General Brexit discussion thread

[Thomas]

I would also fear that as soon as there is a yes vote it will go the same as Brexit with those who voted yes gloating and clamouring "why haven't we left the UK yet", leading to things being done too quickly and chaos will ensue.

Dont talk more of your rubbish javert.



Anyone with an ounce of sense could see what has held your country in the eu over these past four years undemocratically is nothing like the transition period scotland would have went through post 2014.



Scotland had and has a government in power fully commited to scotland leaving the uk with plans in place as far as they are able outwith negotitations , meanwhile england didnt post 2016.



While the scot government was producing the white paper giving a detailed account of what it was trying to achieve , the uk government under cameron was producing project fear which even remainers like alec slamond told them to calm down with thier lies.



Cameron then ran away after he lost the 2016 referendum , despite promising to enact the result either way lead to chaos and utter confusion in the uk governement ranks which led to us all having the lamentable theresa may , a remainer , being foistd on the uk public totally out of her depth , who proceeded to trigger article 50 , hold an election which she then lost , and her majority , and let  77% remainer parliament take control of blocking brexit and the will of the english people.



Even the most commited unionist would find it hard to argue similar would have occurred in scotland  under alec slamond and the snp government.



Scotland would have been out the uk by 2016 , and although many issues may have remained unresolved , its hard to imagine anithing like the current chaos the uk is going through.



point out to you what i have said before , you can talk scottish indy down all you want but i remind you of two pertinent points.



1. you wont have a say as you havent a vote.



2. if we remain and lose again , i whole heartedly suppoprt brexit as the democratic will of the people. Scotland will then have for a second time given england permission to do as they please with us if we vote to remain again , so brexit must be enacted.



 :hattip

[Sheepy]

When a criminal lies,it is called breaking the law,they get sent to jail,when a politician lies,it is called politics and they get paid to do it.

[Thomas]

Ah yes, the ever mature and level-headed Thomas calls my post a pile of urine. Very articulate.



Well....all I can say is — at least the colour of a pile of urine tends to be consistent, which is more than I can say for the rationale of your posts on this topic.

 ::



Ah yes the ever mature and level headed conor , posting in his disguise as an irishman apparently in dublin , apparently originally from the north , where he was chased out by those nasty loyalists who used to call him a taig and throw bottles at him while spitting at the poor wee soul , now spends his life on uk forums bleating for england to stay in the eu.



My position as a democrat is light years above you , my political stance is consistently light years ahead of you , while at least i have the honesty and integrity to post under my real name as a scot and a scottish indy supporter to argue my politics in a consistent and logical manner without having to hide behind some plastic paddy sock puppet determined to keep england in the eu for some strange unknown reason .



As someone who is steeped in irish history politics and knowledge , who has family in ireland , regularly visits and is a member of many irish political groups and forums , yours as i have told you before is the most entirely non irish anglo viewpoint of anyone i have met or heard of on the island of ireland.



Not one of your inconsistent arguments bears any scrutiny.

[Sheepy]

You see in the mind of thomas,if you get rid of the English all his problems will be over and life will be all milk and honey.Scotland will be free and given the EU's generosity all be be chocolates and rosesJust like a first date.

[Thomas]

The argument "the referendum must be implemented" and "the will of the XXX people" (scotland voted by a bigger margin to remain than England did to leave) will be used as a reason against indy ref2.

Perhaps you can clarify your point , as i dont uderstand.



The 2014 referndum result was implemeted , scotland has been in the uk for 5 years now post referendum. Democracy has been satisfied.



meanwhile england voted to leave in 2016 , yet has been forced to remain in the eu anti democratically these past nigh on 4 years , democracy hasnt been satisfied.



So im not sure where you are conflating the two issues where scotland , despite satisfying democracy , cannot have another referendum whereas in england , the referendum hasnt been implemented 4 years on yet anti democrats like you are bleating for a re run as you dont like the result because you lost.

A) No deal brexit, economic damage to both, union spits and then both Scot and England (&Wales) scramble to get back into EU. Even with a willing EU, the return route for Scotland will not be instant.

No ?



Thats not what head people in the eu are telling us.....



https://indyposterboy.scot/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/verhofstadt_simple_fact-600x432.jpg">



and a view from germany...



https://indyposterboy.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/gunther_krichbaum-600x432.jpg">



The route may very well not be instant which i doubt , but it will be worth it to get out of your union.

B) remain (prob after 2 ref), then indy ref2 (using 2ref as precedent) and a dissolving of the union with both Scotland and England as EU members.

No thank you. The democratic will of the english people as expressed in 2016 must be implemented.



As a democrat , i cannot take the view folk in england must respect a future scottish indy referendum yes vote while disrespecting theirs.

It seems (as a non Scot) that the smoothest route to an independent Scotland lies via route B.

Scottish independence will happen . Brexit has merely opened the latest door to it ,but while scotland remains in the uk , brexit must happen to satisfy democracy.



You have no support from me beelbeeb in your anti democratic stance , and knocking on doors in scotland , you have none here either.

[Thomas]

Rubbish. If the referendum had been fair I'd accept the result whatever it was.

I have been posting on political forums almost as long as the interwebby has existed.



In that time , i have spoken to people from many countries , on many forums  , and the one thing people across the western world if not the entire planet agree on is democracy isnt fair at times , and could be greatly improved on.



In the uk , we had the farce of the scottish devolution referendum of 1979 , where due to robin cooks stitch up which meant in effect the yes side could never have won , a 52% majority was overturned in favour of yes.



I dont see english remainers calling for a re run of this.



We had tony blair win a 66 seat majority in the 2005 general election on less than a quarter of the elctorate on a poor turnout , where the tories won 72 000 votes more than labour  , yet labour won a landslide victory.



I dont see english remainers calling for a re run of this.



Outside the uk , we had trump in the states win less votes than the despicable hilary clinton , but their system like ours being unfair gave trump the victory.



So political history in many countries is riddles with results that are unfair  , including the uk multi national state , yet people had to accept the result and move on.



Time you accepted democracy , warts and all  , too ,and moved on .

Wat? Your position is insanely contradictory.

Theres nothing contradictory about my position.Of the two of us , im the democrat not you.



I agree you should have another referendum , but only once due process has been followed .



That process is what we all knew before we voted in 2016 , that the winners will get the result implemented.Once that happens , you will have satisfied democracy , and are then free to campaign for another referendum for england to rejoin the eu in the future , but not before brexiters are awarded their victory.

And it's complete untrue rubbish you write in general in your post - I would gladly have accepted a good Brexit deal negotiated by either May or Boris.

::



Thats the trouble with you labour toady remainer types.



Labour arent that bright , and you all think everyone is a s stupid as you are.



Let me translate for you , what you mean is you would have accepted a brexit in name only , where england stays in the cu , accpets freedom of movement and everything else , the very things folk voted against , while you try and claim brexit has been delivered(in name only) while in reality the opposite is true.

That has simply not happened - and Leavers clearly voted on a Brexit with a deal; NDBrexit is an anti-referendum, anti-democratic false choice that's been put out there by billionaires and the far right.



And you've been suckered by it and taken their medicine.

Dont talk utter shite.



Jeremy corbyn has been a life long brexiter all his political life. While he might be a north islington millionaire champagne socialist , he certainly isnt far right.

^ More rubbish. Trying to conflate all English people together as a whole, even folks who didn't vote remain. I mean it's funny but kind of cognitively dissonant as an argument.

Another diversion from your weak anti demcratic argument.

As will you... because you are reflecting your own (much more hypocritical) beliefs in the mirror pal.

Possibly , but if we are forced to stay in the uk for a while longer , then i will put up with it as long as democracy is enacted and brexit is done.



Will be worth it to see you anti democratic english remainers get your just desserts.

[Thomas]

See, this where your stance on Brexit just continuously confounds me.

Im not sure why conor.? My Brexit stance is that easy to understand a first year high school student studying modern studies could decipher it in seconds.



It only becomes difficult to understand if you think in British unionism terms , and are determined to use Scotland and Ireland to stop England having  the Brexit they democratically voted for.

You have now long-criticised those who you see as blocking Brexit, calling them undemocratic, but yet you rejected the previous Withdrawal Agreement and now reject the revised one.

So what is it you find hard to understand with this conor? You appear to be insinuating I am in some way hypocritical , when it is plain to see to those not wrapped up in some English unionist bubble , that my stance is entirely consistent.

I remain entirely critical of those who try and undemocratically block englands Brexit , while at the same time can stand and criticise those who try and force Scotland out of the European union against our will.

What is it you find hard to understand ? unless you are some pro union Englishman desperate for England to remain in the eu and stop Scottish indy and the break up of the uk? Its not difficult?

It seems that you are just as much an obstructionist to Brexit as anyone else, so why criticise others for it?

Let me repeat my clear and consistent stance to you. We have engaged for roughly around the last year or so on these two different forums , and my stance has remained rock solid and resolute.

I support England Brexit , criticise those who try and obstruct it as it is the democratic will of englands people , while at the same time criticise those who wish to take Scotland out of the eu against our will. Two entirely compatible positions easy to understand unless you are some sort of anglo unionist who sees "britain" as one country , which would be an extremely strange position for an irishman to take. The irish refused to accept the notion of english rule and "britian " being one country for the best part of 800 years.

You reject this deal on the basis that it is bad for Scotland — yet seemingly you take that stance in obliviousness to the fact that a No Deal arrangement is also bad for Scotland, and probably worse

Brexit of any kind is bad for Scotland. However , politically , it is a gold plated gift for the Scottish independence movement.

A No Deal arrangement won't vitiate or obviate the need to address the border in Ireland because, once again, that little niggling creature called Logical Reality leads us to that outcome. The current pro-Brexit government know this, and that's why despite all BoJo's previous bluster of tails wagging dogs on the NI issue — the special dispensation for Northern Ireland is still there. So — No Deal doesn't change the fact that in the subsequent inevitable trade negotiations with the EU, the Irish border would remain a stumbling block to deals and eventually dispensation would have to be made.

Right but this is merely your desperation to stop englands Brexit , and the break up of the uk shining through.

At the minute , we have the clear intention of the current tory prime minister to throw northern Ireland to the dogs in terms of British unionism so England can get its Brexit. His clear intentions with his WA are clear for anyone with the slightest interest in politics to see.

So much so , the DUP refuse to support his deal , have been highly critical of it , as well as head brexiters like farage and others.

In the end , northern Ireland will be sacrifices as I said all along to give England its Brexit. For poor desperados like you who for some reason are desperate for England not to leave , you must be shitting yourself if johnson wins this election as its game over from your point of view.

In essence Thomas, by opposing the Deal and yet still resolutely calling those who fight against Brexit undemocratic, then you are invariably advocating No Deal.

I resolutely stand by my position. Anyone who wants to stop England achieving Brexit is an anti democrat. Especially a so called Irishman.

Ireland fought a war to leave the British union a century ago , which is still today celebrated on the Island of Ireland.

...but when England votes to leave the eu in a democratic referendum , somehow its bad and they mustn't be allowed to do so? You need to listen to yourself and your argument s conor.They are pathetic and extremely hypocritical.



So tell me conor why you are so apparently against england leaving the eu despite its people voting democratically to do so?



In ireland for example , we have rags like the irish times reporting how brexit has been a boon to the irish economy , with dublin itself , your apparent home city , in a league of its own when it comes to attracting business from the uk due to brexit.

They tell us a new report shows over 100 firms have chosen dublin as their post brexit headquarters.



The irish taoiseach leo varadkar was instrumental in helping the uk get a brexit extension till the end of january as he and his government enthusiastically support johnsons WA , and hope the extension gives johnson time to win his election and get the WA through.



England is a sovereign country not under irelands control , and are free to make decisions in any way they choose , wether or not they affect you in "dublin" , just as the USA , irelands biggest export destination , where ireland sends more than double the value of exports to than the uk , are free to do so.



Brexit is the will of the english people , and as a democrat , i support england leaving the eu if the people so wish.



I dont support anti democratic "foreigners" like yourself telling people in england what they should and shouldnt do.

[Ciaphas]

Unless Parliament behaves as the truly DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVES of the DEMOCRATIC majority of people that bothered to vote to ELECT them to their constituency seat in the first place, and consequently TRULY REPRESENT their electorate, particularly so on a referendum issue, then Parliament will  rightly be treated with contempt.

There is certainly no call for subjecting ANY individual to threats - but implementing the DEMOCRATICALLY  EXPRESSED wish of the population is the DUTY of Parliament - so if they cannot bring themselves to resign, and thereby misrepresent their constituency electorate, they should at least be MADE to resign, and stand again for re-election.....as they should if any MP decides to change HIS/HER Party that they 'represented' prior to their election -  only then can  Parliament be truly judged to be democratic.



They are SUPPOSED to be the peoples representatives in Parliament!!

Which version of Brexit are they supposed to deliver?

[Scott777]

that's not quite accurate.



Parliament is sovereign not the MPs.



MP may vote however they deem fit (not quite the same thing as doing what they like).  There is no legal power that can force any MP (and by extension Parliament) to vote a given way.



My position is that *Parliament* is sovereign and cannot be coerced.



The executive is not sovereign, it operates through Parliament. It is the job of the executive to craft legislation acceptable to parliament.



If it cannot do so, that is the executice's fault, not parliament's (which is in contrast to BJ's stance).



When the executive tries to circumvent or sideline parliament (and the judiciary) and govern without them you have a dictatorship.  Historically, "the will of the people" has been used as the mandate for the executive to do this.



To take your example of Cromwell.  He was made lord protector by the rump Parliament. Itself a product of the military purge of parliament some years earlier (the army physically prevented Parliament from sitting to prevent it agreeing to a treaty).



In the case of leavers like BJ, they have actively sought to undermine parliament (and the judiciary) and attempted to use perogative powers to prevent parliament from sitting and carrying out it's function. Whilst far short of actual dictatorship it is a good deal closer to the start of the path to dictatorship than I would like.

Thanks for stating the same old nonsense, but once again, we were discussing your own definition of sovereignty - where parliament can do whatever it wants as long it thinks it's best for us.  That is what you said, are you changing that now?  How about answering the question, not a different question?  So, Hitler and his mates were a sovereign government, yes?  Is any government in world history not sovereign?

[cromwell]

So you both think you can have a pile of urine,are you both taking the piss..............sorry couldn't resist

[Conchúr]

Im out of time for the minute but will deal with this latest pile of your urine later.

Ah yes, the ever mature and level-headed Thomas calls my post a pile of urine. Very articulate.



Well....all I can say is — at least the colour of a pile of urine tends to be consistent, which is more than I can say for the rationale of your posts on this topic.

[Stevlin]

It is ironic that Mrs Milller is being subjected to repeat threats from leave supporters because of her efforts to preserve and protect parliamentary sovereignty from attempts by the executive to usurp it.

Unless Parliament behaves as the truly DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVES of the DEMOCRATIC majority of people that bothered to vote to ELECT them to their constituency seat in the first place, and consequently TRULY REPRESENT their electorate, particularly so on a referendum issue, then Parliament will  rightly be treated with contempt.

There is certainly no call for subjecting ANY individual to threats - but implementing the DEMOCRATICALLY  EXPRESSED wish of the population is the DUTY of Parliament - so if they cannot bring themselves to resign, and thereby misrepresent their constituency electorate, they should at least be MADE to resign, and stand again for re-election.....as they should if any MP decides to change HIS/HER Party that they 'represented' prior to their election -  only then can  Parliament be truly judged to be democratic.



They are SUPPOSED to be the peoples representatives in Parliament!!

[BeElBeeBub]

This is nothing to do with what we were discussing.  You said sovereignty is where MPs can do whatever they want, as long as they think it's best for us.  

that's not quite accurate.



Parliament is sovereign not the MPs.



MP may vote however they deem fit (not quite the same thing as doing what they like).  There is no legal power that can force any MP (and by extension Parliament) to vote a given way.

So what's your problem with the "leave side"?  Or with Tories?  Or with dictators?  Or with Hitler?  Indeed, as Cromwell has just complained, you are using diversion.

My position is that *Parliament* is sovereign and cannot be coerced.



The executive is not sovereign, it operates through Parliament. It is the job of the executive to craft legislation acceptable to parliament.



If it cannot do so, that is the executice's fault, not parliament's (which is in contrast to BJ's stance).



When the executive tries to circumvent or sideline parliament (and the judiciary) and govern without them you have a dictatorship.  Historically, "the will of the people" has been used as the mandate for the executive to do this.



To take your example of Cromwell.  He was made lord protector by the rump Parliament. Itself a product of the military purge of parliament some years earlier (the army physically prevented Parliament from sitting to prevent it agreeing to a treaty).



In the case of leavers like BJ, they have actively sought to undermine parliament (and the judiciary) and attempted to use perogative powers to prevent parliament from sitting and carrying out it's function. Whilst far short of actual dictatorship it is a good deal closer to the start of the path to dictatorship than I would like.

[Javert]

It seems to me that Scottish independence would take the similar path as Brexit - I don't think those who want independence have a detailed and comprehensive plan to implement it, given that they were still arguing about currency and EU membership in the days before the last referendum.



I would also fear that as soon as there is a yes vote it will go the same as Brexit with those who voted yes gloating and clamouring "why haven't we left the UK yet", leading to things being done too quickly and chaos will ensue.

[BeElBeeBub]

No deal.



The referendum result must be implemented .



Brexit has been the gift that keeps giving these past 4 years. We explained to our fellow scots the issue with this undemocratic uk is that we will no matter what always be at the mercy of englands electorate.



When we voted no in 2014 , the scots people allowed westminster to do as they pleased with us ,and brexit is one part of that.



Our only chance now is to hold another indyref , and try and escape the uk , if not , we go along with what england forces  on us as part of the anti democratic nature of this disgusting union.



I have no wish for england to drag us out the eu , but similarly , i am not hypocritical enough to try and force england to remain against the wishes of the english people.



This highlights why this disunited kingdom cannot continue.

The argument "the referendum must be implemented" and "the will of the XXX people" (scotland voted by a bigger margin to remain than England did to leave) will be used as a reason against indy ref2.



From a practical standpointhich is the better scenario (from a Scots pov)



A) No deal brexit, economic damage to both, union spits and then both Scot and England (&Wales) scramble to get back into EU.  Even with a willing EU, the return route for Scotland will not be instant.



B) remain (prob after 2 ref), then indy ref2 (using 2ref as precedent) and a dissolving of the union with both Scotland and England as EU members.



It seems (as a non Scot) that the smoothest route to an independent Scotland lies via route B.