Jump to content
jumpship

Brexit Negotiations

Recommended Posts

Mikey1874

Second referedum is fine as long as Remain isn't an option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo
1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

That's a shame, he makes a reasonable point and your retreat makes it look like you don't have an answer. 

 

JRM was talking about a future EU referendum, it seems a very weak argument to say "yeah but he didn't mean THIS future EU referendum"

 

I just didn't see the point in debating any further, because of course JRM mentioned a second referendum before the results were in because no referendum had taken place nor was there to be one until years later, so on that point there is no answer.

 

I'll bet there are dozens and dozens of video's out there of people from all walks of life who say something which they then, years later, have changed their minds or views on, this is especially true of politicians who as we all know seem to chop and change their minds on a near weekly basis.

 

One of the main arguments put forward for holding a second referendum is that people have changed their minds, yet it seems JRM isn't allowed to have changed his mind from something he said 7 years previously, or is it a case of being more selective in who gets picked up on something they said years previously, like I said there will be loads of such speeches/video clips which May, Corbyn, Sturgeon, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Cable, Cameron, Clegg et al have made over the years where their views have changed on what they had previously said, indeed this is also true of pretty much everyone of us, we have all said things which we later, sometimes much much later that we now don't agree with or our views on the subject have changed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
3 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I just didn't see the point in debating any further, because of course JRM mentioned a second referendum before the results were in because no referendum had taken place nor was there to be one until years later, so on that point there is no answer.

 

I'll bet there are dozens and dozens of video's out there of people from all walks of life who say something which they then, years later, have changed their minds or views on, this is especially true of politicians who as we all know seem to chop and change their minds on a near weekly basis.

 

One of the main arguments put forward for holding a second referendum is that people have changed their minds, yet it seems JRM isn't allowed to have changed his mind from something he said 7 years previously, or is it a case of being more selective in who gets picked up on something they said years previously, like I said there will be loads of such speeches/video clips which May, Corbyn, Sturgeon, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Cable, Cameron, Clegg et al have made over the years where their views have changed on what they had previously said, indeed this is also true of pretty much everyone of us, we have all said things which we later, sometimes much much later that we now don't agree with or our views on the subject have changed.

 

 

No one's said he isn't allowed to change his mind, but you can't claim it's not relevant or noteworthy that he's about turned 180° on the subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

Second referedum is fine as long as Remain isn't an option. 

How? Why should brexiteers get to choose my future again.

 

And I see Peter Osborne has changed his mind on Brexit. The Daily Mail.

Edited by ri Alban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlphonseCapone
5 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

Second referedum is fine as long as Remain isn't an option. 

 

Selective democracy? 

 

A second referendum without remain is a false referendum. Be better not having one, which I don't think they really should. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo
47 minutes ago, Smithee said:

No one's said he isn't allowed to change his mind, but you can't claim it's not relevant or noteworthy that he's about turned 180° on the subject. 

 

As have many others on this subject, but they don't seem to receive the same ire as JRM gets, or at least that's the way it seems to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
12 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

As have many others on this subject, but they don't seem to receive the same ire as JRM gets, or at least that's the way it seems to me.

 

Fair enough, I only got involved when you said his comments weren't relevant to the 2016 referendum though - of course they were, he was talking about a future EU referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
On 12/04/2019 at 22:35, Francis Albert said:

To get back on topic wouldn't it have been fair to at least suggest (as I don't think anyone did) in the devolution or eu referendum that a confirmatory referendum was necessary. Or at least desirable? Before the result obviously?,

 

This is actually a reasonable set of questions.

 

You've been provided some answers on the thread already about those who suggested subsequent referenda. Rees-Mogg's hypocrisy now is blatant and unsurprising. It's also worth keeping in mind, the referendum was explicitly stated to be non-binding--advisory. It is not a great logical leap to then expect a binding referendum to be held once the details are worked out of how to implement the change the public has advised the government they are in favour of. This is commonplace in countries with "referendum experience", as we've discussed already.

 

But yes, being more explicit about it would have been perfectly reasonable and desirable, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
20 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Selective democracy? 

 

A second referendum without remain is a false referendum. Be better not having one, which I don't think they really should. 

 

Because there has been one already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

This is actually a reasonable set of questions.

 

You've been provided some answers on the thread already about those who suggested subsequent referenda. Rees-Mogg's hypocrisy now is blatant and unsurprising. It's also worth keeping in mind, the referendum was explicitly stated to be non-binding--advisory. It is not a great logical leap to then expect a binding referendum to be held once the details are worked out of how to implement the change the public has advised the government they are in favour of. This is commonplace in countries with "referendum experience", as we've discussed already.

 

But yes, being more explicit about it would have been perfectly reasonable and desirable, I think.

Thanks for the reply and for ignoring the (IMO slightly pathetic) "ignore FA" campaign of a few ultra sensitive souls.

But I don't believe the advisory nature of the referendum featured very visibly in either sides campaign. In contrast it was portrayed as a decisive ("meaningful" In more recent terminology) vote that would have huge implications for the nation's future. I think a confirmatory referendum once the details were known (we are far from there yet!) would have been a reasonable idea if proposed and/or widely contemplated before the vote and therefore before the result was known

But it wasn't. 

Given where we are it might still not be a bad idea but if it included a Remain option it will be seen (rightly IMO) as an act of bad faith by most of the 17.4m and quite a few of the rest of us.

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
5 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

But I don't believe the advisory nature of the referendum featured very visibly in either sides campaign. In contrast it was portrayed as a decisive ("meaningful" In more recent terminology) vote that would have huge implications for the nation's future. I think a confirmatory referendum once the details were known (we are far from there yet!) would have been a reasonable idea if proposed and/or widely contemplated before the vote and therefore before the result was known

But it wasn't. 

Given where we are it might still not be a bad idea but if it included a Remain option it will be seen (rightly IMO) as an act of bad faith by most of the 17.4m and quite a few of the rest of us.

 

No, I don't think it did either. The question then becomes if that matters, and I don't think it does. In point of fact and of law, it was an advisory referendum that bears no legal weight. If you want to talk about political fallout, which is an entirely different animal, that's one thing, but as far as the legality of it, it's actually meaningless.

 

Certainly though, if the advisory nature of the referendum and the need for a confirmatory vote if it passed had been properly addressed, it ought to be a fairly simple matter, politically and legally, to present a new referendum with the deal. And if it got rejected by the voters, maybe another after another deal. But if the voters kept rejecting what was put before them, have the government eventually say "well, it appears now that you know the details, and now that you've seen a number of approaches we could take to doing this, you wouldn't rather leave the EU, so we're going to revoke Article 50." Is that really feasible now, with the way things have gone? Nah. But it would've been a far better way to handle it without needing an explicit "remain" option on a confirmatory referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
10 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

No, I don't think it did either. The question then becomes if that matters, and I don't think it does. In point of fact and of law, it was an advisory referendum that bears no legal weight. If you want to talk about political fallout, which is an entirely different animal, that's one thing, but as far as the legality of it, it's actually meaningless.

 

Certainly though, if the advisory nature of the referendum and the need for a confirmatory vote if it passed had been properly addressed, it ought to be a fairly simple matter, politically and legally, to present a new referendum with the deal. And if it got rejected by the voters, maybe another after another deal. But if the voters kept rejecting what was put before them, have the government eventually say "well, it appears now that you know the details, and now that you've seen a number of approaches we could take to doing this, you wouldn't rather leave the EU, so we're going to revoke Article 50." Is that really feasible now, with the way things have gone? Nah. But it would've been a far better way to handle it without needing an explicit "remain" option on a confirmatory referendum.

I didn't mention the legality of it. Your idea of multiple referendums on subsequent proposed deals and revoking of Article 50 if none were approved would no doubt be legal. But respectful of the original vote? Or practical? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
26 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I didn't mention the legality of it. Your idea of multiple referendums on subsequent proposed deals and revoking of Article 50 if none were approved would no doubt be legal. But respectful of the original vote? Or practical? 

 

Yep--what you're describing is the political fallout as things have come to pass, because of the way they've been handled politically. Legal or not, and whether it ought to matter that the referendum meant absolutely nothing in a legal sense or not, it clearly does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
10 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

But respectful of the original vote?

 

I think that is where the problem lies - what respects the original vote?

 

Britain voted to leave the EU.  But that could mean a myriad of things.

 

EEA

EFTA

Bespoke deal (May's or some sort of EEC 2.0 etc)

No deal

 

All have the UK leaving the EU.  

 

To say one option is what was voted for would be wrong, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Just now, Boris said:

 

I think that is where the problem lies - what respects the original vote?

 

Britain voted to leave the EU.  But that could mean a myriad of things.

 

EEA

EFTA

Bespoke deal (May's or some sort of EEC 2.0 etc)

No deal

 

All have the UK leaving the EU.  

 

To say one option is what was voted for would be wrong, imo.

Agreed but Parliament which voted 85%  to hold the thing therefore have had a pretty free rein to define what it means and agree one version of it that will respect the vote, which they committed to do in a subsequent GE. Yet 3 years on they have  completely failed to reach any consensus or conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Agreed but Parliament which voted 85%  to hold the thing therefore have had a pretty free rein to define what it means and agree one version of it that will respect the vote, which they committed to do in a subsequent GE. Yet 3 years on they have  completely failed to reach any consensus or conclusion.

 

Perhaps most MPs are reluctant to accept something that damages the nation's well-being and being seen as the midwives of such?  Which in a way tells you what they think of Brexit.

 

The ERG types while lesser in  numbers seem to be the most noisy.  Shut them up and you may get somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

I think that is where the problem lies - what respects the original vote?

 

Britain voted to leave the EU.  But that could mean a myriad of things.

 

EEA

EFTA

Bespoke deal (May's or some sort of EEC 2.0 etc)

No deal

 

All have the UK leaving the EU.  

 

To say one option is what was voted for would be wrong, imo.

 

Which is why if there were to be a second referendum then the leave option should not just be May's deal. 

 

A question such as this would cover it.

 

Now that the population of the UK knows more about the implications of what leaving the EU would entail.

Is it still your instruction to Parliament that you still wish to LEAVE the EU.

YES

NO

If YES, please indicate your preferred option of leaving the EU.

EEA

EFTA

THERESA MAY'S DEAL (Or whatever else parliament has agreed)

NO DEAL

 

This way nobody could say that the options weren't clear on the ballot paper or that the electorate didn't say what kind of Brexit they wanted.

If leave won (which I think they would again) then Parliament would have to implement the preferred option expressed on the ballot paper, it doesn't matter whether individual MP's or Parliament like it or not, they put the question to the British people they then have to fulfill whatever the answer is.

 

Edited by Jambo-Jimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugly American
8 hours ago, Boris said:

 

I think that is where the problem lies - what respects the original vote?

 

Britain voted to leave the EU.  But that could mean a myriad of things.

 

EEA

EFTA

Bespoke deal (May's or some sort of EEC 2.0 etc)

No deal

 

All have the UK leaving the EU.  

 

To say one option is what was voted for would be wrong, imo.

 

The immutable sanctity of a 51.9% vote seems really strange to me. If Remain were on a second referendum but required a 60% margin to overturn the original, would that somehow be seen as more legitimate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMac
3 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

The immutable sanctity of a 51.9% vote seems really strange to me. If Remain were on a second referendum but required a 60% margin to overturn the original, would that somehow be seen as more legitimate?

 Considering about a million of them are dead. The will of the people has died with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, IMac said:

 Considering about a million of them are dead. The will of the people has died with them.

Not sure about the numbers but if so about a million will have replaced them as oldies. The idea that you can assume that people's views remain constant with age is one of the stupidest fallacies. In the 60s we youngsters assumed that the old world had changed and a bright new world had dawned where the Tories would be unelectable, and Oxbridge Eton Fettes etc would longer breed PMs and cabinet members. By the end of the decade the Tories (albeit in relatively benign form)were back in power and by the end of the next decade Thatcher and a breed of right wing Tories not seen since WW2 were in power. And for a long time.

Oh and many of the idealists of the 60s turned out to be the greed is good capitalists of the future.

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlimOzturk

Brexit party leading almost every poll for the European Elections. That's scary shit not just for UK but the EU. 

 

What is the chance they could run for any future GE? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Not sure about the numbers but if so about a million will have replaced them as oldies. The idea that you can assume that people's views remain constant with age is one of the stupidest fallacies. In the 60s we youngsters assumed that the old world had changed and a bright new world had dawned where the Tories would be unelectable, and Oxbridge Eton Fettes etc would longer breed PMs and cabinet members. By the end of the decade the Tories (albeit in relatively benign form)were back in power and by the end of the next decade Thatcher and a breed of right wing Tories not seen since WW2 were in power. And for a long time.

Oh and many of the idealists of the 60s turned out to be the greed is good capitalists of the future.

No longer breed of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mighty Thor
11 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Brexit party leading almost every poll for the European Elections. That's scary shit not just for UK but the EU. 

 

What is the chance they could run for any future GE? 

Morphing into a right wing English independence party along the way. 

 

Put a monkey on it guv!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Brexit party leading almost every poll for the European Elections. That's scary shit not just for UK but the EU. 

 

What is the chance they could run for any future GE? 

Given the pathetic turnout in EU elections ( not just in UK) it wouldn't be a great surprise if committed Brexiteers did well. Why it should be scary for either the UK or EU I am not clear. We are leaving aren't we? And once we have left a Brexit party becomes a wee bit irrelevant.

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
6 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Morphing into a right wing English independence party along the way. 

 

Put a monkey on it guv!

Are these people Empire romanticists or Little Englander nationalists? Can't be both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mighty Thor
1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Are these people Empire romanticists or Little Englander nationalists? Can't be both.

Keep up Frankie boy!

Empire 2.0

English nationalists 

World wars 2

World cups 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
5 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Keep up Frankie boy!

Empire 2.0

English nationalists 

World wars 2

World cups 1

Well I suppose they or some of them can be both. But I think their critics should be a bit more discriminating about what exactly they are complaining about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mighty Thor
1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Well I suppose they or some of them can be both. But I think their critics should be a bit more discriminating about what exactly they are complaining about. 

Quite.

Its fascinating to watch the lurch to the right and the predictability of the path it's taking. 

I think the speed of it is catching the plodding nature of the Tories in particular by surprise. 

Farage is harvesting their core support and they're powerless and the up rush is dragging in all the fringe elements dragging them even farther right. 

England is going in one direction and Scotland diametrically opposite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMac
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Not sure about the numbers but if so about a million will have replaced them as oldies. The idea that you can assume that people's views remain constant with age is one of the stupidest fallacies. In the 60s we youngsters assumed that the old world had changed and a bright new world had dawned where the Tories would be unelectable, and Oxbridge Eton Fettes etc would longer breed PMs and cabinet members. By the end of the decade the Tories (albeit in relatively benign form)were back in power and by the end of the next decade Thatcher and a breed of right wing Tories not seen since WW2 were in power. And for a long time.

Oh and many of the idealists of the 60s turned out to be the greed is good capitalists of the future.

Polls I have seen show that people that voted leave or remain at about 90% likely to vote the same. So yes they have been replaced but people's views arnt changing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Boy Named Crow
3 hours ago, IMac said:

Polls I have seen show that people that voted leave or remain at about 90% likely to vote the same. So yes they have been replaced but people's views arnt changing. 

 

I could be wrong, but if the older generation voted more towards Leave and younger voters favour Remain, the stat that  90% of people would vote the same as before, means  the passing of time will lead to more support for Remain as younger voters join and older voters leave the electorate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Well I suppose they or some of them can be both. But I think their critics should be a bit more discriminating about what exactly they are complaining about. 

No complaints from me. Tick Tock!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
8 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Quite.

Its fascinating to watch the lurch to the right and the predictability of the path it's taking. 

I think the speed of it is catching the plodding nature of the Tories in particular by surprise. 

Farage is harvesting their core support and they're powerless and the up rush is dragging in all the fringe elements dragging them even farther right. 

England is going in one direction and Scotland diametrically opposite. 

She might have to pull a no deal before the EU elections, to save her party.

 

 

The SNP are playing a blinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mighty Thor
19 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

She might have to pull a no deal before the EU elections, to save her party.

 

 

The SNP are playing a blinder.

They don't need  do anything really. 

Keep pushing the fact that Scotland is open, inclusive and pro European and let Farage, Johnson and Rees Mogg do the rest. 

 

Make no mistake the Tories don't want any kind of an election any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
6 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

 

I could be wrong, but if the older generation voted more towards Leave and younger voters favour Remain, the stat that  90% of people would vote the same as before, means  the passing of time will lead to more support for Remain as younger voters join and older voters leave the electorate?

If 10% would vote differently then that is a far bigger factor either way than the numbers dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN

People hoping for mass death to get the political outcome they want is just scummy. Hang your heads in shame remainers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
8 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

People hoping for mass death to get the political outcome they want is just scummy. Hang your heads in shame remainers

 

No one's hoping for mass death and it's pretty low to suggest that's what's going on to score a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
19 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

People hoping for mass death to get the political outcome they want is just scummy. Hang your heads in shame remainers

 

People using dog whistle politics and attracting the far right - hang your heads in shame Brexiters!

 

It's easy to tar folk with the same brush, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
15 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

No one's hoping for mass death and it's pretty low to suggest that's what's going on to score a point.

 

7 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

People using dog whistle politics and attracting the far right - hang your heads in shame Brexiters!

 

It's easy to tar folk with the same brush, isn't it?

These aren't responses - they're excuses. 

 

1. It is going on Smithee-you know this because you can read.

2. Leave is the choice of many Marxists Boris - Tabloid politics to blame the far right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
1 minute ago, SE16 3LN said:

 

These aren't responses - they're excuses. 

 

1. It is going on Smithee-you know this because you can read.

2. Leave is the choice of many Marxists Boris - Tabloid politics to blame the far right. 

 

My point was to tar all people who wish to remain as condoning comments regards death of elderly Brexit supporters is out of order.

 

Equally as out of order to suggest all brexiters are right wing, racist knuckledraggers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
5 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

 

These aren't responses - they're excuses. 

 

1. It is going on Smithee-you know this because you can read.

2. Leave is the choice of many Marxists Boris - Tabloid politics to blame the far right. 

 

Bullshit, hoping that natural change in population swings a vote their way and actively hoping for mass deaths are hugely different things, and you know it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Posted (edited)
On 16/04/2019 at 10:19, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Which is why if there were to be a second referendum then the leave option should not just be May's deal. 

 

A question such as this would cover it.

 

Now that the population of the UK knows more about the implications of what leaving the EU would entail.

Is it still your instruction to Parliament that you still wish to LEAVE the EU.

YES

NO

If YES, please indicate your preferred option of leaving the EU.

EEA

EFTA

THERESA MAY'S DEAL (Or whatever else parliament has agreed)

NO DEAL

 

This way nobody could say that the options weren't clear on the ballot paper or that the electorate didn't say what kind of Brexit they wanted.

If leave won (which I think they would again) then Parliament would have to implement the preferred option expressed on the ballot paper, it doesn't matter whether individual MP's or Parliament like it or not, they put the question to the British people they then have to fulfill whatever the answer is.

 

That is a very complicated referendum question especially given the widespread belief among some that much of the electorate (that part that disagrees with them) are thick. It also contains much that is debatable. Do we really know much more than we did last time apart from the undreamt incompetence of the Government and Parliament. Any detailed negotiation of the future trading and other relations between the EU and UK have not even begun. Project  fear has run for another 3 years where every job loss that can plausibly (or in some cases implausibly)be attributed to Brexit is headline news. The same forecasts of  economic decline 15 years ahead we heard about in the last campaign have been repeated. (Aspects of Project Fear which have proved unfounded (immediate recession and emergency budget, onerous visa requirements to travel in Europe or to retain residency here or there) have been more or less quietly been forgotten).

The suggested question refers to May's Deal when it is in fact a deal.

painstakingly negotiated by the UK and the other 27 members of the EU and it is just a transition agreement - all options other than remain  will also need a transition agreement and unlike the present agreement have of course yet to be negotiated.

You could also argue "remain"is not a single simple option. The EU looks nothing like what we voted for 40 years ago and is in process of continual change - my guess is it will either continue on the path to ever closer union or move back to something more like the common market or EEC. So while we are at it why not options of remain and support closer union or remain and oppose closer union?

.

 

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So while we are at it why not options of remain and support closer union or remain and oppose closer union?

.

 

 

Because that would be dictated by Govt Policy?

 

Rees-Mogg has already dispelled the myth that the UK is powerless within the EU (a myth he was happy to pedal!) so if the UK were to remain, I would expect the Govt of the day to be proactive within the EU, instead of sulking and bumping its gums about it.

 

The UK could have (should have?) been a real leader in the EU, moulding it to what it wanted it to be, but decided not to for whatever reasons.  Given the attitude of some of the leading brexiteers in parliament, probably down to an inflated sense of self importance and Brit-Nat xenophobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

Bullshit, hoping that natural change in population swings a vote their way and actively hoping for mass deaths are hugely different things, and you know it. 

Semantics, and you know it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
5 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

Semantics, and you know it

 

Called out, and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
2 hours ago, SE16 3LN said:

People hoping for mass death to get the political outcome they want is just scummy. Hang your heads in shame remainers

 

:cornette: x 1 million dead old people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glamorgan Jambo
2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Because that would be dictated by Govt Policy?

 

Rees-Mogg has already dispelled the myth that the UK is powerless within the EU (a myth he was happy to pedal!) so if the UK were to remain, I would expect the Govt of the day to be proactive within the EU, instead of sulking and bumping its gums about it.

 

The UK could have (should have?) been a real leader in the EU, moulding it to what it wanted it to be, but decided not to for whatever reasons.  Given the attitude of some of the leading brexiteers in parliament, probably down to an inflated sense of self importance and Brit-Nat xenophobia.

 

What doesn't get reported very often is that the UK was a huge force in two of the most recent strategic and successful moves by the EU. Firstly in establishing the single market and secondly the expansion of the EU to take in the former Warsaw Pact countries.

 

Too bad the UK totally disengaged from the EU when Cameron became PM in 2010. A dreadful mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
29 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Called out, and you know it.

I'm not the one defending the pro EU death plan. I commented because I think its disgusting. If you're defending it you need to question yourself, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
24 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

:cornette: x 1 million dead old people

I know, despicable political position to take. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
1 minute ago, SE16 3LN said:

I know, despicable political position to take. 

 

Acknowledging that old people die, and that in the current world it would tend to help various countries' politics (the US at the forefront--people like Trump can't get elected without old, entitled, racist dinosaurs), isn't the least bit despicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
4 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

I'm not the one defending the pro EU death plan. I commented because I think its disgusting. If you're defending it you need to question yourself, not me.

Voting no and leave, now that's despicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×