[Politics] Brexit

[pastafarian]

Would you do me the favour of bringing me up to speed?

see above
the judges ruled last week that once article 50 is invoked it cannot be withdrawn

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

For you it was about control, others (daft as it may be) truly believed, possibly because Farage had a poster with Syrian refugees lined up on it and the words "breaking point", that we would somehow not be under any obligation to accept refugees, and would adopt a racist immigration policy. Those people will be, I am glad to say, disappointed.

I really do not know why you believe this. The point has been repeated on this thread over and over again by a whole range of Leavers that it is all about control rather than prohibition. There was even a debate on here a week or so ago where many Remainers insisted that no-one believed that Leavers were racist and anti immigration and that certain people were playing the victim card. Your post rather undermines that part of the discussion. Let's be clear, the vote to leave the EU was driven by many things and prominent was a desire to control immigration. The 'open borders' ideologues have to take
reponsibility for our leaving the EU as much as anyone else as net numbers have risen and continue to rise. This is an agenda set by big business to drive down real wage levels and increase profits. The view by many of the southern ,middle class ,liberal affluent elite that their countrymen are anti immigration is quite simply wrong. The EU should have put sensible immigration controls in place but were unable to because of pressure from big business. I suggest you research the influence of Goldman Sachs on what is portrayed as the 'liberal concept' of the EU. That is a good starting point for understanding the real nature of the project. There are some worthy advantages of EU membership but the bigger picture is an entrenchment of inequality which is why many on the left fundamentally disagree with membership. I can debate this with you all day if you like but I won't accept your insinuations that you have some sort of moral superiority. You dont.

 

[The Clamp]

im not astonishing anyone, but it is a superior opinion to you.
its common knowledge and open to public viewing......im surprised you are clueless to it, many political commentators have been talking about it.

last week there was a judicial decision about brexit, i notice you have been very vocal in supporting it.
The 32 page judgement investigated what article 50 meant with regard to its judgement and it concluded you cannot withdraw it(article 50) after giving notice and it means inevitable leaving.the EU, the judges based their outcome on this.

here is the relevant part

(1) a notice under Article 50(2) cannot be withdrawn, once it is given

11. Once a notice is given, it will inevitably result in the complete withdrawal of The United Kingdom from membership of the European Union

here is the full judgement

file:///C:/Users/JSC/Desktop/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

feel free of course to say the three judges are talking out of their arse and their judgement is flawed

I'm fully aware of this ruling. My posts are based on analysis both before and after last weeks ruling. There are of course many articles and opinion cited in the last 3 days that adds some caveats to that ruling and highlighting the aforementioned loophole. I urge you to google the meaning of loophole. However it is heartening to see you attempting to provide some real evidence as oppose to your usual mix of wanting things to be true, insults and bits and pieces you've picked up from leave campaigners you admire. You have missed a few salient points and seem to have ignored what has been said since. You will find that these three judges don't have the final word on what article 50 means.
I really must get out in that crisp sunshine and salvage what's left of the day but I'll have a proper look into that later, I'm certain it will have a place in the canon of opinion.
Cheers!

 

[Baldseagull]

im not astonishing anyone, but it is a superior opinion to you.
its common knowledge and open to public viewing......im surprised you are clueless to it, many political commentators have been talking about it.

last week there was a judicial decision about brexit, i notice you have been very vocal in supporting it.
The 32 page judgement investigated what article 50 meant with regard to its judgement and it concluded you cannot withdraw it(article 50) after giving notice and it means inevitable leaving.the EU, the judges based their outcome on this.

here is the relevant part

(1) a notice under Article 50(2) cannot be withdrawn, once it is given

11. Once a notice is given, it will inevitably result in the complete withdrawal of The United Kingdom from membership of the European Union

here is the full judgement

file:///C:/Users/JSC/Desktop/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

feel free of course to say the three judges are talking out of their arse and their judgement is flawed

The judges are talking out of their arses and their judgement is flawed.
Well on one point any way, it is not inevitable that it would result in the complete withdrawal of the UK from Membership of the EU. If a year down the line, we decide we want to stay, we can say so, it is possible at that point that the EU could vote on whether or not to allow the process to halt.
Also, thank you for posting this, but I think the EU will want to test the question in the European court, it would not be the first time British and European courts disagree.

 

[pastafarian]

Interesting, there is of course many articles and opinion cited in the last 3 days that adds some caveats to that ruling and highlighting the aforementioned loophole. I urge you to google the meaning of loophole. However it is heartening to see you attempting to provide some real evidence as oppose to your usual mix of wanting things to be true, insults and bits and pieces you've picked up from leave campaigners you admire.
I really must get out in that crisp sunshine and salvage what's left of the day but I'll have a proper look into that later, I'm certain it will have a place in the canon of opinion.
Cheers!

even in defeat you are a ****.....figures!

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

To paint a rather fuller picture:

In 1992, the UK opted out of Monetary Union along with the Social Chapter
In 1997, the UK opted out of abolition of border controls
In 2009, the UK opted out of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights
In 2017, the UK opted out of adoption of common police and criminal justice legislation.

Add to the mix all EU legislation must be debated in the house and enshrined in UK law through act of Parliament then it appears there is every likelihood the trend of achieving significant concessions would continue.

Hardly the binary death march you predict and very much in line with the highly lauded democratic accountability.

That is a fuller picture of the past. If the U.K. had voted to stay in the EU then we wouldn't have simply returned to the status quo. Remember that the establishment is much more pro EU than the population and such a vote would likely have signaled a move to further integration particularly as the liberal elite would happily give up those opt outs. This needs to be examined in terms of
economics not liberal idealism as it is economics that is actually driving the project. It is simply untenable going forward to have monetary union without fiscal and political union as it leaves the Euro area vulnerable to economic and
currency crises. What we see now is Germany benefitting from a lower exchange age than its economy dictates. This is not temporary currency flow, rather it is permanent under the current structure.Similarly, Southern Europe has a permanently over valued exchange rate. Such a structure requires fiscal flows to the poorer areas otherwise massive unemployment becomes endemic. This is the current situation. It can only be solved by more integration so the status quo you
mention is not on offer going forward. This was not made clear by the Remain side in the campaign and yet it is basic economic literacy.
Once the Euro area achieves full integration I do not see how it would be possible for any EU member to retain any opt outs including from the
Euro area.

 

[The Clamp]

even in defeat you are a ****.....figures!

And there you have it. You don't get your way, you get proven wrong and you stamp your feet (metaphorically) and call names. You have very conveniently ignored expert analysis on the ruling that says the ruling does NOT mean we cannot reverse article 50. Schoolboy error. You grabbed one bit of info and ran with it rather than see the full story because you wanted to believe the bit you agreed with.
Luckily for you it's your argument that lets you down and not your tantrum. I now remember why I was determined not to engage with you. I think it was better that way, for you as well, you seem to get wound up over the whole thing.

 

[pastafarian]

The judges are talking out of their arses and their judgement is flawed.
Well on one point any way, it is not inevitable that it would result in the complete withdrawal of the UK from Membership of the EU. If a year down the line, we decide we want to stay, we can say so, it is possible at that point that the EU could vote on whether or not to allow the process to halt.
Also, thank you for posting this, but I think the EU will want to test the question in the European court, it would not be the first time British and European courts disagree.

did you read the judgement , it could not be clearer...invoking article 50 is the end game to "inevitable" leaving, sorry but you are wishing on stars if you think it doesnt mean that.
ii know we are not lawyers but bloody hell chap how obvious do you want the ruling to be before you get out of denial

 

[pastafarian]

And there you have it. You don't get your way, you get proven wrong and you stamp your feet (metaphorically) and call names.
Luckily for you it's your argument that lets you down and not your tantrum. I now remember why I was determined not to engage with you. I think it was better that way, for you as well, you seem to get wound up over the whole thing.

are you mental? i just proved your whole stance as wrong.......i wasnt wrong at all.....i supplied the judicial evidence to show you are talking toilet.......i cant be the only one who thinks you are sandwiches short of a picnic.

 

[The Clamp]

are you mental? i just proved your whole stance as wrong.......i wasnt wrong at all.....i supplied the judicial evidence to show you are talking toilet.......i cant be the only one who thinks you are sandwiches short of a picnic.

Whevs. Go outside you sad act.

 

[pastafarian]

Whevs. Go outside you sad act.

umm we are outside, lovely bloody marys and wood fired eggs

why are you not a sad act for being indoors?

 

[pastafarian]

Whevs. Go outside you sad act.

now that you know you were wrong (yet again) and that the 3 judges ruled that A50 cannot be withdrawn like you claim what is your next plan of ridiculous crap on trying to get the vote reversed ?

 

[Baldseagull]

I really do not know why you believe this. The point has been repeated on this thread over and over again by a whole range of Leavers that it is all about control rather than prohibition. There was even a debate on here a week or so ago where many Remainers insisted that no-one believed that Leavers were racist and anti immigration and that certain people were playing the victim card. Your post rather undermines that part of the discussion. Let's be clear, the vote to leave the EU was driven by many things and prominent was a desire to control immigration. The 'open borders' ideologues have to take
reponsibility for our leaving the EU as much as anyone else as net numbers have risen and continue to rise. This is an agenda set by big business to drive down real wage levels and increase profits. The view by many of the southern ,middle class ,liberal affluent elite that their countrymen are anti immigration is quite simply wrong. The EU should have put sensible immigration controls in place but were unable to because of pressure from big business. I suggest you research the influence of Goldman Sachs on what is portrayed as the 'liberal concept' of the EU. That is a good starting point for understanding the real nature of the project. There are some worthy advantages of EU membership but the bigger picture is an entrenchment of inequality which is why many on the left fundamentally disagree with membership. I can debate this with you all day if you like but I won't accept your insinuations that you have some sort of moral superiority. You dont.

See post 21047, I have spoken directly with other people who expressly stated that their biggest reason for voting leave was to stop muslims coming here, you might not like it, I certainly don't, but you can't wish away the fact that these people exist. I make no assumption that some of my countrymen are anti Islamic immigration, they have told me so.
In general, I would prefer more controlled immigration, but our government CHOSE not to apply the limitations afforded to it by the EU, for the first seven years after the accession countries joined, so whilst all other EU nations restricted the numbers, we had the door wide open, then when the rest of the EU opened up, they still came here in greater numbers because they had friends, family, and communities established to assist them here. It looks as though the EU had some foresight into the potential issues, and had a remedy to soften the impact, but we waited until the populous got fed up, and then blamed the EU.

 

[The Clamp]

now that you know you were wrong (yet again) and that the 3 judges ruled that A50 cannot be withdrawn like you claim what is your next plan of ridiculous crap on trying to get the vote reversed ?

You claim to all be outside supping cocktails and eating eggs from the fire, engage with whoever you are with rather than making a fool of yourself on here. I won't be engaging with you any further.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

See post 21047, I have spoken directly with other people who expressly stated that their biggest reason for voting leave was to stop muslims coming here, you might not like it, I certainly don't, but you can't wish away the fact that these people exist. I make no assumption that some of my countrymen are anti Islamic immigration, they have told me so.
In general, I would prefer more controlled immigration, but our government CHOSE not to apply the limitations afforded to it by the EU, for the first seven years after the accession countries joined, so whilst all other EU nations restricted the numbers, we had the door wide open, then when the rest of the EU opened up, they still came here in greater numbers because they had friends, family, and communities established to assist them here. It looks as though the EU had some foresight into the potential issues, and had a remedy to soften the impact, but we waited until the populous got fed up, and then blamed the EU.

Ok, then to an extent we agree on controlled immigration. If some people are concerned about
Muslim immigration then their reasons may be to do with race (although Islam is a mediaval idea not a race) or it may be concern about the resergence of religion. Either way these concerns are often used to shut down debate and besmirch (the new buzz word !) legitimate opposition to the EU project. I have clearly jumped too quickly in my response to you but I guess I get tired of the powerful getting away with using Liberals to distract debate away from economics by muddying the waters with insulting references to racism.

 

[Baldseagull]

did you read the judgement , it could not be clearer...invoking article 50 is the end game to "inevitable" leaving, sorry but you are wishing on stars if you think it doesnt mean that.
ii know we are not lawyers but bloody hell chap how obvious do you want the ruling to be before you get out of denial

I am not in denial, it may be an extremely unlikely event, but it would be possible for the UK to remain in the EU if both the UK and the EU wanted it.
Article 50 it is a piece of an EU treaty that has never before been invoked, there is no precedent and it is possible that a European court will find differently.
My position is that it is still not certain whether or not it is irrevocable, it would need to be tested in a European court to know for sure.

I promise you it is not a case of wishful thinking, I would prefer that it were possible to revoke, but I would also prefer absolute certainty of it not being possible over highly probable that it is not possible.

 

[Baldseagull]

Ok, then to an extent we agree on controlled immigration. If some people are concerned about
Muslim immigration then their reasons may be to do with race (although Islam is a mediaval idea not a race) or it may be concern about the resergence of religion. Either way these concerns are often used to shut down debate and besmirch (the new buzz word !) legitimate opposition to the EU project. I have clearly jumped too quickly in my response to you but I guess I get tired of the powerful getting away with using Liberals to distract debate away from economics by muddying the waters with insulting references to racism.

To be honest, the point I was trying to make was more that the result of a leave result is unlikely to deliver what those who voted leave with a racial, or anti Islamic motivation were hoping for, I only mentioned my own feelings on those motivations because I did not want it to appear that I was accepting it as a good reason, and just questioning the logic. It was part of the wider discussion on what results the Government will be aiming for given the wide range of reasons people voted leave for, and wether Parliament should debate that. It is my belief that most people will be disappointed with the outcome.

 

[Danny-Boy]

A democratic vote took place on whether we leave the EU. Leave won and the result should be respected. All of this "moving the goalposts" afterwards is laughable and if it had been the other way around the leavers would have been ridiculed for asking for second vote and changing the rules after the result.

Seems some believe in a democracy when it suits them.

L:et's put this in a parallel you might understand.

Your football team doesn't like playing on a local park pitch because the facilities are poor.

So you hold an EGM and ask them if they want to find another ground. They naturally vote yes, at least 52% of those bothering to vote do.

Then you find that all the other local grounds have got similar or not worse problems. So what do you do then? Meanwhile because you're uncertain how long you're playing at that ground, the landlords stop doing any more like maintaining the pitch. And the other teams sharing it treat you like a pariah in the changing-rooms. And the biggest pusher to move away can't decide whether he wants to stay a member of the club or not.

 

[portslade seagull]

See post 21047, I have spoken directly with other people who expressly stated that their biggest reason for voting leave was to stop muslims coming here, you might not like it, I certainly don't, but you can't wish away the fact that these people exist. I make no assumption that some of my countrymen are anti Islamic immigration, they have told me so.
In general, I would prefer more controlled immigration, but our government CHOSE not to apply the limitations afforded to it by the EU, for the first seven years after the accession countries joined, so whilst all other EU nations restricted the numbers, we had the door wide open, then when the rest of the EU opened up, they still came here in greater numbers because they had friends, family, and communities established to assist them here. It looks as though the EU had some foresight into the potential issues, and had a remedy to soften the impact, but we waited until the populous got fed up, and then blamed the EU.

I bet you haven't spoken to any leavers but just reading what is in the papers and then using it as another stick. I would love for you to call me a racist but I am as what you would put a little brown in colour

 

[drew]

We have [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION] to thank for the new nick names *leavers are HARD NOUGAT and *remain are SOFT CARAMEL

i am a HARD NOUGAT

I wanted the other shop but if we have to go to the one voted for then I want caramel (preferably salted).