Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
I almost envy the lack of self-awareness that can lead you to think that's a coherent argument.

Dave
That's cute seeing as how I only echoed your own argument back at you to emphasize how ridiculous it is. Notice that I used the phrase, "If I were to stoop to using remainer arguments".
 
Why is "remain" a single choice? If I were to stoop to using remainer arguments, I would say, "We voted to remain - but we weren't clearly told exactly which parts of the EU we would remain in - so to fairly honor the will of the people, a large part of whom voted to leave, we should now leave at least some EU institutions."
Remain was not to alter the status quo.
Leave however seems to mean different things to different people and would alter the status quo
 
I suppose if remain had won the referendum by the same margin, you would have been happy to partly leave the EU so as to fairly treat the 48% that voted that way? No? Why not?

As to the rest of your post, the word you should be using is 'predictions', not 'evidence'. And it's predictions from groups whose predictions that we can check so far have been woeful.
That is impossibly naive as a view. My family is spread across Europe, but one resides in London. She wants to bail. Given her job is Student welfare, she tells me that there will be vacant roles and no staff. Of those three remaining, all of them are leaving the UK. Replacements cannot be found. When the remaining three leave, they will go to other university jobs in other EU27 countries.

One of my closest friends is a tenured university professor. He tells me that the UK is already an academic pariah.

Another sister lives in Germany and works as a professional translator for technical manuals. They are apparently rubbing their hands with glee at how much they can abuse the UK under WTO rules.

As for my own company? We are well advanced setting up to rip the UK. You chose it, you live with the consequence.
 
Well, from his original link, they do know where they want to get it from.

"Details of how the public will be required to pay through tax rises, and the proportion of the funding increases they will pay for, will not be spelled out until the budget, because of ongoing arguments involving the chancellor Philip Hammond, Hunt, and No 10."

What's a little more tax? At least we won't need to buy that expensive EU food. We can breed haggis and eat tripe and dripping.
Rats are a valuable source of nutrition.
 
The Remain position was a clear one - business as usual.

"Business as usual" included the slow but seemingly inexorable annexation of National power towards the EU itself. Given the stated intentions of the likes of J. C. Juncker to continue working towards a "Federal Europe", is that what you think the Remainers were all voting for?

Somehow I doubt it.
 
"Business as usual" included the slow but seemingly inexorable annexation of National power towards the EU itself. Given the stated intentions of the likes of J. C. Juncker to continue working towards a "Federal Europe", is that what you think the Remainers were all voting for?

Somehow I doubt it.

Wow. Apparently, you swallowed the propaganda.

Wake up.
 
Wow. Apparently, you swallowed the propaganda.

Wake up.

Interesting, so as well as being ill mannered to me, you're calling J.C Juncker a liar? Or do you think the EU will remain stuck at the halfway stage for ever?
 
I think the EU is a work in progress and I think the EU bureaucrats probably did overplay their hand and intruded too much on what the individual nations think of as their prerogative.
I think the EU should go back to the Common Market days, work to eliminate bad economic barriers, and provide a platform for European nations to work out their differences, and forget about evoliving into some kind of Central European GOvernment. That is simply not happening.
 
It isn't that I've been unable. It's that I've not bothered. I'm tired of the remainer tactic of asking for 'references' or 'proofs' of common English phrases and well-understood topics. If you don't understand a term you can look it up in a dictionary or use a search engine like anyone else.

Yours is a typical remainer argument. Arguing that wrong predictions were actually right. Square circles anyone?
I am asking you to link to a document which contains the claim you made. I don't need clarification of a word meaning I simply need you to evidence the claim you made. If I said the leave campaign promised all pay would double between the referendum and brexit you would want evidence.

The treasury prediction was not wrong, as you probably know. You are not stupid and you can read. The prediction was qualified. If the conditions for the prediction don't come off the prediction is not false.
If prior to the last election I said 'If labour win the the Election Corbyn will be PM' that is not a false prediction given Labour lost. However the fact that he still leads the Labour party strongly suggests he would have been PM if Labour had won.

This is not difficult. Really. Ask for help if you are struggling.
 
I think the EU is a work in progress and I think the EU bureaucrats probably did overplay their hand and intruded too much on what the individual nations think of as their prerogative.

Who are these "EU bureaucrats" and what did they do?
 
Ah yes, a government promise with no suggestion of where the money will come from barring vague claims of a "Brexit dividend".
:rolleyes:


Seriously, how stupid do people have to be to fall for recycling of the same lies?


Approximately as stupid as they were to fall for them to begin with. It isn't like the lies weren't perfectly transparent at the time, and all that was carefully explained to anyone willing to listen.

Much of politics depends on this sort of willful stupidity.
 
Will remainers ever admit they were wrong? Most of them aren't even prepared to admit that they lost.
Will Leavers ever admit that, after winning* they had no ******* clue what to do next?

*Oh look I appear to have admitted we lost.

If and when Brexit is allowed to happen, and proves successful, then I suppose some remainers might grudgingly admit they were wrong - but I suspect that most of them will still cling to the idea that things would have been even better if we'd remained.
Does it look like it is proving successful at the moment?
 
"Business as usual" included the slow but seemingly inexorable annexation of National power towards the EU itself. Given the stated intentions of the likes of J. C. Juncker to continue working towards a "Federal Europe", is that what you think the Remainers were all voting for?

Somehow I doubt it.

And then on to the confederation of planets.

TBH I don't see any problem with that. Most of civilised society has moved beyond tribalism. Nationalism is the next hurdle.
 
"Business as usual" included the slow but seemingly inexorable annexation of National power towards the EU itself. Given the stated intentions of the likes of J. C. Juncker to continue working towards a "Federal Europe", is that what you think the Remainers were all voting for?

Somehow I doubt it.
As a member of the EU, the UK had the power of veto over any movement towards a federal Europe. Of course, now we are leaving, we can’t stop it from happenening (not that I think it would anyway) and we will be wanting to rejoin at some point in the future once all the old people with their nostalgia for the bygone fifties when England [sic] was grate have died out.
 
In fifty years, I’ll be 102. My nephew (aged 14 at the time) - who was absolutely furious at the vote - will be 66. I wonder why Jacob Rees Mogg waited until now to reveal that little tidbit. Oh yes, it’’s because he is a lying ****.

In 50 years, it will be even more obvious as a disaster.

One of my colleagues describes this as "one of the biggest acts of collective self-harm in British history". I don't disagree.
 
In 50 years, it will be even more obvious as a disaster.

One of my colleagues describes this as "one of the biggest acts of collective self-harm in British history". I don't disagree.
“One of” implies there are other acts of collective self harm that are comparable. I can’t think of any off the top of my head - perhaps our decision to enter the First World War might be one.
 
“One of” implies there are other acts of collective self harm that are comparable. I can’t think of any off the top of my head - perhaps our decision to enter the First World War might be one.

Chris is, like me, an engineer and averse to making absolute statements that we can't back up.

I'd say that entering the First World War, probably was the right decision, but that it was prosecuted badly.
 
In fifty years, I’ll be 102. My nephew (aged 14 at the time) - who was absolutely furious at the vote - will be 66. I wonder why Jacob Rees Mogg waited until now to reveal that little tidbit. Oh yes, it’’s because he is a lying ****.
No doubt, the other half of the answer can be found in his investment portfolio.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom