate xenophobia was definitely in play. For all? No. For perhaps the least informed, who were many? Yes.

Yeah but can we say that it's even a significant number of Leave voters?

I had to wait until this post of yours to make head or tail of what you wanted to discuss. It can't be only everyone else that is failing to communicate.

Agreed, however in my own defense there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the Leave side, in this thread, and that isn't my own failing.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sure. I love agreeing on stuff.



Based on what little I know about the EEA, yes.

So would you also agree with the remainder of my post that should 'leaving the EU' become 'staying in the EEA' then many people will feel that their vote has been ignored?

 

[Belz...]

So would you also agree with the remainder of my post that should 'leaving the EU' become 'staying in the EEA' then many people will feel that their vote has been ignored?

That seems to follow, but as I said I would have to read up about the EEA to fully appreciate your question.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Agreed, though I don't think Europe is in any way comparable to the thirteen colonies in terms of unified cultures and common goals and practices. Although I used to think differently, I really don't think this alliance can work and last unless we somehow mix the populations of europe into a single bag, which would, ironically, reduce diversity by creating a single culture.

La question à un million de dollars, mon collègue canadien. When traveling outside Europe, I find Europe to be more alike among its members than when here. Many similar values and shared outlooks about issues, in spite of appearances. What tips the scale, in my view, are (1) the security rationale; i.e., lessening the chance for intraEuropean conflicts, and (2) the much larger market to which firms have easy access, strengthening the players in a global game now dominated by countries far larger than any single EU state.

Further, I wonder if we are not before yet another important dropping of blinders. The US was able for 75 years after founding to consider non-whites as less than human, and took until the early 20th century to give women the vote. Each of these two changes is based on a growing understanding of the nature of equality.

In my opinion, there is a next step required to lessen the level of conflict, and that is the recognition that shared values are enough for people who look, pray, eat and sing differently to recognize that equality is a truly universal value, not a tribal one. That said, I also support the EU concept of devolution, pushing management of issues that affect local and regional communities to that level.

Further, I support any breakaway EU region; say, Scotland or Catalonia. But my take on that is that it is a move toward the EU I'd like to see post-nation-states; i.e., a Europe of regions and perhaps large cities (e.g., London) as political units. That is, as the EU goes federal, it also goes local far more.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Agreed, however in my own defense there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the Leave side, in this thread, and that isn't my own failing.

The general misunderstanding may be your own given that you weren't subject to the campaigning or the arguments being made at close quarters.

Given the dishonesty of the Leave campaign throughout there's a hell of a lot of crap to cut through to actually get to the meat of what they are saying and to actually extricate a coherent leave argument out of it. I have so far not succeeded in doing so.

The idea that the EU costs us money is silly. Every economic argument is in favour of staying in the EU. The £350m/week lie was a nonsense. The drop in our credit rating and increased cost of borrowing has burned through our EU contributions for years in one fell swoop. Plus if we stay in the EEA to get access to the EU market as it seems we might we still have to pay it. So we lose twice (or ten times or whatever the hell the number is.)

The immigration argument was a nonsense and for a while amounted to 'oooh scary Turks are coming to get you'. We also had the blatant dishonesty of politicians telling us they wanted to take back control of the borders while pretending to be in favour of immigration while standing alongside people who are one step away from shouting 'send them back' and then others lying that somehow being in the EU stops us bringing in skilled non-EU immigrants. And then if we end up in the EEA we still have freedom of movement anyway!

The EU is un-democratic argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny because the UK is just as undemocratic if you apply the same principles and there's no reason at all to single out the EU as any kind of special case. In fact for many people the UK is far far worse. The EU is different to the UK. So what? The follow up to this argument was also that somehow 'Brussels' imposes its will on the UK which assumes there is an entire mass of Europe vs little old UK but in fact the UK government supported pretty much everything that people object to and has a veto over anything too troublesome.

What else have we got? I've seen arguments about the EU stopping us buying fruit from the third world, making it difficult to do business in vaping and even that somehow leaving would get PR in Westminster. Do I even need to give these the time of day as sound reasons to drive the economy towards a cliff?

What else have we got? A mixture of wishful thinking, lies, and illogical nonsense. And to top it all off we might well end up in the EEA anyway! Gaining exactly nothing. Losing a great deal and incurring a hell of a lot of collateral damage along the way.

Because despite everything, anyone with any sense (even it seems some of the Leave campaigners) KNOW that it isn't a good idea to leave the EU and the question now is how to minimise the damage done by an electorate who were sold a dummy by charlatans and cretins like Farage and voted against all logic.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That seems to follow, but as I said I would have to read up about the EEA to fully appreciate your question.

So to continue on this roll, would you agree that the Leave campaign really should have had at least a plan that said whether 'Leave the EU' meant 'join the EEA' or 'leave completely'?

(And that its pretty obvious the reason why they didn't is because they knew that if they articulated the reality of what leaving the EU actually meant then they wouldn't have got 52% of the vote.)

 

[MikeG]

.......Further, I support any breakaway EU region; say, Scotland or Catalonia. But my take on that is that it is a move toward the EU I'd like to see post-nation-states; i.e., a Europe of regions and perhaps large cities (e.g., London) as political units. That is, as the EU goes federal, it also goes local far more.

I hope you accept that this is one of the things which might have been in the back of the mind of many who voted leave. You vision would be an anathema to many here.

 

[MikeG]

How would it over-ride the rule of law? The action would neither be extralegal (the power to dissolve parliament is well-established, albeit the conditions of its legitimate invocation are debatable), nor would it undermine the power of the courts to interpret law, nor would it violate equality under the law.

What particular principle of UK Rule of Law do you feel it would violate?

The law that says parliaments shall be of a fixed term, and there are only two circumstances in which that can be varied, neither of which is anything like that you describe.

ETA Royal perogative doesn't extend to breaking the law. It is circumscribed by law, so if a law says "these are the only circumstances....", then those really are the only circumstances.

 

[Ambrosia]

Evidence ?

Round here we can't seem to move without tripping over a gastropub and more pubs are offering food all the time.

How many of those are offering a mainly traditional English or British 'pub grub' menu?

There's a great many 'gastropub' by name that's actually little of the sort if you go behind the scenes.

My evidence is sadly anecdotal at present. All I can tell you is that it was significantly easier to find a chef position in a gastro pub that actually cooked most of their food from scratch and served British food in the 90's and early 00's than it is today. When I get back home I can try and dig up some better evidence.

the food in your average chain pub was either non-existent or dire.

I don't think the quality has improved a great deal.

If you stayed in the equivalent of a Travelodge back then you wouldn't have had a pub serving low-average food right next door, instead you'd have had to traipse into town to try and find somewhere to eat.

True. They are certainly convenient.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I see Chukka Umunna has started a Vote Leave Watch group to see how well the Leavers do on delivering on their promises.

Lots of people commenting that it's silly to expect people to deliver on promises made when they aren't in a position to deliver them. Not so many comments reflecting on it being rather dishonest to make promises that you can't deliver on in the first place.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The law that says parliaments shall be of a fixed term, and there are only two circumstances in which that can be varied, neither of which is anything like that you describe.

ETA Royal perogative doesn't extend to breaking the law. It is circumscribed by law, so if a law says "these are the only circumstances....", then those really are the only circumstances.

OK, according to Wikipedia the law constitutes an abolishment of the Royal Prerogative's power of dissolution. It's a pity we'll never see anything like the antics of William IV again...