Nobody cares about brexit?

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hard border is the default position of hard Brexit. Hard Brexit is the default position of no deal.
As for your points about not having enough votes. Lets expand that. On the CURRENT DEAL there are not enough votes in parliament as people want different things. You are not taking into account the result of the referendum itself. The majority voted leave. Parliament does not have a majority to pass a soft Brexit.

Why does Parliament want to pass a soft Brexit when that was definitively not a part of the referendum vote? Where did the majority give any such direction for anything but a hard Brexit? The outrage houldn't be that parliament can't get a deal done, it's that they are making a deal at all.

Nobody has put forward a good resolution.

Because there isn't one, hence why they can't get a deal in parliament. Anybody who thinks a Brexit could happen with anything but a bad deal and a worse (no) deal was absolutely delusional(/lying and ensuring their families still had other EU passports before they jumped ship).

But the problem with the current solution is it allows a foreign power to make decisions on British Soil. That can have massive legal implications down the road and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. That CANNOT HAPPEN. The minority is refusing to respect the democratic result of the majority.

The Sovereignty of the UK (or a country) is number one and stands above all else. The moment that is forgotten in that society, that starts the breakdown of the country and society. That is something the left does not understand and is hijacked as being a soft issue.

And here I thought the well-being of the people mattered above all-else. Hopefully pulling out of NATO is on the agenda for the UK if sovereignty is their ultimate goal. Also takes away the WTO option as a default trade framework.

You're living in a dream world if you think the will of the EU wouldn't still affect the UK. Regulations and standards are consistently made because of what the EU sets due to market size (same idea as California rules affecting general emission standards for vehicles). The market UK imports from will be affected by EU mandates, UK exports will be affected by EU standards, all Brexit does is take away the UK's seat at the table.

Thinking sovereignty is important above all else is apparently why the right is willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Make things worse for the people so they don't have to share decision making power with anybody else?

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes. How can you rule that out when it's what happens when no other deal is reached? At this point it seems most probable.

It's a game of chicken at this point. One side figures the other will cave and go with a bad deal than no deal. The other figures they'll just go back to another referendum than go no deal.

For the swing party, they rule it out as an option because it isn't an option for them. If there's no deal it isn't because they didn't support the bad one, it's because they weren't presented with a better option. For the DUP, there isn't any difference between no deal and the bad deal, and supporting the latter will make them more enemies than not doing anything. So that's why they rule it out.


So you know, typical party politics stuff.

[Buster]

"give up your sovereignty, it will be good for you. I promise. "

-Kert

[spikerS]

There is just too much going on, that I am having a hard time following it.

Can someone give me a unbiased bullet point coles notes?

[killramos]

I don’t think an unbiased summary of Brexit exists.

People voted to leave, the elite claim the masses were uninformed in making that decision, the elite then proceeded to drag their feet for a few years in figuring out how the UK would leave, we are now a few weeks away from when the hard exit happens regardless of what people want without a plan in place to make the transition any more seemless than that.

Also the sky is falling.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"give up your sovereignty, it will be good for you. I promise. "

-Kert

"Less economic freedom and mobility is good for us"

-Buster

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"Less economic freedom and mobility is good for us"

-Buster

Trust us, say the un-elected bureaucrats. Let's play just-the-tip with reducing your democratic representation. Nothing has ever gone wrong by handing power to The Party. It'll be fine. We're looking out for your self interest, you have to believe us!

What nonsense.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Trust us, say the un-elected bureaucrats. Let's play just-the-tip with reducing your democratic representation. Nothing has ever gone wrong by handing power to The Party. It'll be fine. We're looking out for your self interest, you have to believe us!

What nonsense.

You can't be gullible enough to believe the bureaucrats are going away. They're busier than ever and have even more to do. By leaving the EU, there is less democratic representation for the UK's dealings with the rest of Europe. By leaving the EU you have less individual power on where you can work and live, where you can do business, more restriction on what you can buy.

Who do you think 'sovereignty above all else' benefits more: the individual or The Party in power?

[Buster]

"t has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" - Churchill.

The citizens of the UK have this figured out.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"t has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" - Churchill.

The citizens of the UK have this figured out.

...okay?

They're giving up democratically elected representatives by doing this. So what are you trying to say?

[Buster]

And elections are held in North Korea every 4 years.

There is a democratic deficit in the EU...to put it kindly.

British citizens have determined (correctly), that one imperfect system is superior to an alternative imperfect system.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And elections are held in North Korea every 4 years.

There is a democratic deficit in the EU...to put it kindly.

British citizens have determined (correctly), that one imperfect system is superior to an alternative imperfect system.

Except they still need to deal with the alternate imperfect system, make deals with them, deal with their decisions to stay competitive in the world market, so where is this bullshit about calling dealing with bureaucrats “nonsense.” It literally gives bureaucrats more to do. I have the feeling you don’t understand how any of this works.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Except they still need to deal with the alternate imperfect system, make deals with them, deal with their decisions to stay competitive in the world market, so where is this bullshit about calling dealing with bureaucrats “nonsense.” It literally gives bureaucrats more to do. I have the feeling you don’t understand how any of this works.

Don't worry about what I understand or do not, simply deal with the discussion at hand.

The British people have determined (again, correctly), that they have more leverage to manage their self interest with the EU bureaucrats as counter-parties and/or partners, than they can accomplish by simply handing the EU authority. I chuckle when I think how you would twist yourself into knots arguing against Canada requesting to become the 51st State in order to get a seat in the US Congress and the US Senate. Autonomy has its advantages, after all.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The British people have determined (again, correctly), that they have more leverage to manage their self interest with the EU bureaucrats as counter-parties and/or partners, than they can accomplish by simply handing the EU authority.

They've shown they don't have leverage, which is why they couldn't get a good deal to vote on. The EU has the leverage, and would now be able to take that leverage in a direction that doesn't require unanimity that involves the UK.

I chuckle when I think how you would twist yourself into knots arguing against Canada requesting to become the 51st State in order to get a seat in the US Congress and the US Senate. Autonomy has its advantages, after all.

Except being a state in the US isn't like being a member state in the EU. Imagine if Canada got to be the 51st state and could veto security policy. Or foreign policy. And a whole whack of other things states don't get to do (or provinces don't get to do). That's a pretty good amount of negotiating power at the trade table. Canada would still be Canada. We'd still have passports. There would still be customs. We'd still use the dollar. Canadians could go work and live in the US without a Visa. Americans could live and work here without one. All the products in the US would be available here. That doesn't sound too terrible does it.

The mostly English people have determined that having the ability to be a major power-player within the EU isn't good, and deciding to be the Canada to the EU's US when it comes to economic negotiating power. Where do you think more leverage is coming from? The UK already had more autonomy than any other EU state in the first place. They just bought into lies from chumps like Farage thinking they could have it even better.

[tonytiger55]

Why does Parliament want to pass a soft Brexit when that was definitively not a part of the referendum vote? Where did the majority give any such direction for anything but a hard Brexit? The outrage houldn't be that parliament can't get a deal done, it's that they are making a deal at all.

Part of it was a case was brought to the High Courtn against the government by Gina Miller on article 50.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...e-50-explained

Because as per my previous answer, the basis of good democracy is to implement the vote of the majority while also taking on the concerns of the minority.
Secondly There was no full clear direction in the referendum vote to how hard Brexit would be taken. This is where politics comes into play. The High court in the UK (the bill was brought in
The majority voted to leave. Hard Brexit
Different groups of the minority wanted to stay or have a deal. Hence the attempt to negotiate a soft exit/deal first to satisfy a majority in parliament. Which did not happen. Hence the possibility of hard brexit which should be the default.

Because there isn't one, hence why they can't get a deal in parliament. Anybody who thinks a Brexit could happen with anything but a bad deal and a worse (no) deal was absolutely delusional(/lying and ensuring their families still had other EU passports before they jumped ship).

That is your opinion. Euro skeptics think its a bad deal. Right of center Tories think its a good deal. The far left think its a bad deal.
The far left want all the same things as now but have no say in the European parliament, which comes to the point I have made before. Then what would be the point of leaving.

And here I thought the well-being of the people mattered above all-else. Hopefully pulling out of NATO is on the agenda for the UK if sovereignty is their ultimate goal. Also takes away the WTO option as a default trade framework.



Thinking sovereignty is important above all else is apparently why the right is willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Make things worse for the people so they don't have to share decision making power with anybody else?

Can you clarify your point regarding the North Atlantic Treaty and how this related to Sovereignty.

You're living in a dream world if you think the will of the EU wouldn't still affect the UK. Regulations and standards are consistently made because of what the EU sets due to market size (same idea as California rules affecting general emission standards for vehicles). The market UK imports from will be affected by EU mandates, UK exports will be affected by EU standards, all Brexit does is take away the UK's seat at the table.

Rule and regulations effecting the UK and dictating on the UK mainland and in the courts are different are two different areas. Know the difference.

Thinking sovereignty is important above all else is apparently why the right is willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Make things worse for the people so they don't have to share decision making power with anybody else?

There are many reasons why Sovereignty is important. The first is, if I have a problem with a decision or a representative in my parliament. I can vote for someone else. In the EU it is rather challenging.
Secondly the European Human Rights act has been used a tool to misrepresent certain cases that should not have been (in my view taken to court). The Abu Hamza case being a example. Another is confiscation orders issued under the proceeds of crime act 2002. Criminals would constantly use this avenue so confiscation orders on proceeds criminal activity expired.
The Iraq war was a prime example that split the EU. The UK sided with the Americans and the Europeans sides the other way. This has political decision making implications down the road.
A right to manage our borders. People are not stopping at Italy, Spain, France or Germany. They come to the UK. This is great, but in a uncontrolled manner this has a huge effect on the labour market and wages. Think if there was a open border/free movement between central america, Mexico, USA and Canada.
There are many reasons why others have voted for sovereignty.

As for cutting off their nose despite their face. Allow me to remind you of the rich history of the United Kingdom. During World War II the UK was brought down to its knees. Germany dominated Europe and the battle of Britain was about to begin. The UK government wanted to negotiate with Hitler. Churchill did not. He gave his famous 'We shall fight them on the beaches' speech. You have battle of Waterloo and Napoleon/French threat in its history. My point is, history has shown the the British public is very resilient. It has faced much much worse and got through. The UK is not just a country, its a idea of beliefs that people around the world want to emulate and be a part of. Our Canadian Parliament is modeled on that. The UK is not landlocked like Alberta, it is a island. A seafaring nation with a rich history. To dismiss Brexit as cutting off their face is fine example of how little is understood about the people, its history, and its values.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Right of center Tories think its a good deal.

They think it's the best deal they can get. There's a difference.

Can you clarify your point regarding the North Atlantic Treaty and how this related to Sovereignty.

If the name of the game is sovereignty, NATO is a no-go as well for the restrictions and mandates it puts on the member states. If your assertion is sovereignty is "Above all" wouldn't allow most of the stuff NATO has.

There are many reasons why Sovereignty is important. The first is, if I have a problem with a decision or a representative in my parliament. I can vote for someone else. In the EU it is rather challenging.

Secondly the European Human Rights act has been used a tool to misrepresent certain cases that should not have been (in my view taken to court). The Abu Hamza case being a example.

You'd be very disappointed to know that the ECHR exists outside the EU, and predates the EU by nearly a decade. It was a UK led charge to boot. Because it exists outside the EU it's unclear if there would be any implications on the ECHR (and in the case of a soft Brexit, eliminated that doubt with a guarantee Britain would remain in), particularly because conventions of the ECHR were put into British law independently anyways. What a nonsense complaint, and another one of the lies Brexiteers kept putting on the people.

People are not stopping at Italy, Spain, France or Germany. They come to the UK. This is great, but in a uncontrolled manner this has a huge effect on the labour market and wages. Think if there was a open border/free movement between central america, Mexico, USA and Canada.

There isn't an open border between the UK and Spain, France or Germany now, so I don't need to imagine it.

As for cutting off their nose despite their face. Allow me to remind you of the rich history of the United Kingdom. During World War II the UK was brought down to its knees. Germany dominated Europe and the battle of Britain was about to begin. The UK government wanted to negotiate with Hitler. Churchill did not. He gave his famous 'We shall fight them on the beaches' speech. You have battle of Waterloo and Napoleon/French threat in its history. My point is, history has shown the the British public is very resilient. It has faced much much worse and got through. The UK is not just a country, its a idea of beliefs that people around the world want to emulate and be a part of. Our Canadian Parliament is modeled on that. The UK is not landlocked like Alberta, it is a island. A seafaring nation with a rich history. To dismiss Brexit as cutting off their face is fine example of how little is understood about the people, its history, and its values.

It does make sense the Brexiteers are longing for a time when Britain was a superpower and thinking what's standing in the way is the totally not resilient places that also faced wars and revolution and other hardships for the past 200+ years. I'm sorry to disappoint you again but the sun has set on the British Empire, longing for a time long past isn't going to help anybody going forward.

[ExtraSlow]

Most recent Brexit deal voted down by British Parliament. 17 days to deadline.

So, hard brexit has to be the outcome here, doesn't it? I've seen no credible third option that would be approved by the EU.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Most recent Brexit deal voted down by British Parliament. 17 days to deadline.

So, hard brexit has to be the outcome here, doesn't it? I've seen no credible third option that would be approved by the EU.

Got about $20k I'm holding. If the Brexit bombs and the stocks a'tumble, buy buy buy!

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Most recent Brexit deal voted down by British Parliament. 17 days to deadline.

So, hard brexit has to be the outcome here, doesn't it? I've seen no credible third option that would be approved by the EU.

I believe they are voting tomorrow for either hard exit or delay.

Doesn't matter, damage is done with so many business announcing leaving and UK is already begging China to save them.

They really shot themselves in the foot.

https://youtu.be/J1Yv24cM2os

https://youtu.be/agZ0xISi40E

[tonytiger55]

If the name of the game is sovereignty, NATO is a no-go as well for the restrictions and mandates it puts on the member states. If your assertion is sovereignty is "Above all" wouldn't allow most of the stuff NATO has.

I don't understand your argument about NATO and Sovereignty. NATO is a military alliance formed after WW2.
The issue of Sovereignty is the EU having a say on British Soil. Maybe im dumb. Can someone else explain what Kert is trying to explain..?

As to your last point. This is the flaw which you keep trying to project. The game has multiple names. As I have stated, people voted for many reasons. One of them was sovereignty. Remoaners keep trying to fix it down to one. Its either immigration or something else. It was multiple reasons.

You'd be very disappointed to know that the ECHR exists outside the EU, and predates the EU by nearly a decade. It was a UK led charge to boot. Because it exists outside the EU it's unclear if there would be any implications on the ECHR (and in the case of a soft Brexit, eliminated that doubt with a guarantee Britain would remain in), particularly because conventions of the ECHR were put into British law independently anyways. What a nonsense complaint, and another one of the lies Brexiteers kept putting on the people.

A lot of things were led by the UK in relation to Europe. Yes your right it predates the EU. I concede that. But your missing the point (as always).It does not change the fact that the Britons want to leave.
There would be implications depending on the laws passed by Brexit. You don't know what those implications are.

Its not a nonsense complaint at all. Thats the type of attitude that led to people voting to leave in the first place. Its a first step.
Legitimate concerns were not being listened to. Your understanding of or lack of how criminal enterprises use this to frustrate UK confiscation orders pretty much sums it up.

There isn't an open border between the UK and Spain, France or Germany now, so I don't need to imagine it.

I can't belive your still arguing about this.. Talk about continuously sidestepping the point. Ok, So you want to play English Literature when it suits you? Fineeee...Allow me to clarify. There is free movement between the countries. Apply that same logic to Canada, USA, Mexico and central America.

It does make sense the Brexiteers are longing for a time when Britain was a superpower and thinking what's standing in the way is the totally not resilient places that also faced wars and revolution and other hardships for the past 200+ years. I'm sorry to disappoint you again but the sun has set on the British Empire, longing for a time long past isn't going to help anybody going forward.

Its interesting how you create a narrative that the the British are longing for the time of the British Empire. I don't know where that came from.
Im not longing for that time and I don't think may of the British are. You totally missed the point I was making. I think you do it on purpose. I have noticed that in your posts.
It was nothing to do with the empire. Its about who we are as a people, the diverse culture etc. Resiliency to go through a hard time rather than bend over. To make a point. That is even transenseded in our culture and how we communicate. I have noiced it since immigrating to Canada and so have my Canadian chums. Without such things that what is a nation..?

It think you read arguments and you create a false narrative from that to get people to argue with you. The empire post was one example. Here is another example of a post you made.

Most of the Protestants in Northern Ireland are Presbyterian, rather than Anglican.

.. Nobody was arguing who was the majority. Hell my post on that was a direct read from Wikipedia. Your just picking at things to create a argument. There was no argument to be had on that, nobody presented a argument on the majority. Yet you still tried to create one out of nothing.