Remain voters before the referendum: "Leaving the EU will bring about the apocalypse! Why would anyone want that?"
Remain voters after the referendum: "Upholding the result of the referendum will bring about the apocalypse! Why would anyone want that?"
But to answer your reply to my post QuakerPete, here’s a few examples of what I was talking about, as requested (I’ve also tried to include your key points that you’ve mentioned multiple times):
QuakerPete wrote:1) Please supply evidence of my scaremongering
QuakerPete wrote:No Deal wipes out *every* type of deal - 759 of them - we would have to start from scratch - disastrous!
To be honest, I could have picked multiple lines from each of your posts for this one.
But reading the above quote, you make it sound as though the world is about to end.
Well guess what: Switzerland are not in the EU and are the 7th richest nation in the world by GDP (source: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/201 ... /38429481/
Norway are not in the EU and are 9th on that list.
Japan have just negotiated a trade deal with the EU. And that’s it. It’s a trade deal and nothing more. Err, why can’t we be given a similar deal, then we can make a start on the other 759?
Either way, your above quote is nothing more than scaremongering. Isn’t that what the rest of the non-EU world does, make trade deals with each other? Not exactly disastrous for them is it?
And to quote John F. Kennedy:
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.
QuakerPete wrote:2) Please supply evidence of my stating opinion and prediction as fact
QuakerPete wrote:My previous post gave figures of how we are (and will be) worse off due to Brexit, dependent upon the type of deal if we leave, but particularly under No Deal.
The figures in question relate to the financial benefits of being in the EU. However, you do not supply figures of the financial benefits of not being in the EU, therefore using these stats to declare we will be worse off if we leave, but “particularly under No Deal”, is nothing more than opinion and prediction (and more scaremongering).
And we get it, you have a big list of important sounding people who definitely don’t have an agenda and whose OPINION it is that leaving the EU, deal or no deal, will [insert scaremongering hyperbole here].
That list could contain everyone on the planet apart from me and it still wouldn’t make it anymore true. If the whole world believes in something incorrect, it doesn’t matter how many people believe it, or the status of those who do, it’s still incorrect.
This also leads to the problem that anyone could present an opposing opinion/prediction and it would be EQUALLY VALID since all we’re dealing with here is prediction and opinion. So, for example, it’s possible that our freedom from the EU allows us to strike up new trade deals around the world which, despite short term issues, in the long run, benefits our country greatly and leads to a more prosperous nation (Switzerland are one example of this, as mentioned above. The success of Switzerland isn't an opinion/prediction either: it's FACT). The prior opinion/prediction is equally valid to any you put forward. And of course the aim of your argument is to stop us even trying, forever enshrining your cherry-picked opinions as fact.
Again, I could have picked multiple lines from any of your posts for this one.
QuakerPete wrote:3) Please supply evidence of my twisting narratives
QuakerPete wrote:And while you’re lecturing me on democracy, just check out Sir James Eadie QC, legal counsel for Theresa May, admitting in court about Leave’s illegal activities and on-going criminal investigations - if the 2016 vote had been binding (it wasn’t) then it would have been voided
The way you’re portraying this is that the Leave campaign were evil manipulators who only won because they broke the law (I reject the implication that Leave voters were too stupid to make an informed decision of their own, but hey), and that Remain were good little angels surrounded by puppies and kittens who never so much as hurt a fly. All of which in order to achieve your agenda of a having a second crack at the vote (I see through your dishonesty and manipulation).
The truth, as with everything else you’ve said, is of course entirely different.
If you want to go down the law route, well then the law has already decided on their crime and punishment. The punishment WASN’T to redo the referendum, it was a large fine. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t on the one hand go hard on the “adherence to the law” angle, then on the other hand decide that the punishment set by the law isn’t good enough: you aren’t judge, jury, and executioner. If you have a problem with the law, take it up with your MP. Punishments of crimes are not decided based on your whim, however.
Furthermore, and I noticed Darlogramps brought this up previously, but the Remain side did not exactly come out of this smelling of roses. For instance, the government spent £9million on a pro-EU leaflet, and Lord Sainsbury donated over £4million to various pro-EU political groups, as well as £210,000 for a pro-EU advert to Virgin Media. Both sides in the referendum exploited loopholes to maximise how much they could spend.
So legally AND morally, you don’t have a leg to stand on. Check and mate.
QuakerPete wrote:4) And *definitely* please advise on falsehoods (lies, you mean?) I’ve said
QuakerPete wrote:The EU is more than a match for the UK in terms of democracy
Complete and utter falsehood, and I’ll try to explain why as briefly as possible.
You keep banging on about democracy this, democracy that. Well the EU is not only undemocratic, it is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. Examples:
The Nice Treaty, the Maastricht treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, the Euro Bailout, were all voted AGAINST by different EU countries. The EU’s response? They were either made to vote again or their vote was ignored altogether (sound similar to what’s happening with May’s Deal, or the referendum result?).
The EU commission is both their governmental and legislative body: there is no separation. It’s like the US without Congress, or the UK without Parliament. Why are you not attacking this for being “undemocratic”, especially since we cannot vote them in or out if they do something we disagree with?
And before you mention the MEPs, they are entirely ceremonial. They cannot propose or repeal laws, it’s all done by unelected commissioners, who cannot be voted out by the people. If UK politicians mess up, we vote them out. The EU commissioners? No chance.
Moreover, every time the UK has voted against EU proposals, we have lost the vote. This has happened over 70 times since the 80s. So much for our privileged seat at the table.
To finish off an overly long post, I think you’re focusing too much on the economic factors. If the EU was nothing more than a European trading bloc, then that’s an entirely different argument. But there’s more to it than that, isn’t there?
The EU is a monstrous globalist superstate, which on the one hand demonises and attempts to eradicate nation states and nationalism, but on the other hand has all the hallmarks and characteristics of one giant nation, just without all that pesky democracy. If the EU applied to join the EU, they would be rejected on the grounds of not being democratic enough. Their rules and regulations are forced on all and anyone wanting to leave is harshly punished.
If the only way to legally and democratically oppose any of this is by leaving the EU, then that is what we must do.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that we’ll never truly leave, which, of course, is exactly what the EU wants. And what the EU wants, the EU gets, by hook or by crook.