Meaningful: Meaning

If you feel that your question or comment doesn't fit into the categories above, feel free to post it here.
Post Reply

Meaningful: Meaning

Post by Phil White » Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:42 pm

Can anyone explain to me in what meaningful sense a meaningful vote is meaningful if it is ignored twice?

I look forward to the next instalment of the franchise:

Meaningful Vote and the Polished Turd

The instalments to date:

Meaningful Vote and the Philosopher's Stool
Meaningful Vote and the Chamber Pot
Meaningful Vote and the Prisoner of Brussels
Meaningful Vote and the Goblin of Maidenhead
Meaningful Vote and the Order of the Golden Turd
Meaningful Vote and the Half-Baked Deal
Meaningful Vote and the Deathly Motions
Meaningful Vote and the Cursed Border
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: Meaningful: Meaning

Post by tony h » Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:06 am

Is this seeding a political discussion?
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: tony

I'm puzzled therefore I think.

Re: Meaningful: Meaning

Post by Phil White » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:22 pm

tony h wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:06 am
Is this seeding a political discussion?
If so, it would be more than what is going on in our benighted bloody parliament.

No. It is a sideswipe at process. It is no longer possible to have meaningful discussion and debate about the substantive issues in this country. Whichever side you are on (and I have strong views on the matter), any discussion descends into insult within two exchanges. The only common ground to be found is the exasperation with the pantomime (q.v.) that is parliament.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: Meaningful: Meaning

Post by tony h » Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:32 pm

On this we agree. I would include the media in the pantomime (American or English?) as they have throughout the whole process succeeded, en masse, to be a shouting ground of extremist slogans (from both sides) rather than help present and discuss the details disinterestedly.

I wrote to my brother some time ago when he was going on an Overturn the Referendum march as to why he supported such a stance. The response I got was "take Farage or Boris" as though that was a reasoned argument. So I dashed off a list of comments - not intending it to be comprehensive - and again got no meaningful reply.

I am intrigued by your reasons. I thought I you would make arguments along the lines of (in no particular order):

- I like the fact that Nigel Farage and UKIP represent 20% of the UK votes in the EU parliament.
- I like the fact that Nigel Farage and UKIP represent 50% of the necessary votes of the UK in Qualified Majority Votes.
- I think that MEPs represent me better because they cost £1,800,000 annually whereas UK MPs cost £650,000.
- I like the fact that the EU produces 50% of UK legislation that has “significant economic impact”.
- I like the fact that there is an MEPs for every 1,000,000 British people, whilst UK MPs hold the vote of a 101,000. It is worth the comparison that the barons who started off British democracy in 1215 by confronting King John with the Magna Carta represented 120,000.
- I like the fact the I can write to my MP and demonstrate outside Parliament on so many issues that they have no power over.
- I am happy to go to Strasburg, or should it be Brussels, to demonstrate about issues I believe in.
- I like the fact that on average every household gives more than £400 to the EU than we get back – I really wish Margret Thatcher hadn’t negotiated the rebate as we could be paying £1850 per family.
- I really want my children and grandchildren to be eligible for conscription into a European Army.
- I really like the fact that my MEP has no chance of initiating legislation in Europe. That is not the function of the EU Parliament and there is no equivalent of the “private members bill”.
- I really appreciate being tied into countries with continuous democratic traditions that often extend as much as one life time.
- I really like being part of a principally white, privileged, protectionist, trade block.
- As an example I really like the way European chicken is dumped in Malawi so as to undercut local farmers and destroy a burgeoning poultry production effort. But Malawi is not allowed access to European markets.
- I really appreciate being able to exchange views with many of the key parties including: Platforma Obywatelska, Partido Popular, Les Républicains, Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, Rassemblement national, Parti Socialiste, Partido Socialista Obrero Español, Movimento 5 Stelle, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, Fidesz-Magyar Polgári Szövetség-Kereszténydemokrata Néppárt

I know Forbes has reported that the UK is the best place to do business. And so many of the financial institutions that predicted immediate disaster if you voted for Brexit are again predicting (qualified) immediate disaster. What if they are wrong again? Of course there will be winners and losers and it will take time to adjust but any economic change will do that.

And as for free movement. The Eu put paid to one of the most free “free movement” schemes which was between the countries of the commonwealth. I didn’t hear voices back then saying “oh we can’t do that to all those people of colour from all parts of the world”. No, it was just free movement for the mostly white, mostly privileged community of the area of the world that used to be called Christendom. But actually the business benefit of free movement is not the same as it was in the 1970s. Then, when you needed a visa it was phone up the embassy, receive a form in the post, send it off, chase it up. Now, going to most places, you can get one electronically within the day.

But of course the real advantage of free movement is to ensure local wages don't rise as they can always be undercut by using foreign workers who often send that money abroad.

ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: tony

I'm puzzled therefore I think.

ACCESS_END_OF_TOPIC
Post Reply