• PRE should be functioning as per usual. Please email admin@puntroadend.com to report anything odd that is occuring over the next few days as we settle a few database issues.

Brexited

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,066
61
Ireland
antman said:
No Deal would be a disaster as it means a hard border between NI/ROI. So sh!t for business and a good chance to kick off new sectarian violence.

Meanwhile May presses on regardless.
The 2 major parties are playing a local political game. It is all about the 'optics' no thought given to what really happens. They are concerned only with internal polling such a massive disconnect with reality. It is hard to understand what there is to gain from being the captain of the Titanic and calling for more steam! What is point of winning an internal political battle when you stand to be the PM of a wrecked and destitute country? I feel sorry for the Brits they have no good options on the ballot paper.
 

TigerForce

Richmond has a better list.
Apr 26, 2004
48,896
1,185
Playing mind games for the past 2 years, it's obvious the EU has let the Brits extend their goodbye date which probably won't ever happen anyway.

May's dipped her toes in the deep end to see what it feels like but could simply opt-out and get back to keeping the UK in the EU. All 4 scenarios make no-one a winner.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
KnightersRevenge said:
The 2 major parties are playing a local political game. It is all about the 'optics' no thought given to what really happens. They are concerned only with internal polling such a massive disconnect with reality. It is hard to understand what there is to gain from being the captain of the Titanic and calling for more steam! What is point of winning an internal political battle when you stand to be the PM of a wrecked and destitute country? I feel sorry for the Brits they have no good options on the ballot paper.
Yep, both major parties should be hanging their heads in shame, playing petty politics with such a serious issue. Hardly surprising, politicians looking after themselves.

DS
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
16,538
827
Bali/Jakarta
So the EU said if May's deal passes, they've got til June to implement. If it doesn't pass - I can't see how it will - then it's two more weeks and No Deal Brexit.

Or Revoke Article 50.

Meanwhile around 1 million march in London for the EU.
Theresa and Jeremy totally ignore this of course.
 

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
11,584
453
Camberwell
I recently read a quote about Brexit

“it’s something negotiated by the unprepared, to get the undefined for the uninformed, resulting in the unknown for the confused “

Just about sums it up imo
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
3,791
454
Sintiger said:
I recently read a quote about Brexit

“it’s something negotiated by the unprepared, to get the undefined for the uninformed, resulting in the unknown for the confused “

Just about sums it up imo
An indictment on the remainers that they allowed it really.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,447
84
Brisbane
Sintiger said:
I recently read a quote about Brexit

“it’s something negotiated by the unprepared, to get the undefined for the uninformed, resulting in the unknown for the confused “

Just about sums it up imo
Quite the aristocratic viewpoint.
 

willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
14,873
161
Broken Hill
Sintiger said:
I recently read a quote about Brexit

“it’s something negotiated by the unprepared, to get the undefined for the uninformed, resulting in the unknown for the confused “

Just about sums it up imo
Almost Churchillian
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
Gia, you need to take a step back: in what way is violence against a person justified in defence of private property? How do you measure this? Is it ok to kill someone if they steal something of yours? This is the problem, you deviate from the non-aggression principle in defence of private property. Defence of private property is a source of aggression.

The object of violence and aggression is hardly going to care whether it is in defence of private property or socialist ideas. You are both so similar: my violence is ok as it is in defence of private property (substitute the workers' state and you get the Marxist version of the same sentence).

Basing the notion of freedom on private property is fundamentally flawed, you create unearned disparities in freedom at birth depending on the property holdings of your parents and where you are born also impacts upon your ability to add to your property. You create and perpetuate hierarchical power relations purely on the basis of property ownership. This is fundamental because free market theorists are blind to disparities in economic power. There are weak attempts to explain these away, such as the notion of consumer power you use, but it is crap. Do you seriously believe that entry to markets is equal, that those with economic power are unable to influence consumer decisions, to put other suppliers out of business? It would not surprise me if you do think this is the case as it is what I expect - it is a feature of far right ideology that it ignores that economic power is used to create and perpetuate relations of domination and subordination.

So, praxeology is just a methodology? Gee, where have I heard a statement like that before . . . hmm . . . oh that's right, very similar claims are made about "scientific socialism".

Freedom means not being subordinated in a hierarchical power structure. It means being free to do what you wish and to achieve all you can, it comes with responsibility for all and any decisions you make, and responsibility for the very freedom to make choices. It is incompatible with hierarchical power structures.

Just as an aside, you claim I am a relativist? I posit that freedom is an absolute right not derived from some strange notion that people are pieces of property which own themselves. In contrast, it is your favourite theorist who says that there is no such thing as a perennial standard of what is just and unjust. So do you support non-aggression perennially or just sometimes?

DS
 

K3

Tiger Champion
Oct 9, 2006
4,334
36
Just found this on The Age. WOW

https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/mps-seize-control-of-brexit-from-may-in-constitutional-revolution-20190326-p517kq.html

MPs seize control of Brexit from May in 'constitutional revolution'
Nick Miller
By Nick Miller
March 26, 2019 — 10.19am

London: The UK parliament has seized control of Brexit from the May government and will hold an extraordinary session on Wednesday to choose between possible outcomes such as another referendum, a no-deal Brexit or even cancelling Brexit altogether.

British lawmakers on Monday voted to wrest control of the Brexit process to try to find a majority for an alternative way forward that would break the parliamentary deadlock.

The government fiercely opposed the House of Commons vote on Monday night to take control, warning it would set a dangerous constitutional precedent. The government traditionally runs business in the House of Commons, deciding when and what debates and votes occur.

“[It] would overturn the balance of our democratic institutions,” Prime Minister Theresa May said.

Another Conservative called it a “constitutional revolution” that the House of Commons “will come to regret”.

However the May government lost a vote to oppose the Commons takeover by 27 votes, after 30 Conservatives including three ministers defied the party whip.
British PM Theresa May says she is "sceptical about such a process”.

British PM Theresa May says she is "sceptical about such a process”.Credit:Jasper Juinen/Bloomberg

After the vote Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said “where this government failed this House must, and I believe will succeed”.

He also suggested any decision reached on Wednesday might go back to the people for a “confirmatory vote”.

Before the vote May conceded that she did not have enough support to get her Brexit divorce deal over the line, though she hopes for another "meaningful vote" on the deal later this week. It is still opposed by the Northern Irish DUP and members of the hardline pro-Brexit wing of the Conservatives.

May said the “default outcome” in the absence of a vote for her deal was for the UK to leave the European Union with no deal at the new April 12 deadline set by the EU last week.

But “unless this House agrees to it, No Deal will not happen”, May said.

“The alternative is to pursue a different form of Brexit or a second referendum.”

May tried to keep control of parliament by promising her own “indicative votes” later this week which the government would guide, to identify such an alternative.

May said she was “sceptical about such a process”.

“When we have tried this kind of thing in the past, it has produced contradictory outcomes or no outcome at all,” she said.
Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May makes a statement on Brexit to the House of Commons.

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May makes a statement on Brexit to the House of Commons. Credit:AP

The 30 Conservative defectors who defied the party whip to vote for the motion included three ministers, who resigned in order to do so.

Business Minister Richard Harrington said the government’s approach to Brexit was “playing roulette with the lives and livelihoods of the vast majority of people in this country”.

He said he resigned so he could do everything possible to prevent a no-deal Brexit which, he said was being championed by “a small minority of the Conservative Party and a small minority of the country”.

'I mean, you've got to admire Theresa May'. Do I? Why?

“The failure to secure a deal and to rule out a hard Brexit is resulting in cancelled investment decisions, business being placed abroad and a sense of ridicule for British business across the world,” he said.

The government also lost a health minister and foreign office minister.

Reacting to the vote, a spokesman for the Department for Exiting the EU said it “sets a dangerous and unpredictable precedent for the future”.

Earlier, May had refused to commit the government to delivering the outcome of any such series of votes.

“No government could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is,” she said, as the result could be “unnegotiable” with the European Union.

Labour Brexit spokesman Kier Starmer also avoided committing his party to supporting any parliamentary consensus that emerged, saying that, for example, Labour would oppose a “no-deal” Brexit in any vote.

However if one of the options on Wednesday emerges with a clear majority, the government could be powerless to oppose it without calling an election.

The process for the vote, and the options to be considered, will be decided on the day. Tory elder statesman Ken Clarke suggested a “single transferable vote”, which would work like Australia’s preferential voting system to identify the option with the most support.

A core group of pro-Brexit MPs believe a no-deal Brexit is the best result.

Conservative Crispin Blunt told May that “taking No Deal off the table just put the final torpedo into her own deal and any real prospect of Brexit. Her statement will represent the most shameful surrender by a British leader since Singapore in 1942.”

At Monday’s Cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street a supposed “coup” widely tipped in the Sunday newspapers failed to materialise.

The Sunday Times had reported half May’s Cabinet would demand she resign. But according to reports nobody even mentioned her future during the meeting.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/mps-seize-control-of-brexit-from-may-in-constitutional-revolution-20190326-p517kq.html

Who would want May to resign? It could mean they would have to take over the sinking ship...
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,447
84
Brisbane
DavidSSS said:
Gia, you need to take a step back: in what way is violence against a person justified in defence of private property? How do you measure this? Is it ok to kill someone if they steal something of yours? This is the problem, you deviate from the non-aggression principle in defence of private property. Defence of private property is a source of aggression.
I need to step back? I’m the one defending my position I have outlined and I have asked you to outline yours finally and I still only get criticism of my position. Perhaps you should take a step back and think what your position is and what justifies it. I’ll still answer your critique.

It is justified on these grounds:
Resources are scarce, and conflicts arise between human agents on the use of these resources. Human agents are capable of reason therefore instead of applying the “might is right” principle, how can they use argumentation to determine who is the just owner of these resources i.e. the property owner? A property right to one’s own body is justified a priori, for anyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over their body as a valid norm in order to say, “I propose such and such.” Anyone disputing such a right would become caught up in a practical contradiction since arguing so would already imply acceptance of the very norm which they were disputing. It would be equally impossible to sustain argumentation for any length of time and rely on the propositional force of one’s arguments if one were not allowed to appropriate in addition to one’s body other scarce means through homesteading action (by putting them to use before somebody else does), and if such means and the rights of exclusive control regarding them were not defined in objective physical terms. For if no one had the right to control anything at all except his own body, then we would all cease to exist and the problem of justifying norms simply would not exist. Thus, by virtue of the fact of being alive, property rights to other things must be presupposed to be valid. No one who is alive could argue otherwise. Now what good are rights if they are not enforceable? Therefore property rights are enforceable rights.

Violent defense must be confined to violent invasion — either actually, implicitly, or by direct and overt threat and the proof of burden falls on the victim. Someone who violates another’s property rights loses their own property rights to the extent that they have deprived the other of theirs. Going beyond this is in itself an invasion of the property rights of the original violator. Hence you can’t justify killing someone for say stealing your Matthew Richardson poster. If the person was found to be guilty of theft, resisted attempts for the poster to be returned and threatened to kill anyone that attempted to return the poster to the original owner, than their property right to their body would be forfeit.

The NAP doesn’t say that all violence is unjust, it says that the initiation of force is unjust. Using violence to defend one’s property from the initiation of force from another is not contradictory to the NAP.

DavidSSS said:
The object of violence and aggression is hardly going to care whether it is in defence of private property or socialist ideas. You are both so similar: my violence is ok as it is in defence of private property (substitute the workers' state and you get the Marxist version of the same sentence).
The Marxist contradicts themselves when they justify violence that violates someone’s property rights as I outlined earlier. One position is logically valid and the other isn’t, that’s a big difference.

DavidSSS said:
Basing the notion of freedom on private property is fundamentally flawed, you create unearned disparities in freedom at birth depending on the property holdings of your parents and where you are born also impacts upon your ability to add to your property. You create and perpetuate hierarchical power relations purely on the basis of property ownership. This is fundamental because free market theorists are blind to disparities in economic power. There are weak attempts to explain these away, such as the notion of consumer power you use, but it is crap. Do you seriously believe that entry to markets is equal, that those with economic power are unable to influence consumer decisions, to put other suppliers out of business? It would not surprise me if you do think this is the case as it is what I expect - it is a feature of far right ideology that it ignores that economic power is used to create and perpetuate relations of domination and subordination.
You are attempting to justify violence that violates someone’s property rights and in doing so contradict yourself.

I’ve never suggested that entry to markets is equal. All I have said is that who holds economic power is not static, and that in order to continue to hold economic power in a free market, one must continue to satisfy consumer demand better than their competitors.

DavidSSS said:
So, praxeology is just a methodology? Gee, where have I heard a statement like that before . . . hmm . . . oh that's right, very similar claims are made about "scientific socialism".
Praxeology does not seek to answer what ends people should desire, but what means they should employ to achieve their desired aims. It is a methodology for answering the latter question. An ideology on the other hand, such as libertarianism focuses on what ends people should desire.

DavidSSS said:
Freedom means not being subordinated in a hierarchical power structure. It means being free to do what you wish and to achieve all you can, it comes with responsibility for all and any decisions you make, and responsibility for the very freedom to make choices. It is incompatible with hierarchical power structures.
If people choose freely to organise into hierarchies, would you let them (i.e. would you use violence to stop them)? If not, on what basis do you justify stopping them. What do you do when an individual’s idea of achieving all they can conflicts with someone else’s idea of achieving all they can?

DavidSSS said:
Just as an aside, you claim I am a relativist? I posit that freedom is an absolute right not derived from some strange notion that people are pieces of property which own themselves. In contrast, it is your favourite theorist who says that there is no such thing as a perennial standard of what is just and unjust. So do you support non-aggression perennially or just sometimes?
You haven’t yet posited where this absolute right derives from. Can you please clear that up?

I don’t agree with Von Mises on everything, I think Rothbard, Hoppe and many others have advanced upon his work. As a libertarian I support the NAP at all times, what is important is to understand what the NAP is and what it is not which confuses a lot of people including people that claim to be libertarians.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
Hmm, so resources are scarce so we limit access by instituting a regime of private property? That should encourage conflict. But apparently we cease to exist without private property, geez, how did we ever get to evolve into humans. There is a choice here, a choice between creating conflict by allocating resources for exclusive use which exacerbates scarcity, or encouraging cooperation by communal husbanding of resources. We support different sides of this choice.

The Marxist contradicts themself? The Marxist would reply that you contradict yourself by justifying violence to protect your property which should be held by society not privately. You're like mirror images of each other.

If people wish to live in hierarchical societies that's fine by me but it is they who restrict my ability to live in a non-hierarchical society. People should be able to live peacefully in the society of their choosing. But then some libertarian would come along and claim to be homesteading anything not nailed down.

Where have I justified violence? I'm arguing that private property is not a justification for violence, you are the one arguing for the use of violence.

The economy is not static, you don't say. Nice straw man though. The reality of markets is that those with the most economic power also have the most ability to further their own interests. As the economy returns to pre WWI levels of inequality we can see that the mid to late 20th century was the exception and this is the result we can expect from a market system. But this is all irrelevant isn't it? Despite the fact that economics is supposed to be analysis of one aspect of human life, we all know that empirical observation should not be brought into it, you just make some a priori assumptions and construct your argument from that, reality is an intrusion best avoided.

I don't agree with any one theorist on everything. Sorry, you don't get to shove me in some convenient box with a nice label you can use as a punching bag.

But back to Brexit, interesting that parliament seems to be trying to seize control. It is very hard to see how this gets resolved before they are forced into a no deal outcome. Not looking good for May's attempt to force the issue.

DS
 

K3

Tiger Champion
Oct 9, 2006
4,334
36
From...

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/28/morning-mail-may-quit-tim-wilson-submits-to-himself-one-nation-record?CMP=twt_a-world_b-gdnworld

Top stories

Theresa May has said she will step down as UK prime minister if her Brexit deal passes, in a bid to get Eurosceptic MPs to back her EU withdrawal deal. May said she would make way for another Conservative leader after listening to the demands of MPs, but did not set a date for her departure as she spoke to backbenchers. “I have heard very clearly the mood of the parliamentary party. I know there is a desire for a new approach – and new leadership – in the second phase of the Brexit negotiations and I won’t stand in the way of that,” May said. Boris Johnson, the Brexiter former foreign secretary, was one of several MPs who said her decision meant they would now vote for May’s deal. Meanwhile, parliament was holding a series of indicative votes on alternative Brexit proposals late into the UK evening. Follow the developments live.


It is unreal to read what BJ said. Talk about a massive 'I couldn't give a toss about what is best for the country...' indication that he is only out to help No1, and doesn't give a rats about the UK.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
Haven't had a good look but I saw a report today basically saying they voted on just about all the options available and voted every single one of them down.

What the hell do they do now?

This could well end in a No Deal Brexit and just a few weeks time.

What a mess.

DS
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,447
84
Brisbane
DavidSSS said:
Hmm, so resources are scarce so we limit access by instituting a regime of private property? That should encourage conflict. But apparently we cease to exist without private property, geez, how did we ever get to evolve into humans. There is a choice here, a choice between creating conflict by allocating resources for exclusive use which exacerbates scarcity, or encouraging cooperation by communal husbanding of resources. We support different sides of this choice.
We use reason and argument to decide who is the rightful owner as opposed to who can overpower others through force. It doesn't ensure people won't turn violent where property rights are disputed or disregarded. However to say this causes violence is to completely ignore the alternative.

Lol encouraging. What do you do to people that refuse to be encouraged and prefer to steal your resources? Any chance you can actually answer a question? The choice is clear, life or death. In your ignorance you choose death.

DavidSSS said:
The Marxist contradicts themself? The Marxist would reply that you contradict yourself by justifying violence to protect your property which should be held by society not privately. You're like mirror images of each other.
The claim that property should be held privately contradicts itself how exactly?

DavidSSS said:
If people wish to live in hierarchical societies that's fine by me but it is they who restrict my ability to live in a non-hierarchical society. People should be able to live peacefully in the society of their choosing. But then some libertarian would come along and claim to be homesteading anything not nailed down.
A non-hierarchical society? Lol how would children be raised without the hierarchy of their parents stewardship? How could a complex group of people coordinate efforts? In any case, in a libertarian society you would be free to secede if you so chose to start your non-hierarchical society. Good luck living anything but a hand to mouth existence though.

DavidSSS said:
Where have I justified violence? I'm arguing that private property is not a justification for violence, you are the one arguing for the use of violence.
You did claim not to be a pacifist, so please enlighten me when violence is justified?

DavidSSS said:
The economy is not static, you don't say. Nice straw man though. The reality of markets is that those with the most economic power also have the most ability to further their own interests. As the economy returns to pre WWI levels of inequality we can see that the mid to late 20th century was the exception and this is the result we can expect from a market system. But this is all irrelevant isn't it? Despite the fact that economics is supposed to be analysis of one aspect of human life, we all know that empirical observation should not be brought into it, you just make some a priori assumptions and construct your argument from that, reality is an intrusion best avoided.
Struggling to find something resembling an argument here? Praxeology is the study of human action, I.e all human action not just the branch of economics.

DavidSSS said:
I don't agree with any one theorist on everything. Sorry, you don't get to shove me in some convenient box with a nice label you can use as a punching bag.
Neither do I. You continue to refuse to justify your position. All you have is weak criticism of mine. Is there any chance at all that you will attempt to do this? Tumbleweed...
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
As per my earlier posts on Northern Ireland. I just finished watching a Dateline special on this very topic on SBS. Not sure if anyone else on here watched it?

Made the very points that I made previously, that with both the UK & the Republic of Ireland being EU members, this formed the underlying building block that enabled a peace deal to be agreed upon. Without this element, there would have been no peace deal.

As part of the programme, they interviewed some militant Republicans who were never happy with the peace deal. They smugly declared that they actually see Brexit as an opportunity to renew their movement and kick things off again. They had been denied oxygen for so long under the peace arrangement and they seemed rather satisfied that it now gives their movement an afterlife.