Just now, wilcopops said:

Curious attitude to historiography, but kind of expected... ...here here is 20 years of fake news that Brexiteers have swallowed whole from the far right media...take your pick...

 

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/see-20-years-of-fake-news-about-eu-by-uk-press-vote-for-your-favourite-here/?fbclid=IwAR2WnYSoKt4w3bjnG5ezEwKS92guy7Ywq1Tx0FB_436TlcDdFzLxcX4Wcpc

 

 

 

Pointless.

 

 

None of that is relevant to my reasons for voting LEAVE.

13 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Who said it was unconstitutional to call it a once in a generation referendum? What I said is that David Cameron calling it like that didn’t make it binding. When the Scottish today hold an indyref, they can tell their people it’s a binding one, but it isn’t. 

If a Prime Minister publicly announces a referendum to be binding when (if you are right) he knows it isn't, that's just one more nail in the coffin of our duplicitous politicians and our broken political system. 

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

If a Prime Minister publicly announces a referendum to be binding when (if you are right) he knows it isn't, that's just one more nail in the coffin of our duplicitous politicians and our broken political system. 

I agree he shouldn’t have made that promise; it was a false promise he made to pressure people into voting remain.  

2 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

If a Prime Minister publicly announces a referendum to be binding when (if you are right) he knows it isn't, that's just one more nail in the coffin of our duplicitous politicians and our broken political system.  

Exactly. He said the Scottish Independence vote was binding, because he won, but the Brexit vote is not binding, because he lost.

18 minutes ago, Henryford said:

Exactly. He said the Scottish Independence vote was binding, because he won, but the Brexit vote is not binding, because he lost.

Neither one is legally binding, both are advisory only. The 2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, on the other hand, isn’t advisory only. 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 20197 yr by welovesundaysatspace

41 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

Curious attitude to historiography, but kind of expected... ...here here is 20 years of fake news that Brexiteers have swallowed whole from the far right media...take your pick...

 

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/see-20-years-of-fake-news-about-eu-by-uk-press-vote-for-your-favourite-here/?fbclid=IwAR2WnYSoKt4w3bjnG5ezEwKS92guy7Ywq1Tx0FB_436TlcDdFzLxcX4Wcpc

 

 

 

 

The same sources said Tommy Robinson was a racist................

The discussion was about the pedantic nature of burocrats. I jokingly accused our German fried of being a pedant. So I was referring to two issues simultaneously.

 

Double entendre usually has a rude second meaning.

 

A girl walked into a bar and asked the barman for a double entendre; so he gave her one!

 

Did I already post this? Sorry

According to Radio 4 Today, about 1 trillion Euro of assets has been moved from U.K. to other EU countries because of Brexit. Well done! 

Edited March 11, 20197 yr by Grouse

1 hour ago, wilcopops said:

Curious attitude to historiography, but kind of expected... ...here here is 20 years of fake news that Brexiteers have swallowed whole from the far right media...take your pick...

 

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/see-20-years-of-fake-news-about-eu-by-uk-press-vote-for-your-favourite-here/?fbclid=IwAR2WnYSoKt4w3bjnG5ezEwKS92guy7Ywq1Tx0FB_436TlcDdFzLxcX4Wcpc

 

Your silly links don't change the fact that Heath is guilty of the deception which fooled people in the first place. 

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

According to Radio 4 Today, about 1 trillion Euro of assets has been moved from U.K. to other EU countries because of Brexit. Well done! 

See here: 

 

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

Do you understand subsidiarity?

Yes. Do you understand subordinateness

14 minutes ago, aright said:

Yes. Do you understand subordinateness

generally speaking, subsidiarity is a measure to overcome subordinateness.

 

 

18 minutes ago, aright said:

Yes. Do you understand subordinateness

No. Enlighten me!

 

Insubordination is more my thing ????

11 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

 Correct, I’m 100% sure, that had the remainers won the people’s vote in 2016, even if it had been by only 1 vote. They would have insisted it was a binding referendum. And of course they would have been correct.

Unfortunately for them the people Democratically voted to leave this so called union.

 There is a big difference between voting for radical change and voting to maintain the status quo.

 

2.5 years ago I was amongst those who said that whilst I didn't like the result of the referendum, I accepted it. But much has happened since to convince me that a final vote by the British people is necessary.

 

In June 2016 we were presented with two options. Now, thanks mainly to Brexiteer Tory MPs, we have three:

1. leave with the deal agreed between the government and the EU, the so-called May's deal;
2. leave with no deal;
3. cancel Brexit and remain.

As I have repeatedly said, I believe these three options should be put to the British people in a single transferable vote referendum; that way the will of the people will be democratically decided upon.

 

I have also repeatedly said, that as Brexiteers are extremely unlikely to put Remain as their second choice then Brexit in one form or another will almost certainly win. Which is why I simply cannot understand why Brexiteers are so afraid of this vote.

 

The usual excuse from them is that we have already made the decision to leave, the question is how we do it. Fine, let's give the people of the UK the final say on that; as outlined yet again above.

 

@rixalex did say previously that the variables, particularly those of May's deal, were too complex for the ordinary voter to understand. Which is not only very condescending of him, but also applied equally in 2016, and 1975 for that matter!

 

Of course, the real reason why Brexiteers do not want another referendum, do not want to give the people of this country the chance to have an informed and democratic say on the final decision is because they know that as the lies of Leave's 2016 campaign and the realities of Brexit have become more and more apparent that there is a chance, albeit a slim chance, that Remain may actually win.

10 hours ago, aright said:

What has no basis in fact? I ask you to demonstrate your claim that I am trying to convince people that EU law has primacy in all aspects of law in a member state by identifying paragraph and/or sentence where I said it and you get wobbly and inane. Can I repeat if you can't provide the evidence its wishful thinking and has no basis in fact. It's a straight forward question all it requires is a straight forward answer which may be beyond you.

As I said, you have stated that EU law has supremacy several times.

 

You did say here

Quote

It says that EU law should prevail if it conflicts with national law. 

but you have never said that this only applies in areas of EU concern. You have never said that in all other areas it does not and each and every member's own national law applies.

 

When first @tomacht8 then myself tried to explain the difference to you, you merely repeated your false assertion.

 

Now, in typical Brexiteer fashion, you are denying what you actually said and claiming you said the opposite!

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

Deeper and deeper into space. Bon voyage!

AS you obviously don't like people using historical facts to prove you wrong, I suggest that you don't raise them in the first place!

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Your silly links don't change the fact that Heath is guilty of the deception which fooled people in the first place. 

Get your history right; whilst Heath negotiated and eventually obtained the UK's membership of the EEC, it was Wilson who renegotiated our terms of membership and called the 1975 referendum.

 

It was then Thatcher who was responsible for the Single European Act which allowed her successor, Major, to sign the Maastricht treaty which effectively changed the EEC into the EU.

 

But I am forgetting myself. History is only of interest to you when you can use it to support your arguments. When you are shown to be historically inaccurate, you suddenly declare historical facts to be irrelevant!

 

 

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

AS you obviously don't like people using historical facts to prove you wrong, I suggest that you don't raise them in the first place!

Oh sorry, I must have missed your historical facts that prove me wrong. Please put them up again.

 

 

31 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

@rixalex did say previously that the variables, particularly those of May's deal, were too complex for the ordinary voter to understand.

It is absolutely ridiculous to argue people make better decisions when being fed false promises and lies in the absence of any clear options  than having in detailed written what exactly they vote for. Shows how scared Brexiteers are about a referendum (or what air heads they are).  

 

 

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Get your history right; whilst Heath negotiated and eventually obtained the UK's membership of the EEC, it was Wilson who renegotiated our terms of membership and called the 1975 referendum.

 

It was then Thatcher who was responsible for the Single European Act which allowed her successor, Major, to sign the Maastricht treaty which effectively changed the EEC into the EU.

 

But I am forgetting myself. History is only of interest to you when you can use it to support your arguments. When you are shown to be historically inaccurate, you suddenly declare historical facts to be irrelevant!

 

 

History lessons not necessary, thanks. The 1974 "renegotiations" came up with few concessions and none of them major. The lie of "no loss of essential sovereignty" was continued and most people believed it.  

 

You bring in Thatcher and Major and the events associated with them are true but were not really relevant to the debate in this substring, except that the Maastricht Treaty was so important that there should have been an "informed" referendum before that too, at which point I think we would have also voted out. 

 

13 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

 

It is absolutely ridiculous to argue people make better decisions when being fed false promises and lies in the absence of any clear options  than having in detailed written what exactly they vote for. Shows how scared Brexiteers are about a referendum (or what air heads they are).  

 

 

Fair enough. In that case, if false promises and lies are illegal, cancel the results of both referendums. Leave the EU. Then start from scratch.

50 minutes ago, Grouse said:

No. Enlighten me!

 

Insubordination is more my thing ????

 

54 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

generally speaking, subsidiarity is a measure to overcome subordinateness.

 

 

To put it another way Melvin, and in an EU context,  subordinateness is what you get when a Superstate which has a bureaucratic surplus and a democratic deficit feels subsidiarity is not right for federalism and should not apply to Vassal states. 

2 minutes ago, aright said:

 

To put it another way Melvin, and in an EU context,  subordinateness is what you get when a Superstate which has a bureaucratic surplus and a democratic deficit feels subsidiarity is not right for federalism and should not apply to Vassal states. 

So well put, that man. Woop woop.

12 minutes ago, aright said:

 

To put it another way Melvin, and in an EU context,  subordinateness is what you get when a Superstate which has a bureaucratic surplus and a democratic deficit feels subsidiarity is not right for federalism and should not apply to Vassal states. 

More Brexit fiction.

 

Spend less time wandering off into fiction and more time dealing with the reality of your failing Brexit.

7 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The reason could be that some people believe in the rule of law and that it is an integral part of a democracy, something that Brexiteers don’t seem to understand.

 

Oh, you’re speaking for the people now? Let me say then that everybody knew it was non-binding because that’s what the rules say that everyone knows. 

 

The constitution saying it is non-binding is more than a slight suggestion. 

 

Because the poll’s purpose was to advise the government? 

 

I believe in the rule of law.

 

Because they can. The one doesn’t negate the other. 

 

On a side node: If a single politician really could just change the constitution on the fly and make a non-binding referendum binding:

 

1. The result would have been voided because of electoral laws being broken. 

 

2. Nicola Sturgeon could do the same and hold a referendum without a section 30 order (thus being legally non-binding) and, just by making bold promises, turn it into a binding one, circumventing the laws of the United Kingdom. 

 

 

 

But none of those things matter. They are all irrelevant. Everybody knew this wasn't an advisory only referendum (except you it seems), so why are you wasting time going on about it? What are you hoping to achieve? Just move on. 

9 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

But none of those things matter. They are all irrelevant. Everybody knew this wasn't an advisory only referendum (except you it seems), so why are you wasting time going on about it? What are you hoping to achieve? Just move on. 

 

 

Straw-grasping comes to mind..........he seems to like that.

7 hours ago, wilcopops said:

There is a perception that Brexiteers are of lower intellect and educational achievement than Remainers.

Reading this thread and others does nothing to dispell this so-called bias.

For a critical thinker, this can be extraordinarily frustrating......

In the words of Mark Twain ...

 

“The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. …  How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!”

Some people lack empathy, and are unable to understand an opposing viewpoint.  As a result they often accuse those with an opposing view of being "of lower intellect and educational achievement".

Is this some sort of defence mechanism? The fear of being unable to comprehend another point of view? Is it a superiority complex? Or is it simply a lack of emotional intelligence? I'm not sure, but it's an interesting sub-topic. 

Edited March 11, 20197 yr by CG1 Blue

58 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

But none of those things matter. They are all irrelevant. Everybody knew this wasn't an advisory only referendum (except you it seems), so why are you wasting time going on about it? What are you hoping to achieve? Just move on. 

I’m not going on about it. It’s Brexiteers whining that their referendum won’t get enacted upon, despite everybody knowing it was an advisory only referendum, because that’s what the law says. Except you it seems. So why are you wasting time going on about it? What are you hoping to achieve? Just move on. Brexit won’t happen. Parliament doesn’t follow your advice. Because it sucks. 

26 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I’m not going on about it. It’s Brexiteers whining that their referendum won’t get enacted upon, despite everybody knowing it was an advisory only referendum, because that’s what the law says. Except you it seems. So why are you wasting time going on about it? What are you hoping to achieve? Just move on. Brexit won’t happen. Parliament doesn’t follow your advice. Because it sucks. 

Can you explain why Article 50 was triggered then please? 

I was listening to Nicky Campbell on BBC 5 Live earlier, and he was interviewing an Irish EU representative. The conversation went something like this:

 

Campbell: Why won't the EU budge just a little bit on the backstop so that the deal can get through Parliament?

Irish guy: Because the EU's main priority is to protect it's member states, and the backstop is essential in that

Campbell: But if there is no change to the backstop the deal won't get through Parliament, and we risk a no deal exit

Irish guy: That may be, but we cannot change the backstop because that guarantees a frictionless border

Campbell: But if the UK leaves without a deal how will the border remain frictionless? 

 

The Irish guy avoided that question. 

 

So they refuse to tweak the backstop because they want to protect the border arrangements. 

This will result in an immediate withdrawal from the Customs Union on 29th March with no arrangements!  

 

A massively flawed argument, and I have a hunch the EU might back down at the 11th hour.