Jonathan Gault, this is for for you. Do you consider your native Britain to be an "international laughing stock?"

---

Ultramarkus wrote:

---

roscoe. wrote:

Mining no, fishing I can guarantee yes if we can undo the common fisheries policy

Why would the fish be more expensive, particularly if we can agree a free trade agreement. The French, Spanish and Dutch see the value in fishing in our waters, so why would we not decide to. If the French do not want to buy them then fine, we will sell them elsewhere.

---

Why would there be a free trade agreement with the EU?
You can't have it both ways. Leaving the club and still using the club.
That also does not work with your local gym. Why should that work with the EU?

Trading will get a LOT more expensive for the British.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/31/myth-brexit-bonanza-uk-fishing-exposed-no-deal

---

---

Ultramarkus wrote:

---

roscoe. wrote:

Mining no, fishing I can guarantee yes if we can undo the common fisheries policy

Why would the fish be more expensive, particularly if we can agree a free trade agreement. The French, Spanish and Dutch see the value in fishing in our waters, so why would we not decide to. If the French do not want to buy them then fine, we will sell them elsewhere.

---

Why would there be a free trade agreement with the EU?
You can't have it both ways. Leaving the club and still using the club.
That also does not work with your local gym. Why should that work with the EU?

Trading will get a LOT more expensive for the British.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/31/myth-brexit-bonanza-uk-fishing-exposed-no-deal

---

You hear that a lot from Brexiteers.
As I said. Brexit is an emotional decision not a fact based one.

Nice way to change the subject. Free trade may or may not have been the biggest issue in joining (peace, instead of a bunch of suicidal wars, may also be a factor), but now England has integrated & hugely benefited (they’re about to see how much), and there’s no plan for going back (if a good result is even possible).

---

jesseriley wrote:

Nice way to change the subject. Free trade may or may not have been the biggest issue in joining (peace, instead of a bunch of suicidal wars, may also be a factor), but now England has integrated & hugely benefited (they’re about to see how much), and there’s no plan for going back (if a good result is even possible).

---

Why would the EU crumble and why is it a failed project?

---

Ultramarkus wrote:

You hear that a lot from Brexiteers.
As I said. Brexit is an emotional decision not a fact based one.

---

---

Ultramarkus wrote:

Why would the EU crumble and why is it a failed project?

---

Rekrunner, Ultramarkus, jesseriley and all you other doom mongers that love globalist control and hate democracy, this one is for you.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f2zJ8vaB5jo

Great song.

I am looking forward for the next verses in 2020 and more importantly 2021.

Scotland & Northern Ireland will have their own versions for the dis-United Kingdom.

---

roscoe. wrote:
Banging on about leave not having a plan is naive. Before the referendum every household in the UK received a leaflet from the government warning that if the UK voted to leave then we would be out of the EU’s insititions, including customs union and single market. So we all knew what we were voted for despite the subsequent patronising rhetoric. It was up to the government to enact that plan.

Now there was no party of leave that could or would act on the result of the referendum and in fact the parliament was made up of 70% remain supporting MPs. After 3.5 years of this rotten lot blocking and delaying the democratic result of the vote and trying to row back on their commitments we finally have a prime minister who respected and believes in leave and a party that have to toe this line. So yes we had and have a plan and that plan is out of the institutions and a negotiated free trade agreement with the EU akin to the deal with Canada.

---

---

roscoe. wrote:
What silly logic, you think that the UN and NATO are equivalent to the EU, ridiculous. These institutions do no pass on laws, tariffs and rules that are superior to domestic versions and impact people’s lives on a daily basis.

Also let’s take your democratic point further and see if it stacks up. So the people should only elect and have a say on the most local of levels, say town by town. Then the ladder up from there is a decision for these representatives to make, so they decide in the example of the US who governs at a regional level, then state level, then national wide level (president) and a block of pan American countries like the EU in theory. So you are happy that these top levels that hold the power and make the most important decisions are removed from the democratic will of the people. If you don’t like how any of the important people act then hey, no matter you can change your local representative that holds no power on these matter.

---

---

roscoe. wrote:
Regarding fisheries the UK, a coastal and fish rich nation has been abused by the EU’s common fisheries policy and all we want is the re establishment of the international laws on costal boundaries and fishing provision. Whether the government has the political skill and will to undo the damage remains to be seen, but I can guarantee that those that voted for leave held this a important factor.

---

---

rekrunner wrote:

---

roscoe. wrote:
Banging on about leave not having a plan is naive. Before the referendum every household in the UK received a leaflet from the government warning that if the UK voted to leave then we would be out of the EU’s insititions, including customs union and single market. So we all knew what we were voted for despite the subsequent patronising rhetoric. It was up to the government to enact that plan.

Now there was no party of leave that could or would act on the result of the referendum and in fact the parliament was made up of 70% remain supporting MPs. After 3.5 years of this rotten lot blocking and delaying the democratic result of the vote and trying to row back on their commitments we finally have a prime minister who respected and believes in leave and a party that have to toe this line. So yes we had and have a plan and that plan is out of the institutions and a negotiated free trade agreement with the EU akin to the deal with Canada.

---

I never said anything about "leave" having no plan. If anything, they had too many diverging plans and no real leader. What I said was there was no general agreement as to what "leave" actually meant. You are the one banging on about all the "remain" plans, after saying remain had no plan, a particularly odd thing to say when maintaining the status quo requires no plan.

And let's not forget, besides government UK pamphlets, many UK voters received fake facebook ads with misinformation courtesy of Cambridge Analytica.

For all the noise Johnson and Farage made during the campaign, they both pulled disappearing act that would make Houdini jealous, after winning the vote. Theresa May had more balls than Johnson and Farage.

---

roscoe. wrote:
What silly logic, you think that the UN and NATO are equivalent to the EU, ridiculous. These institutions do no pass on laws, tariffs and rules that are superior to domestic versions and impact people’s lives on a daily basis.

Also let’s take your democratic point further and see if it stacks up. So the people should only elect and have a say on the most local of levels, say town by town. Then the ladder up from there is a decision for these representatives to make, so they decide in the example of the US who governs at a regional level, then state level, then national wide level (president) and a block of pan American countries like the EU in theory. So you are happy that these top levels that hold the power and make the most important decisions are removed from the democratic will of the people. If you don’t like how any of the important people act then hey, no matter you can change your local representative that holds no power on these matter.

---

That's how a "representative democracy" works -- people are not consulted on the important decisions. You keep coming up with unrelated hypotheticals but Britain has a voice in the EU. They currently have 73 MEP seats out of 751 (9.7%). This is not that different than US states electing representatives and senators, and sending them to Washington DC.

---

roscoe. wrote:
Regarding fisheries the UK, a coastal and fish rich nation has been abused by the EU’s common fisheries policy and all we want is the re establishment of the international laws on costal boundaries and fishing provision. Whether the government has the political skill and will to undo the damage remains to be seen, but I can guarantee that those that voted for leave held this a important factor.

---

Whether voters think the factor was important doesn't make it real, or realistic. UK is a just a nation unable to establish international laws. In order to re-establish international laws, the UK people will have to elect representatives who will appoint negotiators (not elected by the people) to negotiate with other world leaders (not elected by or answerable to the UK people).

---

You made several references to the Miller case. Unfortunately, contrary to what you suggest, this did not show the referendum result cast into law. Remember when you thought you hit the nail on the head? You hit your thumb. What you showed me was a court ruling that inserted Parliament in the approval process -- something you complain obstructed the referendum result's execution by the government. In this instance, the Parliament, elected by the people to represent the people's best interests, was put into the Brexit negotiations approval process. Without this court ruling, the people would have had no representation during the Brexit negotiations process.

---

roscoe. wrote:
I showed you how the result was cast in law in 2017 through the Miller case and you still suggest it is not legally binding, I guess there is no helping some.

---

---

roscoe.. wrote:

---

rekrunner wrote:

---

roscoe. wrote:
Banging on about leave not having a plan is naive. Before the referendum every household in the UK received a leaflet from the government warning that if the UK voted to leave then we would be out of the EU’s insititions, including customs union and single market. So we all knew what we were voted for despite the subsequent patronising rhetoric. It was up to the government to enact that plan.

Now there was no party of leave that could or would act on the result of the referendum and in fact the parliament was made up of 70% remain supporting MPs. After 3.5 years of this rotten lot blocking and delaying the democratic result of the vote and trying to row back on their commitments we finally have a prime minister who respected and believes in leave and a party that have to toe this line. So yes we had and have a plan and that plan is out of the institutions and a negotiated free trade agreement with the EU akin to the deal with Canada.

---

I never said anything about "leave" having no plan. If anything, they had too many diverging plans and no real leader. What I said was there was no general agreement as to what "leave" actually meant. You are the one banging on about all the "remain" plans, after saying remain had no plan, a particularly odd thing to say when maintaining the status quo requires no plan.

And let's not forget, besides government UK pamphlets, many UK voters received fake facebook ads with misinformation courtesy of Cambridge Analytica.

For all the noise Johnson and Farage made during the campaign, they both pulled disappearing act that would make Houdini jealous, after winning the vote. Theresa May had more balls than Johnson and Farage.

---

roscoe. wrote:
What silly logic, you think that the UN and NATO are equivalent to the EU, ridiculous. These institutions do no pass on laws, tariffs and rules that are superior to domestic versions and impact people’s lives on a daily basis.

Also let’s take your democratic point further and see if it stacks up. So the people should only elect and have a say on the most local of levels, say town by town. Then the ladder up from there is a decision for these representatives to make, so they decide in the example of the US who governs at a regional level, then state level, then national wide level (president) and a block of pan American countries like the EU in theory. So you are happy that these top levels that hold the power and make the most important decisions are removed from the democratic will of the people. If you don’t like how any of the important people act then hey, no matter you can change your local representative that holds no power on these matter.

---

That's how a "representative democracy" works -- people are not consulted on the important decisions. You keep coming up with unrelated hypotheticals but Britain has a voice in the EU. They currently have 73 MEP seats out of 751 (9.7%). This is not that different than US states electing representatives and senators, and sending them to Washington DC.

---

roscoe. wrote:
Regarding fisheries the UK, a coastal and fish rich nation has been abused by the EU’s common fisheries policy and all we want is the re establishment of the international laws on costal boundaries and fishing provision. Whether the government has the political skill and will to undo the damage remains to be seen, but I can guarantee that those that voted for leave held this a important factor.

---

Whether voters think the factor was important doesn't make it real, or realistic. UK is a just a nation unable to establish international laws. In order to re-establish international laws, the UK people will have to elect representatives who will appoint negotiators (not elected by the people) to negotiate with other world leaders (not elected by or answerable to the UK people).

---

Countries like Switzerland that are very successful for their size have referendums all the time so don’t give me that twaddle.

Question, what degree of representative democracy would you be happy with then? Should the people be consulted at all? Hey why not have a peerage or Soviet system and do away democracy all together. You have to remember that the people are sovereign and lend this to those in power.

---

---

rekrunner wrote:

You made several references to the Miller case. Unfortunately, contrary to what you suggest, this did not show the referendum result cast into law. Remember when you thought you hit the nail on the head? You hit your thumb. What you showed me was a court ruling that inserted Parliament in the approval process -- something you complain obstructed the referendum result's execution by the government. In this instance, the Parliament, elected by the people to represent the people's best interests, was put into the Brexit negotiations approval process. Without this court ruling, the people would have had no representation during the Brexit negotiations process.

---

roscoe. wrote:
I showed you how the result was cast in law in 2017 through the Miller case and you still suggest it is not legally binding, I guess there is no helping some.

---

---

---

roscoe.. wrote:
Countries like Switzerland that are very successful for their size have referendums all the time so don’t give me that twaddle.

Question, what degree of representative democracy would you be happy with then? Should the people be consulted at all? Hey why not have a peerage or Soviet system and do away democracy all together. You have to remember that the people are sovereign and lend this to those in power.

---

---

roscoe.. wrote:
What! The outcome of the case put the result in law as parliament voted at the time to unanimously trigger article 50.

You are displaying a dogmatism that saw you get you bottom spanked on the issue of PEDs in middle and long distance running on here.

---

---

rekrunner wrote:

---

roscoe.. wrote:
What! The outcome of the case put the result in law as parliament voted at the time to unanimously trigger article 50.

You are displaying a dogmatism that saw you get you bottom spanked on the issue of PEDs in middle and long distance running on here.

---

Dogmatism? I'm just going by what you quoted. The passing of the Act of Parliament did not require or oblige the government to trigger Article 50 or implement the referendum results, but simply gave the government the permission to do so, as the courts ruled was required.
If the UK government revoked Article 50 tomorrow, something Europe would allow, would they break any UK law?

It's unfortunate that you would chose to use a vague term like PED. Some PEDs are not banned by WADA, and some WADA banned substances are not known PEDs.

---