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

Professor Moriarty

Doctor Roast wrote: »

it's not recollection it's what actually happened, the removal of the language referring to flags, anthems, constitution was removed to cut off any calls for referendums on it and so politicians could sell it better to the public, nothing to see here just another EU treaty full of mumbo jumbo...to quote D'estaing, the EU commission made cosmetic changes "to make it easier to swallow". EU commissioner Gunter Verheugen captured their attitude after the French and Dutch No votes, saying “We must not give in to blackmail” This is extraordinarily disturbing. It is a rejection of the rightful capacity of people to intervene in how they are governed.
I can remember quite clearly an MEP standing up in the EU parliament and stating every countries people should get to vote on it... He was jeered and heckled...

I think you are exaggerating a nothingburger issue within the process. The reality is that that Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty for irrelevant reasons and then voted for it by a large majority. Each time, they were given the essential facts by the government. Contrast that to the car crash that was the Brexit referendum in 2016. A bare majority in a simplistic referendum, which was undemocratically conducted, and where politicians' lies were unchallenged and promoted by a biased press.

For proof of this, one needs only to look at polling. There is a healthy majority across the EU countries in favour of remaining in the EU. Why is that? A large majority of people in the UK now think that Britain was wrong to leave the EU. Why is that?

Doctor Roast

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think you are exaggerating a nothingburger issue within the process. The reality is that that Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty for irrelevant reasons and then voted for it by a large majority. Each time, they were given the essential facts by the government. Contrast that to the car crash that was the Brexit referendum in 2016. A bare majority in a simplistic referendum, which was undemocratically conducted, and where politicians' lies were unchallenged and promoted by a biased press.

For proof of this, one needs only to look at polling. There is a healthy majority across the EU countries in favour of remaining in the EU. Why is that? A large majority of people in the UK now think that Britain was wrong to leave the EU. Why is that?

The reality is the French and Dutch rejected an EU constitution only to have it brought in through the backdoor, it doesn't get to claim its a democratic organisation, it doesn't take no for an answer that's for sure....
https://images.app.goo.gl/H3uAsUtAbnYnxM8k7

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think you are exaggerating a nothingburger issue within the process. The reality is that that Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty for irrelevant reasons and then voted for it by a large majority. Each time, they were given the essential facts by the government. Contrast that to the car crash that was the Brexit referendum in 2016. A bare majority in a simplistic referendum, which was undemocratically conducted, and where politicians' lies were unchallenged and promoted by a biased press.

For proof of this, one needs only to look at polling. There is a healthy majority across the EU countries in favour of remaining in the EU. Why is that? A large majority of people in the UK now think that Britain was wrong to leave the EU. Why is that?

Plus, Ireland is one of the positive in terms of remaining in the EU.

Professor Moriarty

Doctor Roast wrote: »

The reality is the French and Dutch rejected an EU constitution only to have it brought in through the backdoor, it doesn't get to claim its a democratic organisation, it doesn't take know for an answer that's for sure....
https://images.app.goo.gl/H3uAsUtAbnYnxM8k7

How about you address my questions instead of repeating an irrelevancy?

FrancieBrady

Doctor Roast wrote: »

it's not recollection it's what actually happened, the removal of the language referring to flags, anthems, constitution was removed to cut off any calls for referendums on it and so politicians could sell it better to the public, nothing to see here just another EU treaty full of mumbo jumbo...to quote D'estaing, the EU commission made cosmetic changes "to make it easier to swallow". EU commissioner Gunter Verheugen captured their attitude after the French and Dutch No votes, saying “We must not give in to blackmail” This is extraordinarily disturbing. It is a rejection of the rightful capacity of people to intervene in how they are governed.
I can remember quite clearly an MEP standing up in the EU parliament and stating every countries people should get to vote on it... He was jeered and heckled...

If it's your 'recollection' why are you stealing lines of thought from another website without attributing it?

Asia will be meeting with the most neoliberal and undemocratic Europe in history. The European Union (EU) has just forced through a constitution, under the name of the Lisbon Treaty, which has the same elements that were rejected by the French, the Dutch and later the Irish. In the words, of the architect of the constitution, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the European Commission “has made cosmetic changes so it will be easier to swallow.”

The European Union is not a democratic entity. We have to vote how they want us to vote or it doesn't count. EU commissioner Gunter Verheugen captured their attitude after the French and Dutch 'No' votes, saying “We must not give in to blackmail.” This is extraordinarily disturbing. It is a rejection of enlightenment thought, the rightful capacity of people to intervene in how they are governed. Anti-democratic values are taking hold. We have become stakeholders instead of citizens, consumers instead of sovereign people, we are offered consultation rather than real participation. I don't accept this.

https://www.tni.org/es/node/3319

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Plus, Ireland is one of the positive in terms of remaining in the EU.

Absolutely. Anyone who thinks we should have left the EU in 2008 via the Lisbon treaty needs to take a look in the mirror.

Doctor Roast

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How about you address my questions instead of repeating an irrelevancy?

How about you stop skipping over things and address the points I'm raising...

Doctor Roast

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it's your 'recollection' why are you stealing lines of thought from another website without attributing it?



https://www.tni.org/es/node/3319

Yep I have it on my clip board... Along with many others

FrancieBrady

Doctor Roast wrote: »

Yep I have it on my clip board... Along with many others

You are plagarising...short and simple.

I find it a disingenuous and completely disrespectful thing to do, to the reader and the original author.

Snickers Man

Have they gone yet? Have they gone yet? Have they gone yet?

Doctor Roast

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are plagarising...short and simple.

I find it a disingenuous and completely disrespectful thing to do, to the reader and the original author.

Lol, a snippet which isn't wrong by the way
Here francie here's a link to the D'estaing article I quoted for your perusal....
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/val-eacute-ry-giscard-d-estaing-eu-treaty-same-constitution-398286.html?amp

FrancieBrady

Doctor Roast wrote: »

Lol, a snippet which isn't wrong by the way
Here francie here's a link to the D'estaing article I quoted for your perusal....
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/val-eacute-ry-giscard-d-estaing-eu-treaty-same-constitution-398286.html?amp

It was more than a 'snippet' and it was passed off as your own.

Own it.

ancapailldorcha

Donald Trump wrote: »

I wonder how will the likes of Farage and his similar agitators get on now that they are restricted towards focusing their efforts and rhetoric internally rather than against an external bogeyman?


Will they get a toehold into the British system? Any disquiet at "revelations" or reality hitting home as small things are lost in every lives can be channeled into an attack on "incompetents" in the UK government who let the "easiest deal in history" slip away.





(I presume you mean UK when you say "here")

They'll become anti-lockdown. That'll be their next grift.

Leroy42

Doctor Roast wrote: »

How about you stop skipping over things and address the points I'm raising...

I have no idea what point you are making.

On one hand, you are claiming that we were forced to vote on the same thing because the EU never accept No for an answer, on the other you are claiming that the EU removed some of the offending words and phrases following feedback from the Irish government, but only did so to hide what they actually wanted.

It seems an inherent contradiction in your position so obviously I am misunderstanding it, along with others it appears.

Professor Moriarty

Doctor Roast wrote: »

How about you stop skipping over things and address the points I'm raising...

Grand. I'll leave it with you.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are making.

On one hand, you are claiming that we were forced to vote on the same thing because the EU never accept No for an answer, on the other you are claiming that the EU removed some of the offending words and phrases following feedback from the Irish government, but only did so to hide what they actually wanted.

It seems an inherent contradiction in your position so obviously I am misunderstanding it, along with others it appears.

It's a red herring. The EU gave Ireland assurances on abortion and neutrality. The people were happy with this and then re-voted by a large majority in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. The end.

fly_agaric

Lets examine the very recent past rather than 10 years ago or even the "will of the people" UK Brexit referendum.

The UK messed about with these EU trade negotiations for months, humming and hawing about going for "no deal" Brexit (what would have happened had Trump won the US election?). Then at the very last strike of the clock, they sign up.

As a result their government have to speed the whole thing through their own parliament like **** through a goose before MPs can consider it. No opportunity for EU parliament to examine the agreement and vote on it before it gets implemented either.

I'm not that concerned - given the way the EU works the member state governments were all aware of what was going on in negotiations & the limits of Barnier's mandate & one member or another would have shot it down if there was anything dangerous in it (IMO) + what the UK does is their own bailiwick, but the whole thing has a slightly undemocratic feel to it.

But that's okay of course - just seems to be how the current UK, "mammy" of democracy and all that, rolls!

Akrasia

The biggest issue with the brexit referendum was that it was hopelessly vague which allowed people to put their spin on what would happen after a yes vote, and the Remain side had nothing to point to to say that they are lying to the
people.

The fact that people were being asked to define brexit the days and months after the population voted for it, and the best they could come up with was 'Brexit means Brexit'

Throughout the brexit campaign, the leave side completely muddied the water in relation to the customs union with claims that there would still be frictionless trade

There was debate about how 'hard' brexit should be with many people voting for unicorns that would never have been agreed by the EU.
If you strip out those unicorn fanciers, the Remain side would have won
If the Brexit referendum included the promise to leave the Customs Union, to leave Erasmus, to block UK airlines from operating within the EU, that there would be a customs border between NI and the UK down the middle of the irish sea the referendum absolutely would not have passed.

Doctor Roast

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are making.

On one hand, you are claiming that we were forced to vote on the same thing because the EU never accept No for an answer, on the other you are claiming that the EU removed some of the offending words and phrases following feedback from the Irish government, but only did so to hide what they actually wanted.

It seems an inherent contradiction in your position so obviously I am misunderstanding it, along with others it appears.

Again you seem to be mixed up, the removal of the language referring to flags and anthems wasn't at the behest of the Irish government. It was to hide its political ambitions(an EU superstate). It ties in more with the French and Dutch referendums on an EU constitution.

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

The biggest issue with the brexit referendum was that it was hopelessly vague which allowed people to put their spin on what would happen after a yes vote, and the Remain side had nothing to point to to say that they are lying to the
people.

The fact that people were being asked to define brexit the days and months after the population voted for it, and the best they could come up with was 'Brexit means Brexit'

Throughout the brexit campaign, the leave side completely muddied the water in relation to the customs union with claims that there would still be frictionless trade

There was debate about how 'hard' brexit should be with many people voting for unicorns that would never have been agreed by the EU.
If you strip out those unicorn fanciers, the Remain side would have won
If the Brexit referendum included the promise to leave the Customs Union, to leave Erasmus, to block UK airlines from operating within the EU, that there would be a customs border between NI and the UK down the middle of the irish sea the referendum absolutely would not have passed.

The Brexit win was built on a sandcastle of lies. Everything that has happened since then has been a direct result of those Brexit lies.

Kermit.de.frog

Akrasia wrote: »

The biggest issue with the brexit referendum was that it was hopelessly vague which allowed people to put their spin on what would happen after a yes vote, and the Remain side had nothing to point to to say that they are lying to the
people.

The fact that people were being asked to define brexit the days and months after the population voted for it, and the best they could come up with was 'Brexit means Brexit'

Throughout the brexit campaign, the leave side completely muddied the water in relation to the customs union with claims that there would still be frictionless trade

There was debate about how 'hard' brexit should be with many people voting for unicorns that would never have been agreed by the EU.
If you strip out those unicorn fanciers, the Remain side would have won
If the Brexit referendum included the promise to leave the Customs Union, to leave Erasmus, to block UK airlines from operating within the EU, that there would be a customs border between NI and the UK down the middle of the irish sea the referendum absolutely would not have passed.

The referendum was ultimately about English nationalism, not British so I think it would have passed.

Scotland, Wales, NI - their opinion never actually mattered due to shear numbers of English voters.

A lot of English people don't care about the UK, they only care about England.

fash

Doctor Roast wrote: »

it's not recollection it's what actually happened, the removal of the language referring to flags, anthems, constitution

There are very few organizations which don't have flags, anthems or constitutions. Why should the EU be worse off than (e.g.) the boy scouts? Are the boy scouts an organization hell bent on global domination? Should we get our guns?

Doctor Roast

fash wrote: »

There are very few organizations which don't have flags, anthems or constitutions. Why should the EU be worse off than (e.g.) the boy scouts? Are the boy scouts an organization hell bent on global domination? Should we get our guns?

I think you're being very naive about the EUs end goal, why would they need to remove it so?

Seth Brundle

Doctor Roast wrote: »

I think you're being very naive about the EUs end goal, why would they need to remove it so?

Using decent sources, please tell us what the EU's end goal is.
Also, to whom does it benefit to have those end goals? The Germans? The EU bureaucrats?

alchemist33

We were told by some that the sky would fall in before referenda on the Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon treaties. We'd be forced into a European superstate and an EU army. And decades later it still hasn't happened.

fash

Doctor Roast wrote: »

I think you're being very naive about the EUs end goal, why would they need to remove it so?

Because people like you would be concerned if they didn't (as you've demonstrated).
Clearly to me (and to them) it's relatively immaterial whether they (or the boy scouts) have such things - otherwise, they would have expressed disappointment.

Doctor Roast

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Using decent sources, please tell us what the EU's end goal is.
Also, to whom does it benefit to have those end goals? The Germans? The EU bureaucrats?

I would have though that was self evident no? From a trading bloc to flags, anthems, currency, parliament, courts, laws, governmental buildings, calls for an EU army, talks of shared sovereignty .... What did you think ever closer union is about?

Doctor Roast

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Using decent sources, please tell us what the EU's end goal is.
Also, to whom does it benefit to have those end goals? The Germans? The EU bureaucrats?

To be honest the EU could have nipped brexit in the bud by coming out and declaring it has no intention of becoming a superstate, It hasnt instead we have the likes of bucktooth fanatic Verhofstadt squawking about it any chance he gets or Martin schultz who thinks member states should be thrown out if they don't want to federalise, let's also be honest here and admit that France or Germany has unequal say in this "union" I don't remember voting for Merkle here in Ireland...

fash

Doctor Roast wrote: »

To be honest the EU could have nipped brexit in the bud by coming out and declaring it has no intention of becoming a superstate, It hasnt

And you can nip speculation that you are a paedophile in the bud by denying that you've raped 285 children in 2020 alone and plan to rape 348 in 2021. But you haven't - why is that?
That is far, far more suspicious than some random person at the EU saying they had no plans to become a superstate.

instead we have the likes of bucktooth fanatic Verhofstadt squawking about it any chance he gets or Martin schultz who thinks member states should be thrown out if they don't want to federalise, let's also be honest here and admit that France or Germany has unequal say in this "union" I don't remember voting for Merkle here in Ireland...

Actually Ireland has an unequal say - if you look at the treaties (or ask the rather smarting UK).

Seth Brundle

Doctor Roast wrote: »

I would have though that was self evident no? From a trading bloc to flags, anthems, currency, parliament, courts, laws, governmental buildings, calls for an EU army, talks of shared sovereignty .... What did you think ever closer union is about?

So your idea of an end goal is some buildings and some "talk"? Seriously? :rolleyes: