Jump to content

Politics


Christmas Tree
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Alex said:

I'd also add that if he's so principled, why didn't he campaign under the banner of hard Brexit?

 

Pre-referendum his view was that the EU was in serious need of reform but that on balance it was better to stay in and be part of the change.

 

Post-referendum, his view is that the result should be honoured, and that the only Brexit that makes sense in the context of the question asked is a hard one.

 

Those two statements aren't contradictions of each other, the latter is just a developed view based on a developed reality. And tbh, he and the hard Brexit zealots are right about the latter point. In the context of the question asked at the time, the only Brexit that makes sense is indeed a hard one. The Norway model maybe is the best we can hope for as remainers but it sure as shit isn't what people voted for, or thought they were voting for, because it doesn't make us any more sovereign than we were before, and indeed arguably less so.

 

The fact that Brexit is an unworkable catastrophe is the reason we should be cancelling it, not because 'no one voted for hard Brexit'. They really actually did. Logically, I can't see any other conclusion - I think I said as much at the time. I recall making a post saying how fucking pointless the result was if all it will achieve is a soft Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Post-referendum, his view is that the result should be honoured, and that the only Brexit that makes sense in the context of the question asked is a hard one.

 

The public didn't vote for a hard Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Pre-referendum his view was that the EU was in serious need of reform but that on balance it was better to stay in and be part of the change.

 

Post-referendum, his view is that the result should be honoured, and that the only Brexit that makes sense in the context of the question asked is a hard one.

 

Those two statements aren't contradictions of each other, the latter is just a developed view based on a developed reality. And tbh, he and the hard Brexit zealots are right about the latter point. In the context of the question asked at the time, the only Brexit that makes sense is indeed a hard one. The Norway model maybe is the best we can hope for as remainers but it sure as shit isn't what people voted for, or thought they were voting for, because it doesn't make us any more sovereign than we were before, and indeed arguably less so.

 

The fact that Brexit is an unworkable catastrophe is the reason we should be cancelling it, not because 'no one voted for hard Brexit'. They really actually did. Logically, I can't see any other conclusion - I think I said as much at the time. I recall making a post saying how fucking pointless the result was if all it will achieve is a soft Brexit.

That's bolloclks. You can't possibly argue people voted for something different to that which they were told they would get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

The public voted for a pack of lies.

It was fucking advertised as a soft Brexit. Incredible to suggest otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

The public voted for a pack of lies.

 

 This is where I am on it too. I don't recall a clear 'soft Brexit, pro-single market' message at the time.

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

It was fucking advertised as a soft Brexit. Incredible to suggest otherwise.

 

By Johnson maybe. By Farage?

Edited by Rayvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

The Norway model maybe is the best we can hope for as remainers but it sure as shit isn't what people voted for, or thought they were voting for, because it doesn't make us any more sovereign than we were before, and indeed arguably less so.

 

In as much that sovereignty is a none issue, this is patently bollocks. Removing ourselves from the political structures of the EU, and 75% of acquis along with it, and joining EFTA is not losing sovereignty. Do some research. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

This is where I am on it too. I don't recall a clear 'soft Brexit, pro-single market' message at the time

Don't you? I do. I don't recall a suicidal hard Brexit though. No-one would vote for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

In as much that sovereignty is a none issue, this is patently bollocks. Removing ourselves from the political structures of the EU, and 75% of acquis along with it, and joining EFTA is not losing sovereignty. Do some research. 

 

I meant in terms of the fact that within the EU we had a clear say in decision making, and in a Norway model, we don't. For crying out loud man, simmer down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

In as much that sovereignty is a none issue, this is patently bollocks. Removing ourselves from the political structures of the EU, and 75% of acquis along with it, and joining EFTA is not losing sovereignty. Do some research. 

Eh? Norway accepts EU rules without representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

I meant in terms of the fact that within the EU we had a clear say in decision making, and in a Norway model, we don't. For crying out loud man, simmer down.

 

Except that's not entirely true. We would have a huge influence, but outside the EU. I'll simmer down when you start think critically instead of swallowing the right wing rhetoric that we voted hard Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

 This is where I am on it too. I don't recall a clear 'soft Brexit, pro-single market' message at the time.

 

By Johnson maybe. By Farage?

Farage did say we could be like Norway or Switzerland before the referendum. Not that he had any power over how Brexit could be implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

Eh? Norway accepts EU rules without representation.

 

No, it's represented before laws change and can be highly influential. We would be much more so. It's also exempt from most laws and has its own trade deals. It can't vote on laws though, but democracy on a supranational basis is a myth. Most laws and regulations are international now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

The public voted for gold-shitting unicorns, that doesn't mean Corbyn is obliged to strap on a horn and start straining.

:lol: Perfectly put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Except that's not entirely true. We would have a huge influence, but outside the EU. I'll simmer down when you start think critically instead of swallowing the right wing rhetoric that we voted hard Brexit.

 

I'm not swallowing right wing rhetoric, I just can't see any good case for a soft Brexit that makes logical sense in terms of what people voted for. Here is my post at the time:

 

On 26/06/2016 at 00:35, Rayvin said:

 

I think there were some. Immigration can be considered a legitimate concern, definitely. Unfortunately it turns out that Brexit, according to those who led the Leave campaign, isn't actually going to address that. So that's now irrelevant and a wasted vote for anyone who wanted it. This was of course revealed post-vote.

 

Spending on the EU has also been rubbished, so that went out the window as a legitimate reason.

 

We're left with the sovereignty argument. People don't like the EU dictating how we should run things. I can see why some people feel this way, but we're actually going to have to continue doing what the EU wants as part of joining the single market again, it would seem. So in reality they're not going to get that either. I suppose they do get symbolic sovereignty. Maybe that's worth it to some.

 

Otherwise, I've heard a lot about the EU falling to pieces and that we should be well shot of it, but this ignores the fact that in or out of the EU, if it fell to pieces, it'd take Britain with it.

 

I'm afraid that this really was as stupid a decision as it looks.

 

And here was your view of my post:

 

On 26/06/2016 at 01:03, Renton said:

To summarise rayvin's well made points toonotl, the UK is canny fucked, or might be. I really think we're going down the swanney.

 

The EU is a massive scape goat in all this imo. It's not an entirely benevolent organisation, but it has given the whole of Europe so, so much. I am actually ashamed to be English now. A lot on this board will not see why, but it's how i see it. A nation of cunts, still trying to get one over all our neighbours, and playing the bizarre "UK exceptionqlism" rule.

 

Anyway, Howay Iceland!

Edited by Rayvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

No, it's represented before laws change and can be highly influential. We would be much more so. It's also exempt from most laws and has its own trade deals. It can't vote on laws though, but democracy on a supranational basis is a myth. Most laws and regulations are international now.

How is it represented within the EU institutions?

It isn't exempt from most laws, it adopts 75% of EU laws. It has no voice in the EU parliament or Council of Ministers. Rayvin is entirely correct in saying that they have less sovereignty than we currently do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

How is it represented within the EU institutions?

It isn't exempt from most laws, it adopts 75% of EU laws. It has no voice in the EU parliament or Council of Ministers. Rayvin is entirely correct in saying that they have less sovereignty than we currently do.

 

Which isn't to say that we shouldn't grab the same deal with both hands if someone offers it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ewerk said:

I can’t say sovereignty is of much importance to me. Whatever way you look at it it’s a bunch of cunts telling us what to do.

 

Damn fucking straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ewerk said:

How is it represented within the EU institutions?

It isn't exempt from most laws, it adopts 75% of EU laws. It has no voice in the EU parliament or Council of Ministers. Rayvin is entirely correct in saying that they have less sovereignty than we currently do.

It adopts circa 25% of laws. We'd be leaving the political structures of the EU and ever closer union. No debate about joining the Euro,EU army, etc. I think it's a natural fit for us personally. 

 

I've never met a brexiter who can meaningfully say what loss of sovereignty has had a negative effect on them BTW. It's a red herring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.