Brexit process

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 07 Jul 2017, 13:53

And, as usual, your tack is to avoid answering the central, in-principle question put to you and, instead, attempt to shift focus on to the technocratic details.

How very predictable.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jul 2017, 14:20

The other countries in the EU are not compelled to do what we want. That is not "obfuscatory bullshit" it simply points out that they (as is the UK) are Sovereign Nations.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 07 Jul 2017, 14:27

Still not answered the question put to you. It would appear this is something you are congenitally unable (or, let's be honest, unwilling) to do.

Whilst I am quite aware it will be pointless, would you like me to repeat it?

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 07 Jul 2017, 14:30

The point is "a good argument for remaining in the EU" is irrelevant as we have recently had a referendum. I will let you research the result, but a hint is that "remain" wasn't it.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jul 2017, 15:32

We had a referendum in 1975 as well. Whereas parliament should be bound by such constitutional referenda that does not mean that people cannot explain why in their view it is an error to do this.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 07 Jul 2017, 17:20

Referendum is a gerund, and so has no plural, therefore the best you can do is to add an "s". Referenda is a recent cock-up. Referundum explained

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jul 2017, 19:28

You can go with the Spectator I will go with Google.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 07 Jul 2017, 20:44

Yes, please believe the tax avoiding popularist that provides references to sites merely because they are the most visited.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jul 2017, 20:55

It is an interesting question as to what defines the rules of a language. Unlike law and very differently to science I think there is an argument that popular support has some weight.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 07 Jul 2017, 21:01

It didn't stop you telling me I was wrong when I used the collection of letters "virii" (a popular spelling) and the "correct" word was "vira". I suppose you are nothing if not inconsistent. Perhaps you support "viruses", another popular word.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jul 2017, 21:16

some weight.

Even the spectator article makes that clear. Try reading the articles you cite. Or even quoting accurately my own posts.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 07 Jul 2017, 22:14

Keep ingesting the fluoride.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 08 Jul 2017, 12:47

Back on topic.

My perception of your thinking John is that you intellectually "get" that our current system is unsustainable but you appear incapable of realizing that it if is doomed it will change, one way or another.

And I'm not just talking about economics here, but the super-structure, to paraphrase Marx, as well. The EU is a fragile club which is already in a crisis and we are in the early days of the decline and eventual end of industrial civilization.

Do you really think that the status quo of our western industrial civilization can carry on for much longer?

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 08 Jul 2017, 13:43

Lord Beria3 wrote:Do you really think that the status quo of our western industrial civilization can carry on for much longer?

Obviously not (depends what you mean by much as well).

However, there are only a small number of options as to how things are organised. They can be owned by the state or by private individuals (or a mix).

It is also possible to have various structures for politics. I personally think the separation of estates of the constitution is important particularly the judiciary should be independent of elected officials.

The fact that we have limits on growth is irrelevant to that. Resource limits and the impact of technology are both issues that provide challenges, I don't personally think that putting politicians in control of more day to day issues is part of the solution.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 08 Jul 2017, 17:22

So when shortages of resources (driven by either global supply shocks, political unrest or hoarding etc) leads to shortfalls in critical goods and resources in the UK, you don't think the politicians/State will not have to intervene?

When the oil, coal or key food supplies stop arriving in British ports, don't you realize that politicians will have to get involved?

Don't get me wrong, unlike many on this forum, I'm on the centre-right free market end of things, but even I can recognize that something will have to give. The public will not tolerate empty supermarkets or the partial collapse of key goods across the country.