Why the north outside EU changes everything for the island

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

There has been a democratic decision to leave ; 17.4 million Voters followed by a general election where parties that promised to respect the referendum got 84% of the Vote .

Yes, but there was no box on the ballot paper to tick saying"we renounce forever the right to review or reconsider this decision".

If there was a democratic decision to leave in 2016, there could be a democratic decision to remain (or indeed to leave) in 2019. And those who oppose the right of the people to take such a decision are obviously the enemies of democracy, and deserve to be crushed without mercy in a Violent Uprising. Wouldn't you agree?

blinding

17.4 million in the Referendum .

84% voted for Parties that said in their General Election Manifestos that they would respect the Brexit Referendum Vote .

If Brexit does not happen Democracy will have fallen .

blinding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but there was no box on the ballot paper to tick saying"we renounce forever the right to review or reconsider this decision".

If there was a democratic decision to leave in 2016, there could be a democratic decision to remain (or indeed to leave) in 2019. And those who oppose the right of the people to take such a decision are obviously the enemies of democracy, and deserve to be crushed without mercy in a Violent Uprising. Wouldn't you agree?

There is no present Democratic Mandate for Brexit not to happen . Were Brexit not to happen in the present Democratic Circumstances ; Democracy will have fallen .

Peregrinus

Your needle is stuck in a groove, blinding. You accidentally reposted a point you made some time ago, instead of responding to more recent posts. I'm sure it's not your intention, but it makes you look like an enemy of democracy who deserves to be crushed without mercy in a Violent Uprising.

The Solution

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

- Bertold Brecht.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Laughable stance amongst other laughable stances.

The UK represents itself in drawing up directives .

This utter crap about having no sovereignty is more of the inane waffle that Facebook plebs spout around the place.

This country amongst others in the EU would be nothing without it.

I'd say it annoys the ****e out of you that Irish people continually reject the notion of irexit.

Sent farage packing last year too.


The polls don't lie. Only idiots or agenda morons call for the break up of the EU.

I really wish you wouldn't misquote me.

Here's a hint. Try to find where I used the word Irexit, or called for the breakup of the EU?

Stating that the British people I spoke to resent not being in control of their own policies is quite simply a fact.
Making assumptions doesn't make you have any idea what I believe about the EU, or Irexit.

Belonging to a Union of Countries necessarily requires giving up some Independence. The fact that you react so strongly to something so obvious, is puzzling.

I wish the British people the best of luck with Brexit, while simultaneously being quite certain that Ireland needs to look out for her own interests, and that those interests require a good relationship with Britain - which is not remotely suggesting we join them.

Thomas_IV

blinding wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but there was no box on the ballot paper to tick saying"we renounce forever the right to review or reconsider this decision".  

If there was a democratic decision to leave in 2016, there could be a democratic decision to remain (or indeed to leave) in 2019.  And those who oppose the right of the people to take such a decision are obviously the enemies of democracy, and deserve to be crushed without mercy in a Violent Uprising.  Wouldn't you agree?

There is no present Democratic Mandate for Brexit not to happen . Were Brexit not to happen in the present Democratic Circumstances ; Democracy will have fallen .

That is very simplistic which doesn't address the reality just like in this linked article below:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0807/983518-brexit/

Ms Sturgeon also called for "constructive and genuine" engagement with the Scottish government following a report by a committee of MPs that criticised UK government engagement with the devolved administrations.
She added: "The UK government has launched a power grab on the Scottish Parliament and now even a House of Commons committee says Whitehall takes little account of the realities of devolution in the UK.
"It cannot carry on like this and the UK government needs to start listening to the views of the people of Scotland, end the power-grab and start respecting the Scottish Parliament."

Democracy is very much more than just voting in referendums, but apparently not for the Brexiteers. For them Democracy ends with the referendum result that fits them.

blinding

Thomas_IV wrote: »

That is very simplistic which doesn't address the reality just like in this linked article below:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0807/983518-brexit/



Democracy is very much more than just voting in referendums, but apparently not for the Brexiteers. For them Democracy ends with the referendum result that fits them.

In the General election after the Brexit Referendum parties that said they would respect the Result of the Referendum won 84% of the Vote .

Democracy is a beautiful thing .

Thomas_IV

blinding wrote: »

Thomas_IV wrote: »

That is very simplistic which doesn't address the reality just like in this linked article below:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0807/983518-brexit/



Democracy is very much more than just voting in referendums, but apparently not for the Brexiteers. For them Democracy ends with the referendum result that fits them.

In the General election after the Brexit Referendum parties that said they would respect the Result of the Referendum won 84% of the Vote .

Democracy is a beautiful thing .

You're repeating yourself and it already has started to get boring. Very boring indeed.

Peregrinus

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Democracy is very much more than just voting in referendums, but apparently not for the Brexiteers. For them Democracy ends with the referendum result that fits them.

This. An awful lot of Brexiteers seem to regard a referendum as a kind of off-switch for democracy.

This probably has to do with the fact that the referendum is a relative constitutional novelty in the UK, and they haven't quite worked out what the role or effect of a referendum is. In other democracies, where the referendum has an established place, they generally get that the referendum is just one more tool in the democratic toolbox. You use it when it's the right or necessary tool for the job. But it's a tool, not a magic wand. Your wish that the result of a referendum will stand for a generation without question will not necessarily be made real.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I really wish you wouldn't misquote me.

Here's a hint. Try to find where I used the word Irexit, or called for the breakup of the EU?

Stating that the British people I spoke to resent not being in control of their own policies is quite simply a fact.
Making assumptions doesn't make you have any idea what I believe about the EU, or Irexit.

Belonging to a Union of Countries necessarily requires giving up some Independence. The fact that you react so strongly to something so obvious, is puzzling.

I wish the British people the best of luck with Brexit, while simultaneously being quite certain that Ireland needs to look out for her own interests, and that those interests require a good relationship with Britain - which is not remotely suggesting we join them.

You peddle sovereignty nonsense over and over yet can't back it up with real examples.

Ergo it's nonsense.

The UK makes the laws of the EU the UK had more outs than ins than any other members.

Your sovereignty ballax is just that ballaxology , repeating it over and over and suggesting that Ireland 'look after itself' doesn't make sovereignty nonsense true. It's just you repeating false claims.

And if it didn't come across as a call for irexit then I suggest you stop framing it that way.


Any facts to go with your nonsense?

blinding

Peregrinus wrote: »

This. An awful lot of Brexiteers seem to regard a referendum as a kind of off-switch for democracy.

This probably has to do with the fact that the referendum is a relative constitutional novelty in the UK, and they haven't quite worked out what the role or effect of a referendum is. In other democracies, where the referendum has an established place, they generally get that the referendum is just one more tool in the democratic toolbox. You use it when it's the right or necessary tool for the job. But it's a tool, not a magic wand. Your wish that the result of a referendum will stand for a generation without question will not necessarily be made real.

You are conveniently forgetting the following General Election where parties that said they would Respect the Brexit Referendum Result got 84% of the Vote .

Thomas_IV

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Democracy is very much more than just voting in referendums, but apparently not for the Brexiteers. For them Democracy ends with the referendum result that fits them.

This.  An awful lot of Brexiteers seem to regard a referendum as a kind of off-switch for democracy.

This probably has to do with the fact that the referendum is a relative constitutional novelty in the UK, and they haven't quite worked out what the role or effect of a referendum is.  In other democracies, where the referendum has an established place, they generally get that the referendum is just one more tool in the democratic toolbox.  You use it when it's the right or necessary tool for the job.  But it's a tool, not a magic wand.  Your wish that the result of a referendum will stand for a generation without question will not necessarily be made real.

That all is quite so as you said. But it takes some understanding and intellect to realise that and the many Brexiteers fail to realise that. Not necessarily for bing stupid, but more for being ideological blinded and stubborn in their fierceness to achieve their aim no matter what and no matter what it will cost. That is the real radical thinking in the minds of the many Brexiteers. It is no wonder that this is the way they think and talk, having been manipulated by the tabloids (and some even allegedely blame the BBC too for that) and their constant anti-EU stance and views in every article for years, if not to say for decades (which is much more closer to the truth).

The will learn it the hard way how utterly wrong they are. Some who are not that ideological stupid might know that already, but don't have the courage to themselves to admit it and reverse their stance. This is like on many boards on the Internet, like some f*cking silly game of point scoring with pick your team and creed and stick to it no matter what comes along. That is really disgusting because it shows hos stupid people can be. If it would only affect themselves I wouldn't mind that much, but this Brexit folly is to ruin the lives of millions of people, those who voted remain included and this is where it starts that I really despise the Brexiteers, for imposing their stupidity on others against their expressed will. Every suggestion or even attempt to reverse Brexit by giving it a second referendum is shouted down by the Brexiteers as 'anti-democratic' because they fear that some who first voted for Leave might have a change of mind and would vote Remain in a BrexitRef2 which would leave the Brexit idiocy in tatters.

listermint

blinding wrote: »

You are conveniently forgetting the following General Election where parties that said they would Respect the Brexit Referendum Result got 84% of the Vote .

Parties can't have 84 % vote for brexit if their own Base and many of their MPs are against it.

Your use of the figure 84% is you making things up

I'd go as far as saying you doing it for the laugh in hopes of being challenged.

Probably just to post your inane democracy is a beautiful thing chant.

Thomas_IV

listermint wrote: »

blinding wrote: »

You are conveniently forgetting the following General Election where parties that said they would Respect the Brexit Referendum Result got 84% of the Vote .

Parties can't have 84 % vote for brexit if their own Base and many of their MPs are against it.

Your use of the figure 84% is you making things up

I'd go as far as saying you doing it for the laugh in hopes of being challenged.

Probably just to post your inane democracy is a beautiful thing chant.

I decided to cease following blinding's posts as they are apparently pointless reiterations like coming from a bot.

blinding

listermint wrote: »

Parties can't have 84 % vote for brexit if their own Base and many of their MPs are against it.

Your use of the figure 84% is you making things up

I'd go as far as saying you doing it for the laugh in hopes of being challenged.

Probably just to post your inane democracy is a beautiful thing chant.

Did you see and understand the Labour and Conservative General Election Manifestos . Did you understand the Respect the result of the Brexit Referendum . They could not have been clearer . =84%

There was a party that rejected the referendum result = 8%

I love Democracy .

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

You are conveniently forgetting the following General Election where parties that said they would Respect the Brexit Referendum Result got 84% of the Vote .

No, I'm not. As the parties had - and still have - different notions of what "respect the vote" means, neither of them can say that their vision has secured a mandate. May's Brexit programme attracted a vote of 42% of the population; clearly it has no mandate.

And, even if May had secured a 50% plus vote in 2017, that still wouldn't prevent people changing their minds in 2019 and expressing that, either in a referendum or in a general election. The voice of the people can never be silenced! Those who take the view that the people should not be given the chance to express a change of mind through democratic means such as another referendum are, quite obviously, the enemies of democracy, who deserve to be crushed without mercy in a Violent Uprising. I am completely confident that you entirely agree with this, and that you will be one of the first to the barricades.

OldRio

blinding wrote: »

Did you see and understand the Labour and Conservative General Election Manifestos . Did you understand the Respect the result of the Brexit Referendum . They could not have been clearer . =84%

There was a party that rejected the referendum result = 8%

I love Democracy .

Reading some of your posts on this and other threads. I see what you're at. Ignore button used.

blinding

OldRio wrote: »

Reading some of your posts on this and other threads. I see what you're at. Ignore button used.

Democracy is just not your thing !

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

Democracy is just not your thing !

Never seen such bill headedness.

There is a growing mandate to have a vote on exactly what is on offer here. Like the mandate that grew to have the original ref, if that is ignored then your much vaunted 'Democracy' is a joke.
That's 'joke' with a capital j.

Thomas_IV

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blinding wrote: »

Democracy is just not your thing !

Never seen such bill headedness.

There is a growing mandate to have a vote on exactly what is on offer here. Like the mandate that grew to have the original ref,  if that is ignored then your much vaunted 'Democracy' is a joke.
That's 'joke' with a capital j.

He's just an example of the many Brexiteers and their crude sense of the meaning of democracy. They're all beyond a 'Joke', they really mean it.

TomSweeney

What about ye ?

Thomas_IV

TomSweeney wrote: »

What about ye ?

Me? I am no Brexiter.

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If anyone was a Nazi sympathizer it was good ole' Dev.
Anyone who was an enemy of the hated Brits was good enough for him.

Indeed. And your evidence for this nonsense is what, precisely? Is it the 6 IRA men he executed, or the other 6 whom he allowed to die on hunger strike between 1939 and 1945? Or the 1,500 suspected IRA volunteers he had interned during the same period? Please do tell.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Ireland... refused to take Jewish refugees and need I mention Dev sending his warmest and most heartfelt condolences following Hitler's death?

Very interesting. Would this be the same de Valera who invited Erwin Schrödinger to work in Ireland when he was expelled from Germany for his anti-Nazi views? The same de Valera who overruled his own Department of Justice when they refused to allow 150 Jewish children into Ireland? The same de Valera who explicitly granted protections to Jews when he wrote Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937, when it was fashionable elsewhere to deny rights to them and indeed to collaborate with the Nazis as Britain was still doing in that year? The same de Valera who was honoured by the Jewish community that created the Éamon de Valera Forest in Israel in 1966?

And so on ad nauseam. There's even a book dedicated to all these supposedly non-existent refugees in Ireland from Nazi Germany:

Gisela Holfter and Horst Dickel, An Irish Sanctuary: German-Speaking Refugees in Ireland 1933-1945(Oldenburg, 2016)

And just in case you've missed it - and clearly you have - at the Èvian Conference in July 1938 Britain, the US and every other country bar the Dominican Republic refused to take Jewish refugees so in this context the fixation with singling de Valera out for demonisation is nothing but prejudice or ignorance, or both.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The Brits where fighting the Nazis while Ireland hid behind neutrality.

After 6 years of collaborating with - apologies, "appeasing" - the Nazis while they implemented the Nuremburg Laws, of undermining the French & Stresa Front in order to advance British businesses (e.g. signing the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, 1935), and of looking at Nazism as being a welcome bulwark against communism, it was the least they could do. Ironically, it was the dreaded Russian communists who did most to win WWII but who were not even invited to the Munich Agreement by Britain which was more keen on appeasing their then lesser evil, Hitler.

blinding

blinding wrote: »

You are conveniently forgetting the following General Election where parties that said they would Respect the Brexit Referendum Result got 84% of the Vote .

You're conveniently forgetting that the 2016 vote was the 2nd referendum on EU membership. What's wrong with having a 3rd if it all goes t*ts up? (Which it is).

The Rape of Lucretia

Anyone else have the impression that the reason Wesminster is making a hames of their Brexit management is they just arent including DeValera and Hitler enough in their thoughts and discussions ?

Hotblack Desiato

Taytoland wrote: »

I am asking for facts to back up that Scotland could keep the pound and join the EU. It simply can't. Any new state which joins the EU and all of it's forms must sign up to the Euro currency. For Scotland to leave the Union and then having to rejoin the EU they would be absolutely expected to sign up to the Euro currency.

Ireland left the UK but continued to use sterling for 56 years - as I pointed out in the post you replied to - did you read it...? and of course we joined the EEC during that time


Most of the 2004+ EU entrants haven't joined the euro yet although they have a theoretical obligation. Both the country concerned and the EU have to agree that the economic conditions have been met. In practice this can be put on the long finger indefinitely, for instance Sweden has basically no intention of joining the euro.

Denmark has effectively joined the euro (the kroner is pegged to the euro) but refuses to adopt the notes and coins out of domestic political BS. That's another option.

Peregrinus

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Anyone else have the impression that the reason Wesminster is making a hames of their Brexit management is they just arent including DeValera and Hitler enough in their thoughts and discussions ?

It'd be worth trying. It could hardly produce a worse outcome than what they're doing now.

blinding

Deleted User wrote: »

You're conveniently forgetting that the 2016 vote was the 2nd referendum on EU membership. What's wrong with having a 3rd if it all goes t*ts up? (Which it is).

Roughly 36 years between or whatever it was is about right .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

Roughly 36 years between or whatever it was is about right .

So 36 years is the qualifying period of time for 'Democracy'.

If the desire is there for a plebiscite on any issue why would you wait 36 yrs? What makes that period more 'Democratic'?

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So 36 years is the qualifying period of time for 'Democracy'.

If the desire is there for a plebiscite on any issue why would you wait 36 yrs? What makes that period more 'Democratic'?

Most of the Brits just want to get on with it . Many are very perplexed that the Result has not been followed through particularly after the General Election where parties that said they would respect the referendum result got 84% .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

Most of the Brits just want to get on with it . Many are very perplexed that the Result has not been followed through particularly after the General Election where parties that said they would respect the referendum result got 84% .

You are just making stuff up now.
You would have that impression if you read certain newspapers, but you can just as easily get the impression that many would change their minds if there was another plebiscite.
Proper polling is the only way to get a true sense. Parliament is in a mess on the issue precisely because it reflects the country.

Clarification of what the people want would be the true democratic way forward imo.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are just making stuff up now.
You would have that impression if you read certain newspapers, but you can just as easily get the impression that many would change their minds if there was another plebiscite.
Proper polling is the only way to get a true sense. Parliament is in a mess on the issue precisely because it reflects the country.

Clarification of what the people want would be the true democratic way forward imo.

Pollling is very unreliable . Remarkable how many times it comes up with a result that favours the people paying for it .

Didn’t the Pro Eu Liberal democrats get 8% at the last election ; Thats 8%

Vince Cable Missed some important votes and nobody even noticed for a day or two because so few people care . Vince goes missing and nobody even notices .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

Pollling is very unreliable . Remarkable how many times it comes up with a result that favours the people paying for it .

Didn’t the Pro Eu Liberal democrats get 8% at the last election ; Thats 8%

Vince Cable Missed some important votes and nobody even noticed for a day or two because so few people care . Vince goes missing and nobody even notices .

But your 'impression' of the mood of the people that is plucked outta the ether is more reliable? :rolleyes:

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But your 'impression' of the mood of the people that is plucked outta the ether is more reliable? :rolleyes:

I am going by the referendum ;17.4 million voters , the most that have ever voted for anything in Britain and the 84% that voted for the parties that said they would respect the referendum in the following general election .

Seeing as Brexiters think there should be only one referendum on Britain's membership of the EU, surely it's time to disregard the mere 51.9% who voted for Brexit in 2016 as it is in contravention of the clearly expressed democratic wishes of the 67.23% of the UK electorate who voted to stay in the EU in 1975.

That's the logical outcome of the Brexit idiocy on this issue.

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

I am going by the referendum ;17.4 million voters , the most that have ever voted for anything in Britain and the 84% that voted for the parties that said they would respect the referendum in the following general election .

And have you watched how parliament has turned itself inside out trying to implement it? The dithering, the resignations etc etc. The debate even?

There is a reason for that. It has to do with MP's reflecting what they are being told out in their constituencies.

Jimbo789

Why not have an independent republic of Northern Ireland? Ireland and the U.K. can leave them to fund and govern themselves. They can decide for themselves if they want to be in EU or not.

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

Most of the Brits just want to get on with it . Many are very perplexed that the Result has not been followed through particularly after the General Election where parties that said they would respect the referendum result got 84% .

What you're saying here is that many British voters are stupid, which seems uncharitable. Anybody who is "perplexed" that the result has not been followed through has either failed to notice that Art 50 notice was served well over a year ago, or has failed to grasp that Article 50 notice runs for a period of two years, which hasn't yet elapsed. If "many" British voters are "perplexed" by such simple facts as these well, forgive me, but maybe holding a referendum on any subject isn't such a crash-hot idea, and maybe it would be unwise to attach too much significance to a referendum result that you seem to think rest on the votes of half-wits.

blinding

Peregrinus wrote: »

What you're saying here is that many British voters are stupid, which seems uncharitable. Anybody who is "perplexed" that the result has not been followed through has either failed to notice that Art 50 notice was served well over a year ago, or has failed to grasp that Article 50 notice runs for a period of two years, which hasn't yet elapsed. If "many" British voters are "perplexed" by such simple facts as these well, forgive me, but maybe holding a referendum on any subject isn't such a crash-hot idea, and maybe it would be unwise to attach too much significance to a referendum result that you seem to think rest on the votes of half-wits.

I don’t think you like the Democracy of the Referendum and of the General Election as much as I do .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

I don’t think you like the Democracy of the Referendum and of the General Election as much as I do .

Which is all in the past. A lot of water has flowed under those bridges since.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which is all in the past. A lot of water has flowed under those bridges since.

Potentially 4 years until a General Election . I’m assuming Britain will be a Sovereign Independent Country in control of its own laws , borders and currency by then .

It will feel a lot like the 26 Counties getting its freedom from the British in 1922 .

I think I will go to London for the Freedom Celebrations . It will be Great Party .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

Potentially 4 years until a General Election . I’m assuming Britain will be a Sovereign Independent Country in control of its own laws , borders and currency by then .

It will feel a lot like the 26 Counties getting its freedom from the British in 1922 .

I think I will go to London for the Freedom Celebrations . It will be Great Party .

Democracy will see to it that it won't be 4 years to a GE.

Will you celebrate if that happens? I doubt it. I get the 'impression' you are 'Delighted With Democracy' only when it suits.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Democracy will see to it that it won't be 4 years to a GE.

Will you celebrate if that happens? I doubt it. I get the 'impression' you are 'Delighted With Democracy' only when it suits.

I’m a big fan of Democracy . It’s Great .

The Rape of Lucretia

blinding wrote: »

I’m a big fan of Democracy . It’s Great .

In theory at least. The one person one vote for everyone bit though, is where its current implementation is problematic. It is patently irresponsible to give people who dont really know what is good for them, a vote, as if they can make use of it correctly. Look at Brexit. Or Trump.
The great challenge for democracy, and for all of those who are capable of taking part in it to the greater good, is how to limit the harm democracy does to so many today.
There was a lot of merit in the original implementation of democracy, where they would have been horrified at the come one come all approach some seem to consider true democracy today. At the moment, the best we can say is that we have an imperfect democracy in much of the world, which we accept as a temporary stepping stone to a better one.

blinding

blinding wrote: »

I’m a big fan of Democracy . It’s Great .

So am I, but sometimes it goes wrong!
Don't forget, Hitler was elected!

blinding

Deleted User wrote: »

So am I, but sometimes it goes wrong!
Don't forget, Hitler was elected!

Those Germans and their Austrian .

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

In theory at least. The one person one vote for everyone bit though, is where its current implementation is problematic. It is patently irresponsible to give people who dont really know what is good for them, a vote, as if they can make use of it correctly. Look at Brexit. Or Trump.
The great challenge for democracy, and for all of those who are capable of taking part in it to the greater good, is how to limit the harm democracy does to so many today.
There was a lot of merit in the original implementation of democracy, where they would have been horrified at the come one come all approach some seem to consider true democracy today. At the moment, the best we can say is that we have an imperfect democracy in much of the world, which we accept as a temporary stepping stone to a better one.

I have seen the "uneducated voter" argument used to allow one party states to avoid calling elections far too often in the third world.

Best not to go down that path.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

You peddle sovereignty nonsense over and over yet can't back it up with real examples.

Ergo it's nonsense.

The UK makes the laws of the EU the UK had more outs than ins than any other members.

Your sovereignty ballax is just that ballaxology , repeating it over and over and suggesting that Ireland 'look after itself' doesn't make sovereignty nonsense true. It's just you repeating false claims.

And if it didn't come across as a call for irexit then I suggest you stop framing it that way.


Any facts to go with your nonsense?

I peddle "Sovereignty nonsense"?
Where?

Where have I called for Irexit?
Please do post a link.

I've frequently criticised the EU.
I have not called for Irexit.
It would be economic suicide given our current debt levels - in Euros.

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

I don’t think you like the Democracy of the Referendum and of the General Election as much as I do .

You're completely wrong. I like democracy much more than you. I don't share your apparent view that the many "Leave" voters are idiots, and have such trust in the voters that I am quite happy for them to have any number of opportunties to review and reconsider the Brexit decision. I like democracy so much that I don't believe it can every be "turned off". In a democracy, you al;ways have the right to offer democratic opposition to a decision democratically taken, to seek democratic review of that decision, to seek to have it democratically overturned. If you don't have that right, then you're not living in a democracy, and people who argue that you don't have that right are enemies of democracy.

Wanderer78

Peregrinus wrote:

You're completely wrong. I like democracy much more than you. I don't share your apparent view that the many "Leave" voters are idiots, and have such trust in the voters that I am quite happy for them to have any number of opportunties to review and reconsider the Brexit decision. I like democracy so much that I don't believe it can every be "turned off". In a democracy, you al;ways have the right to offer democratic opposition to a decision democratically taken, to seek democratic review of that decision, to seek to have it democratically overturned. If you don't have that right, then you're not living in a democracy, and people who argue that you don't have that right are enemies of democracy.

Do we truly live in a democracy?