Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
His remarks deserved nothing less. He showed absolute contempt for those who disagreed wth him. I'm not able to reciprocate that contempt but he certainly gave the impression that he is worthy of it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
His remarks deserved nothing less. He showed absolute contempt for those who disagreed wth him. I'm not able to reciprocate that contempt but he certainly gave the impression that he is worthy of it.
Fair enough, so you are both in the "playground" then.
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
I'm sorry but I find this response incoherent. It wouldn't be bad to have your answer to the question you give number 1 to but to be honest I'm not really interested in it any more. As has been pointed out elsewhere your ability to avoid questions is well known.
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
No, because as I pointed out I am not able to reciprocate his contempt.
Oh, i have answered, you do not like the answers, Maybe, just maybe i do not avoid questions, and you are "not really interested in it any more".......so you now have the "ability to avoid questions".
To be honest, i do copy and paste views that i agree with, you seem to give your opinion as if it has been stated by the masses, which as stated in my post was just "ONE contributor", a " furious Brexit supporter", an just the odd one here and there.
nicko31
Well-known member
Yes I'm sure that tw*t Nigel the Palace supporter really would have accepted that.
Incidentally it amazes me what a higher % of Brexiteers there are on this thread, almost the complete reverse to the % of NSC users that voted remain. Says a lot
portslade seagull
Well-known member
Maybe Nigel wouldn't of accepted it but he is Palace. The winning sides irrespective of what was won do generally have more to say. The losers normally get over it. Obviously you cannot. That says it all
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
That most Remain voters have accepted the result and moved on?
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
There were only three people round the studio table!
studio150
Well-known member
So at which point are we more in than out.
Let's assume purely as a discussion point, that this means that although we are no longer a member of the EU, we have a position similar to Norway.
Remain supporters may voice an opinion that this is a preferable option.
Now how is this ' inherently undemocratic and extraordinarily dangerous.' given that they are only voicing an opinion.
Given that Brexit means Brexit and we will be getting the best deal possible for the UK, what happens if after 2 years of discussion with the EU, the outcome is that Mrs May stands up in the House of Commons and says that the best deal for the UK has been achieved and that is the Norway option.
Is that not a democratic decision given that it has been achieved by democratically elected MPs and the position posed by the referendum has been delivered in that the UK are no longer members of the EU.
So on that basis you as a leave voter will fully accept this outcome ?
studio150
Well-known member
No no there were 17m, it was a very large studio. Also don't forget Sky is as biased as the BBC abd everything shown on there is not to be trusted. You need to go to RT for all the good news
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
JUST A LOAD OF WAFFLE AGAIN !!! WHAT'S UP WITH YOU PLANKS? , WE'RE LEAVING THE EU , REALLY WE ARE !!!!!
regards
DR
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
To answer the first point. If we try to retain membership of the Single/internal market which would according to all available evidence mean keeping EU free movement. The primacy of ECJ over UK law etc. If we remain inside customs union which according to all available evidence means we would once again be submitting to ECJ primacy and restrict us from making our own trade deals. Plus in both cases most likely paying significant fees.
'Similar to Norway' option as in still paying annual contributions and submitting to free movement? An option described in the referendum campaign by the Remain side as incurring most of the costs with naff all influence. If PM May stood up and said this was the best deal she could achieve she would go the same way as Cameron after his paltry re negotiation farce and rightly so. (But she won't)
It is inherently undemocratic and dangerous to try and reverse or undermine the majority vote before it is even implemented which if successful would I believe end in a final catastrophic collapse in belief in democracy amongst a huge number of voters leading to at best even lower turnouts at elections and trust in elites ...or, far more likely, push people towards more extreme parties/options.
studio150
Well-known member
But would you accept the position if Mrs May did only achieve the Norway position and saying she won't is not an option
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
It's a hypothetical option that won't happen in any believable scenario but I assume you are trying to get me to say I wouldn't accept the will of government/parliament after arguing for increased sovereignty/primacy of UK law/ parliament. The point you are missing is the reasoning why May wouldn't only settle on the Norway option.
studio150
Well-known member
Anything on the final outcome is hypothetical but it seems that if someone posts a view that does not fall within your definition of a real Brexit it is undemocratic and trying to undermine the outcome before it has started
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
I said .... Worst of all arguing to reverse Brexit even before it has happened or diluting it to a point where we are still more in than out which is inherently undemocratic and extraordinarily dangerous.
Do you think arguing to reverse Brexit or diluting it to a point we are still more in than out (which I defined) is inherently undemocratic and extraordinarily dangerous?
studio150
Well-known member
Where am I arguing for any of these points, I am only putting forward a view on a possible outcome, which I accept is one you probably don't want. However in a civilised society putting forward views or indeed holding differing views should not be dangerous, let alone extraordinarily dangerous, given that freedom of speech must be permitted within the legal framework of the society.
Also within the UK legal framework arguing against Brexit is not undemocratic. The only possibility of being undemocratic would be if the Tories took no action and did not invoke Article 50. This is with the caveat that the vote may have not have been legally binding. I would however accept that doing nothing would be seen as being undemocratic.
Also within the UK legal framework arguing against Brexit is not undemocratic. The only possibility of being undemocratic would be if the Tories took no action and did not invoke Article 50. This is with the caveat that the vote may have not have been legally binding. I would however accept that doing nothing would be seen as being undemocratic.