[Politics] Brexit

[Baldseagull]

I'm happy to debate this subject with anyone who comes across as reasonable, fair minded & sincere.

I am reasonable, fair minded and sincere. It is reasonable and fair minded to assume you could not present a reasoned and intelligent argument for Brexit, if you wanted to, as in the long history of this thread, no one has yet. I mean that most sincerely.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And yet you'd left to live elsewhere in the EU before , according to you, but still came back once we'd voted to leave. I called bullshit then and I call bullshit now that you will leave. I'm a Nazi now am I ? Keep digging my simpleton Plooky, keep digging - you might get to Australia which would save you having to pay to leave. And of course ironically, if you do carry out your promise you'd become ..... a leaver

We are still living in the EU. Regardless of what Plooks has posted, we are in the EU at the moment, as one of 28 different countries.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You aren't really up for a reasonable and intelligent discussion, because you "challenge [me] to start it off with a rational and intelligent post on the benefits of Brexit".

If you were really up for a reasonable and intelligent discussion, the fist thing you would do is acknowledge that there are benefits of Brexit, just like I acknowledge that there are risks and challenges also.

Your post seems to imply that there aren't any benefits, or you can't see any. That is as unreasonable as me saying there are no risks or challenges, or that I can't see any.

Not the opening salvo for a reasonable level headed discussion is it.

That's just a swerve. He asked you to tell us the benefits of Brexit, and you are swerving it.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

We are still living in the EU. Regardless of what Plooks has posted, we are in the EU at the moment, as one of 28 different countries.

Where have I said we aren't ?

 

[dingodan]

I am reasonable, fair minded and sincere. It is reasonable and fair minded to assume you could not present a reasoned and intelligent argument for Brexit, if you wanted to, as in the long history of this thread, no one has yet. I mean that most sincerely.

"Nobody has presented a reasoned and intelligent argument for Brexit" demonstrates beyond doubt that a reasonable conversation isn't going to be possible with you.

No hard feelings.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

There is no 'supposed' illegality. The fines and appeals are all sorted and paid.
Yes, you are right. I have been railing against the referendum since the result, especially when within days, people who had postal votes were only just receiving them, so thousands of those went astray.

That's more honest

The undemocratic loons have been throwing loads of money trying to prove the referendum was legally invalid all to no avail. Their Lordships have spoken ...

... even if the breaches were as found by the Electoral Commission, there was no evidential basis for the proposition that they were material in the sense that, had they not occurred, the result of the EU referendum would probably have been different.

 

[dingodan]

That's just a swerve. He asked you to tell us the benefits of Brexit, and you are swerving it.

It's not a swerve at all. He knows, we all know, the arguments for and against. They have been thrashed out for what seems like an eternity.

To suggest that the arguments for Brexit are not as strong as the arguments against is a valid position to take.

To suggest that there are no arguments for Brexit (or that they need making here and now in order to prove that they exist) is disingenuous.

I won't debate disingenuous people. It isn't worth it, because a reasonable discussion isn't really what they are interested in.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

You aren't really up for a reasonable and intelligent discussion, because you "challenge [me] to start it off with a rational and intelligent post on the benefits of Brexit".

If you were really up for a reasonable and intelligent discussion, the fist thing you would do is acknowledge that there are benefits of Brexit, just like I acknowledge that there are risks and challenges also.

Your post seems to imply that there aren't any benefits, or you can't see any. That is as unreasonable as me saying there are no risks or challenges, or that I can't see any.

Not the opening salvo for a reasonable level headed discussion is it.

Baldy thinks a European Federal superstate is a spiffing idea so he wouldn't acknowledge that getting off the track to that destination is a benefit.

 

[Baldseagull]

"Nobody has presented a reasoned and intelligent argument for Brexit" demonstrates beyond doubt that a reasonable conversation isn't going to be possible with you.

No hard feelings.

No rational argument either.

If what I have said is unreasonable, it really should be easy to show me posts on this thread making the rational arguments that Brexit has some real benefits, or make one yourself.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's not a swerve at all. He knows, we all know, the arguments for and against. They have been thrashed out for what seems like an eternity.

To suggest that the arguments for Brexit are not as strong as the arguments against is a valid position to take.

To suggest that there are no arguments for Brexit (or that they need making here and now in order to prove that they exist) is disingenuous.

I won't debate disingenuous people. It isn't worth it, because a reasonable discussion isn't really what they are interested in.

That's a swerve. I have been trying to find benefits for leaving the European Union for four years now. I still cannot see it, but you probably won't debate it because I can't see it.

 

[dingodan]

No rational argument either.

If what I have said is unreasonable, it really should be easy to show me posts on this thread making the rational arguments that Brexit has some real benefits, or make one yourself.

It would be easy.

Clearly it would be pointless too.

Pearls before swine and all that.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It's not a swerve at all. He knows, we all know, the arguments for and against. They have been thrashed out for what seems like an eternity.

To suggest that the arguments for Brexit are not as strong as the arguments against is a valid position to take.

To suggest that there are no arguments for Brexit (or that they need making here and now in order to prove that they exist) is disingenuous.

I won't debate disingenuous people. It isn't worth it, because a reasonable discussion isn't really what they are interested in.

More swerves than Steve Penney and Peter O'Sullivan combined

Or you could just admit that you can't come up with a single detailed benefit of Brexit whatsoever ?

 

[ManOfSussex]

Bit rich .. Where was the direct answer to my question 'Would you think it acceptable to for the UK ignore the European parliament - take the deal or no deal?' Yes or no.

Both parties negotiate in good faith knowing any deal reached needs ratification in the respective parliaments.

If the EU parliament had voted down the agreement but showed they would back it if there was movement on one issue I would expect the UK government to reconsider their position ... especially knowing UK intransigence would make the very outcome we were trying to avoid more likely/ inevitable.

As for 'reneged on' ...It may come as a surprise to you but negotiated treaties occasionally hit democratic roadblocks, be they in parliaments or via referendums. Canada spent six years negotiating a trade deal with the EU in good faith only to see it blocked by the Walloons. This was overcome. The EU constitution was agreed by 25 countries in good faith then rejected in two referendums. This was overcome by circumventing the democratic voice of EU citizens. The EU moves when it needs to. Negotiating with a government that triggered article 50 without an agreed plan, which was dominated by remainers many who thought negotiating was all about damage limitation, with an uncertain majority, in a remain MP dominated parliament it's hardly surprising the EU haven't moved. The new Brexiteer PM /government seem to be giving them (especially the Irish) more to think about though.

Your question is a little poorly grammatically structured I'm afraid. Perhaps you were under the influence of something? I'll give it a go though - If we'd spent tens of billions over 10 years+ getting ready for no deal and sorted out the plethora of replacement international agreements required to leave The EU, then perhaps we could have ignored whatever the European parliament did and gone our own way?

I knew you'd just blame remainers/The EU/The Irish - The Brexiteers, always the victims, never your fault.

Interesting you say there's just one issue for us - the backstop. According to you parliament is dominated by remainers, never mind Mark Francois now bragging there's 60+ ERG who will never vote for any deal because they just want to chase the fantasy of no deal. If this one issue is dropped, ie the pesky Irish know their place, why will it pass in Parliament? Again, facing that prospect and an absolute numbnut, clueless, basket-case of a country that will be on its knees in 3 months time as an international pariah having shot itself in the foot and gone to no deal status, why should the EU agree to anything new? Once the backstop is removed, an international peace treaty put in jeopardy and it doesn't pass, then what? Why should they have ownership of that? What would you replace the backstop with?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Baldy thinks a European Federal superstate is a spiffing idea so he wouldn't acknowledge that getting off the track to that destination is a benefit.

So, have you come up with an alternative to the backstop yet ?

Or do you still think it should just be taken out completely and still absolutely baffled as to why the EU won't agree to this

 

[Baldseagull]

Baldy thinks a European Federal superstate is a spiffing idea so he wouldn't acknowledge that getting off the track to that destination is a benefit.

As it happens, I would use the term Fully Federal State, but yes I would. It is debatable as to whether it is a good or bad thing, but Brexit is not required to avoid it, so a moot point.
Forcing a federal state is not a good idea, it will happen, but it should only happen as quickly as EU citizens want it to.
Avoiding it is entirely possible by not agreeing to any further political integration, as it is the right of the UK Government to not enter into any further closer Union without detriment, and as it would also legally require a UK referendum agreeing to it, as well as both houses of Parliament agreeing to it, for any UK Government to sign up to any treaty changes, Brexit is using a Sledgehammer to (try to) crack a nut.
There is also the possibility that we rejoin the EU in the future, but without the current membership arrangements, and without the European Parliament act being reinstated, so in the end, it is probably more likely that the UK eventually becomes a member state of the European Federal State if we leave now, and it certainly does not preclude it.

 

[dingodan]

More swerves than Steve Penney and Peter O'Sullivan combined

Or you could just admit that you can't come up with a single detailed benefit of Brexit whatsoever ?

I actually love a well mannered and sincere debate, probably more than most people. Maybe more than I should.

In a debate amongst sincere people who genuinely are trying to establish the truth of things, both sides can learn something from each other if they are prepared to listen with humility and respect to the opposing view.

I don't swerve arguments. I swerve people.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I actually love a well mannered and sincere debate, probably more than most people. Maybe more than I should.

In a debate amongst sincere people who genuinely are trying to establish the truth of things, both sides can learn something from each other if they are prepared to listen with humility and respect to the opposing view.

I don't swerve arguments. I swerve people.

So that's a no then

 

[CHAPPERS]

We take full control of our decisions/destiny that in itself is more than the EU can offer time to cast off the shackles
Regards
DR

Hooray! Dominic Cummings can make our decisions for us!

 

[dingodan]

 

[WATFORD zero]

Bit rich .. Where was the direct answer to my question 'Would you think it acceptable to for the UK ignore the European parliament - take the deal or no deal?' Yes or no.

Both parties negotiate in good faith knowing any deal reached needs ratification in the respective parliaments.

If the EU parliament had voted down the agreement but showed they would back it if there was movement on one issue I would expect the UK government to reconsider their position ... especially knowing UK intransigence would make the very outcome we were trying to avoid more likely/ inevitable.

There was an issue on which Britain insisted there had to be movement. It was the Customs Union. Hence why the EU and British Government, in their negotiations, came up with the alternative of 'the backstop'.

Have you been asleep since 2016 ?