UK MP's overwhelmingly back article 50 bill

[Noradin]

But that does not change the fact that the rest of the world does call us Great Britain. I'm not saying the rest of the world thinks we are awesome but we are generally well respected.

No, that is what your colonies call you out of tradition, in languages other than English you get called things that translate more like "bigger Britain", with "bigger" used only to distinguish it from "smaller Britain", you know: the one in France. Britanny. The one that colonized your island to form a "bigger Britain".

[Tijuana]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=slag

I had the second definition in mind, but the first also seems fitting for DJT.

I was hoping it would be more interesting than that. Usually, I enjoy the differing colloquialisms from you guys over there.

[Rockyreg]

So you object to the "as usual".
Do you think it is factually wrong?
Or maybe you don't think it is factually wrong and that is why you feel the need to comment on it?
.

Hang on, Denmark had four opt-outs of the Maastricht Treaty, they also threatened to veto the EU budget if they didn't get a rebate. Yet the 'as usual' remark only pertained to the UK.

It was a deliberate and unnecessary dig at the UK, just felt I wanted to say something about it.

[Noradin]

Hang on, Denmark had four opt-outs of the Maastricht Treaty, they also threatened to veto the EU budget if they didn't get a rebate. Yet the 'as usual' remark only pertained to the UK.

It was a deliberate and unnecessary dig at the UK, just felt I wanted to say something about it.

You are seeing things.

Lets go back and look at that part of my original post:

The UK has an exception as usual, as does Denmark.

As you can clearly see, if you understand English grammar, the "as usual" applies to the UK--and to Denmark.
Denmark was just mentioned as an additional example, I could have mentioned other countries, too, and I could have left the sentence with a full stop where I put the comma. That would have been enough to answer to the point I replied to, but I mentioned Denmark--as another example--so that the UK wouldn't be singled out.
I do not know how defensive you must feel to still take that as an attack on the UK.

[Mormolyce]

No, that's wrong, despite you being illogically choosy about what you're counting.

The "first one" that you're referring to was for devolution; NOT independence. Devolution and independence are very different.

If you're just counting "referenda that had something to do with Scotland", then you're still not right - because that would omit the 1997 devolution referendum that did pass, and created the Scottish parliament.

So, to be clear:

- There has only ever been one referendum on Scottish independence. It was voted against.
- There have been two on the subject of devolution, since 1979. Both were voted in favour, but the first didn't pass due to a technicality.

Glad to have been of help.

It could've been a referendum on pancakes for all the relevance it has. My point was that referenda don't have to be enforced just because they have 52% wins.

I know it was a referendum on devolution, that's why I said "the first Scottish referendum", which is what it's commonly referred to as.

[Deleted]

I can't believe this. The EU needs to do something to save Britain from this racist vote.

And this is EXACTLY why the EU is falling apart.
You want to force your opinion on other people and use the political powers of the EU to forcibly override them. This is called tyranny, and people are sick of getting blackmailed with EU sanctions and other nations butting in into their internal matters.

The harder you try to oppress people, the more nations will leave the EU until it becomes a triumvirate of Germany, France and Sweden getting swarmed by their precious migrants.

[Deleted]

And this is EXACTLY why the EU is falling apart.

random idiots saying things?

[Deleted]

random idiots saying things?

Unfortunately there are plenty of idiots in Brussels who think that a disagreement between nations is best solved by threats of sanctions.

[Pengekaer]

The harder you try to oppress people, the more nations will leave the EU until it becomes a triumvirate of Germany, France and Sweden getting swarmed by their precious migrants.

You forgot the BeNe minus Lux, tbh. ;-)

[AeneasBK]

What does a reply to your own quote have to do with me?

I was pointing out that you can say the vote was won by racists xenophobes and idiots; without explictly stating every leave voter is any of the above. So when people turn around as they did and say "That's sweet, keep labelling all the people with a different opinion as racists" you can in good faith claim "I did nothing of the sort".

I wasn't trying to say that was your intentions; mind.

[Deleted]

Where did all the gaming topics go? Everyone's a politician these days it seems...

[dribbles]

Yes and no. I was suggesting that it was the nasties that swung that vote, but I'd comfortably throw them all on the same bonfire.

Comrade trollshot those Brexit nasties you refer to keep growing and growing, I hear it's spreading EU wide, the swunging of that vote margin gets bigger and bigger. Time to just accept you backed the wrong side? Don't end up a grumpy old loser like Corbyn. There there, it's not that bad.

[Pua]

It could've been a referendum on pancakes for all the relevance it has. My point was that referenda don't have to be enforced just because they have 52% wins.

I know it was a referendum on devolution, that's why I said "the first Scottish referendum", which is what it's commonly referred to as.

The difference between devolution and independence matters hugely in Scotland, given that the overwhelming majority of Scots support one and not the other. And nobody argued that referenda "need to be enforced", I only ever pointed out that that's how it generally works in the United Kingdom; the term "majority" is politically charged to mean whoever gets the most votes. Margins don't tend to matter.

As for "the first Scottish referendum", you're just flatly wrong. The 1979 devolution referendum is not "commonly referred to" as "the first Scottish referendum". If you lived in Scotland, and understood its politics, you'd know that. I also note that you ignored my earlier correction about why the act was repealed.

You're forcing me, and everyone else reading your posts, to simply conclude that you don't know what you're talking about, and are hoping the President Trump approach of blustering through, repeating falsehoods, will wash.

It won't.

I've been involved in the Scottish political scene for just over two decades. You should feel free to simply accept that I know what I'm talking about, you don't, and then move on.

Besides, we're already off-topic. This is a thread about Brexit, and not Scottish independence; I'm pretty sure few people clicking the header will be interested in me delivering a free education.

[Deleted]

Why is there a new thread for this? We have a Brexit thread? Did anyone genuinely think this wouldn't happen?

[Pua]

Comrade trollshot those Brexit nasties you refer to keep growing and growing, I hear it's spreading EU wide, the swunging of that vote margin gets bigger and bigger. Time to just accept you backed the wrong side? Don't end up a grumpy old loser like Corbyn. There there, it's not that bad.

This is the problem with British political discourse. It's not about "picking the wrong side", it's about picking the side that most aligns with your personal views about how the world should be. Voting Conservative doesn't mean you support Brexit, it simply means that you'd vote for them in a General Election for any number of individual reasons. Don't forget; most half of the Conservative party (maybe more) supported the Remain vote.

It's best not to conflate wildly different things, and then draw conclusions. That's one of the three ways to be wrong.

[Mormolyce]

The difference between devolution and independence matters hugely in Scotland, given that the overwhelming majority of Scots support one and not the other. And nobody argued that referenda "need to be enforced", I only ever pointed out that that's how it generally works in the United Kingdom; the term "majority" is politically charged to mean whoever gets the most votes. Margins don't tend to matter.

As for "the first Scottish referendum", you're just flatly wrong. The 1979 devolution referendum is not "commonly referred to" as "the first Scottish referendum". If you lived in Scotland, and understood its politics, you'd know that. I also note that you ignored my earlier correction about why the act was repealed.

You're forcing me, and everyone else reading your posts, to simply conclude that you don't know what you're talking about, and are hoping the President Trump approach of blustering through, repeating falsehoods, will wash.

It won't.

I've been involved in the Scottish political scene for just over two decades. You should feel free to simply accept that I know what I'm talking about, you don't, and then move on.

Besides, we're already off-topic. This is a thread about Brexit, and not Scottish independence; I'm pretty sure few people clicking the header will be interested in me delivering a free education.

It certainly matters, I'm just saying it's not important to the argument I was making.

If you google "first scottish referendum", this is what comes up. I was wrong about one part though, the independence referendum isn't the second, it's the third - the second was in 1997. I forgot that one. Yes, they aren't all independence referenda specifically but they are all referenda. On Scottish nationalism to varying degrees.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. All I meant to say was that when you said "that's generally how it works in the UK", that's not exactly true since that's not how it worked in 1979. I'm just talking about referenda in general.

[Pua]

All I meant to say was that when you said "that's generally how it works in the UK", that's not exactly true since that's not how it worked in 1979. I'm just talking about referenda in general.

Yes, it is.

You are mistakingly implying that the 1979 referendum didn't pass because the margin wasn't big enough. That is not true. It didn't pass because there was a criteria on turnout that wasn't met; it was nothing to do with the victory margin.

[dribbles]

This is the problem with British political discourse. It's not about "picking the wrong side", it's about picking the side that most aligns with your personal views about how the world should be. Voting Conservative doesn't mean you support Brexit, it simply means that you'd vote for them in a General Election for any number of individual reasons. Don't forget; most half of the Conservative party (maybe more) supported the Remain vote.

It's best not to conflate wildly different things, and then draw conclusions. That's one of the three ways to be wrong.

In that bargraph the only guaranteed option you have on the side to remain is to vote LibDem. The libdems have currently a 10% voteshare. The other 90% across a broad political spectrum possibly/probably/maybe/definately support Brexit. Voting for remain is really becoming an extremist minority position. The voteshare of the Libdems reflects this.

[Snorkles]

In that bargraph the only guaranteed option you have on the side to remain is to vote LibDem. The libdems have currently a 10% voteshare. The other 90% across a broad political spectrum possibly/probably/maybe/definately support Brexit. Voting for remain is really becoming an extremist minority position. The voteshare of the Libdems reflects this.

The remain vote isn't limited to those who support the Lib Dems any more than the leave vote is to those who support UKIP. Pretty odd assertion to make.

[Mormolyce]

Yes, it is.

You are mistakingly implying that the 1979 referendum didn't pass because the margin wasn't big enough. That is not true. It didn't pass because there was a criteria on turnout that wasn't met; it was nothing to do with the victory margin.

I know exactly why it didn't pass, I was just being brief.