That was the EU's official line on it, but it appears they may not have read it themselves... "For weeks now we have been told that Article 16 cannot be invoked accompanied by all sorts of feeble excuses for not doing so. The EU has unilaterally blown that concept out of the water by invoking Article 16. "They have done it at the drop of a hat. Activating Article 16 is clearly not the nuclear option as portrayed by Alliance, SDLP and Sinn Fein. We were told time and time again that it couldn't be done. Despite EU claims that they always acted in the best interests of Northern Ireland, when push came to shove, the EU looked after itself." https://www.irishnews.com/news/heal...-vaccine-exports-to-northern-ireland-2203719/ Sorry for representing a view based on the EU's behaviour, rather than their virtue signalled gaslighting. I am hoping you are not going to give us the "what do you expect someone who disagrees with me to say?" Defence. So you just go on criticising us, at the behest of and interest of the EU, for using it as a negotiating chip knowing that when the EU actually used it, they did so aggressively, without protocol, and entirely in their own interest, with no regard for Northern Ireland. Ah, another good day to be ignoring me.
Er. It bloody is illegal. I have never seen such a flakey grasp of reality as you guys have on here... Hooter: here are the laws you asked for. Lefties: Oh damn. Put him on ignore. UEA: Yeah, but I think you are wrong, though I have nothing but my opinion and a cub scout badge for EU Studies to back that up. Lefties: Hoorah, Hooter is wrong - UEA said so! Hooter: Yeah, but UEA is wrong because the law says so. Just saying. And if you think I am a liar, take a look at how he dismissed the treaties, or rather, avoided talking about them completely, in order to go full on large over a most trifling technical point that made no difference however it was resolved.
Quelle surprise!.........Surely this is what happens when you voluntarily decide to leave one of the world's major trading blocs. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/oth...sedgntp&cvid=0c4b29c4d7d347809c505c24d6708124
Yet again, the EU acting unfairly aggressively towards UK. I’m not sure it’s even legal. Alternatively, we all knew this would happen and it’s a price worth paying for our FREEDOM!
It's incredible seeing some of the knots some people twist themselves into to defend what's happening in the UK right now, They have to know, deep down, what they're doing. There's no way you could possibly be that intellectually disingenuous and not realise it on some level.
Nah. It's a price worth paying to remove ourselves from the EU AND it is, in some cases, a matter of the EU acting unfairly and aggressively ( or are you trying to say that the rest of the world was wrong when it castigated the EU for triggering A16). Your arguments are hollow and do not reflect reality. If you have to rely on them to justify your beliefs, I do not think you are in much of a position to criticise the rest of us. I remember when you came on here a few weeks ago talking about your experiences and your objective view of things. Didn't last long did it. You are just another Moose now. Pity. You gave the impression you might have some interesting insight.
Taking back control; EU exporters to the UK will continue to have a relatively free ride while our exporters going the other way will have to continue to navigate the post Brexit bureaucratic nightmare. Why? Because if we implement the checks on EU imports, that we do on imports from other parts of the world, our supply chain would collapse. Also we still don't have the customs agents or facilities to do such checks anyway. Under WTO, we are required to treat all "most favoured nations" (i.e. all members) the same. Either we need to up the number of checks on EU goods or reduce the checks on RoW goods. That's our choice. Supply chain collapse or risk cheaper, sub standard and potentially dangerous goods from the RoW that will threaten the viability of many domestic businesses. Brilliant.
I have a very objective view and discuss things accordingly. I have had discussions with people holding alternative views on here without need to resort to pathetic claims of 'having won'; most subjects have no incontrovertible 'correct' position and intelligent debate takes full cognizance of that fact. The problem with any attempt to engage with you is that you simply ignore the validity of any viewpoint put forward that is at odds with the almost millenarian world view you seem to have formed. You claim to have 'proven' various points when you have failed to convince most other people of your take on things. Your response? 'Ooh, you are just being silly now, and I know I am right'. Compounded by the addition of a puerile strap line, which you can happily read as you scream into the echo chamber you seem to inhabit. I make no effort to 'criticise the rest of [you]'; I do take the effort to criticise your approach to 'debate' and notice with interest that the majority of other posters in this section eventually stop communicating with you as they find it utterly fruitless due to your insane dogmatism. You make false statements about people, once claiming one of my posts showed me up as a racist imperialist, not because of anything I wrote, but because of what I did not write in the way you expected me to. And then you claim you only accuse people of being 'racist' when they say 'racist things.' That is not true. We won't go into your 'creative' approach to language and its meaning. I recall one of your first replies to a post I made when I stated in a reply to one of your posts 'I look forward to seeing the evidence for this.' You replied along the lines of: 'No evidence, I was simply expressing my opinion. Although as it is my opinion, you can be sure it's right.' You then added an emoji of some sort, so I took it as an effort at a humorous comment. Subsequent exchanges have led to the conclusion you seriously meant (and mean) it. That's why engagement with you is fruitless.
That should be easy for you to prove. Quote the post... Otherwise we will all know you are making it up. PS, please don't ask for me to find the post for you because you can't find it; as you have done before.
Seem to remember, actually, that I was trying to explain to you that I was not expressing my opinion on oiks, but trying to explain the apparent point of view of middle class lefties towards us (oiks). You really didn't come close to understanding the nuance of the point I was making. That is not my fault. You asking me to explain why lefties have that opinion is not a question I can answer. But it was, as I believe I said, my opinion that they looked down on us. I am entitled to my opinion, and you are entiyled not to believe it is correct. But I don't have to prove my opinion when it comes to independent facts. If you think the EU 's treaties don't apply to the EU, or that EU declarations do not represent the opinion of the EU, then you are perfectly allowed to say so. Please,if you wish, take this opportunity to agree with UEA that this is the case. Go on. If you want to actually show you have the balls to say such a ludicrous and demonstrably absurd thing, now is your opportunity. Tell me I have not proven that EU laws prevent their involvement in UK politics, let alone Brexit. Quote me the law or agreement that exempts them from those treaties when it comes to the UK. Go on. Put you money where your mouth is. I tell you now you will not find it. The last few weeks has shown exactly why you guys ignore me. You don't know what you are talking about, or at least give the strongest opinion that you do not, and you are happy to trash EU laws rather than accept I have a point. Once again. Your post is pure projection. Facts do not require validation from rabid anti-tory, anti-Brexit, anti-UK posters. You do not have to accept my opinion any more than I have to accept yours. Your criticisms of me apply doubly so to yourselves. And no, facts are not based on democracy. This thread all think I am wrong because they desperately want me to be wrong. If you don't think so, read it all again, particularly your own posts. Case in point is this rejection of treaties over remainer butt hurt. If you can suspend belief to that extent. there is nothing you win't do to avoid reality. And where have I ever said I won? You guys certainly know when you have lost an argument, because you stop responding to my points and start calling me a beligerent idiot. That is accepting habing lost writ large. But don't mistake your looser behaviour for any claim from me that I have won anything. I am still waiting for the evidence I asked you for. You are the only guys implying I won.
This place seems to have turned into a collection of bullies complaining that their victim won't fall down and start crying. "This place would be great if there wasn't someone who disgreed with us" seems to be the message.
Interestingly there's' a bit in today's Private Eye about how in the 'planned' Freeports all of the customs 'administration' will be undertaken by the port operators (such as the company behind the P&O jobs 'rationalisation')...
In this thread, I'd refer you to your posts: 467/476/487/497 where you were very happy to lump me in with 'white supremacists' and their views based on a ludicrous (and totally incorrect) interpretation of the academic origin of the term 'Third World'. After my various posts spelling out its origin, you eventually grudgingly condescended to state you were sort of wrong, but even then that your main point was right. I'd appreciate it if you did not continue to imply I'm a liar; this is not the first time you have done so and forced me to look up the specific posts in which you had indeed made the comments you tried to claim I was 'making up'.
No, the post containing the supercilious faux-jokey comment was in the thread 'middle class save the planet earth types'. Your comment on 'oiks' contained no nuance; you eventually managed to explain what you mean by the term 'leftie'; we still await the same for 'middle class'. Your claim to have bottomed-out the 'independent facts' of the EU's 'illegal' actions surrounding the referendum has always been based upon your own interpretation of what various words & phrases mean; the fact that most contributors to the debate do not agree with that interpretation suggests you have established no such 'independent facts'. You appeal to 'facts' and make the trite comment 'the truth is not democratic' in the apparent certainty that both words have firm, globally-accepted, incontrovertible status and meaning. They do not.
Click on 88's name in his profile p(r)ic(k). In the opened window, click on 'Ignore'. Carry on with the rest of your life. If you feel that you are missing the intellectual challenge of 'debating' with him then just visit any branch of Gammonspoons.
5. Sit back happy in the knowledge that he is frothing away, furious that only iamofwfc is reading his posts. And Lloyd.
Well, if you want to bring it down to lying or not, I'd have to say that you are a liar. There is nothing in the nature of me describing or likening you to white supremacists in those posts. At worst, I was saying that you were defending as acceptable the use of terms used by white supremacists, which you yourself pointed out (that they were dated terms that had been used bigotedly). So you accuse yourself when you accuse me. You cannot say this applies to you, but not to me'. And you were defending the use of 'third world' to describe Malaysia as being within an acceptable norm. It is not me that associated that term with you. It was your pointless post butting in to provide clarity where it wasn't needed that associated you with it. The White supremacy use of third world is merely a fact;ask your local Labour party equality officer. Not my opinion. But tell me, because you have dodged it again. Do you believe that EU treaties prevent the EU from involvement in UK democracy? And do you believe that when the EU said that interference in another country's democracy was against the Declaration of Human Rights and International law, they didn't mean the UK? Please. You can clear that one up right now...
And know that every now and then, GoBE (rampant defiler of a great man's name) will at some point or other, when he thinks he's on to a winner, will come out with a post saying 'I just took Hooter off ignore for a moment to see if he changed his ways and...' That one is a standard on here.
I'm the only person on here who has to explain what is meant by middle class? What do you mean by faux jokey? How absurd an attempt to stifle an argument is that? As for your last line, you have ceased to make any sense what so ever, no matter how much nuance is applied. It is you that argues the truth IS democratic every time you say that everyone disagrees with me, so I should consider that I am wrong. A case of the nuance of your own argument escaping you. Again, you expect it to apply to me, without also applying to you. I am using your own argument against you, because you set the precedent. So. Are you saying that the treaties on the operation of the European Union, lawful facts, do not prohibit EU involvement in UK democracy? Come on 63. And do you believe that if the EU make a declaration they don't really mean it? You can clear it up right now, or you can talk around it again. It's up to you. But whatever, you have talked yourself into a corner again.
That is why it is important for you to quote what you are saying I said, because that way you avoid confusion. You appear to be allergic to clarity though, alluding to posts or misquoting them. Make the quote, prove what you claim. Very simple.
Filbert's little lump of poo, thrown from behind his mummy's skirts, lands twenty feet short of the forum. No matter. He licks his fingers and goes again...
Hey! Someone raises an actual issue!! See lads, you've got it in you. Cut the BS and you'll find there are genuine issues worth discussing!
Another day of attacking me as the dishonest bad boy on this thread, but still no response to the question I posed at the very start of the conversation on EU involvement in Brexit. You guys cannot be taken seriously for all your virtuous words. Nothing you say can be trusted as honest or sincere.
Interesting thread looking at the tribalism of Brexit and how "neither side" is likely to fundamentally change because of that tribalism. https://twitter.com/RichardBentall/status/1509106761659211776?t=iuSxXKeGnQIAbf1y3TCAmg&s=19 The majority of those that voted leave would oppose rejoining. While the majority of those that voted remain would oppose breaking ties with the EU further for the sake of "sovereignty". A complete impasse. But what it does show is that the majority on both sides are open to a new closer relationship with the EU (Norway style?). Perhaps it's food for thought for Labour....and the Tories who, at the moment, seem to favour doubling down on a hard Brexit.
It’s going to be reweaponised for the next election. The Tories are aware that Labour doesn’t want to fight on these grounds for this precise reason. Any perceived threat to Brexit, including any Norway style arrangement, would be portrayed as a betrayal. Johnson yesterday, immediate retort when questioned on Partygate he wants to rejoin the EU. There is no sign that Labour does, but it will accept the basis of the agreements we have made and try to make them work. We have the bizarre situation where the Government makes agreements in bad faith and it’s apparently patriotic to try to wheedle out of them, while demanding tariff free access to the single market.
Very interesting reading. I didn't think the figures for this (no. 2) were so 'high': I do know that one of the aims of what was wrongly called "the 2nd referendum" was to float interest in joining EFTA as that was a possible solution to the "immigration" or "free movement of goods" dichotomy.
To be fair, a hard Brexit is only a matter of extracting us from the EU, it doesn't mean no future cooperation or partnership cannot come to be. I have said many times before, and I believe other leavers have too, that I would have no objection with close ties to the EU, provided it is on mutual terms, and in a limited time scale. If the EU wasn't the s**t show it is currently, I am not even sure Brexit would have been necessary. But whilst it is a wannabe super power with ambitions to have its own army and federalisation, I do not want anything to do with a direct relationship. Keep it to trade and partnership. I wouldn't even count out us joining a hugely reformed EU in the future, and I suspect Brexit could be the catalyst for that kind of reform. I love Europe. I just hate the EU.
Your attempt to 'massage away' what you intended to imply in your post #467 is simply disingenuous. I was not defending any 'white supremacist' terminology whatsoever, purely pointing out that its original technical meaning was far removed from any such usage. But because later misuse saw unpleasant connotations attached to it for people unable to understand its limited meaning, you decided to imply anyone not stating 'it never should, and never should have been, used' was justifying and defending those erroneous connotations. Asserting that motivation is palpably false and this most recent claim that's not what you meant is dissimulation, pure and simple. I have already explained why the concept of '3 worlds, one planet' is in origin neither white supremacist nor predicated on some sort of global 'pecking order' of worth. In that originally intended specific context, Malaysia would form part of the 'Third World', because it is neither sufficiently economically developed to be included in the (technically-defined) rank of 'First World Capitalist Democracies' nor is it part of the 'Second World Communist Opposition' to that grouping. I know you don't like that. On the EU-referendum issue, there is little point in going over this. It all hinges on interpretation of words and terms, even within the 'laws and treaties' you have referred to (often selectively). You have your view on that which I find insufficiently convincing as such component elements as 'unwanted interference' have not been proven when for a large proportion of the UK polity the EU's involvement was welcomed, even sought. When asked why this illegal activity was NOT mentioned by any of the doyens of the Leave campaign who were otherwise willing to lie blatantly to further their ends, you suggest it is because they are exhibiting some form of magnanimity in victory. About as lame as it could be. I do not accuse you of lying; I do suggest you conveniently forget those parts of threads that cast doubts upon your chosen viewpoint as you proceed to double down on 'proven facts' that are only such to yourself. EDITmitted 'not', now added in capitals above.
