[Politics] Brexit

[ManOfSussex]

Says the guy who cut pastes Irish minister opinions ... and then MoS reverts to type, hissy fit central

An opinion on the backstop that is shared by his Attorney General Seamus Wolfe, who didn't see any issues with it breaching The Good Friday Agreement. Rather like the Attorney General for Northern Ireland who also didn't raise any objections. Or indeed the Attorney General for England and Wales whose advice on it was published. Or his predecessor Jeremy Wright QC who was in office when the backstop was first formulated and agreed. Or his predecessor Dominic Grieve QC. Or Sir Keir Starmer QC who accepted today the backstop is needed when meeting the Leader of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland today, who also doesn't have a problem with it.

The only people who have an issue with it are oddball Brexiteers. Funny that.

 

[Baldseagull]

I wasn't trying to single you out, it's the whole thread. I'll have done it too, just about everyone has (although I expect some are more guilty than others) and I was wondering why it was still going on.

You're saying it's not possible for our government to agree to any treaty/amendment, without holding a referendum? I don't believe that.

Sure, no obligation, we don't have to, but that doesn't mean our government wouldn't choose to.

Can you show proof of this? I've clicked your link, which doesn't show it.

Sorry, that link used to show the act that is currently repealed, here is the Wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Act_2011

I am saying that until the withdrawal act was passed, it was the case that it was not possible for our government to agree to any significant change to our relationship with the EU, without holding a referendum, and that if the withdrawal act is repealed, it would return to force.

 

[pastafarian]

Your first paragraph is a blizzard of nonsense obviously intended to deflect attention from your previous comments. The second is a bit of narrow-focus Pasta-semantics based on an intentional misunderstanding of what was said. No points at all I'm afraid.

Nope, no deflection from your initial misrepresentation and i know you said people would be incandescent if their democratic vote was ignored, because that is what you said.
Thanks for playing as ever.

 

[Baldseagull]

Nope, no deflection from your initial misrepresentation and i know you said people would be incandescent if their democratic vote was ignored, because that is what you said.
Thanks for playing as ever.

Funny this, Lincoln Imp was talking about a theoretical reaction to a different theoretical referendum question being ignored, and you want to use the principle and apply it to this referendum, but get all sniffy when I do it with Moggs two referendums suggestion. Cake and eat it Leaver.

 

[pastafarian]

Funny this, Lincoln Imp was talking about a theoretical reaction to a different theoretical referendum question being ignored, and you want to use the principle and apply it to this referendum, but get all sniffy when I do it with Moggs two referendums suggestion. Cake and eat it Leaver.

Nope.Stop drinking you wally.

 

[Triggaaar]

Sorry, that link used to show the act that is currently repealed, here is the Wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Act_2011

I am saying that until the withdrawal act was passed, it was the case that it was not possible for our government to agree to any significant change to our relationship with the EU, without holding a referendum, and that if the withdrawal act is repealed, it would return to force.

Thanks for the link. You said that a referendum would be required before any further treaties or amendments to existing treaties could be agreed to by the UK. That's not what it says. It relates to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. That's two treaties. There are others, and it doesn't stop new ones. It also does not stop all changes to those two treaties.

It's not what you said at all.

 

[nicko31]

They promised...



Instead we've got...



And that's before we talk consequential losses from business, damage to UK standing in the world.

It just keeps getting better and better and better....

#brexitnumbers #brexitreality

 

[cunning fergus]

Do you know what a cretin is? It is a baby who is brain damaged due to a defective thyroid gland.
You do your argument no favours by using such horrendous insults.

You do yourself no favours here either, it’s a perjorative term for a fool, idiot etc.

My position is not diminished at all with the insult..........giving Juncker and the EU a free ride for their combined conduct in facilitating historic tax evasion by global corporates is frankly the height of cretinism.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Sadly in most cases it's devastating hybrid information warfare attacks on British minds, not the victims' faults.

We need to get serious about defending the nation against it before we have any further votes.

I too watched the programme. I think the issue of Brexit is a 'framing' one for many people i.e. they choose not to frame it rationally ("this will clearly not be in my or my family's interests") but emotionally ("sod the lot of 'em"). If I'm not wholly wrong in this then attempting to engage on the rational level is a bit of a waste of time; information (data, evidence) is simply not processed and/or processed through a distorted perspective (to some extent influenced by the Brexit campaign). I've heard so many vox pops from Brexit supporting folk that I've sort of given up hope and in terms of practical consequences I think a 2nd referendum could well deliver a bigger 'leave' majority than the first; indeed you can almost hear the likes of Farage licking his lips in anticipation of a renewed populist onslaught.

Oh well.

 

[Baker lite]

https://twitter.com/leaveeuofficial/status/1092545705883897857?s=21


On our way.

 

[cunning fergus]

I think the EU is proposing tougher regulation than the UK or US would.

You don’t think at all.........in the real world......

https://www.hlengage.com/eu-berates-12-countries-for-not-fully-implementing-mifid-ii

 

[Baldseagull]

Thanks for the link. You said that a referendum would be required before any further treaties or amendments to existing treaties could be agreed to by the UK. That's not what it says. It relates to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. That's two treaties. There are others, and it doesn't stop new ones. It also does not stop all changes to those two treaties.

It's not what you said at all.

All the other treaties come under those two treaties, they are the two primary treaties. Lisbon, Rome, Maastricht etc are all amendments to those treaties.
It does cover all existing treaties and any new ones that would give the EU any further transfer of sovereignty or reduce our power of veto, it is what I said it is.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You don’t think at all.........in the real world......

https://www.hlengage.com/eu-berates-12-countries-for-not-fully-implementing-mifid-ii

What is your argument in relation to this link? I can see you used it in reply to [MENTION=23343]Baldseagull[/MENTION], and having read it, not sure how it counters, supports or otherwise any point you're making?

 

[The Clamp]

The result of the referendum has not been ignored. It has been almost the sole focus of government for the last 2.5 years. The result has not been ignored. Unfortunately for leave voters Brexit won’t work. So it should be abandoned.
Sorry Leave voters, we know it’s a disappointment, perhaps try putting your vote to use to vote in a government that might have another referendum in a few years and might do a better job. Perhaps.
But to repeat and reiterate: Your vote has not been ignored , far from it. It has had £60 BILLION worth of attention thrown at it/down it. But it’s unworkable and Brexit must now be abandoned. Sorry to get your hopes up.

 

[Baldseagull]

You don’t think at all.........in the real world......

https://www.hlengage.com/eu-berates-12-countries-for-not-fully-implementing-mifid-ii

That link shows the EU taking action against members not complying and implementing MiFID, enforcing regulation. How is that contrary to anything I said?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Oh yes you do.

You assumed you knew what I did due to a post I made.......not true was it?

You also bought the cheap insults to, not me.

I know you are act first think later kind of guy........we all do.

The number of posts you edit after posting is incredible, evidently reactionary assumptions are made first, then the 2 or 3 working synapses gradually kick in and then you are back to do a quick edit to cover up your mistakes.

You leave a trail though.

So from the statement you made that 'you have a very intimate working knowledge of the regulation of financial markets and firms that operate within it' I therefor assumed that you work in the technology sector ?

Who do you think I am, mystic meg ? Maybe you should ask around your team who else is ex-HP.

And you all think I'm an act first, think later type of guy ? At least both your work and NSC personas are in agreement with this one.

It's sweet that I appear have a stalker examining my every post, I don't think I've ever had one before

(and I know you'll appreciate the edit on this post, and 'it's trail')

 

[WATFORD zero]

Simply not true.
There is NO WTO rule that insists or requires a country to secure its borders

As I'm sure you know all about WTO's Most favoured nation rules, I can only assume that you are another one who wants open borders with the whole world.

Taking back control, eh

 

[The Clamp]

Being in the club hasn’t stopped us from having to accept things in the past we didn’t necessarily agree with. In some respects we are the nation that always wants it our own way and for the rest of the EU to do what we want. If this is the case then why are we in the club in the first place. Perhaps we should go all in and accept the euro etc etc. That would seem to make much more sense if we believe in the project.

Genuine question:
Off the top of your head , what has the UK. been forced to accept that we didn’t want?

Anything specific?

 

[Baldseagull]

You do yourself no favours here either, it’s a perjorative term for a fool, idiot etc.

My position is not diminished at all with the insult..........giving Juncker and the EU a free ride for their combined conduct in facilitating historic tax evasion by global corporates is frankly the height of cretinism.

Your position is that Junker bent the rules as far as they could go, to give his country an unfair advantage, one that disadvantaged others, that is true. The EU however was and is trying to curb that possibility, trying to regain tax money not paid due to overly favourable tax rulings and Junker is supporting measures to stop members from being able to do what he did. No one outside Luxembourg thinks he did a great thing, but he did make his country one of the wealthiest per capita in the world, not himself, his country. Bob Crow used to irritate the crap out of me, but he was not responsible for my feelings or getting me to work on time, he was responsible for getting and maintaining the best working conditions he possibly could for his members, and he did that very well.

 

[The Clamp]

You don’t think at all.........in the real world......

https://www.hlengage.com/eu-berates-12-countries-for-not-fully-implementing-mifid-ii

To use the parlance of a fool, you Sir are a dunce and a cretin.


Point of fact, Cretin actually means “human”.
Derived from the Latin Christianus, filtered trough Swiss French and arriving at the English Cretin. Human.
The benefits of a classical education.