Rend Blackhand wrote: "17m people in the UK are not racist. "
Yeah, they are. You don't live here you wouldn't know.
I’m still fuming about the fallout of that “I never said we’d give money to the NHS” even though that was the main focus of their campaign” If people voted because it would sort out immigration and send all the immigrants back to their countries at the drop of a hat then they’re just as delusional as the current PM
The point of a soft brexit is to not commit policital suicde that the most sensible option would bring (you betrayed the "will" of the people!) without having to face the consequences from the idiotic option (our country just lost access to most of our trading partners!).
It's trying to cheat your way out of that political stunt you pulled.
Which, I agree, looks sort of idiotic. But hey, I think she knew what she was getting into, when she took the job no one wanted.
"And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five?
A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head."
If you ask me, the whole concept of making a long term change of this magnitude based on a simple majority from a referendum (something susceptible to short term impulsivity) was very, very stupid. It should have required a 2/3 majority in parliament. So there's your first problem.
The second problem is that a lot of voters based their decision on what (if anything) to vote for on their belief that the "stay" vote victory was assured.
So what you got was a bunch of "exit" voters who didn't even want a brexit but instead thought they'd be clever and that a few more "exit" votes would be a good way to protest their dissatisfaction with government. And then there are the people who due to complacency just didn't even vote. (I bet they're kicking themselves now).
Even with all that, your "victory" was only by the slenderest margin. The brexit vote is no more the "will of the people" than an own goal by England in the semi-final would be.
VAT rules which are soon to be relaxed at an EU level based on pressure from the UK government and others - i'm not sure this is a good advertisement for the UK being "chained to foreign courts", more an example of the influence we "had" to change things that needed to be changed?
Boats exist. As long as there is an uninterrupted path between the UK and EU there will be temptation for people in UK to trade with the EU devil and enslave them to EU's tyrannical laws via the trading deal that's bound to arise in such a situation. If a wall is built, they will be prevented from trading with EU forever, free to live in their hard Brexit Utopia.
TBH, that "holy" hard Brexit on wich the Bexit votes voted is kinda exactly that already. They want to leave Europe fully, not 1 part of the connection between the UK and the EU should remain.
Thing is, being outside the EU, and the European Economic Area is by default creating a wall around the UK. 50% of the UKs trade is afterall with the EU. That a drop in, or full halt of that trade will cause a huge economic downturn is something they do not seem to have any issue's with, or are to ignorant to understand.
And hey, for better or worse, just as a country deserves the leaders it chooses, a country also deserves its choice in economic terms. Thats how democracy works.
Rend Blackhand wrote: "Yes, I would know. I lived there from birth until age 22. I’m moving back in November"
You aren't living here. You were commenting on current affairs.
You do realise that even WTO allows for arbitrations, aka, "foreign courts", right?
Only outside WTO can you realise trade that follows only what is stated in the trade agreement (for a speciffic instance of trade, a singular case of "I give you X and you give Y", not "EU now trades with UK under these conditions"). Any aditional blanket agreement, like, say, an agreement on trade conditions between the UK and the EU after Article 50 period runs out, would still contain provisions for the settlement of situations where conflicts arise, and those would have to be solved at a third party - in this case, again, most likely via WTO as a neutral third party.
You can however bet that trade under such conditions would be VERY painful too, because refusing any third party (those "foreign courts") for arbitration purposes (or any other ones) will require any and all trade agreements to have extremely strict conditions written into them, to make up for any loses caused should the treaty conditions be broken.
And keep in mind, UK is not an empire anymore. Not a world power either. UK will not be able to strongarm good trade position for itself the way it could have to until the 50s. The way Brexit happened also puts UK in a dubious light - first asking for preferential treatement from the EU, then asking for more, and then telling the EU to go shaft itself anyway is not exactly a good precedent for further agreements.
un_known wrote : "I lived there and they’re not, just because they voted out doesn’t mean that they’re all racist. Wishing to have tighter control on immigration doesn’t mean they’re racist, you have your facts scewered"
If you aren't racist, then you wouldn't be that much interested in immigration. It is like a foot pervert claiming not to be a foot pervert when you point out their large collection of "Foot Fetish Monthly" magazines.
It's almost as if the consequences of Brexit are disastrous for the UK.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
Serenais wrote: "You do realise that even WTO allows for arbitrations, aka, "foreign courts", right?"
Can I just save you some time here? If he was capable of understanding your argument, he wouldn't be a Brexiteer in the first place.
Imagine speaking to a four-year old, the communication will go better.