After accidental vote, EU copyright bill faces three legitimacy issues(fosspatents.com)
fosspatents.com
After accidental vote, EU copyright bill faces three legitimacy issues
http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/after-yesterdays-accidental-vote-eu.html
7 comments
I'm not sure if the author is in the "denial" stage or the "bargaining" stage of grief. The outcome of the vote is an absolute travesty, and I don't understand the intricacies of EU politics, but everything I've seen gives me the impression that this is a done deal.
Just curious why you think upholding copyright is a travesty?
Regardless if you think "copyright" increases or decreases quality of life, it is irrefutable that it violates Natural rights. If I memorize an illegal number [1], then I've made an copy that the corporate/state doesn't allow and consequently, I no longer own my body. Enforcement of copyright breaks the NAP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
The EU isn't big on natural rights, though. They talk a good game, but once you get beyond the vaguest platitudes, the people in power at the moment are the ones who get to define what "rights" mean. As usual it comes down to whoever has the most lawyers, guns, and/or money.
The concept is problematic enough here in the US, where our founding documents assume that rights are granted by a deity who rarely bothers to put in an appearance when said rights are being violated. It's best to find more rational bases than "natural rights" for arguments like copyright reform, if at all possible.
The concept is problematic enough here in the US, where our founding documents assume that rights are granted by a deity who rarely bothers to put in an appearance when said rights are being violated. It's best to find more rational bases than "natural rights" for arguments like copyright reform, if at all possible.
Is there any reason to think the EU endorses any "natural rights" idea, other than the ones they say they do? Is there any reason to think that the EU has enshrined or attempted to enshrine the NAP into law? In fact, I can only ever identify the NAP being spoken about by right-libertarians, who are a very, very small minority in European politics as far as I can tell. There are ways to criticise copyright as unjust without relying on the fact that it violates a fairly recent libertarian concept.
I'd also question whether ownership of one's body is something a society should aim for. It seems to lead to various repugnant conclusions, including but not limited to the potential to sell oneself into slavery and to sell one's organs. Even in libertarianism this is a radical point of view. The default in today's society is that you don't own your body - so a criticism of copyright on the presumption that it is inconsistent with the rest of the law has very little force. You would be better off arguing on property rights, but even then you'll run into trouble (e.g many would say that the prohibition against possessing child pornography is justifiable even on J.S. Mill's harm principle).
I'd also question whether ownership of one's body is something a society should aim for. It seems to lead to various repugnant conclusions, including but not limited to the potential to sell oneself into slavery and to sell one's organs. Even in libertarianism this is a radical point of view. The default in today's society is that you don't own your body - so a criticism of copyright on the presumption that it is inconsistent with the rest of the law has very little force. You would be better off arguing on property rights, but even then you'll run into trouble (e.g many would say that the prohibition against possessing child pornography is justifiable even on J.S. Mill's harm principle).
Others have said the incorrect votes were perhaps not so accidental. Magnus Andersson, leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, suggested on Twitter that MEPs may have corrected the record just so they could later say they meant to do the right thing “as a way to get away with how they voted.”
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283837/europe-copyright...
Some votes cast in the plebiscite were incidental rather than being accidental; the upcoming European elections in May, might require some members to contain the backlash or limit any blowback.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283837/europe-copyright...
Some votes cast in the plebiscite were incidental rather than being accidental; the upcoming European elections in May, might require some members to contain the backlash or limit any blowback.
For me this is not just the EU copyright bill that faces legitimacy issues but the whole European Parliament. The vote only served to highlight systemic issues regarding how votes are conducted.
How so? Can you expand on that?
Here's MEP Dobromir Sośnierz showing how the two different kind of votes look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLh9DMuetm4
It seemed incredible to me how one could "accidentally vote wrong", but seeing the process and speed at which it goes, I totally buy it now.
It seemed incredible to me how one could "accidentally vote wrong", but seeing the process and speed at which it goes, I totally buy it now.
Keep in mind that this video comes from a very biased source (an unimportant party that literally went to elections with a claim to want to "destroy the EU from inside"). The issue may be real, but beware of how exactly it's being painted in this material.
If this issue is real (and it seems plausible to me) then destroying the EU from the inside might very well be an honorable thing to do.
It most certainly isn't plausible.
Have you ever seen any livestreams or full recordings of parliamentary sessions? Not necessary from EP. They are voting whether to have 10 minute break. They are voting whether to accept the daily schedule. They are voting whether to follow with the next point in the schedule. They are voting whether to start voting. Those are the ones voted by raising your hands. Those are the ones that nobody expects any protests so the people don't even raise their eyes. Copyright act was voted by names, otherwise Julia Reda wouldn't have the lists
> Copyright act was voted by names
And yet there are ten EU parliament members on the record saying that they voted in favor of the copyright act "by accident":
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283837/europe-copyright...
So there's clearly something wrong with the procedures.
And yet there are ten EU parliament members on the record saying that they voted in favor of the copyright act "by accident":
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283837/europe-copyright...
So there's clearly something wrong with the procedures.
Those ten MPs are basically saying "Sorry guys, I know I'm highly paid for this job, but I'm so incompetent at it that I can't even keep track of the bill numbers when I'm pressing the button. I was just too busy watching bikini girls on my phone. We are cool, right? Vote for me next time".
I mean siriously, put this job in relation to any other job with the same salary (including all benefits) and see if those people should have the capability and skills to read the bill, remember the number, and react correctly when the number is called even if that happens at a fast pace. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be sitting there.
I mean siriously, put this job in relation to any other job with the same salary (including all benefits) and see if those people should have the capability and skills to read the bill, remember the number, and react correctly when the number is called even if that happens at a fast pace. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be sitting there.
Sounds like a great way to have your cake and eat it too.
In Westminster the voting system means you have to leave the chamber and go through into another room. Takes about 15 minutes.
You get MPs that vote both yes and no.
People saying they “made a mistake” only say such a thing because they regret it - they’ve probably never had anyone contact them about which way they voted in the past.
You get MPs that vote both yes and no.
People saying they “made a mistake” only say such a thing because they regret it - they’ve probably never had anyone contact them about which way they voted in the past.
I'm not sure how a different chamber votes is all that relevant.
> You get MPs that vote both yes and no.
Do you? I've not heard of many issues with the process apart from things typically hundreds of years ago.
> People saying they “made a mistake” only say such a thing because they regret it
Or because they actually did make a mistake.
> You get MPs that vote both yes and no.
Do you? I've not heard of many issues with the process apart from things typically hundreds of years ago.
> People saying they “made a mistake” only say such a thing because they regret it
Or because they actually did make a mistake.
>Do you?
Occasionally, yes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21591602
>I've not heard of many issues with the process apart from things typically hundreds of years ago.
We've had some serious issues recently with pairing. MPs cannot vote in absentia for any reason. The informal process of pairing allows an ill or otherwise unavoidably absent MP to be paired with an opposition MP, who will agree not to vote and so cancel out the absent MP. Brexit has led to a number of broken pairing agreements, which could have seriously undermined the legitimacy of a close vote.
https://theconversation.com/pairing-and-why-it-matters-in-th...
A broader issue is simply the slow pace of voting; a division can take at least 15 minutes, so the vast majority of votes are taken orally in the house without a formal count. There are long-standing concerns about the ability of back-bench MPs to vote with their conscience; MPs physically have to walk past their party whips to enter the lobby, which some argue contributes to a culture of bullying and intimidation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/15/rumours-of-...
Occasionally, yes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21591602
>I've not heard of many issues with the process apart from things typically hundreds of years ago.
We've had some serious issues recently with pairing. MPs cannot vote in absentia for any reason. The informal process of pairing allows an ill or otherwise unavoidably absent MP to be paired with an opposition MP, who will agree not to vote and so cancel out the absent MP. Brexit has led to a number of broken pairing agreements, which could have seriously undermined the legitimacy of a close vote.
https://theconversation.com/pairing-and-why-it-matters-in-th...
A broader issue is simply the slow pace of voting; a division can take at least 15 minutes, so the vast majority of votes are taken orally in the house without a formal count. There are long-standing concerns about the ability of back-bench MPs to vote with their conscience; MPs physically have to walk past their party whips to enter the lobby, which some argue contributes to a culture of bullying and intimidation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/15/rumours-of-...
> Do you?
Not since Wednesday
https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/boths.php
> Or because they actually did make a mistake.
700 MEPs managed to vote correctly.
Not since Wednesday
https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/boths.php
> Or because they actually did make a mistake.
700 MEPs managed to vote correctly.
The next video in the series casts serious doubt on that claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2YYiig_s9w
I will summarise the claims in the videos.
• Many votes on amendments (not bathroom breaks) are done via quick visual inspection of the room, not electronic vote. It's possible to challenge the outcome and request an electronic vote instead: the video shows many examples of instances where this led to the vote result being inverted i.e. the visual inspection was wrong. In one case the chairman challenges the request for an electronic recount after an amendment was rejected by saying "Usually amendments from Mr Schaffhauser don't find the majority" followed by "good thing we checked ... amendment 247 has been accepted".
• A convention has evolved whereby the chairman doing the visual inspection doesn't even look at the room, and only looks at the leaders of the main parties. The EP frequently assumes everyone will vote with their party leader so there's no point in even checking their actual votes at all. The video contains a clip of the chairman who counts the votes explaining to this MEP that he can clearly see the party leaders so what's the problem.
• In some cases the chairman doesn't even look up from their papers before announcing the results, i.e. votes aren't counted at all.
• Because amendment votes aren't actually being counted, they happen so fast translators can't reliably keep up with the process, such that sometimes by the time the translators have said what the vote is about voting has already closed.
• This happens because the EU Parliament has no real power and the amendments are largely useless, so nobody takes the process seriously. Many people don't bother to raise their hands at all. There are nonetheless lots of votes and MEPs because it inflates the stats and makes the EU look more democratic. A clip is shown of an MEP saying "bear in mind we're in the middle of the world cup so shall we not call for a check".
• Sessions are videoed but the cameras don't show the whole room so you can't actually check how many people voted.
• There is a widespread attitude that none of this matters.
I'm not very surprised by all this myself, because the biggest problem is not even mentioned in the video: the votes are shoddily done because they can't by themselves change the law. They can only do what the Commission lets them do. It's not a real parliament, it just calls itself that.
Seems there's another video in native English that shows other (British) MEPs getting angry about the same problems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozR_eM_1U8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2YYiig_s9w
I will summarise the claims in the videos.
• Many votes on amendments (not bathroom breaks) are done via quick visual inspection of the room, not electronic vote. It's possible to challenge the outcome and request an electronic vote instead: the video shows many examples of instances where this led to the vote result being inverted i.e. the visual inspection was wrong. In one case the chairman challenges the request for an electronic recount after an amendment was rejected by saying "Usually amendments from Mr Schaffhauser don't find the majority" followed by "good thing we checked ... amendment 247 has been accepted".
• A convention has evolved whereby the chairman doing the visual inspection doesn't even look at the room, and only looks at the leaders of the main parties. The EP frequently assumes everyone will vote with their party leader so there's no point in even checking their actual votes at all. The video contains a clip of the chairman who counts the votes explaining to this MEP that he can clearly see the party leaders so what's the problem.
• In some cases the chairman doesn't even look up from their papers before announcing the results, i.e. votes aren't counted at all.
• Because amendment votes aren't actually being counted, they happen so fast translators can't reliably keep up with the process, such that sometimes by the time the translators have said what the vote is about voting has already closed.
• This happens because the EU Parliament has no real power and the amendments are largely useless, so nobody takes the process seriously. Many people don't bother to raise their hands at all. There are nonetheless lots of votes and MEPs because it inflates the stats and makes the EU look more democratic. A clip is shown of an MEP saying "bear in mind we're in the middle of the world cup so shall we not call for a check".
• Sessions are videoed but the cameras don't show the whole room so you can't actually check how many people voted.
• There is a widespread attitude that none of this matters.
I'm not very surprised by all this myself, because the biggest problem is not even mentioned in the video: the votes are shoddily done because they can't by themselves change the law. They can only do what the Commission lets them do. It's not a real parliament, it just calls itself that.
Seems there's another video in native English that shows other (British) MEPs getting angry about the same problems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozR_eM_1U8
And what makes you believe the next video in the series is not equally misleading? Many claims, but zero evidence. A lot of evidence on the contrary from other sources, such as the reports on the website of European Parliament. Or are you suggesting those are made up?
Why do you say zero evidence? Have you actually watched the videos? He provides video evidence from EP sessions backing up each of his many claims.
Then the second video I cite shows more MEPs from different countries and parties complaining about the same problems.
Also, we have the story actually being discussed in this thread, where numerous MEPs claim they accidentally voted wrong. So that's three sources.
I'm not sure the website of the European Parliament should count as a source when discussing the problematic procedures of the European Parliament. That might tell you what the EP wants you to believe but surely direct observation via video is more compelling? After all, a major claim (supported by video clips) is that the EP routinely counts its own votes wrongly, so official reports on voting must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Then the second video I cite shows more MEPs from different countries and parties complaining about the same problems.
Also, we have the story actually being discussed in this thread, where numerous MEPs claim they accidentally voted wrong. So that's three sources.
I'm not sure the website of the European Parliament should count as a source when discussing the problematic procedures of the European Parliament. That might tell you what the EP wants you to believe but surely direct observation via video is more compelling? After all, a major claim (supported by video clips) is that the EP routinely counts its own votes wrongly, so official reports on voting must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Oh come on. His videos don't really show you the context, only very specific moments that he want's you to see. Only the special cases. How can you count that as relevant evidence, and then dismiss the official EP records as "what if they just want you to believe..."
OK, you're implying at this point misleading editing, false claims and more.
But in this thread we've presented three sources of MEPs saying this is a real problem, that back each other up. The onus is now on you to find rebuttals that undermine that testimony, which again, is convincing because it comes from the people who are actually working in this chamber.
Now I haven't actually dismissed any evidence because you haven't presented any: it's totally unclear what reports you mean, or what they might say that voids the problems shown in the video. Please do cite specific reports that explain how this video evidence is wrong or falsified.
For the avoidance of doubt, NO institution calling itself a Parliament should find itself in the situation where votes are being counted wrong, EVER. This should be obvious but the sole purpose of a Parliament is to vote: votes are their only output. Creating a situation where it's possible to vote wrong by accident, in any way at all, is a gross breach of basic competence and massively undermines their entire institution.
But in this thread we've presented three sources of MEPs saying this is a real problem, that back each other up. The onus is now on you to find rebuttals that undermine that testimony, which again, is convincing because it comes from the people who are actually working in this chamber.
Now I haven't actually dismissed any evidence because you haven't presented any: it's totally unclear what reports you mean, or what they might say that voids the problems shown in the video. Please do cite specific reports that explain how this video evidence is wrong or falsified.
For the avoidance of doubt, NO institution calling itself a Parliament should find itself in the situation where votes are being counted wrong, EVER. This should be obvious but the sole purpose of a Parliament is to vote: votes are their only output. Creating a situation where it's possible to vote wrong by accident, in any way at all, is a gross breach of basic competence and massively undermines their entire institution.
The videos show some members outraged at the speed of voting, yet we never see what they are voting about. If they are voting about the agenda, I don't care. If they are voting about Copyright act, I care a lot. The video is misleading because it's trying to portray it as very important voting, but never shows the subject, so we cannot decide for ourselves and are forced to accept their narrative that this was "some kind of important vote", which is a problem.
The reports I mean are of course these: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheproc... http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&... - if you ever want to find any actual data about any actual vote, you'll find it here. It seems you are not really searching for data, you just let some populists feed you what they want to project and then share it on. That's another problem in your logic.
Did you ever wonder why none of those 10 MPs who claimed to have voted in mistake due to high speed, or that Polish populist MP, published a video of the actual vote for the Copyright Act? If we can find too high speed there, then I'll accept your point. But they never published anything like that, even though they apparently have very easy access to the whole video archive, since it let's them create very specific short videos about their point.
Well the transcripts just before the vote look like this: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...
let me quote the last speaker just before the vote: "Two hundred thousand people went on the streets and five million signed the petition. Let me recall that the title of the Directive is: ‘Copyright in the Digital Single Market’. It’s our duty to fix issues of great concern at European level and not in the national legislation. For this reason, I ask for your support to open the Directive to the amendments and request a vote on these amendments that so many of us have signed." video here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/EN/vod.html?mode=unit&...
Do you think anyone in their right mind can misjudge what the following vote will be about? The chairman even repeats the subject of the vote, uses phrases like "I hope it's clear now", "Have you all voted?" before closing the vote, there was applause after the amendment vote failed, "The vote is now open" for the final vote, which then takes 20 seconds. EVERYBODY had time to translate, the last couple of seconds is complete silence, no need to look around and count hands because it was electronic.
Now.. is this enough rebuttal for you? I don't need to see short video sequences of angry politicians from unknown time, about unknown voting, shared by known populists. What I'm after is real data. It takes much more effort to get them, but it's the only right way forward.
The reports I mean are of course these: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheproc... http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&... - if you ever want to find any actual data about any actual vote, you'll find it here. It seems you are not really searching for data, you just let some populists feed you what they want to project and then share it on. That's another problem in your logic.
Did you ever wonder why none of those 10 MPs who claimed to have voted in mistake due to high speed, or that Polish populist MP, published a video of the actual vote for the Copyright Act? If we can find too high speed there, then I'll accept your point. But they never published anything like that, even though they apparently have very easy access to the whole video archive, since it let's them create very specific short videos about their point.
Well the transcripts just before the vote look like this: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...
let me quote the last speaker just before the vote: "Two hundred thousand people went on the streets and five million signed the petition. Let me recall that the title of the Directive is: ‘Copyright in the Digital Single Market’. It’s our duty to fix issues of great concern at European level and not in the national legislation. For this reason, I ask for your support to open the Directive to the amendments and request a vote on these amendments that so many of us have signed." video here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/EN/vod.html?mode=unit&...
Do you think anyone in their right mind can misjudge what the following vote will be about? The chairman even repeats the subject of the vote, uses phrases like "I hope it's clear now", "Have you all voted?" before closing the vote, there was applause after the amendment vote failed, "The vote is now open" for the final vote, which then takes 20 seconds. EVERYBODY had time to translate, the last couple of seconds is complete silence, no need to look around and count hands because it was electronic.
Now.. is this enough rebuttal for you? I don't need to see short video sequences of angry politicians from unknown time, about unknown voting, shared by known populists. What I'm after is real data. It takes much more effort to get them, but it's the only right way forward.
Thanks, visitors to the EU should get a print copy of your comment.
the lack of context in the video suggests strong populism. I don't believe this is how the copyright act was voted (I'm actually pretty sure that one was voted by names, not by hands, because we have the voting results on the european website)
I managed to find the actual video of how the Copyright Act was voted: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/EN/vod.html?mode=unit&...
I see absolutely no reason to excuse those who failed to vote correctly in this setting.
I see absolutely no reason to excuse those who failed to vote correctly in this setting.
The clips he shows of the chairman looks a lot like "formal" votes. We have them here in Denmark too. It often goes something like this:
> Bill x can be fast-tracked. Does anyone oppose? <half a second break> It has been fast-tracked.
It's done like that because no one is going to oppose.
> Bill x can be fast-tracked. Does anyone oppose? <half a second break> It has been fast-tracked.
It's done like that because no one is going to oppose.
I think the words "accidental vote" in the title say enough.
Brexit vote expressed people disagreement with bureaucracy and corruption like this, not with being a part of Europe.
You may need some references for that idea. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Listening to people that voted for Brexit has shown me that they voted for it for many reasons. This is one of the reasons that people have given me. Furthermore this is a reason that many remainers were not able to push the case for remain strongly enough.
I was looking more for large surveys. I've seen lots of them pointing out control of the laws as a reason, but none that singled out corruption as a reason.
> This is one of the reasons that people have given me.
Which by definition means it wasn't the only reason, which proves kozikow's comment to be untrue.
Which by definition means it wasn't the only reason, which proves kozikow's comment to be untrue.
It doesn't unless kozikow deleted some reference to it being "the only reason."
It's a commonly cited gripe. I suspect it often comes from people entirely unfamiliar with EU processes, but who don't like EU membership or the idea of EU membership for other reasons and since it's a commonly cited gripe (and also doesn't mention immigrants, and has a pro-democratic connotation) they use it themselves.
It would be strange that no one in this thread has ever heard a Brexiteer cite bureaucracy and corruption, but I fear it's an urge to insist that the only reason that anybody voted for Brexit was racism to delegitimatize leaver votes or even the possibility of debate between two good people on the subject. I fear that attitude will not convert many previous leavers to new remainers in any future people's vote.
I suggest not bothering with arguments against racism, which racists will have heard before and dismissed, looking at left-wing arguments against EU membership from the 70s, and responding to those.
It's a commonly cited gripe. I suspect it often comes from people entirely unfamiliar with EU processes, but who don't like EU membership or the idea of EU membership for other reasons and since it's a commonly cited gripe (and also doesn't mention immigrants, and has a pro-democratic connotation) they use it themselves.
It would be strange that no one in this thread has ever heard a Brexiteer cite bureaucracy and corruption, but I fear it's an urge to insist that the only reason that anybody voted for Brexit was racism to delegitimatize leaver votes or even the possibility of debate between two good people on the subject. I fear that attitude will not convert many previous leavers to new remainers in any future people's vote.
I suggest not bothering with arguments against racism, which racists will have heard before and dismissed, looking at left-wing arguments against EU membership from the 70s, and responding to those.
Nonsense. This type of criticism is unwarranted and I suspect disingenuous.
There are lots of contexts in which we can say we would like to see more data. However, when someone is making a point which is a fairly standard one in the Brexit debates we don't need "references". Nor would referring to an article that said the same thing as OP somehow validate the point. There is a place for asking for references, but on a basic comment like this there is not.
Based on the other comments, it seems people are more upset about the perspective behind this idea rather than its truthfulness. I don't agree with the perspective that leaving the EU is a good thing but it is uncontrovertible that a significant portion of the population in the UK agrees with OP's statement.
There are lots of contexts in which we can say we would like to see more data. However, when someone is making a point which is a fairly standard one in the Brexit debates we don't need "references". Nor would referring to an article that said the same thing as OP somehow validate the point. There is a place for asking for references, but on a basic comment like this there is not.
Based on the other comments, it seems people are more upset about the perspective behind this idea rather than its truthfulness. I don't agree with the perspective that leaving the EU is a good thing but it is uncontrovertible that a significant portion of the population in the UK agrees with OP's statement.
I don't think it's nonsense at all. The vote was a binary yes/no. Whenever someone ascribes shades of grey to a "yes" or a "no", I'm also curious about where they derived this from. Because what he's telling us wasn't on the ballot at all.
So I'm not sure I'd agree the point is "a fairly standard one". Some will say it was about representation, some will say it was about sovereignty, some will say it was about immigration. Some will even say it was simply a protest against the status quo.
Anyone who states "this is what we voted for" has decided that their reason for voting yes was the primary reason for 17m to vote yes, with no evidence at all.
So I'm not sure I'd agree the point is "a fairly standard one". Some will say it was about representation, some will say it was about sovereignty, some will say it was about immigration. Some will even say it was simply a protest against the status quo.
Anyone who states "this is what we voted for" has decided that their reason for voting yes was the primary reason for 17m to vote yes, with no evidence at all.
Leading up to the Brexit vote, there was famously a bus driving around expressing the idea that voting to leave would result in a savings of 350 million pounds per week, which could be reinvested in the NHS.
I don't think there was a bus about bureaucracy.
I don't think there was a bus about bureaucracy.
The UKIP bus pictured here one week before the Brexit vote says "British farmers freed from bureaucracy - Stuart Agnew MEP": https://twitter.com/ukip/status/743369504844091393
(It also says "Free business from EU red tape - Margot Parker MEP".)
(It also says "Free business from EU red tape - Margot Parker MEP".)
I wouldn't say that bus was about bureaucracy. If anything, it bolsters the point that the Brexit vote wasn't about any one issue.
That claim was a misuse of statistics. It was more like 250M.
https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-s...
https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-s...
250M is also wrong, as mentioned in your link. It doesn't account for the benefits of EU membership.
One of the big reasons that pulled people to voting "no" was the perceived "invasion" of immigrants. There was a perception that EU were forcing the UK's hand, and aiding the "invasion".
One of the basic EU freedoms is free movement of people. Member states have no legal way of blocking people from other member states from coming (except for initial grace period, after new members were accepted into EU), so "forcing UK's hand" is a pretty accurate description.
There's also the filter bubble. People think everything is down the drains because that is all they hear about.
> However, when someone is making a point which is a fairly standard one in the Brexit debates we don't need "references".
If it's fairly standard I should be able to find at least one survey mentioning it online, right? I tried before sending that comment and couldn't find a single one pointing out corruption and bureaucracy as main reasons. (Or even at all) Ironically I find only articles about corruption in Vote Leave campaign. If it's that standard opinion, please post any source which ranks it against other reasons.
If it's fairly standard I should be able to find at least one survey mentioning it online, right? I tried before sending that comment and couldn't find a single one pointing out corruption and bureaucracy as main reasons. (Or even at all) Ironically I find only articles about corruption in Vote Leave campaign. If it's that standard opinion, please post any source which ranks it against other reasons.
To quote a comment on reddit:
“It is monumentally ironic that the Member State planning to leave the EU because they want to make their own decisions, can't take any decision on leaving the EU.”
“It is monumentally ironic that the Member State planning to leave the EU because they want to make their own decisions, can't take any decision on leaving the EU.”
That is actually funny. But I think it is important that leaving also gives them the right to be just as indecisive as they want.
Maybe being slow and arguing and thinking more about huge changes is exactly what they want.
Maybe being slow and arguing and thinking more about huge changes is exactly what they want.
Except both major party leaders invoked a50 when they didn’t need to. One of those leaders called to invoke it the morning after.
The winning “vote leave” campaign said it was a careful process.
The winning “vote leave” campaign said it was a careful process.
As one of many reasons.
This is the current problem that the UK is facing with Brexit.
People have an array of gripes that all landed under the "Brexit" umbrella. The problem is that some of those gripes are in direct opposition to one another, but it didn't matter because "Brexit" was magically going to fix it.
However, now that you have to reduce to implementation, you can't get anybody to agree on the concrete of what "Brexit" should actually encompass.
This is the current problem that the UK is facing with Brexit.
People have an array of gripes that all landed under the "Brexit" umbrella. The problem is that some of those gripes are in direct opposition to one another, but it didn't matter because "Brexit" was magically going to fix it.
However, now that you have to reduce to implementation, you can't get anybody to agree on the concrete of what "Brexit" should actually encompass.
Brexit was all about stopping Muslims from coming to the UK and kicking out people with brown skin.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/30/it-is-terri...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/30/it-is-terri...
The article does not support your claim. I also think it's exactly claims like that which directly lead to things like Brexit (and Trump).
They were saying: ‘We’re coming out of Europe and then we can get rid of you.’ I told them: ‘I’m a British citizen.’ I got citizenship 20 years ago after fleeing from Iraq. But they said: ‘It doesn’t matter, you’ve got dark skin.’ My 11-year-old daughter has heard this too.”
The fact that that incident occurred does not come close to supporting the claim you made. Maybe it would support a much more carefully constructed claim.
Britain’s vote to leave the EU was the result of widespread anti-immigration sentiment, rather than a wider dissatisfaction with politics, according to a major survey of social attitudes in the UK.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-lates...
But it’s not European immigration
https://screenshot.net/2lxzmbn
I’ve been canvassing for the last week, the majority of people want brexit stopped. Of those that don’t the vast majority don’t care what we end up with as long as it stops the immigrants.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-lates...
But it’s not European immigration
https://screenshot.net/2lxzmbn
I’ve been canvassing for the last week, the majority of people want brexit stopped. Of those that don’t the vast majority don’t care what we end up with as long as it stops the immigrants.
[deleted]
"Well that didn't go as intended. Let's amend it. Oh right, we can't."