Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

banie01

theological wrote: »

Only if you have the patronising and probably arrogant assumption that the British public can't think for themselves or make their own decisions.

Much like how view the religious and moral leanings of those who don't subscribe to your own theocratic views?

Reasoned decisions are based on good and trustworthy information.
The Russians have made it their aim, to muddy the waters around that as much as possible and to polarize issues.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

It isn't about whether they can make their own decisions, it is about what information they are basing those decisions on.

From a glance at some of the articles there is no claim that the official campaigns were interfered with by Russians. Just that there were bots on Twitter, and a slant on Sputnik or Russia Today.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Only if you have the patronising and probably arrogant assumption that the British public can't think for themselves or make their own decisions.

Ironic.


If I seem to remember correctly there was a certain poster on here adamantly, and blindly, defending Johnson's "correct" decision to ignore global health community concerns and refuse to shut things, right up until the afternoon when Johnson actually did an abrupt 180 degree turn and starting putting in restrictions (after Macron ordered him to btw).



That same poster coincidentally did a 180 degree turn at the exact same time as Johnson did and what had been anathema to them at 11am went to the logical and smart thing for Britain at 2pm.



Imagine that. Must be a case of great minds thinking alike. Although given that these were based on some unique source of "scientific advice", it might be a little worrying that a boards.ie poster had access to the same advice at the same time that the UK prime minister received access to it....


Anyway, it looks like people in the UK will just have to get used to being Russia's bitches. They will be even more malleable for the Russians given their ability to stick their heads in their sands and convince themselves that they are exceptional and cannot be wrong.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

From a glance at some of the articles there is no claim that the official campaigns were interfered with by Russians. Just that there were bots on Twitter, and a slant on Sputnik or Russia Today.

They didn't look. They didn't find anything because they didn't look for anything.

Have you even read beyond the headlines?

They conclude that it did interfere in INdyref in 2014, simply didn't bother with Brexit, and then got back to work for GE17? Are you seriously buying that line?

We know that Russian money was flowing into the Tory party prior to GE19 and Johnson went out of his way to stop the report being published prior to GE19.

Again, it isn't about the decision people made, it is about the information provided to them on which they base their decision.

theological

banie01 wrote: »

Much like how view the religious and moral leanings of those who don't subscribe to your own theocratic views?

Reasoned decisions are based on good and trustworthy information.
The Russians have made it their aim, to muddy the waters around that as much as possible and to polarize issues.

How much do you know about what I believe? I think we should leave this out and focus on the topic of hand.

Leroy42 wrote: »

They didn't look. They didn't find anything because they didn't look for anything.

Have you even read beyond the headlines?

They conclude that it did interfere in INdyref in 2014, simply didn't bother with Brexit, and then got back to work for GE17? Are you seriously buying that line?

We know that Russian money was flowing into the Tory party prior to GE19 and Johnson went out of his way to stop the report being published prior to GE19.

Again, it isn't about the decision people made, it is about the information provided to them on which they base their decision.

I've not read the full report obviously. It was only published today.

From what I've looked at in articles, it seems to suggest that the interference if any in the Brexit referendum seem to be down to bots, and Sputnik and Russia Today, which I suspect very few people actually get their information from.

If you've got anything else to add, feel free to. I think the labouring of this by certain people is just more whinging about the result and an attempt to re-hold the referendum, which obviously won't happen.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

I think the labouring of this by certain people is just more whinging about the result and an attempt to re-hold the referendum, which obviously won't happen.

Deflection. Bad faith. Yet again. Argue a point that hasn't been made. Change the subject. You're as bad in your own way as crypto or the other loon.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

How much do you know about what I believe? I think we should leave this out and focus on the topic of hand.


I've not read the full report obviously. It was only published today.

From what I've looked at in articles, it seems to suggest that the interference if any in the Brexit referendum seem to be down to bots, and Sputnik and Russia Today, which I suspect very few people actually get their information from.

If you've got anything else to add, feel free to. I think the labouring of this by certain people is just more whinging about the result and an attempt to re-hold the referendum, which obviously won't happen.

So you have made you decision on not reading the report and an assumption about how people react to information? Fair enough.

Try to review it based on a open mind rather than looking for stuff that backs up your position. At the end of it all, nobody can say either way because they didn't look into it. They accept something happened, but apparently it was too difficult to work out of anything happened or had an impact.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you have made you decision on not reading the report and an assumption about how people react to information? Fair enough.

Try to review it based on a open mind rather than looking for stuff that backs up your position. At the end of it all, nobody can say either way because they didn't look into it. They accept something happened, but apparently it was too difficult to work out of anything happened or had an impact.

The irony is very strong in this bolded section.

I might look at the whole report later when I get more time.

banie01

theological wrote: »

How much do you know about what I believe? I think we should leave this out and focus on the topic of hand.

Given that I have had the opportunity to read some of your interpretation of biblical verse and that you have your sermons and theology linked in your signature?

It doesn't take a great deal of intuition to form an opinion on your beliefs.
An opinion that reading back over your posts here would support.

Now given that the report makes a strong finding that

"It is notable that a number of members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state,"

Perhaps you could tell me how that squares with your own stated interpretation of Matthew 6:19-24 and ones being unable to serve 2 masters?

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

The irony is very strong in this bolded section.

I might look at the whole report later when I get more time.

What do you mean?

declanflynn

It's funny, in the race against itself to get away from the EU, the uk has ended up in a position where Russia decides uk elections, The US decides uk government policy and China tells the uk what one country two systems really means.

fash

theological wrote: »

Only if you have the patronising and probably arrogant assumption that the British public can't think for themselves or make their own decisions.

rather ironic that someone who is unable to follow through or provide evidence or explain his position in any detail or logically consistent manner whatsoever questions whether it is reasonable to believe that some people have limited capacity to think logically in certain areas.
Not only that, but it suggests that the trillion dollar world advertising industry has been wasting its time these last few decades.

theological

fash wrote: »

rather ironic that someone who is unable to follow through or provide evidence or explain his position in any detail or logically consistent manner whatsoever questions whether it is reasonable to believe that some people have limited capacity to think logically in certain areas.
Not only that, but it suggests that the trillion dollar world advertising industry has been wasting its time these last few decades.

I've explained why I support Brexit extensively on this thread, and in its predecessor. You can use the search function to explore the reasons I have for this. There's no need to repeat it.

The reason why I don't continually repeat it at this stage is because it is a stale argument. It is old. The British people simply want this settled which is why the Conservatives were returned with a large majority in parliament in December. Mostly because people are fed up of this debate.

There's no value explaining this to people who aren't really interested in the other side of the argument. The UK has left the EU and this just needs to be finished in December.

ohnonotgmail

so any word on how the trade negotiations with Lichtenstein are going?

ancapailldorcha

davedanon wrote: »

Deflection. Bad faith. Yet again. Argue a point that hasn't been made. Change the subject. You're as bad in your own way as crypto or the other loon.

Seems unlikely to me that the EU and the UK are going to hold a referendum based on what some people on Boards.ie type in their posts.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

I've explained why I support Brexit extensively on this thread, and in its predecessor. You can use the search function to explore the reasons I have for this. There's no need to repeat it.

The reason why I don't continually repeat it at this stage is because it is a stale argument. It is old. The British people simply want this settled which is why the Conservatives were returned with a large majority in parliament in December. Mostly because people are fed up of this debate.

There's no value explaining this to people who aren't really interested in the other side of the argument. The UK has left the EU and this just needs to be finished in December.

But the Brexit you supported cannot be the Brexit that is being delivered? No deal with the EU, none with any other major country, no border controls in place, passports made in France, massive increase risk of breakup of the union, massive increase in business costs to importers and exporters, lack of a standards policy and how UKCA will deal with EU standards, additional costs to foreign travel, massive drop in the value of the Stg£, MP's voting to remove an HoC oversight for future trade deals (which was apparently one of the big issues everyone seemed to have), rise in non EU immigration.

What everybody else is able to see is that the Brexit that you support is not the Brexit that you are getting yet you seem totally fine with that. It appears that once it has the word Brexit written on it then you are perfectly fine with whatever it is.

davedanon

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the Brexit you supported cannot be the Brexit that is being delivered? No deal with the EU, none with any other major country, no border controls in place, passports made in France, massive increase risk of breakup of the union, massive increase in business costs to importers and exporters, lack of a standards policy and how UKCA will deal with EU standards, additional costs to foreign travel, massive drop in the value of the Stg£, MP's voting to remove an HoC oversight for future trade deals (which was apparently one of the big issues everyone seemed to have), rise in non EU immigration.

What everybody else is able to see is that the Brexit that you support is not the Brexit that you are getting yet you seem totally fine with that. It appears that once it has the word Brexit written on it then you are perfectly fine with whatever it is.

Brexit means Brexit. That is all anyone needs to know.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the Brexit you supported cannot be the Brexit that is being delivered? No deal with the EU, none with any other major country, no border controls in place, passports made in France, massive increase risk of breakup of the union, massive increase in business costs to importers and exporters, lack of a standards policy and how UKCA will deal with EU standards, additional costs to foreign travel, massive drop in the value of the Stg£, MP's voting to remove an HoC oversight for future trade deals (which was apparently one of the big issues everyone seemed to have), rise in non EU immigration.

What everybody else is able to see is that the Brexit that you support is not the Brexit that you are getting yet you seem totally fine with that. It appears that once it has the word Brexit written on it then you are perfectly fine with whatever it is.

Considering I didn't support Brexit in the actual referendum, having voted remain because I actually believed some of the scare stories, I think you'd have to ask and actual leave voter.

I only became convinced that Brexit was the right decision in the aftermath of the result. You suggested that I was closed minded a few posts ago. Actually, I suspect I'm more open minded than many posters on here given that I am possibly one of the only people contributing to this thread that actually changed their mind on this topic.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

Considering I didn't support Brexit in the actual referendum, having voted remain because I actually believed some of the scare stories, I think you'd have to ask and actual leave voter.

I only became convinced that Brexit was the right decision in the aftermath of the result. You suggested that I was closed minded a few posts ago. Actually, I suspect I'm more open minded than many posters on here given that I am possibly one of the only people contributing to this thread that actually changed their mind on this topic.

I never mentioned when you started to support it, but clearly you do at this point in time. What part of it do you support.

As usual you fail to deal with any of the issues that are brought up. Have you nothing at all to say about the complete mess that the UK have made of this? Even as shortly back as the GE when Johnson promised an Oven Rady deal and No border documents for NI, both were complete lies. So even at the GE the public were lied to.

I stated you were closed minded on the basis that you wanted to ignore the Russia report without having actually taken the time to examine it past the headlines from. It seems that nothing is going to change your mind on BRexit, again it appears that you don't care what Brexit actually is once Brexit, of any sort is delivered.

You have continually mentioned sovereignty as a main driver, yet two days ago the HoC voted itself out of any oversight of future trade deals. That is even worse that what you had before when at least it was theoretically possible that the HoC could demand a veto to any EU trade deal.

davedanon

Leroy42 wrote: »

I never mentioned when you started to support it, but clearly you do at this point in time. What part of it do you support.

As usual you fail to deal with any of the issues that are brought up. Have you nothing at all to say about the complete mess that the UK have made of this? Even as shortly back as the GE when Johnson promised an Oven Rady deal and No border documents for NI, both were complete lies. So even at the GE the public were lied to.

I stated you were closed minded on the basis that you wanted to ignore the Russia report without having actually taken the time to examine it past the headlines from. It seems that nothing is going to change your mind on BRexit, again it appears that you don't care what Brexit actually is once Brexit, of any sort is delivered.

You have continually mentioned sovereignty as a main driver, yet two days ago the HoC voted itself out of any oversight of future trade deals. That is even worse that what you had before when at least it was theoretically possible that the HoC could demand a veto to any EU trade deal.

Sovereignty? The UK is run by Dominic Cummings. It has no sovereignty.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

I never mentioned when you started to support it, but clearly you do at this point in time. What part of it do you support.

As usual you fail to deal with any of the issues that are brought up. Have you nothing at all to say about the complete mess that the UK have made of this? Even as shortly back as the GE when Johnson promised an Oven Rady deal and No border documents for NI, both were complete lies. So even at the GE the public were lied to.

I stated you were closed minded on the basis that you wanted to ignore the Russia report without having actually taken the time to examine it past the headlines from. It seems that nothing is going to change your mind on BRexit, again it appears that you don't care what Brexit actually is once Brexit, of any sort is delivered.

You have continually mentioned sovereignty as a main driver, yet two days ago the HoC voted itself out of any oversight of future trade deals. That is even worse that what you had before when at least it was theoretically possible that the HoC could demand a veto to any EU trade deal.

I decline to repeat myself on the bolded section. You can search for my opinion in this thread and in its precursor if you are interested.

From my perspective the matter is settled, the only matter is concluding the transition period so that the UK can move on.

I'm much more interested in the future from here rather than dwelling on things that have already been debated ad nauseum.

As I said before, I'm open minded to the point of demonstrably changing my mind on this very issue. What about you?

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

I decline to repeat myself on the bolded section. You can search for my opinion in this thread and in its precursor if you are interested.

From my perspective the matter is settled, the only matter is concluding the transition period so that the UK can move on.

I'm much more interested in the future from here rather than dwelling on things that have already been debated ad nauseum.

As I said before, I'm open minded to the point of demonstrably changing my mind on this very issue. What about you?

But, as usual, all your arguments fail to deal with the reality of the situation. But instead of pointing out why you support Brexit as it currently is, which again is very different to any BRexit previously argued for, you ignore all the clear issues and claim that you have already answered.

Sovereignty. This has always been a massive point with you, so much so that you are willing to accept economic damage (I do recall your posts). But have you nothing at all to say that the HoC have just voted to give away that sovereignty that the UK will pay such a large economic price for?

NI being separated from GB in trade terms was never on the cards, Johnson was still claiming at the time of the GE that it was never going to happen, yet here we are.

I change my mind when new facts point me to a different conclusion. I am still open to Brexit being a success, I understand why people wanted to vote for Brexit, but at no point has anyone been able to put forward an actual detail of the benefits. Even your much quoted sovereignty has been shown to be a myth. So what is left for you to support?

You still support Brexit despite all your previous reasons being shown to be incorrect. Not sure how that makes you open minded. But rather than get personal about who is more open minded, which will not move the debate any further, why not acknowledge the real issues that exist with Brexit and what you think is the way forward.

For example, to get a trade deal it appears that some compromise will be needed on the UK red line about fish and the ECJ. Do you think it would be acceptable to make compromises in these areas and what should the UK be looking for in return?

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

But, as usual, all your arguments fail to deal with the reality of the situation. But instead of pointing out why you support Brexit as it currently is, which again is very different to any Brexit previously argued for, you ignore all the clear issues and claim that you have already answered.

Sovereignty. This has always been a massive point with you, so much so that you are willing to accept economic damage (I do recall your posts). But have you nothing at all to say that the HoC have just voted to give away that sovereignty that the UK will pay such a large economic price for?

NI being separated from GB in trade terms was never on the cards, Johnson was still claiming at the time of the GE that it was never going to happen, yet here we are.

I change my mind when new facts point me to a different conclusion. I am still open to Brexit being a success, I understand why people wanted to vote for Brexit, but at no point has anyone been able to put forward an actual detail of the benefits. Even your much quoted sovereignty has been shown to be a myth. So what is left for you to support?

You still support Brexit despite all your previous reasons being shown to be incorrect. Not sure how that makes you open minded. But rather than get personal about who is more open minded, which will not move the debate any further, why not acknowledge the real issues that exist with Brexit and what you think is the way forward.

For example, to get a trade deal it appears that some compromise will be needed on the UK red line about fish and the ECJ. Do you think it would be acceptable to make compromises in these areas and what should the UK be looking for in return?

I obviously don't accept this relatively absurd claim in bold. I also don't just claim the main objections have been answered, they actually have been if you use the search function.

I don't think the arguments for or indeed against Brexit have really changed. They have already been hashed out here. This is the reason why I'm stating that recycling the same points continually on this thread is of no value. The same responses which I've responded to also offer no value.

I'm interested in seeing if there's anything we have not previously discussed on this thread and seeing if there are new things that need to be explored but repeating the same stuff over and over again isn't interesting.

ohnonotgmail

theological wrote: »

I obviously don't accept this relatively absurd claim in bold. I also don't just claim the main objections have been answered, they actually have been if you use the search function.

I don't think the arguments for or indeed against Brexit have really changed. They have already been hashed out here. This is the reason why I'm stating that recycling the same points continually on this thread is of no value. The same responses which I've responded to also offer no value.

I'm interested in seeing if there's anything we have not previously discussed on this thread and seeing if there are new things that need to be explored but repeating the same stuff over and over again isn't interesting.

the reality of what Brexit is has changed. it has changed since the vote. it has changed since johnson was elected. yet brexit supporters dont care. Brexit means Brexit and that is all that matters.

Leroy42

Theo, I'd be more than happy to discuss new points since the majority, if not all, of the previous reasons have been debunked to death at this stage. The only remaining one is future opportunities, which of course none of us dan be sure of, but the complete lack of even a single opportunity is telling.

So fire ahead, what new benefits do you want to discuss?

biko

UK dodged a bullet having left before the EU "COVID" fund.
They will have to pick up their own pieces and borrow if they need to, but it will be their own debt, not handed out by the EU.

theological

biko wrote: »

UK dodged a bullet having left before the EU "COVID" fund.
They will have to pick up their own pieces and borrow if they need to, but it will be their own debt, not handed out by the EU.

The UK would have almost certainly have been a net contributor to this fund anyway, in much the same way as it was a net contributor to the EU for the whole time it was a member.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

The UK would have almost certainly have been a net contributor to this fund anyway, in much the same way as it was a net contributor to the EU for the whole time it was a member.

...and got nothing back in return :rolleyes:

davedanon

biko wrote: »

UK dodged a bullet having left before the EU "COVID" fund.
They will have to pick up their own pieces and borrow if they need to, but it will be their own debt, not handed out by the EU.

Dodged a bullet, but only by walking into a bazooka.


And anyway, isn't it shared debt? Isn't that partly why the Frugal 4 were so dead against it?

Padre_Pio

davedanon wrote: »

Dodged a bullet, but only by walking into a bazooka.


And anyway, isn't it shared debt? Isn't that partly why the Frugal 4 were so dead against it?

Yes.

I would imagine Brexit will cost much more than whatever this EU recovery package will cost.