Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

It was a back office, pre-decided, Franco/German stitch up. As all the EU Council meetings tend to be. Do you really think they walk in with an agenda and blank sheet of paper?

Has the UK in it's 40 years of membership to the EU ever spent any of its influence, power or political capital trying to reform such 'back room closed door deals' within the EU ? Or is the reality that our democratically leaders have never spent an iota of effort trying to reform these things because they are the ones that LIKED such systems, that wanted such systems and that do not want a more democratic system, and have preferred to spend the UK's political capital predominantly on securing exceptions for the UK alone within the EU ? This is why for me the argument that 'the EU is unreformable' and thus we must 'leave' is a bit 'rich' for my tastes.

Please drop the "moaning" crap and attempts at sarcasm. You're not making it and - trust me - I can do it so much better.

Are you channelling GR or Paphitis ? OOhh look at his big balls !

We get out and then "beg" to go back in. That would be the correct way to do it of course. Getting a vote to go back in would be a really neat trick though. Don't go holding your breath.

No because every one knows, those that support leave more than any, that if we leave we will never be able to rejoin again on the same terms we had having spent 40 years of our political capital making no effort to reform the EU but securing exceptions for the UK. This is exactly why for some of the extreme leave wing just leaving is not enough. For them it is vital to leave in such a way that it will simply be impossible to go back again, even if 98% of the country want that. It is an attempt to deny future generations the democratic choice and that is why no one has been more responsible for preventing us having already left than that 'extreme' leave element because leaving alone is just not enough.

The "get Boris" campaign continues - unabated - albeit very crude.

Also, what does it say when 17,410,742 people vote for something, a majority of over a million, in the largest electoral event in the history of the UK and parliament plots for over 3 years to overturn it?

Talk about going around in circles. Yes the vote was to leave. It was not to leave in a particular way. The reality is, our democratic sovereign parliament has been and continues to be unable to agree how we should leave and no one more so than those extreme leavers who will accept only one form of leaving, namely one where by there is no route back, no ability for future generations to change their mind, for 50 years, 100 years or preferably ever.

[erolz66]

Sorry Erolz. I'm not going to get into all of that. My apologies.

Now a cynic might suggest that is because you are losing the argument, but given that, unlike others here, I do not have 15 years of history of your posting to go on, I will give you the benefit of any doubt and say fair enough.

I'm perhaps lucky - or not - depending on your POV. To me it all seems quite straightforward and I suspect that time will ultimately be on "my" side. The genie is out of the bottle you see. And, the subject of the UK's EU membership will never, ever be the same again. Now matter how many attempts there are to make it so.

I do not disagree that the 'genie is out of the bottle'. My biggest fear about the whole brexit thing is not actually if we leave , if we do not leave, even if we leave without a deal. My biggest fear is that whatever happens we will not learn any lessons from the whole thing and make changes in light of those lessons. Changes like how our national democracy works (or does not work). Changes like, heaven forbid we do not leave, putting in to law that no further political integration can be consented to by UK governments without a referendum (like Ireland has). And many others things besides.

Bedtime.

Indeed. Ill just finish for now by going back to this idea that actually what I argue against is BS masquerading as 'reason'. If you come here and say, look in all honesty I believe strongly that we should leave the EU but am also honest enough to admit that at the end of the day this is not because of 'logic' and 'reason' as much as it is an 'emotional' and 'gut' feeling, I would say I do not share your view but respect it and wish you all the best. Job done. However if you come here having already emotionally decided that leave is what you think is right but try an present that decision as in fact being one that you came to having started from a 'neutral' position and weighed all the pros and cons, by using post hoc arguments that do not themselves stand up to scrutiny of logic and reason, I can and more often than not will 'call BS'. Does not really matter what the subject is for me. Nor does it matter to me if you are (imho of course) 'fooling yourself' or 'fooling others' or both with such attempts I will still call BS.

All the best to you.

Why are the 'cynic hairs' on the back of my neck twitching when I read that ?

[cyprusgrump]

I have already admitted that the process was far from democratically perfect. What I also admit and recognise is that NO system of democracy any where in the world is democratically perfect.

Well, that is the understatement of the century!

As has been mentioned earlier, this was a behind closed doors stitch up for the top jobs at the EU!

Democracy at its finest eh?

I think this phenomenon even has a name - 'somebody's theory of democracy' though who's I forget. I mean the idea of 160,000 members of the Tory party get to choose who governs the UK, a country of 60 million +, as PM is hardly a shinning light of 'democratic principal' is it ?

That s precisely how democracy works in the UK. We get to vote for a Party and the Party chooses a leader who becomes the PM. That is exactly how it has worked in the past and is being implemented perfectly democratically on this occasion.

Or the idea that a minority government could or should force through a no deal Brexit by suspending Parliament. Travesty ?

Not a travesty at all.

Parliament has already voted for ‘No Deal’ as the default or ‘fall back’ position. If Parliament has to be Prorogued to achieve that it would be perfectly democratic.

On the other hand, if some legal means is sought to prevent the will of parliament then that would be a travesty. Especially if it was brought about by John Major – a man who Prorogued parliament to avoid a ‘cash for questions’ scandal. Hypocrisy, thou name is John Major!

[erolz66]

As has been mentioned earlier, this was a behind closed doors stitch up for the top jobs at the EU!

Democracy at its finest eh?

That the candidates for these (fixed term) jobs are decided by consensus amongst the democratically elected leaders of the member states is precisely how 'democracy' currently works within the EU for such appointments. Now as someone who is not first deciding their position (I want the UK to remain in EU) and who then goes around trying to find excuses for why that decision is one of logic and reason, even though it is not, I can and do accept that such a system , even though it involves the decision being made via consensus of democratically elected leaders, is less than democratically ideal. When I claim to be concerned with democracy, it is not just an insincere excuse that allows me to try and support a decision I have already made and this is shown by 'consistency'. If on the other hand I claim my decision was made in the first place based on things like democracy, but I only show concern for democratic deficiency when that supports the decision I already made but show no interest in it at all when it does not, then it would be clear that my 'reasoning' is nothing of the sort. It is in fact just a 'pretence' that allows me to try and pretend my decision is one based on reason when it is not.

That s precisely how democracy works in the UK. We get to vote for a Party and the Party chooses a leader who becomes the PM. That is exactly how it has worked in the past and is being implemented perfectly democratically on this occasion.

Order. Order. You have got the order wrong. We do not in normal circumstances first choose a party to elect and then after we have chosen such a party they go an elect their leader. In 98% of the 'past' it is the other way round, first the party chooses its leader and then we decide which party to vote for. By claiming there is nothing 'democratically deficient' in the idea that the PM of the UK is chosen by vote of only 0.25% of the UK population with the other 99.75% of the population having no say in that decision, you just prove that when you bemoan 'democratic deficiency' within EU institutions, that is not a reason, it is just an excuse because you care nothing for the issue of 'democratic deficiency' other than how it can be used to try and create an impression that your decision is based on reason.

Parliament has already voted for ‘No Deal’ as the default or ‘fall back’ position. If Parliament has to be Prorogued to achieve that it would be perfectly democratic.

Clearly for you the definition of 'perfectly democratic' is nothing to do with how much a given system gives people an effective say in the decision that effect their lives or not. For you the definition of 'perfectly democratic' is does this allow me to pretend that my decision is based on reason when in reality it is not. Anything that does allow this is for you and by definition 'perfectly democratic'.

MP's voted to trigger article 50 knowing the default position was one of no deal exit on the basis that parliament is sovereign and it could change it's mind before that default option was triggered. It is like when I sign up for Amazon Prime free one month offer, I know that the default position is if I do not cancel before that month is up I will get charged. If after I sign up on these terms and on that basis, Amazon remove my ability to be able to cancel before the free period is up, that would be a travesty. Arguments that I willing chose to sign up knowing the default position and thus there is nothing wrong in Amazon making it impossible for me to cancel and thus it is not a travesty would clearly be a BS argument. That is if you use the word travesty in its normal sense. Of course if you define the word 'travesty' to mean anything that supports my attempts to pretend that my decision that has been made on the basis of reason when in reality is has is not a travesty and anything does not allow me to do this is a travesty, then all bets are off.

On the other hand, if some legal means is sought to prevent the will of parliament then that would be a travesty.

The idea that government and parliament should be and are subject to the rule of law is not a travesty. Unless of course you define the word 'travesty' to mean .... (see above)

Especially if it was brought about by John Major – a man who Prorogued parliament to avoid a ‘cash for questions’ scandal. Hypocrisy, thou name is John Major!

LOL. You really need to try and stop drinking that Guido Fawlkes cool aid. Every single prime minister that has ever called a general election (which before the fixed term parliament act of 2011 was their prerogative) has porouged (shut down) parliament after dissolving it. You can not call a general election (dissolve parliament) without also porouging (shutting it down). If the likes of Johnson and Raab (by the way you do not know Raab represents a constituency that voted remain ?) were suggesting to shut down parliament because a general election was being called, this would be entirely 'normal' and no one would have any issue with. It is exactly because they are suggesting doing so NOT as a necessary part of calling a general election but without an election with specific intent of denying Parliament it's sovereign rights and ability to change its mind, the basis on which MPs did voted for article 50, like amazon stopping me from cancelling after I agree on the basis I could cancel up till a certain date, that this is a problem , a travesty and a inherently democratically flawed process.

Seriously cyprusgrump if you just had the honesty (with yourself or generally) to admit that your choice of supporting leave is really just not about 'logic' and 'reason' I would say fair enough and there would be no need for any further discussion or argument. However if you wish to continue to try and convince yourself and others that you decision is based on logic and reason and all you have to offer is arguments that can not stand the test of 'consistency' and indeed require inconsistency for them to even make any sense, then I am just going to keep calling BS

[cyprusgrump]

Order. Order. You have got the order wrong. We do not in normal circumstances first choose a party to elect and then after we have chosen such a party they go an elect their leader. In 98% of the 'past' it is the other way round, first the party chooses its leader and then we decide which party to vote for. By claiming there is nothing 'democratically deficient' in the idea that the PM of the UK is chosen by vote of only 0.25% of the UK population with the other 99.75% of the population having no say in that decision, you just prove that when you bemoan 'democratic deficiency' within EU institutions, that is not a reason, it is just an excuse because you care nothing for the issue of 'democratic deficiency' other than how it can be used to try and create an impression that your decision is based on reason.

The order is irrelevant...

Nobody ever votes for a PM in a GE - they vote for representatives of a certain Party to be their MP.

The Party chooses who will be PM, either before during or after the parliamentary term. See Gordon Brown.

It has always been thus...

Sometimes you don't like the rules or the outcome - I get that. But they are the rules...

[Paphitis]

BREXIT is a true celebration of democracy and it is amazing to see Britain free itself from EU occupation.

You got to worry when Turks are all supportive of the EU despite never having a hope in hell of joining because they want to turn Europe and Cyprus into a Caliphate.

One of them even said Greece needs to re balance it’s population. Mmmm. Let’s rebalance the population with more gangsters and criminals and do away with Greece’s culture completely.

Nice one Turks!

And you got to worry more when they pretend they are interested in Greece’s well-being by applauding the exit of Golden Dawn with some other foreigners who should butt out!

Go Britain Go!

[Paphitis]

Order. Order. You have got the order wrong. We do not in normal circumstances first choose a party to elect and then after we have chosen such a party they go an elect their leader. In 98% of the 'past' it is the other way round, first the party chooses its leader and then we decide which party to vote for. By claiming there is nothing 'democratically deficient' in the idea that the PM of the UK is chosen by vote of only 0.25% of the UK population with the other 99.75% of the population having no say in that decision, you just prove that when you bemoan 'democratic deficiency' within EU institutions, that is not a reason, it is just an excuse because you care nothing for the issue of 'democratic deficiency' other than how it can be used to try and create an impression that your decision is based on reason.

The order is irrelevant...

Nobody ever votes for a PM in a GE - they vote for representatives of a certain Party to be their MP.

The Party chooses who will be PM, either before during or after the parliamentary term. See Gordon Brown.

It has always been thus...

Sometimes you don't like the rules or the outcome - I get that. But they are the rules...

These people want to make it up as they go along and then throw all their toys from the pram. It is funny to watch and entertaining seeing all the meltdowns.

[cyprusgrump]

Order. Order. You have got the order wrong. We do not in normal circumstances first choose a party to elect and then after we have chosen such a party they go an elect their leader. In 98% of the 'past' it is the other way round, first the party chooses its leader and then we decide which party to vote for. By claiming there is nothing 'democratically deficient' in the idea that the PM of the UK is chosen by vote of only 0.25% of the UK population with the other 99.75% of the population having no say in that decision, you just prove that when you bemoan 'democratic deficiency' within EU institutions, that is not a reason, it is just an excuse because you care nothing for the issue of 'democratic deficiency' other than how it can be used to try and create an impression that your decision is based on reason.

The order is irrelevant...

Nobody ever votes for a PM in a GE - they vote for representatives of a certain Party to be their MP.

The Party chooses who will be PM, either before during or after the parliamentary term. See Gordon Brown.

It has always been thus...

Sometimes you don't like the rules or the outcome - I get that. But they are the rules...

These people want to make it up as they go along and then throw all their toys from the pram. It is funny to watch and entertaining seeing all the meltdowns.

Indeed...

As I said earlier in this thread, I'm sad that we haven't left yet...

...but the twists and turns of the Remainers over the past three years - trying to convince everybody that black is white if it suits their argument - are hilarious to watch!

[Paphitis]

Order. Order. You have got the order wrong. We do not in normal circumstances first choose a party to elect and then after we have chosen such a party they go an elect their leader. In 98% of the 'past' it is the other way round, first the party chooses its leader and then we decide which party to vote for. By claiming there is nothing 'democratically deficient' in the idea that the PM of the UK is chosen by vote of only 0.25% of the UK population with the other 99.75% of the population having no say in that decision, you just prove that when you bemoan 'democratic deficiency' within EU institutions, that is not a reason, it is just an excuse because you care nothing for the issue of 'democratic deficiency' other than how it can be used to try and create an impression that your decision is based on reason.

The order is irrelevant...

Nobody ever votes for a PM in a GE - they vote for representatives of a certain Party to be their MP.

The Party chooses who will be PM, either before during or after the parliamentary term. See Gordon Brown.

It has always been thus...

Sometimes you don't like the rules or the outcome - I get that. But they are the rules...

These people want to make it up as they go along and then throw all their toys from the pram. It is funny to watch and entertaining seeing all the meltdowns.

Indeed...

As I said earlier in this thread, I'm sad that we haven't left yet...

...but the twists and turns of the Remainers over the past three years - trying to convince everybody that black is white if it suits their argument - are hilarious to watch!

Is it ever!

Take a look a Twitter. They have their own little echo chamber.

When Scott Morrison won the election they kept saying they wanted to move to New Zealand so I offered them a Go Find Me to help out with the costs!

[erolz66]

The order is irrelevant...

The order is irrelevant if the objective is to try and find a way of presenting a view as being one based on 'reason' when in fact it is one based on 'faith' but you do not want to admit that. The order is not irrelevant if you have any genuine and serious interests in 'democratic deficiencies' across any system of governance.

Anyone with any serious and genuine concern about 'democratic deficiency' in system of governance would accept that when Gordon Brown (or anyone else) became PM mid term , this represented a democratic deficiency in the UK systems of governance. Anyone with such a serious and genuine concern for such things would understand that whilst this deficiency was bad when Gordon Brown was PM, it is worse when that deficiency is in a period when a decision that will effect people for generations to come and that is to a large degree irreversible for generations is made by a government that is itself already a minority government.

The more you claim that 'democratic deficiency' within the EU is a 'reason' why you support leaving the EU, whilst making convoluted and unconvincing arguments that no such deficiencies exit in the UK's national governance, when so clearly they do, the more you convince me that what you claim is is a 'reason' is in fact for you nothing of the sort but is just a means by which you can try and pretend your view on leaving the EU is one based on 'reason' when in reality is based on 'faith'.

Sometimes you don't like the rules or the outcome - I get that. But they are the rules...

The rules as to how commissioner are appointed in the EU are that it is done by finding consensual agreement amongst the democratically elected heads of the member states. They are the rules. So what is the problem here ?