mehmets_curlies
Vital Squad Member
Well, He is a bit of a cock....
EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’...
- Thread starter Trashbat
- Start date
LSB2
Vital Football Hero
At 75, he's gone soft...
valenciagill
Vital Football Hero
The silly old fcuk was demanding a people's vote yesterday.
LSB2
Vital Football Hero
He said brexiteers were erotic today lol
Straightbat
Vital Reserves Team
That could well be the case. All the better reason to give them a chance to vote leave.
Tarian how can you can be so supportive of the referendum result and yet so hypocritically anti a people's vote now? There can only be one answer. Your interpretation of the result (majority want a hard Brexit) is wrong but it suits you, and a further properly informed vote will find that out!
Wayne.Kerr
Vital Champions League
Just watched Rees Mogg on BBC politics programme and he had nothing constructive to say regarding Brexit plans apart from his half-cocked idea on the Irish border, no real curb on immigration apart from differentiating between skilled and unskilled workers and diving into WTO rules as if was as simple as changing TV channels.
Oh and no response from Tarian to my recent question.
Oh and no response from Tarian to my recent question.
valenciagill
Vital Football Hero
Wayne.Kerr
Vital Champions League
The UK can't survive without immigration because of its ageing population and slow rate of turning out skilled workers. If all immigrants are treated on a par, ie no preference to EU nationals, you'll see a greater influx of your muslim friends. Funny old world, eh?
Where dis I say I was "anti a people's vote" ?
Please with draw the "hypocrisy" charge.
Thanks
p.s. "Hard" Brexit was not on the ballot paper so no "interpretation" by me.
Why do Remainers keep using "hard" Brexit?.
Is it so that Remaining in the EU can be dressed up as "leave" perhaps ??
Wayne.Kerr
Vital Champions League
Remain meant remain;Leave meant anything from hard to soft Brexit. Ask a dozen Leavers and you'll get half a dozen interpretations of what they thought Leave could mean.
I've accepted that we'll be leaving the EU but, as we're witnessing at the moment, the Brexiteers can't make up their minds what they want; hence, Chequers at one end and Rees Mogg at the other extreme. Just jump into WTO rules would that it could be that simple let alone the layers of admin in both Govt and industry that would ensue.
Again ..
A Remainer putting word into a Leaver's mouth.
Leave must - and can - mean leaving the EU institutions as listed above.
There are 101 variations on a future - and co-operative - relationship with the EU - covering trade, security, space, nuclear, air travel.
NONE need undermine "leaving the EU".
There are numerous existing relationships and practices that can be combined and applied. (e.g. Switzerland, EEA, Canada, USA, WTO, existing world-wide agreements and standards)
"Transitional arrangements" are ( mostly) unnecessary - as UK products and services are already "compliant".
Just an excuse to delay in the hope of reversing Brexit.
It only seems to be die hard Remainers being determined that UK laws should be made abroad at any cost ....
.... so seem determined to find obstacles at every turn.
Yet should such obstacles arise, these die-hard Remainers refuse to blame the EU - despite it being the EU that would raise such obstacles, not the UK.
Therealwaldo
Vital Squad Member
Misleading nonsense Tarian. You mention a range of options that are compatible with leaving the EU. However, many that you mention involve jurisdiction by the ECJ, one of the red lines we won’t cross. And you say it’s the EU raising obstacles ? Same old same old double speak by a Brexiteer. That’s another reason we definitely need another referendum.
1) So did Remain mean the status quo ? Nothing changing in the EU?
2) Did Remain mean the UK being subject only to the current 22,000 EU laws - i.e. no more new EU laws added to the 2/3rds internal, non-trade matters ?
3) Did Remain mean no more integration, harmonisation, unification (or whatever) - evidenced by:
- EU army
- Centralised EU budget for Euro countries (instead of national budgets) ?
4) Did Remain mean no more ECJ Judgements interpreting EU law as having primacy over national law ?
5) Was there any sign of the EU reversing the integration ratchet after Cameron's failed attempt to reform the EU to a slightly looser arrangement between nations ?
Given that most people could see the answers being No, No, No, No and No, "Leave" probably seemed a reasonable option.
Is that actually true ?
On a daily basis Remainers have "interpreted" what Leave means.
The few Leavers given air time seem to be pretty consistent !
I have no doubt that a dozen Leavers could describe the future relationship with the EU in a dozen different ways.
That doesn't mean they don't want to leave the EU.
But how many have said.
i) We want to leave but still be bound by a "Common Rule Book" of EU laws
ii) We want to leave but we don't mind the ECJ over-riding our laws
iii) We want to leave but we don't mind that 500 million EU citizens retain the right to live in the UK
iv) We want to leave but we don't mind paying £ billions for access
[Actually a few might say the last one - because they believe (mistakenly) that a "fee" is necessary to trade ]
Please give examples.
But in anticipation, I apologise for omitting the words "drawn from" so that it reads:
"There are numerous existing relationships and practices that can be > drawn from, < combined and applied.
(i.e. so not involving jurisdiction of the ECJ)
Last edited:
Wayne.Kerr
Vital Champions League
As usual, not your words but manna from heaven as far as you're concerned. It'll be the day when you write something original. (1) Remain meant remain; (2) is irrelevant; (3) will never happen; (4) it happens so infrequently it's another irrelevance and (5) it's as loose as you want it to be, eg we're not in the Euro zone, which gives us many freedoms others don't have. Pus, of course,
Therealwaldo
Vital Squad Member
Tarian, you mentioned space. We have already been precluded from aerospace contracts specifically because we won’t be bound by the ECJ which is the body of arbitration for the European Space Agency. Good enough for you ?
Straightbat
Vital Reserves Team
My apologies Tarian. Withdrawal request accepted.
I am afraid I had no idea there was a breed of Brexiteers who did not undemocratically insist that another referendum would be undemocratic!
I direct my comment instead at 99% of Brexiteers who do insist on this.
Also re your P.S.: the leave process itself incorporates negotiating a new relationship, not just walking away empty handed. So no, leaving was never as clear cut as you like to think. Remain could be accused of fear campaigning no more than Leave of sugar coating and wishful thinking regarding what that future relationship would be, setting a deceitful honey trap (regarding trade deals outside the EU too) for the electorate.
Good example
A clearly defined area where the UK could, if it chose, agree to arbitration or dispute resolution procedure involving the ECJ.
But if the ECJ is incapable of limiting its scope to "space" stuff - ( and in the opinion of some, it has a track record of extending its remit,) - then we would be best off out.
Meanwhile satellites are developing fast in the UK.
New transports (like SpaceEx) are becoming established - so if the critical mass of space development remains in the UK, then either:
a) the UK doesn't "need" the ESA
b) the ESA may be willing to consider alternative dispute resolution.
Mutual co-operation is a good thing.
In short, ESA is possible - but not at any price.
Thank you.
Please could you also refrain from generalisations like "99% of Brexiteers ..."
Plenty of us could accept Swiss-style regular referenda on a host of things.
BUT
- The question should not be "loaded"
- The Govt. should not be allowed to spend £9.3 million on a document (....with factual inaccuracies)
- Debates between opponents should predominate over one-way interviews or "pieces to camera" (ideally these should be banned during the regulated period)
- No campaign organisation should have to "win" sole approval (e.g. Vote Leave versus others)
We would have to decide whether a Referendaum was advisory or mandatory.
If mandatory, there should be a minimum vote for the proposition.
Last edited:
