crobe

25 minutes ago, transam said:

You have a real comprehension problem that is digging a big hole, I am proud of my country, I will say again, I am proud of my country, your "stealing honour" comment is uncalled-for.

 

Retract it...

I don't think he needs to retract it - everyone in Thailand is sick of the barstool Brits who claim to have served their country in the SAS/SBS and don't know the difference between a regiment and a corps.

You are obviously one of those

I hope you don't run across any real members when you are stealing honour - there is a way of dealing with that.

But picking and choosing which bit of history serves the purpose is difficult - seeing as we are in a time when we are re-evaluating history and countries involved in areas such as the slave trade

We can all be proud of our fathers serving, so did mine, but in Kenya for the Mau-Mau uprising - maybe not such an auspicious time.

Brexitters seem to think that only they are allowed to wrap themselves in the flag

7 minutes ago, transam said:

Well, the UK did come to the aid of many EU countries didn't they, "Lest we forget", eh..????

And there has not been a major war in Europe for 75 years, the Berlin wall has come down, the Balkans are now more peaceful than they have ever been and the Baltic states have been freed from Russian hegemony.

In all these the EU has been a major contributor, both in hard power and in diplomacy and the institution of the rule of law.

While it does not need the UK to do this, it has been strengthened by having the UK as a member during these times.

Lest we forget..

It is, patently, of little use to argue with Brexiters in terms of evidence (Boris signed the agreement), fact (The EU market is 5 times the size of the UK), or regulation (international treaties supercede national legislation).

This is because for the ardent Brexiteers it is not about the facts or evidence, Brexit for them is a calling, a cult, in fact a religion.

It is like pointing out the curvature of the Earth to flat-earthers - if it does not fit their premise they ignore it.

Like most religions it is founded on hypocrisy and determined to ignore the realities of life around it, and is also intolerant and exclusive.

Brexiteers catechism is national sovereignty, taking back control etc. but cannot countenance this when the same is asked for by the Scottish - just as the Christian faith cannot countenance the Muslim faith and vice versa.

And in another parallel, they frequency cite other Brexiteers as "evidence" of their claims, just as suicide bombers will claim authority from the rantings of specific Imams rather than the original text.

But at some point religion comes up against the hard aspects of reality - regardless of the con-job sold to the masses of eternal life and 72 virgins, the truth is that when you die, you die

And the reality will be the post -Brexit world. 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Good faith was part of the agreement. The EU already reneged on this by making completely unreasonable demands that failed to respect the UK's sovereignty.

 

Barnier's tactics have backfired. He's failed.

 

Stop now with this lie Brexiteers

FAKE NEWS

In order to be in bad faith the party has to DO SOMETHING that is not in good faith - like maybe trying to introduce some law against the agreement

The fact that you do not like the negotiating position of the other side is not "bad faith"

44 minutes ago, superal said:

Please tell your preferred choice of PM in order that I can retort .

 

Lets not pretend that there could not have been a worse time to take the reigns with Brexit plans  laid by the worse Tory politician ever ,  T May ,  ( also rotten H/Sec )  and then covid 19  to boot . 

Having said all that as a Boris believer I am disappointed at some of the Tory actions , especially the non quarantining at UK airports ( SAGE ? ) in the early covid days . Some have muted that a certain Dominic Cummings  has a major influence on what should be PM decisions     

You may not like the politics of the SNP, but it is hard to argue that Nicola Sturgeon has not done a better job of managing the crisis in Scotland, has been much more honest and transparent, than Boris and his team.

In fact female leaders governments globally seem to be handling this better

Just one example - the Scottish chief medical officer had to resign over breaching Covid restrictions - compare that to the supine actions of Boris over the Cummings trip(s).

Or did you want a name from the Tory party - sorry - cannot help you there.

8 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The UK government would like to strike a deal, but not at the cost of being subservient to the EU in any way. The EU didn't tell Canada who can fish in their waters, or set restrictions on Canada's internal fiscal policy.

And Canada hasn't spent countless billions helping to prop up the EU for the past few decades like the UK has. Why should Canada get a better deal than us? 

Although CETA did not give the EU fishing vessels preferential access to Canadian Territorial waters, it did remove restrictions on landing catches and now EU vessels are allowed to land catches at Canadian ports.

The CETA deal is now credited with reviving the fishing industry especially in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador as it removed the tariff barriers enabling a boom in the sale of Canadian cold-water shrimp, lobster and cod into the EU markets.

I do love the twisted semantics of Boris and the Brexiteers

The Withdrawal Agreement  that they signed and voted for in the HoC was described as "oven-ready" and completely thought through... now it is an agreement done "at pace, with many ambiguities"

Translation - At pace and with many ambiguities = we rushed it and did not understand what we were doing

A government of muppets - totally out of their depth

16 minutes ago, evadgib said:

They're ???????? waters that ???????? are protecting, not something ???????? can bully their way into plundering.

???????? never bothered with ????????'s waters (or ????????, ???????? etc) so why do they feel they can bully ???????? into rolling over?

Stop wrapping yourself in the union flag - Brexiteers are not interested in Britain they are English nationalists

If you want to use any flag then use St George.

 - The Tory party now has declining support in Scotland (7 out of 73 constituency seats in Scotland at the last assembly elections in 2016, only 6 out of 59 seats at the UK elections in 2019 and looking to be nearly wiped out next May)

 - The UK and then the Brexit parties have never gained any traction north of the border

 - The Tory party partners - the DUP - were sold down the river in order for Boris to get a commons majority for his Brexit withdrawal - which was the same as the Theresa May deal that the DUP campaigned against

 - the Brexiteers have openly stated that losing Scotland and breaking up the union is a price worth paying in order to achieve Brexit

The Brexiteers campaign on sovereignty and taking back control, except when the same argument is used by Scotland and then they are against it.

The English nationalist Brexiteers still have delusions of empire which is why, when claiming that they will now treat all immigration from the EU the same as from the rest of the world with no exceptions, and the end to the free movement of people, except of course for the Irish Republic on "historic" grounds. 

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Looks pretty much in it's entirety to me, best to give your sources and use quotes as people might begin to think you are much cleverer than you actually are.????????

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/broken-brexit-promises-leave-britain-on-the-brink/ar-BB18P7Z6

Plagiarism, oh my sweet lord.

1 hour ago, vogie said:

The EU has already broken international law by not negotiating in good faith.

 

ARTICLE 184
Negotiations on the future relationship
The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect 
of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements 
governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to 
conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view 
to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period.

Yes, that is the text but nowhere, I repeat nowhere, do you provide any proof of any bad faith.

If anything the UK Cummings government has now proved its bad faith in  the extreme,

But why should we believe anything the Brexiteers say anymore, they have been proven to lie and will go back on their word at any point it suits them

4 hours ago, vogie said:

Seriously, if you keep badgering me I shall report you, it is againgst forum rules as I suspect you well know. This is the third time now, I will answer questions I choose to answer and not on your orders. You come out with phrases like "what are the brexiteers scared of" now where have I heard that before. Stop baiting other members and try to learn some forum manners!

You mean badgering like

"Do the UK waters belong to the UK or not......Yes or No...?", over and over again

or is it just one rule for brexiteers and different for others

Oh I forgot - according to the latest admission by the Northern Ireland minister the Brexiteer government does not have to abide by rules such as international treaty obligations...

No credibility from these hypocrites 

The Brexiteers are now on the wrong side of history

There are two places that spring to kind where even asking for an independence vote is barred - the new draconian laws put in place in Hong Kong by communist China and old colonial laws against sedition enacted to quell the natives

Nice to see that the neo-colonialist brexiteers are now taking their cues from the CCP

Yes, M'lud - I did murder him, but only in a very specific and limited way

UK Minister admits: We will break international law

In the commons today, the Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis was asked: "Will he assure us that nothing proposed in this legislation does or potentially might breach international obligations or international legal arrangements?"

The Northern Ireland Secretary replied: "Yes. This does break international law in a very specific and limited way."

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

To respond to your final question: no and also no. I don't agree with your estimates of what time intervals might be "sufficient". Additionally, and possibly news to you, Northern Ireland will decide whether or not to consent to continue applying Articles 5 to 10 of the NI Protocol via a vote by the Northern Ireland Assembly but not a referendum.

And there is the problem - the Brexiteers try to mask their anti-democratic behaviour by not allowing a vote at ANY TIME

They refuse to answer the question - is it 42 years as between the first EU referendum and the second, or 19 years between the first EU referendum and the formation of the UKIP party to leave Europe, or 10 years - which could seem to be a reasonable time given the changed circumstances

Why does that seem to be a reasonable time - because it is the time period post-Brexit agreed by the (Brexiteer) UK government - they did not change this in the revised protocol

And would it be acceptable that a change for Scotland would not be by a referendum but by a vote in the Scottish assembly - where there may be an SNP majority?

34 minutes ago, vogie said:

Seriously, if you keep badgering me I shall report you, it is againgst forum rules as I suspect you well know. This is the third time now, I will answer questions I choose to answer and not on your orders. You come out with phrases like "what are the brexiteers scared of" now where have I heard that before. Stop baiting other members and try to learn some forum manners!

I ask you the question as it is exactly pertinent to your remarks on this topic, the fact that you do not wish to answer it will allow the obvious conclusion to be drawn

Brexiteers always feel "badgered" when it is a question they don't want to answer - or as in the case of Boris with Andrew Neil - refuse to be even asked the questions

So in the modus operandi of all interviewers I will ask the question in a different way - if the Scots wanted a referendum in 2024 what would be your objection?

Lets all join in the Brexiteer chant

"What do we want" - "Democracy"

" Who do we want it for" = "well only us, obviously"

7 minutes ago, vogie said:

It states "a result that everyone will respect" it says everyone, can I assume that this means you also? Your leaders put the time limit on future referendums.

Alex Salmond couldn't have been more clearer when he said:-

 

 

But as another poster has pointed out that was pre-brexit vote and the Better Together campaign assured people at the time that there was no chance of leaving the EU - even going as far as to say that Scotland could only assure its place in the EU by staying in the UK.

But answer the question - if Northern Ireland has a vote on the changed circumstances by 2024 then why not Scotland - or are you a cowardly Brexiteer who is afraid of democracy.