**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

Simple question: Would membership in the EU Empire Army be mandatory or voluntary? Would every country in the EU be required to participate whether it wants to or not? Who would command this army? Who would decide where to send it?

I also remind you of what I said before about this: talking != doing.

So if I said in 1995 that they wanted a single currency, I'm tinfoiling?

I would imagine it would be voluntary, just like the currency. That's not the point. It shows that the EU is not just about economics.

Who would command the army? Germany and/or France, probably.

Yeah we had this conversation before, but I'm still not quite sure where you think the UK fits into it. Would we be required to provide troops to the EU Imperial Army that hasn't actually been formed yet?

We refused to get involved with their currency, so I would expect us to refuse to get involved with their army. But this isn't the point. I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about the EU becoming a superstate, rather than an economic bloc. If the EU was pure economics, I would have voted to remain. I do actually see the benefit of being economically integrated with our neighbours, but not at any cost.

I'm a little more concerned with concrete things that are actually happening than some vague ideas politicians float around

Macron and Merkel would love you.

[Poopadoop]

Short term losses for long term gains.

Only the short-term losses are certain, the long term gains are questionable.

This is why we have greenhouses.

The price of tomatoes just went up then. Pretty sure most large scale tomato production in Spain is done in open fields. And their growing season is longer, so they get more tomatoes per hectare. Hence, cheaper tomatoes.

If this is why we import tomatoes, I have no problem with it. Is that what's happening?

Seems like a logical explanation to me.

We're talking about tomatoes here, not pineapple. We can grow tomatoes no problem. My Nan did so when I was a kid, and they were the best.

I'm sure she was lovely but your Nan isn't relevant here - unless she was growing tomatoes on an industrial scale in her back garden.

[Poopadoop]

I would imagine it would be voluntary, just like the currency. That's not the point. It shows that the EU is not just about economics.

If our foreign policy is independent of the EU Empire, then whether they exist as a Superstate or not is also independent of whether or not we have a customs agreement with them. The two are unrelated issues that Farage has tried to tie together to scare people.

[Poopadoop]

btw, there's only one country the EU Empire Army would foreseeably be used against and that's Russia. And that only in self-defense.

[OngBonga]

The price of tomatoes just went up then. Pretty sure most large scale tomato production in Spain is done in open fields. And their growing season is longer, so they get more tomatoes per hectare. Hence, cheaper tomatoes.

I wonder what they'll be sprayed with to protect them from pests? Greenhouses are not expensive, certainly not to the point where it impacts on prices, and certainly not compared to regular shipping. If I were talking about hydroponics, with lighting, then yes, it would be more expensive.

I think tomatoes can be grown year round. Obviously the summer will be peak season, but if the growing season is a problem, then bigger greenhouses. We can grow enough for our needs.

I'm sure she was lovely but your Nan isn't relevant here - unless she was growing tomatoes on an industrial scale in her back garden.

The pint is that it is very easy to grow quality tomatoes in the UK.

The two are unrelated issues that Farage has tried to tie together to scare people.

Sir Farage to you. My point is that the army demonstrates that it is more than a customs agreement. We're already politically integrated into the EU, which is exactly why we had to conduct those election we just had, despite voting to leave.

[OngBonga]

btw, there's only one country the EU Empire Army would foreseeably be used against and that's Russia. And that only in self-defense.

What utter bollocks. You say Farage is trying to scare people?

[OngBonga]

btw, that's what NATO is for.

[Poopadoop]

So in your imagination, what grand empirical projects is the EU Army intended for? Conquering Africa?

The EU Army as I see it is just a means of organising the armed forces of allied nations more efficiently. It's a lot easier to have one army under a single command than several different armies each going off in their own direction.

[Poopadoop]

btw, that's what NATO is for.

IIRC the idea of having an EU Army would be because we can't rely on the US under Trump to honour its obligations to NATO.

That said, I doubt it will ever get off the ground unless the US pulls out of NATO.

[OngBonga]

So in your imagination, what grand empirical projects is the EU Army intended for? Conquering Africa?

Let's not be ridiculous. The intention is likely to make it much harder for nation states to leave the EU. But that's just a guess. You'll have to ask Merkel and Macron. One thing I do know is it has fuck all to do with Russia, since France and Germany are already members of NATO.

The EU Army as I see it is just a means of organising the armed forces of allied nations more efficiently. It's a lot easier to have one army under a single command than several different armies each going off in their own direction.

The point of an army is national security. If your army is tied up within the superstate, what happens if you have a military dispute with a fellow member state? And no it's not a lot easier, since there are now multiple sources of command. Who commands Spanish troops? Spain or Germany? If it's Spain, who commands German troops? If Germany, then we have a clusterfuck. Who commands Spanish and German troops? Who commands Spanish, german, french, Irish and Swedish troops? Messy as fuck.

Also, who is accountable? What if the EU army does something bad? Who's to blame? More clusterfuck.

IIRC the idea of having an EU Army would be because we can't rely on the US under Trump to honour its obligations to NATO.

More nonsense. You're just using Trump hysteria here to justify things that were being discussed before Trump was a thing.

I once again remind you that you accused Farage of spreading fear.

[oskar]

I think the chances of an EU army just going on crusades for economic position america style are kinda low. I honestly haven't thought much about an EU army. It totally makes sense from an administrative standpoint. Most european armies are a money pit. Our military does domestic humanitarian aid when the same two backwards villages get covered in mud and someone has to shovel them out. You outsource that and you're left with a handful of alcoholic youths elevating the suicide statistics at the border.

We unfortunately need a military. I do see potential problems, but in the end we kind of have an EU army already, just a badly managed one that's not pulling together very effectively.

All things considered, I'm less worried about an EU army than current-time UK or US armies. Even under a central command I think an EU army would have a much higher bar of accountability.

[Poopadoop]

Let's not be ridiculous. The intention is likely to make it much harder for nation states to leave the EU.

The EU Imperial Army wouldn't negate the right of states to leave the EU. You think they're going to use the EU Army to occupy Luxembourg so they can't leave? Lol, this isn't the 1700s.

The point of an army is national security. If your army is tied up within the superstate, what happens if you have a military dispute with a fellow member state?

You have to trust that you're not about to go to war with your Ally. In WWII for example, the US had 3 millions troops on UK soil. No-one said "ZOMFG what if we suddenly went to war with the US?" You're just grasping at straws here.

And no it's not a lot easier, since there are now multiple sources of command. Who commands Spanish troops? Spain or Germany? If it's Spain, who commands German troops? If Germany, then we have a clusterfuck. Who commands Spanish and German troops? Who commands Spanish, german, french, Irish and Swedish troops? Messy as fuck.

It is easier from the perspective of command and control. That is not to say that is their main reason for proposing it. As i said, it's likely a message to Trump that if you try to bully us around by threatening to leave NATO, we have the power to create our own army and look after ourselves.

Also, who is accountable? What if the EU army does something bad? Who's to blame? More clusterfuck.

Whoever took part gets the blame. They're not ceding complete control of their army.

It's also very unlikely the EU Army is going to happen, so I wouldn't worry about it.

I still don't see what all these hypotheticals has to do with Brexit. If we're not joining the EU Imperial Army either way, why does it matter what its problems might be?

More nonsense. You're just using Trump hysteria here to justify things that were being discussed before Trump was a thing.

Ok, whatever. I don't really care if they talk an EU Army all they want. Until it is actually formed and starts invading places it won't keep me up at night.

I once again remind you that you accused Farage of spreading fear.

I know, because that's what all this Superstate crap is - fear mongering.

[OngBonga]

The EU Imperial Army wouldn't negate the right of states to leave the EU.

It would make it much harder, just like the Euro. But like I say, I was guessing. Maybe it has more to do with budgets. Military is big business, an EU army would allow the EU to demand yet more money from member states, and that money will be spent on military hardware and all that jazz, lining the pockets of those who have vested interests in this sector. In fact, that's more likely that simply trying to tie member states to the superstate.

In WWII for example...

Need I add to this? This was a time of, wait for it... world war.

Even still, we have plenty of US troops here, so there's some validity to this. However, this is two nations in military cooperation, not 28.

It is easier from the perspective of command and control.

Only if smaller member states are willing to be dominated by Germany and France.

As i said, it's likely a message to Trump

It's got fuck all to do with Trump, and fuck all to do with Russia. USA isn't leaving NATO, it's just not in their interests at all. USA threaten that rubbish in an attempt to get more money from other NATO members. But NATO is just too useful for American military strategy... American troops can use any NATO nation as a base in the event of war. Why would they give that up? It's worth paying for.

It's also very unlikely the EU Army is going to happen, so I wouldn't worry about it.

I have no idea how you can say this. Would you have said the same about a common currency in 1995 or whenever? If Spain and Holland were talking about it, I wouldn't be concerned. But this is Germany and France, the two major powers of the EU.

I still don't see what all these hypotheticals has to do with Brexit.

Then you're not very good at reading. I've said it twice. The point is that even talking about it demonstrates that the EU is not just about trade. It is a superstate, or at the very least strives to be. I don't want to be a part of that. If you do, fair enough, but I don't.

I know, because that's what all this Superstate crap is - fear mongering.

It's like you're willfully ignorant on the matter. What would you call a large collections of nations that have a common currency, common trade policy, and want a common army? I appreciate "superstate" is a buzzword, do you have a better word?

[Poopadoop]

Even still, we have plenty of US troops here, so there's some validity to this. However, this is two nations in military cooperation, not 28.

Two nations? Try at least a dozen. Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans, Free French, Poles, to name a few. Any of one them could have attacked us using your logic that allies suddenly turn on each other for no reason.

It is a superstate, or at the very least strives to be. I don't want to be a part of that. If you do, fair enough, but I don't.

Better tell Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland to fuck off then.

[Poopadoop]

What would you call a large collections of nations that have a common currency, common trade policy, and want a common army? I appreciate "superstate" is a buzzword, do you have a better word?

An alliance.

A superstate implies they have a common foreign policy, that one of the members dominates that policy and that the rest are forced to go along with it (as in how England dominates the UK). Nobody afaik has said the EU Army would be under control of only one of the member countries, or even that being part of such an army would be obligatory for member states.

Really, you're making this out to be a big deal when it isn't. It's like Oskar said, they're just trying to make it easier for different countries' armies to cooperate, not form them up into one gigantic Army Europa to go out and conquer places with.

[OngBonga]

Better tell Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland to fuck off then.

Dear me. Are you really comparing the EU with the UK? An island nation in a very long and mostly peaceful historical union, vs a continent that has had two major wars and several smaller ones in the last century. The UK is not a superstate, not remotely close. We have a grand total of two languages in use today, one of which is spoken by around half a million people (of which nearly all speak English).

Besides, I'm no against the break up of the UK. If that's what the other nations want, and vote for, then good luck to them.

Two nations? Try at least a dozen. Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans, Free French, Poles, to name a few. Any of one them could have attacked us using your logic that allies suddenly turn on each other for no reason.

Fair point, but again this is incomparable to a common army. This is merely military cooperation that can be ended with the swipe of a pen.

[OngBonga]

A superstate implies they have a common foreign policy

Does it? Or did you just decide that because it's something the EU doesn't have yet?

Here's the google definition...

a large and powerful state formed from a federation or union of nations.

Now tell me the EU is not a superstate.

[Poopadoop]

Dear me. Are you really comparing the EU with the UK? An island nation in a very long and mostly peaceful historical union

Imma have to stop you there.

England invaded the other three countries and conquered them. End of story. We are no less a superstate than the USSR was, than Austria-Hungary was, the Ottoman Empire, or...the list goes on.

So what you're really saying is "I don't want to be part of a superstate - unless I can be the dominant power in said state."

[Poopadoop]

Does it? Or did you just decide that because it's something the EU doesn't have yet?

Here's the google definition...



Now tell me the EU is not a superstate.

I was using the dictionary definition, not the wiki one.

1 : an extremely powerful nation or governing body having power over subordinate states

2 : a union or federation of nations under a supergovernment

[OngBonga]

England invaded the other three countries and conquered them. End of story. We are no less a superstate than the USSR was, than Austria-Hungary was, the Ottoman Empire, or...the list goes on.

Centuries ago. And we're not forcing them to stay. Scotland just voted to stay, and they might vote again soon. Wales aren't interested in a vote, while NI is contentious. They don't want to leave, but it's a colony, of course they don't.

I like how you compare the UK to large communist superstates of the past.

So what you're really saying is "I don't want to be part of a superstate - unless I can be the dominant power in said state."

Did you miss the bit where I said I'm not against the break up of the UK? If the other nations decide they don't want to be a part of this country, that's fine by me. So no, you're completely wrong here.

[OngBonga]

I was using the dictionary definition, not the wiki one.

Where does it refer to common foreign policy?

[Poopadoop]

Centuries ago. And we're not forcing them to stay. Scotland just voted to stay, and they might vote again soon. Wales aren't interested in a vote, while NI is contentious. They don't want to leave, but it's a colony, of course they don't.

The EU isn't forcing anyone to stay either.

I like how you compare the UK to large communist superstates of the past.

Only one of those examples I gave was communist. Fucking read a book once in a while.

[Poopadoop]

Where does it refer to common foreign policy?

Seems implied to me.

[Poopadoop]

So either you're ok with being part of a superstate with voluntary membership, where countries can come and go as they please, or you don't consider such an entity a superstate. You can't have it both ways.

[OngBonga]

The EU isn't forcing anyone to stay either.

This is open to debate. Ireland voted to leave, they were made to vote again until they made the "right" decision. And that's precisely what they're trying to do with us.

Only one of those examples I gave was communist. Fucking read a book once in a while.

Sorry, I should have said socialist. Silly me.

Seems implied to me.

Yeah, to you.

[Poopadoop]

This is open to debate. Ireland voted to leave, they were made to vote again until they made the "right" decision. And that's precisely what they're trying to do with us.

The EU is forcing countries not to leave by forcing them to continue holding referendums on whether or not they really want to leave. Gotcha.

Sorry, I should have said socialist. Silly me.

Haha, it's not like these are obscure countries from ancient history.

Seriously, go read a book. Learn something about history. It will give you some perspective on things which you sorely lack.

[OngBonga]

So either you're ok with being part of a superstate with voluntary membership, where countries can come and go as they please, or you don't consider such an entity a superstate. You can't have it both ways.

The UK is not nearly large enough to be a superstate. Maybe when we had an actual empire we were one.

The UK has a common culture, common language, common history, we share the same island (mostly).

I'm not pretending the UK is a perfect nation, I acknowledge the NI issue is a problem. That should belong to RoI, not the UK. But Wales and Scotland, they are part of the same landmass and have been part of this country for a long time. It's also a small country. It's incomparable to a large continental union.

[OngBonga]

Haha, it's like these are obscure historical countries.

The British Empire can be compared to USSR, the Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungary, if you want. The British Empire no longer exists.

[Poopadoop]

Ireland voted to leave

Not actually what happened either.

[OngBonga]

Not actually what happened either.

Forgive my historical inaccuracy. All I remember was the Irish voters getting shafted.

[Poopadoop]

The UK is not nearly large enough to be a superstate.

It's the fifth largest economy in the world.

The UK has a common culture, common language, common history, we share the same island (mostly).

All of which resulted from invasion and conquest. This is like saying the Ukraine had a common culture, language and history with Russia after Russia conquered it.

But Wales and Scotland, they are part of the same landmass and have been part of this country for a long time.

Not a valid reason for having a superstate. Canada and the US are also part of the same landmass.

It's also a small country. It's incomparable to a large continental union.

It's not really about geography though is it?

[Poopadoop]

All I remember was the Irish voters getting shafted.

Apparently they don't share your sentiments.

Euroscepticism is a minority view in Ireland, with opinion polls between 2016 and 2019 indicating between 70% and 90% support for continued membership of the European Union (EU).

[OngBonga]

It's the fifth largest economy in the world.

21st in terms of population.

All of which resulted from invasion and conquest.

Sure, but that doesn't make us a superstate. And we don't share the same island as a result of conquest.

Not a valid reason for having a superstate. Canada and the US are also part of the same landmass.

Yeah, a massive landmass compared to an island.

It's not really about geography though is it?

Partly. It is when you're arguing that the UK is a superstate.

[Poopadoop]

So your objection to a superstate is mainly that it has a lot of territory?

As long as a state's constituent countries are geographically small, and more or less conjoined, and the main conquest took place a whlie ago, then it's ok for one country to dominate others in a political union?

[Poopadoop]

I guess Canada is a superstate too then. I mean Quebec is mostly French and it's a large country.

[OngBonga]

So your objection to a superstate is mainly that it has a lot of territory?

No, we're just splitting hairs over what "superstate" means. It's a complete distraction and is irrelevant. The UK and the EU are not similar entities. Whatever you want to call them, that much is obvious. The EU is not a country, it is a political and economic union. The UK is a country, and island nation, a sovereign state. Just because we have an imperial history, and just because we're a country made of a handful of nations, that doesn't make us in any way a similar entity to the European Union. So whatever you want to call them is besides the point.

My objection is with an expanding political and economic union the size of a continent dominating my island nation's internal affairs at the expense of what I consider to be our national interest. We might disagree on what's in our national interest, and that's fair enough. But I do not think it is in our national interest to be part of an economic and political union the size of a continent, something I call a "superstate" because I'm lazy and like words rather than entire sentences to describe things.

And I also object to the complete disregard for democracy by people whose idea of democracy is to keep voting until they get what they want.

[boost]

P: So it's about size?

O: No, the EU and UK are fundamentally different because of their size.

[OngBonga]

The EU and the UK are fundamentally different because one is a country and the other is not.

How do you even pipe in with that?

[OngBonga]

You guys are insane, I swear it. On the one hand, poop says the EU is just a customs union and not in any way a superstate, and on the other he's arguing it's similar to the UK, which is a superstate.


So the UK is just a customs union between England Scotland, Wales and NI?


And boost comes in mocking me as though poop is making a valid argument about how the EU and UK are similar entities?

Do you people even know what a country is?

[OngBonga]

Maybe you think the EU has the hallmarks of a "country". In which case, perhaps you guys think I shouldn't object to my nation being conquered by a bigger country. Maybe you think I should just suck it because we're imperialist bastards.

[Poopadoop]

You're the one who brought up the idea of a superstate. I just pointed out that the UK is by your own definition a superstate. Until you changed the definition, that is.

[boost]

You say A is bad. You seem happy with the status quo of B. B seems oddly similar to A in the ways in which you think A is bad.

This inspection of logic does not necessitate that Poop thinks A is or isn't XY or Z.

[OngBonga]

You're the one who brought up the idea of a superstate. I just pointed out that the UK is by your own definition a superstate. Until you changed the definition, that is.

No, you're the one who insisted in picking at my use of the word "superstate" because of your deluded belief that the EU is a customs union and nothing else.

How is the UK by my own definition a superstate? This just goes to show you are completely incapable of using your brain to figure out for yourself what I mean when I use a particular word. Completely incapable. It's like you have more of a problem with my use of that word than you do about me not wanting to be a part of it. You're nuts.

And boost is just trolling, obviously.

[Poopadoop]

Haha, ok both of us are wrongly pointing out a logical inconsistency in your argument that doesn't exist.

[OngBonga]

No, you're both suggesting that my inability to define "superstate" to your satisfaction means there is no distinction between a nation state and a political and economic union.

It would be much easier if you understood that by "superstate" I mean something that isn't a nation state, instead of trying to tear apart what the word means.

Like I say, you are more concerned about what "superstate" means than you are about anything else, like the use of the word is the result of Farage fearmongering, or some stupid shit like that.

The EU is not a country. The UK is. There is no logical inconsistency there.

A logical inconsistency is to argue the EU is only a customs union, while saying it's similar to the UK, which is a superstate.

[Poopadoop]

How do you interpret this?

The Lib Dems, Greens, the SNP, Plaid and Change UK - all backers of a second referendum - collectively gained the support of 39.1 per cent of the public in England, Wales and Scotland, against no-dealers Ukip and the Brexit Party's collective 33.7 per cent.

[Poopadoop]

The EU is not a country. The UK is. There is no logical inconsistency there.

But you seem concerned with the idea that a number of separate countries could form into something akin to a larger political union. My riposte to this was that is exactly what the UK is.

[OngBonga]

against no-dealers

I interpret that as stunning. I didn't think "no deal" had anywhere near this level of support, I figured most people want us to leave with a deal. Those who do want to leave with a deal are less likely to vote Brexit and more likely to vote Tory or Labour.

Meanwhile, those who want to remain and normally support Tory or Labour, they're very likely the reason why the Libs did so well.

Here's a question for you... do you think Scotland should have another vote with regards to their membership of the UK? If they leave, how do you think that impacts on the EU debate in what remains of the UK?

[OngBonga]

But you seem concerned with the idea that a number of separate countries could form into something akin to a larger political union. My riposte to this was that is exactly what the UK is.

This is where the similarities end.

[OngBonga]

I've also made it clear that I'm not against the break up of the UK. I'm also not against the UK remaining in union. Whatever we democratically decide between us, that's fine by me.

Just like it's (reluctantly) fine by me if the UK votes to remain in the EU. We didn't, we voted to leave. Now my idea of democracy is not to keep voting so that people can change their minds. My idea of democracy is to make your decision and live with it.

[OngBonga]

Pretty much every country in the world is made of smaller regions. If you want to say the UK is a superstate, then so is England. I mean, Cornwall and Yorkshire are vastly different cultures. Spain is also a superstate, and so is Canada.

But obviously Canada and Spain are not in any way similar to the EU. You're failing to use your own brain to draw distinctions, instead demanding that I accurately define a word, simply because that word is a buzzword.

[OngBonga]

Ukraine should just accept being part of Russia, because after all, Ukraine is just a country made of smaller regions. Do you agree?

[Poopadoop]

I interpret that as stunning. I didn't think "no deal" had anywhere near this level of support, I figured most people want us to leave with a deal. Those who do want to leave with a deal are less likely to vote Brexit and more likely to vote Tory or Labour.

Meanwhile, those who want to remain and normally support Tory or Labour, they're very likely the reason why the Libs did so well.

Here's a question for you... do you think Scotland should have another vote with regards to their membership of the UK? If they leave, how do you think that impacts on the EU debate in what remains of the UK?

Yeah that figures. You assume all or at least most of the people who didn't vote strongly one way or the other are Leavers, just not no-deal Leavers.

[Poopadoop]

Ukraine should just accept being part of Russia, because after all, Ukraine is just a country made of smaller regions. Do you agree?

I'm don't think any country should be forced to join with other, more powerful countries through conquest the way Wales, Scotland and N.I. were, if that's what you mean.

If the EU starts forcing other countries to join it, or forcing them to stay once they'd joined, then I'd be against that.

[Poopadoop]

Here's a question for you... do you think Scotland should have another vote with regards to their membership of the UK? If they leave, how do you think that impacts on the EU debate in what remains of the UK?

I think they should do whatever they want to do. It's not my place to say.

If they leave, how do you think that impacts on the EU debate in what remains of the UK?

It would reduce the number of Remainers. That doesn't mean I think we should force them to stay in the UK if they don't want to though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The words ascribed to various levels of governance are pretty arbitrary.
Nation and state are often synonymous when talking about any country but the USA.

As ong pointed out, the fractal structure of the way humans govern makes it hard to put a real distinction on where is the "state" level.


IMO, this conversation is skirting around the central issue:
Ethnocentrism and the right of a culture to command its future.
ong thinks this is a good and proper way for humans to progress... that a culture of people has the right to their current state of affairs and the right to choose their future in total disregard to all other cultures.

The rest of us don't really like the black-and-white line in that... though I only speak for myself. That level of elevation for ethnocentrism is akin to Kierkegaard's ideas that statehood and state progress are both divine gifts, in a very real sense... that nations carry out the will of God... that the rise and fall of nations is the expression of God's judgement... this is a core philosophy that was being put out by one of Germany's great philosophers just before and during the rise of Naziism.
It's a pretty scary line of reasoning, IMO.

[OngBonga]

I'm don't think any country should be forced to join with other, more powerful countries through conquest the way Wales, Scotland and N.I. were, if that's what you mean.

Then what are you doing in this horrible imperialist bastard country that you clearly hate? Go home if it's a problem for you.

What you object to here is history. Distant history at that. We can't change history. These nations are not members of the UK against their will. If we remain in the EU, it is against our will, the democratic will we have clearly expressed.

The UK has an imperial history. What would you like me to do about it? Accept bigger entities conquering us politically and economically without complaining about it?

If the EU starts forcing other countries to join it, or forcing them to stay once they'd joined, then I'd be against that.

YOU'RE the one trying to force us to stay by suggesting we should have another vote, despite the fact we have already voted. Can you please find me someone who has "changed their mind"? Because the only people I can see demanding another referendum are those who voted to remain in the first place.

In fact, don't bother, I've found some...

I voted to leave the EU purely as an emotionally driven response, to rid ourselves of David Cameron and George Osborne.

Fuck off. That's your own stupid fault.

The vote was really over whether we wanted a change, and I did. I didn’t expect leave to win, to be honest

Fuck off. You're an idiot, the vote was about membership of the EU. You don't get another go because you're too stupid to know what you're voting for.

I believed the bus advert that said the NHS would get £350m if we left the EU.

Fuck off. We haven't left the EU yet, so how can you even know if this is true or not? Also, don't vote based on bus adverts. Do your fucking research so you have a better understanding what you're voting for.

source - https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ds-over-brexit

There are also people who voted remain and now want to leave. They can fuck off too.

I think they should do whatever they want to do. It's not my place to say.

Just like it's not your place to suggest we should vote again.

It would reduce the number of Remainers. That doesn't mean I think we should force them to stay in the UK if they don't want to though.

It would swing the balance very much decisively, that was my point. If Scotland leave the UK, then only a complete moron would think that public opinion in the UK is still divided. The only reason it's close is because of Scotland.

And no, of course they shouldn't be forced to stay in the UK. They're not being forced. If they are being forced, I would strongly oppose that.

[OngBonga]

Yeah that figures. You assume all or at least most of the people who didn't vote strongly one way or the other are Leavers, just not no-deal Leavers.

No deal is actually pretty scary. Even I acknowledge that. It takes balls to vote for a party that is saying they will take us out without a deal.

No deal is better than remain, that's my position. That's the position of everyone who voted for Brexit Party or UKIP. Do you suppose there are people who voted leave, but think remaining is better than no deal? Who do you suppose they vote for? I'll give you a clue... one of the parties who want to take us out with a deal.

[OngBonga]

Further, if you want to remain at all costs, you're an idiot if you vote Tory when the Libs are campaigning under the promise of a second referendum.

[OngBonga]

Labour are so incoherent on the matter that I really don't know how to analyse their vote. I'm not even going to try.

[oskar]

"Two bold men fighting over a comb" is about as close as I've come to understanding brexit up to this point.

[oskar]

[Poopadoop]

Then what are you doing in this horrible imperialist bastard country that you clearly hate? Go home if it's a problem for you.

No, you go back to Anglony Saxony, you European bastard.

What you object to here is history. Distant history at that. We can't change history. These nations are not members of the UK against their will.

And we are not members of the EU against our will either. They are not forcing us to stay.

If we remain in the EU, it is against our will, the democratic will we have clearly expressed.

Our will may have changed since 2016.

The UK has an imperial history. What would you like me to do about it? Accept bigger entities conquering us politically and economically without complaining about it?

Perfect. So you admit you're ok with being the conqueror but not the vanquished.

YOU'RE the one trying to force us to stay by suggesting we should have another vote, despite the fact we have already voted.

I have no say in the matter. So no, I'm not trying to "force" anything to happen vis-a-vis Brexit.

Just like it's not your place to suggest we should vote again.

Apparently it is my place to have a say in what the country I live in does. They sent me a registration card to vote and everything. But they didn't for the Scottish referendum. So maybe you should take that up with your MP if it makes you angry.

It would swing the balance very much decisively, that was my point. If Scotland leave the UK, then only a complete moron would think that public opinion in the UK is still divided. The only reason it's close is because of Scotland.

With Scotland included the vote was 51.89% Leave. Excluding Scotland it would have been 53.10%. So yeah, it would go up < 1.5% without Scotland. Wow.

[Poopadoop]

Further, if you want to remain at all costs, you're an idiot if you vote Tory when the Libs are campaigning under the promise of a second referendum.

Has it occurred to you that some people voted for reasons that weren't all about if/how/when Brexit happens? I appreciate that makes your little analysis a bit more complicated.

[boost]

Ong, I'm not trolling at all.

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about what the ideal state looks like. Your claim that a European "super state" is a bad thing is a great jumping off point. Apparently the EUSS is beyond your line, but where exactly is your line? It would seem the UK is within bounds. But if that's the case, what are the meaningful distinctions that make it so, but the EUSS not so?

It wasn't put to you so directly, but for someone who is apparently adept at chess, it's surprising that you can't see just the few moves ahead that would have made this clear.

[OngBonga]

And we are not members of the EU against our will either. They are not forcing us to stay.

Well done for ignoring the fact that the UK invading Wales and Scotland is distant history. So distant in fact the only non-King to have invaded Scotland was Cromwell in 1650. They've had nearly 400 years to leave if they want.

Our will may have changed since 2016.

We haven't left yet. So the first vote is ignored, the second vote matters? Is that democracy? If we leave, and then in 20 years we want back in, fair enough. 2016's democratic will has not been actioned yet. That simply has to happen.

Perfect. So you admit you're ok with being the conqueror but not the vanquished.

Are you aware than England has actually been successfully invaded? I don't hate the French because of the Norman invasion. I don't hate the Italians for the Romans. So no, you're being ridiculous.

Apparently it is my place to have a say in what the country I live in does.

I assume you voted. So you had your say.

But they didn't for the Scottish referendum. So maybe you should take that up with your MP if it makes you angry.

Scottish independence is fuck all to do with me. Why should I have a say on the matter?

With Scotland included the vote was 51.89% Leave. Excluding Scotland it would have been 53.10%. So yeah, it would go up < 1.5% without Scotland. Wow.

Like I say, only a complete moron would think that Scotland leaving the UK would still leave a debate on the matter in the rest of the UK.

Has it occurred to you that some people voted for reasons that weren't all about if/how/when Brexit happens? I appreciate that makes your little analysis a bit more complicated.

It doesn't matter. If they voted to leave, that's what they voted for. Whether they voted because they want us to leave, or because they thought they were signing up for free beer, is completely irrelevant. What they actually voted for was to leave the EU.

[OngBonga]

It would seem the UK is within bounds.

The UK is a sovereign nation and has been for a long time. The EU is not and will probably and hopefully never be one.

But if that's the case, what are the meaningful distinctions that make it so, but the EUSS not so?

I find it astonishing you can't draw your own distinctions. The UK didn't happen because a a bunch of people happened to decide it would be a good idea for the nations of the UK to cooperate economically while each nation maintained their sovereignty. The UK then didn't go on to slowly erode that sovereignty while pretending not to. England simply conquered the other nations. It could so easily have been the other way round. Or I could easily be Welsh who opposes the EU.

In fact, how does that change the argument? Let's pretend I'm Welsh and want to leave the EU, but not the UK. What do you say to me now?

[Poopadoop]

Well done for ignoring the fact that the UK invading Wales and Scotland is distant history. So distant in fact the only non-King to have invaded Scotland was Cromwell in 1650. They've had nearly 400 years to leave if they want.

Have they been free to leave the whole time? I kinda doubt that.

At least you're learning some history though. Good for you.

We haven't left yet. So the first vote is ignored, the second vote matters?

That's usually what a second vote means yeah.

Is that democracy?

Voting seems pretty democratic to me yeah.

If we leave, and then in 20 years we want back in, fair enough. 2016's democratic will has not been actioned yet. That simply has to happen.

No, it doesn't have to happen. They've tried to action it and realized we'd be fucked if they did. Now people are beginning to realize how dumb the whole idea actually is.

I assume you voted. So you had your say.

And if there's another one I'll get another say. Why are you so worried about it? I thought Leave was gonna crush in a second referendum. Isn't that what your sophisticated analysis of the EU elections proved?

Scottish independence is fuck all to do with me. Why should I have a say on the matter?

Exactly.

Like I say, only a complete moron would think that Scotland leaving the UK would still leave a debate on the matter in the rest of the UK.

Well I actually crunched the numbers and showed you it didn't make much difference. But hey, you showed a coloured-in map, so I guess that trumps doing the whole adding and subtracting and dividing thing.

[Poopadoop]

Just in case you're too mesmerized by the pretty map I'll show my work this time.

England Voters Turnout Remain Leave % Rem % Leave
(including Gibraltar) 39,005,781 73.0% 13,266,996 15,188,406 46.62% 53.38%
Northern Ireland 1,260,955 62.7% 440,707 349,442 55.78% 44.22%
Scotland 3,987,112 67.2% 1,661,191 1,018,322 62.00% 38.00%
Wales 2,270,272 71.7% 772,347 854,572 47.47% 52.53%

Total Remain votes w/ Scotland: 16,141,241
Total Leave votes w/ Scotland: 17,410,742
% Leave votes w / Scotland: 51.89%

Total Remain votes w/out Scotland: 14,480,050
Total Leave votes w/out Scotland: 16,392,420
% Leave votes w/out Scotland: 53.10%

% increase in Leave votes w/out Scotland: 1.21%

[OngBonga]

Have they been free to leave the whole time? I kinda doubt that.

This is an irrelevance.

At least you're learning some history though. Good for you.

So are you. You didn't know this off hand, right? I knew it was centuries ago. Precisely when, I did not and had to google it.

That's usually what a second vote means yeah.

Does that sound like democracy to you?

Voting seems pretty democratic to me yeah.

Oh, this is your idea of democracy? Keep voting until we get the "right" decision? How are you seriously holding this position? This is a complete disregard for democracy, it's pretend democracy. If the outcome is already determined, then what's the point of voting?

No, it doesn't have to happen.

It does if we're to call ourselves a fair democracy.

They've tried to action it and realized we'd be fucked if they did.

Bullshit. Who are "they"? The voters? The people who give us the vote? If this is true (that we're fucked if we leave), then we shouldn't have been given the vote, and we shouldn't have voted to leave. We have done both. So if we're fucked, we have to live with this decision. If we don't live with this decision, we are not a democracy.

Now people are beginning to realize how dumb the whole idea actually is.

Speculative and irrelevant.

Why are you so worried about it?

The complete disregard for democracy by people who pretend and even sincerely think they are democratic.

I thought Leave was gonna crush in a second referendum.

Irrelevant.

Exactly.

Did you just make a point here? Scotland's status in the UK is not my democratic business. The UK's membership of the EU is.

Total Remain votes w/out Scotland: 14,480,050Total Leave votes w/out Scotland: 16,392,420

This isn't a debate, this is a clear victory for leave. Even more than the clear victory we already have.

Where do you think the line should be drawn in a 50-50 referendum? 60-40? What if it's 59.9 vs 40.1?

Mine is 50.1 vs 49.9. Had we lost to that margin, I wouldn't even be arguing about this.I would feel extremely undemocratic in doing so.

[OngBonga]

I think poop thinks a referendum with two options should keep happening until it's 60-40 one way or the other. That sounds like fun. Let's vote on this over and over again forever.

[OngBonga]

I will grant that something like 50.01 vs 49.99 is too close for comfort. There are other factors that can come into play when it's so close. A recount would obviously be the first step. Perhaps a second referendum would be necessary here. Perhaps. But it's not this close, even without removing Scotland from the equation.

Leave won by over a million votes. That is not close. Over half a million people need to change their mind (ignoring those who voted remain and have also changed their mind). And we're also ignoring the fact that people don't get to change their mind once they have voted. Why do you think people should be given that opportunity? I don't, even if I had changed my mind.

[OngBonga]

Now people are beginning to realize how dumb the whole idea actually is.

More on this. The "people" you refer to here voted remain in the first place. If you can show me evidence that over half a million leave voters now "realise how dumb the whole idea is", without there being any remainers who "are starting to see the EU for what it really is", then you nearly have a point.

Nearly, since we've already voted and people don't get to change their minds in elections and referenda.

[OngBonga]

I voted Brexit Party last week.

I've changed my mind. Where do I send my new vote to?

[OngBonga]

Another point I would like to make...

Labour's vote in the EU elections is likely to be leave voters. Why do I say this? Alastair Campbell, a Labour MP, just got excluded from Labour for voting Lib Dems. What does that tell you? That politically adept remainers who normally support Labour cannot support their EU position. Labour's remainer vote has been lost to the Libs. That means the majority of Labour's vote is very likely to be leavers who couldn't bring themselves to support a hard "no deal" party.