Granett

As other Brexiteers have explained, there were always going to be more racists attaching themselves to the Leave campaign. It seems North has cleaned up his site. I've Google and here's an article that looks like it covers most of it: How offensive does Richard North have to be to alienate his loyal readers? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/17/richard-north-blog .

Lol. This blogger is the "expert Brexiteer" people roll out, who also denies climate change and uses racist terms all over his blog.

You threw your toys out of the pram and said you weren't going to talk to me. What happened? We could write that promise on the side of a bus, perhaps. I've posted some quotes before but they went over the heads of people here. I presume you're referring to those in order to try and resurrect the flawed counter-argument that was made before. It is hilarious how quickly the arguments run out and the ad hominems come out.

Lol. A puff-piece in the Mail about Farage in the days after the death threats against the MPs. And it's swallowed hook line and sinker by those who claim to be immune to manipulation by the media.

Pretty miserable Daily Mail article going for Stalinist-esque persecution on its front page. Not much of a surprise to see its dog whistle has generated the desired response and Brexiteer death threats have started coming in again... If I recall correctly, it's only Brexiteers that have issued these sort of death threats on the past, and committed murder over this matter... Let's hope they don't do it again.

What do you mean? "Brexit, the way you hoped it would"? Brexiteers voted for unicorns. They're getting donkeys in dunces' hats and blaming other for not delivering pure fantasy. I don't think there's any need for apology.

Bit of a joke at the expense of the Brexit team from Mr Tusk, I see:

It stems from when I nearly got banned for being the only poster to call someone out for saying Britain belongs to white people (in fact, I copped a fair bit of flak for speaking out). Since then, it's clear certain generalisations are valid and appropriate. But I'll ignore the elephant in the room if that's the way PW is moderated.

Lol. Before the referendum this was what was dutifully regurgitated out of the Express and the Mail as "Project Fear". Now it's "What we all knew to be the case". There are plenty of quotes from Brexiteers from before the ref showing they expected a soft Brexit. Just because PW doesn't understand that, doesn't make it less true.

That sounds like the perfect argument for a second referendum now we have a clearer view of the shambles that is being made of Brexit. Anyone see this about the Brexit champion: David Davis says he doesn't have to be clever or 'know that much' to be Brexit secretary - David Davis says he doesn't have to be clever to manage Brexit. - Brexit Secretary told LBC he just has to stay "calm" in negotiations. - "Anybody can do details," Davis said. - Davis defended decision not to commission Brexit impact assessments. http://www.businessinsider.com/david-davis-does-not-have-to-be-clever-to-be-brexit-secretary-2017-12

Eh? No you haven't. PW! Such a bizarre level of debate.

Lol. Have you demonstrated where the doc demonstrates "a deliberate plot to dilute our culture and national identity so that we sleep walk into the globalist's new world order." I see neutron has posted another new wall of text (having made an excuse to give up on the debate previously) which I'll look at if I think have time tomorrow. In the meantime though it's hilarious to see other Brexiteers "+1" stuff posted by him that directly contradicts stuff they've posted themselves!

Wrong about what? Cut and paste the bit(s) in there that prove "a deliberate plot to dilute our culture and national identity so that we sleep walk into the globalist's new world order." While you're answering that why not also answer how PW contributors, were they even-handed would commented about a 30 year old letter that set out the advantages we subsequently benefited from as EU members?

Lol. Pointed out your Daily Express was engaging in its fake news again, dressing up a letter as a newly discovered document you mean?

It is just as far fetched. I'll concede that that Daily Express article will pull the wool over some of its readers eyes and to them it might seem more plausible, but that's not quite the same thing. Here's a challenge for you - can you print the full wording of "Secret document FCO 30/1048" (LOL. "Secret document FCO 30/1048" - I bet that name made so many readers feel so X-Files) and its timing and authorship? If you've not discovered that so far, you'll learn a lot. Edit: cross posted with above. Excellent. Have a read of "Secret document FCO 30/1048" in full and then say what you think it proves.

Jeez. That's proper tinfoil hat level stuff. Does this feature a Deep State, and black helicopters?

Lol. So immigrants pay more. And given the demographics of the Brexit vote, it's safe to say they contribute more than the average Brexiteer. Ironic to think there are Brexiteers out there essentially funded by the people they voted to have removed.

I loathe Gove, but he's just saying what loads of people said on here, isn't he? This is the "sovereignty" that most Brexit votes were based on - the ability to control our MPs at the ballot box. In what way has that pricinple changed between then and now?

It's hilarious how threatened and defensive people are about their fragile ideas! You need to ask yourself why talking things through makes you so angry.

Lol. Your manners really are appalling. Just keeping telling people to shut up if they disagree with the bilge that you unthinkingly regurgitate from the Express.

Lol. The appeal to self evident truth is definitely the logical fallacy of choice here isn't it. All said with such certainty. No doubt the Express said it so it must be true.

Cheers. Likewise. It's been an entertaining but laborious exchange. I am certain a handful of Leavers have decent informed reasons for their decision. I feel most of yours are misconceived, but some certainly have a degree of merit, in principle, if not necessarily in practical outcome. I'd also say that a lot of them run utterly at odds to the arguments made by other Brexiteers. Any chance of a measure by which and by when you'd determine Brexit a success? Regardless, all the best.

LOL. That's right. If Brexit doesn't work for any particular individual, it's because they didn't believe in Brexit hard enough. Even more "article of faith" stuff now. Just to add to the hilarity: Brexit supporter tells James O'Brien he voted to leave EU over lack of 'white faces' at his local hospital - Caller insists he is not being racist http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-supporter-vote-leave-eu-lack-white-faces-hospital-james-obrien-lbc-northwick-park-a8099561.html

Thanks. I'll use that.

Incorrect. They do. Via the Parliament, where they can build a consensus and put a proposal forward. The commission itself is made up of one member from each member state - in no shape or form is it a dictatorship. Notwithstanding that, you're incorrect: the Parliament *can* reject legislation. Vague. And inconclusive. What is undemocratic, and dictatorship-like about this? Again, what is undemocratic about multiple referenda? Presumably it obnly the minority that lost the last ref that are sore. Cf all the PW comments about "Remoaning Remainiacs" in this thread. As above. Not forced. They had the Grexit option. Be under no illusion, "Project Fear" was a tool of the Brexit media. If things were too complicated, we were told "You've had enough of experts", and if it was dumbed down, it was "Project Fear". I'd be intrigued to see what if anything prior to the ref from the Remain campaign you consider to be "Project fear". On the same topic, I'm still clear who are these dark figures "of dangerous character" you refer to. As with all of these, you're not showing how this is the action of a dictatorship as opposed to any other form of governance. I suppose this could have legs. It's discrete as opposed to amorphous. There might be something in that. It's not a case of being passed what the EU gives us, it's what we as part of the EU negotiate. Nevertheless, the caselaw Rewulf posted up shows clearly what the typical Brexiteer considers by sovereignty, and they're going to be shocked the first time the UK gets sued under the WTO. You appear to be arguing that your example about grain wasn't a singular argument, and therefore as a generality, it can't be disproved by a singular observation. I'm not sure I agree with the premise or the assumption there. Is the scientific method an "age-old trick"? I guess it is. If an observation disproves the hypothesis, are you saying, the hypothesis should still stand? Nevertheless, you seem to be conceding that your point about tariffs isn't quite as comprehensive as it was first presented. Your statement in bold is bold. And unless you can show me otherwise, completely lacking in falsifiability. I've not made a point of that argument from other Brexiteers here (for obvious reasons) but I'd be interested if you can rephrase that so it *can* be tested. You've missed the point. Those cases between a UK citizen and the UK government end in either advantage for one or the other - to present them as UK -v- EU is to misrepresent the situation. That doesn't get away from the fact we're no longer going have a say about how the biggest trading bloc in the world deals with that, and how those Brexiteers with a sense of moral duty square that duty with the fact there is no reason to believe the UK will act any differently on its own than it has done as part of the bloc. I'd be interested to know how many representations Nigel Farage has made to the EU Parliament on the subject. Hmmmm. Strawman-strawman. That's a bit of interesting one. In that we *did* have a degree of influence in that legal system. Your argument seems to one of degrees. By that rationale, why do you feel that the right level of influence is at national level? Would you go further? Should the courts of Englanmd and Wales be broken up. Should it be at county level perhaps? I've not seen anything to sway me either way. Yours is now a different argument to the one you started off making - essentially that it was better to be governed by innate morals than prescriptive legislation. And you've not really said why. Or how the UK system allows this more than the European system. OK. But you understand how stating that you believe in two contradictory positions undermines your argument, right? I'd argue that UK fecklessness is not a result of having it so good in Europe. We can agree to disagree. Yeah, I'm not going to criticise you for your departure here from the PW consensus. Sounds fine, but in terms of trade value, the reporting probably reflects the relative worth. I'm not sure I follow here. Fair enough. I'd argue it's naive to think the Express won't find a new scapegoat for its readership to blame for their lot in life. On that basis, you must expect every industry in Post-Brexit UK to see a swift upsurge in performance. Can you say when and where you would expect to see evidence that Brexit is a success in your eyes? You've been in the echo-chamber too long I fear. Interesting to see yet another Brexiteer retreat into "Brexit as an article of faith" now. You've already given up. And I'm the one that's thrashed!