Maggz

1 hour ago, Bullet said:

or this

or this

 

Again, did you watch your own video? It literally goes against what you're claiming. All she said in this video is that one day we need a European army. And people clapped.

What am I missing? How does this support your point of "these people" insinuating bad or aggressive, will have their own army. 

I'm confused...

1 hour ago, Bullet said:

How on earth can this be taken out of context:

 

I'm not being funny, but did you watch your own video? Macron said Europe needs to be able to protect itself against Russia without needing the help or assistance of the US. 

After Krimea, Ukraine, several poisonings in the UK, how is that strange? Also considering Trump doesn't really seem to care much what Putin does in Europe.

1 minute ago, Ekona said:

Oh, he’s a radio host. Not really sure why he’s relevant to the conversation tbh, he’s just another media outlet that people can choose to believe or not. 

He's a bit more than that. Go on, YouTube some of his highlights, wiki isn't enough

Just now, Ekona said:

Who is this Alex Jones? Never heard of him. Is he important? 

You're in for a treat then. Check YT

11 minutes ago, Bullet said:

Now you keep saying that but are you saying that because you don't like the commentary afterwards you are completely blocking out  what Verhofstad said ??

As I said, if we start judging parliament's based on a single person and their statements, there's not a single country in this world that should have an army, UK included. 

What I'm saying is, you've taken the Merkel and Macron bit out of context, and have posted a short clip of 1 guy out of 751 seats in the EU parliament. 

That's like indicating the UK is what George Galloway says. I hope you see how that's problematic, especially when you try and make a point in regards to the EU army. 

Sorry for me that's misleading to say the least, if not intentionally twisted and inflammatory. 

1 hour ago, Bullet said:

Just in case you missed it "also merkel and macron have both said in the last week that they need an EU Army to defend against Russia, China and the USA.....???? wtf ?? "

 

Guy verhofstad 'Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe '

Angela merkel 'The leader of germany

Emmanuel macron 'The leader of france' (who we share a military unions with)

 

'These people', 

Your ignorance is staggering

What's staggering is taking things out of context and presenting them like we're entering WWIII.

What's even worse is taking Donald Trump tweets as facts and news. 

But in the positive spirits that I agree should be kept on this forum and generally around these topics, I'll leave an article which explains what Merkel and Macron actually want and said.

Just so we take opinions out of it. It would be great if others could back up their statements with articles.

https://www.ft.com/content/3f5c6c74-e752-11e8-8a85-04b8afea6ea3

Statements like the one above are part of the reason why so much desinformation is going around. Soundbites and lack of facts.

To me personally it's upsetting and (accepting getting banned) to me are moronic as they're based on Alex Jones like videos and not on any credible source (that ive seen at least)

Serious discussion should have those, otherwise it's just a pissing contest

10 minutes ago, Jetpilot said:

You seriously need to stop being so condescending to people, his view and opinion is as valid as yours  and tbf, he seems perfectly calm, he just added a link.

And what a link it was. Something even Alex Jones would be jealous about 

13 minutes ago, Bullet said:

Watch this, This was 2 weeks ago. Is it a good idea for people like these to have an army ?

 

Hahahaha "these people" is suddenly one guy - Verhofstadt. You do know there's an European parliament right? And that this one guy can't do anything.

That's like saying the world should be afraid the UK has an army because Bobo Johnson doesn't like how Muslim women dress and look. 

You need to chill down buddy, seriously 

5 minutes ago, SuperStu said:

I must admit it’s not something I’ve spent any time reading up on, but why is everyone so upset about the concept of an EU army?

 

NATO didn’t start from something too dissimilar and there’s been relative peace in the West since then (if you consider the preceding 50 years as the benchmark). There’s not much that goes on without UN resolutions or coalitions of some type when we or one of our allies goes in somewhere.

 

Are people worried the EU army will invade the U.K.? What am I missing?

Here's my take after a few sleepless nights of reading.

One key reason but not the only one, is that the French and German want an EU army is due to their weapons, ammunition, planes and equipment production. they want to centralise European purchasing and take it away from individual country purchases. They also  want to  reduce  the EU purchases from the US.

The UK would either have to become part of this system, or become an outside seller as the US is. UK was against the EU army all along due to these reasons, but now due to Brexit, it's veto is gone, and EU can finally do what thee wanted.  

Anyone who ever worked in a multinational corporation knows that centralised purchasing means bigger quantities ordered, better negotiating position, etc. Also joint European development means bigger competitive chances Vs US sellers.

And I think the UK will become louder and louder from the outside, as it lost its vote and influence. 

Anyone thinking it's about invading anything needs to calm down. It's all about them dollars.

Also this has been brewing for 5 years at least, was only made possible by Brexit.

16 minutes ago, coldel said:

what would you suggest we do? 

What most other countries would probably do after it was proved... Go to the streets, remove the retards in government, demand justice, and if needed do another vote. Annulling a decision or agreement would most probably not be a problem with the EU, as they'll be worse off with Brexit as well. 

I think (and I'm well aware I may be wrong) that the culture in the UK is a bit more apathetic than in most other European countries, and that's a shame. As we're talking about changes which will impact generations to come.

Imagine this happening in France, Germany, hell even Romania, Serbia, or any other country. Pitchforks would be out after the first two revelations, and rightly so. They'd be appealed that their own politicians did something which will impact generations and destroy the result the current working generation has achieved, the last thing they'd say would be "oh well, what's done is done, let's get on with it".

Either we have way too much faith in our government, or we should care a lot more about our kids future

1 minute ago, Jetpilot said:

And yet as pointed out, according to polls after the "the deal", 

See, statements like this are part of a problem. There is no deal. It's a withdraw agreement which is sorting out less than 10% of the issues. An actual trade deal is yet to be negotiated. You not knowing the difference kind of means you don't really know what you're talking about. 

Next part.. there is no deal as it doesn't have the parliament support, so it's just an idea, an offer, a draft document, for now. 

4 minutes ago, Jetpilot said:

either near 50% doesnt care it was lied too, taken advantage of and given false data, they didnt believe the rhetoric and werent actually convinced of it in the first place and really did want to leave the EU regardless or they are utter morons or its a whole load of nonsense and far from factual that people voted that way because its just what you want to believe to justify the decision.

Nice spin. What you forgot is that one of the hardest thing for a person to accept is that they were wrong, and second hardest is to say they're sorry. Nothing to do with Brexit per say, but just human nature. It takes a lot of character to do so, and even more, to do so publicly.  What I'm saying is, that it's unfortunately easier to say let's get on with it, and blame the EU for our situation and this crappy draft agreement.

7 minutes ago, Jetpilot said:

You just have to accept, roughly half the country (nothing to do with yours or my views), dont want to part of the EU at this very moment in time.

I accepted that long ago, but I can't accept we're disregarding the laws and lies, just because that's the easiest thing to do for us and politicians.

I think we all should try and be better than that. 

38 minutes ago, blobbish said:

Maggz. I think your missing the whole point here. It doesn't matter if it was legal or not, the referendum was only advisory.  The Government didn't have to act upon it, they could have stayed in the EU. They made the choice to accept the vote, and they would have been aware of what was real and what wasn't.

You have a strange way of agreeing with me 

My point was that if the government knows what went down, it would have been easier for them to not enact it. I'm well aware it was advisory. That's actually my biggest issue here.

41 minutes ago, Jay84 said:

Another question (aimed at the group), if we re-voted, and remain won this time, would Europe keep us? Or would they say its too late now, wheels are in motion plates are spinning? 

No one knows, none of this stuff has ever happened. It's as new for us as it is for the EU. 

39 minutes ago, Jay84 said:

If for example Italy did also vote leave, would they need to create their own currency again? Asking for a friend.

Maggz, if pigs flew and we had a 2nd vote, and it was the same result, would you be 'happy' to let it lie/accept the decision? The reason I ask is the remain people have been vocal about not liking the outcome from the beginning, before the legitimacy raised its head. When it did raise its head it was seized upon like straw being clutched. It is worth me stating I don't believe the process has been handled well, and I'm not trying to justify the leave outcome, as stated, im intrigued as to what will happen to the auto service industry for which I work in the future. 

I wouldn't be happy, but I would have accepted it. I would also reconsider my current living situation depending on how the environment around me would change. 

I work in the same industry, and what people also don't get is that WTO tariffs and rules will hurt. They will hurt badly. Imagine a 20% bump on prices for the the next decade (which is how long big trade deals take to negotiate). People don't feel anything yet, and think this is as worse as it gets. Nothing has happened yet actually.

Now imagine along the tarrifs that the pound goes down another 15 or 20 %. I wonder how much fishing quotas will matter when loads of people won't be able to afford everything taken for granted today

25 minutes ago, coldel said:

There is certainly a debate to be had about the legitimacy of voting. Both the referendum and the US elections faced unprecedented interference not before seen from subversive 3rd parties. It's no longer safe to assume the vote isn't tampered with by simply putting tamper proof tape on boxes. As we saw it only takes a couple of percent swing to change a major decision...the democratic voting system is not able in the modern age to deal with the flow of misinformation from placed social media accounts for instance. 

 

All that said...the results from the last referendum have to stand. 

I agree with all, even the last part. But by UK law, referendum is NOT legally binding. It can stand, sure, but parliament shouldn't enact it, now that we know what all went down.

I'm still talking about laws not feelings or wishes

25 minutes ago, Jetpilot said:

Likewise  

 

Dude you wont get me to agree with you and vice versa, as said i have no problem with your view and i am not trying to persuade you otherwise, the problem is you believe you are right and i am wrong, its 50/50 ish across the country its utterly arrogant to think 50% of the population is/were/are wrong. 

 

 

I'm not trying to convince you in anything, we're debating. This isn't about you, although you seem like you want it to be. I'm stating facts and trying to provide information which I believe not all know about. Not really sure what you're doing though.

I also never said they were wrong, I keep saying they were convinced based on false data, were lied to, and were taken advantage off in order to progress agendas which were in the interest of everyone else but not the UK. This started with Farage going to the EU as a representative, and him twisting facts about what's been going on there.

And I'm surprised more people who voted based on those lies aren't more vocal about it, maybe it's partially due to being ashamed they got it wrong? Dunno, maybe it's just easier to tell "let's get on with it" than accept responsibility for our actions. Time will tell.

Anyone who voted for fishing quotas and immigration don't need to change their mind. It was what they wanted and maybe still do. 

22 minutes ago, Jetpilot said:

@Maggz, i wont bother to quote you in reply, its pretty clear from your posts you will not and do not accept Brexit or the vote/voters and i have absolutely no problem with that, we are all entitled to our choice/views and guessing from your comment to Ekona with regards to dictators you have experience with that so appreciate your stand point further.

 

I am afraid to say that i also dont believe someone with such strong pro eu views you would except the next vote if it didnt still didnt go your way. You would once again get caught up in the media frenzy of dismissing the voters as racist/xenophobic/scammed and all the other stuff you mention plus funding, broken laws etc, if that referendum was truly illegal you can be dam sure it would have been nullified by the remainers.

The problem is you're thinking about this very one dimensional. 

All major parties in the UK are scared of voter vengeance if they go against the referendum, as all parties are also split down the middle. And unfortunately the first goal of each political party is to stay in power and stay relevant. It's so bad that there's been talks of both Tories and Labor potentially splitting as parties (won't happen, but them merely talking about it means it's serious). 

Second thing is, parliamentarians are loaded, and won't be impacted by Brexit unless they're voted out. So their bottom line is very different than yours or mine. 

They're not reversing the referendum because they're afraid they'll become the next libdems. And not because there's no proof. There's actually a proceeding in place in a few courts regarding the annulment.

My problem is that people disregard laws because of political sides and opinions which is very dangerous for any country. Rule of law should be upheld no matter the sides and reason why it was broken. 

And the fact that you say I wouldn't accept the next vote if it lost because of my pro EU views is a bit insulting, but as you don't know me, I'll let it slide. 

I would like the parliament to do its job in the first place and not ask the plebs what they think. If it did ask, it should be an opinion not an obligation. That's for starters.

Now if it already asked the people what they wanted, and if people decided based on lies and if election laws were broken, I would want the parliament to annul and prosecute. 

But you know why they won't? Because they're afraid the leave side will say, the legality was an excuse for annulling a referendum which didn't go their way... Again, disregarding laws, and politicians doing things which doesn't blow back at them and remove them from office. 

I hope this makes sense, can't explain it any more simply than that 

1 hour ago, Jetpilot said:

 

 

You are equally as guilty as those very people you condemn above by believing the press propaganda that the majority voted by being scammed. I dont doubt a few did fall hook line and sinker, i am not naive but as Ekona says, it went both ways.

 

We are not ignoring what the majority wants, they wanted to leave and as i asked Marzman, what do we do keep doing voting until everyone is happy or there is a definitive majority (which will never happen), as mention after "the deal" the polls suggest a 54 to 46 (and we know the polls can be wrong, based on before and the same number voting, thats only another half a million people above the majority last time, is that enough of a majority to be definitive in your eyes, no matter what you "want" to believe, its just not the case, the country is still very much roughly divided on this one.

No one proved yet the remain campaign broke every single election law out there, that American money and influence was spent on it like it was on Leave, not to mention the Russian money as well. How can you compare those two sides as equal is beyond me. Full investigation, punishments for ALL who broke laws, annulling the referendum for funding, fraud, and any other allegations which get proven, and a new vote. That would make the new vote, the first one that was legal. Unless laws dont matter, because your side won?

1 hour ago, Ekona said:

I can say we voted because we did. There was enough information out there to make a reasoned choice, however I believe that most people did not bother to avail themselves of that (and that goes for both sides!). It was no different to every single General Election, where every time millions of people choose who to run the country based on nothing more than their parents hating a woman who hasn’t been in power in a generation, or because there was once a rough winter even further back when people went on strike a bit. It’s pathetic, and is exactly why the current political system doesn’t really work. 

 

People are idiots. What we really need is a benevolent dictatorship, not more votes. 

 

What information? Fishing quotas... Anything else? Did the whole country votenl leave because of cod's and crabs? 

Also I know you're trying to be funny but some people came from places with actual benevolent dictatorships, and let me tell you... It's not fun or funny at all

7 hours ago, Irn Bru said:

Love him or hate him, he delivers on his election promises

Yup, he took away affordable health care from millions who can't afford the basic help now. 

He also pulled out of a international deal only because he had to be against everything Obama did in order to get the republican vote. 

A person who in the 90s told Oprah I believe, that if he ever run for office he'd run as a republican, as they're too stupid to get he's playing them. A person who's been a democrat his whole life. 

What's not to love?

Oh...and a person who branded a whole nation as rapists and murders, and promised a wall he knew he can't afford only to get the crazy right vote. What did I forget? Oh and he didn't want to get wet so he didn't pay respects to the vets and fallen soldiers. Lovely leader indeed. They're so lucky

7 hours ago, Irn Bru said:

 

So we get a vote on things, big deal, it'll only be scuppered by the drunkerd who can't put a pair of shoes on. 

Well not anymore, obviously we don't like to operate in democratic unions because we don't get the things we want, and have to rely on voting systems. I guess we're too used to dictating what others have to do. 

7 hours ago, Irn Bru said:

Power grabs ??, none you say, have you watched the eu parliamentary debates lately ??, 

What kind of an argument is that? Let me do the same...have you ever watched our parliament? Bigly power grabbing and taking positions for themselves. Gove, Bobo, Farage,...

7 hours ago, Irn Bru said:

have you researched how many British factorys have been moved to the eu, with eu grants, 000's of jobs gone abroad,businesses that have been here for decades 

So you're mad at the EU, that owners of privately owned companies moved abroad because the UK couldn't provide the same economic and working environment?  Interesting logic.

7 hours ago, Irn Bru said:

Fishing, steel, Ford van production all gone to other eu members, what industries have the eu paid directly to setup in Britain and create 000's of jobs here

That's like the EU crying and trying to punish the UK for taking over the European financial markets in the City. Some countries are good at cheap production (E Europe), others at finances. Being in the union means we all benefit from the cheap prices and can afford more stuff because if it. 

7 hours ago, Irn Bru said:

What about Turkey getting membership, Oh that'll never happen, yeah just like the eu army was never going to happen.

You are absolutely oblivious when it comes to international politics. Turkey will never get in. It has the largest uncontrollable border of all "potential" members, is the key smuggling route into EU because of it, is officially still at war with Greece over Cyprus (meaning Greece will veto their membership as long as Cyprus isn't returned) meaning, they will NEVER get in. 

7 hours ago, Irn Bru said:

The only reason the eu want Britain is because we're a cash cow, nothing else.

When the EU took in Britain, we were a toothless bumb in dire need of help, with a shrinking economy. Read a book or two buddy. On your own countries history and on the basic principles on which the EU was based when it was formed. 

Absolutely clueless.

4 minutes ago, Irn Bru said:

One thing in all this brexit talk that NEVER GETS LOOKED AT is what is the eu going to look like in 10 years time ??. Misery, thats what. Eu army, more integration, more power to them, we'll be a vassel state alright, except we asked for it by staying in this abomination. Everybody bangs on about what the consequences will be in leaving, what about the consequences of staying,  how much are they going to demand in annual payments and power grabs. Any remainers got a lucid answer for me ??

I think you're infected with the good ol'British imperialism bug. Everything you've mentioned is a benefit. 

Let me break it down for you:

EU army - the only chance we have at competing versus the USA and China is by joining resources and utilising best areas of each country. Some are good at manufacturing, others in software, some in making mushy pea's. One country in EU cannot afford investing to a degree to compete with economies like the US and China and their insane military spend.

More integration: 

Economic integration brings the benefits of greater size, internal efficiency and robustness to the EU economy as a whole and to the economies of the individual Member States. This, in turn, offers opportunities for economic stability, higher growth and more employment — outcomes of direct benefit to EU citizens.

take 5 mins and read this - please just read it, don't ignore it thinking you know best (I don't, that's for sure, that's why reading is important) 

 https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-03-24/sixty-years-later-european-integration-has-benefited-eu-countries

About the vassal state, talk about Borisisms... No, we'll be a member state with equal rights and benefits, no customs, no tarrifs, cheap imports and most of all, oranges from Spain you can afford.

And lastly, the consequences of staying are all positive actually. Even the contributions you were all lied about are not really what you think they are... The UK is the only country with an negotiated rebate (thank Thatcher for that) where 50% of paid money gets reinvested in to the UK. 

Power grabs.... For the love of God, what does that even mean? You do know there's a EU parliament where you need to vote on things... And if your idea sux, people won't vote. Of it's generally a good one, and helps more than yourself, it tends to have the opposite effect. There's politics as well, but we got that in the UK as well. So what power grabs?

2 hours ago, Jetpilot said:

 

I think the only vote we should have now is, this deal or no deal personally!

 

 

So vote on two things people got scammed in to and ignoring what the majority wants and what's 100% financially better for everyone in the UK? 

Where's the logic in that?

2 hours ago, Ekona said:

There should be no extra vote. The people of this country have already proved once they’re not capable of making a reasoned decision, why give them a second go at doing the same? 

 

I voted Remain, but I’d vote Leave if we ran again tomorrow. Just on principle really, I believe that one referendum is enough and we’re not all Scottish and feel the need to keep asking the same question until we get an answer we like. 

 

Brexit was always going to be a short-term clusterf*ck. I do believe that regardless of result this country will be better off in maybe 20-30 years time, but in the immediate 10 years or so we’d be screwed. I still hold that view. 

But people voted based on lies, fabrications, fear of millions of immigrants coming over the uncontrolled borders, NHS collapsing, and with Cambridge Analitica targeting people with fake news. Accepting funding from abroad, which is ilegal as well, not to mention breaking funding laws by not reporting all gathered funds.

How can that be a legitimate vote?

How can we say people voted already. They didn't know what they're even voting for (apart from intolerant ones who wanted just to vote against all foreigners). 

Also how are we willing to swallow 2-3 ****ing decades of being worse of, for something which will maybe be better later? 

This is life and people's livelihood were playing with