Another new Brexit thread

[blueinsa]

Remainers just like to use the word 'chlorinated' to scare the children

At least it’s chicken unlike the horse disguised as beef we all got to endure.

Serious question here how many people have died eating chlorinated chicken?

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Remainers just like to use the word 'chlorinated' to scare the children

 

[mcfc1632]

I voted Remain. I reckon that I'm fairly switched on when it comes to the EU and the economic situations of the modern world, but compared to nowadays I knew fuck all before the vote. The depth with which we've now understood how we fit into the EU and the wider European people is ten times over from what it was before the vote.

Totally agree with that.

But we voted to Leave. Democracy doesn't come with a star next to it and a Terms and Conditions Attached smallprint. The people have the choice to determine how they are governed and it's not up to you, me or the Government to tell them that they're wrong. That's the great thing about democracy - it's incredibly honest. We will live or die from our collective decisions and we will learn from the mistakes that we make and grow stronger from the correct ones. That's the only way for a society to progress; if most people think we should leave then we should leave. If we fuck it up then that's a lesson for future generations to take on board. Moddycoddling the population doesn't help anyone. We voted leave, so we leave and we see how it turns out. Might be brilliant, might be shit. But the choice will be ours either way, no blaming immigrants or Europe or anyone else here. Responsibility is the cornerstone of education.

Democracy is the greatest force for prosperity in human history and we shouldn't ignore it when we think it might be wrong.

Great post

I hope it caused a few - on both sides of the debate - to pause and take a look in the mirror

 

[Rascal]

Remainers just like to use the word 'chlorinated' to scare the children

Chlorinated scares me, because chickens I cant swim.

 

[mcfc1632]

'Shackled' ? ...... you need help mate.

??

Weird - that is exactly what an unfettered backstop would do

You need to wise up mate

 

[mcfc1632]

What a refreshing change to have a decent communicator at the helm, the alternative arrangements for the border are all perfectly reasonable and achievable given a decent transistional period and good will on both sides. I think the next move is for Boris to explain this to the public so that he can pin the blame on the EU if his plan is rejected, plus it buys some more time because a vote of no confidence in a PM whilst he’s so visibly trying to agree a deal would be a huge mistake imo. Boris has made an excellent start, expect to see a shift in the opinion polls coming soon.

Agreed,

I am catching up but have just made a post on a similar theme - how I think Boris will/should play it as he prepares for a GE. Him having a majority (that he can control) - is the only way this is going to be resolved with a genuine Leave outcome

 

[Rascal]

??

Weird - that is exactly what an unfettered backstop would do

You need to wise up mate

Serious question mate as I know you actually think things through.

If there is no hard border will that in your opinion mean there is still freedom of movement?

I think it is fair to say that immigration concerns played a significant part in the Pro- Brexit vote, assuming that, will the people who still want to come to this country just do so through the Republic rather than come across the channel. Surely it leaves the back door open to the UK and makes border controls in the UK a rather pointless exercise.

 

[mcfc1632]

You need to examine more carefully why potential solutions that already operate successfully elsewhere are being dismissed and by whom. Goodwill is the key.

Deliberate weaponising of the issue is the answer

The EU, using Varadkar as their mouthpiece, do not want there to be any recognition that things could be made to work if there was goodwill in a transition period

It was true in 2016 when it was stated that we will not see movement from the EU unless and until they are faced with the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it

Events are demonstrating that is absolutely true today

 

[mcfc1632]

The detail is in the AA Report linked and discussed as recently as yesterday evening on this thread. The whole point is that they will not be accepted by the EU/Irish Republic etc while they think the HoP Remain majority can still thwart the democratic decision of this country.
It's that obvious and it's also utterly despicable to exploit sectarian divisions and risk bloodshed for economic advantage.

That you need to repeat this is quite embarrassing for some

It is blindingly obvious - I would do the same if I was leading the decision making for the EU

The sycophants in the HoP do their work for them

The sycophants on here are resolute and selective of what facts they choose to ignore because they do not fit the narrative

 

[mcfc1632]

Exactly. If that is true, what's the problem with the backstop?

???? - disingenuous?

Because it will be left entirely to the EU, using their mouthpiece, to decide when things are just acceptable - there is goodwill needed.

The UK cannot leave the backstop without the EU's permission - no matter how well any arrangements might be working

The EU will just keep the UK locked and neutered in the backstop until they deem it is OK to release us - only a small part due to the genuine GFA concerns

 

[mcfc1632]

I cant speak for others but why would any 'remainer' support any part of a Brexit solution? In the main, we are not looking for the least worst outcome, remain in the EU is remain in the EU. If, as seems likely, we do exit this year, Remainers will continue to argue and campaign for membership of the EU because they believe its the best outcome for the UK. I would expect 'Leavers' to feel exactly the same should we remain. Your claim that remainers wish to damage the UK by 'supporting' the backstop is just plain wrong. I could say the same of those that support riding roughshod over the GFA.

I did not say that they 'wish' to damage the UK

I am saying that they 'choose' to risk/accept significant damage to the UK in their pursuit of 'Remaining'

I am absolutely correct - IMO

 

[mcfc1632]

ironic that a leaver would say this about remainers.

for you does ironic mean perceptive?

 

[Saddleworth2]

That you need to repeat this is quite embarrassing for some
It is blindingly obvious - I would do the same if I was leading the decision making for the EU

The sycophants in the HoP do their work for them

The sycophants on here are resolute and selective of what facts they choose to ignore because they do not fit the narrative

That you need to repeat this is quite embarrassing for some

It is blindingly obvious - I would do the same if I was leading the decision making for the EU

The sycophants in the HoP do their work for them

The sycophants on here are resolute and selective of what facts they choose to ignore because they do not fit the narrative

sycophants on here?
Are you sure you are using the right noun?

Sycophant;

1. a person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage.
   synonyms: toady, creep, crawler, fawner, flatterer, flunkey, truckler, groveller, doormat, lickspittle, kowtower, obsequious person, minion, hanger-on, leech, puppet, spaniel, Uriah Heep; Mo

 

[Saddleworth2]

I did not say that they 'wish' to damage the UK

I am saying that they 'choose' to risk/accept significant damage to the UK in their pursuit of 'Remaining'

I am absolutely correct - IMO

As am I. Imo.

 

[mcfc1632]

You mistake our intentions, we've been above board in all this so far, unlike the UK government.

I do not mistake the EU's intentions at all

 

[mcfc1632]

If you want full access to the single market, you obey the rules of the single market. That's not a straitjacket mate, that's just the world and the way it works. If you don't believe me, walk into your local tonight, refuse to pay for your drinks and take a piss on the bar.

You mistake the point I am making

I am not saying that the EU should allow us to flaunt rules

I am saying that the UK must not be stupid enough to sign up to an unfettered backstop - it is a disgusting contrivance and will be abused and used to secure other controls over the UK for many years to come

I was posting agreement with GH's view:

"There was never a time when the EU would agree to let us out, it's not in their interest. Their 'deal' is and has always been just a crash out after a two year delay for their own better preparation and economic realignment"

Except I was pointing out it will be a lot longer than 2 years

 

[Vic]

Well described

Another inconvenient truth - a blow to all the Billy big bollocks stuff we have been hearing

Yeah, Johnson is throwing his weight around.

 

[mcfc1632]

Richard Bertinet is a bald white bloke who was born in Brittany. How you've connected this to racism is totally beyond me.

Also, if you'd bothered to actually read around with the story rather than seeing an article then outraging you'll have seen that:

• Pre-settled status allows 5 years residence with which to make another application
• Bertinet later said after consulting with the Home Office, he failed the application because his wife incorrectly filled it in and will be refiling, this time without mistakes

But where's the fun in accuracy and stuff? Much better to invent racist motivations from a half-read story.

Oh - you're good

 

[cibaman]

Serious question mate as I know you actually think things through.

If there is no hard border will that in your opinion mean there is still freedom of movement?

I think it is fair to say that immigration concerns played a significant part in the Pro- Brexit vote, assuming that, will the people who still want to come to this country just do so through the Republic rather than come across the channel. Surely it leaves the back door open to the UK and makes border controls in the UK a rather pointless exercise.

To some extent I think the EU are using the GFA to claim the moral high ground over the Irish Border. Even if NI had been trouble free, a porous border undermines the integrity of the single market. I think they would still have insisted on a backstop pending the introduction of tight border controls or robust technology solutions

 

[mcfc1632]

Thought it fairly obvious but I´ll spell it out for you. A non Brit comes to the UK gets a good education, does well for himself fine. What I object to is his desire to close this route to other non Brits, such as EU citizens. It seems rather ironic.
Added to which as a capitalist, he has businesses in the EU, which highlights the fact that capital can travel across borders no problem but people can´t.
So nothing to do with the three things you mentioned.

Just to help me.....

From which country did he come?

What process was followed to allow his entry into the UK?

Re:

"What I object to is his desire to close this route to other non Brits, such as EU citizens..."

Is Brexit stopping people from that country and other countries coming to the UK so long as they follow the process? Is Brexit going to prevent EU citizens coming to the UK so long as they follow the processes to be established?

Going further - do you not realise that FOM is inherently discriminatory against immigration to the UK from outside the EU?

Do you think that you might need to reconsider your position on this topic?