Brexit View

[Sephiroth]

Indeed Jenny, indeed

But this view of Ireland isn't the only thing they write that's revealing

robbin for example, thinks that he/she can say "I vote remain" as some kind of brexit crucifix whilst simultaneously repeating every wishful-thinking/half-baked theory from the UKIP/Brexiteer perspective (Turkey joining! Siding with keano (who isn't quite uncleglen in terms of extremism.. but they live in the same neighborhood) - and then claims it as an example of the kind of objectivity I lack

And that haughty - "Well If I'm wrong about the projected catastrophe I'll apologize" - as if that's of any use to anyone. It's simply delusional, last days of empire thinking

[robbin]

Eh, Sephiroth?

"...whilst simultaneously repeating every wishful-thinking/half-baked theory from the UKIP/Brexiteer perspective (Turkey joining!..."

You sneer, but perhaps you have overlooked (or didn't know) that until the last minute when he saw that the referendum was going to be closer than he thought, the UK's Prime Minister was openly supporting Turkey's application to join the EU. Moreover, there was a time (prior to Erdogan's crackdown) when the EU was doing a deal for visa free travel for Turkish citizens and was desperately trying to be close to Turkey because it wanted Turkey's help with the migrant crisis. That was not a "half-baked" theory from the UKIP/Brexiteer perspective" as you say.

"But the UK government's formal position is to support Turkey joining the EU and over the years it has sounded enthusiastic. In July 2010, on a visit to Turkey, David Cameron warned France and Germany not to shut Turkey "out of the club"." is just one BBC news report. There are many such reports over several years. So you can stick to your ignorance of the facts if you wish, but when you are wrong, you should at least be corrected, particularly if you put up a straw man to validate your sneering comments. Last time I looked Cameron was neither UKIP or a Brexiteer.

[Sephiroth]

Cameron might have supported it - but it wasn?t going to happen

But fears of it happening were used by UKIP and co

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/unfounded-claim-turkey-swing-brexit-referendum/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/16/michael-gove-admits-leave-was-wrong-to-fuel-immigration-fears

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/672624/turkey-joining-eu-disaster-britain-brexit

[robbin]

Nice try, but lame!

[Sephiroth]

that.. that's your reply? And you call me lame?

You bought UKIP propaganda - that's on you

[robbin]

I listened to the country's Prime Minister and took account of the UK's formal public support for Turkey's application to join the EU, as well as the prevailing circumstances. I have never had any time whatsoever for UKIP, so you are wrong again. When Cameron did a rapid about turn just before the referendum, it was far, far too convenient a change and I took the view it was cynical and simply not true that he had a sudden genuine change of heart. I think a lot of what Cameron and Osborne said back then was dishonest or misleading and that has proved to be correct.

A hell of a lot of lies and misleading statements were peddled by all sides. The whole thing was a disgrace. The 'negotiations' since Art 50 was triggered (which in my view was way too soon to set the clock ticking) have in my opinion been even worse - as has the hopeless response from opposition parties. As someone who is trained in and conducts negotiations regularly, I wince every time I think about how incompetently or disingenuously it has been handled thus far.

[keano77]

Dear oh dear you are defensive Sephiroth. And you have a tendency to put words into my mouth.

There is a paradox with the EU position at the moment. If there is a no-deal the EU requires the Irish Republic to erect a border.

Up to now it?s been presented by the EU as Britain?s problem. If there?s a no-deal EU rules require a border to protect its (customs) integrity. It becomes the EU?s (particularly the Irish Republic?s) problem.

There will probably be a last minute fudge of a deal full of Woolley wording and ambiguity kicking the can down the road but if there isn?t there will be a choice for the EU between its economic integrity or the peace process.

The backstop as it stands is unacceptable, technocrats cannot insist on constitutional changes in sovereign countries to protect tariffs.

[rendelharris]

To be fair to both, Cameron did say he strongly supported Turkey joining in 2010, come about 2014 he was saying he was "still keen with safeguards" then in the referendum campaign he said "Turkey won't join the Eu until the year 3000". If you're going to argue by bandying Cameron quotes at each other you'll be here until Doomsday, as you can find a quote from the duplicitous bastard to support just about anything.

[JoeLeg]

Personally I would?ve been astonished if Turkey had actually reached the point of joining the EU. I can well imagine various Eastern European countries vetoing that, and given their more recent behaviour their application is never going to proceed.

Whether that might have been different if we?d stayed in? Yes, maybe, I?ll concede that anything is possible. I still doubt it though, and I still believe it was a conveniently racist stick for Farage to use. If you don?t believe me, ask Dominic Cummings! 650,000 votes he reckoned it swung? Something like that?

[robbin]

I agree and that's a fair point Rendel. All I was doing was responding to a criticism levelled at me that I was just spouting some sort of made-up "half-baked" UKIP propaganda (the implication being that I am either stupid or gullible, or both). It actually was the UK's formal position that we supported Turkey's application and at times, it was enthusiastically supported - hence my reference to the Prime Minister's statements (and his last minute change of position to suggesting the UK didn't support Turkey's application to join - which I did not trust).

[JoeLeg]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> There is a paradox with the EU position at the

> moment. If there is a no-deal the EU requires the

> Irish Republic to erect a border.

>

> Up to now it?s been presented by the EU as

> Britain?s problem. If there?s a no-deal EU rules

> require a border to protect its (customs)

> integrity. It becomes the EU?s (particularly the

> Irish Republic?s) problem.

>

I think it?s pretty blas? to present this as purely an EU problem. We knew full well that this would be a requirement and yet surprisingly few (none that I heard, and I paid pretty close attention to the campaign on both sides) ever mentioned this before the vote. It?s almost as if Leave just assumed the EU would do whatever we wanted...

It?s also our border, not just the EU?s, and citizens of Northern Ireland are looking to the UK govt to prevent a hard border. To simply claim that we don?t have to do anything smacks to me of buck-passing o a criminally negligent scale. I?m not sure I buy the idea that the GFA is at risk, and I?d be astonished to see troops back over there, but I can?t help feeling that we - the English - are still trying to tell the Irish that we know better than them...

[Jenny1]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I listened to the country's Prime Minister and

> took account of the UK's formal public support for

> Turkey's application to join the EU, as well as

> the prevailing circumstances.

But taken in the context of the way this issue has played out over the past 30 years Cameron's statement on Turkey was pretty meaningless. I suspect the problem is that - as referenced above - not even the BBC has given proper coverage to the internal politics of the EU (in which we've played a prominent part over the past 40 years). So people weren't aware of the history of the EU/Turkey issue, or any other, unless they were specialists in the area. Without context it's almost impossible to make an informed judgement.

>

> The 'negotiations' since Art 50 was

> triggered (which in my view was way too soon to

> set the clock ticking) have in my opinion been

> even worse - as has the hopeless response from

> opposition parties. As someone who is trained in

> and conducts negotiations regularly, I wince every

> time I think about how incompetently or

> disingenuously it has been handled thus far.

I doubt anyone could disagree with that.

[Jenny1]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Up to now it?s been presented by the EU as

> Britain?s problem. If there?s a no-deal EU rules

> require a border to protect its (customs)

> integrity. It becomes the EU?s (particularly the

> Irish Republic?s) problem.

>

But here again you seem to be viewing everything through 'zero sum' glasses K77. It's the UK's problem AND Ireland's problem AND the EU's problem.

[Sephiroth]

Joe. I?m in broad agreement with you. But I posted just two high profile links about Ireland from before the referendum

It?s not on to say it wasn?t discussed.

[JoeLeg]

Fair enough if it was discussed. I certainly never came across it myself, and I would still argue that the vast majority of voters on both sides were unaware of the depth of potential trouble the issue presented. I would include myself in that.

[Sephiroth]

But given that it was discussed (and dismissed) why do you think that was?

A genuine, palpable, close to home threat, with serious bloodshed in living memory - not taken onboard by voters (including people like you who were paying close attention - but the two high profile articles I linked to made no impression)

Versus

Turkey!!! Joining!!!! Man the lifeboats!!!!

That?s just weird to me. But that was then. Here in 2019, we know more - so anyone who is still, yknow, shruggy, about the consequences of leaving, instead of saying ?this is madness. Press pause. Rethink? is simply not to be trusted

Maybe they aren?t all racists, stupid or naive. But they are still wreckless and wrong

Britain will be worse off. And will have endangered lives. Simple solution is to not do it. Every serious problem solved

[keano77]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Here in 2019, we know more - so anyone who is still,

> yknow, shruggy, about the consequences of

> leaving, instead of saying ?this is madness. Press

> pause. Rethink? is simply not to be trusted

>

> Maybe they aren?t all racists, stupid or naive.

> But they are still wreckless and wrong

>

> Britain will be worse off. And will have

> endangered lives. Simple solution is to not do

> it. Every serious problem solved

With the exception of 2019, there?s not one fact contained in that.

I might as well say in 10 years time Remainers on the edf will be shaking uncleglen?s hand and thanking him and fellow leavers for liberating them and giving them and their children a brilliant future.

[robbin]

Sephiroth, there's no 'w' in reckless. Also, do you not have a full stop on your keyboard?

ETA - Sorry, my mistake - I've now spotted a few full stops hidden away - just rarely at the end of sentences. Must be all that hyperbole and pent up angst that's been distracting you.

[JoeLeg]

Apologies, I missed that reply earlier. However I object to being told I?m being insulting. People ARE trying to use Ireland as a tool, on both sides.

Honestly, having read over your links, I wouldn?t call them high-profile, personally.

Boris is doing what he always does - dismissing out of hand any potential problem. In that link he doesn?t address the issue, doesn?t offer any support or evidence for. His view, simply says ?it won?t be a problem?.

The other link involving Major and Blair, I?m not surprised it didn?t get more coverage, very few people are willing to listen to anything Blair says, he doesn?t have a lot of credibility. John Major honourably tried to point out the flaws in the Leave argument on many occasions, but a lot of people simply dismissed him as irrelevant or tainted due to Maastricht.

I say all this because I think it points to why the Irish border issue didn?t come up anywhere near as much as it should have. Leave simply glossed over it, assuming that they would get their own way easily, and Remain weren?t listened to because, well, for the same reason a lot of their arguments fell on deaf ears - they handled their campaign badly, and were outmanoeuvred.

[Jenny1]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But given that it was discussed (and dismissed)

> why do you think that was?

>

> A genuine, palpable, close to home threat, with

> serious bloodshed in living memory - not taken

> onboard by voters (including people like you who

> were paying close attention - but the two high

> profile articles I linked to made no impression)

>

> Versus

>

> Turkey!!! Joining!!!! Man the lifeboats!!!!

>

> That?s just weird to me. But that was then. Here

> in 2019, we know more - so anyone who is still,

> yknow, shruggy, about the consequences of

> leaving, instead of saying ?this is madness. Press

> pause. Rethink? is simply not to be trusted

>

> Maybe they aren?t all racists, stupid or naive.

> But they are still wreckless and wrong

>

> Britain will be worse off. And will have

> endangered lives. Simple solution is to not do

> it. Every serious problem solved

I believe it still can be stopped in terms of timing. The politics of course is another matter. A General Election is in many ways the cowards way out - in that it doesn't, ostensibly, allow the grasping of any nettles. We'd be presented with the two major party leaders both unable/unwilling to articulate the 'Remain' view which now predominates in polls. But a GE would at least shake things up a bit. And that might be enough to open the discussion up to saner options.

[Sephiroth]

"I might as well say in 10 years time Remainers on the edf will be shaking uncleglen?s hand and thanking him and fellow leavers for liberating them and giving them and their children a brilliant future."

sure keano - I'm sure you can find vast majority of experts to back up a strawman argument like that

robbin - reduced to picking up typos from a phone posting. Oh dear. Obviously you are correct about the spelling and the use of periods. But to what end?

Joe - I don't think I said you were insulting? I certainly didn't mean to. As I said, I'm in broad agreement with you. But your points on the Irish border only underline keano and robbin's behaviour - there is nothing you can say that won't be dismissed by them and people like them. Government impact reports, border experts, economists that aren't Minford - none of them mean a damned thing

They (robbin and keano) are dangerous quacks, and trying to find common ground with them is futile. They have their heads down and will do and say anything to see this through. Even if they did vote remain. The notion that somehow, if only I was nicer, reached out more, didn't poke fun at them or typed my sentences more carefully would in any way elicit a more genuine response is for the birds. Mention Ireland before the referendum? Gets glossed over. Mention anything else that's about to happen and be catastrophic after March 2019? Get dismissed as "not factual"

But they are only 2 examples of why this country is so banjaxed and is happy to take others down with it

But when it all comes crashing down I can hear robbin's words of apology - and now helpful spelling and syntax critique as well - to comfort myself with

[keano77]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I might as well say in 10 years time Remainers on

> the edf will be shaking uncleglen?s hand and

> thanking him and fellow leavers for liberating

> them and giving them and their children a

> brilliant future."

>

> sure keano - I'm sure you can find vast majority

> of experts to back up a strawman argument like

> that

>

> robbin - reduced to picking up typos from a phone

> posting. Oh dear. Obviously you are correct about

> the spelling and the use of periods. But to what

> end?

>

> Joe - I don't think I said you were insulting? I

> certainly didn't mean to. As I said, I'm in broad

> agreement with you. But your points on the Irish

> border only underline keano and robbin's behaviour

> - there is nothing you can say that won't be

> dismissed by them and people like them. Government

> impact reports, border experts, economists that

> aren't Minford - none of them mean a damned thing

>

> They (robbin and keano) are dangerous quacks, and

> trying to find common ground with them is futile.

> They have their heads down and will do and say

> anything to see this through. Even if they did

> vote remain. The notion that somehow, if only I

> was nicer, reached out more, didn't poke fun at

> them or typed my sentences more carefully would in

> any way elicit a more genuine response is for the

> birds. Mention Ireland before the referendum? Gets

> glossed over. Mention anything else that's about

> to happen and be catastrophic after March 2019?

> Get dismissed as "not factual"

>

> But they are only 2 examples of why this country

> is so banjaxed and is happy to take others down

> with it

>

> But when it all comes crashing down I can hear

> robbin's words of apology - and now helpful

> spelling and syntax critique as well - to comfort

> myself with

Oh dear...

[robbin]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I might as well say in 10 years time Remainers on

> the edf will be shaking uncleglen?s hand and

> thanking him and fellow leavers for liberating

> them and giving them and their children a

> brilliant future."

>

> Sure Keano - I'm sure you can find vast majority [sic]

> of experts to back up a strawman argument like

> that.

>

> Robbin - reduced to picking up typos from a phone

> posting. Oh dear. Obviously you are correct about

> the spelling and the use of periods. But to what

> end?

>

> Joe - I don't think I said you were insulting? I

> certainly didn't mean to. As I said, I'm in broad

> agreement with you. But your points on the Irish

> border only underline Keano and Robbin's behaviour

> - there is nothing you can say that won't be

> dismissed by them and people like them. Government

> impact reports, border experts, economists that

> aren't Minford - none of them mean a damned thing.

>

> They (Robbin and Keano) are dangerous quacks, and

> trying to find common ground with them is futile.

> They have their heads down and will do and say

> anything to see this through. Even if they did

> vote remain. The notion that somehow, if only I

> was nicer, reached out more, didn't poke fun at

> them or typed my sentences more carefully would in

> any way elicit a more genuine response is for the

> birds. Mention Ireland before the referendum? Gets

> glossed over. Mention anything else that's about

> to happen and be catastrophic after March 2019?

> Get dismissed as "not factual".

>

> But they are only 2 examples of why this country

> is so banjaxed and is happy to take others down

> with it.

>

> But when it all comes crashing down I can hear

> Robbin's words of apology - and now helpful

> spelling and syntax critique as well - to comfort

> myself with.

[robbin]

I've just realised I'm being insulted and talked down to by someone who spends their time playing role playing video games. That's a first! Maybe too much of those computer games does lead to aggression after all. I will be more understanding of you (and patient) in future, Sephiroth from Final Fantasy VII.

[Sephiroth]

Ah look - someone has found google.