BF2S Forums Where are all the whiny peaceful "Enlightened" European now?

Dilbert_X wrote:

There was never a prerequisite for a deal before Brexit, most people assumed that would come after.

Now we're talking about diplomatic contact.
What if I told you being part of the Eurozone is not a prerequisite for having diplomatic contact?

You and your kind are projecting so hard you have created an entire alternative reality for yourselves.

Of course there had to be diplomatic contact. There are outstanding budgetary issues which were decided upon long before the referendum, thousands of worldwide projects the UK is involved in under the EU flag (development aid, military & civilian missions, trade missions..) Home Office officials throughout all layers of the institution - we're not even talking about trade yet. All of these and millions of other aspects about the UK's institutional participation & obligations have to be decided on prior to the UK leaving the EU in order to facilitate an orderly and managed exit. Then there's other facets such as all EU subsidies and projects in the UK, the terms of access to the single market etc. Just pulling the plug from one day to the next has hugely destabilising effects. I shouldn't need to explain this

What you don't want to do is first exit without discussion and only then start talking about the terms of a future relationship. Why would that even be considered? It's a completely backwards way of working. The brexit referendum wasn't a carte blanche to deliver the most far reaching, extreme option on the table.

And that's not what has been happening in practice so far either. As you can see parliament still has a huge say in the process and half the country didn't vote leave. Democratic governance means that consensus needs to be found between both leavers and remainers. It's not a game of winner takes all, especially not when the poll results are as close as they were.

except the people leading the campaign explicitly said it wasn’t. your beloved farage has never won a single seat in the houses of parliament. who is living in cuckooland?

Last edited by uziq (2019-09-19 04:52:55)

Prior to the referendum most of the discussion I heard covered negotiating a deal after Brexit. There wasn't even the outline of a deal on the table when people voted.

Since then the narrative has been changed to making a deal a prerequisite for Brexit, which it never was.

But you're going to believe whatever you want to believe.

UKIP pushed for no deal from day one, do I have to pull up all the records from the time?

Parliament can't agree on anything, Labour can't even say what their position is.

Dilbert_X wrote:

UKIP pushed for no deal from day one, do I have to pull up all the records from the time?

Parliament can't agree on anything, Labour can't even say what their position is.

UKIP didn't win a single seat in parliament in 2 general elections. who cares what they campaigned on in their hard-line stance? it won no electoral support.

you keep talking about 'unignorable results', but the only thing you are referring to is the outcome of the european MEP elections ... which does not involve UK parliamentary politics, does not involve UK domestic policies, and does not command anywhere near the same influence and interest as general elections. labour and conservatives DID NOT EVEN STAGE A CAMPAIGN for the MEP elections -- the brexit party won away the majority of the vote because they were the only people making noise and whipping up enthusiasm about it. the other mainstream parties ducked it by default to focus their campaigning elsewhere, and didn't mobilise their base to go out to the polls.

quelle surprise! that the only party that commands interest in european MEP elections are the party that make it loud and clear that 'we're coming out'. why would anyone else rationally vote for a moderate, pro-european candidate in an election for which we have no future influence or participation? all those remainers, ignoring the brexit referendum result, eh!

Last edited by uziq (2019-09-22 02:10:16)

Dilbert_X wrote:

I was referring to Scottish Independence referendum, a pretty convincing rejection but the Scottish Leave campaign have been banging on about it and asking for another go ever since.

I guess they would have done great separated from Britain and outside the EU, the situation has changed now of course.

You can tell us why you think the Welsh voted to leave when it meant cutting their own throats.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 … t-research

“The Welsh did not want to quit the EU, but that is one of many false beliefs about Brexit. The biggest is that the pro-leave vote was due to northerners,” he said. “It’s true some northern areas were strongly pro-Brexit, but the population there is too small to swing the vote.

“The real support for Brexit, in terms of numbers of votes, was in places like Cornwall, which was 57% for leave, Hampshire with 54%, Essex with 62% and Norfolk with 57%. It is those southern English voters that are dragging Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland unwillingly out of Europe.

“Everyone blames Wigan and Stoke for Brexit but we should really be blaming Cornwall and Devon.”

let me guess: your uncles aren't natively welsh?

Polls nowadays are shit. They only call landlines and young people don't have landlines anymore. I don't even answer my landline anymore. It's only spam so I missed probably a lot of "polls".

Dilbert_X wrote:

My uncles are native Welsh.

But whoever you choose to blame Britain voted for it.
I said at the start it should have been a 2/3 majority but Parliament decided to make it 50:50, what can you do.
Latest polls still point to Brexit having popular support, there you go. You can argue against it forever.

our politicians and parliament are entirely right to be prudent and cautious. 52:48 is NOT 'carte blanche' for a hard-line, far-right brexit. it never was and it never will be despite how much glee you take out of watching 'der peeeehpul' shit in their own sty.

that’s a really bad analogy because hillary clinton actually ‘won’ in terms of majorities and trump was elected precisely because of proper electoral process.

the brexit vote ‘won’ the majority and has been bouncing around parliament without legal approval because of proper electoral process.

are you even following these events dilbert?

‘as there was nothing explicit the public voted for no deal y default’? W T F at the mother of all strange assumptions. surely a safer assumption would be that people automatically assumed their, you know, elected officials would take care of the details and proper leaving process? trashing all relations with our biggest trading partner and nearest neighbours does not seem like the ‘safe default assumption’. you are a crank.

your best argument seems to be a variation of, 'yes, i agree, brexit is going to do massive self-harm; but the people are ignorant of politics and didn't think about the practicalities of leaving at all, therefore we should honour their lack of forethought and leave in the most damaging and impractical way possible'. it's not very convincing.

Last edited by uziq (2019-09-23 03:07:04)

no, the people voted in a non-legally binding, advisory referendum. parliament has engaged in several years of parliamentary process to try and implement that decision. very few politicians in parliament are advocating to revoke article 50 (watch the lib dems crash and burn on that very hill...) and many people who were pro-european remainers have crossed the line – multiple times – to vote constructively for a deal.

your characterisation of parliament as 'ignoring the will of the people' is moronic. the only people who have consistently foiled parliament's best efforts to implement the referendum result are the HARD BREXITERS. need i say this again and again? it's not like there has been a united opposition of remainers who have consistently thwarted the 'will of the people'. the people who have tried to go against parliamentary process again and again are the far-right nut jobs who want to use 'the will of the people' to implement their own fringe and extreme interpretation of the referendum.

i'm sorry but the brexit party and nigel farage do not have a monopoly on the brexit issue. i'm sorry but a referendum, as momentous as it may be, does not over-ride the legal processes of parliament to which all politicians and parties must serve. we live in a representative democracy, not a populist dictatorship.

you can blame theresa may for that fuck-up, not a bunch of ‘pouting remainers’. the 48% have come far enough over the line to get things done.

once again, the ruling party called a general election and lost, and lost bigly. they had a majority of 3 by alliancing with a bunch of crackpots in northern ireland ... which they then continued to frustrate by going to brussels to negotiate an EXTREMELY sensitive border issue without consulting their northern irish partners. an immense fuckup.

very little of the parliamentary failures have been to do with remainers or people ignoring the result. can you stop going on about how parliament is ignoring the people? the only people who have been tying themselves in knots over the issue are the loony far-right who can’t decide which fairytale albion they want most.

best we focus on brexit, mate, you being puzzled over the laws of human attraction is something that i don't think we can fix in the rest of your lifetime. you haven't got it yet and you're probably not going to understand it any time soon.

you missed out the second part of the definition, too (boorish literalists like yourself surely struggle with polyvalence):

'... or in order to make oneself look sexually attractive.'

you do know what or means, right? that's an alternative purpose and definition. someone pouting out of anger is not ALSO trying to be sexually attractive.

it's a bit like a definition of crying:
to express sadness or happiness.

not BOTH at the same time, dilbert. jesus h. christ.