Brexit Encore

[Rob C]

There's nothing difficult in accepting the concept, Rob. It would take more time than I have to dig into the relevant legislation, but as far as I can gather,

 - anyone eligible to vote in a UK election was eligible to vote in the referendum;
 - that includes those who have lived abroad for more than 15 years, but only if they had registered to vote in a UK election at some point in the previous 15 years.

So the issue wasn't the length of time you or Mr Shindler had been living abroad; it was the fact that you hadn't registered to vote in the UK for 15 years, which (reasonably or otherwise) was presumably felt to indicate a lack of interest in the UK for that length of time.

He could ask, and it might try; but it would fail.

Jeremy

That is the key factor, and in my case, absolutely unreasonable, as I'd imagine it has to be for anyone depending on a UK pension or with family still living there. How could we not be interested! That has no bearing on whether or not we manage to vote there.

Regarding voting rights here, we are curerently permitted to take part in local elections but not national. I never do vote, because I know that the nuances of local politics are way over my head and that, understanding them apart, I feel no moral right to take a stand. I am here as a permitted, legal guest, and it feels absurd that I should then go on to presume to tell the locals how to run their domestic affairs; this is not colonialism!

Perhaps that partly explains why I and so many others resent the way that migration is panning out in Europoe, with the creeping changes in national identity via spires and minarets where once stood the occasional steeple. But that migration has little to do with the EEC as such, and everything to do with the quest for cheap labour. Germany imported thousands of Turks, Spaniards etc, during the post-war years to work in factories and anywhere they had a national shortfall. Then, instead of having those folks over on precise contracts, they allowed them to settle, spawn and vanish without trace into the diaspora, with the results that we have today. Simply put, the mirror effects of post-slavery times across the Atlantic. The difference with many of the Spaniards was that once they made a buck or two, they fled back to the homeland to live a more serene lifestyle, perhaps start a small business at home. They know where life is the sweeter.

France, Italy and Spain all had territories in northern Africa or beyond, and as with Britain and the old empire, gave many of those peoples the right to settle. That might have been a huge error of judgement, permitting the entrance of the Trojan horse of birthrates. Go figure where the maths leads us. France, especially, knows much about this.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Which aspects would those be, Jeremy? And what in "modern life" has made those aspects inapplicable?

The concept of "...a well regulated militia..." for one.  The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is particularly vague regarding voting rights and the Supreme Court continues to punt on this issue.

[RSL]

The concept of "...a well regulated militia..." for one.  The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is particularly vague regarding voting rights and the Supreme Court continues to punt on this issue.

I agree about the "well regulated militia," Alan. That phrase made sense when it was written, but it's confusing nowadays. Fortunately, the Supremes clarified the meaning of the second amendment. As far as the 14th is concerned, I tend to agree, but the amendment is amendable, so Congress and the states can have at it and change it. That's the bottom line. Our Consitution isn't set in concrete. It's been amended 27 times. It can be amended again.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I agree about the "well regulated militia," Alan. That phrase made sense when it was written, but it's confusing nowadays. Fortunately, the Supremes clarified the meaning of the second amendment. As far as the 14th is concerned, I tend to agree, but the amendment is amendable, so Congress and the states can have at it and change it. That's the bottom line. Our Consitution isn't set in concrete. It's been amended 27 times. It can be amended again.

It can be amended and perhaps will be.  I'm more troubled by the "originalist doctrine" that is being bandied about so much these days.  The vagueness of the what the framers wrote has caused immense difficulty over the years and technology has evolved that puts pressure on the judiciary to make decisions as Congress is too disfunctional these days. 

[RSL]

I’m not about to get into an extended argument in this thread, Alan. It’s about Brexit, not the US Constitution. But I’ll drop out after saying this: The US Constitution was -- IS -- a unique governing document that, for the first time in human history gave power to the people, but gave it to them as: “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Thanks, Ben) Currently the left seems to be busting its butt to make sure we can’t keep it. But their efforts will turn out to be counterproductive – for them and for all of us. As far as Congress being disfunctional is concerned, when, exactly, has it not been?

There was nothing “vague” about the Constitution, much as the left would like to believe that. Unfortunately, as TS Eliot pointed out: “Words strain, Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, Under the tension, slip, slide, perish, Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place, Will not stay still.” So the intent of amendments has been to keep the “originalism,” which you disdain, but to apply it to changes in our condition and in our understanding of the meaning of words. All in all the effort has been been pretty damn effective.

Jeremy: yes, we probably could give up our guns, as Britain has. Then we could kill each other with knives – same thing that’s going on in London at a great rate. The problem is people, not guns or knives.

[Alan Klein]

In thinking about the American constitution, it would not allow America to join a political and economic organization like the EU.  While trade pacts and other treaties can and have been approved by the Senate as required by the Constitution, it prevents turning over regulation of immigration, freedom of speech and other protected rights to a foreign entity.  Any legislation regarding these things have to been handled by the American Congress and President with oversight by our Supreme Court.  The founders of America and its Constitution were very concerned with foreign influence in American government, something the EU structure and government amplifies.  These influences are now coming home to roost in Britain and elsewhere.  Europeans are reacting negatively to their loss of their nations' political power. 

[john beardsworth]

Jeremy: yes, we probably could give up our guns, as Britain has. Then we could kill each other with knives – same thing that’s going on in London at a great rate. The problem is people, not guns or knives.

It's not at a "great rate", just worryingly-more than before. You already have knife deaths in the US - too.

[RSL]

It's not at a "great rate", just worryingly-more than before. You already have knife deaths in the US - too.

https://qz.com/1567231/the-statistics-behind-the-uks-knife-crime-emergency/ (among numerous other sources)

[john beardsworth]

One or two a week in a 10m city. Higher than before, but small by comparison with the US murder rate.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The US Constitution was -- IS -- a unique governing document that, for the first time in human history gave power to the people...

The U.S. Constitution, and its Bill of Rights, is the most beatiful document in the history of the mankind.

[RSL]

One or two a week in a 10m city. Higher than before, but small by comparison with the US murder rate.

Only two a week? Well, that's a relief! As far as the murder rate in the U.S.is concerned, it's only high in cities run by the left. Baltimore and Chicago come to mind.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Shall we go back to the regular reporting, i.e., to the country without a (codified) Constitution and it’s mess? 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If most measure are adopted by a majority vote, those who voted against, but still forced to accept the outcome, ARE turning their rights to a foreign entity.

[Alan Klein]

Total bollocks. Nobody is turning over rights to a foreign entity. The sovereign countries decided to join forces to improve standards that a single country could not do, quite similar to the US states letting the nation take care of things like food and drug safety, defense, the legal system, infrastructure spanning more than a single state, Trade agreements, Human rights issues, etc. ...

To an outsider, the structure of the European Union may be hard to fathom but it's full of checks and balances, and consists of 7 institutions:

• the European Parliament,
• the European Council,
• the Council of the European Union,
• the European Commission,
• the Court of Justice of the European Union,
• the European Central Bank and
• the Court of Auditors.

The European Parliament
The European Parliament (EP) shares the legislative and budgetary authority of the Union with the Council of the European Union (not to be confused with the European Council). Its 751 members are elected every five years by universal suffrage. They represent nearly 500 million citizens (the world's second largest democratic electorate) and form the only directly elected body in the Union.

The European Council
Defines the general political direction and priorities of the European Union
Members: Heads of state or government of EU countries, European Council President, European Commission President

The Council of the European Union
The Council of the European Union (informally known as the "Council of Ministers" or just "the Council") is a body holding legislative and some limited executive powers and is thus the main decision making body of the Union. The Council is composed of twenty-eight national ministers (one per state).

The European Commission
The European Commission (EC) is the executive arm of the Union. It is a body composed of one appointee from each state, currently twenty-eight, but is designed to be independent of national interests. The body is responsible for drafting all law of the European Union and has the ability to propose new laws (bills).

Court of Justice of the European Union
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the EU's judicial branch. It is responsible for interpreting EU law and treaties. It consists of one judge from each EU member country, as well as 11 advocates general.

The European Central Bank
The European Central Bank (ECB) is the central bank for the eurozone (the states which have adopted the euro) and thus controls monetary policy in that area with an agenda to maintain price stability. It is at the centre of the European System of Central Banks which comprises all EU national banks.

The Court of Auditors
The European Court of Auditors (ECA), despite its name, has no judicial powers. It ensures that taxpayer funds from the budget of the European Union have been correctly spent. It is composed of one member from each state appointed by the Council every six years.

So, all EU institutions are composed of members of all states. Nobody is turning over rights to a foreign entity. Only delusional people or trolls will continue to suggest that.

Cheers,
Bart

What you describe is a parallel government to the American government. It's totally unconstitutional in America. Our Supreme Court would not allow such an arrangement. Congress has to decide on things like immigration. Our Constitution does not allow these decisions to made by a foreign entity.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I certainly recognize that nothing just comes out of thin air, Bart, and am grateful to all predecessors, starting from ancient Greeks.

[Rob C]

I certainly recognize that nothing just comes out of thin air, Bart, and am grateful to all predecessors, starting from ancient Greeks.

Bloody modernist!

:-)

[LesPalenik]

According to BBC, the Trump administration wants the UK to follow the 2016 referendum result and leave the European Union. Mr Bolton said the first step towards a closer relationship was for the next prime minister to finish the Brexit process and negotiate a new trade deal with the US

Speaking to the UK's Daily Telegraph, Mr Bolton said Brexit was an opportunity for the UK to become a "strong and independent country".

[Robert Roaldi]

According to BBC, the Trump administration wants the UK to follow the 2016 referendum result and leave the European Union. Mr Bolton said the first step towards a closer relationship was for the next prime minister to finish the Brexit process and negotiate a new trade deal with the US

I don't follow. Don't the USA and UK already have a close relationship?

[LesPalenik]

Yes, they were already in a close relationship, but now Trump wants to get even closer. Meeting Queen on Monday..

The president has repeatedly interfered in the U.K.’s domestic politics, undercut its national security, and bullied its prime minister.
President Donald Trump’s barbs at Germany and the European Union get the headlines, but no ally has been more tormented by him than the United Kingdom, to which he will make a state visit next week.
...
The United States needs the U.K. It will have to do more than keep the bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office. To preserve the alliance, it needs a very different approach. It should work with the U.K. on a trade deal that is compatible with the closest-possible relationship with the EU 27 and preserves the Good Friday Agreement with Northern Ireland. It should devise trilateral structures to preserve security cooperation across the Atlantic. It should open a strategic dialogue with the U.K. on China and listen to Britain on Iran and climate change. None of this will happen in the foreseeable future. Instead, the situation is likely to go from bad to worse next week.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/trump-undermines-uk-and-bullies-theresa-may/590758/

[jeremyrh]

According to BBC, the Trump administration wants the UK to follow the 2016 referendum result and leave the European Union. Mr Bolton said the first step towards a closer relationship was for the next prime minister to finish the Brexit process and negotiate a new trade deal with the US

Of course he does, in order to inflict a trade deal on an enfeebled UK involving taking over the NHS and obliging us to consume US food items currently banned. See Mexico as an example of the general procedure.