Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

So is this the issue?

....but most importantly - open borders....

Said like a true bigot. I'd expect nothing less from you.

Ah, winkyincanada, when an intelligent response is called for you always show up and let everyone down.

Let's see:

Bigot = a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions

Looks like you were finally calling yourself out for what you are?

When those opinions include prejudice against people "not like them", then yeah, I'm intolerant, I'll call them out on it. You just keep doubling down on your racism. I've suggested this to you before. Think long and hard about the groups of people you've decided to hate or fear. What do they have in common? What does that imply about you?

Innocent Bystander posted:

Florestan posted:

 .

 

The UK would be better off in looking to restore a stronger partnership with the US though, in my opinion, and start reasserting some independence and self-direction again.

And many others are of the opinion that the UK would be better off pursuing a partnership with our European neighbours, with whom if only because of logistics it is logical to trade, and through which a lot of our imports and exports with the rest of the world travels, and with whom there have been too many wars in the past days of isolation. The key, as in any relationship, whether between countries (including if we were to follow your suggestion and link more directly with the USA), or between individuals, is having the terms right. And I suspect that the majority of people who voted to remain in the EU believe that the terms were not right, with a drifypt over years that is headed in the wrong direction.

So rather than an acrimonious divorce, and then having no option but to try to keep dealing with the estranged partner, it would be infinitely better for the equivalent of relationship counselling and renegotiation of terms and baselines. And there have been suggestions, though I do not know their veracity, that some other member countries are not over keen on the present direction of travel of the EU.

What you have to come to terms with is that you typically only form or keep relationships with those who share your values.  

While EU continues to want to do business with Iran, Iran continues to shout death to the big (USA) and little (Israel) satan.  Europe (and Britain?) have lost their way if they are not clear eyed enough about this.  There is no way to morally support the EU on this.  

Finally, we have some leadership in this world that is saying, enough is enough.  You can't build nuclear weapons to threaten others and you can't continue with a terrorism policy and simply bad behaviour and as we all look the other way like nothing is wrong.  Offensive to some but others realize that good actors around the world need to band together and fight the bad actors and push for change.

I say this because it is simply clear to me now that countries need to make choices.  No one can reconcile with someone else if your values are polar opposite of each other.  True in marriage and true in politics or between countries.

Moving away from geopolitical issues and back to the ground level, it is possible that many people in Britain have finally woken up and see that bigger government and control of the people is not the best way forward.  You tried it and many people see that along with this comes many more ugly problems.

UK, if you want some freedom back, maybe now is your chance?  

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

So is this the issue?

....but most importantly - open borders....

Said like a true bigot. I'd expect nothing less from you.

Ah, winkyincanada, when an intelligent response is called for you always show up and let everyone down.

Let's see:

Bigot = a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions

Looks like you were finally calling yourself out for what you are?

When those opinions include prejudice against people "not like them", then yeah, I'm intolerant, I'll call them out on it. You just keep doubling down on your racism. I've suggested this to you before. Think long and hard about the groups of people you've decided to hate or fear. What do they have in common? What does that imply about you?

Winky, you don't know me and you are pretty creative to bend my post to fit in your little mold.

Are you saying that I am a bigot plus a racist simply for making a general comment regarding 'open borders?'

Florestan you might as well be banging your head against a brick wall mate.

It can only be a so called "hard Brexit". Why does anyone expect the EU to do us any favours? 

The way i see it is as article 50 has been triggered,  that's it, we're off. If we now turn round and say we've changed our mind and want to forget the whole thing they will totally screw the lot of us. 

It's about time everyone actually bucks their ideas up and decide to get on with it whether they like it or not. If this is a sinking ship at least try and help with the bailing rather than sit there complaining.

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

So is this the issue?

....but most importantly - open borders....

Said like a true bigot. I'd expect nothing less from you.

Ah, winkyincanada, when an intelligent response is called for you always show up and let everyone down.

Let's see:

Bigot = a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions

Looks like you were finally calling yourself out for what you are?

When those opinions include prejudice against people "not like them", then yeah, I'm intolerant, I'll call them out on it. You just keep doubling down on your racism. I've suggested this to you before. Think long and hard about the groups of people you've decided to hate or fear. What do they have in common? What does that imply about you?

Racism? I see no racism. No need to take that line Winky

Florestan posted:

Don, no point in trying to take the high ground now.  Especially, since you believe my posts are 'difficult to follow' and drivel, among other things.  I think it is clear that many here simply start with the presupposition that opposing views are simply not allowed or tolerated.  How you respond to these are clear enough and self evident that you feel no need to show respect to those who don't share your views.

So don't waste your time wondering about who you and others deem as targets.  If you and others represent the UK then you have given ample evidence that supports many questions about why you would partake or condone an attitude towards those who might not share your views on everything.  I'm still hopeful that many here don't really represent the UK as a whole?

"Trying to take the high ground" - don't need to, I've already got it.

Your posts are often so badly written, they are unbelievably difficult to follow. Others have commented as well as myself. However, I certainly do try.

Opposing views have been a feature of this and many other threads. They are both allowed and tolerated, and far more importantly, usually well respected.

The last sentence of your first paragraph is disingenuous to say the least. I invite you to re-read all 4,445 replies to this thread before you formulate your revised assessment.

As for your second paragraph, you've lost me ! Perhaps you would elaborate ?

Drewy posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

So is this the issue?

....but most importantly - open borders....

Said like a true bigot. I'd expect nothing less from you.

Ah, winkyincanada, when an intelligent response is called for you always show up and let everyone down.

Let's see:

Bigot = a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions

Looks like you were finally calling yourself out for what you are?

When those opinions include prejudice against people "not like them", then yeah, I'm intolerant, I'll call them out on it. You just keep doubling down on your racism. I've suggested this to you before. Think long and hard about the groups of people you've decided to hate or fear. What do they have in common? What does that imply about you?

Racism? I see no racism. No need to take that line Winky

I'm hearing the dog-whistle loud and clear. It runs through all of the threads where he/she tells us how it should be. "Racism" might be too specific. He/she seems to hate/fear "foreigners" and people who are different in general. Might be race, culture, religion, sexual identity or orientation. Whatever. Florestan seems to hate and fear them all. I'll get banned for this, but I've honestly had enough of his small-minded bigoted bu!!$h!+. I'm out of here.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm!

All I’m allowed to say, so eon’t Waste real words.

It looks like Winky has gone. If only it was that easy to get rid of Huge and Don. Anyway, at least Winky will have more time on his hands to drink shit Canadian beer and practice his curling.

Just joking Don, I always enjoy your pilot/aircrew/aviation views on subjects.

thebigfredc posted:

Just joking Don, I always enjoy your pilot/aircrew/aviation views on subjects.

It's no joking matter fred, I'm off back to Canada in a few weeks..........and your comment about shit Canadian beer has got early shivers down my spine

Mind you, the quality of wine in the Okanagan has improved over these past 20 years remarkably. Swings and roundabouts I guess. We'll give the beer a miss and concentrate on the wine !

Florestan posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Florestan posted:

 .

 

The UK would be better off in looking to restore a stronger partnership with the US though, in my opinion, and start reasserting some independence and self-direction again.

And many others are of the opinion that the UK would be better off pursuing a partnership with our European neighbours, with whom if only because of logistics it is logical to trade, and through which a lot of our imports and exports with the rest of the world travels, and with whom there have been too many wars in the past days of isolation. The key, as in any relationship, whether between countries (including if we were to follow your suggestion and link more directly with the USA), or between individuals, is having the terms right. And I suspect that the majority of people who voted to remain in the EU believe that the terms were not right, with a drifypt over years that is headed in the wrong direction.

So rather than an acrimonious divorce, and then having no option but to try to keep dealing with the estranged partner, it would be infinitely better for the equivalent of relationship counselling and renegotiation of terms and baselines. And there have been suggestions, though I do not know their veracity, that some other member countries are not over keen on the present direction of travel of the EU.

What you have to come to terms with is that you typically only form or keep relationships with those who share your values.  

While EU continues to want to do business with Iran, Iran continues to shout death to the big (USA) and little (Israel) satan.  Europe (and Britain?) have lost their way if they are not clear eyed enough about this.  There is no way to morally support the EU on this.  

Finally, we have some leadership in this world that is saying, enough is enough.  You can't build nuclear weapons to threaten others and you can't continue with a terrorism policy and simply bad behaviour and as we all look the other way like nothing is wrong.  Offensive to some but others realize that good actors around the world need to band together and fight the bad actors and push for change.

I say this because it is simply clear to me now that countries need to make choices.  No one can reconcile with someone else if your values are polar opposite of each other.  True in marriage and true in politics or between countries.

Moving away from geopolitical issues and back to the ground level, it is possible that many people in Britain have finally woken up and see that bigger government and control of the people is not the best way forward.  You tried it and many people see that along with this comes many more ugly problems.

UK, if you want some freedom back, maybe now is your chance?  

Contrary to your apparent conclusion, I don’t think that what rhe British public want is the ‘polar opposite’ of what the EU and its member countries want, and I personally do not think the differences are irreconcilable. Had the UK had strong leadership and good negotiating skills I believe it was possible to effect such change as to make membership clearly beneficial to anyone reading past whatever is the latest media hype (tha layyer omnipresent with any situation).

Unfortunately the previos Prime Minister who set out to do that was an uncharismatic wimp and lacked any leadership or negotiating skills, and instead of strong negotiation tried to threaten the EU with taking a referendum on UK leaving if they didn’t concede, which backfired because all he had done was make people wish to kick him by voting against his recommendation to remain.

With regard to what the UK should do now, I have made my point several times, and contrary to some people’s misrepresentation I have never suggested a re-run of the original vote, but a confirmatiry referendum that actually gives real power to the process if it says yes, go through with it we are content with everything that means, now we know - or otherwise if that is not the case puts on the brakes. And that indeed would be the democratic thing to do.

thebigfredc posted:

It looks like Winky has gone. If only it was that easy to get rid of Huge and Don. Anyway, at least Winky will have more time on his hands to drink shit Canadian beer and practice his curling.

No such luck, as I pointed out either earlier or in another thread (I can't be bothered to look through over 4000 posts many of which - particularly posts supporting brexit from people to whom it makes little or no difference - are are sadly lacking in logic)

...

You can't bully me into submission - I have terrier mentality!

Huge posted:

thebigfredc posted:

It looks like Winky has gone. If only it was that easy to get rid of Huge and Don. Anyway, at least Winky will have more time on his hands to drink shit Canadian beer and practice his curling.

No such luck, as I pointed out either earlier or in another thread (I can't be bothered to look through over 4000 posts many of which - particularly posts supporting brexit from people to whom it makes little or no difference - are are sadly lacking in logic)

...

You can't bully me into submission - I have terrier mentality!

Huge, do you feel the same way towards people to whom it did make a difference?  ie. those who voted to leave ! 

Is it reasonable to conclude that logic remains solely in the domain of those who want to remain?

Huge posted:

 - I have terrier mentality!

An accusation commonly levelled at those of us with tenacity and determination, the other lekeness of which I have been accused is a British Bulldog,which may be closer to the mark in all but persistence.

I've opted out of this debate as it's too parochial, but...

We're continually told that we must leave the EU as it's the will of the people. The will of the people is apparently a definitive and immutable position, that the Great British public absolutely desires to leave the EU for any of the numerous and various reasons. That the will of the people was decided by a margin smaller than that required to change the constitution of a Golf Club is neither here nor there, apparently.

This is purely my own experience, but I believe the option to have a subsequent vote on the outcome of the negotiations has a validity. Of the people I know who voted Out and with whom I've had more than a passing discussion over it, their reasons for voting out were:

• to give Cameron a good kicking. Well played there, but you've ended up kicking me full on in the nadgers with your steel toe caps, whilst Cameron drops out of public life and presumably continues to do quite well for himself thank you very much.
• To regain sovereignty. Great. The Queen continues to pass laws into UK statute, just as before. But they won't be largely helpful laws that strive for the common good.
• Because - and I quote - "we didn't know which way to vote, and Out seemed like a good idea at the time. We'd love to have a chance to vote again, properly". 
• The Sun told me to vote Out. Seriously. People I know have said this is what swayed them to the Out side.
• Those who didn't vote. Yes the youth of today are a waste of space who spend 25 hours a day gawping at their sodding phones but the number of them who I've had a pop at for not voting, only to be told that there was no way Out would win so there was no need to vote, is significant. 
• Statistically older people were more in favour of exiting the EU. Simple population change informs us that older people are dying off more quickly than the young, so the balance has swung. 

The point is that the will of the people was a snapshot on June 23rd 2016, driven by lies and deceit. WTF makes that a binding completely irreversible commitment to leaving the EU? We were asked a vague question, with no emphasis on the reality of what Out would mean as no-one knew the answer to that at the time. The most basic requirement left to us as a nation is to be given a follow-up referendum when negotiations are complete and a deal of some kind is on the table. Based on the actuality of the negotiations and the where we then are given the terms on the table; In, or Out?

The will of the people is shifting. It's not some effing game that we win or lose or that we have to suck up the result as one side 'won' and one side 'lost', it's a chuffing calamitous decision based on a mix of political ineptitude on Cameron's part. political stupidity and naivety on the part of some of the electorate, and a misjudgement by the phalanx of the semi-aware yoof of today who aren't alert to Pink Floyd lyrics and how meaningful they turn out to be:

No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun

The will of the people to leave the EU is the will of a minority. The balance that made it up to 52% is a mixture of the properly committed; and the halfwits, idiots and kids who didn't know what it meant. We need a confirmation once the facts and the terms of the deal are known. It has to happen. We can't blunder into this based on a shite campaign in 2016 that didn't address any of the issues we now face. 

Well said CHRISR

Don Atkinson posted:

Sloop John B posted:

Dave***t posted:

 Great Britain as commonly understood doesn't include Northern Ireland,

 

Please explain? 

.sjb

I'm only guessing, but perhaps "The UK" = "GB + NI"        mind you, I don't know, I'm only guessing !

Just goes to show how many of us know so little about our own organisations (me included I hasten to add)

CHRISR posted:

' Of the people I know who voted Out and with whom I've had more than a passing discussion over it, their reasons for voting out were:

• to give Cameron a good kicking. Well played there, but you've ended up kicking me full on in the nadgers with your steel toe caps, whilst Cameron drops out of public life and presumably continues to do quite well for himself thank you very much.
• To regain sovereignty. Great. The Queen continues to pass laws into UK statute, just as before. But they won't be largely helpful laws that strive for the common good.
• Because - and I quote - "we didn't know which way to vote, and Out seemed like a good idea at the time. We'd love to have a chance to vote again, properly". 
• The Sun told me to vote Out. Seriously. People I know have said this is what swayed them to the Out side.
• Those who didn't vote. Yes the youth of today are a waste of space who spend 25 hours a day gawping at their sodding phones but the number of them who I've had a pop at for not voting, only to be told that there was no way Out would win so there was no need to vote, is significant. '

Some observations from me:

You really need to widen your social circle as you seem to be hanging out with some seriously thick people.

You forgot (they forgot) to mention the NHS bus.

 Some people  voted 'remain' for equally ridiculous and ill-informed reasons such as, for example, because they like the Eurovision Song contest or they like going on holiday to Majorca.

Ray

Florestan posted:

Huge posted:

thebigfredc posted:

It looks like Winky has gone. If only it was that easy to get rid of Huge and Don. Anyway, at least Winky will have more time on his hands to drink shit Canadian beer and practice his curling.

No such luck, as I pointed out either earlier or in another thread (I can't be bothered to look through over 4000 posts many of which - particularly posts supporting brexit from people to whom it makes little or no difference - are are sadly lacking in logic)

...

You can't bully me into submission - I have terrier mentality!

Huge, do you feel the same way towards people to whom it did make a difference?  ie. those who voted to leave ! 
I feel it was their right to vote that way.

Is it reasonable to conclude that logic remains solely in the domain of those who want to remain?
No I don't; which is why I didn't say that.

Implying that I came to a particular conclusion when I actually didn't come to that particular conclusion just reinforces my point!

thebigfredc posted:

CHRISR posted:

' Of the people I know who voted Out and with whom I've had more than a passing discussion over it, their reasons for voting out were:

• to give Cameron a good kicking. Well played there, but you've ended up kicking me full on in the nadgers with your steel toe caps, whilst Cameron drops out of public life and presumably continues to do quite well for himself thank you very much.
• To regain sovereignty. Great. The Queen continues to pass laws into UK statute, just as before. But they won't be largely helpful laws that strive for the common good.
• Because - and I quote - "we didn't know which way to vote, and Out seemed like a good idea at the time. We'd love to have a chance to vote again, properly". 
• The Sun told me to vote Out. Seriously. People I know have said this is what swayed them to the Out side.
• Those who didn't vote. Yes the youth of today are a waste of space who spend 25 hours a day gawping at their sodding phones but the number of them who I've had a pop at for not voting, only to be told that there was no way Out would win so there was no need to vote, is significant. '

 

Some observations from me:

You really need to widen your social circle as you seem to be hanging out with some seriously thick people.

You forgot (they forgot) to mention the NHS bus.

 Some people  voted 'remain' for equally ridiculous and ill-informed reasons such as, for example, because they like the Eurovision Song contest or they like going on holiday to Majorca.

Ray

 

Seriously? Is that the best you can do?

Now let’s hear a real reasoned counter-argument, from anyone, as to why, given all the circumstsnces outlined by ChrisR in his post last night and by me in numerous posts a confirmatory referendum is not the only reasonable, wise, sensible and indeed democratic thing to do? For assistance I pull out two of my previous posts below:

Posted at 23:53 on 12th July (UK time):

The strong case is for a confirmatory referendum once the full detail of what Brexit really means is kneow, as opposed to the lies, deceit, guseework, misinformation, bad information, unfounded assumption, media hype etc that was what the majority of people had to go on when the leave/remain referendum was run two years ago. And as I have pointed out many times, if Brexit is confirmed, it will shut the remainers up, and if not, then it will show the Brexiteers that their desire is not the will of the people in the face of the facts. Given all the circumstances, a confirmatory referendum is the only reasonable and wise thing to do - and would truly be democracy at work. What is not to like about it - unless you are a Brexiteer who seriously believes the result would now be the oposite of the original referendum, whence you would be admitting that you actually think democracy is a bad thing

Posted at 08:23 on 13th July: 

And how, exactly, is it in ANY WAY undemocratic calling for confirmation when the facts are known? What I want isn’t material  - I will accept with grace a confirmation now that so much more is known than 2 years ago, even if that is against my personal belief  of what I think is best for the UK. Sadly, it seems you, and at least some others, would not accept that democratic process, thus demonstrating your false claim that leaving, regardless of what that means in practice, is the demonstrated democratic will of the people. It isn’t - all it was was a declaration by a (small) majority of voters that their preference was to leave, inevitably based on the information available at that time, two years ago.

For what it is worth my parents (born 1930 and 1932) voted Leave because they have a deep suspicion (hatred really) of Germany. They felt remaining in the EU would mean being ruled by Germany. They were kids in London during the blitz. I did not feel this was an argument anyone could really debate or challenge.

So reasons for a 'Leave' vote may include rather more than the list above.

Bruce

Innocent Bystander posted:

thebigfredc posted:

...

Some observations from me:

You really need to widen your social circle as you seem to be hanging out with some seriously thick people.

You forgot (they forgot) to mention the NHS bus.

 Some people  voted 'remain' for equally ridiculous and ill-informed reasons such as, for example, because they like the Eurovision Song contest or they like going on holiday to Majorca.

Ray

 

Seriously? Is that the best you can do?

Now let’s hear a real reasoned counter-argument, from anyone, as to why, given all the circumstsnces outlined by ChrisR in his post last night and by me in numerous posts a confirmatory referendum is not the only reasonable, wise, sensible and indeed democratic thing to do?

...

Apparently so... or at least that's the way it appears; (actually I don't think it's the best those on the brexit side can do).

I also would be interested in any such well reasoned counter arguments.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

For what it is worth my parents (born 1930 and 1932) voted Leave because they have a deep suspicion (hatred really) of Germany. They felt remaining in the EU would mean being ruled by Germany. They were kids in London during the blitz. I did not feel this was an argument anyone could really debate or challenge.

So reasons for a 'Leave' vote may include rather more than the list above.

Bruce

I'm sure ChrisR's list wasn't intended to  be exhaustive, just some of the prime reasons given by friends and acquaintances of his who did vote to leave.

He was merely illustrating that the reasons for wishing to leave were many and varied: from the well considered and structured through those who were misinformed to reactions based on mild xenophobia or other such irrational beliefs.

He also pointed out that this list represents the reasons for wishing to leave at that time and, in some cases, does not represent their current thoughts.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

For what it is worth my parents (born 1930 and 1932) voted Leave because they have a deep suspicion (hatred really) of Germany. They felt remaining in the EU would mean being ruled by Germany. They were kids in London during the blitz. I did not feel this was an argument anyone could really debate or challenge.

So reasons for a 'Leave' vote may include rather more than the list above.

Bruce

I don’t think ChrisR was suggesting for one moment that those were the only reasons - I read him as saying those were tge reasons given by all the people he knows who voted leave and discussed with him. Indeed, I am sure that of the people who voted leave there were a variety of perfectly valid reasons:  I think his point was that there is good evidence that the vote was not a true reflection of what the public truly wanted - which is in accord with my own experience that everyone I know who voted leave did so not wanting it, but to make a point against the UK Gov of the tine, not for one moment thinking there was the slightest chance of a majority, just wanting the majority to stay not to be as strong as Cameron assumed.