Brexit matters

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
2,749
Location
Elginshire
You can take your tenets of Protestant Christianity (and other faiths) and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. I'd rather keep my equality and human rights, thanks. I'd rather not go back to the days where I could end up in prison simply for loving someone, and I certainly don't want to have my actions governed by those who believe in the piffle written in c2000 year old books.

I always suspected that some Brexiters were stuck in the 1950s.

Make that 1650s and you're probably closer to the truth!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
1,579
Wow. Just wow.
I'm trying to make a philosophical point.

Most revolutions and major political/cultural events have their root in philosophical concepts that took root decades previously, usually because of technological development facilitated

The 1536 English and European reformations were both facilated by the printing press enabling far more widespread dissemination of ideas than previously when a book or pamphlet could only be reproduced by someone labouriously writing a copy.

The decline of Protestant Christanity in the "Anglosphere" started with Darwins Theories at the industrial revolution, however the structures and acceptance of protestant Christian societal norms (if not beliefs) widely persisted.....

....until the disruption to family life and societal structure in both world world wars, rapidly followed by medical developments eliminating regular early death from infectious disease and availability of chemical contraception removed the societal reason for many religion related moral norms, and led to a cultural revolution breaking through in the sixties, and being politically institutionalised after 1997.

That is not the root of Brexit, but it is the root of the culture wars, without which I doubt the Brexit side would have got over the line in the referendum.

The other factor being the electronic media which is as impactful as the printing press was in the 1500s, because it has in replacing the 20th century media pyramid structure where a very few, closely controlled sources could broadcast to millions to a structure where anyone, both the wise and the fools can sit at a phone and broadcast to the world.

And no, I am not Jacob Rees-Mogg before anyone asks :)
 
Last edited:

SHD

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2012
Messages
357
Democracy requires a demos, ie for the vast majority to share a set of common fundamental values.

Without it you end up with multiple "tribes" who vote tribally.

In both the UK and the US, there was such a common set of values, the tenets of Protestant Christianity, which were also shared enough with the other principal faiths (Catholic Christianity, Islam and Judaism) and with those of marginal or no faith to (outside Northern Ireland) form a cohesive Demos.

It is the rejection since the 1960s of those values by the "managerial" classes, and their attempt to replace it with a secular society based on secular notions of equality and human rights, which has fractured the demos and Trump and Brexit are the first tangible fruits of reaction against this. I very much doubt they will be the last.

are you implying that the Church of England’s tenets are similar to those of the main Protestant denominations in the USA? That’s a... surprising opinion!

Not less surprising is your characterisation of a hypothetical cohesive demos adhering to the tenets of Protestantism in the USA that would encompass all the souls living in the country prior to the 1960s.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
1,579
are you implying that the Church of England’s tenets are similar to those of the main Protestant denominations in the USA? That’s a... surprising opinion!

Not less surprising is your characterisation of a hypothetical cohesive demos adhering to the tenets of Protestantism in the USA that would encompass all the souls living in the country prior to the 1960s.
Protestant in the sense of not [Roman] catholic and in the sense of general consent by the vast majority with the broad Christian values as formulated by the time of the Glorious Revolution in 1690, not in the sense of adherence to the wilder nostrums of any particular sect (or in the sense of most people taking any great interest in matters religious).

While the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism have been poisonous at times, the difference between Secularist atheism and any variant of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is far greater.

Returning to England specifically and Brexit (which was primarily driven by the English), the parallels between Brexit and the Kings Great Matter leading to the English reformation are starkly obvious.

Both ultimately revolved around whether the government of the day should permit itself to be overruled by a higher authority across the water in Europe, in one case the Pope's secular imperial powers (1536) in the other the ECJ and other EU institutions (2016).
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
20,039
Location
Nottingham
Protestant in the sense of not [Roman] catholic and in the sense of general consent by the vast majority with the broad Christian values as formulated by the time of the Glorious Revolution in 1690, not in the sense of adherence to the wilder nostrums of any particular sect (or in the sense of most people taking any great interest in matters religious).

While the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism have been poisonous at times, the difference between Secularist atheism and any variant of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is far greater.

Returning to England specifically and Brexit (which was primarily driven by the English), the parallels between Brexit and the Kings Great Matter leading to the English reformation are starkly obvious.

Both ultimately revolved around whether the government of the day should permit itself to be overruled by a higher authority across the water in Europe, in one case the Pope's secular imperial powers (1536) in the other the ECJ and other EU institutions (2016).
So now you're going back to the 1690s not the 1950s...

Those religions may have theological similarities but antagonism up to and including all-out war between them has been going on at least since the emergence of Islam and continues today. Friction between religious and secular has been far less. So your premise that secularism is the problem really doesn't stand up.

Wasn't the English reformation mainly because Henry VIII wanted a divorce? And didn't it lead to centuries of antagonism between Protestants and Catholics? Neither seems a good precedent for a policy in modern times.

Though I guess that statement starts from my premise that modern times are what we are living in. Clearly at least one person doesn't accept that premise.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
2,662
Location
London & Scotland
Brexit is obviously down to the surge of eukaryotes that inevitably ushered in multi-cellular organisms approximately 1.7 billion years ago and moving away from the strictures of a prokaryote-heavy ecosystem by way of endosymbiosis.

@21C101 ..you're overthinking this.
 

birchesgreen

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
1,053
Location
Birmingham
That is not the root of Brexit, but it is the root of the culture wars, without which I doubt the Brexit side would have got over the line in the referendum.
Thats an interesting post though not sure Brexit has anything to do with culture wars, more like good old fashioned greed.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
20,039
Location
Nottingham
Brexit is obviously down to the surge of eukaryotes that inevitably ushered in multi-cellular organisms approximately 1.7 billion years ago and moving away from the strictures of a prokaryote-heavy ecosystem by way of endosymbiosis.

@21C101 ..you're overthinking this.
The cells in the multi-celled organisms must really have objected to the loss of sovereignty.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
1,579
Thats an interesting post though not sure Brexit has anything to do with culture wars, more like good old fashioned greed.
In the case of the majority of voters, not culture war related.

But I would guess that a minority of the voters (large enough to change the result if they voted remain or not bother to vote), chose to vote leave, not partcularly because of the EU, but more as a Trumpite F*** You to the establishment.

So now you're going back to the 1690s not the 1950s...

Wasn't the English reformation mainly because Henry VIII wanted a divorce? And didn't it lead to centuries of antagonism between Protestants and Catholics? Neither seems a good precedent for a policy in modern times.
In the 1530's there were many among the senior ranks of England's government and great and good who agreed with Luther and his protestant reformation that was underway in Germany, you might call them leavers, and there was a lot of popular support among ordinary people for luthers ideas in parts of England that are now most "Brexity" like Essex. Said ideas were circulating in pamphlets printed on then newly invented printing presses.

However, Henry V111 was a fanatically religious catholic and hardline authoritarian who burnt any he caught for heresy and had been declared "Defender of the Faith" by the pope for a tract he wrote putting the boot into Luther and co, so they largely kept their heads down.

Rome's decision in the annulment fiasco (it had been expected to be an uncontroverial rubber stamp exercise for "sound" biblical reasons) went down in much the same way as the European Court decison on prisoners votes did.

This allowed the "leavers" to persuade Henry that Rome was corrupt and the only way to save the souls of England was to declare himself as effectively an emperor and effectively pontifex maximus in the English Church (a title the Pope appropriated from Ceasar when the western Roman empire collapsed).

So Henry was to lead a "Herstigte" (means purified in Afrikaans) Catholic Church, free from the laxity and corruption of the Church in Europe. His leaver advisors had very different intentions, but doctrinally Henry was a fanatical catholic and would have burned alive anyone advocating Lutheran (protestant) doctrines.

Instead they waited until he died and they could sieze power as "regents" for his under age son, upon which in came the english text Book of Common Prayer and the real presence of Christ in holy communion was dismissed as superstition.

For this the senior "leavers" involved all got burned alive for heresy when the young King died after a short reign and Henrys fiercely remainer (Catholic) daughter Mary Tudor, who had married the King of Spain took power and declared England Catholic again

She then died and was replaced with the Leaver protestant Elizabeth, who although excomminicated by the Pope, kept certain catholic elements in the English Church (like Bishops) to try and keep everyone happy. Tbis was unsuccessful with a century of stife, "terrorism" and civil war until the Glorious Revolution in 1690s banned Catholic Kings and mandated that "no foreign prince or potentate shall have any power in this free Realm of England" (the strife continued pretty well unabated to this day in Ireland though).

This settlement lasted from 1690 until the UK joined the EEC in 1973, handing all sorts of powers to the modern equivalent of "foreign princes and potentates", thus reopening all the old wounds of 1536 to 1690 again and, in the last few years, brought us closer to civil war than anything since then.
 
Last edited:

SHD

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2012
Messages
357
Rome's decision in the annulment fiasco (it had been expected to be an uncontroverial rubber stamp exercise for "sound" biblical reasons) went down in much the same way as the Euroean court decison on prisoners votes did.

The case you are referring to was judged by the ECtHR, a jurisdiction that long predated the EU, that the UK was instrumental in establishing, and -more importantly- that the UK has not left.

You might want to spend less time perusing the Encyclopaedia Britannica and more time reading on EU and Continental issues - it would prevent you from writing seemingly informed absurdities such as "the Lisbon Treaty gave the EU a legal personality and allowed it to issue regulations that apply in member states without being trsnscribed into state law first."

Since the Treaty of Rome, the European Commission has had legal personality and European institutions have had the power to issue Regulations that are immediately enforceable. See screenshot below, second paragraph (in French - sorry, the original Rome Treaty does not have an English version...)

1610548760193.png
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
1,579
The case you are referring to was judged by the ECtHR, a jurisdiction that long predated the EU, that the UK was instrumental in establishing, and -more importantly- that the UK has not left.

You might want to spend less time perusing the Encyclopaedia Britannica and more time reading on EU and Continental issues - it would prevent you from writing seemingly informed absurdities such as "the Lisbon Treaty gave the EU a legal personality and allowed it to issue regulations that apply in member states without being trsnscribed into state law first."

Since the Treaty of Rome, the European Commission has had legal personality and European institutions have had the power to issue Regulations that are immediately enforceable. See screenshot below, second paragraph (in French - sorry, the original Rome Treaty does not have an English version...)

View attachment 88567
I didn't state -which- European Court.

And not left - yet.

As to the rest:
"The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU full legal personality. Therefore, the Union obtains the ability to sign international treaties in the areas of its attributed powers or to join an international organisation. Member States may only sign international agreements that are compatible with EU law."

 

SHD

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2012
Messages
357
I didn't state -which- European Court.

And not left - yet.

I duly noted that you did not state which European court you were referring to - a cunning rhetorical tactic to obfuscate your discourse, is it not?

As to the rest:

Which is quite different from what you wrote earlier - but it is certainly better to discuss on solid grounds and actual quotes.
 
Last edited:

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
679
Location
Leeds
So anybody wanting a new Fiesta ST or Puma ST can now experience one of the first benefits of Brexit with a £1450 to £1900 price rise due to failing the rules of Origin test, these 2 particular models don't have EU made engines.

While the Chairman of the British Retail Consortium said the current deal is unworkable for British Supermarkets both EU-GB and GB-NI and either there has to be some change or the supermarkets will have to totally re-model supply lines.
 
Last edited:

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
1,579
So anybody wanting a new Fiesta ST or Puma ST can now experience one of the first benefits of Brexit with a £1450 to £1900 price rise due to failing the rules of Origin test, these 2 particular models don't have EU made engines.
So anyone buying an EU made car with an engine that is not made in either of the EU or UK has to give £1,700 extra to HM Treasury, which they can avoid by buying a UK or EU made car that has all the principal parts made in either the EU or UK.

And the problem with that is?
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
679
Location
Leeds
So anyone buying an EU made car with an engine that is not made in either of the EU or UK has to give £1,700 extra to HM Treasury, which they can avoid by buying a UK or EU made car that has all the principal parts made in either the EU or UK.

And the problem with that is?
Its a reduction of choice or pay through the nose and expect this is what we get more of going forward.

But of greater concern is the potential delays being experienced at the Border both EU and NI.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
1,391
Plus given that some of the best made cars are Korean and as such it is prudent to buy one over a lot of European manufacturers (Stellantis group (as of the 16th) and Renault/Nissan cars especially).
Why should we be made to buy an inferior/more expensive vehicle or be charged for the privilege of buying a fair priced decent vehicle.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,849
Location
Redcar
And the problem with that is?

Don't buy an EU car with an engine built outside of the EU from a dealer in Belfast?

So three weeks ago I could buy a car and not worry about where the various components were made (I might want to for environmental, political or other reasons but it wasn't neccessary). But now if I want to buy a car I have to worry about where the components were made? This is a benefit how?
 
Last edited:

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
1,578
So three weeks ago I could buy a car and not worry about where the various components were made (I might want to for environmental, political or other reasons but it wasn't neccessary). But now if I want to buy a car I have to worry about where the components were made? This is a benefit how?

No, you don't have to worry about where the various components come from. You'll do exactly what you did before - compare the price and features of the various cars and make the decision on your preferences and budget. Yes, I accept that what you buy may be different to that prior to 1.1.21.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
8,751
Location
Redcar
No, you don't have to worry about where the various components come from. You'll do exactly what you did before - compare the price and features of the various cars and make the decision on your preferences and budget. Yes, I accept that what you buy may be different to that prior to 1.1.21.

And would that be because of a more limited choice in the price range you intend to pay?
 

alex397

Member
Joined
6 Oct 2017
Messages
685
Location
UK
The downsides of Brexit have so far been nothing like they were portrayed by the Remain campaign’s scaremongering.
Firstly, we haven’t seen the full extent of our withdrawal from the EU. It has only been almost 2 weeks since we have properly left. Secondly, we managed to get a deal (a not particularly good one, but a deal nonetheless) which is much better than having a No Deal which clearly would have been much worse, and what a lot of the ‘scaremongering’ was related to.

Some of the ‘scaremongering’ included how trade with the EU would become more costly, more bureaucratic and take longer. These warnings were often dismissed, but they have clearly come true!

Of course there was scaremongering which was over the top (Just like the Brexiteer scaremongering of the invasions of EU migrants and so on) but a lot of the warnings of leaving the EU were from experts, and many of them are coming true.
 
Last edited:

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
1,579
Those Experts Again

"Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK​

And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December"

"The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today.

In an article published today on the Guardian website, the academics and lawyers say Boris Johnson’s determination to “go it alone”, free of EU regulation, after Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms."


 
Last edited:

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
8,751
Location
Redcar
Those Experts Again


"The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today.

In an article published today on the Guardian website, the academics and lawyers say Boris Johnson’s determination to “go it alone”, free of EU regulation, after Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms."



Grauniad.jpg

Images states this article is more than 9 months old.
 

Top