Fair comment, but one reason I voted to leave was that I only want to do that once, with no extra layers of bureaucracy on top. Why do you think elections to the House of Commons consistently get far better turn out than elections to the European Parliament? So, while I could have phrased it better, I hope this clarifies that my complaint is not nonsense.
One answer to this is that people correctly believe that Westminster has a much bigger effect on their lives than the EU.
Listen, you say that you voted Brexit because you view the EU as a cumbersome, bureaucratic institution that you feel works to its own interests, I’ll nod and acknowledge there’s merit. Personally I’ll disagree that as a negative it outweighs the positives that the EU bring, but that’s the sort of issue people can reasonably disagree over and make their own choices.
It’s when people bring outright lies and bullshit to the topic that I get pissed off:
“80% of our legislation decided by a a committee of non-democrats?” Bullshit, as explained above.
“tarriff barrier designed to keep the produce of 3rd world countries out” More lies.
"We have thousands of EU nationals in our country committing the absolute most heinous crimes, and yet we are not allowed to deny them entry " More bullshit. The 2004 citizenship directive stated the free movement of people within the EU can be restricted on grounds of “public policy, public security or public health” and that serious offenders could be denied entry to Britain.
That’s when my piss begins to boil.
Oh yes there was.
Yeah, you can’t really say that Brexit must happen one way or another without admitting that a hard Brexit is the default.
So the vote, if meant to be hewed to no matter what, was a vote for a hard Brexit barring successful negotiation. If it was not meant to be binding if a good deal could not be had, then you can’t really fault people for wanting a second referendum.
Well, fair enough then - we have probably already reached the point where we politely agree to disagree. To be perfectly honest, I don’t remember whether the three examples you mention were points of contention during the actual referendum campaigning - my feeling is that those on the side of Remain have done a much better job of refuting things like this since the referendum than they did before it, but I accept it is possible that was not the case and I simply did not see or chose to ignore those points. What annoys me is the insinuation that all those who voted Leave were poor deluded racist idiots, so I’m pleased to see that you for one are not taking that line.
I will just say on the final bullet point that while I accept what you say as factual, no doubt there are (or at least, were) political reasons why the UK perhaps chose not to deport EU criminals - another (relatively small) price to pay for being part of the club.
Apologies to the OP for hijacking a perfectly good Pit thread into something approaching a sensible debate.
I think that is a logical inference, but the assumption behind it (“Brexit means Brexit”) can be questioned, given it was a non-binding referendum and the full consequences weren’t (and in many ways still aren’t) clear.
Again, I don’t think that’s what people were voting for. Some, maybe. However, I also don’t necessarily think that is good grounds for another referendum. What would another referendum solve? Either way, many millions of people will be dissatisfied. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
There is nothing to be assumed, when the assertions of the Brexiters heavily revolve around Xenophobic misrepresentations of the actual real laws and statistics as Kumquat has indeed cited here in this thread, it is very well founded that xexnophobia is an important component.
The further fact of the clear idiocy in the magical thinking about the very basics of the logistics and implementaiton of trade under the “WTO better than EU membership” discourse also is a clear factual support that a large number of the Brexiters are also the gullible idiots.
Nah, you don’t get to make that sort of claim without some basis. See, the reason it’s not been policed at all is very straightforward - we went cheap on border checks and policing. This is still the case:
"Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS union, which represents many of the Border Force’s 8,000 staff, expressed concern about the plan and accused the government of “making our borders weaker with the use of casual labour”. He said it was “risking this country’s security on the cheap”.
“In the last year, the Home Office have increased the use of agency staff, spending a staggering £25m last year to agency firms, a £5m increase on the previous year,” he said.
“Border Force are already using poorly trained seasonal workers at most ports and airports, not just at peak periods but throughout the year because of permanent staff cuts. The plans to use volunteer Border Force specials is a further move towards casualisation of the workforce.
“Government rhetoric has claimed that they are ‘strong and stable’. That is not the effect of their policies on this country.”
An inspection published earlier this year of 62 ports, wharves, marinas and jetties on the east coast that were normally unmanned found Border Force officers had not been to 27 of the sites during the 15 months from April 2015 to June 2016."
It’s fuck all to do with Europe. It’s everything to do with shit domestic government policy.
I totally disagree. The leave campaign was heavily run on the idea that we would be better off economically out of the EU, and that’s what many people voted for.
So if a politician ran for office on the platform of getting you a big raise and a nicer house, and he ended up not getting you either of that, but instead a repeated slapping on your balls, would you still support that politician as a matter of principle?
Oh poor you and your white man’s burden. The 2014 referendum “demonstrated” nothing of the sort (how could a binary vote do such a thing?), and nor do you have any evidence to back up your claims about the ‘benefits’ Scotland supposedly has in the UK.
I think you’ve confirmed that when Brexiters say “take back control”, they really main “exert control on other people”. And they’re too stupid to understand that as one of the larger members of the EU, the UK did actually have a lot of control over European and world trade. And now you fuckwits have thrown that all away.
For some, yes. It is the implication of “all” to which I strongly object.
I am only ‘angry’ at your refusal to accept that you are not in fact right about everything. Not only are you still wrong in relation to the matter you have linked to, you invented a strawman in relation to it and continue to attribute it to me. So I suggest you shut the fuck up about it, you insufferable turd.
That doesn’t exactly contradict my assertion that it was a political decision made by the UK government. However, I accept I am inferring possible reasons behind that decision that are not objectively provable, so I’m not going to take a stand on it - it’s virtually an irrelevance as far as I’m concerned, since I didn’t vote Leave for reasons to do with border control.
Yes, it’s fair to say the economics were (perhaps intentionally) oversimplified, maybe outright misrepresented. In that they focused almost exclusively on the fact the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget, with very little discussion that I recall on trading implications (well, I guess the assumption was that things would turn out OK. That still may or may not be the case). I know I am in the minority on this, but personally I would accept a significant economic hit as a price worth paying.
Well of course not, but I don’t feel that’s a close enough analogy to the current situation to make your point.
What? What on earth does the colour of one’s skin have to do with Scottish independence?
OK, I oversimplified. It demonstrated that on the whole (of those who voted), Scots felt they were better off remaining in the UK. Much in the same way that the EU referendum demonstrated that on the whole (of those who voted), Brits felt they were better off leaving the EU. Not having had a vote on the former matter (a point of some contention at the time), I didn’t pay close attention to the campaigns, but I believe economic security/convenience and defence were two key planks of the No side.
Not at all - I have very little interest in “controlling” Scotland, as I said earlier they are free to determine their own path. I personally think it would be a mistake on their part to leave the UK but I’m not concerned about it.
Perhaps my understanding of Kipling’s oeuvre is lacking to the point of incompetence, but I, for one, somehow caught the idea that, in his view, the “white man” portion of that phrase pertained exclusively to Englishmen, and that the phrase as a whole encompassed (to a greater or lesser extent) everyone who was not an Englishman.
Nothing, it’s just an expression that’s used when people wring their hands about peoples and territories that are supposedly a drain on a dominant territory’s resources (even when, for example, the first territory has hugely valuable natural resources).
We should ask the whole country. “Would you accept a significant economic hit in order to leave the EU?”
I wouldn’t. I want to be at the table, having a say in the laws and standards that we’re going to have to stick to anyway to trade into the EU.
False.
No, they would not have. And nukes against whom? We don’t generally try to destroy what we want for ourselves.
Yet you are unable actually to respond to the actual facts… so no in fact I am not wrong. You made a series of incorrect assertions about the actual regulatoin which you clearly never had really read.
The mocking of your stupidity about the English only internet is highlighting only your stupidity of the provincial non understanding you have.
It’s not too late to redeem yourself – call someone a poophead. Or bite your thumb.
I have anecdotally encountered plenty of people - my own father, even - who voted Leave expecting something like Norway, and are utterly furious that the likes of Quartz and casdave insist they actually support hard Brexit, whatever the consequences.
The polls are already clear that hard Brexit is not the will of the people, nor the will of Leave. Leave only won by two percentage points. If only 3% wanted Norway, then Brexit as proposed has no mandate.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk