Lies Told To Norway

[Granett]

 

1 - But you can't vote against specific parts of the Queen's Speech, rather, just vote for one party or the other. Your complaint seems to be against the degree to which your elected representatives make decisions on your behalf. Rescaling this from Europe-wide, to UK-wide does nothing to resolve that complaint.

 

No my complaint is as already stated a combined lack of democracy and sovereignty. Let`s consider the current Conservative manifesto. They vowed to bring immigration figures down. But they can`t actually make any significant inroads into doing that. True they could cut down on non EU immigration, but they can`t do anything about anyone from Europe coming here. So our democratically elected party is powerless to act on a promise they made. Why? Because of our membership of the EU. Because EU laws are considered greater than our own. I don`t care whether the topic is immigration or the straightness of cucumbers. I want our democratically elected government to be able to pass laws and repeal laws without interference from a body I did not elect to speak for me.

 

But the Conservatives knew this before they made that promise. Free movement is just one part of a larger agreement which independent expert commentators agree constitutes a net gain for the UK. There is nothing to suggest we will get better terms outside (generally, and even specifically on free movement).

 

To move the debate onto new ground I'll concede a degree of loss of sovereignty. So what? The world changes. You'll struggle to dispute that many Leave voters are hankering after a 50s Britain. That won't work in the modern world. It will look like Estonia, or the Isle of Wight. The world we live in is less restrained by geography. Travel and communication have moved on. We cannot afford to be more isolated. Churchill's speech (which you and I have discussed) seems to be an acknowledgement of this.

 

You had a similar electoral involvement in the constitution of the EU as for parliament.

 

2 - Neither does the head of the commission. The Council or Parliament ultimate vote.

 

3 - Each MEP holds equal voting powers I believe.

 

Proportionally that is not the case. I`ll let Jacob explain. Start around 3:30, or watch the lot, it`s very good.

 

 

No thanks. Or we'll end up exchanging Youtube links.

I didn't expect such disingenuous stuff from you DM. What questions have I failed to answer? If I've answered with a question, my answer should be apparent - usually my question highlighting the fallacy in the question that's been put to me - you're intelligent enough to know that.

 

I`m also intelligent enough to realise that deflection is a useful tactic when you have no answer. That aside you did fail to answer a very direct and simple question from me. I had thought it was in this thread but it appears it must be in a different one regarding the EU.

 

Hmmm. Come on then - just cut'n'paste it.

 

So your interpretation was that Churchill wanted it, just not for Britain - you would rather interpret Churchill as a hypocrite, instead of pro-EU? Are those voting to leave "championing its right to live and shine"?

 

Absolutely. It`s pretty clear throughout that speech. He talks about France and Germany leading the way, the only time he mentions Great Britain is at the end, "Great Britain . . . must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine." Do you not think that he would have suggested that Britain would lead alongside France and Germany if we were to be involved in this European state? This our greatest PM of all time, the man who would not be cowed by Hitler, arguably one of the greatest and most patriotic Britons of all time. "must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe" That`s all he said of us. I`m certainly not interpreting him as a hypocrite, only you have mentioned that word.

 

And yes, perhaps in some ways we are. Without us they can push towards futher integration without our interference.

 

Again, disingenuous from you DM - I've lost count of the "As soon as we leave they'll collapse!" comments in these threads.

 

Right, so when he said:

 

"The whole movement of the world is towards an interdependence of nations. We feel all around us the belief that it is our best hope, if independent, individual sovereignty is sacrosanct and inviolable, how is it that we are wedded to a world organisation?... How is it that we have undertaken this immense obligation for the defence of Western Europe...? It can only be justified and even tolerated because on either side of the Atlantic it is felt that interdependence is part of our faith and the means of our salvation."

 

What exactly did he mean?

 

I don`t know. Give me the entire speech and I`d have a better idea. After all it`s easy to pick a snippet and play it for your cause. You started with Churchill, I found an alternative that I could swing my way and now you`ve sent the ball back over the net. We could go on all night but as Churchill isn`t around to comment then neither of us can categorically prove which way he would vote today. However I do believe

 

"He would want, as far as he possibly could to protect the sovereignty of the House of Commons, the democracy that he defended and that he served all his life"

 

(Boris Johnson - The Churchill Factor)

 

Well in lieu of anything further from you on that let's just leave his comments to stand and people can decide for themselves whether he was pro-EU or not.

 

No not irony. When people consider what was his answer they just need to read the next few lines:-

 

"What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family"

 

The irony is that Switzerland is indeed a rich and happy nation who have just torn up their application to join the EU.

 

 

So all we need is some opaque banking rules and we can maintain our national pride.

 

[Danger-Mouse]

 

 

1 - But you can't vote against specific parts of the Queen's Speech, rather, just vote for one party or the other. Your complaint seems to be against the degree to which your elected representatives make decisions on your behalf. Rescaling this from Europe-wide, to UK-wide does nothing to resolve that complaint.

 

No my complaint is as already stated a combined lack of democracy and sovereignty. Let`s consider the current Conservative manifesto. They vowed to bring immigration figures down. But they can`t actually make any significant inroads into doing that. True they could cut down on non EU immigration, but they can`t do anything about anyone from Europe coming here. So our democratically elected party is powerless to act on a promise they made. Why? Because of our membership of the EU. Because EU laws are considered greater than our own. I don`t care whether the topic is immigration or the straightness of cucumbers. I want our democratically elected government to be able to pass laws and repeal laws without interference from a body I did not elect to speak for me.

 

But the Conservatives knew this before they made that promise. Free movement is just one part of a larger agreement which independent expert commentators agree constitutes a net gain for the UK. There is nothing to suggest we will get better terms outside (generally, and even specifically on free movement).

 

To move the debate onto new ground I'll concede a degree of loss of sovereignty. So what? The world changes. You'll struggle to dispute that many Leave voters are hankering after a 50s Britain. That won't work in the modern world. It will look like Estonia, or the Isle of Wight. The world we live in is less restrained by geography. Travel and communication have moved on. We cannot afford to be more isolated. Churchill's speech (which you and I have discussed) seems to be an acknowledgement of this.

 

You had a similar electoral involvement in the constitution of the EU as for parliament.

 

Irrelevent! I said it didn`t matter if it was immigration or the straightness of cucumbers. I`m not debating immigration. Stop changing the question. It`s like tying down a poltician, they give an answer to a question that has not been asked. It`s about sovereignty and democracy, that`s all. And "So what?" you say . . . I`m very close to giving up when I hear that.

 

"The world we live in is less restrained by geography. Travel and communication have moved on. We cannot afford to be more isolated"

 

It`s ok . . . travel and communication have moved on, we`ll be able to make deals by Skype! Your argument is self defeating.

2 - Neither does the head of the commission. The Council or Parliament ultimate vote.

 

3 - Each MEP holds equal voting powers I believe.

 

Proportionally that is not the case. I`ll let Jacob explain. Start around 3:30, or watch the lot, it`s very good.

 

 

No thanks. Or we'll end up exchanging Youtube links.

 

See, you ask for sources or details and then refuse to watch them when provided. I did you the courtesy of answering your question but you can`t be bothered to watch a couple of minutes of video to hear what is said.

I didn't expect such disingenuous stuff from you DM. What questions have I failed to answer? If I've answered with a question, my answer should be apparent - usually my question highlighting the fallacy in the question that's been put to me - you're intelligent enough to know that.

 

I`m also intelligent enough to realise that deflection is a useful tactic when you have no answer. That aside you did fail to answer a very direct and simple question from me. I had thought it was in this thread but it appears it must be in a different one regarding the EU.

 

Hmmm. Come on then - just cut'n'paste it.

 

I don`t need to. I can remember roughly what I asked.

 

Is it more democratic for half a billion ordinary people to vote on an issue than it is for a 1,000 members of the poltical elite to vote on it.

 

So your interpretation was that Churchill wanted it, just not for Britain - you would rather interpret Churchill as a hypocrite, instead of pro-EU? Are those voting to leave "championing its right to live and shine"?

 

Absolutely. It`s pretty clear throughout that speech. He talks about France and Germany leading the way, the only time he mentions Great Britain is at the end, "Great Britain . . . must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine." Do you not think that he would have suggested that Britain would lead alongside France and Germany if we were to be involved in this European state? This our greatest PM of all time, the man who would not be cowed by Hitler, arguably one of the greatest and most patriotic Britons of all time. "must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe" That`s all he said of us. I`m certainly not interpreting him as a hypocrite, only you have mentioned that word.

 

And yes, perhaps in some ways we are. Without us they can push towards futher integration without our interference.

 

Again, disingenuous from you DM - I've lost count of the "As soon as we leave they'll collapse!" comments in these threads.

 

Not much of an aswer really is it? No dissection of what I said other than to comment on the last few words. But hey . . . they might collapse, they might not. But I genuinely wish them well if they want to sail off into the future and create a federal superstate. I just don`t want to be a part of it that`s all.

 

Right, so when he said:

 

"The whole movement of the world is towards an interdependence of nations. We feel all around us the belief that it is our best hope, if independent, individual sovereignty is sacrosanct and inviolable, how is it that we are wedded to a world organisation?... How is it that we have undertaken this immense obligation for the defence of Western Europe...? It can only be justified and even tolerated because on either side of the Atlantic it is felt that interdependence is part of our faith and the means of our salvation."

 

What exactly did he mean?

 

I don`t know. Give me the entire speech and I`d have a better idea. After all it`s easy to pick a snippet and play it for your cause. You started with Churchill, I found an alternative that I could swing my way and now you`ve sent the ball back over the net. We could go on all night but as Churchill isn`t around to comment then neither of us can categorically prove which way he would vote today. However I do believe

 

"He would want, as far as he possibly could to protect the sovereignty of the House of Commons, the democracy that he defended and that he served all his life"

 

(Boris Johnson - The Churchill Factor)

 

Well in lieu of anything further from you on that let's just leave his comments to stand and people can decide for themselves whether he was pro-EU or not.

 

No not irony. When people consider what was his answer they just need to read the next few lines:-

 

"What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family"

 

The irony is that Switzerland is indeed a rich and happy nation who have just torn up their application to join the EU.

 

 

So all we need is some opaque banking rules and we can maintain our national pride.

 

Nope just the right to make our own laws.

 

 

[Granett]

 

 

 

1 - But you can't vote against specific parts of the Queen's Speech, rather, just vote for one party or the other. Your complaint seems to be against the degree to which your elected representatives make decisions on your behalf. Rescaling this from Europe-wide, to UK-wide does nothing to resolve that complaint.

 

No my complaint is as already stated a combined lack of democracy and sovereignty. Let`s consider the current Conservative manifesto. They vowed to bring immigration figures down. But they can`t actually make any significant inroads into doing that. True they could cut down on non EU immigration, but they can`t do anything about anyone from Europe coming here. So our democratically elected party is powerless to act on a promise they made. Why? Because of our membership of the EU. Because EU laws are considered greater than our own. I don`t care whether the topic is immigration or the straightness of cucumbers. I want our democratically elected government to be able to pass laws and repeal laws without interference from a body I did not elect to speak for me.

 

But the Conservatives knew this before they made that promise. Free movement is just one part of a larger agreement which independent expert commentators agree constitutes a net gain for the UK. There is nothing to suggest we will get better terms outside (generally, and even specifically on free movement).

 

To move the debate onto new ground I'll concede a degree of loss of sovereignty. So what? The world changes. You'll struggle to dispute that many Leave voters are hankering after a 50s Britain. That won't work in the modern world. It will look like Estonia, or the Isle of Wight. The world we live in is less restrained by geography. Travel and communication have moved on. We cannot afford to be more isolated. Churchill's speech (which you and I have discussed) seems to be an acknowledgement of this.

 

You had a similar electoral involvement in the constitution of the EU as for parliament.

 

Irrelevent! I said it didn`t matter if it was immigration or the straightness of cucumbers. I`m not debating immigration. Stop changing the question.

 

You cite a specific example and then when I poke holes in it you say you don't want to talk specifics. More ingenuous stuff from you.

 

It`s like tying down a poltician, they give an answer to a question that has not been asked.

 

No I haven't. Look. You went on for a few lines on your chosen example of immigration. I addressed it. What question did you ask there in any event?Stop your demogogeruery.

 

It`s about sovereignty and democracy, that`s all.

 

And you've ignored my answer.

 

And "So what?" you say . . . I`m very close to giving up when I hear that. "The world we live in is less restrained by geography. Travel and communication have moved on. We cannot afford to be more isolated" It`s ok . . . travel and communication have moved on, we`ll be able to make deals by Skype! Your argument is self defeating.

 

That's a naive understanding of trade. And just like a politician you're twisting my statements - How does my "less restrained by geography" become your "unrestrained"?

 

2 - Neither does the head of the commission. The Council or Parliament ultimate vote.

 

3 - Each MEP holds equal voting powers I believe.

 

Proportionally that is not the case. I`ll let Jacob explain. Start around 3:30, or watch the lot, it`s very good.

 

 

No thanks. Or we'll end up exchanging Youtube links.

 

See, you ask for sources or details and then refuse to watch them when provided. I did you the courtesy of answering your question but you can`t be bothered to watch a couple of minutes of video to hear what is said.

 

 

OK. So I watched from 3.30 until he said "the EU Commission is entirely appointed and has no element of democracy" - So that'd be a misrepresentation of the President voted for by our MEPs.

 

I didn't expect such disingenuous stuff from you DM. What questions have I failed to answer? If I've answered with a question, my answer should be apparent - usually my question highlighting the fallacy in the question that's been put to me - you're intelligent enough to know that.

 

I`m also intelligent enough to realise that deflection is a useful tactic when you have no answer. That aside you did fail to answer a very direct and simple question from me. I had thought it was in this thread but it appears it must be in a different one regarding the EU.

 

Hmmm. Come on then - just cut'n'paste it.

 

I don`t need to. I can remember roughly what I asked.

 

Is it more democratic for half a billion ordinary people to vote on an issue than it is for a 1,000 members of the poltical elite to vote on it.

 

Yes. Why do you not demand a referendum on every decision parliament makes?

 

So your interpretation was that Churchill wanted it, just not for Britain - you would rather interpret Churchill as a hypocrite, instead of pro-EU? Are those voting to leave "championing its right to live and shine"?

 

Absolutely. It`s pretty clear throughout that speech. He talks about France and Germany leading the way, the only time he mentions Great Britain is at the end, "Great Britain . . . must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine." Do you not think that he would have suggested that Britain would lead alongside France and Germany if we were to be involved in this European state? This our greatest PM of all time, the man who would not be cowed by Hitler, arguably one of the greatest and most patriotic Britons of all time. "must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe" That`s all he said of us. I`m certainly not interpreting him as a hypocrite, only you have mentioned that word.

 

And yes, perhaps in some ways we are. Without us they can push towards futher integration without our interference.

 

Again, disingenuous from you DM - I've lost count of the "As soon as we leave they'll collapse!" comments in these threads.

 

Not much of an aswer really is it?

 

Because I address it below

 

No dissection of what I said other than to comment on the last few words. But hey . . . they might collapse, they might not. But I genuinely wish them well if they want to sail off into the future and create a federal superstate. I just don`t want to be a part of it that`s all.

 

Right, so when he said:

 

"The whole movement of the world is towards an interdependence of nations. We feel all around us the belief that it is our best hope, if independent, individual sovereignty is sacrosanct and inviolable, how is it that we are wedded to a world organisation?... How is it that we have undertaken this immense obligation for the defence of Western Europe...? It can only be justified and even tolerated because on either side of the Atlantic it is felt that interdependence is part of our faith and the means of our salvation."

 

What exactly did he mean?

 

I don`t know. Give me the entire speech and I`d have a better idea. After all it`s easy to pick a snippet and play it for your cause. You started with Churchill, I found an alternative that I could swing my way and now you`ve sent the ball back over the net. We could go on all night but as Churchill isn`t around to comment then neither of us can categorically prove which way he would vote today. However I do believe

 

"He would want, as far as he possibly could to protect the sovereignty of the House of Commons, the democracy that he defended and that he served all his life"

 

(Boris Johnson - The Churchill Factor)

 

Well in lieu of anything further from you on that let's just leave his comments to stand and people can decide for themselves whether he was pro-EU or not.

 

No not irony. When people consider what was his answer they just need to read the next few lines:-

 

"What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family"

 

The irony is that Switzerland is indeed a rich and happy nation who have just torn up their application to join the EU.

 

 

So all we need is some opaque banking rules and we can maintain our national pride.

 

Nope just the right to make our own laws.

 

 

Again, you put up Switzerland as rejecting the EU because of law making when in reality the benefit they gain from neutrality and opaque banking is the real reason they chose to stay out.

 

 

 

[Danger-Mouse]

 

 

 

 

1 - But you can't vote against specific parts of the Queen's Speech, rather, just vote for one party or the other. Your complaint seems to be against the degree to which your elected representatives make decisions on your behalf. Rescaling this from Europe-wide, to UK-wide does nothing to resolve that complaint.

 

No my complaint is as already stated a combined lack of democracy and sovereignty. Let`s consider the current Conservative manifesto. They vowed to bring immigration figures down. But they can`t actually make any significant inroads into doing that. True they could cut down on non EU immigration, but they can`t do anything about anyone from Europe coming here. So our democratically elected party is powerless to act on a promise they made. Why? Because of our membership of the EU. Because EU laws are considered greater than our own. I don`t care whether the topic is immigration or the straightness of cucumbers. I want our democratically elected government to be able to pass laws and repeal laws without interference from a body I did not elect to speak for me.

.

 

Irrelevent! I said it didn`t matter if it was immigration or the straightness of cucumbers. I`m not debating immigration. Stop changing the question.

 

You cite a specific example and then when I poke holes in it you say you don't want to talk specifics. More ingenuous stuff from you.

 

It`s like tying down a poltician, they give an answer to a question that has not been asked.

 

No I haven't. Look. You went on for a few lines on your chosen example of immigration. I addressed it. What question did you ask there in any event?Stop your demogogeruery.

 

"No my complaint is as already stated a combined lack of democracy and sovereignty" . . . That`s my opening line. I then give an example. I then state that the example used is irrelevent that it`s the overall concept that is important. Then you come back with

"

Free movement is just one part of a larger agreement which independent expert commentators agree constitutes a net gain for the UK. There is nothing to suggest we will get better terms outside (generally, and even specifically on free movement)."

 

That`s an economic argument when I`m talking about democracy and sovereignty

 

It`s about sovereignty and democracy, that`s all.

 

And you've ignored my answer.

 

I`m lost. I really have no clue what this refers to.

 

And "So what?" you say . . . I`m very close to giving up when I hear that. "The world we live in is less restrained by geography. Travel and communication have moved on. We cannot afford to be more isolated" It`s ok . . . travel and communication have moved on, we`ll be able to make deals by Skype! Your argument is self defeating.

 

That's a naive understanding of trade. And just like a politician you're twisting my statements - How does my "less restrained by geography" become your "unrestrained"?

 

If the world is less restrained by geography because of travel and communications improvements then ergo it is easier for us to deal with more distant countries. How is that twisting your words? It`s a logical argument and in your own words. Speaking of which . . . Unrestrained? Where did I use that word?

 

See, you ask for sources or details and then refuse to watch them when provided. I did you the courtesy of answering your question but you can`t be bothered to watch a couple of minutes of video to hear what is said.

 

 

OK. So I watched from 3.30 until he said "the EU Commission is entirely appointed and has no element of democracy" - So that'd be a misrepresentation of the President voted for by our MEPs.

 

I don`t need to. I can remember roughly what I asked.

 

Is it more democratic for half a billion ordinary people to vote on an issue than it is for a 1,000 members of the poltical elite to vote on it.

 

Yes. Why do you not demand a referendum on every decision parliament makes?

 

Not realistic, I accept that. I don`t accept a bunch of political elites voting in a council that has the right to create policy for all of us though.

 

Nope just the right to make our own laws.

 

 

Again, you put up Switzerland as rejecting the EU because of law making when in reality the benefit they gain from neutrality and opaque banking is the real reason they chose to stay out.

 

See, another self fulfilling point. The very fact that Switzerland can make those rules that allow them to remain neutral and have those opaque banking systems is because they are not controlled by the EU. Now, you can debate the morality of one, but not so much the other. But that`s irrelevent because it`s their democratic right. If they ever want to change those rules they can, but only under a democratically elected government. And the fact remains that without the Brussels bureacracy controlling their every move they manage to be one of the richest and happiest nations on the planet. If a small country like that can do so well, why can`t we?

 

 

 

 

[12gauge82]

Just like to say DM very well worded argument and you must've spent alot of time doing it, if someone can't understand why you and others feel they want out by reading through that last exchange I feel they never will and have probably no understanding of what alot of us feel it is to be British. There is no doubt an in vote is a loss to some extent our sovereignty and democracy, how much depends what side of the fence you sit and how you view it, what granett fails to understand is that for many of us including me any loss of that sovereignty and democracy that was fought for and so many lives lost for us unacceptable full stop and that's before the economic argument starts which I still feel we'd be better off out

[Granett]

 

 

 

 

 

1 - But you can't vote against specific parts of the Queen's Speech, rather, just vote for one party or the other. Your complaint seems to be against the degree to which your elected representatives make decisions on your behalf. Rescaling this from Europe-wide, to UK-wide does nothing to resolve that complaint.

 

No my complaint is as already stated a combined lack of democracy and sovereignty. Let`s consider the current Conservative manifesto. They vowed to bring immigration figures down. But they can`t actually make any significant inroads into doing that. True they could cut down on non EU immigration, but they can`t do anything about anyone from Europe coming here. So our democratically elected party is powerless to act on a promise they made. Why? Because of our membership of the EU. Because EU laws are considered greater than our own. I don`t care whether the topic is immigration or the straightness of cucumbers. I want our democratically elected government to be able to pass laws and repeal laws without interference from a body I did not elect to speak for me.

.

 

Irrelevent! I said it didn`t matter if it was immigration or the straightness of cucumbers. I`m not debating immigration. Stop changing the question.

 

You cite a specific example and then when I poke holes in it you say you don't want to talk specifics. More ingenuous stuff from you.

 

It`s like tying down a poltician, they give an answer to a question that has not been asked.

 

No I haven't. Look. You went on for a few lines on your chosen example of immigration. I addressed it. What question did you ask there in any event?Stop your demogogeruery.

 

"No my complaint is as already stated a combined lack of democracy and sovereignty" . . . That`s my opening line. I then give an example. I then state that the example used is irrelevent that it`s the overall concept that is important. Then you come back with

"

Free movement is just one part of a larger agreement which independent expert commentators agree constitutes a net gain for the UK. There is nothing to suggest we will get better terms outside (generally, and even specifically on free movement)."

 

That`s an economic argument when I`m talking about democracy and sovereignty

 

My point is that every agreement (be that economic or otherwise) restricts the democracy and sovereignty you are talking about. You used an example of free movement, and I showed that that example was likely to be exactly the sort of thing where - while we may have the sovereignty to decide to stop free movement, the economic need to enter into trade agreements that our EU partners will insist includes free movement provisions make what you want to argue about in theory moot in practice.

 

Further, it seems law drawn up by the EU comprises 7% of what goes on our statute books (link to pdf download).

 

We have unfettered sovereignty over our budget - how our money gets spent. When you say you don't want to talk specifics, but just in vague terms, to me, that just looks like you don't have specific complaints just a vague notion you object to something. Give an valid example of where EU membership has curtailed our sovereignty in a way it won't be curtailed by the trade agreements we will have to sign up for.

 

It`s about sovereignty and democracy, that`s all.

 

And you've ignored my answer.

 

I`m lost. I really have no clue what this refers to.

 

And "So what?" you say . . . I`m very close to giving up when I hear that. "The world we live in is less restrained by geography. Travel and communication have moved on. We cannot afford to be more isolated" It`s ok . . . travel and communication have moved on, we`ll be able to make deals by Skype! Your argument is self defeating.

 

That's a naive understanding of trade. And just like a politician you're twisting my statements - How does my "less restrained by geography" become your "unrestrained"?

 

If the world is less restrained by geography because of travel and communications improvements then ergo it is easier for us to deal with more distant countries. How is that twisting your words? It`s a logical argument and in your own words. Speaking of which . . . Unrestrained? Where did I use that word?

 

My point was that our sphere of interaction has expanded. You chose to interpret that as meaning it had become globally unfettered. In the 50s, the Britain so many Leave voters want to return to, the state of communications and travel meant that my suppliers might be national, and my customers would be mainly within an area the size of my county. My friends and family lived within 50 miles and my travel was probably 99% intranational. Now, suppliers are global, customers are in my country and those next door, my friends and family are dispersed to a same degree as my customers, and I travel far more frequently and more broadly than ever before.

 

Every sphere of trade and interaction has grown by a step or two. This means closer ties with neighbouring countries is beneficial and necessary for economic success in the modern world.It doesn't mean I can swap European customers for Chinese any time soon.

 

See, you ask for sources or details and then refuse to watch them when provided. I did you the courtesy of answering your question but you can`t be bothered to watch a couple of minutes of video to hear what is said.

 

 

OK. So I watched from 3.30 until he said "the EU Commission is entirely appointed and has no element of democracy" - So that'd be a misrepresentation of the President voted for by our MEPs.

 

I don`t need to. I can remember roughly what I asked.

 

Is it more democratic for half a billion ordinary people to vote on an issue than it is for a 1,000 members of the poltical elite to vote on it.

 

Yes. Why do you not demand a referendum on every decision parliament makes?

 

Not realistic, I accept that. I don`t accept a bunch of political elites voting in a council that has the right to create policy for all of us though.

 

That does seem to be a theme in your argument. You want to replace a system with which you have no specific objections with a system that is not realistic.

 

Further, and on this I expect we will have to agree to disagree - I do not distinguish between policy created by a political elite in Westminster or in Brussels. And I feel as protected by democratic institution from both as each other.

 

Further,to reduce your argument to its logically absurd end point,with what regularity do yo believe Cornwall (and in fact all counties) show be given a vote on whether to leave the UK?- Why should devolution of powers stop at national boundaries?

 

Nope just the right to make our own laws.

 

 

Again, you put up Switzerland as rejecting the EU because of law making when in reality the benefit they gain from neutrality and opaque banking is the real reason they chose to stay out.

 

See, another self fulfilling point. The very fact that Switzerland can make those rules that allow them to remain neutral and have those opaque banking systems is because they are not controlled by the EU. Now, you can debate the morality of one, but not so much the other. But that`s irrelevent because it`s their democratic right. If they ever want to change those rules they can, but only under a democratically elected government.

 

Because, frankly, Switzerland has nothing to be proud about. I do not believe many voting to Leave have arrived like you at the altar of Switzerand in their referendum vote decision making. If asked, I suspect they consider the UK as having a bigger global diplomatic influence, and a greater proactivity.

 

And the fact remains that without the Brussels bureacracy controlling their every move they manage to be one of the richest and happiest nations on the planet. If a small country like that can do so well, why can`t we?

 

Brussels bureaucracy does not control our every move. That's a strawman argument and you know it. You haven't been able to point at a single one thing where membership of the EU has curtailed our sovereignty in a way you don't like other than purely because the law originated in Brussels and not the UK.

 

On principle we disagree but in practice you offer no argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Granett

[Granett]

, if someone can't understand why you and others feel they want out by reading through that last exchange I feel they never will and have probably no understanding of what alot of us feel it is to be British. what granett fails to understand is that for many of us including me any loss of that sovereignty and democracy that was fought for and so many lives lost for us unacceptable full stop

I've put forward a reasoned argument to Remain and No, a vote to Remain is no less patriotic or disrespectful to our war dead in any way. They did not die trying to stop us entering into alliances which have proved to be the biggest project for peace ever.

 

To keep misrepresenting their endeavours over and over is distasteful.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Granett

[achosenman]

Look. Look at that post! I'm not trying to score cheap points, I'm trying to show you how broken is the rhetoric. There you bloody well have it. Strip away the logical fallacies, push hard enough, and you get to what it all about.

 

I know a lot of people have sincere and honourable reasons for voting to leave. But you're going to be voting next to a guy that just wants rid of the browns, or who is too dumb to understand how politics works (let alone come up with a better system).

 

Wow, your façade is slipping. You really are just the typical smug, superior left wing activist on a crusade.

 

I am no right wing fascist, but watching how the left have behaved along with the Tory government, aided and abetted by self serving quango's and big business then helped along by the news outlets, I'd be tempted to vote with the Devil himself to bring the gravy train to a screeching halt no matter what it costs me for the next few years.

[Granett]

 

Wow, your façade is slipping. You really are just the typical smug, superior left wing activist on a crusade.

 

Not one of you has called him out on his comment - this isn't about me, or smug superior left wing activists or the crusades. This about someone saying, on here, that white people own England, and not one of you having a thing to say about it.

 

Don' deflect from that.

[achosenman]

Try following your own advice for a change. ​"Don't deflect from that"

 

So you have no defence for your utterly ludicrous position that because someone who is far right votes one way, we in the centre are duty bound by some PC, left wing looney ideology to vote another way.

[Granett]

Huh? Where'd you draw that strawman argument up from? That is to say - how have you managed to summarise my argument as "because someone who is far right votes one way, we in the centre are duty bound by some PC, left wing looney ideology to vote another way"?

 

And I note still no comment on the post in question.

 

EDIT: Actually scratch that. I see what you are saying. And fair enough. You'e got the integrity to say his comment was far right.

 

I wasn't saying you should change your vote just because "Not all voting to leave are racist, but all racists will be voting to leave". (But how do you address the voting bias introduced by that racism?)

 

I guess my point was that for all the debating about the finer points of the EU commission constitution, for a lot of people, regardless of what they say and in the name of which lofty principle they claim they are voting, it is coming down to a misguided and ill-informed belief their vote will stick it to non-whites.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Granett

[achosenman]

Huh? Where'd you draw that strawman argument up from? That is to say - how have you managed to summarise my argument as "because someone who is far right votes one way, we in the centre are duty bound by some PC, left wing looney ideology to vote another way"?

 

And I note still no comment on the post in question.

 

EDIT: Actually scratch that. I see what you are saying. And fair enough. You'e got the integrity to say his comment was far right.

 

I wasn't saying you should change your vote just because "Not all voting to leave are racist, but all racists will be voting to leave". (But how do you address the voting bias introduced by that racism?)

 

I guess my point was that for all the debating about the finer points of the EU commission constitution, for a lot of people, regardless of what they say and in the name of which lofty principle they claim they are voting, it is coming down to a misguided and ill-informed belief their vote will stick it to non-whites.

 

And IMO we can thank the naïve political elite for that result. Multiculturalism is not about integrated harmony. By its very definition it means separate from another distinct culture. That will usually lead to ghetto's and racial friction. That can and has lead to extreme views. All entirely predictable, but ignored by the great and the good with a theory about how we humans relate to one another.

 

We see the same rise of the far right across the EU today. Why is that?

Edited June 18, 2016 by achosenman

[secretagentmole]

 

Not one of you has called him out on his comment - this isn't about me, or smug superior left wing activists or the crusades. This about someone saying, on here, that white people own England, and not one of you having a thing to say about it.

 

Don' deflect from that.

Well seeing as the native race for the area was indeed Caucasian and until the 1950s people of an ethnic background other than that of white European were virtually unknown I would say that yes, White people do own England, the same way that Indians own India and that Africans own Africa! You have a problem with that?

 

Yes I do believe that Aborigines own Australia as well and that the white settlers are latecomers to the party!

Edited June 18, 2016 by secretagentmole

[Granett]

Well seeing as the native race for the area was indeed Caucasian and until the 1950s people of an ethnic background other than that of white European were virtually unknown I would say that yes, White people do own England, the same way that Indians own India and that Africans own Africa! You have a problem with that?

 

Another Leave voter on here who thinks thinks ownership of the country is predicated by skin colour. Pretty much a vanilla example of racism. Have yo got any views on the geography of evolution, or eugenics, that you want to share?

 

 

We see the same rise of the far right across the EU today. Why is that?

 

My view? Because there are too many in politics for whom it is insufficiently beneficial to educate their populations out of that ignorance.

[Savhmr]

 

Wow, your façade is slipping. You really are just the typical smug, superior left wing activist on a crusade.

 

I am no right wing fascist, but watching how the left have behaved along with the Tory government, aided and abetted by self serving quango's and big business then helped along by the news outlets, I'd be tempted to vote with the Devil himself to bring the gravy train to a screeching halt no matter what it costs me for the next few years.

 

 

Well said.

 

I detest all of the current political parties and most of the celeb-culture characters involved, all of them looking for political gain and using whatever spin and lies that they can to achieve it. Not one single solitary political party seems the slightest bit genuinely interested in the average Joe on the street nor on the true welfare of this United Kingdom longer term. The ones in power either will do anything it takes to hang onto that power or seem to be working towards their futures if it looks like they wont serve another term. Look at that lying sh8t Bliar who made more in office than any PM in history and is now sitting very pretty on deals lined up whilst he was still PM. They are an abhorrent bunch, the lot of them.

 

I'll be voting out not because of any right wing extremist views (I don't hold any), not because I am anti left wing idealism (some of it is geared towards the welfare of the poorest in society at least) but because I am sick and tired that we have been taken for a ride by global big business whose capitalist ideals and greed dictate policy, sick and tired of the EU trying to eradicate our cultural heritage and having far far too much control in our every day lives, steering us whether we want it or not towards a federal superstate. They can sod off, as some of us won't ever agree to being part of such an undemocratic superstate. I am also sick and tired of the waste and corruption being reported back from the EU which is using my taxes to supply Juncker with his private Cessna Citation jet and paying for 770 MEPs to switch from Strasbourg to Brussels every two weeks and that is the tip of a very very massive iceberg!

 

Mostly though, I will be voting for "Leave" because I no longer consider that the UK has a voice in Europe. Our MEPs number less than 10% the total (770 odd in total) and even with some alliances forged, we simply are voted down at every end in turn, so those idealists who suggest that we need to be at the table to have a voice, wake up for goodness sakes! We have been at the negotiating table for 43 years and have less of a voice now amongst 28 member states than we ever did when this all started! This may be the very last opportunity in my lifetime to protect my children's future by voting to strike out and work hard to go it alone. I sincerely hope that the vote goes that way.

 

Howwever, sadly even if we all do vote "out", we have two years of EU negotiations around Article 50 and even then the other member states may vote to keep us in, and that's if our own Parliament agrees and honours the wishes of the UK people as they may refuse to have us extracted. A vote "out" I am afraid, is just the start of a long battle, but fight it we must.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Savhmr

[secretagentmole]

 

Another Leave voter on here who thinks thinks ownership of the country is predicated by skin colour. Pretty much a vanilla example of racism. Have yo got any views on the geography of evolution, or eugenics, that you want to share? What is wrong with the original inhabitants of a country owning it? I bet you were all for it in South Africa, Rhodesia, India, Pakistan, Persia and all the other countries that have turned into sinkholes of corruption, crime and violence since colonial rule ended and they started fighting amongst themselves to rule their countries. So why are you not for the same thing for Great Britain?

 

 

My view? Because there are too many in politics for whom it is insufficiently beneficial to educate their populations out of that ignorance.

I just hate hypocrites!

 

I want the British people, of whatever creed or colour to be able to determine their own way in the world, with representatives we can change that actually are able to change laws that affect us. As the second largest contributor to the European Union is it fair that we should have less than 10% of a say in running it? I mean we shoulder a great deal of the cost of the Union, why can't we determine what direction the Union is going in instead of having less than a 10% say?

Edited June 18, 2016 by secretagentmole

[Rewulf]

 

Not one of you has called him out on his comment - this isn't about me, or smug superior left wing activists or the crusades. This about someone saying, on here, that white people own England, and not one of you having a thing to say about it.

 

Don' deflect from that.

 

I wont call him out for speaking his mind,he had the balls to say something slightly un-pc, you seized upon it with climactic glee!

All your Leave =racists theories proved in one fell swoop ,BOOM! you said.

 

Is Britain predominantly a white christian country?

Of course it is,why would you argue with that?

Is it multicultural ,multi ethnic,multi race,multi religious ,of course it is,always has been.

When I started school ,there was 2 maybe 3 Asian kids,Maybe one Black kid,I dont remember racism being an issue.

Over time the numbers increased,still no issues.

When some schools in some areas have some 30 odd languages being spoken and teachers are struggling to ,well teach,how much diversity is enough ?

Some schools now have 2 or 3 white kids rather than the other way round,is there still racism?

 

Some peoples lives who have lived all theirs in this country have been changed ,probably irreversibly by EU migration,and no they are not all white.

I have many Indian,Pakistani friends (I was once married to a Pakistani) who are far more vocal about Eastern European migration than rodp was,are they racists ?

 

At least half the people in this country (we shall see very soon how many) want the numbers controlling,and the benefit draw reducing,are half the UK racists?

Your argument that migration brings net financial reward holds little weight ,when you cant find somewhere to live,get shoddy medical care and areas of cities have become no go areas.

You will ask for proof,sources as usual,but you wouldnt need them if you had experienced them.

[achosenman]

 

Another Leave voter on here who thinks thinks ownership of the country is predicated by skin colour. Pretty much a vanilla example of racism. Have yo got any views on the geography of evolution, or eugenics, that you want to share?

 

 

My view? Because there are too many in politics for whom it is insufficiently beneficial to educate their populations out of that ignorance.

 

Fair point, but the ignorance is shared equally by the host population and the incoming population. Therefore before embarking on the grand experiment, it would have been more productive to educate first.

 

The other issue is that it tends to be those without the finical ability to ameliorate the impact of the sudden increase in population (perceived or real) on themselves and their loved ones who suffer the most. However, perversely those that made the decision never get affected in the same way as those they purport to represent.

 

The term "pressure cooker" comes to mind.

Edited June 18, 2016 by achosenman

[12gauge82]

I've put forward a reasoned argument to Remain and No, a vote to Remain is no less patriotic or disrespectful to our war dead in any way. They did not die trying to stop us entering into alliances which have proved to be the biggest project for peace ever.

 

To keep misrepresenting their endeavours over and over is distasteful.

And I've put forwards a reasoned argument to leave the eu, I havent told you how to vote just expressed my view, its you who has started throwing your toys out of the pram when youve lost points of fact and had the cheek to imply I'm racist and anyone who wishes to vote leave, I'm done talking with you to be fair, you'll be voting to remain and I'll be voting to leave

[Granett]

"Britain for the Whites" =/= "Slightly un-PC"

[Granett]

And I've put forwards a reasoned argument to leave the eu, I havent told you how to vote just expressed my view, its you who has started throwing your toys out of the pram when youve lost points of fact and had the cheek to imply I'm racist and anyone who wishes to vote leave, I'm done talking with you to be fair, you'll be voting to remain and I'll be voting to leave

You've not put forward any such thing. Show me a point of fact I've lost and I'll tackle it. Stop making the problem of racism on here all about the people calling it out.

 

All you've done for the most part is hijack the deaths of our war dead and use them to justify your mind which is made up based on a lack of understanding of the subject matter of the referendum.

[BRYAN3]

"Britain for the Whites" =/= "Slightly un-PC"

 

And those who don't like it can benefit from "free movement"

Edited June 18, 2016 by BRYAN3

[Rewulf]

"Yes, my own eyes. The school my daughter teaches at has just had to employ a translator, at the schools cost. The local hospital where a lot of my family work is swamped with immigrants coming in with existing ailments and complaints that should be dealt with at the doctors or chemists. Both of these are now affecting white English .......... you know ............ the folk who's country this actually is, the one's born and bred here"

 

Where did he say Britain for the whites?

That sounds like you have manipulated his words to make it sound like an old NF chant.

 

So just who does this country 'belong' to ?

Everyone,the whole world?

Its not wrong to believe that the people who built this country ie,'born and bred' own it, if they were mostly white,then Im sorry but if you think thats racist,you have a very small idea of what racism actually is.

You need to get out more.

[yod dropper]

Too much to respond to but to pick up on the posts around democracy.

 

The EU commission is appointed. They propose the laws for the EU. We do not vote for them and cannot get rid of them.

 

We do vote for the parliament. They can neither propose or repeal laws, they are there to pass or reject them.

 

This does not look like democracy in my eyes, it does not look like democracy in the British model, I doubt if it looks like democracy in any of the other EU states. There is a 'joke' in Brussels that if the EU were to apply for membership of itself it would not be allowed to join because it is not democratic enough.

 

So this brings me onto sovereignty. Given the above and that we currently have c.10% of the parliament MEPs and then that c.60% of our primary and secondary legislation comes from Brussels then I think we have an issue with sovereignty; who makes our laws. Further to this, the 'highest court in the land' is in fact in Brussels so we do not have the final say in other areas of law.

 

If on balance you are happy with this and vote to remain, fine, if you don't like it, you'd best vote out.

[12gauge82]

You've not put forward any such thing. Show me a point of fact I've lost and I'll tackle it. Stop making the problem of racism on here all about the people calling it out.

 

All you've done for the most part is hijack the deaths of our war dead and use them to justify your mind which is made up based on a lack of understanding of the subject matter of the referendum.

You disagreed with the way the eu was run, you were clearly unaware that MEPS can do nothing to change a law once passed and therefore IN MY VIEW its undemocratic, I'll stop talking about you calling racism's when you stop implying that I am racist, point me to anywhere I have been and I will apologise I'm far far from a racist and am discussed that anyone would accuse me of such, but then it is a common trick of the in crowd to shut an argument or point they don't like down,youve got a hell of a cheek, highjacking our war dead, one of them was my family and my grandfather lost an arm, its my opinion and am positive speaking to my relatives it would've been there's. When are you going to understand the leave group have all got their own diverse reasons for wanting to leave and just because they differ from your views it doesn't make them wrong