Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[ceptimus]

Simply leaving not quite good enough for you? It has to be 'properly'? Please define 'properly', and show where that definition appeared in the referendum campaign.

If you don't understand what leaving means, as opposed to remaining, then I can't help you. There is a clue in the acronym BRINO.

 

[ceptimus]

Have you? Sorry but I don't recall - can you link to a post?

Nah, I'm not going trawling through the 8 prequels to this thread just for the sake of history. You can if you want to.

 

[Garrison]

If Ireland can live with it, the rest of the EU can probably, too.
But I don't trust Johnson not to renege on a deal as soon as he has a majority.

Foster is Northern Ireland, not the Republic. This may be nothing but theatre, agreeing to something they know won't get through Parliament. As long as you have the hard core No Deal types on the Tory backbenches the chances of any half reasonable deal getting through is zero.

 

[ceptimus]

SO you want one man rule instead?
Nice.

Wrong! It's amazing how you remainers consistently jump to the wrong conclusions.

I want MPs and others who are not liars or incompetents.

 

[ceptimus]

If Ireland can live with it, the rest of the EU can probably, too.
But I don't trust Johnson not to renege on a deal as soon as he has a majority.

In the long run, there's probably going to be a United Ireland anyway. I expect this to happen eventually, with or without Brexit. I've always believed that in the final analysis, it's a straightforward issue of geography.

I couldn't put a figure on how many years I mean by 'long run'. It could be a hundred years. I expect Brexit to shorten that period though, rather than lengthen it.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Wrong! It's amazing how you remainers consistently jump to the wrong conclusions.

I want MPs and others who are not liars or incompetents.

And yet you are happy with a PM who has been repeatedly shown to be both?

 

[3point14]

And yet you are happy with a PM who has been repeatedly shown to be both?

Weekly. In print. For money.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's more about the disadvantages of MPs and the government breaking their promises for me now. They promised that they would implement the result of the referendum - if they break that promise now by not leaving the EU then I think that will do lasting harm to our democracy.

Why do you think that "breaking their promises" is a threat to democracy when it comes to the fact of leaving the EU but not, for example, when it comes to the fact of not delivering an extra £350m a week to the NHS with the money saved by leaving the EU?

 

[Darat]

Nah, I'm not going trawling through the 8 prequels to this thread just for the sake of history. You can if you want to.

Then I hope you don't mind that I'll assume you didnt have any rational reasons.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Why do you think that "breaking their promises" is a threat to democracy when it comes to the fact of leaving the EU but not, for example, when it comes to the fact of not delivering an extra £350m a week to the NHS with the money saved by leaving the EU?

We were also promised the easiest deal in history and all the benefits of membership

 

[ceptimus]

And yet you are happy with a PM who has been repeatedly shown to be both?

Not happy at all. Boris is better than May, though that's not saying much. May was also shown to be a liar - she repeatedly claimed we would leave on March 29th, and that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' although her real belief was that 'no deal is not acceptable under any circumstances.'

There are very few politicians now who aren't obvious liars and hypocrites. Politics is in a sad state.

 

[ceptimus]

Then I hope you don't mind that I'll assume you didnt have any rational reasons.

Can't you read? Just because you have a poor memory, and expect me to do a lot of unnecessary work to aid your memory it doesn't alter the fact that I posted my reasons, which were perfectly rational in my opinion. If I were to do the work you'd most likely forget my reasons again.

Is this a new debating tactic on a supposedly critical thinking forum? "I've forgotten what you wrote some months ago, so rather than bother to refresh my memory, I'm going to assume that what you wrote was irrational." Have things really sunk that low?

 

[Garrison]

We were also promised the easiest deal in history and all the benefits of membership

By many of the same people now in government and yet those promises are apparently immaterial.

 

[catsmate]

On the matter of future trade deals can't say the recent fracas with the NBA and Blizzard give me a great deal of confidence when it comes to a deal with China, I mean the NBA has far more leverage with China than the UK...

And the Dunn case demonstrates how little the Trump regime thinks of BoJo's Britain.

 

[catsmate]

Nah, I'm not going trawling through the 8 prequels to this thread just for the sake of history. You can if you want to.

 

[Darat]

Can't you read? Just because you have a poor memory, and expect me to do a lot of unnecessary work to aid your memory it doesn't alter the fact that I posted my reasons, which were perfectly rational in my opinion. If I were to do the work you'd most likely forget my reasons again.

Is this a new debating tactic on a supposedly critical thinking forum? "I've forgotten what you wrote some months ago, so rather than bother to refresh my memory, I'm going to assume that what you wrote was irrational." Have things really sunk that low?

Some confusion, I recall some of the irrational "reasons" you gave, it was the rational ones that I can't recall you making. And since you obviously have the time and means to either link to such past posts or retype the rational reasons but you won't I'm going to have to go by what you have previously posted which were irrational reasons.

 

[Agatha]

I've split the posts about the mechanics of posting and quoting to the forum help section here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=339584

Posted By: Agatha

 

[Information Analyst]

They weren't certain of course, but it looked like they had the numbers.

Which would have been academic if it were not for Leavers being so spectacularly unable to get their act together.

Also, they had the speaker on their side - by the unwritten constitution, the speaker is supposed to act as an impartial umpire, but Bercow is far from impartial.

Your own bias seems to be making you confuse impartiality with bias.

 

[Information Analyst]

It's more about the disadvantages of MPs and the government breaking their promises for me now. They promised that they would implement the result of the referendum - if they break that promise now by not leaving the EU then I think that will do lasting harm to our democracy.

And by leaving, I mean leaving soon. They've already broken their promises at least once (we were told many times we would leave on May 29th). For the last few months we've been told repeatedly that we'll leave on October 31st.

Broken promises? You really should do stand-up.

 

[Samson]

Interesting how this is developing.
The betting shops now have extension 14 times more likely than leave with a deal, and 30 times more likely than leave with no deal.

The corollary to extension is a referendum with remain or set conditions to leave, and remain will win in a canter.

That is how I see it. I am very happy for everyone here except ceptimus it seems, but ceptimus is a vital contributor nevertheless.