Brexit

[Speaker to Animals]

Parliament derives it's supremacy by way of The Crown.

They fucking murdered the last king who went against them. They derive their power from themselves.

They murdered a king, and then their commonwealth was overthrown, and the monarchy was restored. Did you stop reading before you got to that part, or something?

It's a fucking farce, dude. It's no different than the farce that is Congress.

These institutions are not really what they bill themselves to be. I mean.. fucking look at Brexit. They don't give two shits what the British people actually voted for.

[StCapps]

They fucking murdered the last king who went against them. They derive their power from themselves.

They murdered a king, and then their commonwealth was overthrown, and the monarchy was restored. Did you stop reading before you got to that part, or something?

It's a fucking farce, dude. It's no different than the farce that is Congress.

These institutions are not really what they bill themselves to be. I mean.. fucking look at Brexit. They don't give two shits what the British people actually voted for.

Brexit not going the way you hoped isn't evidence that Parliament doesn't derive it's power from The Crown, just the opposite in fact.

[Smitty-48]

The mechanism that British Kings use to get around Magna Carta, is collusion.

The Royal Family is massively wealthy and connected.

Anytime they wanted to pack Parliament with a bunch of cronies who would do as they say, it would not be hard.

That is how George III ran things.

[Haumana]

I've been doing that since this thread started.

Immigration-
Immigration will not decrease as a result of Brexit. We have our lowest unemployment rates in decades. Industries such as agriculture and healthcare rely on immigration to fill the vacancies. The first Brexit secretary Dave Davis said as much only weeks after the vote. He stated that immigration from Europe would not decrease for years as it was essential to the economy.

Trade
''Britain can make its own trade deals once we leave and they will be to our advantage''
False, Britain is in a much better position with reference to international trade as a part of the worlds largest trading block. New trade deals can take years to agree on and uncertainty in the meantime has a massive detrimental effect on investment. This is reflected in the crash in the value of the pound since the vote.

Return of sovereignty
False, Brexiteer myth. Sovereignty was never lost as demonstrated by our refusal to join the Euro zone or be a part of the Schengen agreement. Both EU policies which we rejected through Parliamentary supremacy.

Return to controlling our own borders.
False, we never lost control of our borders as demonstrated by the tiny number of refugees which make it into the country. Also demonstrated by the Sangatte refugee camp where those unable to get to the UK spent months trying and failing until it was shut down by the authorities.

Britain will be better off economically after we leave.
False. The government reports on the effects of leaving were so damning that they tried to suppress their release. Especially leaving without a deal.

£350 million per week to spend on the NHS.
Outright lie on the side of a bus. The figure didn't take into account the rebate we receive from the EU amounting to around £70 million a week or the money we receive from the EU for infrastructure investment, agricultural subsidies and investment in deprived areas, nor were there any guarantees that the money would be spent on the NHS. Nor did it represent the economic benefits which we gain as an EU member which outnumbers the amount we pay into the EU.

Who did you copy and paste?

It doesn't come off as a good faith effort on your part. Just saying.

Oh fuck off. I just spent 15 minutes of my own time trying to answer your question and you dismiss it summarily with ''who did you copy and paste?''
You have no right to talk about good faith if that is the level you respond at.

I'm not wasting any more of my time on you if that's how you are going to behave.

15 minutes to say their position is "Immigration", one word and then go on to dismiss that? I won't even go into the rest of your feeble effort.

Let's just agree that you are a remainer and you don't really give a shit about why Britain should exit the EU. Fair enough?

[Montegriffo]

Who did you copy and paste?

It doesn't come off as a good faith effort on your part. Just saying.

Oh fuck off. I just spent 15 minutes of my own time trying to answer your question and you dismiss it summarily with ''who did you copy and paste?''
You have no right to talk about good faith if that is the level you respond at.

I'm not wasting any more of my time on you if that's how you are going to behave.

15 minutes to say their position is "Immigration", one word and then go on to dismiss that? I won't even go into the rest of your feeble effort.

Let's just agree that you are a remainer and you don't really give a shit about why Britain should exit the EU. Fair enough?

You didn't even read my response and then you accuse me of not acting in good faith while dismissing the response you didn't read as a copy and paste.
Let's just agree you are full of shit and not worth wasting my time talking to.
You are no better than StA and wouldn't recognise a good faith argument if it jumped up and smacked you in the face.

I've had enough of this shit. Otern is the only person who has engaged me in a good faith argument all evening. Well maybe AB, at least he responded to what I wrote and not to some pre-conceived idea of what my arguments are.

Fucking waste of time.

[Haumana]

Oh fuck off. I just spent 15 minutes of my own time trying to answer your question and you dismiss it summarily with ''who did you copy and paste?''
You have no right to talk about good faith if that is the level you respond at.

I'm not wasting any more of my time on you if that's how you are going to behave.

15 minutes to say their position is "Immigration", one word and then go on to dismiss that? I won't even go into the rest of your feeble effort.

Let's just agree that you are a remainer and you don't really give a shit about why Britain should exit the EU. Fair enough?

You didn't even read my response and then you accuse me of not acting in good faith while dismissing the response you didn't read as a copy and paste.
Let's just agree you are full of shit and not worth wasting my time talking to.
You are no better than StA and wouldn't recognise a good faith argument if it jumped up and smacked you in the face.

I've had enough of this shit. Otern is the only person who has engaged me in a good faith argument all evening. Well maybe AB, at least he responded to what I wrote and not to some pre-conceived idea of what my arguments are.

Fucking waste of time.

You didn't even make an honest argument. Immigration, one word, is not an argument for the Brexit side. Blame me for your shortcomings if you must. If pressed I would have to say that Capps would hold another winning ticket though.

[Ex-California]

That is not what you asked me to do.
You asked me to make my best effort to leave, not to represent the opposition argument.

Their position seems to be ''leave means leave'' with no unified position on how to achieve it.
A disparate group with arguments ranging from ''no more immigration'' to ''no regulations on the curvature of a banana''.
It is far easier to be against something than offer a viable solution after all...

Yeah, no.

"Now make your best good faith effort to leave, if you would be so kind."

So you don't really know their position or their best argument as to why leaving is the best choice.

"It is far easier to be against something than offer a viable solution after all..."

Indeed. Which is apparent in arguments against leaving. Go figure.

My arguments are FOR remaining as outlined in the list of benefits I produced for you.
The arguments against leaving revolve around losing those benefits.

Pro-Brexit arguments seem to be centered around opposing the EU and its policies with very little said about any benefits of leaving.
Probably because they are few and far between them.

Opposition to the EU and its policies are enough.

[Ex-California]

I repeat. I know their arguments but I don't understand them. They make little sense.

Make their best case then and then tear it down.

I've been doing that since this thread started.

Immigration-
Immigration will not decrease as a result of Brexit. We have our lowest unemployment rates in decades. Industries such as agriculture and healthcare rely on immigration to fill the vacancies. The first Brexit secretary Dave Davis said as much only weeks after the vote. He stated that immigration from Europe would not decrease for years as it was essential to the economy.

Trade
''Britain can make its own trade deals once we leave and they will be to our advantage''
False, Britain is in a much better position with reference to international trade as a part of the worlds largest trading block. New trade deals can take years to agree on and uncertainty in the meantime has a massive detrimental effect on investment. This is reflected in the crash in the value of the pound since the vote.

Return of sovereignty
False, Brexiteer myth. Sovereignty was never lost as demonstrated by our refusal to join the Euro zone or be a part of the Schengen agreement. Both EU policies which we rejected through Parliamentary supremacy.

Return to controlling our own borders.
False, we never lost control of our borders as demonstrated by the tiny number of refugees which make it into the country. Also demonstrated by the Sangatte refugee camp where those unable to get to the UK spent months trying and failing until it was shut down by the authorities.

Britain will be better off economically after we leave.
False. The government reports on the effects of leaving were so damning that they tried to suppress their release. Especially leaving without a deal.

£350 million per week to spend on the NHS.
Outright lie on the side of a bus. The figure didn't take into account the rebate we receive from the EU amounting to around £70 million a week or the money we receive from the EU for infrastructure investment, agricultural subsidies and investment in deprived areas, nor were there any guarantees that the money would be spent on the NHS. Nor did it represent the economic benefits which we gain as an EU member which outnumbers the amount we pay into the EU.

You're so worried about "trade deals" when in the best case the government is not involved in any deal at all. Companies make contracts with each other and trade goes along swimmingly. We don't need "trading blocks" and governments to have functioning trade

[Montegriffo]

Yeah, no.

"Now make your best good faith effort to leave, if you would be so kind."

So you don't really know their position or their best argument as to why leaving is the best choice.

"It is far easier to be against something than offer a viable solution after all..."

Indeed. Which is apparent in arguments against leaving. Go figure.

My arguments are FOR remaining as outlined in the list of benefits I produced for you.
The arguments against leaving revolve around losing those benefits.

Pro-Brexit arguments seem to be centered around opposing the EU and its policies with very little said about any benefits of leaving.
Probably because they are few and far between them.

Opposition to the EU and its policies are enough.

Ok, list the EU policies which are so heinous that it is worth losing all the benefits of membership to avoid.

[Montegriffo]

Make their best case then and then tear it down.

I've been doing that since this thread started.

Immigration-
Immigration will not decrease as a result of Brexit. We have our lowest unemployment rates in decades. Industries such as agriculture and healthcare rely on immigration to fill the vacancies. The first Brexit secretary Dave Davis said as much only weeks after the vote. He stated that immigration from Europe would not decrease for years as it was essential to the economy.

Trade
''Britain can make its own trade deals once we leave and they will be to our advantage''
False, Britain is in a much better position with reference to international trade as a part of the worlds largest trading block. New trade deals can take years to agree on and uncertainty in the meantime has a massive detrimental effect on investment. This is reflected in the crash in the value of the pound since the vote.

Return of sovereignty
False, Brexiteer myth. Sovereignty was never lost as demonstrated by our refusal to join the Euro zone or be a part of the Schengen agreement. Both EU policies which we rejected through Parliamentary supremacy.

Return to controlling our own borders.
False, we never lost control of our borders as demonstrated by the tiny number of refugees which make it into the country. Also demonstrated by the Sangatte refugee camp where those unable to get to the UK spent months trying and failing until it was shut down by the authorities.

Britain will be better off economically after we leave.
False. The government reports on the effects of leaving were so damning that they tried to suppress their release. Especially leaving without a deal.

£350 million per week to spend on the NHS.
Outright lie on the side of a bus. The figure didn't take into account the rebate we receive from the EU amounting to around £70 million a week or the money we receive from the EU for infrastructure investment, agricultural subsidies and investment in deprived areas, nor were there any guarantees that the money would be spent on the NHS. Nor did it represent the economic benefits which we gain as an EU member which outnumbers the amount we pay into the EU.

You're so worried about "trade deals" when in the best case the government is not involved in any deal at all. Companies make contracts with each other and trade goes along swimmingly. We don't need "trading blocks" and governments to have functioning trade

So you oppose Trump's trade policies then?
Like it or not government are balls deep in trade deals and that is the world we live in.