Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Scotland is currently a member being removed against its will. They’ll be fast tracked back in it independent. Just a copy and paste of the existing rules their under. They’ve been told they’d be welcomed back in too.

No, the "UK" voted to Leave.

Saying Scotland is removed against its will is the same as choosing a random parliamentary constitutency, or even Cornwall, and saying they're being extracted from the EU against their will.

It was a UK-wide vote, affecting the UK population as a whole. You can't, for purely politically expedient reasons, suddenly make the retrospective claim that the vote was dependent on a region-by-region basis.

That's simply not how referenda work.

Stop moaning ffs

briany wrote: »

And before anyone else says it, no, Spain would not veto Scotland's application. That was something said by the Spanish Popular Party who are very much into Spanish unity. They're also not in government.

Besides, Spain would have no basis to veto Scotland. The only reason they would have is that they cannot keep their own house in order, and that's not Scotland's problem. Therefore it would be no reason at all.

Just to add the EU didn’t get involved in the first Indy referendum as it was a member states internal politics.
Now? After all the hassle caused by brexit and England specifically as a soon to be non member state, you’ll see them go out of their way to bring Scotland back into the fold.

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

No, the "UK" voted to Leave.

Saying Scotland is removed against its will is the same as choosing a random parliamentary constitutency, or even Cornwall, and saying they're being extracted from the EU against their will.

It was a UK-wide vote, affecting the UK population as a whole. You can't, for purely politically expedient reasons, suddenly make the retrospective claim that the vote was dependent on a region-by-region basis.

That's simply not how referenda work.

This is complete nonsense. Scotland is not on the same level as a random constituency - it has its own legislature and sense of identity as a people. It also, crucially, has mechanisms in place to introduce independence legislation, and may enact those very soon. So, you can continue to say that Scotland's opinion doesn't matter, and it is that very attitude that will sooner rather than later see Scotland leave the union altogether.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

No, the "UK" voted to Leave.

Saying Scotland is removed against its will is the same as choosing a random parliamentary constitutency, or even Cornwall, and saying they're being extracted from the EU against their will.

It was a UK-wide vote, affecting the UK population as a whole. You can't, for purely politically expedient reasons, suddenly make the retrospective claim that the vote was dependent on a region-by-region basis.

That's simply not how referenda work.

Scotland is not a mere "region" of the UK : it is an actual country with its own Parliament and legal system (and which has an automatic legal right to leave the UK if its population so desires, the same as NI).

Legal experts have point out the three home nations should have had the power of veto over what England voted for.

briany

Strazdas wrote: »

Scotland is not a mere "region" of the UK : it is an actual country with its own Parliament and legal system (and which has an automatic legal right to leave the UK if its population so desires, the same as NI).

Legal experts have point out the three home nations should have had the power of veto over what England voted for.

It's gas, isn't it? One of the Brexiteer complaints about the EU is that the UK is but one voice in the EU Parliament. On the other hand, they have no problem - no problem at all - with the face that England has by far the largest say in UK-wide votes. Ah, hypocrisy.

brickster69

GM228 wrote: »

I said weeks ago this would happen:-



https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_19_6286

Sorry they are not female but.

1. Nigel Farage
2. Mark Francois
3. Dominic Cummings

briany

briany wrote: »

It's gas, isn't it? One of the Brexiteer complaints about the EU is that the UK is but one voice in the EU Parliament. On the other hand, they have no problem - no problem at all - with the face that England has by far the largest say in UK-wide votes. Ah, hypocrisy.

If the Prime Minister of the day so wishes, another referendum on Scottish Independence should take place.

I have no problem with that at all.

If they vote to leave the UK, that's up to them. We would have to respect that result.

Personally, I think the UK on-the-whole should be more democratic than it is; it's not without fault. For example, far more devolved powers to the component parts of the UK; reform of postal voting; and more powers for local communities.

So, from that perspective, my politics is entirely consistent - more democracy, less centralised power.

But in the case of referendums, yes, I stand by my view - it was a UK-wide decision and a vote - whether it was placed in Scotland, England or Northern Ireland - has equal validity to every other location within the UK. Perhaps lawyers disagree, fine - they always do. But I believe my view is, at the very least, the fair and moral view.

I don't believe in placing ethnic backgrounds before votes in a referendum.

fash

stefanovich wrote: »

No. The difference is that Trump is supporting the outcome of a fair referendum while Tusk is dismissing it. Trump is supporting democracy. Tusk is dismissing it.

Despite the fact that the non binding referendum was based on lies, illegality, foreign interference and deliberately disenfranchised some of the most affected parties (e.g. young people, those located in the EU), a large and significant majority of those who voted voted to remain within the single market and customs union (e.g. 48.1% who voted remain as well as the large number who voted based on the then representations of the various leave campaigners) etc.
The Tories and their proposed deal now ignore the Will of the People as it then was expressed in the referendum, the demonstrated Will of the People expressed repeatedly since then as does Trump. By your impeccable and unimpeachable logic, Tusk is supporting democracy and the Will of the People. I am sure you will therefore agree that it is in fact the guy being impeached for illegal activities, who had lined his own pockets through being president, promoted the genocide of Kurds to further his own personal interests in Turkey etc. that is in this instance also defying democracy and the Will of the People.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

It was a UK-wide vote, affecting the UK population as a whole. You can't, for purely politically expedient reasons, suddenly make the retrospective claim that the vote was dependent on a region-by-region basis.

Well, if you're going to be pedantic: it was a non-binding referendum and therefore not subject to the usual rules and regulations governing UK ballots, particuarly in regards to campaign spending.

So on that basis, you should be arguing in favour of having the result annulled, rather than making retrospective claims about what basis the people voted on.

But enough of the old arguments: how about (finally) giving us some examples of why Brexit is going to be good for any part of the UK (and obviously by that, I mean actual detailed examples - not just the usual guff about "freedom to make our own trade deals")

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well, if you're going to be pedantic: it was a non-binding referendum and therefore not subject to the usual rules and regulations governing UK ballots, particuarly in regards to campaign spending.

So on that basis, you should be arguing in favour of having the result annulled, rather than making retrospective claims about what basis the people voted on.

Au contraire, the "non-binding" legal component is massively drowned out by the moral argument, which states that every leading major player indicated that the referendum result would be implemented. I can't think of one major player, on both sides of the argument, who claimed it was merely an "advisory" result and, even if Leave did win, it wouldn't be enacted automatically. Furthermore, the General Election of 2017 had parties - 80+% of whom stated that they would "respect the implement the referendum result". Let's not ignore that either, nor the mass support in parliament for invoking Article 50.

Unless you can provide me with one example to the contrary, we must therefore assume that the referendum was held with complete intent, by all parties and independents, as I have already assumed. This "non-binding" argument only grew in strength once Remain had lost.

Furthermore, had "Remain" won, what's to stop me arguing that it was a "non-binding" referendum and therefore a second version of same should be held? The answer: nothing at all. But I wouldn't have done that. I would have respected the original result. That's what differs my political consistency and legitimacy over those who play legal pedantics to overturn the democratic result of the 2016 referendum.

Again, I provide consistency - whereas Remainers manufacture reasons to overturn the referendum result because they simply cannot accept that they lost.

It really is as simple as that.

Leroy42

So Eskimo, you accept Johnson is a liar to prefer him to Corbyn because JC doesn't lie so openly?

Yet you detest Osbourne and Cameron precisely because they lied so openly, (without giving any evidence that they actually lied as opposed to making incorrect forecasts).

And what the heck is this remain minus you keep mentioning? Surely if you despise the EU so much any sort of leave is a plus. How that anything be less than the unacceptable.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Eskimo, you accept Johnson is a liar to prefer him to Corbyn because JC doesn't lie so openly?

Yet you detest Osbourne and Cameron precisely because they lied so openly, (without giving any evidence that they actually lied as opposed to making incorrect forecasts).

And what the heck is this remain minus you keep mentioning? Surely if you despise the EU so much any sort of leave is a plus. How that anything be less than the unacceptable.

No, what I detest is this idea that somehow Corbyn is the antithesis of all-things false. He isn't. He is as just a power-seeker and liar as the rest of them. It's the inconsistency of pro-Corbyn supporters that seek to ignore his lies, whilst pointing the gun barrel at Johnson, that goes down my throat the wrong way.

Remain Minus = an arrangement with the EU that involves 'close alignment' with the SM, CU, and overall political structures of the European Union.

It is that, versus outright Remain, that Corbyn and Labour are proposing to the public; an outright con.

Spanish Eyes

I think the fizz and mayhem has receded somewhat re Brexit now. And the GE is the same.

Both only apply to zealots, whereas the middle ground has nowhere to go now really.

Hiatus for a while I think, and probably engineered very well. People are jaded by this since 2016, but political parties will play on the ennui I think.

At this stage I really hope the Tories win a majority and have to deal with the SH one T that Brexit will bring. They will not last long if so. That is just my opinion.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

No, what I detest is this idea that somehow Corbyn is the antithesis of all-things false. He isn't. He is as just a power-seeker and liar as the rest of them. It's the inconsistency of pro-Corbyn supporters that seek to ignore his lies, whilst pointing the gun barrel at Johnson, that goes down my throat the wrong way.

Well maybe you should tell your Glorious Leader to stop talking about him all the time, then? It doesn't bode well for Brexit if those who champion it - Johnson, as much as yourself - continually frame it as being "better than Corbyn" instead of offering any tangible, factual, honest proposals or explanations of their own.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well maybe you should tell your Glorious Leader to stop talking about him all the time, then? It doesn't bode well for Brexit if those who champion it - Johnson, as much as yourself - continually frame it as being "better than Corbyn" instead of offering any tangible, factual, honest proposals or explanations of their own.

Omnipresent throughout my posts is tangible critiques of Corbyn and his appointed salad of shadow cabinet members; what it means for the UK, its economy and foreign policy, and how the Conservative Party are offering a clear and decisive option, compared to Corbyn, who now offers the "liars referendum" of Remain v Remain Minus.

Whether you like it or not, Prime Minister Johnson is dominating the polls. There's a reason for that; a reason you refuse to accept.

Leroy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, what I detest is this idea that somehow Corbyn is the antithesis of all-things false. He isn't. He is as just a power-seeker and liar as the rest of them. It's the inconsistency of pro-Corbyn supporters that seek to ignore his lies, whilst pointing the gun barrel at Johnson, that goes down my throat the wrong way.

Remain Minus = an arrangement with the EU that involves 'close alignment' with the SM, CU, and overall political structures of the European Union.

It is that, versus outright Remain, that Corbyn and Labour are proposing to the public; an outright con.

So you accept that remain is not the worst option then? But surely that is better, by definition, than what you have now which is full integration?

And therein lies the issue. It isn't remain minus, it leave but not the leave you want. So to claim that Labour isn't abiding by the ref result, when you have just stated that things will change, is nonsense.

Based on your, rightful btw, abhorrence of liars, I assume you won't be voting or hoping that any of the Tories/Labour or Others get a majority.

Why do you not hold Johnson and the Tories responsible for not delivering on their 2017 election promise to deliver Brexit? They had a working majority, yet 2 years later have completely failed. Yet Johnson seems to think that giving them more time and more MPs is the answer.

The likes of JRM, IDS and Johnson have failed to deliver Brexit nobody else.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Au contraire, the "non-binding" legal component is massively drowned out by the moral argument, which states that every leading major player indicated that the referendum result would be implemented. I can't think of one major player, on both sides of the argument, who claimed it was merely an "advisory" result and, even if Leave did win, it wouldn't be enacted automatically. Furthermore, the General Election of 2017 had parties - 80+% of whom stated that they would "respect the implement the referendum result". Let's not ignore that either, nor the mass support in parliament for invoking Article 50.

Unless you can provide me with one example to the contrary, we must therefore assume that the referendum was held with complete intent, by all parties and independents, as I have already assumed. This "non-binding" argument only grew in strength once Remain had lost.

Furthermore, had "Remain" won, what's to stop me arguing that it was a "non-binding" referendum and therefore a second version of same should be held? The answer: nothing at all. But I wouldn't have done that. I would have respected the original result. That's what differs my political consistency and legitimacy over those who play legal pedantics to overturn the democratic result of the 2016 referendum.

Again, I provide consistency - whereas Remainers manufacture reasons to overturn the referendum result because they simply cannot accept that they lost.

It really is as simple as that.

It’s also within the UN charter that any nation has the right to self determination free of dominion of another.

So by your own logic you’d support Scottish independence

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe that even if 200 million were on the bus (or let's go lower, 150 million a week), it would have swayed voters opinions any differently. For instance, those who voted to Leave based on democracy and immigration controls, are unlikely to be swayed by the bus figure - whether it's 150M or 250M or indeed 350M.

Do you think they would be swayed about the lies about FOM? That EU controlled the majority of immigration? That EU migrants were net beneficiaries as opposed to massively contributing into social welfare system? That Turkey would shortly join EU? That EU would force UK to take refugees?
That the guys who actually controlled migration into the UK (the UK government) but kept lying about it should be given more power and control?

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you accept that remain is not the worst option then? But surely that is better, by definition, than what you have now which is full integration?

And therein lies the issue. It isn't remain minus, it leave but not the leave you want. So to claim that Labour isn't abiding by the ref result, when you have just stated that things will change, is nonsense.

Based on your, rightful btw, abhorrence of liars, I assume you won't be voting or hoping that any of the Tories/Labour or Others get a majority.

Why do you not hold Johnson and the Tories responsible for not delivering on their 2017 election promise to deliver Brexit? They had a working majority, yet 2 years later have completely failed. Yet Johnson seems to think that giving them more time and more MPs is the answer.

The likes of JRM, IDS and Johnson have failed to deliver Brexit nobody else.

Not so.

"Leave" by any tangible definition means a departure from political integration from the European Union. At minimum, that's what it meant. Close alignment is the very opposite of this ambition. The idea that Leave voters voted for "close alignment with all EU political structures" is an absurdity that would trigger a myocardial infarction, even in those with no history of heart disease.

Remain Minus, as proposed by Labour, is worse than remaining. But that's the whole purpose of it. The idea that Labour would renegotiate a deal better than what the UK currently has with the EU is absurd. The EU know that Labour, by and large, wish to remain, so why offer a better deal? This is part of the Labour con. They should not call it a "people's vote", if there is no credible vote to Leave. Yes, there are variations of Leave, but what Corbyn and Co. are proposing is not anything close to what even the most sceptical Remainer could possibly call Leave. It's Leave without the Rights, and no fool would vote for that - hence the duplicity of this proposed second referendum.

As for why I do not hold Johnson responsible, it's quite simply because I believe Johnson has made an effort, but that this effort was wilfully obstructed by parliament who coordinated every parliamentary measure to ensure that Johnson broke his pledge to the British people. The British people know this, that's why Johnson continues to ride the popular wave in polls. Because of that, Remainers now start to question the validity of polls, the "fake news"-style nonsense that they attribute to President Trump.

Quite ironic how that has turned out, incidentally.

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

The Johnson Deal is manifestly the same as the May Deal in many respects.

The "we need more time" argument is a cover for just excusing the need to provoke an unneeded extension.

It's quite amazing how you attribute falsity to Johnson almost conclusively, but never apply the same scepticism to how Remainers operate in parliament.

The "we need more time to read" was about the implementing legislation- granting all sorts of tyrannical powers to Johnson. It is a gigantic document deliberately withheld from parliament for months and only provided 2 days before the relevant vote.

fash

fash wrote: »

The "we need more time to read" was about the implementing legislation- granting all sorts of tyrannical powers to Johnson. It is a gigantic document deliberately withheld from parliament for months and only provided 2 days before the relevant vote.

Quite convenient for the Benn Act to stipulate 19 October, when presumably the act's supporters already knew they wouldn't have time to peruse and pass the deal before the 31 October, right?

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

Not so.

"Leave" by any tangible definition means a departure from political integration from the European Union. At minimum, that's what it meant. Close alignment is the very opposite of this ambition. The idea that Leave voters voted for "close alignment with all EU political structures" is an absurdity that would trigger a myocardial infarction, even in those with no history of heart disease.

Remain Minus, as proposed by Labour, is worse than remaining. But that's the whole purpose of it. The idea that Labour would renegotiate a deal better than what the UK currently has with the EU is absurd. The EU know that Labour, by and large, wish to remain, so why offer a better deal? This is part of the Labour con. They should not call it a "people's vote", if there is no credible vote to Leave. Yes, there are variations of Leave, but what Corbyn and Co. are proposing is not anything close to what even the most sceptical Remainer could possibly call Leave. It's Leave without the Rights, and no fool would vote for that - hence the duplicity of this proposed second referendum.

As for why I do not hold Johnson responsible, it's quite simply because I believe Johnson has made an effort, but that this effort was wilfully obstructed by parliament who coordinated every parliamentary measure to ensure that Johnson broke his pledge to the British people. The British people know this, that's why Johnson continues to ride the popular wave in polls. Because of that, Remainers now start to question the validity of polls, the "fake news"-style nonsense that they attribute to President Trump.

Quite ironic how that has turned out, incidentally.

Who are you to define what is and what is not leave? Who are you to speak on behalf of and criticize the EEA/ Norway brexiters for your absurd form of brexit that is not the holy path of true brexit?

fash

fash wrote: »

Who are you to define what is and what is not leave? Who are you to speak on behalf of and criticize the EEA/ Norway brexiters for your absurd form of brexit that is not the holy path of true brexit?

Before the referendum of 2016, what did you interpret Leave to mean? This confusion of what Leave means only manifested post- the referendum result; hence the propaganda terms of Soft and Hard Brexit came into the common lexicon. Before then, no such terms existed. There's quite an obvious reason for that, as well as know - if we are honest enough to admit it.

According to Cameron and his leaflet - the government of the time - Leave meant leaving the Customs Union and Single Market.

It means a return of powers, moneys, and border control from Brussels to the United Kingdom.

It was a once-in-a-generation decision.

At minimum, it meant that - otherwise why hold a referendum?

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite convenient for the Benn Act to stipulate 19 October, when presumably the act's supporters already knew they wouldn't have time to peruse and pass the deal before the 31 October, right?

That literally makes no sense whatsoever: the 19th October was set because of the prorogation and to enough time to resolve a Johnson deliberate non compliance to submit the request - counting back from the 31st deadline.

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

Before the referendum of 2016, what did you interpret Leave to mean?

Everyone knew it would be Richard Norths flexit- the only intellectually developed form of brexit and the form promoted at the time- none of this revanchist nonsense.

fash

fash wrote: »

That literally makes no sense whatsoever: the 19th October was set because of the prorogation and to enough time to resolve a Johnson deliberate non compliance to submit the request - counting back from the 31st deadline.

No, the date was stipulated such that, if Johnson didn't return to parliament with a deal, sufficient time was available to avoid a no deal and force Johnson to secure an extension.

Even though Johnson came back with a deal, an extension was foisted upon him. Many here have claimed that MPs wished to have more time to scrutinize the legislation. You can believe that if you choose. It's quite obvious to me that it wasn't a matter of scrutiny, as Labour and other already stipulated, it was a matter of preventing the Prime Minister from delvering Brexit and going past the 31 October deadline, in the hope the public would tide against Johnson.

That tide didn't come to shore. That's why Johnson is so popular, or far more popular than those in Opposition anticipated.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Before the referendum of 2016, what did you interpret Leave to mean? This confusion of what Leave means only manifested post- the referendum result; hence the propaganda terms of Soft and Hard Brexit came into the common lexicon. Before then, no such terms existed. There's quite an obvious reason for that, as well as know - if we are honest enough to admit it.

According to Cameron and his leaflet - the government of the time - Leave meant leaving the Customs Union and Single Market.

It means a return of powers, moneys, and border control from Brussels to the United Kingdom.

At minimum, it meant that - otherwise why have a referendum?

That of course was why Cameron was against leaving, whereas Johnson and most of those who were supporting leave called that Project Fear. Johnson ridiculed the idea that the UK would find itself outside the Single Market.

People who believed Cameron presumably voted to remain. People who believed Johnson voted to leave, thinking they could remain in the SM.

Turns out Cameron was right and Johnson was wrong (or lying). But pretty much nobody seems to have voted to leave the SM.

looksee

Pages of utter delusion. Why is anyone still engaging?

Edit, no not Volchitsa, I refer to the leaver with the convoluted and ambiguous arguments.

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

No, the date was stipulated such that, if Johnson didn't return to parliament with a deal, sufficient time was available to avoid a no deal and force Johnson to secure an extension

Even though Johnson came back with a deal, an extension was foisted upon him. Many here have claimed that MPs wished to have more time to scrutinize the legislation. You can believe that if you choose..

Unless you are Boris Johnson himself, why are you lying about this? Parliament would have had to have been morons if the Benn act merely required Johnson to come back with a deal: of course the Benn act required that Johnson had to extend unless a deal was agreed and passed. Hence

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Pages of utter delusion. Why is anyone still engaging?

Edit, no not Volchitsa, I refer to the leaver with the convoluted and ambiguous arguments.

This, precisely the kind of position that says that Leave voters are convoluted, ambiguous and are filled with "utter delusion". Nothing more than cheap character attacks.

If anyone is unsure why there's such division in the UK, it is primarily down to this type of elitism that says that one side of the argument is unilaterally - and without question - the right perspective to hold, and anyone who doesn't share these views somehow belong to the gutters of ignorance where they must rot thereon.

I won't return the same. I well believe that there is legitimacy in many of your arguments, but I shan't descend into the type of condescension you've espoused as I believe you sincerely hold the views you hold.

I wish you, and perhaps others, would reciprocate the same.