Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

McGiver

eskimohunt wrote:

The EU is pooled sovereignty in favour of a centralized political framework. That's fine. Nobody is being colonized or oppressed.

Seriously this is a nonsense. There is no trade off, there's no "in favour of".

The UK could immediately become a highly decentralised federation with Westminster only controlling the military and foreign policy and and delegate everything else including tax powers to the regions (as in Switzerland) or to be local authorities (as in Sweden) and give almost all power to the local people all that whilst in the EU. The EU does not and cannot prevent any of this. UK has full sovereignty in increasing its local democracy but doesn't exercise it.

Yes there's an additional supranational layer - needed to cooperate on the policy and the regulations of the largest single market on the planet! But it affects the local democracy very little.

The issue lies in Westminster not in Brussels. Always had and always will. Westminster is the real oppressor and reactionary force holding local democracy back. The Indians, Irish, Scots, Welsh and even northern English people can explain.

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

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.

There is no guarantee that Scotland would vote for independence anyway.

There is greater strength of support among Scots for staying in the UK than leaving, according to a poll commissioned by a pro-independence organisation.

The Progress Scotland survey found 37 per cent of voters “completely support Scotland staying part of the UK”, compared with 26 per cent who “completely support Scotland becoming independent”.

The Survation poll was commissioned by Progress Scotland, headed by former SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson, and surveyed 2,000 Scots at the start of the month.

A narrow majority (51 per cent) were more supportive of the Union, with 6 per cent in the middle and 40 per cent more supportive of independence.

The remaining 3 per cent were classed as “don’t knows”.

The poll also found 16 per cent of voters who backed independence in the 2014 referendum now “completely” support Scotland staying part of the UK compared with just 4 per cent of 2014 No voters who “completely” support independence.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is no guarantee that Scotland would vote for independence anyway.

If there’s no guarantee it would pass, hold one and see. Nothing to fear.

But no. Johnson won’t allow it. Nor Corbyn.

The UN charter states every country has the right to self determination free of the dominion of another.

This like NI is only headed one way. The end of the union and an independent Scotland back in the EU and a United ireland.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no guarantee that Scotland would vote for independence anyway.

I think Johnson coupled with a hard right Tory government would make it extremely difficult for 'remain' to win a Scottish referendum. He will take Scotland out of the EU and SMCU for starters......it would be very hard to sell that as good for the Scots.

liamtech

Lib Dems and SNP lose case against ITV over Bojo/Corbyn Debate tomorrow

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50463816

Very disappointing

lawred2

liamtech wrote: »

Lib Dems and SNP lose case against ITV over Bojo/Corbyn Debate tomorrow

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50463816

Very disappointing

have to say I'm not surprised really..

Surely that's an editorial decision. Albeit a poor one. And a decision that goes to further highlight the jokeshop that British (English) politics is. But still an editorial decision and not something for the courts to get involved with.

gooch2k9

lawred2 wrote: »

have to say I'm not surprised really..

Surely that's an editorial decision. Albeit a poor one. And a decision that goes to further highlight the jokeshop that British (English) politics is. But still an editorial decision and not something for the courts to get involved with.

I think the Lib Dems should have been allowed at the very least. They're a potential voting option for everyone(bar NI) whereas the SNP aren't. SNP should only be allowed in their regional one like the NI parties.

I'm more concerned about the debates being a joke like the ones during the Conservative leadership campaign. Is it possible to make them actually answer questions? If not it's pointless.

lawred2

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I think the Lib Dems should have been allowed at the very least. They're a potential voting option for everyone(bar NI) whereas the SNP aren't. SNP should only be allowed in their regional one like the NI parties.

I'm more concerned about the debates being a joke like the ones during the Conservative leadership campaign. Is it possible to make them actually answer questions? If not it's pointless.

They can't allow themselves to ever think beyond their failed two party system. The 'them' or 'us' - 'these' or 'them'...

It's just so depressing

That's to not even mention the act of leaving out the only two reasonably sized parties that have a clear revoke and remain policy.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

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

In the true sense of that word: built entirely on fantasy ... :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote: »

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:

That's democracy for you. I thought you were in favour of democracy?

Of course Remainers and those who think Brexit is a daft idea but aren't directly involved (like most of us here) can set out specific logical, justifiable, quantifiable reasons why, going forward, Brexit shouldn't happen.

Leavers - like yourself - are still harping on about stuff that happened in the past, proclaiming that "things will be better!" without being able to identify any particular "things" that'll be better, and justifying the potential economic, social and political damage to the UK on the grounds that it'd be worse if the EU were ever to decide collectively to behave like Brexiters. :pac:

So, eskimo, let's see if you can apply critical thinking to the future, and answer this question (asked already in various forms): taking democratic process, border control and fish/fleet management as examples, on what basis can Leavers trust a Tory-Brexit government to do anything to correct the supposed wrongs in these areas when the same Tory-Brexit government has done nothing to exercise the powers that it holds already to resolve the problems highlighted by Leavers, and (in the case of democratic process and fisheries) has actively promoted (or resisted change to) the situations that upset Leavers. In short, how will Brexit fix the problems caused by the Tories, if the Tories are designing Brexit to suit themselves?

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

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:

Brexit's problem is not the sore losers, you must expect people who are opposed to Brexit to oppose Brexit - the problem has been the sore winners. If the Tories and DUP, the Government parties, had backed May's deal, Brexit would have happened months ago.

McGiver

CelticRambler wrote:

In short, how will Brexit fix the problems caused by the Tories, if the Tories are designing Brexit to suit themselves?

This is the core issue. Turns out that Tories and to lesser extent HMG of any other flavour are the real enemies of the British people. But the people can't / don't want to see it, because they are brainwashed by the media and conditioned by the English culture (somewhat arrogant and vain - self-reflection isn't a strong feature in English psyche imho).

The political class manufactured internal (Corbyn, foreigners) and external (the EU) enemies and use them to distract people from the corruption/incompetence/manipulation/abuse of power of theirs. This is very close to the Russian system. It's shocking...and scary.

Capt'n Midnight

Reuters article about the how the US car industry is reacting to a possible breakup of NAFTA.
Parts with passports: how free trade drives GM's engines

Many parallels with Brexit. Business investment has fallen etc

Having parts that cross borders multiple times during processing won't be economic anymore ( look up the old Mini engines diagram )

One key point is that final assembly isn't that labour intensive,
it's the parts that get made in lower wage economies and you can't have different process in different countries if you get hit with tariffs so the temptation is to move all of that processing to the lowest wage economy.

“If we weren’t getting it from Mexico, we’d be getting it from somebody else’s ‘Mexico’,” Dziczek said. “And the further away that ‘Mexico’ is, the less likely it is American suppliers would benefit from that business.”

Most cars made in the UK are for export.

Most don't even qualify as UK cars according to WTO rules due to the large amount of imported parts.

Capt'n Midnight

Remember that Big Red bus with promise of £350m a week for the NHS ?

Remember the promises to reduce corporation tax ?


You'll never guess ... or maybe you will since Brexit is a never ending slow motion car crash.


PM puts corporation tax cuts on hold to buy votes help fund NHS

The rate paid by firms on their profits was due to fall from 19% to 17%.
...
The announcement does not mean any new money for the NHS,

briany

Strazdas wrote: »

I think Johnson coupled with a hard right Tory government would make it extremely difficult for 'remain' to win a Scottish referendum. He will take Scotland out of the EU and SMCU for starters......it would be very hard to sell that as good for the Scots.

Still big questions about Scotland leaving the UK and rejoining the EU. Scotland has its minority of Loyalist headers, and them kicking up a stink would be a given. But it gets more complicated. One of the pledges last time around was that Scotland would keep the Pound. That's not something that can be promised this time around if Scotland were to rejoin the EU, as I understand that applicant countries are required to adopt the Euro. And what if the UK government pettily rules out a CTA arrangement, were Scotland to leave? This would make people think twice.

It's one massive change for the Scots to be dragged out of the EU. You'd wonder if they would have the overall appetite for a second massive change in a very short time.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

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. [/B]

Did Nick Clegg make the claim that it was not being discussed, or that it would not happen?

Given that the statement Nick Clegg made was in reaction to discussion of a European Army, it would be rather odd if he claimed that no such discussion was taking place. He claimd that those discussions were dangerous fantisy because the establishment of an European Army is something that will never happen.

I think you are misrepresenting what Nick Clegg actually siad to make a liar of him when what he actually said has thus far proven to be entirely correct.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

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

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!

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

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?

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

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

You're asking too many questions per post. It makes it impossible to do any one topic justice, as I can't write 7 essays per post. If you could stick to one question at a time, I think it would be better for everyone.

So, with that in mind, I'm going to address the major five points you made in that extensive post:

1 - Regarding electoral breaches, no I do not believe we should re-run the referendum because of the electoral results in the 2017 election, both of whose major parties stated clearly that the result would be respected. Parties on pro-Remain tickets lost a greater proportion of the vote.

2 - I stand by my view. I do not believe that the EU is holding any nation-state hostage, or that the EU is some form of colonizer. You're now claiming that I do maintain that view. I'm telling you, in robust terms, that it is not my view. I do not believe that the EU is a colonizer.

3 - I stand by my claim not to state a law that I would like removed. As I've stated thrice already, there is no law that I can point to, because that's not the issue I have. My issue is solely with the principle of a return of law-generating powers, not because there is some specific law that I oppose. The sooner you grasp this distinction, the better.

4 - The UK economy didn't collapse because it was never going to. The BoE is always going to take measures to mitigate any potential effects, not sit back and renege on its sole responsibility. The BoE and Chancellor both peddled the most ridiculous nonsense I've seen in many a long day. They were both wrong, as any Brexiteer could have told you at the time.

5 - I don't believe Lucy Harris is an authority on anything, let alone long-term economic predictions. I restate my point: I do not believe there is a man or woman in the land, or world for that matter, who can predict long-term economic effects in 2050. Try as they might, but I think it's a fool's endeavour.

Again, try to stick to one question at a time, otherwise I won't have time to do all questions justice.

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Did Nick Clegg make the claim that it was not being discussed, or that it would not happen?

Given that the statement Nick Clegg made was in reaction to discussion of a European Army, it would be rather odd if he claimed that no such discussion was taking place. He claimd that those discussions were dangerous fantisy because the establishment of an European Army is something that will never happen.

I think you are misrepresenting what Nick Clegg actually siad to make a liar of him when what he actually said has thus far proven to be entirely correct.

Nigel Farage stated that an EU army was on the table.

In response, the then-Deputy PM claimed that Nigel Farage's claim was a "dangerous fantasy".

All evidence, at the time and even moreso now, shows that an "EU army", or defence force, or whatever you want to call it, is not just mooted, but openly demanded by key European figures, including the current and past head of the European Commission.

For years, people argue that "it's not going to happen", yet all the evidence suggests it that it will. The reason Clegg called it a "dangerous fantasy" is because he knew how unpopular that view is throughout the UK, and he wished to suppress the truth by calling its potential creation a "fantasy".

Here is Guy Verhofstadt talking about the direction the EU needs to go:

https://twitter.com/iaindale/status/1087769049805791232?lang=en

Clegg didn't admit that it was a topic of conversation but the UK would opt out of any defense pact. He called "the idea of a European Army" a "dangerous fantasy". Clearly, if you've just watched the video of Verhofstadt above, and listen to von der Leyen and other key figures, it is not a dangerous fantasy for them.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

1 - Regarding electoral breaches, no I do not believe we should re-run the referendum because of the electoral results in the 2017 election, both of whose major parties stated clearly that the result would be respected. Parties on pro-Remain tickets lost a greater proportion of the vote.

This may be your most nonsensical posts, and that is saying something. You think that even with the illegal activities possibly changing the result it should be honoured, because Labour and Tories said they would honour the result that they didn't know was won illegally. Do you understand how that sounds?

I am scared to ask, how should Labour have said they want a new referendum because of Vote Leave being found guilty of breaking electoral law? Should they have preempted the findings and known the future?

Election 2017 - June

Electoral commission findings of illegal activities - July 2017

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Nigel Farage stated that an EU army was on the table.

In response, the then-Deputy PM claimed that Nigel Farage's claim was a "dangerous fantasy".

All evidence, at the time and even moreso now, shows that an "EU army", or defence force, or whatever you want to call it, is not just mooted, but openly demanded by key European figures, including the current and past head of the European Commission.

For years, people argue that "it's not going to happen", yet all the evidence suggests it that it will. The reason Clegg called it a "dangerous fantasy" is because he knew how unpopular that view is throughout the UK, and he wished to suppress the truth by calling its potential creation a "fantasy".

Here is Guy Verhofstadt talking about the direction the EU needs to go:

https://twitter.com/iaindale/status/1087769049805791232?lang=en

Clegg didn't admit that it was a topic of conversation but the UK would opt out of any defense pact. He called "the idea of a European Army" a "dangerous fantasy". Clearly, if you've just watched the video of Verhofstadt above, and listen to von der Leyen and other key figures, it is not a dangerous fantasy for them.

Lets be clear about this, Nick Clegg made the claim back in 2015 in responce to the idea of a European Army being mooted by Junker, and opposed by Farage. He did not say that no one was talking about it, or that no one supported it, clearly that would have been a stupid thing to say at the time. His point was that it was a dangerous fantisy for either Junker to support or for Farage to oppose a European Army becuase as far as Nick Clegg was concerned at the time, a European Army was not going to happen.

You specifically claimed that Clegg said there was no discussion of an European Army, you were wrong and you should admit that. To be clear, his claim was that a European Army is not going to happen.

You can think what you like about the potential for the creation of an European Army in the future, the fact remains that nearly five years after Nick Clegg made his claim, one does not exist. How exactly does that make him a liar? You can now stop misrepresenting what Nick Clegg said, and stop calling him a liar when so far he has been proved to be entirely correct in what he said.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

This may be your most nonsensical posts, and that is saying something. You think that even with the illegal activities possibly changing the result it should be honoured, because Labour and Tories said they would honour the result that they didn't know was won illegally. Do you understand how that sounds?

I am scared to ask, how should Labour have said they want a new referendum because of Vote Leave being found guilty of breaking electoral law? Should they have preempted the findings and known the future?

Election 2017 - June

Electoral commission findings of illegal activities - July 2017

I don't believe a minor overspend should be considered a valid reason to hold a second referendum.

If anything, just punish the individuals responsible for the crime.

Let's say they overspent by $500,000 (I have to admit I don't know the exact figure), I doubt it would have changed the election result anyway.

To clarify, Nick Clegg said "the idea of a European Army is a dangerous fantasy"; that idea is now being propelled further and further and further. It takes time for things to happen in the EU, nobody is saying to expect it overnight. What Nick Clegg did was to deliberately mislead the audience and viewing public. It was a form of lying-by-omission.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

To clarify, Nick Clegg said "the idea of a European Army is a dangerous fantasy"; that idea is now being propelled further and further and further. It takes time for things to happen in the EU, nobody is saying to expect it overnight. What Nick Clegg did was to deliberately mislead the audience and viewing public. It was a form of lying-by-omission.

What exactly did he omit? He said Junker did not have the power to create a European Army, Junker is now retired and no European Army exists. How was the audience mislead? He said it was not going to happen, it has not happend. Seems like he got it right to me.

I am not interested in debating the prospects for the future creation of a European Army, that is not what this thread is about and would derail the thread.

You have demonstrated a pattern of making false claims, and refusing to admit when you are wrong. You were wrong about Nick Clegg, you misrepresented what he said and called him a liar. You should admit that you got it wrong and stop making the same false claim.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

You're asking too many questions per post. It makes it impossible to do any one topic justice, as I can't write 7 essays per post. If you could stick to one question at a time, I think it would be better for everyone.

So, with that in mind, I'm going to address the major five points you made in that extensive post:

1 - Regarding electoral breaches, no I do not believe we should re-run the referendum because of the electoral results in the 2017 election, both of whose major parties stated clearly that the result would be respected. Parties on pro-Remain tickets lost a greater proportion of the vote.

2 - I stand by my view. I do not believe that the EU is holding any nation-state hostage, or that the EU is some form of colonizer. You're now claiming that I do maintain that view. I'm telling you, in robust terms, that it is not my view. I do not believe that the EU is a colonizer.

3 - I stand by my claim not to state a law that I would like removed. As I've stated thrice already, there is no law that I can point to, because that's not the issue I have. My issue is solely with the principle of a return of law-generating powers, not because there is some specific law that I oppose. The sooner you grasp this distinction, the better.

4 - The UK economy didn't collapse because it was never going to. The BoE is always going to take measures to mitigate any potential effects, not sit back and renege on its sole responsibility. The BoE and Chancellor both peddled the most ridiculous nonsense I've seen in many a long day. They were both wrong, as any Brexiteer could have told you at the time.

5 - I don't believe Lucy Harris is an authority on anything, let alone long-term economic predictions. I restate my point: I do not believe there is a man or woman in the land, or world for that matter, who can predict long-term economic effects in 2050. Try as they might, but I think it's a fool's endeavour.

Again, try to stick to one question at a time, otherwise I won't have time to do all questions justice.

You ask me to reduce my postings to one item at a time - and then respond with 5 items which i must address - :rolleyes:

1. Referencing the 2017 Election as justification for not carrying out a second referendum is laughable, albeit new from you. I would argue that the conservative party was ripped right down the middle during the last election with many moderates favoring a softer Brexit. But even if the Tory's had been 100% behind Mays Brexit Red Lines (which they were not) - they received 42.4% of the Vote nationwide - Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Green Party et al - received collectively 53.2%, and regardless of where they stood (i.e. honoring the 1st Ref), they were clearly in favor of a softer brexit deal

Add to this your implicit acceptance of the voting irregularities in the last referendum

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.

and i think you are arguing yourself into a corner by attacking the idea of a second referendum. You dont want one because you would lose.

2. You have argued that the EU interferes with the laws of its constituent member states. you have argued that a nation states culture is diluted by EU mass immigration (and immigration in general). You have argued that the EU is eroding sovereignty. You have continually that regardless of whether the laws passed at EU level are good or bad, you oppose them on principle. When presented with the argument of Fintan O'Toole, who emphasizes English Nationalism, and perceived 'oppression' at the hands of the EU, as reason for the brexit vote, you described said journalist as follows

It's just sleazy, lazy journalism from Fintan O'Toole; demonizing ordinary people in a slobby, snobby, elitist, and patronizing manner

Your views on the EU are quite clearly in line with his opinion of the Brexit Voting populace, and i have said so previously. You dont Like O'Toole because i dare say his view of the Average Brexiteer is a little 'too close for comfort' for you

3 - forgive me i must actually highlight this

I stand by my claim not to state a law that I would like removed. As I've stated thrice already, there is no law that I can point to, because that's not the issue I have. My issue is solely with the principle of a return of law-generating powers, not because there is some specific law that I oppose. The sooner you grasp this distinction, the better.

I have re-quoted this particular piece as it makes.. no sense. I have read it a few times. What you are saying seems to be

• A big reason to vote brexit is due to Laws made in the EU Parliament cannot be over turned at a national level - this is the issue you have cited many times
• You cannot/would not name a single law, referring to principle instead
• Yet you now claim that these are not the issue, that led people to Vote for Brexit -
• So in effect, one reason people voted for Brexit was due to EU laws, and another reason, as you claim, has nothing to do with EU laws in particular

They are either an issue, or they are not - you have stated, over the past few days that they are a big issue. Now they are not, simply because it suits you not to name one, and due to the fact that you cannot articulate clearly what it is that is at 'issue' with EU laws

Your Law's Argument falls flat on its face, because you cannot even be bothered to find such a law to take offense to- i would argue none exist

You are wound up very tightly on this.. issue - i would ask for clarification but i expect i wont receive any - i live in hope though

4. The UK economy didnt collapse due to the actions of the Bank of England the morning after the referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/24/bank-of-england-mark-carney-says-brexit-contingency-plans-under-way

you can watch mark Carney explain that while they had hoped for a remain vote (as had everyone sane, and their mother) - they had naturally been responsible and planned for the Worst

5. Osbourne predicted the damage following a leave vote in 2016 - BOE's Mark Carney planned for worst case scenario and acted accordingly to avoid. - your response is that Osbourne was wrong, and its all project fear - and you have repeatedly used words like Fear Mongering and 'panic spreading' to attack Osbourne -

Lucy Harris believes as you do that Brexit is a great thing for Britain's Future. Lucy Harris Brexit Party MEP ALSO predicts long term damage to Britain in Post Brexit Environment, but says it is worth it for a Proper Brexit - you say... you dont know her... i was going to say i am lost for words, but i
dare say we both are..

The only comparable thing that comes to mind on a stance like this is Donald Trump in relation to the Far right in America - he both unequivocally denied being racist - but when endorsed by David Dukes, he too claimed he 'didnt know who that is'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/01/donald-trump-and-david-duke-for-the-record/

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-plays-dumb-on-david-dukes-history-of-white-supremacy-here-s-proof-he-s-lying-dafb05f4cb31/


Finally if you want me to respond to one issue, singularly, please post a single point which i will respond to. If you reply to five issues, i will respond to 5.

respectfully

Spanish Eyes

I am getting the feeling that Labour just do not want to carry the burden of being in power for the Brexit fallout. Now they could of course revoke if they got a majority (unlikely), or call another referendum (also unlikely), so it looks to me that the attitude may be.... let the Tories win and let them deal with the mess that they created.

By the time the disaster is recognised as such, Corbyn will be long gone and there will be a new beginning. Timing is everything.

Just a feeling I get.

liamtech

eskimohunt

I think i can genuinely sum up your point of view here

You dont like the EU

You are paranoid about Federalism

Given your dislike for the EU, you are in favor of anything that seemingly damages it

As Brexit arguably does so, you are in favor of Brexit

I think you could probably agree with this - honestly - it is the only stance that makes sense of the many contradictions in your posts

By all means reply to the issues i responded to, a few posts back but maybe consider acknowledging this one too -

First Up

When your argument against EU membership is reduced to raising the prospect of a European army, its safe to say we are nearing the bottom of the barrel.

At this stage I think our eskimo man is trying to convince himself more than anyone else and I'm not sure even that is working.

Headshot

First Up wrote: »

When your argument against EU membership is reduced to raising the prospect of a European army, its safe to say we are nearing the bottom of the barrel.

At this stage I think our eskimo man is trying to convince himself more than anyone else and I'm not sure even that is working.

It's so ****ing painful to read too

liamtech

Headshot wrote: »

It's so ****ing painful to read too

for my part i apologize - but i cannot help but criticize and attack the faulty Pro_Brexit Logic where ever i see it - as i said i wish people were more straight forward and simply acknowledged 'I Hate the EU' - wouldnt agree but at least ye know where ye stand

Headshot

liamtech wrote: »

for my part i apologize - but i cannot help but criticize and attack the faulty Pro_Brexit Logic where ever i see it - as i said i wish people were more straight forward and simply acknowledged 'I Hate the EU' - wouldnt agree but at least ye know where ye stand

liam you have nothing to apologize for

A Dub in Glasgo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

and in the process he totally ignores the mandate that currently exists for another referendum in the Scottish Parliament that resulted from the 2016 elections

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/scottish-parliament-votes-for-second-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

I have re-quoted this particular piece as it makes.. no sense. I have read it a few times. What you are saying seems to be

• A big reason to vote brexit is due to Laws made in the EU Parliament cannot be over turned at a national level - this is the issue you have cited many times
• You cannot/would not name a single law, referring to principle instead
• Yet you now claim that these are not the issue, that led people to Vote for Brexit -
• So in effect, one reason people voted for Brexit was due to EU laws, and another reason, as you claim, has nothing to do with EU laws in particular

They are either an issue, or they are not - you have stated, over the past few days that they are a big issue. Now they are not, simply because it suits you not to name one, and due to the fact that you cannot articulate clearly what it is that is at 'issue' with EU laws

I'll stick with this issue for the time being, but I'm happy to address your other questions once we've done this one justice.

You appear to be finding it difficult to comprehend a fundamental distinction.

I am not against any specific EU law, or group of laws. I personally do not wish to see any overturned. There may be other people who do have an issue with a law or laws. What matters to me is not the content of the law, but where the law is sourced.

As many laws are sourced within "Europe", that is the principle upon which my criticism is made.

I really can't make it any clearer than that.

When your argument against EU membership is reduced to raising the prospect of a European army, its safe to say we are nearing the bottom of the barrel.

At this stage I think our eskimo man is trying to convince himself more than anyone else and I'm not sure even that is working.

It's not my primary argument.

Far from it; my primary arguments rest in democracy, sovereignty, and border controls.