Yes, for facilitating.
Printable View
You what? Are you going to campaign for our exit from NATO and all the other extra-national organisations which we're currently a part of as well? NATO governs our spending, requiring us to spend 2% of our budget on defence. Which is outrageous, as we should be able to control our spending however we like. The UN, ECHR, ICJ and so on govern what we can and cannot do to human beings. Which is outrageous, as we should be allowed to torture people if that is the will of our people. The ITLOS governs maritime law. Which is outrageous, as we should be allowed to privateer as part of our sovereign rights. It is a proud part of our history, after all. Hell, maybe we should take up slavery again. We never had a referendum to ban that.
We are part of the above groups without having had referendums to confirm our membership. Are you going to be consistent and apply your argument across the board?
No. you've been told time and again why you are 180 degrees wrong to equate supranational socio-economic political governance and limited intergovernmental treaty organization.
You just go quiet, wait a few weeks before trotting out the same cobblers again.
No!
You do become very tiresome with the same old, tired, and wilfully incorrect statements.
NATO doesn't govern our spending. Hence why most members do not meet the 2% target.
The UK has a veto at the UN - and generally doesn't govern what anyone can do. Fun fact - although it covers almost all the countries in the world, it only recognises 6 languages. The EU has the overhead of 27.
Please drop the whataboutism - which in most cases isn't even factually accurate.
~:smoking:
Stop it, just stop it.
ACIN is right. This has gone from a thread talking about Brexit to a thread where we have to bat away the same arguments from you week after week.
I've given you at least five breakdowns of why the passage of the Lisbon Treaty was generally a bad thing but here's the nub - the Lisbon Treaty created the exit-limbo we are living in. Article 50 envisages a two-year withdrawal period and uses it as a stick to beat the withdrawing country with.
Meanwhile, the PM has been warned that up to 60 hard-line Brexitieers will vote down the deal even without the backstop. According to the Telegraph.
Yes, it was Lord Kerr.
There was an interview he did about it. Shot himself in the foot as Article 50 was a way to get dictators out of the EU and never expected a western democracy to go and do it themselves.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/110...-UK-latest/amp
What responsibility do you bear for tacitly approving of unneccessary and wholly toxic acts of political integration, without which this situation may never have arisen?
i.e. a labour government throwing away Major's opt out from the social chapter.
if you sat there thinking “im cool with that, we're all EUropeans now in Blair's cool britannia” without ever pausing to consider the poisonous effect on a polity skeptical of political union, then you too are culpable for the no vote.
It is the EU, not the UK, which has been refusing to negotiate since December when it became clear the Withdrawal Agreement would not pass. Throughout the negotiations the EU has treated the UK as an uncooperative EU member whilst describing us as a "Third Party" with the assumption that we will eventually fall into line for the good of the EU. Given that Britain voted to leave the EU this is patently absurd - Parliament must do what is in the interests of the British people as directed by those same people.
We had a referendum, the instruction was to leave the EU (by a greater margin than the referendum in which France agreed to the creation of the EU) ans so the Government and Parliament is trying to leave. however, the Backstop is obviously not in the British interest as it is and the EU will not compromise, so we cannot reach agreement.
This is a thing that sometimes happen, Pan, countries just don't reach agreement. Despite Myths to the contrary the EU is not a literal machine, it could bend but its political masters have instructed it not to. At this point that inflexibility has hardened the position of the governing party to the extent that No Deal is now almost the only foreseeable outcome.
Why is this?
I would say a failure of diplomacy on BOTH sides for which our Government is partly responsible.
Trying to read that responsibility back onto the voters, though, isn't really going to wash. We didn't direct the UK or the EU to have these negotiating positions, we didn't instruct parliament to vote down the deal or Theresa May to fail to construct a deal that could pass parliament.
Blaming Leave voters for this is like blaming Labour Voters for the Lisbon Treaty - given that you're a Labour voter and this all leads back to Lisbon this really does raise the question of how culpable you really are.
After Brexit, Canada and the UK will become even closer friends
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic Raab, Foreign Secretary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian
Who is this chippy Canuck?
I can make jokes too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doPR-6X9h7c
With apologies to Husar, this sketch is about 25 years old - it encapsulates the British fear of German hegemony over Europe - and also British paranoia that inside every German is a Gestapo Officer trying to get out.
Canadian exports by country: https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/exports-by-country
It's not a surprise to see that, overall, the rest of the EU represents a larger export market than the UK, but the UK itself is still Canada's third largest trade partner and accounts for roughly the same value in exports as the other major EU economies put together.
So does anyone think Boris is actually trying to negotiate with the EU at all or push the other agenda? From what I see a no-deal Brexit is his endgame and then he'll just try and crisis manage all the negative effects afterward.
The EU won't, never intended to and never will "negotiate". You say what you'll be prepared to do and they'll say the level of access that will purchase. Why on earth would they demonstrate that a country can keep the good bits of the EU and ditch the overheads?
The recent elections have shown that there is a large number of people that voted for the exit parties. By exiting, he can at a stroke defang both these parties, leaving all the opposition parties to fight over the remain votes - with our first past the post system perhaps he'll even get some seats because the opposition is split against him.
~:smoking:
it may even be the case that for the above scenario to work that TM needed to honestly and publicly seek a deal and to fail brutally in the trying.
Again, blaming the EU. The EU runs on rules. The rules were known before the referendum. Leave made a load of promises that were unachievable given these rules. After the result, the EU offered a number of solutions based on these rules depending on what the UK wanted to offer in return. Brexiteers are still demanding what is unachievable given these rules.
Leave has never wanted negotiation. It was clear shortly afterwards, when Leavers were making their modified demands (changing from moderate during the campaign to outrageous after), that Leavers only wanted to Leave on no deal and blame the EU for it. And so we see it play out. We're going to leave on no deal and Leavers are going to blame the EU for it. Leavers will never ever take responsibility for their own decision. It is always someone else's fault.
No, stating a fact. I never said they should negotiate and voted with the expectation of a no deal Brexit since, as I've repeatedly said, the EU is a political cartel and has to punish Leavers to stop others leaving.
You really only hear the voices echoing in your own head, don't you?
~:smoking:
Can you point me to where Leave campaigners promised no deal during the campaign?
What Vote Leave leaders really said about no-deal Brexit
If you justify no deal by saying that you voted in the expectation of no deal, despite no politician having promised no deal during the campaign, and only bringing about these expectations after the result, what else are you going to say you expected? What other changes to society are you going to say you voted in expectation of, despite there being no evidence of it being promised during the campaign?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Johnson
For crying out loud No Deal is Brexit. End of.
The campaigners said otherwise during the campaign. Show instances from the campaign where Leave campaigners said that Brexit means leaving with no deal. I've seen plenty of instances where they promised otherwise. Can you show any where they promised no deal?
Do you think that Brexit should be judged on whether or not the NHS gets an extra 350 million per week? Unlike no deal, this was something that the Leave campaign specifically promised.
This is a recurring theme for you throughout the thread. I hereby stipulate that pro "leave" politicos were mostly on a "paint a rosier picture than really likely because I don't really understand the nuances" all the way down through "lie through my teeth to get us out of the EU an hope that the dust settles without me being called to account" spectrum.
There will be no 'deal.' The UK will separate from the EU with all that that entails. Your leadership is hanging it's hat on that referendum that broke 52-48 against despite the pundits predicting the virtual opposite.
So, are you going to the barricades to preserve your membership in a larger Europe or not.
Please show which court has stated this is "illegal"? I read this banded around more and more by people but as far as I recall there's no evidence to back this up. The courts even stated that Boris's lies are not illegal.
By the way, your next move is to move to saying things are "immoral". Much more vague and you can continue to regurgitate the same worn statements.
~:smoking: