UK forum members, BREXIT?

[zapta]

The New Testament doesn't really do prescribed Earthly punishment or conquering by the sword, you shun people and the rest is up to government.

Judaism is one of those religions that do not evangelize. If you want to stay Christian it's just fine. This cuts the incentive for spreading the religion by sword. Compare for example with Islam and past Christianity.

[Marco]

Judaism is one of those religions that do not evangelize.

Rambam supported expansion and imposing Noahide laws by force, as I said ... bit of an asshole.

PS. none of this is relevant without a proper king, temple and Sanhedrin. The seeds for a much less friendly Judaism are definitely there though, if they ever rebuild the temple.

"7. All of the above pertains only when Israel is exiled among the nations or when the gentiles hold sway. But when Israel holds sway over the nations of the world, we are forbidden to tolerate a gentile who worships an alien deity in our midst"

[zapta]

"7. All of the above pertains only when Israel is exiled among the nations or when the gentiles hold sway. But when Israel holds sway over the nations of the world, we are forbidden to tolerate a gentile who worships an alien deity in our midst"

Tell it to Israel. They have a Christian on their supreme court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Joubran

As for reforming the Muslims, one attempt for the establishment of the Bahá'í  faith in the 19th. This is a very tolerant and progressive religion with ~5M followers world wide. Naturally they are prosecuted in Muslim countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%ADs

[Zero999]

The liberal family reunion rules wouldn't be a problem if the refugees were distributed evenly among the member countries. Then all countries could have whatever rules they wanted.

That's hardly fair either. Things such as: land area, existing population density, existing levels of immigration, availability of housing need to be taken into account, before deciding how many refugees a country should take.

I am pretty sure that's actually what Apis meant.

I hope so. It just seems to be implied here that all countries need to have the refugees spread evenly. I agree that the UK could and should take more but there's not much space, compared to France. I think Russia should also take a lot of refugees as they've played their part in messing up the Middle East and it's the largest country in the world, by area so they're hardly short of space.

[apis]

We are not even homogeneous even within an individual state.  California is a perfect example where the population centers have one set of beliefs and the agricultural areas have another.  It is a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority where the entire Central Valley is unrepresented in decision making. Ever wonder why there is a North Carolina and South Carolina?  How about North Dakota and South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia?

One of the bigger issues is that the US Senate is very undemocratic, with every state getting two representatives. 
Wyoming, population 600,000 - 2 senators
California, population 39,000,000 - 2 senators

This allows the much more conservative small states to hold on to the Senate when that is in no way representative of the people.

 This was/is a feature of the U.S. Constitution. The Senate as you stated were to represent a specific State with equal representation with other States. The House of Representatives was tasked with representing the interests of the people based on population density subject to adjustment by the decade U.S. census. Originally each State legislature selected their two senators rather then by the people of the State in general elections as now practiced.

 I think that was a pretty cleaver design.  Recall that neither the House or the Senate can pass laws by themselves and only then if the President allows the law to be implemented by not using his/her veto power.

 Checks and balances as they say. Even the general public's 'power' needs to be subject to a balance of power as tyranny can come from any quarter.

They forgot to add checks and balances to the presidents power with regard to foreign policy though.

[apis]

The liberal family reunion rules wouldn't be a problem if the refugees were distributed evenly among the member countries. Then all countries could have whatever rules they wanted.

That's hardly fair either. Things such as: land area, existing population density, existing levels of immigration, availability of housing need to be taken into account, before deciding how many refugees a country should take.

I am pretty sure that's actually what Apis meant.

I hope so. It just seems to be implied here that all countries need to have the refugees spread evenly. I agree that the UK could and should take more but there's not much space, compared to France. I think Russia should also take a lot of refugees as they've played their part in messing up the Middle East and it's the largest country in the world, by area so they're hardly short of space.

Tepe is right, that's what I meant.
There are many countries that could do more, but that would require a stronger UN probably. If the UK and US had listened to the UN and not invaded Iraq we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with. It sort of also gave Putin an excuse to ignore the UN when Russia did whatever it was they did in the Ukraine.

[apis]

I think the opportunity for reform from within Islam itself has passed.

Naah it is a question of time and exposure to different ways of living.
Look at Indonesia, the laws became more stringent each year and there came an anti movement, illegal bars (beer and other alcohol was forbidden), clothing for women etc.
Now the government is changing its laws because a lot of people think they went too far.
Also in SA you see young twentiers partying and dancing on music etc. etc. The whole system is based on fear, if you do something wrong you will be horribly punished, but a lot of people do not want to live anymore accoding to these stringent rules, so they will leave.

I think so too. As people grow up in Europe they will see a different way of life and that it doesn't cause the end of the world, the majority of those who still want religion will want reform. In Europe they can do it relatively safely because of freedom of religion here.

It was the same in the middle ages here, if you were an atheist you would have been tortured to death. Christian mobs burned down the library of Alexandria, burned mathematical books and other heathen devilish nonsense. They also liked to burn people, witches and scientist like poor Galileo. And the church didn't admit the Galileo sentence was a mistake until 1992.

[apis]

I hope so. It just seems to be implied here that all countries need to have the refugees spread evenly. I agree that the UK could and should take more but there's not much space, compared to France. I think Russia should also take a lot of refugees as they've played their part in messing up the Middle East and it's the largest country in the world, by area so they're hardly short of space.

The majority aren't refugees they are economic imigrants.

No, only refugees with a valid reason for asylum are allowed to stay, everyone else are deported. No country in the world consider poverty a valid reason for asylum. They have valid reasons of asylum because of the Iraq war and the civil wars that followed.

[rstofer]

If the UK and US had listened to the UN and not invaded Iraq we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.

So you were OK with the staus quo in the middle east? You seem to be a humanitarian so I can't understand how you could be so concerned with the current migrants but were quite happy to have the kurds and shia live in repression and be subject to regular slaughter. You do recall that saddam was gassing the kurds and after the allied withdrawl he was doing whole sale slaughter to them and became even more oppresive to any potential adversaries who might exploit his vunerabilty after the war. Assuming no second intervention what time frame would you give before a full scale civil war kurd and shia vs sunni?

What people (left wing) seem to forget is that a lot of media were wanting intervention to protect the kurds and other religous minorities within Iraq it wasn't just the hawks wanting a second intervention. The left wanted protection for the kurds as well as other persecuted minorities as well. How would you propose to do this without firing a shot GANDHI?

Oh lets not forget the neverending Arab and Israeli conflict that flares up on a regular basis. Whats your plan there move everyone Arab and Jew to Sweden? Have fun.

You're tainting the "It's all Bush's fault!" rhetoric with facts.  You shouldn't do that!

Saddam did everything he could to convince his enemies that he had WMDs.  He had to do that to keep Iran at bay (among others).  That is was all a bluff didn't come up until AFTER we invaded.  Now, a TRILLION dollars later, we're still trying to get out.

[nctnico]

Saddam did everything he could to convince his enemies that he had WMDs.  He had to do that to keep Iran at bay (among others).  That is was all a bluff didn't come up until AFTER we invaded.

That isn't true. Even back then there was enough information to conclude the WMDs wheren't there. Start here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/chilcot-report-2003-iraq-war-was-unnecessary-and-invasion-was-no/

[apis]

Saddam did everything he could to convince his enemies that he had WMDs.  He had to do that to keep Iran at bay (among others).  That is was all a bluff didn't come up until AFTER we invaded.

That isn't true. Even back then there was enough information to conclude the WMDs wheren't there. Start here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/chilcot-report-2003-iraq-war-was-unnecessary-and-invasion-was-no/

Indeed. The UN weapons inspectors did not find evidence of WMDs and said as much before the war. As far as I know neither the CIA and MI5, nor any one else, believed Saddam posed a threat. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tony-blair-misrepresented-intelligence-on-weapons-of-mass-destruction-to-gain-approval-for-iraq-war-a6713401.html

[apis]

Apis and  nctino Let’s assume you are right, all the wrong in the ME is due to foreign intervention. Can you state anytime there was actually real peace and stability there? I know I can’t. I’m not including a dictator as stability because really, stability is only for those in the dictator’s favour for anyone else it’s anything but stability.

There have been wars everywhere throughout history. Two world wars started in Europe!

So you were OK with the staus quo in the middle east? You seem to be a humanitarian so I can't understand how you could be so concerned with the current migrants but were quite happy to have the kurds and shia live in repression and be subject to regular slaughter. You do recall that saddam was gassing the kurds and after the allied withdrawl he was doing whole sale slaughter to them and became even more oppresive to any potential adversaries who might exploit his vunerabilty after the war. Assuming no second intervention what time frame would you give before a full scale civil war kurd and shia vs sunni?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/revealed-how-the-west-set-saddam-on-the-bloody-road-to-power-1258618.html

If Saddam has done a tenth of what he has been accused of I don't feel sorry for him. But what about the other, over 100 000 people, who were killed in the war? How many injured? How many killed in the civil wars in the neighboring regions? How many lost a loved one? How many murdered by ISIS. There are now literally millions of refugees in camps around the world fleeing from that region whose lives are ruined.

Here's a thought experiment: Bush was a bad man, would you have advocated invading the USA in order to force a regime change? I wouldn't because that would certainly have caused much more suffering and horror than what Bush managed to cause on his own. Even if it would have been certain it would have prevented the Iraq war and all the suffering it caused.

Did the Iraq war make the world a safer place? No. Now everyone are being targeted by ISIS terrorists who make Al Qaeda seem like kittens. (And Bush and Blair were told this would happen by their own security advisers.) You just can't fight fire with fire.

[rstofer]

Here's a thought experiment: Bush was a bad man, would you have advocated invading the USA in order to force a regime change? I wouldn't because that would certainly have caused much more suffering and horror than what Bush managed to cause on his own. Even if it would have been certain it would have prevented the Iraq war and all the suffering it caused.

Good thing it's a 'thought experiment'!  There are 100 MILLION gun owners in the US and 300 MILLION firearms.  Not counting military or law enforcement, of course.  During WWII, one of the Japanese generals stated that they couldn't invade the US because there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass.

I remember watching Colin Powell (an honorable man) testify before the UN about the Iraq WMDs.  We had TVs in the cafeteria and the speech occurred during the lunch hour.  I was convinced!  A lot of people were convinced!  Colin Powell is an honorable man.  He was lied to...  You will notice that he didn't re-enlist for the second presidency.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/6/decade_after_iraq_wmd_speech_at

Note especially where a lot of the intel came from:

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON: The information came from, in our intelligence system at the time, the 16 entities that compose our intelligence services, and spoken for by the then-master of that intelligence community, George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, and vouchsafed multiple times by his deputy, the DDCI, John McLaughlin. But it came from a much wider array, Amy. It came from Israel. It came from France. It came from Jordan. It came from Germany. Indeed, it came from almost every intelligence service that, at one time or another, had fed into the U.S. process with regard to Iraq. And frankly, we were all wrong. Was the intelligence politicized in addition to being wrong at its roots? Absolutely. And the leader of that politicization was the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney.

More than anyone, I blame Cheney.

But it's worth noting that several countries that complain about the outcome were right there leading the charge (well, with no real commitment).

[steverino]

If the UK and US had listened to the UN and not invaded Iraq we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.

So you were OK with the staus quo in the middle east? You seem to be a humanitarian so I can't understand how you could be so concerned with the current migrants but were quite happy to have the kurds and shia live in repression and be subject to regular slaughter. You do recall that saddam was gassing the kurds and after the allied withdrawl he was doing whole sale slaughter to them and became even more oppresive to any potential adversaries who might exploit his vunerabilty after the war. Assuming no second intervention what time frame would you give before a full scale civil war kurd and shia vs sunni?

What people (left wing) seem to forget is that a lot of media were wanting intervention to protect the kurds and other religous minorities within Iraq it wasn't just the hawks wanting a second intervention. The left wanted protection for the kurds as well as other persecuted minorities as well. How would you propose to do this without firing a shot GANDHI?

Oh lets not forget the neverending Arab and Israeli conflict that flares up on a regular basis. Whats your plan there move everyone Arab and Jew to Sweden? Have fun.

You're tainting the "It's all Bush's fault!" rhetoric with facts.  You shouldn't do that!

Saddam did everything he could to convince his enemies that he had WMDs.  He had to do that to keep Iran at bay (among others).  That is was all a bluff didn't come up until AFTER we invaded.  Now, a TRILLION dollars later, we're still trying to get out.

You really believe WMD's had anything to do with the Iraq invasion?  That was just a pretext for US meddling in the middle east that predated 9/11 and WMD concerns.  Look up "Project for the New American Century" document in wikipedia.

[Tepe]

Good thing it's a 'thought experiment'!  There are 100 MILLION gun owners in the US and 300 MILLION firearms.

The majority of whom wouldn't last long against any real army.

Not counting military or law enforcement, of course.

Now, that's a completely different story 

[grumpydoc]

Good thing it's a 'thought experiment'!  There are 100 MILLION gun owners in the US and 300 MILLION firearms.

The majority of whom wouldn't last long against any real army.

In a stand up fight you are probably right but it would end up being a guerilla/resistance affair and conventional armies do not do so well against those.

We have drifted off topic - the argument now is hard Brexit vs soft Brexit amd how likely we are to be able to negotiate concessions on the movement of labour and whether Theresa May will "make it" as Brexit PM.

I don't think a General Election at the moment would be useful - especially not with the Labour party in turmoil. It has been said that TM is "unelected" but, in fact, we don't directly elect a PM in this country and she has been "elected" by the conservative MPs.

Perhaps if we can start to negotiate the overall shape of our withdrawal without triggering Article 50, then put it to a GE in 2020 with a reformed Labour party standing for "we'll ignore it all and stay in" and the Tories standing behind "out, on these terms" we would truly be able to say that there was a popular mandate for the future. I also believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden, of course

[Kalvin]

Perhaps if we can start to negotiate the overall shape of our withdrawal without triggering Article 50, then put it to a GE in 2020 with a reformed Labour party standing for "we'll ignore it all and stay in" and the Tories standing behind "out, on these terms" we would truly be able to say that there was a popular mandate for the future. I also believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden, of course

EU has been very specific that UK has to first trigger Article 50, and only after that any negotiations may take place.

[Brumby]

EU has been very specific that UK has to first trigger Article 50, and only after that any negotiations may take place.

That would seem to be a simple matter of logic.

Until Article 50 is triggered, all the noise about the UK leaving is just that - noise.  Any turmoil, question, doubt, intentions or plans that may circulate within the UK is irrelevant. As far as the EU is concerned, contractually, there is nothing actually being undertaken until Article 50 is in play.

[Tepe]

Perhaps if we can start to negotiate the overall shape of our withdrawal without triggering Article 50, then put it to a GE in 2020 with a reformed Labour party standing for "we'll ignore it all and stay in" and the Tories standing behind "out, on these terms" we would truly be able to say that there was a popular mandate for the future. I also believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden, of course

I don't really see why the other EU countries would want to enter into any form of negotiation before Article 50 has been invoked. It would make it too easy for the UK to hold the rest hostage for a very long time by dangling a we-may-elect-to-stay-if-only carrot.

While I do think it is a shame that the referendum ended as it did, I do think that May must trigger Article 50 and do it soon. Simply for the sake of the British democracy. The people has spoken and it should be taken seriously.

[tggzzz]

While I do think it is a shame that the referendum ended as it did, I do think that May must trigger Article 50 and do it soon. Simply for the sake of the British democracy. The people have spoken and it should be taken seriously.

Our democracy is in deep trouble whether or not article 50 is triggered. The Tory party is deeply split between brexit-max and brexit-lite factions. The Labour party is AWOL and deeply split between MPs and hard-left constituents, and is having a leadership election; until last night it was unclear whether the leader would even be allowed to stand for being leader again!

Many brexit votes were (understandably) cast out of desperation and lack of hope. When they realise they will be even worse off, I fear their reaction. Welcome to the 1930s Weimar Republic.

As for "taking people seriously", what should happen when they realise their mistake and want to change it?

[Tandy]

You are correct the EU has stated that negotiations can not start until article 50 has been initiated.

I do think that very soon the UK government should make a statement that their intention is to secure a deal that allows all EU citizens living in the UK to stay (except those convicted of a crime during their stay) on the understanding that the EU provides the same for UK citizens already living in the EU. That would give reassurance to people who are living in a different country and to businesses that employ them. It would also cause great damage to the EU's credibility if they refuse to agree to that as it would show that they are not representing the interests of the people of the EU.

our government should make it a simple like for like offer not try and ties any other things to it. All other aspects such as trade and free movement should be negotiated separately from the issue of the security of people who have settled in another country.

Essentially Brexit is what it is and the politicians need to stop their political posturing about who lied about what and get on with finding the best path forward to ensure that fallout is minimised and that a sensible ongoing relationship is negotiated. It is not good speculating what might have been if the vote went the other way or asking will the EU project fail. We have to take things at face value and do something, already scientific research is loosing funding as European alliances don't want UK partners as they fear they won't get funding. So the deal needs to be done quickly so that UK scientists either know that funding will be available for at least the next 2 years or that the UK is going to stop paying into the EU and fund research directly.

[Kalvin]

While I do think it is a shame that the referendum ended as it did, I do think that May must trigger Article 50 and do it soon. Simply for the sake of the British democracy. The people has spoken and it should be taken seriously.

For the sake of democracy, it is not yet totally clear whether the PM can even trigger Article 50 without the Parliament's approval. Although the Brexit was a victory for the British democracy and empty/fake promises, triggering the Article 50 needs to be executed according to the UK laws.

[Tepe]

As for "taking people seriously", what should happen when they realise their mistake and want to change it?

That will depend on how long they take to realize it, won't it?  With a bit of luck something might be possible even after invoking Article 50 while the two year period is still running though it would probably be difficult - after all, the EU negotiators will have you by the balls in that situation.  After it has run out it will probably be very hard to get opt-outs and rebates if you should decide to join again.

But that doesn't answer the question of how the people can tell parliament that it changed its mind... 

[MK14]

But that doesn't answer the question of how the people can tell parliament that it changed its mind... 

If opinion polls and/or common sense observations, showed a major swing, in a particular direction.

E.g. If the EU made major changes and announcements, which significantly changed the landscape. E.g. changes to how "free movement" works, etc etc.

The government should/would be able to spin things, such that a general election (with one side offering a second referendum) and/or second referendum takes place.

52% vs 48% is pretty close, and two years+ is a long time (in some respects).

The second referendum could be something like:

(A)...Deal A, and Leave
(B)...Deal B, and Leave
(C)...Remain and accept compromise deal C

But in practice, the decisions been made, and changing it would be rather difficult.

Also once article 50 has been activated. As far as I know, there is NO mechanism for reversing it. Except rejoining, at some later date. Which could take a VERY long time.

There could also be legal challenges, if there were attempts to change it. Since the vote has already occurred, it is too late.

I suppose one solution, would be for parliament to vote on if to have a second referendum or not. Since I think they need to vote, in order to (legally) activate article 50, anyway. If I remember correctly, September 4th 2016, they are debating having a second referendum, anyway, since it has been requested by lots of people, online.

[grumpydoc]

Perhaps if we can start to negotiate the overall shape of our withdrawal without triggering Article 50, then put it to a GE in 2020 with a reformed Labour party standing for "we'll ignore it all and stay in" and the Tories standing behind "out, on these terms" we would truly be able to say that there was a popular mandate for the future. I also believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden, of course

EU has been very specific that UK has to first trigger Article 50, and only after that any negotiations may take place.

Junker has been specific, others less so.

There has also been debate as to whether Article 50 is the sole route to leaving.