The Brexiteers promised they could get rid of the stuff they didn't like and keep the stuff they did. The EU said why the %&$& should we agree to that?

And here we are.

One undying lesson is: don't make policy by referendum.

(12-05-2018 12:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  One undying lesson is: don't make policy by referendum.

For once, 100% in agreement.

But, on the other hand, the referendum truly did put a national question directly into the hands of the voters --- instead of the career politicians and bureaucrats.

I am kind of torn on the question. On one hand it is correct to not make policy by referendum; but it truly is refreshing to see such a fundamental question of a sovereign actually determined by such a direct vote.

(12-05-2018 03:51 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  One undying lesson is: don't make policy by referendum.

For once, 100% in agreement.

That makes us both republicans and not democrats. :)

(12-05-2018 11:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 03:51 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 12:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  One undying lesson is: don't make policy by referendum.

For once, 100% in agreement.

That makes us both republicans and not democrats. :)

LOL. Touché.

Holy crap, this is a mess. I honestly have no idea what's going to happen, though I guess the UK voting to ask for an extension is most likely. Or a no agreement "hard Brexit".

Cameron and May might go down as two of the worst PMs in history.

So, even if the UK asks for an extension, do you really think EU would do it? EU is brandishing its own version of hardball down the back stretch. At this point it almost seems ordained that it will be a Hexit (hard exit...).

The mistake that UK made was agreeing to full EU membership in the first place. It placed them in an extremely awkward position of being torn between three allegiances:

1) The EU
2) The special relationship with the US
3) The Commonwealth

I think they can handle 2 of them. In fact, I think a reasonable foreign relations strategy for the US at this point is a much closer relationship with the UK and the Commonwealth, both trade agreements and defense (defence) cooperation. I think a quick trade deal with the US is almost essential from UK's standpoint. And I think we could benefit from having the Commonwealth pick up some of the sea lanes of commerce (SLOC) protection responsibilities that we took on after Bretton Woods. I think that if UK could approach the EU with the idea that the US and the Commonwealth would provide their SLOC protection in the future, that might give them some negotiation leverage.

I think that the idea of a European trade and tariff area is a good one. When it comes to submitting to an EU government, it's not. Without UK, I'm not sure a full-fledged EU ever happens. That would not be a bad thing.

To George's admonition of don't make policy by referendum, I would add, don't surrender sovereignty voluntarily.

Good point #s. There is a huge difference between an area trade/tariff regime, and submitting your butter industry to the whims of those who populate the bureaucracy in Brussels. The difference being what could be the deciding factor between what could be a truly beneficial mutual undertaking and one that is a millstone mutual undertaking.

I had a thought this morning. What if May is actually trying to cancel Brexit and is outsmarting everyone? Wasn't she a remainer?

Given the universe as it exists (one where the UK is in the EU) I still think cancelling Brexit is the best option. The UK is a lot more integrated with Europe than they like to think.

As far as giving up sovereignty, should the colonies have created the United States? Honest question.

(03-12-2019 07:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I had a thought this morning. What if May is actually trying to cancel Brexit and is outsmarting everyone? Wasn't she a remainer?
Given the universe as it exists (one where the UK is in the EU) I still think cancelling Brexit is the best option. The UK is a lot more integrated with Europe than they like to think.
As far as giving up sovereignty, should the colonies have created the United States? Honest question.

I would think Brexit is very much analogous to the colonies' creation of the US. The EU parliament and bureaucrats are power-driven micromanagers who infringe upon areas that are frankly none of their business.

The problem is that UK jumped into something without thinking through. It looked good back then, now not so much. I don't think there is a good answer.

If I were May, I would be strongly tempted to go to Brussels to address the EP, and say something like, "We're fine with a trade alliance, but we are not okay with your micromanagement what we believe are our internal affairs. So we're not going to put up with it. We're going to nullify the things we don't agree with, and if you want to fine us, we're not going to pay. And if you don't like that, then you can politely go f-k yourselves. We still believe that a trade alliance is to the benefit of all of us, and we are certainly more than willing to work out the details to remain in that sort of relationship. And we very much support the idea of a common defense alliance. But your concept of one European government is not one with which we agree."

(03-12-2019 07:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I had a thought this morning. What if May is actually trying to cancel Brexit and is outsmarting everyone? Wasn't she a remainer?

Given the universe as it exists (one where the UK is in the EU) I still think cancelling Brexit is the best option. The UK is a lot more integrated with Europe than they like to think.

As far as giving up sovereignty, should the colonies have created the United States? Honest question.

The answer to both sides of your question is the degree of 'wish to be sovereign' in play.

Look, if Madrid, Lisbon, Rome, and Paris all want to cede their sovereign authority to another -- then by all means let them. Their choice.

And the UK decided to reclaim that part of its sovereignty that it ceded. Again, their choice.

As for the colonies and the United States, all of the 13 decided on 'limited' abdication of their sovereignty in 1787 when they each ratified the Constitution. Again, their choice.

But the differences between the EU and and United States 'charter' are eons apart. One is a very nuanced protocol that limited the role of a central government to delineated powers. The other is one that is much more far-reaching into the true sovereign powers of the individual states that formed it, notwithstanding the progressive view of the role of the central government that was formed.

And, one has a very specific and explicit methodology of opting out of the arrangement. The other did not, and still does not.

Honestly, I am unconvinced that Brexit will be such a disaster as you seem to think. I think the proof will be in what is there in the relationship in 5 years. To be blunt, the Brits need European interaction; yet the Euros need British interaction in the same manner, regardless of whether Brussels dictates how the fk English farms make and package cheese slices, which, by the way, is part and parcel of why Britain left as an example.

(03-12-2019 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, one has a very specific and explicit methodology of opting out of the arrangement. The other did not, and still does not.

Which one of these is the USA, and how do we get Texas out of the control of California and new York?

(03-12-2019 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, one has a very specific and explicit methodology of opting out of the arrangement. The other did not, and still does not.

Which one of these is the USA, and how do we get Texas out of the control of California and new York?

Texas is being controlled by California and New York?

That's news to me.

(03-12-2019 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, one has a very specific and explicit methodology of opting out of the arrangement. The other did not, and still does not.

Which one of these is the USA, and how do we get Texas out of the control of California and new York?

The Euro charter has a very explicit method to leave -- the Brits exercised it.

The US Constitution does not mention any 'means to leave'. That question of whether the ability to leave was implied was answered by force of arms (but, yet never made into an explicit 'one way door') ~160 years ago.

(03-12-2019 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, one has a very specific and explicit methodology of opting out of the arrangement. The other did not, and still does not.

Which one of these is the USA, and how do we get Texas out of the control of California and new York?

Texas is being controlled by California and New York?

That's news to me.

Those constituencies that continuously advocate for more and more central government, and more and more power to the expanded central government, truly do wish to exercise dominion over the other member sovereigns.

What school of political thought and where do you think HB 1 came from?

But the interesting twist I see, is that on the one hand the constituencies of California and New York wish to empower a far more stronger Federal regime, yet at the same time (for those items they get their panties in wad over) are the current day equivalent of South Carolina c. 1860.

(03-12-2019 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, one has a very specific and explicit methodology of opting out of the arrangement. The other did not, and still does not.

Which one of these is the USA, and how do we get Texas out of the control of California and new York?

Texas is being controlled by California and New York?

That's news to me.

Unfortunately, I can believe it really is news to you.

So what state(s) are Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Harris, Nadler,and a host of other movers and shakers from? What state did hillary represent in the Senate?

(03-12-2019 12:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, one has a very specific and explicit methodology of opting out of the arrangement. The other did not, and still does not.

Which one of these is the USA, and how do we get Texas out of the control of California and new York?

Texas is being controlled by California and New York?

That's news to me.

Unfortunately, I can believe it really is news to you.

So what state(s) are Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Harris, Nadler,and a host of other movers and shakers from? What state did hillary represent in the Senate?

Ah, so you're just pointing out how our system of government works, where representatives from states are elected to federal offices to legislate and run the country.

I guess you also want to stop Texas from controlling the other 49 states?

(03-12-2019 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, one has a very specific and explicit methodology of opting out of the arrangement. The other did not, and still does not.

Which one of these is the USA, and how do we get Texas out of the control of California and new York?

Texas is being controlled by California and New York?

That's news to me.

Unfortunately, I can believe it really is news to you.

So what state(s) are Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Harris, Nadler,and a host of other movers and shakers from? What state did hillary represent in the Senate?

Ah, so you're just pointing out how our system of government works, where representatives from states are elected to federal offices to legislate and run the country.

I guess you also want to stop Texas from controlling the other 49 states?

No, I want Texas to secede (Texit?) and run themselves.