Originally posted by FMFAs members of the E.U the UK had an enhanced position at the global debating table, now lost. In what sense does losing that enhanced position translate in any shape or form into enhanced control, it appears to me to be quite the opposite and has ceded control.
If devolved political power to a smaller constituency, so to speak, where people might then hope to exert more democratic control over those they elect to govern them with regard to matters that affect their everyday lives, is not a "tangible benefit", then you perhaps need to define what you think the term "tangible benefit" might refer to or include, and what doesn't qualify as a "tangible benefit" to your way of thinking.
Leaving the E.U. has benefited the UK because. . . . .
Originally posted by moonbusSure thats a downside, I just that that the Brexiters would have something, anything to proffer for their stance.
Yes. If the UK economy were to fail, the EU would be treaty-bound to bail you out, as the EU has done for Greece. If the UK leaves, there is no more safety net.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, devolved power is a "tangible benefit" regardless of whether you dislike it or whether you prefer some different political arrangement. You asked for examples of "tangible benefits" and claimed you hadn't heard of any being cited. Now you have. For supporters of devolved power, it is a "tangible benefit", clearly. You disagreeing with them does not render it not "tangible".
As members of the E.U the UK had an enhanced position at the global debating table, now lost. In what sense does losing that enhanced position translate in any shape or form into enhanced control, it appears to me to be quite the opposite and has ceded control.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe aim of leaving was surely, in part, for there to be enhanced control of one's national politics and not "an enhanced position at the global debating table". So if the aim was enhanced control of one's national politics, then that outcome has surely been set in motion by the decision to leave the E.U. This is "tangible" is it not?
As members of the E.U the UK had an enhanced position at the global debating table, now lost. In what sense does losing that enhanced position translate in any shape or form into enhanced control, it appears to me to be quite the opposite and has ceded control.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFSimply calling it a tangible benefit does not make it so any more than sending a vulnerable child from the care of social services back to its natural parents enhances their ability to look after the childs welfare. Infact its only a tangible benefit because you say it is. What a nonsense argument. You have stilled failed to cite a single tangible benefit of the UK leaving the UK despite your pretensions.
Well, devolved power is a "tangible benefit" regardless of whether you dislike it or whether you prefer some different political arrangement. You asked for examples of "tangible benefits" and claimed you hadn't heard of any being cited. Now you have. For supporters of devolved power, it is a "tangible benefit", clearly. You disagreeing with them does not render it not "tangible".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou seem to be simply declaring devolution of political power to be not a "tangible benefit". I think you need to define what you think the term "tangible benefit" means to your way of thinking. Is it about money?
Simply calling it a tangible benefit does not make it so any more than sending a vulnerable child from the care of social services back to its natural parents enhances their ability to look after the childs welfare. Infact its only a tangible benefit because you say it is. What a nonsense argument.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIs handing back a vulnerable child to its natural parents and giving them enhanced power over the childs welfare always a good idea? I can cite examples where its not if you like. No then your argument that devolving power is always a good is a fail. Please note the scenario was only used for illustrative purposes.
The aim of leaving was surely, in part, for there to be enhanced control of one's national politics and not "an enhanced position at the global debating table". So if the aim was enhanced control of one's national politics, then that outcome has surely been set in motion by the decision to leave the E.U. This is "tangible" is it not?
Leaving the E.U. has been good for the U.K because . . . .
Originally posted by FMFsorry I am uninterested in your semantics.
You seem to be simply declaring devolution of political power to be not a "tangible benefit". I think you need to define what you think the term "tangible benefit" means to your way of thinking. Is it about money?
Originally posted by FMFall you have stated is its true because i say its true, i don't believe that devolving power is a tangible benefit and nothing you have stated has convinced me otherwise because you have provided no reasons, just you and your opinion, sorry but its not good enough, have you no reasons?
But I have. I have cited the devolution of the full range of political powers back to the national parliament of the UK.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you believe the British people can be analogized as 'vulnerable children', and the UK government as abusive parents, and the E.U. as social services in whose care the vulnerable children were seen by you to be clearly safer, then if you were to argue there was tangible benefit in control of the children/UK being passed to the care of social services/E.U., then that would be a claim of "tangible benefit" you were making, I suppose.
Simply calling it a tangible benefit does not make it so any more than sending a vulnerable child from the care of social services back to its natural parents enhances their ability to look after the childs welfare.
Originally posted by FMFThis has been refuted, devolving a full range of powers does not necessitate that it will translate to any kind of tangible benefit and furthermore it can be argued that the EU would have spent money on initiatives that the UK government would not have or been reluctant to. For example the EU money that was spent to keep Gaelic alive. So my dear old thing your argument that full devolution leads to tangible benefits is a nonsense argument for the converse can also be demonstrated to be true in that the EU with its power could enhance the UK where the UK government itself has been reluctant.
But I have. I have cited the devolution of the full range of political powers back to the national parliament of the UK.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe devolving of power restores actual control over aspects of the decision-making and policy setting process and outcomes. This is very real. It's also huge. For those supporting this devolution, these consequences are, of course, benefits.
all you have stated is its true because i say its true, i don't believe that devolving power is a tangible benefit and nothing you have stated has convinced me otherwise because you have provided no reasons, just you and your opinion, sorry but its not good enough, have you no reasons?
Originally posted by FMFpleas see the above post, the analogy was to demonstrate that devolved power is not always beneficial as you seemed to be claiming, it was not an analogy of the British people as you have attempted to insinuate. Oh dear.
If you believe the British people can be analogized as 'vulnerable children', and the UK government as abusive parents, and the E.U. as social services in whose care the vulnerable children were seen by you to be clearly safer, then if you were to argue there was tangible benefit in control of the children/UK being passed to the care of social services/E.U., then that would be a claim of "tangible benefit" you were making, I suppose.