Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Scotland is currently a member being removed against its will. They’ll be fast tracked back in it independent. Just a copy and paste of the existing rules their under. They’ve been told they’d be welcomed back in too.
briany wrote: » And before anyone else says it, no, Spain would not veto Scotland's application. That was something said by the Spanish Popular Party who are very much into Spanish unity. They're also not in government. Besides, Spain would have no basis to veto Scotland. The only reason they would have is that they cannot keep their own house in order, and that's not Scotland's problem. Therefore it would be no reason at all.
Deleted User wrote: » No, the "UK" voted to Leave. Saying Scotland is removed against its will is the same as choosing a random parliamentary constitutency, or even Cornwall, and saying they're being extracted from the EU against their will. It was a UK-wide vote, affecting the UK population as a whole. You can't, for purely politically expedient reasons, suddenly make the retrospective claim that the vote was dependent on a region-by-region basis. That's simply not how referenda work.
Strazdas wrote: » Scotland is not a mere "region" of the UK : it is an actual country with its own Parliament and legal system (and which has an automatic legal right to leave the UK if its population so desires, the same as NI). Legal experts have point out the three home nations should have had the power of veto over what England voted for.
GM228 wrote: » I said weeks ago this would happen:-https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_19_6286
briany wrote: » It's gas, isn't it? One of the Brexiteer complaints about the EU is that the UK is but one voice in the EU Parliament. On the other hand, they have no problem - no problem at all - with the face that England has by far the largest say in UK-wide votes. Ah, hypocrisy.
stefanovich wrote: » No. The difference is that Trump is supporting the outcome of a fair referendum while Tusk is dismissing it. Trump is supporting democracy. Tusk is dismissing it.
Deleted User wrote: » It was a UK-wide vote, affecting the UK population as a whole. You can't, for purely politically expedient reasons, suddenly make the retrospective claim that the vote was dependent on a region-by-region basis.
CelticRambler wrote: » Well, if you're going to be pedantic: it was a non-binding referendum and therefore not subject to the usual rules and regulations governing UK ballots, particuarly in regards to campaign spending. So on that basis, you should be arguing in favour of having the result annulled, rather than making retrospective claims about what basis the people voted on.
Leroy42 wrote: » So Eskimo, you accept Johnson is a liar to prefer him to Corbyn because JC doesn't lie so openly? Yet you detest Osbourne and Cameron precisely because they lied so openly, (without giving any evidence that they actually lied as opposed to making incorrect forecasts). And what the heck is this remain minus you keep mentioning? Surely if you despise the EU so much any sort of leave is a plus. How that anything be less than the unacceptable.
Deleted User wrote: » No, what I detest is this idea that somehow Corbyn is the antithesis of all-things false. He isn't. He is as just a power-seeker and liar as the rest of them. It's the inconsistency of pro-Corbyn supporters that seek to ignore his lies, whilst pointing the gun barrel at Johnson, that goes down my throat the wrong way.
CelticRambler wrote: » Well maybe you should tell your Glorious Leader to stop talking about him all the time, then? It doesn't bode well for Brexit if those who champion it - Johnson, as much as yourself - continually frame it as being "better than Corbyn" instead of offering any tangible, factual, honest proposals or explanations of their own.
[Deleted User] wrote: » No, what I detest is this idea that somehow Corbyn is the antithesis of all-things false. He isn't. He is as just a power-seeker and liar as the rest of them. It's the inconsistency of pro-Corbyn supporters that seek to ignore his lies, whilst pointing the gun barrel at Johnson, that goes down my throat the wrong way. Remain Minus = an arrangement with the EU that involves 'close alignment' with the SM, CU, and overall political structures of the European Union. It is that, versus outright Remain, that Corbyn and Labour are proposing to the public; an outright con.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Au contraire, the "non-binding" legal component is massively drowned out by the moral argument, which states that every leading major player indicated that the referendum result would be implemented. I can't think of one major player, on both sides of the argument, who claimed it was merely an "advisory" result and, even if Leave did win, it wouldn't be enacted automatically. Furthermore, the General Election of 2017 had parties - 80+% of whom stated that they would "respect the implement the referendum result". Let's not ignore that either, nor the mass support in parliament for invoking Article 50. Unless you can provide me with one example to the contrary, we must therefore assume that the referendum was held with complete intent, by all parties and independents, as I have already assumed. This "non-binding" argument only grew in strength once Remain had lost. Furthermore, had "Remain" won, what's to stop me arguing that it was a "non-binding" referendum and therefore a second version of same should be held? The answer: nothing at all. But I wouldn't have done that. I would have respected the original result. That's what differs my political consistency and legitimacy over those who play legal pedantics to overturn the democratic result of the 2016 referendum. Again, I provide consistency - whereas Remainers manufacture reasons to overturn the referendum result because they simply cannot accept that they lost. It really is as simple as that.
Deleted User wrote: » I don't believe that even if 200 million were on the bus (or let's go lower, 150 million a week), it would have swayed voters opinions any differently. For instance, those who voted to Leave based on democracy and immigration controls, are unlikely to be swayed by the bus figure - whether it's 150M or 250M or indeed 350M.
Leroy42 wrote: » So you accept that remain is not the worst option then? But surely that is better, by definition, than what you have now which is full integration? And therein lies the issue. It isn't remain minus, it leave but not the leave you want. So to claim that Labour isn't abiding by the ref result, when you have just stated that things will change, is nonsense. Based on your, rightful btw, abhorrence of liars, I assume you won't be voting or hoping that any of the Tories/Labour or Others get a majority. Why do you not hold Johnson and the Tories responsible for not delivering on their 2017 election promise to deliver Brexit? They had a working majority, yet 2 years later have completely failed. Yet Johnson seems to think that giving them more time and more MPs is the answer. The likes of JRM, IDS and Johnson have failed to deliver Brexit nobody else.
Deleted User wrote: » The Johnson Deal is manifestly the same as the May Deal in many respects. The "we need more time" argument is a cover for just excusing the need to provoke an unneeded extension. It's quite amazing how you attribute falsity to Johnson almost conclusively, but never apply the same scepticism to how Remainers operate in parliament.
fash wrote: » The "we need more time to read" was about the implementing legislation- granting all sorts of tyrannical powers to Johnson. It is a gigantic document deliberately withheld from parliament for months and only provided 2 days before the relevant vote.
Deleted User wrote: » Not so. "Leave" by any tangible definition means a departure from political integration from the European Union. At minimum, that's what it meant. Close alignment is the very opposite of this ambition. The idea that Leave voters voted for "close alignment with all EU political structures" is an absurdity that would trigger a myocardial infarction, even in those with no history of heart disease. Remain Minus, as proposed by Labour, is worse than remaining. But that's the whole purpose of it. The idea that Labour would renegotiate a deal better than what the UK currently has with the EU is absurd. The EU know that Labour, by and large, wish to remain, so why offer a better deal? This is part of the Labour con. They should not call it a "people's vote", if there is no credible vote to Leave. Yes, there are variations of Leave, but what Corbyn and Co. are proposing is not anything close to what even the most sceptical Remainer could possibly call Leave. It's Leave without the Rights, and no fool would vote for that - hence the duplicity of this proposed second referendum. As for why I do not hold Johnson responsible, it's quite simply because I believe Johnson has made an effort, but that this effort was wilfully obstructed by parliament who coordinated every parliamentary measure to ensure that Johnson broke his pledge to the British people. The British people know this, that's why Johnson continues to ride the popular wave in polls. Because of that, Remainers now start to question the validity of polls, the "fake news"-style nonsense that they attribute to President Trump. Quite ironic how that has turned out, incidentally.
fash wrote: » Who are you to define what is and what is not leave? Who are you to speak on behalf of and criticize the EEA/ Norway brexiters for your absurd form of brexit that is not the holy path of true brexit?
Deleted User wrote: » Quite convenient for the Benn Act to stipulate 19 October, when presumably the act's supporters already knew they wouldn't have time to peruse and pass the deal before the 31 October, right?
Deleted User wrote: » Before the referendum of 2016, what did you interpret Leave to mean?
fash wrote: » That literally makes no sense whatsoever: the 19th October was set because of the prorogation and to enough time to resolve a Johnson deliberate non compliance to submit the request - counting back from the 31st deadline.
Deleted User wrote: » Before the referendum of 2016, what did you interpret Leave to mean? This confusion of what Leave means only manifested post- the referendum result; hence the propaganda terms of Soft and Hard Brexit came into the common lexicon. Before then, no such terms existed. There's quite an obvious reason for that, as well as know - if we are honest enough to admit it.According to Cameron and his leaflet - the government of the time - Leave meant leaving the Customs Union and Single Market. It means a return of powers, moneys, and border control from Brussels to the United Kingdom. At minimum, it meant that - otherwise why have a referendum?
Deleted User wrote: » No, the date was stipulated such that, if Johnson didn't return to parliament with a deal, sufficient time was available to avoid a no deal and force Johnson to secure an extension Even though Johnson came back with a deal, an extension was foisted upon him. Many here have claimed that MPs wished to have more time to scrutinize the legislation. You can believe that if you choose..
looksee wrote: » Pages of utter delusion. Why is anyone still engaging? Edit, no not Volchitsa, I refer to the leaver with the convoluted and ambiguous arguments.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
