Politcally Incorrect

Paul Lee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, you didn't and we both know that. Well, should - I've pointed it out to you twice now.

If you come into a debate forum saying you want to debate, then be prepared for debate.

debate

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/debate

batgoat

Paul Lee wrote: »

Ah jaysus. I did answer your questions. And I can't counter being called out on BS- rhetoric not debate.

Look, thanks for your time. Have a great day.

Your group really is not sounding like what you will it as. No sign of an interest in open discussion, you just shout anyone down who respectfully disagrees with you. If anything, it sounds like you're annoyed that people don't like bigots.

Paul Lee

You're very welcome to comment batgoat.

batgoat

Paul Lee wrote: »

You're very welcome to comment batgoat.

So why have you accused people of being fascists and communists for disagreeing with you?

namloc1980

Paul Lee wrote: »

Please answer the following two questions.

Why is it that some elections in Europe only have to be run once, others twice?

Which group of people decides that an election has to be run for the second time? Who are these people? What authority do they have? Can I apply for membership to this committee? No, on second thought I wouldn't give myself that kind of power because that would be an abuse of power.

What are you on about? Honestly I have no idea what this is referring to?

4068ac1elhodqr

The question is wrong from the outset. as Ire is only the 6th or 7th fav to leave the EU.
So it's an unlikely event in relation to current conditions.

If others such as Italy, Sweden and Denmark all leave, then the game changes completely.

Thus the question should be:
i) If other countries perfrom an exit (the handful more likely to leave than Ire)...
ii) ..and brexit proves to be a hard going, affecting the economy, peace and freedom of movement
iii) ..and a new wave of (economic) (non-eu) migrants set their sights on the green welfare pie
iv) ..and linked to above, nobody bothers building any new housing (social or private)

....then, should the matter be discussed? Yes, perhaps.

Afterall when Ire joined, the EU was nothing like it is today.
Heard the Western Balkans are due to join the eu soon too, sure why not.
But the real fun will stop once Turkey join, won't be for a fair while.

Hotblack Desiato

How does staying or leaving the EU affect the number of NON-EU immigrants?

You and the Brexiteers really need to answer that question.

Hotblack Desiato

Paul Lee wrote: »

Why is it that some elections in Europe only have to be run once, others twice?

A referendum is not an election. Elections happen periodically, the electorate are allowed change their mind and people have no problem with that, yet some do for referendums. If the electorate were never allowed to change their mind there'd be no need to have referendums at all, sure wasn't the constitution voted in in 1937 perfect in every way?

Which group of people decides that an election has to be run for the second time?

That's easy. The Irish government. It was the policy of the Irish government we elected that we participate fully in EU treaties. They were perfectly within their rights to hold a second referendum, even if there hadn't been a low turnout and complete bulls**t reasons put forward by the No side the first time. You were not obliged to vote a certain way, or even vote at all.

Blitzkrieger

TL;DR - Things have changed; of course a democratic country should have another vote if the citizens want one.

mackeminexile wrote: »

if they hold a second referendum it's the definition of freedom and democracy, considering the first one isn't legally binding and only advisory. Also the terms of the referendum certainly didn't include the true nature of leave or remain and the brexiteers have been found to have broken the law in numerous ways, not the least being the links that are now being explored between Arron Banks (leave.eu financier), Steve Bannon and Russia.

I saw an English 'leave' MP make some good points about that. He questioned if you have a second referendum, why not have a third? At what point do you accept the people have spoken?

He also addressed the issue of 'people didn't know what they voted for', but rather badly I thought. His point was that people never really know what they're voting for, even in a general election - you cast your vote and wait to see what sort of government is formed. I think he meant that you vote to signal your intention, but kind of leaves open all sorts of questions about what voters want being fulfilled, and what politicians actually ****ing do once they're elected.

We really still don't know what Brexit 'means'. Even on the leave side there are those that want close ties to the EU including a customs union in the future, and others that want a complete break. Four(ish) months to go and there's still a lot to be decided. MPs are still trying to push for a vote in parliament on whether a deal will be accepted or not. Some polls suggest the public have moved towards the remain side, and of course some suggested that the public always wanted to remain but some lazy morons didn't bother going out to vote because they thought remain was a forgone conclusion.

So we're what? Almost 3 years down the line from the referendum? There's still a lot of uncertainty, and it'd be nice to have a black and white choice between the final exit treaty and remaining, but in my opinion, if the citizens now wanted a new referendum it should be done. Surely citizens should be allowed to change their opinion over time.

eagle eye

They voted to leave, those who wanted to stay are shouting loudest since the referendum.
You can't have referendums every couple of years. You have to go with what you voted for and if it's not working after a decade then you can look for another referendum.

4068ac1elhodqr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How does staying or leaving the EU affect the number of NON-EU immigrants?

In two words: 'border security'.

Before the free movement of people across the continent, it was (extreme example) near impossible to move just from one side of a city to the other (Berlin).

Nevermind folks from Afgan or Sudan getting a free taxi-boat or lorry lift into Europe, then almost free unobstructed passage across many eu states into Calais, with end-sights and ambitions on the white cliffs of Dover.

If the Brexit means additional staff, to ensure nearly every lorry is checked both at Dover and in Calais, and fast-track blue lanes at their airports vanish overnight, then Rosslare port might be the ideal alternative from across in Normandy.

valoren

There has already been 2 'votes' for Brexit when you think about it.

The conservative party promised in their manifesto was that if you voted Tory they would be enabled to renegotiate EU membership and with a 'remain' vote secured the favorable changes would be implemented.

People knew this when they voted. The Tories won more seats than predicted. A hung parliament had been the consensus. Being the only party promising and capable of delivering an IN/OUT vote the conservatives arguably swayed votes from those wishing to end EU membership disregarding their political affiliations.

Cameron secured the renegotiation's but his political gambit back fired when Remain won the subsequent election.

who_me

eagle eye wrote: »

They voted to leave, those who wanted to stay are shouting loudest since the referendum.
You can't have referendums every couple of years. You have to go with what you voted for and if it's not working after a decade then you can look for another referendum.

Even if it's a complete cluster****? Even if it's nothing like what was promised when the referendum took place? Even if the referendum was non-binding?

Paul Lee

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

TL;DR - Things have changed; of course a democratic country should have another vote if the citizens want one.




I saw an English 'leave' MP make some good points about that. He questioned if you have a second referendum, why not have a third? At what point do you accept the people have spoken?

He also addressed the issue of 'people didn't know what they voted for', but rather badly I thought. His point was that people never really know what they're voting for, even in a general election - you cast your vote and wait to see what sort of government is formed. I think he meant that you vote to signal your intention, but kind of leaves open all sorts of questions about what voters want being fulfilled, and what politicians actually ****ing do once they're elected.

We really still don't know what Brexit 'means'. Even on the leave side there are those that want close ties to the EU including a customs union in the future, and others that want a complete break. Four(ish) months to go and there's still a lot to be decided. MPs are still trying to push for a vote in parliament on whether a deal will be accepted or not. Some polls suggest the public have moved towards the remain side, and of course some suggested that the public always wanted to remain but some lazy morons didn't bother going out to vote because they thought remain was a forgone conclusion.

So we're what? Almost 3 years down the line from the referendum? There's still a lot of uncertainty, and it'd be nice to have a black and white choice between the final exit treaty and remaining, but in my opinion, if the citizens now wanted a new referendum it should be done. Surely citizens should be allowed to change their opinion over time.

Slight problem here. If remain had won, the Brexiteers would have been silenced- except for a bit of moaning, myself included- But "we" would have accepted defeat (I know I'm not British and didn't have a vote. I feel a certain kinship on this issue however.)

But if there's another referendum within the next ten years then if you think remainers are a pain in the ass, just wait til you hear what the Brexiteers would have to say. It wouldn't be pretty. Some remainers would get worn down pretty quickly and change their minds. They're not cut from the same cloth, but that's not to say they couldn't grow a spine- It's a matter of choice.

Even if you're a remainer, you'll wish you hadn't run the referendum again and made a mockery of democracy in the UK and the wider world.

Lisbon 2 is the big stick that I use all the time to show that democracy is dead in the EU.

I agree with the commenter below, by all means have another referendum in twenty years after implementation but not before that. Otherwise we're talking complete garbage.

Hotblack Desiato

Fiona Sweet Rental wrote: »

In two words: 'border security'.

Before the free movement of people across the continent, it was (extreme example) near impossible to move just from one side of a city to the other (Berlin).

Are you saying we should have borders like the Berlin Wall?

Will there be minefields and trigger-happy guards?

Nevermind folks from Afgan or Sudan getting a free taxi-boat or lorry lift into Europe, then almost free unobstructed passage across many eu states into Calais, with end-sights and ambitions on the white cliffs of Dover.

So your actual beef is with Schengen, which was originally set up outside the structures of the EU as a multilateral agreement.

You don't need to be in the EU to be in Schengen, and you don't need to be in Schengen to be in the EU.

Hotblack Desiato

Paul Lee wrote: »

If remain had won, the Brexiteers would have been silenced

Yeah right. As if Farage and the Tory right were just going to evaporate or something?

I agree with the commenter below, by all means have another referendum in twenty years after implementation but not before that.

If it's a hard Brexit it won't take anything like 20 years of stewing in the juices of their economic collapse before they'll be begging to be let back in on any terms.

Harika

The best argument for another vote is to give remainers a chance to approve the deal that was made. Cause none of the three options has a majority in parliament so no deal would be most likely but no one in their right mind would want that, that's why UK people will get Teresa's deal.
If leavers are happy with that no need to vote again, do leavers hate it:bad luck you won get over it.

eagle eye

who_me wrote:

Even if it's a complete cluster****? Even if it's nothing like what was promised when the referendum took place? Even if the referendum was non-binding?

Promises were made by both sides. More people chose to exit.

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

Promises were made by both sides. More people chose to exit.

And there's pretty strong indications that the British public didn't fully grasp the point term impact of the brexit. Hence the decreasing support for brexit.

who_me

eagle eye wrote: »

Promises were made by both sides. More people chose to exit.

True, but now that the referendum has passed the onus is on those who made those promises to back them up.

I'll sell you this lovely sports car for a low, low price. Ok, now that you've agreed to the deal, I'd like to present you with this pile o' crap. Don't complain, you've already agreed, there's no going back now...........A deal is a deal.

4068ac1elhodqr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are you saying we should have borders like the Berlin Wall?

Will there be minefields and trigger-happy guards?

That point was as mentioned as an 'unpractical extreme historical example', no need for the pouring of faux outrage. Perhaps a simple border check would suffice at each country.

Are you saying all European countries should be fully borderless?
Should the lines on the school maps be erased overnight for the sake of 'harmonisation'?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So your actual beef is with Schengen, which was originally set up outside the structures of the EU as a multilateral agreement.

You don't need to be in the EU to be in Schengen, and you don't need to be in Schengen to be in the EU.

The two are fairly interdependent and co-related, it was even referred to in the original framework of the European Union.

When the Schengen was first set up, it (like Europe) was much, much smaller and simplier. There wasn't taxi boats (people trafficking) across the Med, and invites for millions of non-eu folks to show up, via Merkel.

In 1985 the Schengen was a simple economic agreement between the Benelux Economic Union, France, Germany.

This year between January and August 2018, 7,467 illegal entries into Germany were detected (at the Austrian border alone). Of those, 3,818 were turned away; the rest followed asylum procedures.

French authorities have increased checks, voiding the principle of it, due to fears for their national security. Frontex also is planning to expand it's power.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Paul Lee wrote: »

Lisbon 2 is the big stick that I use all the time to show that democracy is dead in the EU.

Lisbon2? Oh you mean the democratic vote that passed.
Your “big stick” is a withered little twig.

eagle eye

who_me wrote:

True, but now that the referendum has passed the onus is on those who made those promises to back them up.

The exit hasn't happened yet. How do you expect them to deliver on promises they said would happen after the exit before it happens?

eagle eye

Ivory Quiet Murderer wrote:

Lisbon2? Oh you mean the democratic vote that passed. Your “big stick†is a withered little twig.

It should never have happened.
I can guarantee you there would be no talk about a second Brexit referendum if the result had went the other way no matter how tight it was.

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

And there's pretty strong indications that the British public didn't fully grasp the point term impact of the brexit. Hence the decreasing support for brexit.

As has been said before in this thread, the public as a whole is not that intelligent. If they didn't understand it then, they still don't. The only difference is the loud voices of the anti-Brexit side frightening more people.

j8wk2feszrnpao

eagle eye wrote: »

It should never have happened.
I can guarantee you there would be no talk about a second Brexit referendum if the result had went the other way no matter how tight it was.

Thankfully we did. And based on the 2nd vote, it definitely should have happened. The amount of scaremongering done by the No side was ridiculous.

And yes there would have been talk of a second Brexit vote. Farage and Boris would have continued their lies. You think they would break the habit of a lifetime? You have people like Nadine Dorries who want out of Europe, but then expect to keep MEPs for the UK to have a voice in the EU. The Brexit side just oozes lies and delusions on a regular basis.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eagle eye wrote: »

As has been said before in this thread, the public as a whole is not that intelligent. If they didn't understand it then, they still don't. The only difference is the loud voices of the anti-Brexit side frightening more people.

Was that a typo? Are you seriously saying that the pro-Brexit side where honest with the 350 mil for the NHS and the immigration scenario?

Or are you saying everyone lied and scaremongered? (In which case, I'm not sure if I agree or not: you'll need to link to examples of the loud voices you say were frightening people.

fash

eagle eye wrote: »

It should never have happened.
I can guarantee you there would be no talk about a second Brexit referendum if the result had went the other way no matter how tight it was.

You clearly weren't listening to what Nigel farage was saying prior to the referendum. Cameron was opportunistically likely to say " i gave you a shot, you lost, my job is done" - but leave would have been empowered by a loss and getting tantalisingly close to getting what they wanted. Culture wars take a long time to resolve- if ever.

eagle eye

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Was that a typo? Are you seriously saying that the pro-Brexit side where honest with the 350 mil for the NHS and the immigration scenario?

I'm not saying anybody was honest.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Or are you saying everyone lied and scaremongered? (In which case, I'm not sure if I agree or not: you'll need to link to examples of the loud voices you say were frightening people.

Yes, they all told lies.
I couldn't be bothered to go and find links for you.

fash

eagle eye wrote: »

As has been said before in this thread, the public as a whole is not that intelligent. If they didn't understand it then, they still don't. The only difference is the loud voices of the anti-Brexit side frightening more people.

Clearly it is the rabid brexiters who are having a bigger impact. Europe and the UK's relationship with it was not a real topic in the UK (except for a fringe and even for those they just wanted small changes it slightly more freedom - e.g. Norway) until the brexit campaign started. It has been kept live by the right wing media's calling judges "traitors to the people", the EU "bullies" and "rats" etc. etc.