Joe_ Public wrote: » You are precisely hoping for a no deal brexit but at the same time hoping johnson can negotiate a free trade arrangement. Are you ever so slightly confused about how this process works?
liamtech wrote: » At the risk of seeming to personalize this debate, i wish to say that my view of eskimohunt is that of a Contrarian; Someone who seems to delight in taking an opposing view to the majority positionYesterday he argued repeatedly about dilution of culture due to mass immigration. When i pointed out that these views were in line with BNP manifesto policy, he refused to retract them. Never having actually addressed this issue, he moved on Today he has migrated to hoping that the conservative party win a massive majority and 'get Brexit done' Now he is teetering on the edge of favoring no deal Brexit, or, as he reminds us, 'Clean Break Brexit' ala Nigel Farage I think eskimohunt, simply likes arguing, a contrarian. Im happy to discuss as are others im sure, politiely and firmly, if he answers the questions, which I, and others have askedeskimohuntDo you favor a no-deal Brexit? and if so, Why? If arguing in favor of No-Deal, explain please how this is better than an orderly Brexit by way of a deal? And what could you explain, if anything, would you believe to be positive about such a no deal Brexit. for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland? What of the effect this will have on the Republic of Ireland, the GFA, and cross border trade? Do any of these issues concern you? Respectfully
fash wrote: » I would also note that he answers none of the questions I've asked.
Deleted User wrote: » So, when you disagree with someone, you go on the personal? ("minority" here, on the forum, not in the UK, as shown by 45%+ for the Johnson Deal). I think that's a bizarre way to have a productive dialogue. Regardless of your personal issue (and I hope you can resolve it soon), the answer to your first few questions are as follows:In terms of migration, I answered that question already - namely, that I won't retract my view and that I stand by it and I robustly defended it yesterday. Mod instructions were issued that we are not to discuss this issue further. That's the only reason I didn't proceed with that aspect of this discussion. Yes, I have always hoped for a Conservative majority; that's consistent throughout all my posts on this subject. I favour Boris Johnson's deal. If, however, the negotiations in the next phase do not go so well, I do hope that No Deal is put back on the table. Again, I've always espoused this view. Now, in terms of your bolded questions: Regarding favouring No Deal Brexit, see my answer above. I don't believe it's the most orderly, but it manifests as the purest form of Brexit. If the Johnson Deal and subsequent negotiations don't approximate toward a legitimate Brexit, then I would advocate a No Deal departure. Nobody is going to establish a hard border - Irish Government, EU, and Westminster have stated this; and I support that. True, there may be implications re: trade, but that's true also of the Johnson Deal with this border down the Irish Sea, effectively. I don't have time to comprehensive answer 8 questions put to me, so I answered them as tersely as possible above to sketch out my perspective. Of course, your view disagrees with mine - in fact, quite consistently so - but I'll refrain from referring to you as a contrarian.
Imreoir2 wrote: » By clean break Brexit, do you mean that the UK should also repudiate the Withdrawl Agreement it had previously ratified or would you expect the provisions of the Withdrawl Agreement to remain in force regardless of what happens in the next phase of talks on trade.
Deleted User wrote: » I think what's far more likely, and pragmatic, is that the Johnson Deal passes and an amicable settlement is arranged/compromised and suits both the UK and EU.
[Deleted User] wrote: » [*]I favour Boris Johnson's deal. If, however, the negotiations in the next phase do not go so well, I do hope that No Deal is put back on the table. Again, I've always espoused this view.
Imreoir2 wrote: » Indeed, though Brexiteers will probably not like it very much. But back to the question, do you think repudiation of the Withdrawl Agreement is part of the clean break brexit tou mentioned, or will the provisions of that agreement still stand regardless of the outcome of the trade talks?
Deleted User wrote: » Hardcore Brexiteers may not, but they're a minority. Conservative Party was on 35 percent or so, even when Farage declared that he would contest every seat. So, the vast majority of Brexiteers are willing to support the deal, get Brexit done, and move onto the next phase of negotiations. The deal is a fair compromise, and if the EU are satisfied with the deal, then so should Remainers too. It's the Remain side who refuses to budge, to compromise and to come together; as always, dragging things out til kingdom come.
Imreoir2 wrote: » Thats nice, but back to my question: do you think repudiation of the Withdrawl Agreement is part of the clean break brexit you mentioned, or should the provisions of that agreement still stand regardless of the outcome of the trade talks?
Deleted User wrote: » I'll determine my answer to that specific question depending on what transpires over the forthcoming 6 month period.
I don't believe it's the most orderly, but it manifests as the purest form of Brexit.
Nobody is going to establish a hard border - Irish Government, EU, and Westminster have stated this; and I support that.
True, there may be implications re: trade, but that's true also of the Johnson Deal with this border down the Irish Sea, effectively.
Deleted User wrote: » Nobody is going to establish a hard border - Irish Government, EU, and Westminster have stated this; and I support that.
liamtech wrote: » In terms of personalizing this debate, i went to great lengths to give my view as politely as i could. I did not denounce you in any derogatory way. A position of 'Contrarian' in any debate is often a useful one. I would remind you that the late great Christopher Hitchens was often referred to as a Contrarian, a term which he relished. While i find your position very damaging, and your views divisive, at no point did i specifically attack your right to speak your mind, as a contrarian, if you will. In terms of your position as such, I have not seen your views backed up with hard facts, figures or supporting evidence. Therefore i would ask you to consider doing so as the discussion continues. As to your views, prior to the mod warning yesterday, i spelled out in clear English the fact that your position on immigration, and the supposed link it has to 'damaging cultural integrity' (dilute was the word you use but the meaning was clear), i invited you to retract- you very clearly, in plain english, refused to do so. All i can say is that your views are fairly in line with hard right thinking on Immigration. Sadly as time moves on these views may well become a majority position within the UK Conservative party, as the Tory's move further right in their ideology. I dare say that is probably why you so readily support them Your views on dealing with the EU are again in line with Conservative thinking on dealing with negotiating Brexit. I would simply argue, as many have both here, and around the world, that a No Deal Brexit will damage Britain, Northern Ireland, and we in Ireland will suffer collateral damage. - referencing no deal How can you judge the purity of Brexit? Was Deal, No Deal, Soft, Medium, Hard et al, on the Ballot paper in 2016? While no one is talking about passport control on the border, it needs to be highlighted, as has been done many times, that the consequence of a No Deal Brexit would be an 'Economic Hard Border' around the six counties, which would severely damage industry and the Agri-Food sector on this island. No Deal means no agreement on how to proceed after an un-orderly exit Il save you the bother of calling me selfish when it comes to concern about the effect of brexit on Ireland as being more important on potential issues with regard to NI-GB trade - but we did not start this mess, and as a consequence we should not suffer from it. I regret that Unionism feels its under attack, but they did want Brexit - Non-essential Economic damage, caused by Brexit is just that - it is economic and industrial damage that need not have taken place with either a remain, or a softer Brexit As to not calling me a contrarian, i thought long and hard before posting my opinion of you and your views. I remained polite and have explained that whether one believes contrarian to be an insult depends entirely on ones point of view. therefore if you wish to refer to me as such, i welcome it respectfully
[Deleted User] wrote: » The last question you directly asked me was 5 pages ago and was on the topic of immigration. We've been instructed to avoid that subject as it may descend into a general topic on immigration, hence why I didn't answer that. Whilst you've made some comments on some of my previous replies, I fail to find one question, unless you'd like to fashion one now?
Deleted User wrote: » Between 13-62% of laws passed or applied to the UK between 1993 and 2014 derive from EU institutions. Even if we take a lower figure of, say, 25% (as it depends on what you include etc.), that is a staggeringly high figure (though I suspect a figure around 40-50% is more accurate) and it's indicative of how law-making powers are EU-derived. The exact % of laws is irrelevant to me. What matters is the principle; and in my political view, all laws, or at least as many as possible, should be made by the host country and not an ever-integrating political European Union. It creates distance between citizens and where those powers derive. For this fundamental reason, I would rather see the UK dismiss this form of centralised law-generating power, and instead, return that power to the UK - whole and entire - and, if I had my way, more powers would devolve to the component parts of the UK. Now many Remainers point the finger - which specific EU law are you unhappy with? Again, it's not about the content of the laws, it's about the principle from which they are developed.
CelticRambler wrote: » Give us three objective advantages of Brexit. No "opinion" or "belief" but objective, factual advantages. Bet you can't do it.
Deleted User wrote: » It's a fair question, and I arise to the challenge. 1 - I believe it's better to eliminate all controls of freedom of movement. I don't mean "reducing" freedom of movement, but "eliminating" freedom of movement. . I would rather see an immigration system controlled thoroughly - from migration both outside and inside the EU - developed before migrants decide where to go and settle. For example, according to free movement, an individual from Europe can decide to live in the UK and hope to secure a job; I would rather stop that from happening. So complete and utter control of borders is one advantage. This doesn't mean "anti-immigration", because immigration can and is a good thing, but the quality and quantity of people entering a country must be controlled. 2 - I believe it's better to have de-centralised power. In fact, the more decentralised, the better. Given the European Union is about a centralised power structure (not just of power, but of nation-states), with a parliament and a council and a president, and all the trappings of a State, it is the opposite of the type of political structure I would like to see. The more that power exists with the individual nation parliaments and filtered down through to local constituencies, the better. The more centralisation, the more corruption. Every successful communist and fascist arrangement will attest to that proposition. 3 - Culture. I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that culture is something we should value. The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes; it also makes it impossible for proper integration to exist. I for one am in favour of integration, but integration between communities can only exist if that integration happens with a reasonable number of people over a more reasonable given time. Otherwise, culture becomes diluted, destroyed and wrecked - with communities living side by side - all for the sake of meeting the needs of "diversity", which on the face of it, sounds inclusive, but by the end of it, destroys communities. And with the added complexity of Merkel's request that as many migrants from Africa and the Middle East should come, the problem as only amplified further. These are three benefits of Brexit. You may not agree with them, but they are reasonable positions to hold.
IAmTheReign wrote: » These are not facts, these are beliefs. Can you provide any factual advantages to leaving the EU?
lawred2 wrote: In essence - stop wasting your time. We all know there's no facts coming in return.
lawred2 wrote: » It's fairly obvious at this stage, 3 and a half years' later that, a few scheming disaster capitalists aside, this vote was not ever based on fact. It was based on feelings. Waste of time arguing with anyone who believes that their feelings trump reality. And you're not going to change their feelings either with your fact based assessment. I'd give up if I were you. It's clear you're not going to get an answer beyond vague intuitions that some unknown future state might prove better for some reason. People of a remain leaning have spent a lot of time and effort laying out more facts than should be necessary to convince any like minded person interested in fact based analysis. It hasn't worked. Fact and reason just aren't interesting. Remember - they've heard enough from experts. In essence - stop wasting your time. We all know there's no facts coming in return.
briany wrote: » Doesn't the deal on the table still have majorly-concerning clauses? The clause of no parliamentary vote on extending the deal would be a massive one.
Deleted User wrote: » I honestly can't see the European Union lasting in its existing form for the next 2 decades.
Zubeneschamali wrote: Almost as concerning for some sectors in Ireland - tariffs on food into the UK would be a big problem. But we still have a year to reduce exports to the UK.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Agreed, once the UK faffs off the EU will resume its move towards "ever closer union".
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
