UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[Democratic Hawk]

I cried.

I seethed

[Democratic Hawk]

Today was a Great Day for Britain

Doesn't feel like it

[Democratic Hawk]

A Corbyn government would have ultimately done a lot of economic damage to the UK; do you think that those with the wealth would have accepted the result?

The sooner Labour moves on from the Corbyn aberration the better.

[Democratic Hawk]

Farage's farewell speech. I hope the EU takes his words to heart. The Union is a disingenuous violation of national sovereignty and it needs to be destroyed.

Oh my God you're also one of these f**king people. Good grief. One minute you're posting well-researched effortposts and the next you're back with the bottom-of-the-barrel dumbass cold takes.

Westphalian sovereignty isn't controversial outside of far-left groups and the boards of multinational corporations. But politics makes strange bedfellows, I suppose.

The principle of Westphalian sovereignty (the very concept of which originated within an international agreement) can & has been tempered by international agreements, which in & of themselves help to comprise international law! The fact that the UK was able to voluntarily withdraw from the EU treaties is, in & of itself, proof that your argument over 'sovereignty' is, was, & always will be complete & utter nonsense.

Oh please, the EU is not just another international institution. Does NAFTA have a president? Can its courts override the US constitution? Where is the army of ASEAN?

The EU stopped being a representative institution when it rammed the Lisbon treaty through. Macron and Merkel are discussing an EU army. I'm glad the UK got out while it still could. The rest of the member nations need to start feeling the slow boil of the pot they're in, or they'll be forever trapped as vassal states to Germany and France.

We really do need a preemptive ban on Americans posting in the international boards. People who actually know their stuff like Brucejoel can subsequently be let back in, of course.

Does that include banning 51.4% of the British population as well?

Again, this isn't a violation of soveriegnty because sovereign states chose to join this instutituion, and can (foolishly) choose to leave. If a new treaty does away with Article 50 or just fully embraces a United States of europe, that doesn't violate national soverignity because sovereign nations choose to agree to it and legitimately cede their sovereignty to the European Union which itself becomes a sovereign state deriving its legitimacy from the will of the European people. By your logic, the USA has no sovereign democratic legitimacy because it was preceded by quasi-sovereign states governed by the Articles of Confederation.

No. You are wrong. The member nations did not hold votes on the Union as it exists today. They joined a common market that has since grown unchecked into a political union. EU elections see abysmal turnout and many of the major positions in the bureaucracy are unelected. To say that the people in the member nations "chose to join" this Union is frankly asinine and a complete misrepresentation of how the EU has expanded its power since its inception. And if the EU does become a United States of Europe (as it is slowly gravitating towards), I'd bet good money that the legitimate qualms of EU citizens will once again go ignored.

The common market grew with a series of treaties ratified by EU members which expanded the scope of the EU in a clearly defined way. In some cases it was put to referenda or else the governments of each country agreed to it, but regardless, describing the process as unchecked and undemocratic is completely false. Many major positions in every bureaucracy are unelected and low turnout doesn't mean the EU is democratically illegitimate. Legitimate qualms of some citizens everywhere go ignored and that isn't a compelling argument against a federal Europe. I'd turn this question around: under what circumstances do you consider countries integrating and/or unifying to be legitimate? After all, if what the EU doesn't meet your standard, then nothing will, and expecting the unanimous consent of every single person in the EU for integration--which seems to be your standard--goes against democratic norms and the very notion of the clasically liberal social contract which ostensibly is the basis for your ideology.

The EU became unpopular precisely because it tried to govern like it was a nation instead of a trade pact. All the rules and regulations it was implementing over the last 10 years and then expecting nations to follow those even when they violate their own rules and laws showed the utter hubris and failure of the EU.

Also, the EU is not some great institution which promoted free-market economics at all, it is far more socialist than the UK and the UK being out means it can implement far more neo-liberal reforms and make it self like the US than it could have under the EU.

Neo-liberal reforms. Has the 'Crash of 2008' taught us nothing.

[Democratic Hawk]

A Corbyn government would have ultimately done a lot of economic damage to the UK; do you think that those with the wealth would have accepted the result?

The sooner Labour moves on from the Corbyn aberration the better.

In historical terms, I suspect Blairism (or more specifically, the pro-war pro-privatisation late period version that people like you are so strangely fond of) will prove to be the real aberration.

And the "success" of Change UK shows how much appetite exists for it in the UK now.

There wasn't much of an appetite for Corbyn's Labour either. He was toxic. Pretty terrible when County Durham returns more Conservative MPs than Labour. Downright depressing in fact.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well there is a major protest march to free Assange in London

Who the hell cares? I was blocked by an Assangist on Twitter for 'inhumanity'