Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

reslfj

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Almost as concerning for some sectors in Ireland - tariffs on food into the UK would be a big problem....

Look at these EU MFN tariffs and the proposed UK 'No Deal' tariffs.
https://ahdb.org.uk/uk-and-eu-import-tariffs-under-no-deal-brexit

These may not be the final UK tariffs, but they show that the UK already knows it needs much import of food at prices the UK population can afford.

The tariffs are bad for beef and sheep, unpleasant but not nearly as bad for pig meat and dairy products.

Remember the UK export of sheep/lamb and beef to the EU26 will stop very fast after Brexit day and leave a market opportunity for the equivalent amount of export from Ireland.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not an issue for the rest of the EU really.

The EU26 can easily afford the loss of a large part of the UK market - even for food.
Irish products are well respected on the EU26 market.

The Danish farmers organisations fears the market for premium butter will shift to lower priced butter or even somewhat to oil/margarine. They expect this to be much more due to the lower Pound than to the proposed 28 €cent/lb (~25p) duty.

The price for pigs ready for slaughter is the highest it has been for many years due to the African Swine Fever in China/Asia. The increase from week 6 to week 46 has been 63%.

It's like the UK market for ham and bacon doesn't even count at the moment. ASF and the high pork prices will likely last 24-36 months or more.

Lars

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

eh nope - it's not binary.

It just means that he wasn't knowingly dishonest.

People are unintentionally wrong and make mistakes all the time... Doesn't make them automatic liars.

That's true.

But that principle applies both ways.

What we find from Remainers is a healthy scepticism as to whether Remain spokespersons were "honest", for the reasons you describe, versus a disproportionate hard-line approach to Leavers which always concludes they "lied".

It's one rule for one side, one for another.

I'm consistent - both sides lied, en masse, to advance their own interests.

But I don't listen to liars, I come to my own conclusions.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Four points in response:


It doesn't matter; a poll is a poll. Both are subject to intense pressures during a referendum or general election campaign. Furthermore, we're obliged to implement the first, and if a second is demanded a reasonable time later, that can also be held.

Polls based on a binary decision demonstrate that 55% would favor remaining and 45% would favor leaving - this has fluctuated somewhat but given mass demonstrations in favor of remaining i feel it is at least justifiable to suggest that Remain would have a substantial chance of winning in a second referendum, given that the lies told in the first would no longer appeal to the middle ground of floating voters

Polls on an election in which multiple parties are arguing for multiple things, and within a voting system based on FPTP are not relatable to an In/Out referendum on the EU. Until a combined TORY and BREXIT PARTY % is 51% or above, this argument will hold true, and it says nothing of the Tory members who remain conservative, while also being ardent remainers

Second, I made an error in my previous post. I said "we believe the EU is an oppressor and colonizer", it should have said "we do not believe...". I've since corrected my earlier post. Perhaps you can reply to that view instead.

Im not going to reply to that at all, as i see it as a cheap way of wriggling out of what you have been declaring for the past number of days. Immigration is eroding national culture; The EU is eroding state sovereignty; All Laws must remain only the responsibility of the national parliament, no matter how beneficial, or widely accepted, they are (or the fact that British MEP's agreed to and often endorsed and lobbied for said laws)

Instead i take this as a cowardly way of retracting a more harsh part of your opinion on the EU

Very convenient of you to casually dismiss Osbourne's overt lies during the campaign. He didn't say "in the distant future when Brexit is implemented", he said a "mere vote to Leave".

I have not dismissed anything with regard to Osbourne or the supposed Project Fear as you saw it. Britain did indeed catch fire the night the referendum result was counted. It was that responsible people in power put this fire OUT, that prevented disaster. It does not mean that the damage was not done, or that it will not happen once Brexit actually occurs

Finally, I stand by my view of O'Toole. He invents - without a shred of evidence - a vision of Brexiteers that I have never held, never heard from other Brexiteers I know, and I know that the vast majority of Brexiteers do not hold that extreme view. This is merely opinion and waffle on behalf of O'Toole.

I find this actually laughable. If you wish to see clearly a version of Brexiteer that Fintan O'Toole has 'created', you are invited to simply look in a mirror.

• You repeatedly talk of the EU in terms of it mutating into a 'European federal Super-state'
• You repeatedly argued on Immigration damaging the 'nation state culture'
• You have repeatedly referred to arguments that contradict your opinion, and call for a Peoples Vote, as being some how undemocratic
• You have never once highlighted a law which you believe Britons will rejoice at having to no longer obey once Brexit occurs - i invite you again to finish the Headline; 'Feb 1st 2020 - Britons Rejoice at once again being legally allowed to [INSERT NEW FREEDOM]'

eskimohunt - you do not like Fintan O'Toole because he is perfectly describing your own self and those like you

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

That's true.

But that principle applies both ways.

What we find from Remainers is a healthy scepticism as to whether Remain spokespersons were "honest", for the reasons you describe, versus a hard-line approach to Leavers which always concludes they "lied".

It's one rule for one side, one for another.

I'm consistent - both sides lied, en masse, to advance their own interests.

But I don't listen to liars, I come to my own conclusions.

Not in this case. The Conservative party has been the principal party of government for most of the past decade. Senior cabinet ministers would have known that the NHS figure was a lie because for one thing it did not account of the rebate.

The both sides lie claim is a fallacy. You're simply trying to pretend that the remain side was as bad as the leave side which is simply untrue. Otherwise, please do provide evidence that the remain side lied "en masse" as you say.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

What we find from Remainers is a healthy scepticism as to whether Remain spokespersons were "honest", for the reasons you describe, versus a disproportionate hard-line approach to Leavers which always concludes they "lied".

It's one rule for one side, one for another.

I'm consistent - both sides lied, en masse, to advance their own interests.

But I don't listen to liars, I come to my own conclusions.

You listened to Johnson's "excellent" speech at the taxi factory last week and have been parotting his talking points ever since. :P

But you've missed the key difference between Remainers and Leavers: Leavers are still lying (Johnson, Gove and Farage on an almost daily basis) and still repeating the same lies that were told during the Campaign. Leavers are the sorest losers ever to win a fight! :pac:

Remainers, on the other hand, have accepted that the Campaign was seriously flawed in numerous respects, but have moved on from 2016 and are critically examining the implications of the decision and how - or if - it can be implemented in a satisfactory way.

They even voted to move the Withdrawal Agreement on to a Second Reading in Westminster so that Brexit could go ahead ... but Johnson decided to sacrifice getting Brexit done in favour of holding a general election. :rolleyes:

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not in this case. The Conservative party has been the principal party of government for most of the past decade. Senior cabinet ministers would have known that the NHS figure was a lie because for one thing it did not account of the rebate.

The both sides lie claim is a fallacy. You're simply trying to pretend that the remain side was as bad as the leave side which is simply untrue. Otherwise, please do provide evidence that the remain side lied "en masse" as you say.

Presumably "senior cabinet ministers" (George Osbourne) would have had a highly accurate idea, then, as what would happen if a "mere vote to Leave" were to take place? Or do "senior cabinet ministers" have to be Remainers in order for them to know the truth?

Not only was Osbourne "wrong" (let's be kind), but he was catastrophically wrong; in fact, literally the opposite of what he said happened. That suggests to me that he knew perfectly well what he was doing - misleading the public by weaponizing the economy to advance his own political interests.

Yes, both sides lied. It's quite easy to establish. Here are just a few examples:

• Nick Clegg claimed that a European Defence Pact would never take place. He called it a "dangerous fantasy" at a time when it was being openly discussed.
• Osbourne a la the economy, as per above. Within days of a vote to Leave, an "emergency budget" would be needed. Nothing came to pass.
• Remainers ALL lied during the campaign, claiming that a vote to Leave was a vote to depart from the SM and CU. Once they lost the campaign, they manufactured the propaganda terms "Soft Brexit" and "Hard Brexit", the former being code of "Remain-heavy".
• The claim there "would not be a second vote". The vote would be respected. Just look at how that turned out...

briany

RobMc59 wrote: »

Brexit is a bad idea but the EU does appear to have it's own problems,especially with the drift of many countries towards extreme right wing parties.

Why are these countries turning to right-wing parties?

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

You listened to Johnson's "excellent" speech at the taxi factory last week and have been parotting his talking points ever since. :P

But you've missed the key difference between Remainers and Leavers: Leavers are still lying (Johnson, Gove and Farage on an almost daily basis) and still repeating the same lies that were told during the Campaign. Leavers are the sorest losers ever to win a fight! :pac:

Remainers, on the other hand, have accepted that the Campaign was seriously flawed in numerous respects, but have moved on from 2016 and are critically examining the implications of the decision and how - or if - it can be implemented in a satisfactory way.

I was wrong when I said it was an excellent speech. It was a fantastic speech.

Leavers are still lying?

• There will be no second referendum.
• We will respect the result of the referendum.
• We will not revoke Article 50.

You're right that lies are still being told. You just left out the fact that these lies are vocalised by Remainers.

The "sore losers" are the Remainers who refuse to accept that they lost - coming up with every excuse under the high sun as to why the result should not happen. :rolleyes:

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Presumably "senior cabinet ministers" (George Osbourne) would have had a highly accurate idea, then, as what would happen if a "mere vote to Leave" were to take place? Or do "senior cabinet ministers" have to be Remainers in order for them to know the truth?

Not only was Osbourne "wrong" (let's be kind), but he was catastrophically wrong; in fact, literally the opposite of what he said happened. That suggests to me that he knew perfectly well what he was doing - misleading the public by weaponizing the economy to advance his own political interests.

Yes, both sides lied. It's quite easy to establish. Here are just a few examples:

• Nick Clegg claimed that a European Defence Pact would never take place. He called it a "dangerous fantasy" at a time when it was being openly discussed.
• Osbourne a la the economy, as per above. Within days of a vote to Leave, an "emergency budget" would be needed. Nothing came to pass.
• Remainers ALL lied during the campaign, claiming that a vote to Leave was a vote to depart from the SM and CU. Once they lost the campaign, they manufactured the propaganda terms "Soft Brexit" and "Hard Brexit", the former being code of "Remain-heavy".
• The claim there "would not be a second vote". The vote would be respected. Just look at how that turned out...

I dont know if you have the intention to reply to my previous post, but if you are - could you also address this

https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-party-eu-elections-lucy-harris-economy-30-years-8919786

Harris:
I think people have different priorities in this conversation and I think that the average person that voted leave, their priorities were to see democracy reinstated and know that their vote meant something but simultaneously, they wanted the sovereignty of their country back and I think at any cost they want that.
Campbell:
At any cost? What does that mean?

This claim that the UK did not have it's sovereignty inside the EU is ridiculous. It says in the Brexit white paper that we never lost sovereignty.
These laws from the EU aren't dictated to us. They are made collaboratively.

I'm really hung up on something that you said earlier. You said 'Brexit at any cost'. Please tell the people who are struggling in this country, that you want Brexit at any cost.

Campbell then asked Harris to try and elaborate on her comment and it wouldn't exactly fill your heart with hope and prosperity, even if you were the most staunch of Brexiteers.

Well...I don't...I mean...are you looking for a number...or?
I think short term there will be an effect on the economy. Short-term yes.

Campbell:
How long is short term?

Harris?
How long is short term? I don't know. The next 30 years?
I think short term there will be some effects on it.

Harris replied again:
The price of democracy and the price of sovereignty is high. People have died for this.
The economics of this sometimes isn't as important as the principle of it.

from Brexit Party MEP Lucy Harris

SO eskimohunt

• Do you accept the economics put forward from Lucy Harris that the British Economy will be adversly effected for 30 years (her words in relation to 'brexit at any cost' imply negativity - which is why this interview received attention)
• Why has Nigel Farage/Boris/Rees-Mogg/Gove et al, not admitted this
• Would you personally be happy with 30 years of economic damage just to 'shake off the yolk of the European Union, so that Britons can once again freely enjoy [INSERT NEW FREEDOM]

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Presumably "senior cabinet ministers" (George Osbourne) would have had a highly accurate idea, then, as what would happen if a "mere vote to Leave" were to take place? Or do "senior cabinet ministers" have to be Remainers in order for them to know the truth?

Not only was Osbourne "wrong" (let's be kind), but he was catastrophically wrong; in fact, literally the opposite of what he said happened. That suggests to me that he knew perfectly well what he was doing - misleading the public by weaponizing the economy to advance his own political interests.

He was going off projections and expert opinion. There's a difference. A suggestion is not proof.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, both sides lied. It's quite easy to establish. Here are just a few examples:

• Nick Clegg claimed that a European Defence Pact would never take place. He called it a "dangerous fantasy" at a time when it was being openly discussed.
• Osbourne a la the economy, as per above. Within days of a vote to Leave, an "emergency budget" would be needed. Nothing came to pass.
• Remainers ALL lied during the campaign, claiming that a vote to Leave was a vote to depart from the SM and CU. Once they lost the campaign, they manufactured the propaganda terms "Soft Brexit" and "Hard Brexit", the former being code of "Remain-heavy".
• The claim there "would not be a second vote". The vote would be respected. Just look at how that turned out...

All 16.8 million remainers lied? Proof please.

When was the defence pact signed?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He was going off projections and expert opinion. There's a difference. A suggestion is not proof.

All 16.8 million remainers lied? Proof please.

When was the defence pact signed?

If a suggestion is not a proof, and suggestions now say that the economy will go to hell if we Leave the EU (even with a Boris deal), why should we trust "suggestions" from the same people?

Or is it a case of, again, one rule at one time, and one rule another time.

Second, I'm not referring to 16.8 million people, I'm referring to the major players of the Remain Campaign.

For the defence pact, I didn't say that it was signed, but that it was mooted at a time when Clegg denied it was ever on the table.

It is on the table, and in the words of Ursula von der Leyen:

Soft power alone won't suffice today if we Europeans want to assert ourselves in the world.

Europe must also learn the language of power.

That means on the one hand developing our own muscles - where for a long time we could lean on others, for example in security policy.

When she refers to "leaning on others", Leyen is referring to NATO.

But the Clegg lie is that it wasn't even a serious matter of discussion. It is, as the new European Commission President - and her predecessor - has repeatedly stated in robust terms.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

If a suggestion is not a proof, and suggestions now say that the economy will go to hell if we Leave the EU (even with a Boris deal), why should we trust "suggestions" from the same people?

Or is it a case of, again, one rule at one time, and one rule another time.

Second, I'm not referring to 16.8 million people, I'm referring to the major players of the Remain Campaign.

You typed "all" in caps. That's pretty clear and now you are moving the goalposts.

Deleted User wrote: »

For the defence pact, I didn't say that it was signed, but that it was mooted at a time when Clegg denied it was ever on the table.

You said that Clegg's claim was a lie with the implication that there is a pact. Now you say that there isn't.

Frankly, you are debating in very bad faith, disingenuously misrepresenting other people's posts and then moving the goalposts when challenged. I'm not wasting any more of my time on you.

Stop moaning ffs

Johnson and more recently Corbyn in Scotland trying to court support and gain votes. Then both saying no they won’t give Scotland a second say on independence. It was a once in a generation vote and Scotland voted to remain in the U.K.
That isn’t nationalism. Or democracy.
It’s authoritarianism.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You typed "all" in caps. That's pretty clear and now you are moving the goalposts.

You said that Clegg's claim was a lie with the implication that there is a pact. Now you say that there isn't.

Frankly, you are debating in very bad faith, disingenuously misrepresenting other people's posts and then moving the goalposts when challenged. I'm not wasting any more of my time on you.

It would be just as absurd if I read a post here which stated, "Leavers lied during the 2016 referendum", for me to come back with a response, "Do you mean 17.4 million Leavers lied, or perhaps 16.78 million?".

I mean, there comes a point when you must infer what the poster means. It's quite obvious that I'm not talking about the opinions of 16.8 million people, but the leaders of the Remain Campaign who I do accuse of lying - and will consistently do so.

Clegg did lie. Any proper scrutiny of my posts will establish that:

Namely, he made the claim that it was a "dangerous fantasy" that a European Defence Cooperation was being discussed. As probably the most pro-European Remain campaigner, he knew perfectly well that defence cooperation was on the cards. Not that it was signed! But that it was mooted.

So, no goalposts have been moved. They remain in place, and exposing Clegg's own goal was worth it, even if you wish not to engage with my posts.

You also didn't engage with the evidence I adduced from the current European Commission President, who has openly stated and endorsed such as defence pact.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to agree with the President of the European Commission.

J Mysterio

This thread is pretty painful to read now and has been for a while. Seems there is always one 'inspired' Brexiteer at any one time. I suppose we should be grateful for a dissenting voice and an alternate view, but really the 'arguments' for Brexit have barely advanced since the original Brexit Discussion Thread and I just can't be arsed engaging with it at all anymore.

Looking forward to the result of the Dec 12 election, but have a feeling it might be anothee hung parliament, in which case...? The nonsense continues?

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

• Do you accept the economics put forward from Lucy Harris that the British Economy will be adversly effected for 30 years (her words in relation to 'brexit at any cost' imply negativity - which is why this interview received attention)
• Why has Nigel Farage/Boris/Rees-Mogg/Gove et al, not admitted this
• Would you personally be happy with 30 years of economic damage just to 'shake off the yolk of the European Union, so that Britons can once again freely enjoy [INSERT NEW FREEDOM]

I have absolutely no idea who she is, but I reject her apocalyptic half-century doomsday economics just as much as I did (at the time) Osbourne's apocalypse.

Why are you assuming that she is an authoritative voice on the economy of the UK until 2050?

She must be the smartest person alive if she can make such wild speculations over such a protracted period of time.

This thread is pretty painful to read now and has been for a while. Seems there is always one 'inspired' Brexiteer at any one time.

In other words, the one alternative voice must be silenced so we can return to mass unanimity of opinion. That's quite a "discussion thread"!

ancapailldorcha

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Johnson and more recently Corbyn in Scotland trying to court support and gain votes. Then both saying no they won’t give Scotland a second say on independence. It was a once in a generation vote and Scotland voted to remain in the U.K.
That isn’t nationalism. Or democracy.
It’s authoritarianism.

According to the BBC, it looks like Corbyn is hiding behind the Holyrood vote due to take place in 2021:

During his recent visit to Scotland he initially said he would not back an independence vote in the "first term" of a Labour government but later clarified the remark, saying it was not a priority in the "early years".

Mr Corbyn told Andrew Marr he wanted to win the election and "start the process of reinvesting in this country", which he said would mean Scotland getting £70bn of investment.

"I do not want us to spend the first year on an independence referendum", he added.

The Labour leader continued: "I say gently to the SNP they will have the opportunity with a Labour government in Westminster of seeing a fair allocation of resources to Scotland, they will see an investment in Scotland that will help deal with the massive health and social inequalities they've got."

Asked whether he would allow another vote on independence in the first term of a Labour government, his response was: "There are Scottish [Parliament] elections in 2021... up until then, certainly not."

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea who she is, but I reject her apocalyptic half-century doomsday economics just as much as I did (at the time) Osbourne's apocalypse.

Why are you assuming that she is an authoritative voice on the economy of the UK until 2050?

She must be the smartest person alive if she can make such wild speculations over such a protracted period of time.

Well Nigel Farage seems to love her and believe in her opinions - as she is the most outspoken Brexit Party MEP in the European Parliament

https://brexitcentral.com/author/lucyharris1/

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197809/LUCY+ELIZABETH_HARRIS/home

https://www.thebrexitparty.org/meet-meps/

Would you now care to actually address her claims and how they seem to Parallel the views of Remainers who you seem to reject? To be clar this lady AGREES with many of us, that Brexit will cause Economic Damage (in her opinion, 30years worth) - its just that she ardently believes its worth it - while you seem to be claiming - 'lies lies lies'


Would you also care to finally answer the question i have asked you repeatedly - What Laws will Britons rejoice in No Longer having to obey on February 1st?

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Well Nigel Farage seems to love her and believe in her opinions - as she is the most outspoken Brexit Party MEP in the European Parliament

Would you now care to actually address her claims and how they seem to Parallel the views of Remainers who you seem to reject? To be clar this lady AGREES with many of us, that Brexit will cause Economic Damage (in her opinion, 30years worth) - its just that she ardently believes its worth it - while you seem to be claiming - 'lies lies lies'


Would you also care to finally answer the question i have asked you repeatedly - What Laws will Britons rejoice in No Longer having to obey on February 1st?

I don't know who she is, or whether Farage supports her - I frankly do not care.

I don't believe apocalyptic economic forecasts of 30 years by anyone - whether it's George Osbourne, an obscure Brexit Party MEP, or an economic version of Einstein.

Nobody alive has the foresight to calculate the UK economy for 30-50 years ahead, given the many variables at play. It's just as absurd as someone in 1989 coming up with a forecast for 2020 without the knowledge of what transpires in the world on a continental and global scale.

It's a fool's endeavour.

I'm not saying she's "lying", perhaps she really believes what she's saying.

Stop moaning ffs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

According to the BBC, it looks like Corbyn is hiding behind the Holyrood vote due to take place in 2021:

I saw that but then if you look, he and Nicola sturgeon having been going at each other on twitter about it. Her saying she and the SNP won’t be supporting him at all based on his current position.
He’s obviously (astutely) waiting for that election knowing full well the SNP are going to wipe out he Tories at least and seeing how Labour fare up there.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Would you also care to finally answer the question i have asked you repeatedly - What Laws will Britons rejoice in No Longer having to obey on February 1st?

Actually I've been asked this question, and forms of it, many times over the course of this thread.

I thought perhaps you would have seen my answer.

My response is always the same - namely, that even if all the laws generated via EU institutions were beneficial to me personally, or the UK at large, I would - in principle - still be Eurosceptic on the grounds that I believe sovereignty, or as much of it as possible, should reside in national parliaments and not in supranational political organizations.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually I've been asked this question, and forms of it, many times over the course of this thread.

I thought perhaps you would have seen my answer.

My response is always the same - namely, that even if all the laws generated via EU institutions were beneficial to me personally, or the UK at large, I would - in principle - still be Eurosceptic on the grounds that I believe sovereignty, or as much of it as possible, should reside in national parliamenets and not in supranational political organizations.

So once again, by that Logic you support Scottish independence.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know who she is, or whether Farage supports her - I frankly do not care.

I don't believe apocalyptic economic forecasts of 30 years by anyone - whether it's George Osbourne, an obscure Brexit Party MEP, or an economic version of Einstein.

Right so is it possible then, that there are differing views on what Brexit will be, what the referendum was about, and what it will lead to? You seem to have suggested repeatedly that everyone knew what they wanted - you referred to a 'Pure Brexit' a few pages back?

Do you acknowledge now that Brexit, what it meant, what is involved
, and what it will lead to is a contested issues? and does that not tacitly endorse the idea of a second Referendum? If not, why not - explain please

And AGAIN i ask you

Would you also care to finally answer the question i have asked you repeatedly - What Laws will Britons rejoice in No Longer having to obey on February 1st?

eskimohunt - i address you directly. There are only two situations in which i will stop asking you this question

1. You accurately and in a meaningful way answer it, highlighting a specific law, or group of laws that there will be widespread celebration among leavers, at their no longer having to be obeyed
2. I am specifically asked or warned or requested, by mods, not to ask this question again

Aside from those reasons i will continue to call you out on this, and highlight that you repeatedly avoid answering it (just so we are on the same page )

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually I've been asked this question, and forms of it, many times over the course of this thread.

I thought perhaps you would have seen my answer.

My response is always the same - namely, that even if all the laws generated via EU institutions were beneficial to me personally, or the UK at large, I would - in principle - still be Eurosceptic on the grounds that I believe sovereignty, or as much of it as possible, should reside in national parliaments and not in supranational political organizations.

Another dodge that does not answer the question - Be specific please or i shall keep asking

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Would you also care to finally answer the question i have asked you repeatedly - What Laws will Britons rejoice in No Longer having to obey on February 1st?

With respect, I have already answered the question:

Deleted User wrote: »

My response is always the same - namely, that even if all the laws generated via EU institutions were beneficial to me personally, or the UK at large, I would - in principle - still be Eurosceptic on the grounds that I believe sovereignty, or as much of it as possible, should reside in national parliaments and not in supranational political organizations.

In other words, I care nothing for the laws - whether they are negative or positive. There are no specific laws I want overturned or removed.

I want the law-generating powers returned to Westminster, on principle - not because of any specific law I wish to see removed from the statute books.

It's a matter of principle. That is my answer.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

With respect, I have already answered the question:



In other words, I care nothing for the laws - whether they are negative or positive. There are no specific laws I want overturned or removed.

I want the law-generating powers returned to Westminster, on principle - not because of any specific law I wish to see removed from the statute books.

It's a matter of principle. That is my answer.

You Care Nothing for Laws

Seems to clarify why you 'care nothing' for the fact that the Leave Campaign Broke UK Electoral Law during the 2016 Campaign

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-broke-electoral-law-and-british-democracy-is-shaken

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/17/arron-banks-staff-worked-on-brexit-campaign-mps-told

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/13/leave-campaign-broke-election-law-but-wont-be-prosecuted-police-say-10737879/

Also seems to clarify your positions in general

• You care nothing for EU laws, since in your mind they are not legitimate despite being voted for by British MEP's - and are for the common good
• You do care about UK Domestic Laws, but are happy to see them broken if it is in your favor

Would you agree with these two points?

In relation to Lucy Harris, a well known Brexit Party MEP who you agree with on Brexit, but claim to not know, saying she is obscure - does her stance on Economic Damage not support the idea that the electorate were lied to in 2016, and therefore a second referendum is appropriate - this question also relates to the points raised in the first part of this post, so you can refer to both, and i would ask that you do

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

You Care Nothing for Laws

Seems to clarify why you 'care nothing' for the fact that the Leave Campaign Broke UK Electoral Law during the 2016 Campaign

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-broke-electoral-law-and-british-democracy-is-shaken

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/17/arron-banks-staff-worked-on-brexit-campaign-mps-told

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/13/leave-campaign-broke-election-law-but-wont-be-prosecuted-police-say-10737879/

Also seems to clarify your positions in general

• You care nothing for EU laws, since in your mind they are not legitimate despite being voted for by British MEP's - and are for the common good
• You do care about UK Domestic Laws, but are happy to see them broken if it is in your favor

Would you agree with these two points?

In relation to Lucy Harris, a well known Brexit Party MEP who you agree with on Brexit, but claim to not know, saying she is obscure - does her stance on Economic Damage not support the idea that the electorate were lied to in 2016, and therefore a second referendum is appropriate - this question also relates to the points raised in the first part of this post, so you can refer to both, and i would ask that you do

I'll have to be summary.

• I like how you removed the definite article, "the", from my sentence that "I care nothing for the laws", referring to EU laws, and morphed that into, "I care nothing for laws", as if I somehow support criminality.
• For the record, I do not promote breaking laws, whether they are UK or EU-derived.
• Third, even if the Leave campaign broke some spending laws, my arguments against the EU are independent of that and therefore do not undermine the legitimacy of my points.
• When I answer your question directly on which specific law I would remove, you then jump rapidly to a completely different topic and start throwing out some random comments here and there, challenging me again. It seems, then, that no answer, however cogently I make it, will ever satisfy your urges.
• As for Lucy Harris, I have comprehensively answered that question. Just because she agrees with me on the Brexit Question, doesn't mean I have to take her economic forecasts seriously. I reject them outright. I'm not sure of any Leave voter who would quote Obscure Lucy Harris as a sensible argument for leaving the EU.
• Lies were told by both sides. I, like most others, form our opinions independently of what other people tell us.
• The Remain campaign said there would be no second referendum and the result would be implemented. They lied. So, according to your logic, we should renege on their commitments too.

McGiver

RobMc59 wrote:

Brexit is a bad idea but the EU does appear to have it's own problems,especially with the drift of many countries towards extreme right wing parties.

What drift? Which countries? Right wing populists losing everywhere. Extreme right wing as in fascists? Where are they?

Maybe Poland but again they aren't far right by any measure, just ultra-conservative Christian head bangers with in fact quite leftist economic policies, lot of nationalisation, welfare and big government stuff (a bit like Christian national socialists).

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

I was wrong when I said it was an excellent speech. It was a fantastic speech.

Leavers are still lying?

• There will be no second referendum.
• We will respect the result of the referendum.
• We will not revoke Article 50.

You're right that lies are still being told. You just left out the fact that these lies are vocalised by Remainers.

The "sore losers" are the Remainers who refuse to accept that they lost - coming up with every excuse under the high sun as to why the result should not happen. :rolleyes:

By the way, I note that you still haven't answered the questions I asked (and which you asked me to put to you). Do you think you have an answer to them?

McGiver

Zubeneschamali wrote:

If some sort of no-deal/very loose association with Europe comes about, it will be very expensive economically, but it will be exactly what Leave voters voted for - maximum English national sovereignty, and I expect Brexiteers to tell us (endlessly) that everyone knew there would be a price to pay, worth every penny, can't put a dollar value on national sovereignty and so forth.

We all know they will have only de iure sovereignty. De facto they will be a vassal of the US, the EU or China or combination thereof.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

I like how you removed the definite article, "the", from my sentence that "I care nothing for the laws", referring to EU laws, and morphed that into, "I care nothing for laws", as if I somehow support criminality.

Laws are laws, are laws sir, and you have stated clearly (in order to dodge the specific question on which EU laws you will delight in no longer having to worry about after brexit) that you care nothing for the Laws - Rather a hypocritical position in my view

For the record, I do not promote breaking laws, whether they are UK or EU-derived.

Good then i take it that you agree that, given the fragrant breach of Electoral Law during the Referendum, that it should be re-run, with clarity provided to the electorate on what is being advocated by both sides

Third, even if the Leave campaign broke some spending laws, my arguments against the EU are independent of that and therefore do not undermine the legitimacy of my points.

Again i applaud you, so the next natural step for you, is to acknowledge that the first Referendum was flawed, given the irregularities, and laws (which you care about) broken, and should therefore be re-run as a peoples vote - and since principle, and not economics are what matters, you will win the second ref

Finally i believe you and I may be approaching parity!

When I answer your question directly on which specific law I would remove, you then jump rapidly to a completely different topic and start throwing out some random comments here and there, challenging me again. It seems, then, that no answer, however cogently I make it, will ever satisfy your urges.

Well, maybe not then.

You didnt 'answer (my) question directly on which specific law (you) would remove' - as you in fact dodged it and spoke collectively about principle - which in a debate, leaves you wide open to an opponent to seek clarification. I say 'name a specific law' - you say 'dont care to, its principle' - i question your principles - you 'question my method/legitimacy in questioning you' - My friend, that is not how this works - answer questions directly and coherently - or be vague, as you have done, and expect an immediate rebuff

As for Lucy Harris, I have comprehensively answered that question. Just because she agrees with me on the Brexit Question, doesn't mean I have to take her economic forecasts seriously. I reject them outright. I'm not sure of any Leave voter who would quote Obscure Lucy Harris as a sensible argument for leaving the EU.

The argument on the legitimacy of Brexit, and its economic effect are not merely linked, they are the same issue taken as one

• Several people here have called you out on your pontification of Principle, Laws, and your views on Remains 'Project Fear' based on Osbourne arguments in 2016.
• Here i have presented you with someone from the Brexit Party, who agrees with Osbourne, but still thinks Brexit is best. I am more than entitled to call on you to discuss this. If she is correct, as i believe she is, then do you agree that 30 years of economic damage is a fair price to pay for Brexit
• Apparently many people do respect Lucy Harris, including Nigel Farage, and those constituency Members in Yorkshire and the Humber, who voted for her
• Since this Economic hardship which she believes is worth paying, was not mentioned Pre Referendum, does this not get to the heart of why we need a peoples vote?

Lies were told by both sides. I, like most others, form our opinions independently of what other people tell us.

If you are referring to the fact that the UK Economy didnt collapse the day after the referendum, may i remind you that the Gov of the Bank of England took immediate steps to prevent this

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2016/june/statement-from-the-governor-of-the-boe-following-the-eu-referendum-result

The Remain campaign said there would be no second referendum and the result would be implemented. They lied. So, according to your logic, we should renege on their commitments too.

And FINALLY we have the specific and true argument of the Eurosceptic - the only one that matters - the ONLY ARGUMENT i have any sympathy for

'its not fair - we won - doesn't matter how we did it - we won'

Well i am sorry you feel that way, but if i vote for Unicorns, having been assured that said Unicorns exist, and then am subsequently told they dont, i want another vote - because i would have been lied to - hypothetically of course

I humbly await your reply