Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[kabbes]

To what extent do you feel that philosophical is a caricature cooked up by those who'd like it to be a true representation of the typical remain voter?

Hmm. You mean philosophical might be a false flag? An interesting point.

 

[teuchter]

never mind.

Apology accepted.

 

[kabbes]

I see fascism as beginning with a definition of what constitutes a 'state' in the first place, and as such is exclusive to others. I see brexit as another version of the powerful wanting to define what a state actually is. If you complain that I have not made enough of a study for your liking then that is up to you, but not having studied something enough to satisfy you does not mean that a point made is not valid.
You seem to say what is 'idiocy' comes from a definition decided by those who promote themselves a superior which is what you are trying to do.
This place seems riddled by rules about what is allowed and what isn't, and when someone is perceived by another person to not be toeing the line they are subject to abuse.
Is that part of the definition of Authoritarianism and control freakery?

What are you talking about?

You don't get to define fascism for yourself. It is a well-defined phrase of political science. It means a combination of radical authoritarianism with nationalism. It has certain features, as defined in the Wikipedia article I linked to that you plainly never even clicked. The fact that you "reckon" it's something other than this is neither here nor there. The voters of Brexit don't even come *close* to fulfilling the tenets of fascism.

 

[Pickman's model]

Apology accepted.

when i make an apology i'll let you know.

 

[kabbes]

So a person posting their view is invalid now unless it passes some kind of kabbes test?
If you want detail about how actual EU democracy is put into practice, then educate yourself as you urge me to.
I am struck by your term 'nation state', something I think is a theme on here. You say that the UK is a nation state as if that is a) true, b) has meaning and c) contains gravitas.
The UK as I see it is a loose alliance of groups of people who have decided to draw a line in the map, and has current political significance (certainly for brexiters) but for me is an accident of geography and birth.

You literally don't understand any of this stuff, do you? It's just words plucked out of the air. The UK is a "loose alliance of groups of people"? So its entire state infrastructure is, what, just a current position of convenience that might be discarded tomorrow if this loose alliance decides it has no more use for it? This is extraordinary.

And yes, a person posting their uninformed reckons is invalid. After all, isn't that your position about the 17 million voters of Brexit? That they are uninformed and hence should be discounted?

I know very well how the political "democracy" of the EU functions, by the way, and clearly much better than you do. The main decision making body of the EU is the European Commission. The members of the Commission are nominated by member state governments. They are not directly elected by anybody and their accountability is extremely limited. Only the president of the Commission can dismiss a Commissioner. It has close links to business leaders and its decision making is opaque. And it has now been established that the Commission can create criminal law, in addition to its previous functions. Yum yum, that's some tasty democracy right there.

 

[philosophical]

What are you talking about?

You don't get to define fascism for yourself. It is a well-defined phrase of political science. It means a combination of radical authoritarianism with nationalism. It has certain features, as defined in the Wikipedia article I linked to that you plainly never even clicked. The fact that you "reckon" it's something other than this is neither here nor there. The voters of Brexit don't even come *close* to fulfilling the tenets of fascism.

What are you talking about yourself?
The definition of something is not because it is set in stone by wikipedia, that may be a helpful reference point, but certain concepts, even political ones, can be fluid, and can certainly have additions. What I might 'reckon' is one stitch in the tapestry.

 

[kabbes]

What are you talking about yourself?
The definition of something is not because it is set in stone by wikipedia, that may be a helpful reference point, but certain concepts, even political ones, can be fluid, and can certainly have additions. What I might 'reckon' is one stitch in the tapestry.

Please do link to some established recent practice of fascism merely being synonymous with nationalism.

You know that you're making yourself look more and more ridiculous here, right? You're now arguing against referenced sources (via Wikipedia, which lists those sources) as to how fascism is defined.

 

[philosophical]

You literally don't understand any of this stuff, do you? It's just words plucked out of the air. The UK is a "loose alliance of groups of people"? So its entire state infrastructure is, what, just a current position of convenience that might be discarded tomorrow if this loose alliance decides it has no more use for it? This is extraordinary.

And yes, a person posting their uninformed reckons is invalid. After all, isn't that your position about the 17 million voters of Brexit? That they are uninformed and hence should be discounted?

I know very well how the political "democracy" of the EU functions, by the way, and clearly much better than you do. The main decision making body of the EU is the European Commission. The members of the Commission are nominated by member state governments. They are not directly elected by anybody and their accountability is extremely limited. And it has now been established that the Commission can create criminal law, in addition to its previous functions. Yum yum, that's some tasty democracy right there.

Where have I said that those voting brexit 'should be discounted'?
The state governments who do the nominations you mention are directly elected. There was one such election last year in the UK.
If it seems remote and unaccountable to you, you can participate and try to change it, or vote brexit of course, which is what happened.
Rejoice in that victory, don't discount it.

 

[Pickman's model]

What are you talking about yourself?
The definition of something is not because it is set in stone by wikipedia, that may be a helpful reference point, but certain concepts, even political ones, can be fluid, and can certainly have additions. What I might 'reckon' is one stitch in the tapestry.

stanley g payne, 'fascism', p.4

you might want to read the anatomy of fascism https://libcom.org/files/Robert O. Paxton-The Anatomy of Fascism -Knopf (2004).pdf

 

[philosophical]

Please do link to some established recent practice of fascism merely being synonymous with nationalism.

You know that you're making yourself look more and more ridiculous here, right? You're now arguing against referenced sources (via Wikipedia, which lists those sources) as to how fascism is defined.

Rubbish. I said a scource like wikipedia may be helpful. How is that arguing against it?
If I look ridiculous here you seem desperate to join me.

 

[kabbes]

Where have I said that those voting brexit 'should be discounted'?
The state governments who do the nominations you mention are directly elected. There was one such election last year in the UK.
If it seems remote and unaccountable to you, you can participate and try to change it, or vote brexit of course, which is what happened.
Rejoice in that victory, don't discount it.

Incredible. So your position -- let me get this right -- is that if I vote for a government and that government then chooses a Commissioner who can never in practice then be deseated, that is somehow more democratic than just voting for a government?

Because you said that the EU is more democratic than the UK. But that is the implication: the people one UK government chose for life are democratically more accountable to me than the the UK government that chose them.

Are you following this at all?

 

[stethoscope]

I'm lost for words at this point. Truly.

 

[kabbes]

Rubbish. I said a scource like wikipedia may be helpful. How is that arguing against it?
If I look ridiculous here you seem desperate to join me.

Still waiting for that contemporary source showing that fascism is now simply synonymous with nationalism. No, your reckons don't count for this.

 

[kabbes]

Am I right is assuming that everybody who voted brexit is an ignorant racist self serving nationalist brainwashed tosser?

No, you are not right in assuming this. You have, however, well and truly demonstrated your own ignorance of all the relevant concepts that matter in this debate. Whether or not you are a tosser is left as an exercise to the reader.

 

[Winot]

No, you are not right in assuming this. You have, however, well and truly demonstrated your own ignorance of all the relevant concepts that matter in this debate. Whether or not you are a tosser is left as an exercise to the reader.

I reckon

 

[philosophical]

Incredible. So your position -- let me get this right -- is that if I vote for a government and that government then chooses a Commissioner who can never in practice then be deseated, that is somehow more democratic than just voting for a government?

Because you said that the EU is more democratic than the UK. But that is the implication: the people one UK government chose for life are democratically more accountable to me than the the UK government that chose them.

Are you following this at all?

Yes I am following this. Are you aware of the relationship between the commissioner and the European parliament and the extent of a commissioners powers? I am aware that there are elections to the European Parliament that we directly participate in.
The problem for me is the type of government the UK elects that leads to their choice of commissioner. If you have a problem with the commissioner, take it up with this apparently democratic government.
I think the EU system is more democratic than the one in the UK for reasons I have posted several times above criticising aspects of the UK version of democracy.

 

[butchersapron]

No, you are not right in assuming this. You have, however, well and truly demonstrated your own ignorance of all the relevant concepts that matter in this debate. Whether or not you are a tosser is left as an exercise to the reader.

He's not reached the stage of being able to use them as concepts. They remain terms - simple words - for him.

 

[butchersapron]

I reckon

Reckon?

 

[philosophical]

No, you are not right in assuming this. You have, however, well and truly demonstrated your own ignorance of all the relevant concepts that matter in this debate. Whether or not you are a tosser is left as an exercise to the reader.

Relevant?
'That matter'?
Control freakery?

 

[kabbes]

He's not reached the stage of being able to use them as concepts. They remain terms - simple words - for him.

More simple words than terms, as far as I can see. He doesn't understand that the words as terms have a rich history of use and common consensus as to what they imply and what those implications in turn are related to. They're just insults to be thrown around, like a monkey with its faeces.

 

[teuchter]

Incredible. So your position -- let me get this right -- is that if I vote for a government and that government then chooses a Commissioner who can never in practice then be deseated, that is somehow more democratic than just voting for a government?

Because you said that the EU is more democratic than the UK. But that is the implication: the people one UK government chose for life are democratically more accountable to me than the the UK government that chose them.

Your underlined bits - commissioners are there for a 5 year term, aren't they?

 

[kabbes]

Relevant?
'That matter'?
Control freakery?

If you are going to use concepts like "fascism" and "democracy" you should have some clue as to what they mean, yes. Not just a guess based on your own misuse of them over the last 65 years.

 

[kabbes]

Your underlined bits - commissioners are there for a 5 year term, aren't they?

This is true in theory. Nothing stops them simply being rolled forward though.

 

[agricola]

I'd like to congratulate the Prime Minister for managing to set a new low in terms of Brexit performances at the Commons today. Given how bad some of her and her Government's utterances have been on the subject these past eighteen months, to actually come up with a display even worse than those takes real gumption.

 

[kabbes]

I'd like to congratulate the Prime Minister for managing to set a new low in terms of Brexit performances at the Commons today. Given how bad some of her and her Government's utterances have been on the subject these past eighteen months, to actually come up with a display even worse than those takes real gumption.

I'd like to think she's an actual participant on this thread and so will read your congratulations. She's probably philosophical -- that would make a lot of sense, actually.

 

[philosophical]

More simple words than terms, as far as I can see. He doesn't understand that the words as terms have a rich history of use and common consensus as to what they imply and what those implications in turn are related to. They're just insults to be thrown around, like a monkey with its faeces.

You are no authority on what i do or don't understand.
You are reduced above to saying I was attacking wikipedia, and that I said those voting brexit should be discounted. Both of your statements were the opposite of true, yet there you are alluding to monkeys.
My only comment on this particular matter is when your IQ reaches 50, I advise you to sell.

 

[teuchter]

This is true in theory. Nothing stops them simply being rolled forward though.

It's up to each one's nominating country whether they are rolled forward or not, isn't it?
Looking at the current lot, 21 out of the 28 were not previously commissioners.
I don't understand what you meant by saying that they in practice can never be deseated. Clearly 2/3rds were "deseated" last time round. The European Parliament has a vote to approve the new bunch of commissioners each time round. The entire commission can also be ousted by a vote of no confidence* in the European Parliament.

*E2A: here's when this happened in 2014.

Motion of censure against the Commission rejected by a large majority | News | European Parliament

UKIP and the French National Front initiated that vote of no confidence. In that instance it was voted down. The MEPs could have dismissed the entire commission at this point, had the will extended far enough beyond UKIP and FN.

 

[kabbes]

You are no authority on what i do or don't understand.
You are reduced above to saying I was attacking wikipedia, and that I said those voting brexit should be discounted. Both of your statements were the opposite of true, yet there you are alluding to monkeys.
My only comment on this particular matter is when your IQ reaches 50, I advise you to sell.

This is quite incredible.

Do you or do you not agree that fascism is defined as radical authoritarian nationalism?

 

[philosophical]

If you are going to use concepts like "fascism" and "democracy" you should have some clue as to what they mean, yes. Not just a guess based on your own misuse of them over the last 65 years.

Rubbish. the use of terms is organic, and a poster above linked to such a discussion regarding fascism.
65 years ago the term 'bitch' wasn't the shocking insult it is today, and 'gay' simply meant happy. Things change and evolve, they are not defined by a moment in time pinned to the internet by wikipedia, or by something like the Victorians trying to set in stone the rules of the use of language.
Your constant snide digs at me based on your self perceived superior knowledge is tiresomely pompous.

 

[kabbes]

It's up to each one's nominating country whether they are rolled forward or not, isn't it?
Looking at the current lot, 21 out of the 28 were not previously commissioners.
I don't understand what you meant by saying that they in practice can never be deseated. Clearly 2/3rds were "deseated" last time round. The European Parliament has a vote to approve the new bunch of commissioners each time round. The entire commission can also be ousted by a vote of no confidence in the European Parliament.

Looking back, I can see the ambiguity in what I wrote compared with what I was trying to convey, and my apologies for that. I'm trying to say firstly that the decision to get rid of a commissioner does not come through common vote. Once in place, they cannot be removed during their term. And secondly, yes, a government can choose not to return them, but the decision making behind that process is way more opaque than a straightforward popular mandate. A commissioner is not a party political animal.

On your final sentence: I would say that the entire commission can be ousted by a vote of no confidence is really neither here nor there, since the constitutional crisis that this would create and the conditions necessary for it to come about would be so extreme that the process is not something that speaks to the everyday democracy of the EU.