We don't care about it being perfect. But you make yourself unintelligible with how you punctuate. It actually destroys the foundation on which you try to make your argument because if you can't be understood due to your own laziness or whatever no one is going to think your claims hold any intelligent merit.
This thread sucks.
They would´ve lost EU membership, obviously that wasn´t their goal, but times change and therefore they should be able to hold a new referendum, because it´s not even remotely the same situation anymore.
I explained to you the hypocrisy, it´s the direction the union went that not all members are willing to go, the very same reason why the UK wanted to leave is apparently not enough reason for scotland to have a referendum.
I can´t counter what you aren´t able to properly explain. You just keep babbling about juncker and merkel, and pretend that what your saying has any meaning.
They knew that there was a possibility of giving up EU membership at the time, the vote was not conditional upon things staying exactly the same, that was not in the question asked that they voted upon.
Scotland had a vote on leaving the Union, the UK had a vote on leaving the EU. There is no hypocrisy.I explained to you the hypocrisy, it´s the direction the union went that not all members are willing to go, the very same reason why the UK wanted to leave is apparently not enough reason for scotland to have a referendum.
Are you under the impression that the EU referendum vote was separate for each Home Nation, or something? Scotland didn't vote for anything in the EU referendum, neither did England, or Wales, or Northern Ireland, the UK as a whole voted to leave.
I explained it fully in the previous thread, you not having a competent enough grasp of English to understand it is not my fault. I am under no obligation to dumb down my English for others.I can´t counter what you aren´t able to properly explain. You just keep babbling about juncker and merkel, and pretend that what your saying has any meaning.
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
They would´ve given up EU membership by leaving the UK. With the options of "maybe leaving the EU but probably not (2014 polls) or surely leaving the EU" they decided to go with option A.
Apparently the SNP seems to think that too, since they´re arguing from a scotish point of view and not an UK point of view.
No, you haven´t then and you still don´t. You´re on a deflection routine that includes ridiculing me for not speaking my second language as good as your first language , classy.
Can you link the question on the Scottish referendum vote that said they get another vote if things change?
There was no vote for individual Home Nations, it was voted for by the UK as a whole, which the SNP are fully aware of.Apparently the SNP seems to think that too, since they´re arguing from a scotish point of view and not an UK point of view.
That they infer Scotland voted separately is due to them being Scottish nationalists and it suiting their agenda to say that - the clue that they are Scottish nationalists is in their name, Scottish National Party.
And once again, it is not my fault that your English language skills are lacking. I don't go on Greek language forums and tell them that their arguments don't make sense due to me not fully understanding them, as that is my fault and not theirs, yet you seem to think that you should have special privileges.No, you haven´t then and you still don´t. You´re on a deflection routine that includes ridiculing me for not speaking my second language as good as your first language , classy.
You´re not just moving the goal post, you´re trying to play on a different field mid-game.
Can you link to something that denies them another referendum if things change?
Yet, when the EU votes on to something the UK got up in arms when it was against their goals... leading to the referendum and to a possible brexit. It´s funny how you defend the british union against arguments bexiters use for leaving the european union.
You never explained where i´m wrong or what i don´t understand, you just keep repeating "i´m right, not my fault you don´t understand me".
It´s an english language forum, but it´s not used solely by english speakers, so it´s of course your fault for not being able to use a form of english commonly understood by foreigners.
Unless of course you only want to talk to people from the UK and the US, but then you should probably leave OT.
I haven't moved any goalposts, you said they were due another referendum because things changed, yet that wasn't part of any agreement.
Why have you changed the subject? Do you acknowledge that you are wrong and that the UK voted as a whole, or not?Yet, when the EU votes on to something the UK got up in arms when it was against their goals... leading to the referendum and to a possible brexit. It´s funny how you defend the british union against arguments bexiters use for leaving the european union.
I am under no obligation to change my English, I use a perfectly acceptable form of the language.You never explained where i´m wrong or what i don´t understand, you just keep repeating "i´m right, not my fault you don´t understand me".
It´s an english language forum, but it´s not used solely by english speakers, so it´s of course your fault for not being able to use a form of english commonly understood by foreigners.
Or you could leave until you have learnt English properly.Unless of course you only want to talk to people from the UK and the US, but then you should probably leave OT.
What agreement? No more referendums befor 2050 regardless of what happens?
I haven´t. Yes i do acknowledge, that´s also the hypocrisy in it, that you obviously don´t want to see.
Apparently, no you don´t. How would you answer your own question? Who has more power, Juncker or Merkel?
Or i could ignore you until you´ve learned some manners.
The referendum question was agreed in advance, there was no mention of a do over in it if things changed, so where are yo getting that they should have one from?
Hypocrisy would have been allowing the Scottish a vote on self determination but not allowing the UK as a whole one, but that didn't happen, so there is no hypocrisy.I haven´t. Yes i do acknowledge, that´s also the hypocrisy in it, that you obviously don´t want to see.
Scotland had its vote and voted to stay in the UK, the UK had its vote and voted to leave the EU.
Merkel has more power. She is the elected head of the most powerful state within the EU, Juncker isn't.Apparently, no you don´t. How would you answer your own question? Who has more power, Juncker or Merkel?
I wouldn't care.Or i could ignore you until you´ve learned some manners.
- - - Updated - - -
You realise that relates to another thread, don't you?
Because, things have changed? If things change and you´re unhappy with them, you normally do something about it and not take it because of something unrelated that happened earlier.
... no, the hypcorisy of the UK wanting out of the union because things changed too much but not letting scotland out of their union based on the very same argument.
Yes, part of that was because staying in the UK meant guaranteed staying member of the EU.
Then why are you moaning about Juncker all the time?
Except that only came about after the UK voted to leave, it was in direct response to comments made by people within the EU, so that is literally not possible.
Are you bullshitting again?
- - - Updated - - -
If what things change? If anything changes? If some random thing that you decide is relevant changes? What are the exact criteria and why were they not included within the referendum question agreed by all sides?
Why should rules be changed after the vote? Who does that?
The UK did not leave the EU because things changed too much, a significant portion of the population had not liked being in the EU (and its predecessors) for decades. There are episodes of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister that cover this very subject and they were from the 1980s.... no, the hypcorisy of the UK wanting out of the union because things changed too much but not letting scotland out of their union based on the very same argument.
What percentage exactly voted for that?Yes, part of that was because staying in the UK meant guaranteed staying member of the EU.
It was about their attitude and it is bollocks to say I complain about Juncker all the time, I mentioned him once or twice.Then why are you moaning about Juncker all the time?
I don´t know, things like leaving a union of 500 million people against the will of your voters might be a big enough change, don´t you think?
Hmm farages arguments seemed to be different ones.
Good question.
Yeah, in this thread alone.
After the Brexit they brought a lot of British experts on a show I listen to. One of them said a redo was possible, he said a new political party would have to form whose entire platform was to "remain" in the EU. Let's call them the "Remainders" party. This party would run and if they won a majority, they could launch a new referendum.
That would be seen by the British people as legit.
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
Scotland was not given the whole range of options during their referendum. Given that, at the time, the EU referendum was already a possibility, the choices that Scotland was offered were simply:
- Be independent, leave EU and UK
- Don't be independent, stay in the UK and possibly the EU
...with the 'possibly' part to be decided by the EU referendum. However, since in the EU referendum Scotland had much less voting power than England, Scotland's 60+% remain vote could be ignored.
A new referendum would have different choices, despite the ballot still saying 'Should Scotland be an independent country?', for it would boil down to:
- Be independent, leave the UK and re-join the EU
- Do not be independent, stay in the UK and leave the EU
Those are vastly different questions, despite using the same wording. Boiling it down to the vote of 'independence' is simply a rhetoric that allows the UK to deflect another referendum and, incidentally, was a wording imposed by the UK election committee. Which also decided that the Scottish independence vote should come before the Brexit vote. That is the kind of voting-power play and policy-combining/separating that happens all the time in politics, especially in international organizations. And one of the reasons why British people voted for leave in the first place.
But obviously, when Brussels does it, it is evil.
What are you talking about? I quoted Iain Duncan Smith in this very thread, which apparently is not a good enough source
I mean he has only known Theresa May for at least a decade-and-a-half, including confirming her to his Shadow Cabinet when he was party leader and being a Cabinet member alongside her under Cameron for six years, which kind of makes him a credible source for conversations he has had with May.
But hey, that isn't a source, because wannabe anarchist and Djalil said so...
When did I say anything about rerunning the same vote? (I clearly stated that that is impossible anyway.)
The only thing I'm arguing against is that this one needs to seen as binding for a whole generation.
Humans do make mistakes, circumstances do change, new information sometimes does turn up; and in such a case it would be prudent to ask oneself if the population can be asked to vote again. What most people thought they voted for is apparently impossible, thus it would be beneficial to have several parties with different proposals how to solve this dilemma. Unfortunately the UK's political setup cannot support so many parties in a meaningful way (FPTP is the culprit here).