They are very obviously disastrous for the U.K., and may indeed provoke its final dissolution, which would be no bad thing, in my view. But the alternative being proposed is that Cameron shouldn't have backed anything at all. I don't think you in fact approve of that.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
Disagree. Not at all obvious.
Since the UK consists of four countries, two of which have voted otherwise than the other two, one of them has a government now contemplating suggesting to the people that they leave the UK and remain in the EU, while another one is faced with an impossible situation as regards its trade and border with its neighbour - a member of the EU - then I think the Union known as the UK is in serious trouble.
I think what you mean is that the Little Englanders have had the opportunity to give vent to their xenophobia, and nothing else matters; the rest of us can **** off. That tactic has certainly worked in the past, and it may work this time too, but I really don't believe that this sort of thing does the British Union much good, in the shorter or longer term.
Nope there was only one country voting to leave the EU and that was the UK. Many areas in the UK voted for remain in the referendum, but because this was a democratic referendum for UK citizens the leave side won.
Those who disagree with the majority used to call their majority opponents, 'racists'. It was a substitute for their inability to accept that they were on the losing side.
Lately they've moderated their insults a little and are now using the slightly less incendiary term, 'xenophobes'.
Maybe they'll eventually stop with the shouting of insults and begin to argue more rationally, or perhaps they'll educate themselves and realize how wrong they wrong they've been. We can live in hope.
Lately they've moderated their insults a little and are now using the slightly less incendiary term, 'xenophobes'.
Maybe they'll eventually stop with the shouting of insults and begin to argue more rationally, or perhaps they'll educate themselves and realize how wrong they wrong they've been. We can live in hope.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
The UK is a Union of countries. If you don't think that an event causing an increase in a desire for secession in one or more of these countries is damaging to that union, then I find your position impossible to understand. But fact I believe I've already defined your position in post #2743
I think what you mean is that the Little Englanders have had the opportunity to give vent to their xenophobia, and nothing else matters; the rest of us can **** off.
Now, the leave side won, in terms of the rules that applied to the referendum. Nobody denies that. What is being discussed is whether the referendum and its outcome were "good for the UK". Insofar as the UK is a Union of four countries, it was bad for the UK, because it has very clearly and evidently weakened the union. It may be that you don't care about that, and you may be right - the UK may survive this crisis; but the outcome of the referendum, even if it does survive, is not good. If I contract a disease, but survive, does that mean the disease was "good for me"?
I will call the Brexiteers racists, if you like. If that's an exaggeration, it's only a slight one. But I think the term xenophobes is more accurate. It is not a moderate, or any, insult, but a statement of fact. Your own posts make it clear that freedom of movement is the sole issue over which no compromise is possible. The rest of the stuff can be negotiated. But foreigners wandering about freely - No, No, No. as Maggie used to say.
Only the ones who voted Leave because of their hatred of foreigners. Those who voted based on all the false promises the Leave campaign made are more properly called 'suckers'.
Not less incendiary, just a recognition of the fact you hate all foreigners regardless of race, creed, or colour.
Are we wrong that you've made it clear your prepared to sacrifice anything to satisfy your xenophobia? And you've carefully avoided responding to any post that raised substantive issues.
The only viable response to that is:
Yes, that when May returns from Brussels with her tail between her legs Parliament will reject whatever scraps the EU have offered her and actually do their jobs.
Let's be clear those backbenchers who schemed for this referendum made damn sure to avoid any idea of a two stage referendum because they didn't believe for a moment the public would follow through once they were aware of the true costs to Brexit.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
I don't actually believe anyone in the corridors of power believed that the misinformation had been bought by quite so many people. I think they merrily expected a vote to remain in Europe, tight enough so they could continue their attempt to disrupt UK politics in a selfish attempt to further their ow careers.
I think the leave vote came as shock to them and now they haven't a clue what to do beyond the wonderfully viable 'have cake, eat it'
More like: "made bed, lie in it".
It was the remain side who scheduled the referendum. They were confident of a win and made it a single vote in/out choice - their intention was to lock us into the EU for at least another generation and silence their party Euro mavericks. The remain side would then continue to dip their self-serving snouts into the EU trough and ride the EU gravy train for the remainder of their corrupt careers.
Their massive hubris bought a well deserved kick in the teeth from the electorate.
If the result had gone the other way you can be sure that there would be no talk of second referendums or parliamentary approval - we would just have been locked in-in-in to ever closer union.
We've already seen the unravelling of remain lies about what would happen immediately following a leave vote - they predicted falling stock markets, increased unemployment, lower growth - all wrong.
Once we've actually triggered the leaving process we'll be able to observe the unravelling of their lying predictions about what will happen then.
Their massive hubris bought a well deserved kick in the teeth from the electorate.
If the result had gone the other way you can be sure that there would be no talk of second referendums or parliamentary approval - we would just have been locked in-in-in to ever closer union.
We've already seen the unravelling of remain lies about what would happen immediately following a leave vote - they predicted falling stock markets, increased unemployment, lower growth - all wrong.
Once we've actually triggered the leaving process we'll be able to observe the unravelling of their lying predictions about what will happen then.
You do realise we haven't left yet? Or even started the process of leaving?
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
"Their massive hubris bought a well deserved kick in the teeth from the electorate."
The electorate in the end has more to lose with a bad economic situation than any of the politician. So the kick in the teeth ? A lappalie for the politician. They won't go poor begging in the street.
In the end the hubris is not on the side of the politician. The hubris is on the leaver thinking they can do better on their own , in a world with increased gigantic economic blocks and big trade agreements. The hubris is leaving such a big block with an after taste of xenophobia, and thinking they will be better off.
The electorate in the end has more to lose with a bad economic situation than any of the politician. So the kick in the teeth ? A lappalie for the politician. They won't go poor begging in the street.
In the end the hubris is not on the side of the politician. The hubris is on the leaver thinking they can do better on their own , in a world with increased gigantic economic blocks and big trade agreements. The hubris is leaving such a big block with an after taste of xenophobia, and thinking they will be better off.
That's exactly why I said only the dire predictions of what would happen after a leave vote have been proved wrong. The remain campaign talked of devaluation, recession, increased taxes and other such rubbish that would immediately follow a leave vote - even before we actually left. Osborne threatened an emergency budget in the days after such a vote.
(Incidentally, Osborne has been named as the highest earning MP of 2016)
Because we've not begun the leaving process yet, the dire predictions for that have yet to be proved wrong.
Yet not all of those that you label "little Englanders" voted to leave, all you are demonstrating yet again is your anti-English bigotry.
The UK is member of the EU, the UK had a referendum open to UK citizens. None of the constituent parts of the UK had a separate referendum. I know you want a couple of new countries to be created but at the moment the only democratic way to address the UK's EU membership is at the level of the UK. Anything else would be meaningless which is why when the repeated falsehood that "Scotland" voted to stay is made I try to point out that it is a falsehood.
How many little Englanders voted to remain? I would not describe the pro-EU half of the English people as "little Englanders".The expression refers to a political standpoint, not to the English people in general, so it is anti-xenophobic, not anti-English.
Your argument is not against.the true observation that Scotland voted to stay. Your argument is that there is only one entity, the U.K., and that what parts of it do or think is of no moment. So if I say, Scotland voted to stay, you respond in effect: there is no Scotland, only a U.K.
I agree with you, that such is the reality. But what we are discussing is whether the referendum was "good for the UK". If the referendum revealed such differences, then it placed the union in danger or risk. It may very well survive, but running such risks isn't good for it. Ignoring a referendum on independence, for that is what the 1918 election in Ireland was, might have been fine for people willing to say, it was a U.K. Election, and Irish Nationalists didn't win it. They won Ireland, but that's not the UK, therefore so what? I don't think that was "good for the UK".
Giving people reasons to rethink their place in the union is clearly "not good for the UK". To you it doesn't matter because you give no thought to the union, only to the single polity; but that is a limited and mistaken view. It can no longer be sustained.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
No it was the Tories who scheduled the referendum. On the back of their own little englander issues.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
You have a new meaning of falsehood. True but I dont want to acknowledge it.very trumpian
- Status