prawnsambo wrote: » Do not compare Ireland's struggle for independence from a bloodthirsty empire with joining a league of nations to pool sovereignty on behalf of all the people in the league. That is a disgusting comparison and you need to withdraw it. Irish people were starved, murdered and exiled by the British. Countless thousands murdered by Cromwell all the way to British soldiers murdering civilians in Derry. There are words I'd love to use to describe this post, but I'll refrain.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Just seen the Lib Dem bus - dearie mehttps://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/1192003069380300804
Deleted User wrote: » No, I shan't. I've made abundantly clear that I'm referring to the abstract principle of "independence". If by that term, some describe it as "generating your own legislation through the means by directly elected MPs", then the European Union is well outside that scope. So yes, obtaining "independence" from the UK Westminster parliament, only to hand those essential powers to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, is the absolute height of irony. In that respect, I stand by the comparison.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Are you though? You are 'choosing' to follow the rules, that is a sovereign decision. You can also make a sovereign decision to not follow them and get kicked out and a sovereign decision to leave.
hotmail.com wrote: » Ego maniac it seems.
Deleted User wrote: » Usually, like many others here, I can understand why political manouveres are made, but I cannot fathom a reason why they opted to phrase the bus as, "Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats"? For comparative purposes, imagine if the Brexit Party's bus read, "Nigel Farage's Brexit Party" - we would all unite in cringe, then disgust at the ego on show. It seems bizarre. Really bizarre.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Usually, like many others here, I can understand why political manouveres are made, but I cannot fathom a reason why they opted to phrase the bus as, "Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats"? For comparative purposes, imagine if the Brexit Party's bus read, "Nigel Farage's Brexit Party" - we would all unite in cringe, then disgust at the ego on show. It seems bizarre. Really bizarre.
Deleted User wrote: » This is literally the worst economic argument I've ever, ever, EVER come across.
You are somehow assuming that population size can be equated with economic success? You dare compare the UK (fifth largest economy in the world) with Congo, Tanzania, and Myanmar, and expect to take you seriously? I have clearly compared Singapore and Switzerland etc. with economic independence and success, and that the UK - should it decide to - can reorient in a similar direction. This is beyond the pale of expectation. To offer a quote, this argument "really holds no water".
prawnsambo wrote: » It was Boris's bus. And it was called Boris's bus. And it was cringe on top of lie. And he tried to bury it in Google searches with his stupid wine box bus. Because it was a lie that wouldn't stop following the charlatan around.
Deleted User wrote: » You quote my position on the Lib Dem bus, to attack Boris and a position I didn't make? Hmm... I'll let the readers decide.
Deleted User wrote: » And many electorates have voted for dictatorships; that irony exists throughout history, but it doesn't make it right. Of course, the EU is not a direct dictatorship, but that's not the point I'm attempting to make.
prawnsambo wrote: » You tried to attribute it to Farage. Not letting you get away with that lie. Readers take note.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Yes, just the club shouldn't have been formed. That's foregoing any independence that countries have hitherto held. Ireland fought for 800 years to become "independent" from the UK parliament and sovereign, only to hand many of those law-making powers to Brussels and a directly un-removeable EU president. It's almost comical. Lying is okay sometimes yes, I just find the EU means quite disgusting.
BonnieSituation wrote: » What's wrong with the club? Do you miss wars? But you've no problem with an unelected monarch? Do we have an EU president? I missed that memo. What specific law making powers did we have over? Your posting is almost comical. But somehow we persist. You literally have no idea what the EU does or stands for.
schmittel wrote: » eskimohunt's summary of views is fairly obvious but also accurate IMO. In the run up to the referendum I think it would have been a perfectly reasonable position from an English voter to believe that Brexit would be worth considering - obviously one may disagree that it would be worth considering, what I am arguing is that I think it would have been a reasonable position to hold. i.e I don't believe that all Brexit voters are extreme right wing, thick racists. I think eskimo makes a fair point that the value of membership of SM is relatively higher for a small member state than a large one - like the UK. Because of this fact I think it easier to take that membership for granted for citizens of a country the size of the UK and thus focus too much on the restrictions the membership takes. i.e the grass is always greener on the other side syndrome. It is quite common for individuals, teams, companies, countries etc who have enjoyed some position of dominance or success to succumb to overconfidence, to believe their own hype as it were. To believe that they'd be doing the easiest trade deals in history for example. I can understand how a Brit voter might have lapped that up. Similiarly the House of Commons has a long and largely successful history of democratic government delivered by intelligent and capable politicians on the whole. I don't think it is unreasonable for a UK voter to have had confidence in their political class to have made a better fist of negotiating and managing an orderly exit from the EU than they have delivered to date. There are a few other reasons but basically the above is why I think, from a British (particularly English) voters point of view it is a perfectly reasonable vote for Joe Bloggs to make. Fast forward three years and I now think that any Brit voter would be mad to vote for Brexit given that the above all have been comprehensively debunked; that is the value of hindsight. But, and it is a big but, I still understand how there are very many people who voted leave, who still want to leave just to get the damn thing over and done with and try to move on from the division. I think that is a reasonable position. And if they want to try and heal that division, all sides need to recognise that it is possible to disagree with each other, but to change somebody's mind you first need to understand their position, to respect it as a reasonable position to hold. The division, bile and bullying even on this thread is at times ridiculous. I can't imagine what it must be like for those in the UK whose voices and votes actually count.
Strazdas wrote: » It's done entirely voluntarily of course but if you have to follow the rules, you have to follow the rules. I'm not sure what the Brexiteers even mean by 'sovereignty' anyway. If you get in a taxi, or take a flight or have surgery, you are no longer the master of your own destiny. To be complaining about having to follow rules as a member of a club (a club that you asked to join) sounds completely bonkers.
Deleted User wrote: » The Queen of England is universally supported in the UK at large, I think 85%+ in some recent poll. She has a ceremonial role, so why not support that position.
[Deleted User] wrote: » a) Wars were caused via a lack of democracy (see Germany, twice). The idea that, without the EU we'd be back in the trenches, is absolutely absurd. b) The Queen of England is universally supported in the UK at large, I think 85%+ in some recent poll. She has a ceremonial role, so why not support that position. c) I'm referring to the concept of an EU parliament, council, and president. That, and further centralisation is what I, and many others, object to.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That's the thing, the Brexiteers will get a taste of what 'sovereignty' means when they go for trade deals from very weak powerless position.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Though you quoted my post, I'm going to assume you're not accusing me of bullying or bile. I understand fully why many people voted Leave. They were lied to. They believed Farage and Johnson. Fast forward three years. Three years of debate and argument ad nauseam. Three years to inform oneself of the realities via those debates and arguments.
Deleted User wrote: » a) Wars were caused via a lack of democracy (see Germany, twice). The idea that, without the EU we'd be back in the trenches, is absolutely absurd. b) The Queen of England is universally supported in the UK at large, I think 85%+ in some recent poll. She has a ceremonial role, so why not support that position. c) I'm referring to the concept of an EU parliament, council, and president. That, and further centralisation is what I, and many others, object to.
Joe_ Public wrote: » The aptly named James BROKENshire, currently being picked up in little pieces off the newsnight studio floor, after a monstering from Emily Maitless. There's nothing in the Tom Watson thing, likely personal reasons and will be forgotten about by next week. The real story is the conservative party and the utter calamitous state of it and the chaos we're inevitably going to witness over the course of this campaign.
Headshot wrote: » He's basically built his career on lying and the Tories much like the Republicans with Trump (for the most part) accept it for what he is and constantly back him. I can never understand how some Tories like the likes of Amber Rudd even went into cabinet with him. Unfortunately the Tory moderates have all but vanished from the party and what's left is shadow of what the Tories were.
Strazdas wrote: » The UK political system is far more broken than that of the EU. Why aren't you campaigning for the end of FPTP, the break up of the austerity loving Tory party, the liars and spivs of the right wing press brought to heel at long last etc?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
