eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
I've heard of Katie Hopkins, but I'm afraid that's as far as it goes. Anyway, don't want to rock boats, or sound like a 'twunt', so;
...you tend to specialise in faux humour, so I tend to ignore it.
Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+5)?
- Thread starter droodzilla
- Start date
- Status
I've heard of Katie Hopkins, but I'm afraid that's as far as it goes. Anyway, don't want to rock boats, or sound like a 'twunt', so;
...you tend to specialise in faux humour, so I tend to ignore it.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Except when you respond to it. 'Ignore' clearly has a different meaning in an online context than in real life.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
So you will applaud British vassalage and total subservience to the European Commission, without end? You would submit this country completely to the organisation that has brought utter economic chaos to half of Europe without any say whatsoever in its own destiny, or in the judgements and decisions that will affect us all, and our children, and their children too - in the unlikely event that the thing should survive - all for the dubious benefits of a few pence off of a bottle of wine, and a few fractions of 10% of UK GDP?
Do you really think that this is wise?
Ah, now you've kind of got me there. I would like to see an economic community of sovereign nations rather than a political union of the countries of Europe, so my mind is far from closed to the organs that permit the nations to trade freely together. But the CU is policed by the politically activist Court of Justice of the EU, which would place us into an unacceptable post-Brexit vasselage to the politically activist EC.
Unlike many or probably most people in either the remain or the brexit camps, I don't spend all my time reading only stuff that is monotone pro-Brexit and bias-confirmatory, so I swing around a bit, depending upon the apparent sense and logic of the commentary that I am reading. I am very suspicious of the ERG/hard Brexit activists, and would wish to see them answer clearly and unequivocally the very valid questions over their personal interests in a disruptive Brexit long before I put any firm faith in their assurances. But at the moment I would go for the big leap into MFN rather than accept almost any variation of Chequers that I can conceive of. I have throughout been liberal on immigration, though I believe that 'control' of immigration policy, however liberal, should reside with the sovereign nation. I feel absolutely confident that, given anyway the shifting sands on immigration, compromise can be found there. That apart, there are any number of potential varieties of Free Trade Arrangement that the UK/EU could devise between them, should either be properly willing, Canada plus offers much potential, as does EFTA/EEA, despite all also having drawbacks and disadvantages. So, in short, I am fairly open as long as we are properly insulated from overt EC meddling or influence in our lawmaking and political processes.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
No, I respond to what he says, rather than the very unconvincing carapice of frivolity that he attempts sometimes to bestow upon the barbs.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
When I read your “vasselage” I hear it spoken in my imagination by Brian Sewell with a sensualist emphasis on the last syllable.
Swamp Thing
Remainiac Terrorist
Filthy!
No, I don't, any more than I applauded it happening between 1973 and 2016. Because it didn't happen then either. The only place all this is happening/has happened is in your head.
In which case get into the big tent and change it from within as a voting member rather than being a Norway that has to follow the rules and has no say. As far as "overt EC meddling or influence in our lawmaking and political processes", oh please. That one has been an excuse for unpopular legislation put in by our own government from Year Dot. It's just a Daily Mail dog whistle. There are any number of cases across Europe of member states either ditching legislation or simply not bothering to enforce it. look at France, they ride a coach and horses through the lot of it when it suits them, then give a shrug and carry on.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
When I use a fancy word, I always double-check the spelling.
Still
he said his naim was ralph
ET is having a bad Brexit.
(bad meaning bad)
You ignorant? Never!
That's a predictably rubbish effort of not rocking the fish bowl, or being a twunt, as circular arguments are a breach of the AUP.
(sorry Swamp Thing - some posts have to be liked)
(bad meaning bad)
You ignorant? Never!
That's a predictably rubbish effort of not rocking the fish bowl, or being a twunt, as circular arguments are a breach of the AUP.
(sorry Swamp Thing - some posts have to be liked)
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
I like that.
Chequers is a very far cry from anything that happened between 1973 and 2016.
Norway has considerably more influence than you think, via various bi-partisan bodies and consultative working parties. The UK together with Norway would represent a fairly formidable bargaining position just outside the EU, and together with other potential outliers they might just be able to change the EU from the outside. The inside doesn't seem to work well.
To whatever degree the UK did or didn't change the direction of the EU in all those years, 28 members and growing, QMV and the UK's position increasingly towards the outer walls of the centrifuge have and will progressively reduce any such influence. However, I respect the opinion that just inside the fence may have been better than just outside.
There are already an estimated 22,000 pieces of EU derived law on the UK statute books. The EC/ECJ has overt influence on UK lawmaking. Under Chequers, there would be effectively no UK sovereignty, or say, at all in certain areas.
As is, apparently, just about anything else that the hard pro-remain lib-left don't happen to agree with on this site.
For better or for worse we aren't France, Germany or Italy, and neither would we ignore legislation, nor I suspect would we escape the attentions of the ECJ if we did. Such is just one aspect of the essential distinctions (for better or worse) between us and our European mainland neighbours, the founder members of the EC/EEC/EU.
Bully for you!
If I could have a pound for every time I've avoided trying to score a cheap point for typo, grammatical and spelling errors on pfm, I'd have a pretty good income stream
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
What?
You more than make up for it with an impressive range of pedantic criticism- usually when you’ve run dry of waffle.
You more than make up for it with an impressive range of pedantic criticism- usually when you’ve run dry of waffle.
Still
he said his naim was ralph
obvious humblebrag is obvious
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
When I run dry I shut up. I do take the odd day or two off, unlike our resident satirist.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
I see the arse has fallen out of the pound again today since “Chairman of the Board of Trade” announced the odds of cliff edge Brexit are 60:40. It used to be DD getting to his feet in the Commons that did for the pound, now it’s Fox and Friends.
SteveS1
I heard that, pardon?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/eu-was-always-going-to-punish-us-for-brexit-mqdb3890m
"These two currents of feeling — fear of Euroscepticism and love for the EU — are why those on the Continent were always destined to ignore the UK’s pleading for a mutually beneficial deal, whatever the rational economic arguments for trade that is as open and frictionless as possible. A good deal for the UK would risk emboldening Eurosceptics elsewhere and undermining the European project, so it was never going to happen. As the former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis (who bears the scars from his own run-ins with Brussels) has said, the EU’s “greatest nightmare is a mutually advantageous agreement between Britain and the European Union. They are only concerned with one thing: how to signal to the rest of Europe that anyone who votes … in a manner which challenges the authority of the deep establishment in Europe will get crushed.”
The EU intransigence Liam Fox rages about was destined from the start. So let no Brexiteers claim, when the current shambles deepens to a crisis, that it would all have been different if we’d been more bold, if we’d had more hope or optimism, or if the government had prepared more thoroughly for a no-deal outcome. Let no one hang this all on the hapless Theresa May, the greatest fall-guy in political history who (though not good at her job) could have as easily changed the mind of the EU establishment as changed the tides of the sea.
The Europeans were always going to put first the integrity of the single market, the four freedoms, the project they believe in so passionately. Britain was always going to scrape a deal that would leave us worse off than before, or no deal that will take us God knows where. The writing was always on the wall. That’s why Brexit was always a terrible idea."
Never mind, a stiff upper lip and steadfast refusal to face facts will carry us to the sunny uplands and a free trade Nirvana. Or possibly not.
"These two currents of feeling — fear of Euroscepticism and love for the EU — are why those on the Continent were always destined to ignore the UK’s pleading for a mutually beneficial deal, whatever the rational economic arguments for trade that is as open and frictionless as possible. A good deal for the UK would risk emboldening Eurosceptics elsewhere and undermining the European project, so it was never going to happen. As the former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis (who bears the scars from his own run-ins with Brussels) has said, the EU’s “greatest nightmare is a mutually advantageous agreement between Britain and the European Union. They are only concerned with one thing: how to signal to the rest of Europe that anyone who votes … in a manner which challenges the authority of the deep establishment in Europe will get crushed.”
The EU intransigence Liam Fox rages about was destined from the start. So let no Brexiteers claim, when the current shambles deepens to a crisis, that it would all have been different if we’d been more bold, if we’d had more hope or optimism, or if the government had prepared more thoroughly for a no-deal outcome. Let no one hang this all on the hapless Theresa May, the greatest fall-guy in political history who (though not good at her job) could have as easily changed the mind of the EU establishment as changed the tides of the sea.
The Europeans were always going to put first the integrity of the single market, the four freedoms, the project they believe in so passionately. Britain was always going to scrape a deal that would leave us worse off than before, or no deal that will take us God knows where. The writing was always on the wall. That’s why Brexit was always a terrible idea."
Never mind, a stiff upper lip and steadfast refusal to face facts will carry us to the sunny uplands and a free trade Nirvana. Or possibly not.
Still
he said his naim was ralph
Obviously not true, as your predictably dusty ass is still here. Must be tricky to not know yourself.
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
i thought it was george soros making a financial play on you suckers?
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Yeah, right.
- Status