EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Welcome Brexit!

---

If Brexit ends up being that bad, the EU will rejoice to swoop in and save the day with rapid re-integration.

Boris Johnson is the new PM, without having been elected by the British people.

It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people.

It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.

The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Boris Johnson as Prime Minister…

Boris Johnson could appease public indignation over that, and secure the democratic mandate he needs, by asking the public to vote at once on him, and on the implications of the no deal Brexit he wants. Let’s have an election without delay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Boris Johnson is the new PM, without having been elected by the British people.

It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people.

It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.

The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Boris Johnson as Prime Minister…

Boris Johnson could appease public indignation over that, and secure the democratic mandate he needs, by asking the public to vote at once on him, and on the implications of the no deal Brexit he wants. Let’s have an election without delay.

---

...It's normal. Most Prime Ministers pre-war were "not elected". Boris is not an elected President, demanding he get a personal mandate treats him like one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

...It's normal. Most Prime Ministers pre-war were "not elected". Boris is not an elected President, demanding he get a personal mandate treats him like one.

---

Hypocrisy is normal too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boris Johnson

It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Gordon Brown’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people.

It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.

The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Gordon Brown as Prime Minister…

Gordon Brown could appease public indignation over that, and secure the democratic mandate he needs, by asking the public to vote at once on him, on the new EU treaty, and on the implications of the devolutionary settlement. Let’s have an election without delay.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Boris Johnson is the new PM, without having been elected by the British people.

It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people.

It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.

The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Boris Johnson as Prime Minister…

Boris Johnson could appease public indignation over that, and secure the democratic mandate he needs, by asking the public to vote at once on him, and on the implications of the no deal Brexit he wants. Let’s have an election without delay.

---

Those aren't the laws of the land. They never have been. We didn't have an election when Tony Blair decided to take the country to war against Iraq. And that had protests of c. 2 million in London. The only one who can realistically sort this out is the Queen - who is more interested in keeping her family in power than rocking the boat.

To be clear - I think Boris is driven by rampant ambition bordering on narcissism. I wouldn't be surprised if he's got one eye on becoming the President of the USA in 2024.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Those aren't the laws of the land. They never have been. We didn't have an election when Tony Blair decided to take the country to war against Iraq. And that had protests of c. 2 million in London. The only one who can realistically sort this out is the Queen - who is more interested in keeping her family in power than rocking the boat.

To be clear - I think Boris is driven by rampant ambition bordering on narcissism. I wouldn't be surprised if he's got one eye on becoming the President of the USA in 2024.

~:smoking:

---

I was quoting Boris Johnson himself on Gordon Brown becoming PM in 2007. It's not illegal to be a hypocrite. It doesn't make Johnson any less of a hypocrite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I was quoting Boris Johnson himself on Gordon Brown becoming PM in 2007. It's not illegal to be a hypocrite. It doesn't make Johnson any less of a hypocrite.

---

Yes, I know. I've read it repeatedly over the last few days as suddenly many people need to point out that he's a power hungry hypocrite. Did the two drafts, one pro and one anti-EU not show that he's only interested in benefiting himself?

But yeah... politicians are self serving. Thanks for pointing that out...!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Boris Johnson is the new PM, without having been elected by the British people.

It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Boris Johnson’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people.

It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.

The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Boris Johnson as Prime Minister…

Boris Johnson could appease public indignation over that, and secure the democratic mandate he needs, by asking the public to vote at once on him, and on the implications of the no deal Brexit he wants. Let’s have an election without delay.

---

he has the mandate of te 2017 ge.

the arrogance!

i'm no fan of boris, but i am enormously encouraged by the appointment of cummings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i'm no fan of boris, but i am enormously encouraged by the appointment of cummings.

---

You mean the bloke who held Parliament in contempt? He's an example of how Brexiteers see the art of the possible to be what they can get away with. Whereas previously, in the era of moderate politics, people had some thought of consensus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

he has the mandate of te 2017 ge.

the arrogance!

---

What is the Tory majority from 2017, BTW?

can they command a majority in parliament?

if not, we can have another ge and he'll get one then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What is the Tory majority from 2017, BTW?

---

It doesn't work like that and you know it.

Stop validating Boris Johnson's ego.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

It doesn't work like that and you know it.

Stop validating Boris Johnson's ego.

---

Governments exist to pass laws. Laws are passed through Parliament with a majority of votes. Can Johnson command a majority to pass his desired laws?

If he can't, he'll call a general election and get one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

can they command a majority in parliament?

if not, we can have another ge and he'll get one then.

---

Are you looking forward to a Johnson majority?

Boris Johnson announced this morning that negotiations over Brexit would not continue until the Irish Backstop was removed from the discussions. Looks like DUP is punching more than their weight.

I know there is no hard and fast answer to this, only opinions. But I'm curious what the UK folks and the ROI folks think Arlene Foster is whispering in BoJo's ear right now? Is this simply putting the red line on the Province border and not in the Irish Sea? Or is this an attempt to undo Good Friday? Foster is a devoted Paisley disciple, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are you looking forward to a Johnson majority?

---

he is a middle of the road non ideological tory, employing cummings whose life goal is learning and high performance organisation's.

yes.

as an alternative to a corbynista government..... hell yes with bells on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Boris Johnson announced this morning that negotiations over Brexit would not continue until the Irish Backstop was removed from the discussions. Looks like DUP is punching more than their weight.

I know there is no hard and fast answer to this, only opinions. But I'm curious what the UK folks and the ROI folks think Arlene Foster is whispering in BoJo's ear right now? Is this simply putting the red line on the Province border and not in the Irish Sea? Or is this an attempt to undo Good Friday? Foster is a devoted Paisley disciple, correct?

---

Revd. Paisley was devoted to the Peace Process, strange as that may sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

he is a midddle of the road non ideoligical tory, empliying cummings whose life goal is learning and high performance organisation's.

yes.

as an alternative to a corbynista government..... hell yes with bells on!

---

Didn't you blame everyone but yourself for May's deal not passing? Johnson voted against on all three occasions.

your whining again. every response is always a tangent away from the reply you quote.
like you keep trying to catch me out with some clever logical ruse. failing, and moving on to lay the next 'trap' in the hope i will fall into it.
if you were dealing with a half wit it might work, but that is the level we're operating at here.

but to directly answer your next tangent:

yes he did. as did most of labour. now we're looking at a harder brexit than we were heading to with may's deal.
pleased with yourself?
i did my bit - made my compromise - and things are now moving in a direction i am comfortable with. i'm not sure why you're looking for outrage from me...

One notes that both the EU and many in the UK insist they will not support "No Deal" and yet they refuse to negotiate any substantive change to "the deal".

This raises the question of how, exactly, we are supposed to leave with a deal if "the deal" cannot be reintroduced to Parliament this session.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

One notes that both the EU and many in the UK insist they will not support "No Deal" and yet they refuse to negotiate any substantive change to "the deal".

This raises the question of how, exactly, we are supposed to leave with a deal if "the deal" cannot be reintroduced to Parliament this session.

---

When May set her red lines, the rules of the EU meant the deal she eventually got was the deal she was always going to get. Put data through a function, you can calculate the result that's going to come out. Why are you complaining about the result? If you don't like the result, start with different data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

When May set her red lines, the rules of the EU meant the deal she eventually got was the deal she was always going to get. Put data through a function, you can calculate the result that's going to come out. Why are you complaining about the result? If you don't like the result, start with different data.

---

Firstly, politics is not a science.

Secondly - that is not remotely my point.

At this stage there are only two options - Remain and No Deal?

So - why are both Britain and the EU continuing to demand the other move their position and why are pundits supporting this charade?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Firstly, politics is not a science.

Secondly - that is not remotely my point.

At this stage there are only two options - Remain and No Deal?

So - why are both Britain and the EU continuing to demand the other move their position and why are pundits supporting this charade?

---

The EU is rules based. If you want certain conditions, then in the main these are the options open. They published a map at the beginning detailing the conditions that a UK government may demand and what possible options there may be as a result of these conditions. May's deal fitted that map to a tee, as everyone paying attention could have predicted. Make certain demands, and you can have those but you'll rule out certain avenues.

The EU haven't demanded that the UK move their position. Quite the opposite. They've repeatedly said that the deal is the result of concluded negotiations which they entered into in good faith, and they'll keep up their end, and it's up to the UK to keep up theirs. There is no further movement. They've even disbanded the negotiation team. It's only the UK who's repeatedly demanded that the other side move their position.

If it does come down to Remain and No Deal, presumably you'd opt for No Deal, and blame the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The EU is rules based. If you want certain conditions, then in the main these are the options open. They published a map at the beginning detailing the conditions that a UK government may demand and what possible options there may be as a result of these conditions. May's deal fitted that map to a tee, as everyone paying attention could have predicted. Make certain demands, and you can have those but you'll rule out certain avenues.

The EU haven't demanded that the UK move their position. Quite the opposite. They've repeatedly said that the deal is the result of concluded negotiations which they entered into in good faith, and they'll keep up their end, and it's up to the UK to keep up theirs. There is no further movement. They've even disbanded the negotiation team. It's only the UK who's repeatedly demanded that the other side move their position.

If it does come down to Remain and No Deal, presumably you'd opt for No Deal, and blame the EU.

---

You're not listening.

The EU says it wants "the Deal" and the UK must "get on with" passing "the deal.

This is clearly not going to happen before October 31st - but the EU has refused further extensions.

So - why does the EU claim it wants a deal so badly and yet refuse to countenance further negotiation?

The truth is either that the EU does not particularly want a deal, it is not particularly concerned about a "hard border" in Northern Ireland, or that the EU does not understand the situation in the UK and believes we will buckle at the last possible second.

Then you have all those in Parliament who say they want "a Deal" but not "the Deal" despite the EU saying "there is only The Deal".

So, are both sides stupid, insane, dishonest, or all of the above?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

You're not listening.

The EU says it wants "the Deal" and the UK must "get on with" passing "the deal.

This is clearly not going to happen before October 31st - but the EU has refused further extensions.

So - why does the EU claim it wants a deal so badly and yet refuse to countenance further negotiation?

The truth is either that the EU does not particularly want a deal, it is not particularly concerned about a "hard border" in Northern Ireland, or that the EU does not understand the situation in the UK and believes we will buckle at the last possible second.

Then you have all those in Parliament who say they want "a Deal" but not "the Deal" despite the EU saying "there is only The Deal".

So, are both sides stupid, insane, dishonest, or all of the above?

---

This does not compute. The EU has said the negotiations are complete. The deal is the best the UK can have, given its own demands, and given the rules of the EU and treaties to which the UK is subject to (such as the GFA). Why do you equate the deal with further negotiation? The UK set its own rules, the EU has its own rules. The two were put together to find a position that satisfies both. May's deal is the result.

Also, why are you solely blaming the EU for the NI-RoI border? The issue is a bilateral agreement between the UK and the RoI. The EU guarantees it, but it's not just the EU that guarantees it, as the US has also (in the last week AFAIK) also guaranteed it. Yet you blame only the EU, not the US, not the UK. Again, it is not brinkmanship as you portray it. There are rules, and either the UK abides by these rules (the bilateral treaty between the UK and the RoI), or it can ignore those rules and take the hit to its international relations that being a rogue state that does not keep agreements involves.

When everything is at the instigation of the UK, and the EU is but one of a number of parties involved, why do Brexiteers still insist on blaming the EU and the EU only?

Attachment 22756


Literary Boris:

"Here, as always, Johnson claims the privileges of the clown while exercising the power of a politician."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

This raises the two central questions about Johnson—does he believe any of his own claims, and do his followers in turn believe him? In both cases, the answer is yes, but only in the highly qualified way that an actor inhabits his role and an audience knowingly accepts the pretense. Johnson’s appeal lies precisely in the creation of a comic persona that evades the distinction between reality and performance.

The Greek philosophers found akrasia mysterious—why would people knowingly do the wrong thing? But Johnson knows the answer: they do so, in England at least, because knowingness is essential to being included. You have to be “in on the joke”—and Johnson has shown just how far some English people will go in order not to look like they are not getting it. The anthropologist Kate Fox, in her classic study Watching the English, suggested that a crucial rule of the national discourse is what she called The Importance of Not Being Earnest: “At the most basic level, an underlying rule in all English conversation is the proscription of ‘earnestness.’” Johnson has played on this to perfection—he knows that millions of his compatriots would rather go along with his outrageous fabrications than be accused of the ultimate sin of taking things too seriously.

“Boris being Boris” (the phrase that has long been used to excuse him) is an act, a turn, a traveling show. Johnson’s father, Stanley, was fired from his job at the World Bank in 1968 when he submitted a satiric proposal for a $100 million loan to Egypt to build three new pyramids and a sphinx. But the son cultivated in England an audience more receptive to the half-comic, half-convincing notion that the EU might be just such an absurdist enterprise.

What he honed in his Brussels years is the practice of political journalism (and then of politics itself) as Monty Python sketch. He invented a version of the EU as a gigantic Ministry of Silly Walks, in which crazed bureaucrats with huge budgets develop ever more pointlessly complicated gaits. (In the original sketch, the British bureaucrats are trying to keep up with “Le Marché Commun,” the Common Market.) Johnson’s Brussels is a warren of bureaucratic redoubts in which lurk a Ministry of Dangerous Balloons, a Ministry of Tiny Condoms, and a Ministry of Flavorless Crisps. In this theater of the absurd, it never matters whether the stories are true; what matters is that they are ludicrous enough to fly under the radar of credibility and hit the sweet spot where preexisting prejudices are confirmed.

This running joke made Johnson not just highly popular as a comic anti-politician but, for many of his compatriots, the embodiment of that patriotic treasure, the English eccentric. There is a long tradition of embracing the eccentric (though in reality only the upper-class male eccentric) as proof of the English love of liberty and individualism in contrast to the supposed slavishness of the European continentals. No less a figure than John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty (1859) that “precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric.” Mill associated eccentricity with “strength of character,” but Johnson has been able to turn it upside down—his very weakness of character (the chaos, the fecklessness, the mendacity) provides for his admirers a patriotically heartening proof that the true English spirit has not yet been chewed up in the homogenizing maw of a humorless and excessively organized EU.

Here we must bear in mind that Johnson really did learn a great deal from his boyhood hero Churchill. What he emulated was not any kind of steadfastness or ability to lead but a self-conscious political theatricality. “He was,” writes Johnson in The Churchill Factor, “eccentric, over the top, camp, with his own special trademark clothes.” Johnson’s use of “camp” is an astute insight—he understands very well the strain of louchely histrionic Toryism that runs from Benjamin Disraeli through Churchill to the intellectual father of Brexit, Enoch Powell. Johnson, too, has “his own special trademark clothes,” albeit that he is the anti-dandy whose slovenly dishevelment is carefully cultivated as a sartorial brand.

Johnson, moreover, uses Churchill to lend his own cynicism and mendacity a paradoxical kind of gravity. In his book, he argues that the great wartime leader

wasn’t what people thought of as a man of principle; he was a glory-chasing goal-mouth-hanging opportunist…. As for his political career—my word, what a feast of bungling!… His enemies detected in him a titanic egotism, a desire to find whatever wave or wavelet he could, and surf it long after it had dissolved into spume on the beach…. Throughout his early career he was not just held to be untrustworthy—he was thought to be congenitally untrustworthy.

This is not just Boris in drag as Winston. It is intended to suggest a crazed logic. Churchill was an unprincipled opportunist, a serial bungler, and a congenitally untrustworthy egotist; therefore, only someone who has all of these qualities in abundance can become the new Churchill that conservative England craves. It is a mark of how far Britain has fallen that, in what may indeed be its biggest crisis since 1940, so many Tories are willing to suspend disbelief in Johnson’s pantomime caricature of the man who gave it the courage to “stand alone” in that dark hour. So what if he has the V for Victory sign the wrong way around?
[...]
In November 2016 he claimed that “Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a titanic success of it.” In this weirdly akratic moment of British history, most of those who support Johnson actually know very well that Brexit is the Titanic and that his evasive actions will be of no avail. But if the ship is going down anyway, why not have some fun with Boris on the upper deck? There is a fatalistic end-of-days pleasure in the idea of Boris doing his Churchill impressions while the iceberg looms ever closer. When things are too serious to be contemplated in sobriety, send in the clown.

---

I see the Irish are shitting themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I see the Irish are shitting themselves.

---

Are the Brexiteers here looking forward to no deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are the Brexiteers here looking forward to no deal?

---

I'll let you know when I see one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I see the Irish are shitting themselves.

---

They'll be fine. Being a Dependency of a large power is one exchanges sovereignty for protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are the Brexiteers here looking forward to no deal?

---

More resetting a large bone that has been broken for over 30 years. It'll hurt like hell but it isn't the doctor's fault who resets it, it s those who broke it in the first place.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

They'll be fine. Being a Dependency of a large power is one exchanges sovereignty for protection.



More resetting a large bone that has been broken for over 30 years. It'll hurt like hell but it isn't the doctor's fault who resets it, it s those who broke it in the first place.

~:smoking:

---

How was it broken? How does your analogy work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How was it broken? How does your analogy work?

---

Over the last 30 years or so - since the previous referendum - what the UK populace agreed to has morphed well past the tolerances that would have been expected at the time. Getting back to where we were is going to be difficult.

Would you prefer that the bone was incorrectly set in the first place?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Over the last 30 years or so - since the previous referendum - what the UK populace agreed to has morphed well past the tolerances that would have been expected at the time. Getting back to where we were is going to be difficult.

Would you prefer that the bone was incorrectly set in the first place?

~:smoking:

---

Couldn't the same be said about what Brexit means? Look at what Leave campaigners were promising at the time of the campaign, and compare with what they're promising now. Farage was promising Norway. Fox was promising the easiest trade deals ever. Others were promising single market benefits without the responsibilities. All of them were saying that the EU needed us more than we need them. Now we're looking at no deal. If you want to talk about changes in perceptions, there's been a greater change in what Brexit promises in a much shorter length of time.

Where is the broken bone? If EU membership is the broken bone because of changed perceptions, how would you describe Brexit?

This thread in a nutshell:

Pan: Do you still support Brexit?
Everyone: Yes
Pan: Why, it is going to give us X outcome.
Everyone: I dont see X outcome as bad.
Pan: Why?
Everyone: Here is an analogy.
Pan: No, that analogy actually means Brexit is bad!
Everyone: .......
Pan: Do you still support Brexit?

Every single week.

I'm not even commenting how good the analogies are and what they accurately apply to. Just seeing a pattern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This thread in a nutshell:

Pan: Do you still support Brexit?
Everyone: Yes
Pan: Why, it is going to give us X outcome.
Everyone: I dont see X outcome as bad.
Pan: Why?
Everyone: Here is an analogy.
Pan: No, that analogy actually means Brexit is bad!
Everyone: .......
Pan: Do you still support Brexit?

Every single week.

---

You've missed out one.

Pannonian: Are the Brexiteers going to take responsibility for the consequences of Brexit?
Brexiteers: It's the EU's fault.

You can see that on this very page, in PFH's posts. Arguably in rory's posts too, but PFH's posts fit the above to a tee. It's all the EU's fault. Never theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You've missed out one.

Pannonian: Are the Brexiteers going to take responsibility for the consequences of Brexit?
Brexiteers: It's the EU's fault.

You can see that on this very page, in PFH's posts. Arguably in rory's posts too, but PFH's posts fit the above to a tee. It's all the EU's fault. Never theirs.

---

No, I blame everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

No, I blame everyone.

---

Including remainers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Including remainers?

---

Yes, for facilitating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Yes, for facilitating.

---

Facilitating what?

What did Leave say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Facilitating what?

---

Passage of the Lisbon Treaty, without a Referendum, resulting in Brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Passage of the Lisbon Treaty, without a Referendum, resulting in Brexit.

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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?

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

---

Wasn't article 50 written by a Brit?

Edit: I've accepted we're going to go out on no deal. I just want Brexiteers to accept their responsibility for causing this, and accept responsibility for the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Wasn't article 50 written by a Brit?

Edit: I've accepted we're going to go out on no deal. I just want Brexiteers to accept their responsibility for causing this, and accept responsibility for the consequences.

---

Was it?

Do you think he voted Remain?

That would mean a Remainer was LITERALLY responsible for Brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Was it?

Do you think he voted Remain?

That would mean a Remainer was LITERALLY responsible for Brexit.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Was it?

Do you think he voted Remain?

That would mean a Remainer was LITERALLY responsible for Brexit.

---

So Leavers would bear no responsibility for voting for it despite knowing the rules and consequences?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So Leavers would bear no responsibility for voting for it despite knowing the rules and consequences?

---

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

Words such as friend and ally somehow fall short in describing the relationship between Britain and Canada. The ties that bind are so strong, the affinity between us so deep, that I prefer to think of our countries as different branches of the same family...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian

If you think that Britain is a good friend of Canada take a look at the map of our West coast.
We are lucky that we are not landlocked there. The fact that the American border of Alaska goes as far as Queen Charlotte Islands landlockingh half of BC is the doing of our British "friends".
The only country Britain ever cared for, was Britain.
We would do well to focus on our relationship with the EU which really matters, and treat Britain as the largely irrelevant country it has become.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian

Canada is friendly with almost every country, so that won't change. We will also be friendly with our trade partners in the EU, a much more important market for us. As well we look forward to warm relations to the independent Scotland and the Reunified Ireland.

The truth is England is smaller than it's ever been. That's not going to change. We'll remain friends, but it's not a growth market.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian

So Raab wants the colonies to bail them out again. What then? Lecture the world about how they stood alone (again) with out help?

You made your bed, you get to sleep in it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian

Trying to get closer to a small, declining country with major racist overtones should be a non starter. Our future would be better served if we focused on tying ourselves closer to the EU rather than the YUK. The British are small minded people and still believe they can tell the world what to do. The reality is they have become a laughing stock. I came to Canada some 43 years ago and I am a proud Canadian.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian

Well thanks for that Mr. Raab, but as a Canadian, do you know who I'd like to get closer to after Brexit? Me, I'd like to get a lot closer to Europe (including Scotland and the soon to be newly-reunited Ireland.) There is much more upside for us to strengthening that relationship than in working to help whatever remains of the self-destructive, deluded England of today, under the able management of crypto-fascists like Boris Johnson and yourself. So put me down as undecided on the merits of even accepting collect calls from the U.K, post-Brexit.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I can make jokes too:

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.

---

I love Jurgen the German, and Harry Enfield is great!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boris Johnson

Johnson told the Treasury select committee in March 2016: “Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard … to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed.”

Speaking at a Vote Leave event in March 2016, Johnson said: “I put it to you, all those who say that there would be barriers to trade with Europe if we were to do a Brexit, do you seriously believe that they would put up tariffs against UK produce of any kind, when they know how much they want to sell us their cake, their champagne, their cheese from France? It is totally and utterly absurd.”

In a Telegraph column published three days after the referendum result, Johnson said: “[We] who agreed with this majority verdict must accept that it was not entirely overwhelming.”

He sought to reassure remain voters that the UK would still have access to the single market: “EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU. British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down,” he said. “The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation.”

Johnson, then foreign secretary, told the House of Commons in July 2017: “There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal.”

---

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?

For crying out loud No Deal is Brexit. End of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

---

By taking to the barricades, do you mean will I be turning to the illegal, as Leave have done, to maintain my side of the argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

By taking to the barricades, do you mean will I be turning to the illegal, as Leave have done, to maintain my side of the argument?

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

---

I was tempted to swear.....

A deal was not on the referendum. It was a binary choice. Stay or leave.

It's not about money for the NHS or money at all. It's about our ability to sack the wazzocks who make the laws when we've had enough of them.

One thing the referendum has highlighted is how many anti-democrats inhabit these shores and shame on them. Things will never be the same again. The cats well and truly out of the bag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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:

---

Whilst we all know this is true it's worth pointing out that this "rules" based approach doesn't nessecitate the Backstop. The Backstop has now become a prerequisite to ANY deal when its sole justification is maintainance of the "spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement.

If the spirit of the GFA is co-operation then the EU is not presently upholding it because by refusing to even negotiate over a fresh deal they ensure no deal.

Key to Pan's argument is the idea that we are headed down a certain "track" but if we follow his argument and observe the behaviour of the EU we have to conclude that they always unacceptable Backstop is the signal point to leave the station and apparently always has been. This raises the question of who really wants "No Deal" because if the EU always planned to hang any deal on a Backstop Parliament was always going to reject then they presumably always knew we were going to end up here.

Now, this is not to say that some in the Leave campaign were not gunning for No Deal as well, but that does not absolve the EU of responsibility. Rather, it suggests a sort of bizzare Faustian pact between the two sides akin to the one between Evangelical Christians in the US and the Far Right in Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Whilst we all know this is true it's worth pointing out that this "rules" based approach doesn't nessecitate the Backstop. The Backstop has now become a prerequisite to ANY deal when its sole justification is maintainance of the "spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement.

If the spirit of the GFA is co-operation then the EU is not presently upholding it because by refusing to even negotiate over a fresh deal they ensure no deal.

Key to Pan's argument is the idea that we are headed down a certain "track" but if we follow his argument and observe the behaviour of the EU we have to conclude that they always unacceptable Backstop is the signal point to leave the station and apparently always has been. This raises the question of who really wants "No Deal" because if the EU always planned to hang any deal on a Backstop Parliament was always going to reject then they presumably always knew we were going to end up here.

Now, this is not to say that some in the Leave campaign were not gunning for No Deal as well, but that does not absolve the EU of responsibility. Rather, it suggests a sort of bizzare Faustian pact between the two sides akin to the one between Evangelical Christians in the US and the Far Right in Israel.

---

Wasn't the backstop May's idea? The EU's requirement is also the US's requirement, but I never see Brexiteers complain about the US for demanding the same, that the GFA be kept. The US has repeatedly said, the GFA must be kept, or the UK can forget about any agreement with the US. Yet you continue to blame the EU and the EU only. For something that was the UK's idea. Always the EU's fault. Never the UK's.

BTW, the ERG have said that they're going to block the WA, backstop or no backstop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I was tempted to swear.....

A deal was not on the referendum. It was a binary choice. Stay or leave.

It's not about money for the NHS or money at all. It's about our ability to sack the wazzocks who make the laws when we've had enough of them.

One thing the referendum has highlighted is how many anti-democrats inhabit these shores and shame on them. Things will never be the same again. The cats well and truly out of the bag.

---

Which level of representation in the EU's administration are you objecting to? MEPs are directly voted in by EU citizens like yourself in Euro elections, the last of which took place in May. Do they count as being able to be voted out? EU commissioners are appointed and not voted for, that is true, but they are appointed by the national governments, who are voted for by UK citizens in UK elections, the last of which took place in 2017. Do they count as being able to be voted out? Which of these do you decry as undemocratic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Which level of representation in the EU's administration are you objecting to? MEPs are directly voted in by EU citizens like yourself in Euro elections, the last of which took place in May. Do they count as being able to be voted out? EU commissioners are appointed and not voted for, that is true, but they are appointed by the national governments, who are voted for by UK citizens in UK elections, the last of which took place in 2017. Do they count as being able to be voted out? Which of these do you decry as undemocratic?

---

OK I get it. Trolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

OK I get it. Trolling.

---

How is it trolling? The current PM was decided on by the Tory membership, without any input from people who are not Tory members. Do you decry this as undemocratic?

The EU's administration is democratic on two levels. MEPs are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Commissioners are appointed by the national governments, who are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Or are you talking about the EU's civil service?

The current UK government does not have a majority. The head of that government changed last month, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. The cabinet of that UK government was chosen by the new PM, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. While that was going on, the country was kept running by the civil service, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry.

Brexiteer: "You're trolling."

My point to IA, PFH, rory and other Leavers: we're leaving without a deal on 31st October because of your decision. You won. We lost. Own the result and its consequences. What happens after 31st October is your responsibility. Stop trying to spread that responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How is it trolling? The current PM was decided on by the Tory membership, without any input from people who are not Tory members. Do you decry this as undemocratic?

The EU's administration is democratic on two levels. MEPs are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Commissioners are appointed by the national governments, who are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Or are you talking about the EU's civil service?

The current UK government does not have a majority. The head of that government changed last month, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. The cabinet of that UK government was chosen by the new PM, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. While that was going on, the country was kept running by the civil service, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry.

Brexiteer: "You're trolling."

---

Ironically you're trolling when you make a couple of unrelated statements and then end with "you're trolling".

When did the people who the EU "represents" have a choice whether they wanted the EU to exist? Every single referendum was a "no" and every time they changed the rules.

Did you have the problem with the UK PM changing previously in the same way? I can't recall this being an issue.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

My point to IA, PFH, rory and other Leavers: we're leaving without a deal on 31st October because of your decision. You won. We lost. Own the result and its consequences. What happens after 31st October is your responsibility. Stop trying to spread that responsibility.

---

As soon as you accept that to get to this point of leaving we've had to have 30 years of membership with increasing integration, the establishment of a bank, a currency and so on without asking the populace.

In short, I accept the consequences of fixing the system you allowed to form with no democratic mandate.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Wasn't the backstop May's idea? The EU's requirement is also the US's requirement, but I never see Brexiteers complain about the US for demanding the same, that the GFA be kept. The US has repeatedly said, the GFA must be kept, or the UK can forget about any agreement with the US. Yet you continue to blame the EU and the EU only. For something that was the UK's idea. Always the EU's fault. Never the UK's.

BTW, the ERG have said that they're going to block the WA, backstop or no backstop.

---

Prior to the All-UK backstop the EU wanted an Ireland-only one.

As regards the GFA agreement - the backstop is not required by the GFA. As I notes several pages ago, the GFA only prohibits "militarisation" of the border, not the border per se. True, it does not envisage the UK leaving the EU but that's hardly anyone's fault - the political situation hans changed - and the UK's leaving was ultimately inevitable.

On the other hand the GFA does require co-operation on the movement of people and livestock across the border. With the EU and Ireland no longer being willing to even discuss a deal that co-operation is set to end. Remember that the EU also offered a shorter extension than expected - to End of October rather than December.