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

fash

blinding wrote: »

The Apostate that leaves the Religion / Cult must be condemned !

It has ever been thus from the Insecure and Fragile Religionists / Cultists !

Any that Contemplate Leaving must be Destroyed ! ! !:eek:

And yet the only side to murder members of the unbelievers for their disbelief remains brexiters.
How are brexiters different to jihadists again?

Melanchthon

fash wrote: »

The only way additional integration happens or would have happened in the EU is if countries agree(d) to it. The UK's way out of that was to remain as right where it was.
Really the nonsense about freedom of movement was silly: as seen by Ireland's failure to attract polish builders recently, a once in a lifetime event as there are no more poor post Communist countries which underwent baby booms in the 1970's/1980's that can join the EU - which the UK government (alone) pushed to invite into the EU (too) early and which the UK government (almost alone) opened its borders to immediately.
The blaming the EU for African or Turkish migrants was always absurd.
It is interesting to note how once that wedge issue served its purpose it was dropped from the propaganda organs and no longer viewed as a significant issue by the UK propaganda-soaked punter.

As regards the EU, there are certainly areas where increased EU integration would be a good thing: certain areas of health policy coordination, a common budget to bail out Southern EU countries asymmetrically hit by Covid etc.

But as has been stated many times by euro federalists apparently the treaty of Rome sets out this end state?

In terms of the UK remaining and staying where it was , was that a realistic proposition, there was already a resentment of UK opt outs, exemptions and rebates, if it started blocking every EU proposal it could it would have been demonized, look at the way the Netherlands is being portrayed at the minute for doing this once.

In terms of freedom of movement thing and the ascension states, have you seen Blair's reputation these days, I personally think he was a skilled politician but he is considered a tainted irrelevance who's opinion can be ignored because of that and Iraq.
Migration in Britain/England is complicated too compared to Ireland, a guy from Dheli might genuinely have a closer connection to Britain than a Romanian guy.

Edit: you also didn't engage with my point that as the German constitutional court recently highlighted European institutions do take competencies that haven't been given by treaties

blinding

fash wrote: »

And yet the only side to murder members of the unbelievers for their disbelief remains brexiters.
How are brexiters different to jihadists again?

One Nut Job Murdered an MP.

What has that got to do with 17.4 million people Voting to leave the Eu, Which they do not like and do not want their country to be in.

The Brexit Vote was the Largest number of people that ever Voted for Anything in Britain.

Democracy Working Brilliantly.

The Eu lost, Bye Bye Eu from Britain and Good Riddance.

fash

blinding wrote: »

One Nut Job Murdered an MP.

Interesting that the the murdering nutjobs are brexiters- that is aside from the violence and the various threats of violence emanating from brexiters - rather similar to

What has that got to do with 17.4 million people Voting to leave the Eu, Which they do not like and do not want their country to be in
.

Pointing out the relationship between brexiters who murder and/or are violent and/or threaten to do so and the brexiter religion is rather similar to pointing out the relationship between violent jihadists and the 1.5 billion or so Muslims.
Both are religious movements with significant cult like aspects which murder unbelievers -I'm sure you'll agree.

blinding

fash wrote: »

Interesting that the the murdering nutjobs are brexiters- that is aside from the violence and the various threats of violence emanating from brexiters - rather similar to


Pointing out the relationship between brexiters who murder and/or are violent and/or threaten to do so and the brexiter religion is rather similar to pointing out the relationship between violent jihadists and the 1.5 billion or so Muslims.
Both are religious movements with significant cult like aspects which murder unbelievers -I'm sure you'll agree.

It was one Nut Job. Plenty of threats from Re-Mainers especially when the did not Respect Democracy.

Not Respecting Democracy is a Threat ! A Threat to something many People Hold Dear, As soon as people saw how Anti-Democratic the Eu-Philes were, there was only ever going to be one Winner and that was Democracy. And the Eu-Philes certainly were not on that side ! ! !

Bye Bye Eu and Good Riddance.

fash

blinding wrote: »

It was one Nut Job.

As for calling Mr Mair a "nut job", I am quite certain that he would say the same about you.

Plenty of threats from Re-Mainers especially when the did not Respect Democracy.

Not Respecting Democracy is a Threat ! A Threat to something many People Hold Dear, /quote]
Interesting, that is exactly the same thing that violent jihadists say. What would Mr Mair make of your statements?

fash

Melanchthon wrote: »

But as has been stated many times by euro federalists apparently the treaty of Rome sets out this end state?

Indeed it points in that direction - yet you either agree to each step along the way or you don't. It only happens if you want it to happen. So why did the UK want it to happen insofar as it did? And why do you now trust those who decided that if you didn't previously?

In terms of the UK remaining and staying where it was , was that a realistic proposition, there was already a resentment of UK opt outs, exemptions and rebates,

Perhaps

if it started blocking every EU proposal it could it would have been demonized,

Firstly, I'm surprised the UK would be so sensitive - it seems surprising for a country with such an interesting relationship to human rights abuses or democracy. Furthermore it's funny that if the UK was so concerned about demonisation that it has engaged in such an ill-tempered war against the EU and its member states.
Secondly, the UK need not block any EU proposal - it simply opts out as it did with the euro.

look at the way the Netherlands is being portrayed at the minute for doing this once.

I haven't been reading the daily express so I was unaware. But aside from that, I'm quite sure that the Netherlands isn't being demonised by anyone.

In terms of freedom of movement thing and the ascension states, have you seen Blair's reputation these days, I personally think he was a skilled politician but he is considered a tainted irrelevance who's opinion can be ignored because of that and Iraq.
Migration in Britain/England is complicated too compared to Ireland, a guy from Dheli might genuinely have a closer connection to Britain than a Romanian guy.

None of that gets away from the fact that FOM was and would be a non issue going forward. There are no more pools of potential workers to take in.

Edit: you also didn't engage with my point that as the German constitutional court recently highlighted European institutions do take competencies that haven't been given by treaties

Such as? Note, as a matter of principle, the Kompetenz-Kompetenz must lie at the ECJ on such matters - otherwise you just have the Hungarian court ignoring rules (as they have now started to do).

2u2me

fash wrote: »

Oh please - which part of it is a lie or an exaggeration.

This part:
the people who sought to break the GFA and restart the troubles, to starve Ireland and deprive it of medical supplies, to focus an economic war on Ireland to have Ireland submit to its breach of an international treaty and began national and international propaganda campaigns against Ireland.

They were voting to leave the EU. Not to break the GFA and restart the troubles. I can't believe this has to be said.

fly_agaric

Melanchthon wrote: »

Edit: you also didn't engage with my point that as the German constitutional court recently highlighted European institutions do take competencies that haven't been given by treaties

^^if you don't mind me commenting (and going off topic I suppose)... I found this odd.
I can only go on what I read in the media as am not a lawyer/have no deep knowledge of underpinnings of all this but that did not make sense to me as a layman. How can a single court in a member state decide what the ECB can and cannot do + rule on whether it is exceeding its powers?

If ECB is somehow going outside its remit, does not the CJEU decide that if member states make a complaint re the ECB to it?
It is supposed to be "above" all the member states courts and the ultimate arbiter of EU matters.
The Euro is our currency too. How can judges in another member state court make sweeping rulings about it, with potential to collapse it or cripple economies of countries that use it if implemented?

If fact if you extended this to other areas of EU law you could you have courts in each state making their own rulings on it/throwing bits of it out as it suited + whole thing would collapse in chaos under its own contradictions. Maybe that's the idea I suppose.

fash

2u2me wrote: »

This part:
the people who sought to break the GFA and restart the troubles, to starve Ireland and deprive it of medical supplies, to focus an economic war on Ireland to have Ireland submit to its breach of an international treaty and began national and international propaganda campaigns against Ireland.

They were voting to leave the EU. Not to break the GFA and restart the troubles. I can't believe this has to be said.

Breaking the GFA was the natural consequence of their actions - the form of brexit sought. It was the very reason why the DUP campaigned for it in the first place and pushed for as hard as brexit as they did.
I can't believe that has to be explained.

Melanchthon

fly_agaric wrote: »

^^if you don't mind me commenting (and going off topic I suppose)... I found this odd.
I can only go on what I read in the media as am not a lawyer/have no deep knowledge of underpinnings of all this but that did not make sense to me as a layman. How can a single court in a member state decide what the ECB can and cannot do + rule on whether it is exceeding its powers?

If ECB is somehow going outside its remit, does not the CJEU decide that if member states make a complaint re the ECB to it?
It is supposed to be "above" all the member states courts and the ultimate arbiter of EU matters.
The Euro is our currency too. How can judges in another member state court make sweeping rulings about it, with potential to collapse it or cripple economies of countries that use it if implemented?

If fact if you extended this to other areas of EU law you could you have courts in each state making their own rulings on it/throwing bits of it out as it suited + whole thing would collapse in chaos under its own contradictions. Maybe that's the idea I suppose.

Yeah i can only go on what I read as well, and I find the German constitution pretty confusing with its eternity clauses, exemptions and so on.

But yes as far as I understand it your right and this is why potentially its a very big deal, I have read that the German government itself could resolve it by voting on some of the measures it's self (I can't remember where read this though) but theoreticaly there is a big not easily solved problem in relation to this ruling. If you've any good articles on it would be curious to read them.

Here's a recent Irish times opinion piece on it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/german-constitutional-court-is-a-bigger-threat-to-eu-than-brexit-or-covid-19-1.4254549

Also read this one a while ago and found it good

https://amp.ft.com/content/2d4a6959-8bdc-4d74-b617-873bba839807

Other countries already referencing this as you say

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/budapest-hungary-reacts-on-german-constitutional-court-ruling/

Leroy42

Theo, have you seen the comparisons between the costs of extending and moving directly to WTO from 1 Jan?

You seem very convinced that WTO is the better option and I am wondering what is the basis for that.

blinding

This is the kind of head the ball that ya have to deal with when you are in the Eu. :eek::eek:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1285409/eu-news-brexit-latest-guy-verhofstadt-united-states-of-europe

Padre_Pio

blinding wrote: »

This is the kind of head the ball that ya have to deal with when you are in the Eu. :eek::eek:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1285409/eu-news-brexit-latest-guy-verhofstadt-united-states-of-europe

No wonder you act the way you do. Reading that b*llocks.

I'll throw up a few Guardian links to balance things out :pac::pac:

Here's an old gem that shows the Express has paid out more in libel and slander cases than any other paper.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/jan/13/express-newspapers-medialaw

davedanon

theological wrote: »

To be honest, I don't fear or hate anyone or anything. I'm just of the mind that if there's no good option on the table then the UK should not extend and move on at the end of the year.

The language often gets very extreme here. Speaking of enemies for example is pretty coarse.

I think it's fairly obvious that I wasn't singling out 'enemies' here. It's a fairly well-known 'quote' (that Goebbels almost certainly never said). And for what it's worth, I didn't have you in mind. I find that you have been making your arguments in good faith, and I respect your viewpoint.

J Mysterio

Melanchthon wrote: »

Peregrinus want to weigh in on the extension thing as your holding yourself as an authority on this, and stating that an extension is a good idea in your posts but it doesn't seem your post in reply to me was accurate? Am I misreading the text or can a shorter extension or extension of say a year and a half be allowed.

Punctuation ffs

2u2me

fash wrote: »

Breaking the GFA was the natural consequence of their actions - the form of brexit sought. It was the very reason why the DUP campaigned for it in the first place and pushed for as hard as brexit as they did.
I can't believe that has to be explained.

That's how cult leaders explain it to their members also. If they try to leave it's explained to them that it's not because they want more autonomy; but because they're being selfish trying to hurt the cult.

How can you possibly know intentions of 17.5million people that voted brexit.
Did they all seek to break the GFA agreement as their primary motive for brexit?

You know what I don't care, it's too ridiculous.

fash

2u2me wrote: »

That's how cult leaders explain it to their members also. If they try to leave it's explained to them that it's not because they want more autonomy; but because they're being selfish trying to hurt the cult.

How can you possibly know intentions of 17.5million people that voted brexit.
Did they all seek to break the GFA agreement as their primary motive for brexit?

You know what I don't care, it's too ridiculous.

What a moronic post. 17.4 million voted for all sorts of reasons: Someone didn't get their pothole fixed. Someone thought they were choosing what to have for dinner.
What matters is what those in charge intended, what were the natural consequences of their actions and in particular what they did when the natural consequences of their actions became obvious to even the most dense.
In those circumstances if you recall -as late as October 2019 they sought to install a hard border between Ireland and the UK.

It is interesting that you now think it is too "ridiculous"- I suggest it is because you want to avoid losing face in admitting your argument is "untenable" at best.

2u2me

fash wrote: »

What a moronic post. 17.4 million voted for all sorts of reasons: Someone didn't get their pothole fixed. Someone thought they were choosing what to have for dinner.
What matters is what those in charge intended, what were the natural consequences of their actions and in particular what they did when the natural consequences of their actions became obvious to even the most dense.
In those circumstances if you recall -as late as October 2019 they sought to install a hard border between Ireland and the UK.

It is interesting that you now think it is too "ridiculous"- I suggest it is because you want to avoid losing face in admitting your argument is imbecilic.

So let me get this straight;

I'm saying you sound like how a cult would treat one of it's members leaving when you say something like this.

fash wrote: »

cripple & discredit the UK & brexiters, provide a terrible warning to Eurosceptics elsewhere and on a world stage demonstrate the resolve of the EU.

Then to prove me wrong, you seek to prove the unintended consequences of their actions. You're only further proving me right. There is no hard border. There is no end to the GFA agreement. Come back to me when there is.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

Theo, have you seen the comparisons between the costs of extending and moving directly to WTO from 1 Jan?

You seem very convinced that WTO is the better option and I am wondering what is the basis for that.

A perpetual limbo state is unlikely to provide clarity for many either.

I think the short term cost is worth it for the long term gains in sovereignty.

I am supportive of a deal, and want to see one happening. I'm generally opposed to extending, but I maybe could see the argument if the EU begins to move to accept a deal that doesn't require the UK to be a long term rule taker of EU law by June similar to other arrangements with other countries outside the EEA or EU and that this took some time to implement. I would be opposed to 2 years however. A year would even be hard to accept.

If there's no active deal on the table by June that both sides are moving towards then definitely no extension.

blinding

Padre_Pio wrote: »

No wonder you act the way you do. Reading that b*llocks.

I'll throw up a few Guardian links to balance things out :pac::pac:

Here's an old gem that shows the Express has paid out more in libel and slander cases than any other paper.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/jan/13/express-newspapers-medialaw

The Guardian Leftist Rag; With a circulation of sweet fook all.

The Joke is that The BBC get more Guardian Newspapers than the rest of the Country Combined. The reason its funny is that it may not be that far off ! ! !

Check what the Public think ( by how many of it they buy ) of the Paper you are hyping before ya get carried away with it.

fash

2u2me wrote: »

So let me get this straight;

I'm saying you sound like how a cult would treat one of it's members leaving when you say something like this.

Indeed. Leaving the EU is not a problem: Greenland left - and it had good economic reasons to do so. Others have had carefully calibrated relationships with the EU opting in and out to different parts - Switzerland, Norway, Denmark etc. as they wish.
The issue is first that the UK didn't leave in a manner that took consideration of the UK's obligations to Ireland and NI. The UK could have left the EU and remained in the single market (as initially promised to the voters) - or if it really wanted to leave the single market, sign up to the original WA or wait until NI had left the UK - or a combination of these.
The UK did not do any of these - instead it attempted by all means at its disposal to force Ireland to submit to its attempt to breach the GFA.
Furthermore, that has not only been the way it has treated Ireland- the vicious bullying, threatening and taunting has been the way it has attempted to force the EU to give it the cake and eat it Brexit it wants - a form of Brexit calculated , intended and openly admitted to undermine the EU
So please be at least a little honest with your accusations of "cult" like behaviour.

Then to prove me wrong, you seek to prove the unintended consequences of their actions.

You should try that as a defence in the court: "I did drink drive and kill that family - but it was the unintended consequence of my actions".

Why should the dead innocent family have to suffer for the unintended consequences of your or Brexiters' actions? They were innocent and now dead.

You're only further proving me right. There is no hard border. There is no end to the GFA agreement. Come back to me when there is.

There is no hard border because (and ONLY because) Ireland (due to the backing of the EU and the US ways and means committee), was able to withstand to some extent the threats and pressure brought to bear by the UK.
That is the only reason.
The GFA has been put under immense pressure and certainly the unionist community (or at least that part of it that voted against Brexit) have cause for complaint in that their access to GB is now severely impacted.
Furthermore the careful ambiguity of the GFA rendering identity unimportant - allowing people to identify as Irish, British, neither or both has now been severely damaged.
It also remains to be seen what the economic fall out for NI will be. The state of limbo in which NI now exists (will it vote for a hard border, will it vote to join Ireland) is likely to render inward investment into the region impossible.
Furthermore it remains the case that a hard border can now be installed - if NI votes for it - something which fundamentally contradicts the GFA. So please less reductionist nonsense about "where's the hard border" and "the Brexiters are so nice, cuddly and considerate".

blinding

2u2me wrote: »

That's how cult leaders explain it to their members also. If they try to leave it's explained to them that it's not because they want more autonomy; but because they're being selfish trying to hurt the cult.

How can you possibly know intentions of 17.5million people that voted brexit.
Did they all seek to break the GFA agreement as their primary motive for brexit?

You know what I don't care, it's too ridiculous.

Their Cult / Religion ( the Eu ) took one hell of a beating and boy are they having trouble coming to terms with that their Cult / Religion got the boot:eek::eek:

Their Insecurity and fragility of Belief is obvious to anybody to see in their denial.

The Eu Cult / Religion has got be big size 12 Boot from Britain. Bye Bye Cult, Good riddance and you won’t be coming back to Britain.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

A perpetual limbo state is unlikely to provide clarity for many either.

I think the short term cost is worth it for the long term gains in sovereignty.

I am supportive of a deal, and want to see one happening. I'm generally opposed to extending, but I maybe could see the argument if the EU begins to move to accept a deal that doesn't require the UK to be a long term rule taker of EU law by June similar to other arrangements with other countries outside the EEA or EU and that this took some time to implement. I would be opposed to 2 years however. A year would even be hard to accept.

If there's no active deal on the table by June that both sides are moving towards then definitely no extension.

You mention short term cost, that is exactly what I am asking about. What are the these short term costs and how do they compare to the costs of an extended limbo?

One hears it frequently from Brexiteers that they are willing to pay the price, but I have never been able to get fro anyone what that price actually is, so cannot understand how anyone can make a statement like that without that pretty reasonable piece of information.

You seem very sure that one is definitely the better of earth other, and I am merely asking on what basis that is being judged as the UK government haven't produced anything about the costs of either apart from some vague notions.

Joe_ Public

Sure didnt that very clever fellow Rees Mogg say it would be 50 years before they started to see the benefits. Which may or may not have been related to the fact he had been busy removing his business interests from the uk.

Blueshoe

davedanon wrote: »

Because that is how trade deals work. Do you really not understand this? Trade deals are worked out, line-by-line, in exhaustive and tedious detail, item by item. This is why they take years to implement. Britain can't have its cake and eat it. It is one tenth the size of the EU. End of argument.

You don't understand. The Eu doesn't want the UK to undercut them. The Eu wants a level playing field with the UK. Ie UK must stick to Eu standards. This isn't related to a trade deal between themselves. This is the UK trading globally Vs EU.

You are confused.
"End of"

2u2me

fash wrote: »

Furthermore, that has not only been the way it has treated Ireland- the vicious bullying, threatening and taunting has been the way it has attempted to force the EU to give it the cake and eat it Brexit it wants - a form of Brexit calculated , intended and openly admitted to undermine the EU
So please be at least a little honest with your accusations of "cult" like behaviour.

You should try that as a defence in the court: "I did drink drive and kill that family - but it was the unintended consequence of my actions".

Why should the dead innocent family have to suffer for the unintended consequences of your or Brexiters' actions? They were innocent and now dead.

You speak of the vicious bullying,threatening and taunting that the brexiteers are doing, but I only see that coming from you.

fash wrote: »

cripple & discredit the UK & brexiters, provide a terrible warning to Eurosceptics elsewhere and on a world stage demonstrate the resolve of the EU.

A better analogy would be someone trying to leave a cult. When they do so they're told it's not because they want more autonomy it's because they're selfish. They're told they need the cult and will be nothing without them. They're constantly bombarded with reasons why they will hurt the cult if they leave. They're warned of the dire consequences of leaving the cult.
No attention is paid whatsoever to the well being of the individual trying to leave, only focusing on how bad things will be for them in the short term upon leaving.

I'm being completely honest and forthright with my accusations of cult like behaviour. The people within the cult will see the ones leaving as hurting them. They won't see the fact that the one leaving will have more autonomy over their own future actions; they won't even accept that fact.

They will threaten and harrass the ones that are leaving, causing them severe emotional distress. They will make absurd claims (equally as absurd as the brexit leaders) about the French border, the economy(recession) and the Breakup of the Union.

Yet you completely dismiss any of this because it doesn't fit your world view, your ideology and your narrative. You only seek vengeance and retribution for those who have left and the potential of others leaving is unfathomable, hence the strategy of shunning and shaming and disgracing anybody who dares leave.

Just like in a cult.

Blueshoe

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sure didnt that very clever fellow Rees Mogg say it would be 50 years before they started to see the benefits. Which may or may not have been related to the fact he had been busy removing his business interests from the uk.

Why wouldn't he?
Move them back in 49 years. Why not

Joe_ Public

Blueshoe wrote: »

Why wouldn't he?
Move them back in 49 years. Why not

Indeed, i doff my cap to the fine fellow. Only mugs get left behind when the post transition uk economy tanks, the tory grandees will not be found wanting. These splendid chaps will be enjoying the best of both worlds and having a spiffing time playing jolly political games in the commons every day.

Blueshoe

Blueshoe wrote: »

You don't understand. The Eu doesn't want the UK to undercut them. The Eu wants a level playing field with the UK. Ie UK must stick to Eu standards. This isn't related to a trade deal between themselves. This is the UK trading globally Vs EU.

You are confused.
"End of"

The EU wants a level playing field.. So that means the UK wants an unlevel playing field. Not sure why think they're entitled to that or why the EU would give it to them.