General Brexit discussion thread

[Barry]

I know the type of democracy I want to be part of.

Do you want a wishy washy 3 way split, or would you prefer strong decisive government.

I know the one I'd prefer.

[Nick]

Yes brexit is the demonstration of the democracy of the EU. the uk as a member decides to leave and they do, the remaining eu does nothing to step in the way or prevent the democratic process.

Compare that to the UK, and how it treats its members, scotland being refused its democratic right to have a vote and NI being totally thrown under a bus.

I know the type of democracy I want to be part of.

Scotland had its "Once in a life time vote" and voted to remain. NI has made it clear they don't want a unified Ireland. What don't you understand?

[GerryT]

So what? What bit don't you get about the 'ELECTED' UK government having the authority to govern the 'people' as they see fit?? I am not claiming that the UK's participation in the EU, OR that the EU's actions are illegal - I am stating that the EU EXECUTIVE is UNDEMOCRATIC.

As I said earlier, you just don't get it!!  

Thanks again for illustrating that. Brexit is a clear example of DEMOCRACY....that just doesn't exist in the EU!! - and Brexit ILLUSTRATES the UK's democracy, NOT that of the EU - because EU governance has NO democratic element.

Yes brexit is the demonstration of the democracy of the EU. the uk as a member decides to leave and they do, the remaining eu does nothing to step in the way or prevent the democratic process.

Compare that to the UK, and how it treats its members, scotland being refused its democratic right to have a vote and NI being totally thrown under a bus.

I know the type of democracy I want to be part of.

[Stevlin]

Yes, but the same democratic processes you mention empower the elected governments to sign treaties, such as the EU treaties. This hasn't changed — the government is still empowered to sign treaties and if people don't like it they can vote in a party which will rescind the treaty. You talk about manifestos ....well...the British people could have voted for a party with leaving the EU in its manifesto at any time and had the EU Treaties ripped up.  In the end, there was a referendum and it was decided to leave the EU, which has now happened.



Your argument is now redundant — Brexit has proven that membership of the EU is subject to the democratic process.  The electorate of member states are free to vote for parties or referendum motions which will extricate their country from the EU.  Until they do, it is democratically legitimate for the government of a member state to continue adhering to the EU Treaties and accepting the rules and obligations to which they have volunteered to adhere.



So I am sorry to tell you — Brexit has destroyed your argument.



.

So what? What bit don't you get about the 'ELECTED' UK government having the authority to govern the 'people' as they see fit?? I am not claiming that the UK's participation in the EU, OR that the EU's actions are illegal - I am stating that the EU EXECUTIVE is UNDEMOCRATIC.

As I said earlier, you just don't get it!!  

Thanks again for illustrating that. Brexit is a clear example of DEMOCRACY....that just doesn't exist in the EU!! - and Brexit ILLUSTRATES the UK's democracy, NOT that of the EU - because EU governance has NO democratic element.

[Conchúr]

You just don't get it do you?!!

'DEMOCRACY' is NOT associated with individuals 'appointed' to govern, UNLESS those designating the appointees have been ELECTED to govern, because of a published manifesto of policies, proven most popular to the electorate, because of the governing policies which the electorate prefer. Additionally, the electorate choose to be governed by the policies espoused by THEIR elected government , for administering THEIR  supposedly SOVEREIGN state - not an unofficial grouping of individual sovereign states.



The UK, just like the other state members are being GOVERNED by an UNELECTED EXECUTIVE, which has been undemocratically empowered by a supranational entity! The EU is NOT a formal federation of states, it is merely just behaving like one!

Yes, but the same democratic processes you mention empower the elected governments to sign treaties, such as the EU treaties. This hasn't changed — the government is still empowered to sign treaties and if people don't like it they can vote in a party which will rescind the treaty. You talk about manifestos ....well...the British people could have voted for a party with leaving the EU in its manifesto at any time and had the EU Treaties ripped up.  In the end, there was a referendum and it was decided to leave the EU, which has now happened.



Your argument is now redundant — Brexit has proven that membership of the EU is subject to the democratic process.  The electorate of member states are free to vote for parties or referendum motions which will extricate their country from the EU.  Until they do, it is democratically legitimate for the government of a member state to continue adhering to the EU Treaties and accepting the rules and obligations to which they have volunteered to adhere.



So I am sorry to tell you — Brexit has destroyed your argument.



.

[Stevlin]

And I will say it again — QMV itself was created by a unanimous vote of all the member states.  In other words, all the States agreed to introduce it.  

You just don't get it do you?!!

'DEMOCRACY' is NOT associated with individuals 'appointed' to govern, UNLESS those designating the appointees have been ELECTED to govern, because of a published manifesto of policies, proven most popular to the electorate, because of the governing policies which the electorate prefer. Additionally, the electorate choose to be governed by the policies espoused by THEIR elected government , for administering THEIR  supposedly SOVEREIGN state - not an unofficial grouping of individual sovereign states.



The UK, just like the other state members are being GOVERNED by an UNELECTED EXECUTIVE, which has been undemocratically empowered by a supranational entity! The EU is NOT a formal federation of states, it is merely just behaving like one!

[Nick]

You certainly appear to have more time than sense for squarking on the forum  Thomas, but I would point out that I have never claimed that YOU are the sole poster/individual who exaggerates....but the fact that some sensible Brexiteers, just like yourself  also exaggerate, is not a valid  excuse for you to do it too.



Project Fear round two, just like round one is baseless.



Incidentally, yes I can read big words thank you - and, unlike yourself, I can generally spell them correctly too - but obviously, I am still prone to making mistakes just like anyone else.



Incidentally, wrt your out of date references posted on another topic, using somewhat 'old' statistics - on Scotland's revenue v spend, here is a more updated analysis for your consideration.

https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/">https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/

Well that clears that up.😂



Thomas you're thicker than a Gurkha's foreskin. Keep throwing your shit in the hope that some of it will stick but in really you just go back to shouting loud means you're right.



So the question is.



Britain (regarding the British isles) is a Roman word meaning England and part or Wales.

[Stevlin]

I exaggerate?

You certainly appear to have more time than sense for squarking on the forum  Thomas, but I would point out that I have never claimed that YOU are the sole poster/individual who exaggerates....but the fact that some sensible Brexiteers, just like yourself  also exaggerate, is not a valid  excuse for you to do it too.



Project Fear round two, just like round one is baseless.



Incidentally, yes I can read big words thank you - and, unlike yourself, I can generally spell them correctly too - but obviously, I am still prone to making mistakes just like anyone else.



Incidentally, wrt your out of date references posted on another topic, using somewhat 'old' statistics - on Scotland's revenue v spend, here is a more updated analysis for your consideration.

https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/">https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-and-spending-scotland/

[Thomas]

obviously the university of strathclyde have it all wrong and nick is of course completely correct.



 :roll:  ::

D143: Gwyr Y Gogledd - The Britons of Strathclyde



Archaeology



Using evidence from history and archaeology, learn through illustrated lectures that the Britons of Strathclyde had a more important role in the development of Early Mediaeval Scotland than is generally supposed. When the Romans left Britain, the Anglo-Saxons were in Germany, the Scots in Ireland and the Picts in the far north.  The inheritors of the Roman tradition were the native Britons who lived south of the Antonine Wall. Today the remnants of this British culture survive in Cornwall and Wales. These lectures challenge the view that the Britons of Strathclyde were a relatively minor offshoot of Celtic Britain.

[/b]



https://mycll.strath.ac.uk/View-Class/rdid/41/cr/1894?portalid=0">https://mycll.strath.ac.uk/View-Class/r ... portalid=0">https://mycll.strath.ac.uk/View-Class/rdid/41/cr/1894?portalid=0





I dont expect everyone to have an interest in history , far from it.



...but i really am beginning to wonder what they are teaching in schools these days , to not only not know the name of the country you live in ( England , which isnt and never has been exclusively known as britain) never mind its history is embarressing , on top of that , to make wild claims on the interwebby without at first checking what you are saying shows a lack of intelligence to me.



We all get things wrong , without a doubt , but to make major claim like glesga isnae part of britian because of some obscure websites historical claims which are contradictory on the very website itself ,  is unreal.



God help england if this is the type of lout driving brexit. The guy shoudnt be allowed near a keyboard never mind a ballot box.

[Thomas]

Be careful Thomas that he doesn't start correcting your grammar and spelling, his arguments make no sense, it's what he lowers himself to do.

Nick doesnt know his arse from his elbow.



He tells us glasgow wasnt in old britian , yet scottish school weans can tell you all about the old kingdom of strathclyde , peopled by a celtic folk who called themselves "britons".



The oldest literature in the welsh language comes from south east scotland in the 7 th century , when the "britons" of that area were composing poems about their battles with the anglo saxons incomers.



We have the famous "dumbarton" to the north west of greater glasgow , from the later scottish gaelic of dun breattan , the hill fort of the britons , the northern english repeatedly refer to the people between hadrians wall and the antonine wall in glasgow as the strathclyde welsh or britons.



We repeatedly have the area of southern scotland during and slightly post roman briton being refferred to as the old north of britain , yr hen ogledd , and the people residing in southern scotland as britons , till the scot conquered them and assimilated them into scotland in the tenth century , when the kingdom was reduced down to roughly modern lanarkshire.



The guy is all over the place in desperation. All because he read some shit off some dodgy website.



You would think someone  ( nick) who lives in north west england close to the scottish border and on the old scottish border near the river ribble would know better to come out with a load of auld guff about glasgow no being part of britain.





Then to spend time defending his ridiculous claim is unbelievable and shows how buttoned up the back he is.

[GerryT]

Be careful Thomas that he doesn't start correcting your grammar and spelling, his arguments make no sense, it's what he lowers himself to do.

[Thomas]

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GB-UK-BI-3.png">

Great Britain



Great Britain is the official collective name of of England, Scotland and Wales and their associated islands. It does not include Northern Ireland and therefore should never be used interchangeably with 'UK' – something you see all too often.



Here at Ordnance Survey, we're responsible for mapping Great Britain, which is why we don't make maps of Northern Ireland.

[/b]



https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2011/08/whats-the-difference-between-uk-britain-and-british-isles/">https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2 ... ish-isles/">https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2011/08/whats-the-difference-between-uk-britain-and-british-isles/



Nick you got the stupid idea that england and wales are collectively called "britain " from some dodgy site called project britian.



Within that site i  noticed some glaring inconsistencies itself. First they tell us ( project britain) that england and wales are collectively called britain , (while acknowledging the misuse and interchanging of britian great britian and england as wrong)based on the old roman province of brittannia ( which as a primary schoolkid could tell you doesnt correspond to modern england and wales , but then they acknowledge scotland was part of the roman empire , and not just southern scotland but the whole of scotland at one point? ::  :roll:

Romans conquer  Scotland

[/b]



http://projectbritain.com/history/romanbritain.html">http://projectbritain.com/history/romanbritain.html



so did the romans conquer part of scotland or not nick ,and if so does that not mean scotland , or part of it , according to your dodgy inconsistent website , including glesga , was part of the roman province of brittannia at one point??? :roll:  ::

[Thomas]

Britain, as the name is pronounced today, appears to be a Roman alteration of a Brythonic word which started with 'p'.



This has been retained today by the Welsh as Prydein (although southern Brythonic speakers may have used a 'b' themselves - the modern Cornish version is Breten).

[/b]



https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/PrehistoryBritain02.htm">https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/Features ... tain02.htm">https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/PrehistoryBritain02.htm

The name Britain originates from the Common Brittonic term *Pritanī and is one of the oldest known names for Great Britain, an island off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The terms Briton and British, similarly derived, refer to its inhabitants and, to varying extents, the smaller islands in the vicinity. "British Isles" is the only ancient name for these islands to survive in general usage.

[/b]

The classical writer, Ptolemy, referred to the larger island as great Britain (megale Bretannia) and to Ireland as little Britain (mikra Brettania) in his work, Almagest (147–148 AD

[/b]

After the Anglo-Saxon period, Britain was used as a historical term only. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany, which had been settled in the fifth and sixth centuries by Celtic migrants from the British Isles.[40] The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee". As noted above it was used again in 1604, when King James VI and I styled himself "King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland".



The term Great Britain later served to distinguish the large island of Britain from the French region of Brittany (in French Grande-Bretagne and Bretagne respectively).

[/b]

[Thomas]

This is the third time I will explain it. Maybe you'll understand it this time.





The name Britain derives from the Roman word Britannia,

No it doesnt. The name "britain " derives from the roman bastardisation of the p celtic name "prydain" , which was the name the p celtic( form of ancient welsh , cornish  , breton) called the whole island.

The second reason is due to the ego of a certain King James I, who wanted to make it abundantly clear that he wasn't just the king of the old Roman Britain (which only included England and some of Wales), but of the entire island; thus he referred to himself as King of Great Britain.

This theory is a bit nonsensical when you consider the entire island was being called "great britain" back in the days of the likes of geoffrey of monmouth in the 11th century , nearly 6 centuries before the monarchial union.



Ptolemy referred to "great britain" some 2000 years ago , and the term was first used officially by the english in the 15th century , , a century and a half before the union.



So the name great britain not only long predates scotland and england , but was in use at least 2000 years , thats 1400 years before james 6th used it .



So it seems abundantly clear it more likely the term was to distinguish these islands from brittany in france , but whatever you think , it certainly  was never ever to distinguish between roman britian   , which you try and define modern england and wales , and non roman britian , because as we explained a million times to you southern scotland for centuries on and off  was part of roman britian. Hence when you said glasgow wasnt in britian , not only is it in modern great britain , it was also in old roman britian  as evidence by the antonine wall running through the north of glasgow across the forth clyde isthmus.



 :roll:

Clearly you also don't understand as Barry has pointed out that I was merely beating the Remoaners with their own stick.

i understand perfectly you were making a cant of yourself yet again not for the first time , so stop hiding behind barrys skirt and man up and defend yourself.

Scotland had a turnout of 67% and voted to remain by 62%.

Thats 42% of the population so 58% of Scots didn't vote to remain in the EU. Capire?

capire? no comprendy?



So by your woefull maths above , then that logic means the uk didnt vote to leave the eu in 2016 by only voting 51.89 % on a 72.21 % turnout does it?



 ::

This kind of bollox is what we have had for almost 4 years so Connor and his muckers can have it back.

I have had my arguments with conor , barry  , gerry and many many others on this forum and off it. However very few of them are reduced down to the level of utter bullshit and complete ignorance of argument that you come out with.

[Conchúr]

This is the third time I will explain it. Maybe you'll understand it this time.





The name Britain derives from the Roman word Britannia, but there are two conflicting arguments about why the 'Great' was stuck on the front of it. The first is that it is used to distinguish Britain from its similar sounding, but much smaller French neighbour, Brittany. The second reason is due to the ego of a certain King James I, who wanted to make it abundantly clear that he wasn't just the king of the old Roman Britain (which only included England and some of Wales), but of the entire island; thus he referred to himself as King of Great Britain.



Clearly you also don't understand as Barry has pointed out that I was merely beating the Remoaners with their own stick.



Scotland had a turnout of 67% and voted to remain by 62%.

Thats 42% of the population so 58% of Scots didn't vote to remain in the EU. Capire?



This kind of bollox is what we have had for almost 4 years so Connor and his muckers can have it back.

Nick, I've never suggested in my life that the wider UK did not vote to leave.  You're throwing back an argument I never made. But there is no doubt that the issue is much more divisive at the wider UK level than it is solely at the Scottish level.  Whatever way you want to dress it up, a 52/48% split is far tighter than a 62/38% split.  It's not a question of the legitimacy of the numbers, but simply an objective reading of the numbers.



So whatever stick you're using to beat me with, it certainly isn't mine, and you've ended up not comparing like for like.