Quote:
Originally Posted by
FlyingJesus
While I often vehemently disagree with Dan I think it's pretty daft to sweep aside all the financial aspects that are a major sticking point for people who actually read into it as "sovereignty or some bollocks". It's a fact that we pay an obscene amount into a system that then gives us a little bit back but tells us where it can be spent, and keeps the rest for paying off debts that other countries have accrued. In that one instance the money is the main point but sovereignty (or some bollocks) is very much an important part of it as well, so not really something to just rule out.
Also interested to see where "there should be a proper border between two separately ruled countries" became "ha ha ha we should put people at risk" in your mind
when did I sweep aside the financial aspects? my point to him was that he tries to make these claims which ends up being proved partially or entirely false so he reverts to falling back to the idea of sovereignty being the true reason for this whole thing
its not a fact to call it an obscene amount of money - its actually a tiny part of general taxation spending and according to both Johnson and Hunt there is plenty of money about anyway
its also naive to look at it as losing 9bn (13bn out, 4bn spent in UK off the top of my head) without taking anything else into consideration
recent article as well estimating it will cost individuals 9bn alone in tariffs which will be felt far more if taxes aren't lowered to compensate but equally that means less money for other things (also let's not forget the cost of an increased border/customs force, but at least some infrastructure is there as we don't actually have completely open borders with anyone but Ireland).
also when did i suggest anything like what you said in that last line?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
-:Undertaker:-
Celebrating, yes.
A reminder I was in Britain for the "chaos" of 23rd June 2016 that was predicted. The only chaos we experienced was the sound of dinner plates and wine glasses shattering in middle class north London homes at the shock of the great unwashed having their say.
there is going to be tangible change when actually leaving
Quote:
Indeed, and they're welcome to agree a FTA with us allowing relatively free trade when they drop their demands for 1/4 of our country.
but we were told there would be a deal and no deal wasn't on the table
Quote:
Can you point to one place in the world where nationalism does not exist?
All the places that tried to suppress existing nationalism actually ended up creating frankenstein 'false' states by creating new identities and wiping away the older identities - which is ironically an aggressive form of nationalism itself. The Soviet Union. Yugoslavia. Ottoman Emprie. Republic of India. The Sudan. Libya. Iraq. And now the European Union with its anthem, flag, military and "ever closer union".
What good will creating a new nation spread across 28 vastly complex/different countries bring?
none of that relates to my question of what good comes of it
if anything you pretty much just agreed with me
you understand football teams have anthems and the un has flags and a peacekeeping "military". btw the current eus csdp set up is entirely voluntary and not an actual army and the future pesco was a) constantly blocked by the uk and b) we didnt have to join and could have left as it's entirely voluntary and c) is just a "better" cooperation of existing nation military and isnt pooling them under some eu identity
all pesco seems to really be is relying less on nato/the us after things trump has said
Quote:
What are you claiming is going to happen if a normal border between two different countries is implemented?
i am not going in circles over this
Quote:
Having influence, 1 of 28, isn't good enough.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and America do not feel the need to have "influence" in the European Union. They just do things themselves where they have 100% influence over their own laws and politics. That's national sovereignty working in action.
Why would I settle for the influence of 3.5% over my own laws/politics when I could have the influence of 100%?
you understand if we ever negotiate again with the eu it still is 1 of 28, because we are in a position either side of the table to veto any deal
you will probably talk about how "oh we obviously have to give something because how else do you deal with 28 countries!!" well thats how its going to work either way - look at the poor extradition treaty with have with the US already as an example of how this will shaft us
Quote:
Eh? What kind of thinking is this?
We don't have an electoral college in this country because we're not a confederation, we're a unitary sovereign state. You're applying the constitutional logic of the Holy Roman Empire, United States of America or Dominion of Canada to a completely different constitutional arrangement. That would be like talking about a hypothetical British Presidency at the time of the next Coronation. Like, what?
The question on the ballot was should the United Kingdom leave or remain in the European Union. The people said Leave.
if you view something as equal, then there is surely an equal say?
Quote:
What should be up to Northern Ireland?
And it was up to Northern Ireland - correct me if I am wrong, were Britons in Ulster issued ballot papers in the 2016 EU referendum?
ye, they voted to remain