"Sovereignty" (adjective) - a term thrown around by brexiteers who don't understand it nor that the UK never ceased being a sovereign state.

 

Commonly used as an acceptable public smoke screen for xenophobia.

"Sovereignty" (adjective) - a term thrown around by brexiteers who don't understand it nor that the UK never ceased being a sovereign state.

 

Commonly used as an acceptable public smoke screen for xenophobia.

 

I can't even. You just compared sovereignty to xenophobia.

I can't even. You just compared sovereignty to xenophobia.

 

I can just imagine Remoaners at the time of the American Revolution, begging George Washington not to take a risk - yet look how well their risk paid off...

Then how come it took over 40 years for us to have a 2nd referendum on EU issue?

Because the first referendum was pretty much equivalent to what another referendum would be now. We'd already joined the European Community in 1973 - the referendum was certifying whether or not it was the right decision, people had experienced what it was like and were asked whether they wished to verify the status quo.

 

There probably should have been one at the time of Maastricht.

Edited September 14, 20177 yr by Qassändra

I can't even. You just compared sovereignty to xenophobia.

Saying something is a smoke screen for something isn't comparing it to it, it's saying it's being used as a distraction from it.

Because the first referendum was pretty much equivalent to what another referendum would be now. We'd already joined the European Community in 1973 - the referendum was certifying whether or not it was the right decision, people had experienced what it was like and were asked whether they wished to verify the status quo.

 

We verified membership of a *trading bloc*, but what we ended up with by 2016 was in incipient 'Federal Europe' - is it any wonder we wanted out!

Then prepare to be disappointed yet again, people voted leave mostly because of sovereignty, the British people want the powers given to the EU over decades back in the UK, if there was a referendum on the Maastrict treaty signed in the 90's or the Lisbon treaty signed in shame by Gordon Brown then the UK would have chosen to leave the EU a lot sooner.

 

And to say Churchill and Thatcher was pro-EU is an absolute falsehood, Churchill always believed if the UK had a choice between Europe or the open seas, the UK would always choose the open seas, Brexit proves he was right. And Thatcher realised very quickly when she became Prime Minister than the EU was not all as it seems, once Thatcher knew a United States of Europe was coming, Thatcher quickly turned against the EU, check out the famous Bruges speech from her, it's no wonder soon after that speech EU fanatics from her own government Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine plotted her removal from Downing Street and unfortunately they succeeded.

 

Also I noticed none of the Remoaners here are talking about the sickening state of union speech from President Juncker yesterday when he confirmed on doubling down his mission for a United States of Europe. Thank God the British people voted OUT!

Leave won by a small majority. To suggest that all of them wanted the same thing is ridiculous.

 

I'm probably wasting my time but let's give it a go. Which piece(s) of EU legislation do you want the UK government to repeal? What legislation do you want the UK government to introduce that EU membership prohibited?

Leave won by a small majority. To suggest that all of them wanted the same thing is ridiculous.

 

We all had a common goal, but there were obviously many shades of opinion in the Leave camp, just as there were with Remain.

 

I can just imagine Remoaners at the time of the American Revolution, begging George Washington not to take a risk - yet look how well their risk paid off...

 

I know right, someone should tell the American people that according to these Remoaners any Americans celebrating the 4th of July is considered xenophobic.

Edited September 14, 20177 yr by PeaceMob

I've seen today that James Dyson believes no deal will hurt the Europeans more than the UK. WTO rules all the way!

Edited September 14, 20177 yr by PeaceMob

We all had a common goal, but there were obviously many shades of opinion in the Leave camp, just as there were with Remain.

A Remain vote was effectively a vote for the status quo - simple. What was this common goal? Was it staying in the single market or leaving it? How many voters even knew what the single market was? Similarly for the customs union.

 

If the common goal was sovereignty, we've already got it and have had it in one form or another for centuries.

I've seen today that James Dyson believes no deal will hurt the Europeans more than the UK. WTO rules all the way!

Yes, I heard the interview. Of course, he wasn't actually asked to say how that would be the case. The BBC doesn't seem to like making Leave supporters look like the idiots they are.

This is undoubtedly over-simplistic, but as I see it :

 

Remainer : Someone who voted to stay in, but accepts the democratic vote to leave.

 

Remoaner : Someone who voted to stay in, but rejects the democratic vote to leave.

 

ISTM the second position is much harder to justify.

 

WRONG

 

It is an UNDEMOCRATIC AND RUDE epithet.

 

Did you ahut up when we entered or did you and the Sun go ooon and ooon for 50 years? :) 2% is NOT enough to tell us to shut up, especially wen the people who voted for it are OLD and DINOSAURS and/ or xenophobic or SERIOUSLY misinformed x

I know right, someone should tell the American people that according to these Remoaners any Americans celebrating the 4th of July is considered xenophobic.

 

WRONG

 

The US was a colony. The EU is a trade union WITH representation, without a king and protecting your righta.

 

Tory boy.

Then prepare to be disappointed yet again, people voted leave mostly because of sovereignty, the British people want the powers given to the EU over decades back in the UK, if there was a referendum on the Maastrict treaty signed in the 90's or the Lisbon treaty signed in shame by Gordon Brown then the UK would have chosen to leave the EU a lot sooner.

 

And to say Churchill and Thatcher was pro-EU is an absolute falsehood, Churchill always believed if the UK had a choice between Europe or the open seas, the UK would always choose the open seas, Brexit proves he was right. And Thatcher realised very quickly when she became Prime Minister that the EU was not all as it seems, once Thatcher knew a United States of Europe was coming, Thatcher quickly turned against the EU, check out the famous Bruges speech from her, it's no wonder soon after that speech EU fanatics from her own government Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine plotted her removal from Downing Street and unfortunately they succeeded.

 

Also I noticed none of the Remoaners here are talking about the sickening state of union speech from President Juncker yesterday when he confirmed on doubling down his mission for a United States of Europe. Thank God the British people voted OUT!

 

beautiful rewriting of history here, typically Brexiteering.

 

Even after all the lies and propaganda and 20 years of anti-EU BS, Leave won by a whisker only. There is no reason to suppose they would have won at any stage before that since the previous referendum.

 

Churchill (and UK laws) set up the EU, a cornerstone. He was pro-Europe to prevent war in Europe forever more and make all nations prosper in peace. Job done.

 

Thatcher was very much pro-Europe, despite being as difficult (a thorn in the EU side) to the benefit of the UK as often as possible. The Tory party was splitting down the middle at the time over Europe. Not the nation. Just Tories.

 

"Remoaners" (or people exercising the power of democracy to have an opinion based on facts) have read the speech from Juncker. Nothing to much to say about it, because it's merely repeating what has been said for the last 15 months. In case you hadn't noticed Brexit had already harmed the UK and the EU and it's the EU's job to look after the interests of their remaining 27 members (who are unanimous in their attitude to the exiting UK). The EU is doing much better now, and that's what Juncker was crowing about. He also said he was sorry to see the UK leave, but that they would carry on.

 

Frothing Brexiteers of course would love to see the EU crumble and fail, when it's much more likely the UK will suffer.

 

I wasn't going to post the attached, as it's a bit mealy-mouthed, but as the annoying term "Remoaner" is still being bandied about turnabout is fair play:

 

Any Brexiteer, feel free to slot yourself into one or more of the categories.....

 

https://twitter.com/TechnicallyRon/status/907892847227043840

 

 

I've seen today that James Dyson believes no deal will hurt the Europeans more than the UK. WTO rules all the way!

 

He was getting publicity for his new training course. His statement worked beautifully. Americans didn't exist - they were British "troublemakers" and criminals to a certain extent, and powerful rich men with interests to not just be xenophobic (towards the existing nations of Indians who were there first, try reading some history) but to show their gratitude for helping the early settlers survive harsh winters by committing acts of genocide or mass murder against almost all of the many many Indian nations.

 

Oh, and slavery. Let's not forget slavery.

 

Because of course the EU has made slaves of us all, as we toil in fields for peanuts - oh hang on, that's THE UK getting EU citizens to toil in fields for peanuts. Silly me.

 

 

 

 

Leave voters still don't seem to understand that the EU is bound to look after their remaining members' interests ahead of the UK's interests. They overlook the fact that all 27 remaining members have to support the deal. That means getting the support of their national parliament and, in at least one case, regional parliaments. All 27 governments will need to face their electorate before too long and will need to bear that in mind when they are discussing a deal. Their electorates will not thank them if they are seen to have been too generous to the UK.

 

They just need to ask themselves what stance they would have wanted the UK government to do if Scotland had voted for independence. Should they have given priority to the interests of Scotland, the rest of the UK, or the planet Zarg? By the way, I always felt that if Scotland had voted for independence, it would have been reasonable to have another vote when the final terms were known - despite the fact that the SNP gave voters far more information than the EU Leave campaigners ever did.

We verified membership of a *trading bloc*, but what we ended up with by 2016 was in incipient 'Federal Europe' - is it any wonder we wanted out!

Given you've never been able to cite a specific piece of EU legislation that you so burningly disagree with it's worth going through the economic turmoil pulling out will cause just so we have the decision on it ourselves again, yes I do still think it's a wonder.

 

(no, nothing on freedom of movement counts - that was there when we voted to verify membership of that trading bloc.)

Edited September 14, 20177 yr by Qassändra

I've seen today that James Dyson believes no deal will hurt the Europeans more than the UK. WTO rules all the way!

Collectively? Sure. But you might have noticed the EU as a whole is bigger than us. It's like saying a car hitting a bus head-on causes more damage to the bus. Yep, probably on the whole, but whoever's in the car isn't getting out again. Most of the people in the bus will probably live.

 

Also if we pull out of the EU without a replacement deal for the Open Skies Agreement (which governs flight arrangements between the EU and the USA), flights literally won't be allowed to go from the UK to the EU and the USA. There's no WTO body that does default rules in that case. That's why you need to make a deal.

Edited September 14, 20177 yr by Qassändra

We verified membership of a *trading bloc*, but what we ended up with by 2016 was in incipient 'Federal Europe' - is it any wonder we wanted out!

Nah, its remit might have been as a trading bloc in the 70's but its scope was never just to facilitate trade. Schuman founded the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950's with the now-famous aim to make war "not only unthinkable but materially impossible". That is to say, by facilitating the trading of strategic resources amongst countries formerly at war with each other, war could never be beneficial and it could never have winners. Trade was never the end game, it was simply an aid for sustained peace.

 

Given that most of Europe has experienced its longest period of peace in recorded history (and yes I'm putting that down to the EU as much as I am to NATO), it's fulfilled this aim very well.

 

And now the UK talk of "us" and "them. Sad.