The Brexit Thread

[Xarog]

Two occurrences justifying the use of they:

1. Where a vote is a vote even if it did not mention the single market or immigration as Pitbull and Chris said,

You decided to ignore my argument about what a Brexit necessitates. I take this to mean you have no challenge to my argument which basically proves that Chris and Pitbull are right and you are wrong, and their expectation is not by any means betraying a double standard.

2. The ICC, ECHR, UN... for Chris.

No, that would entail "he".

Hence they.

It turns out that your use of "they" includes me. And since I know I'm not practicing a double standard, go fly a kite.

I don’t know, the SA referendum is pretty clear (unlike the UK one where again it states EU membership and does not exclude a single market model that many Brexiters pushed for):

Do you support continuation of the reform process which the State President began on 2 February 1990 and which is aimed at a new Constitution through negotiation?

https://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showth...xit-Thread?p=21229367&viewfull=1#post21229367
https://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showth...xit-Thread?p=21229431&viewfull=1#post21229431

 

[f2wohf]

You decided to ignore my argument about what a Brexit necessitates. I take this to mean you have no challenge to my argument which basically proves that Chris and Pitbull are right and you are wrong, and their expectation is not by any means betraying a double standard.


No, that would entail "he".


It turns out that your use of "they" includes me. And since I know I'm not practicing a double standard, go fly a kite.


https://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showth...xit-Thread?p=21229367&viewfull=1#post21229367
https://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showth...xit-Thread?p=21229431&viewfull=1#post21229431

How is my message a reference to you? I’ll put caveats and go trough each message of the topic one by one and say exactly who it applies too... It will take me like 62h to make a post and will be really useful for your ego.

What a Brexit necessitates is leaving the EU. What comes after, whether it’s a TA, a FTA, the single market, nothing... is not Brexit anymore, it’s the future relationship of the EU and UK, and was not announced in any way (whereas the SA referendum clearly states that outcome: a reformed constitution).

Just this one for fun, many high level Brexiters strongly disagree with you:

 

[C4Cat]

Even before the referendum there was debate on both sides about whether leaving the EU also meant leaving the single market, so pretending the one automatically entails the other is absurd.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ve-single-market-why-didnt-campaigners-say-so

 

[Xarog]

How is my message a reference to you? I’ll put caveats and go trough each message of the topic one by one and say exactly who it applies too... It will take me like 62h to make a post and will be really useful for your ego.

If I have the same position as Pitbull and Chris, how can your references to their position also not be a reference to me insofar as you use "they" to refer to posters in this thread? Why do you think I called you a joker?

What a Brexit necessitates is leaving the EU. What comes after, whether it’s a TA, a FTA, the single market, nothing... is not Brexit anymore, it’s the future relationship of the EU and UK, and was not announced in any way (whereas the SA referendum clearly states that outcome: a reformed constitution).

Leaving the EU necessitates a renegotiation of those treaties. If no reasonable compromise can be reached, then leaving those treaties entirely is the only option. If the EU only offers alternatives that frustrate the UK's ability to engage in real constitutional reform, then the referendum result demands that all alternatives should be rejected and a hard Brexit should take place.

And there is no such thing as real constitutional reform if the constitution in question doesn't even get a say in what legal authorities are in control of a nation's border with respect to determing who gets to cross it and why.

 

[f2wohf]

If I have the same position as Pitbull and Chris, how can your references to their position also not be a reference to me insofar as you use "they" to refer to posters in this thread? Why do you think I called you a joker?


Leaving the EU necessitates a renegotiation of those treaties. If no reasonable compromise can be reached, then leaving those treaties entirely is the only option. If the EU only offers alternatives that frustrate the UK's ability to engage in real constitutional reform, then the referendum demands that all alternatives should be rejected and a hard Brexit should take place.

And there is no such thing as real constitutional reform if the constitution in question doesn't even get a say in what legal authorities are in control of a nation's border with respect to determing who gets to cross it and why.

1. I don’t even think I saw your message of yesterday.

I was referring to the people I interacted with, Pitbull and Chris.

2. I see it differently (more like Barnier). There is Brexit, and then there is the future. Negotiate first Brexit, the future relation is a different thing.

I agree that to respect the vote of the people, Brexit must happen.

Who said Brexit is a constitutional reform? Brexit is Brexit > leaving the EU, which has nothing to do with a perhaps needed constitutional reform made strictly for compliance purposes.

I’m sorry but even Brexiters are not clear on single market or not.

 

[Xarog]

1. I don’t even think I saw your message of yesterday.

Fair enough.

I was referring to the people I interacted with, Pitbull and Chris.

I can accept that, but that doesn't change the validity of my objection, and my objection comes to their defence rather solidly, imo, so what I want from you is for you to retract your initial agreement with remoaner OD.

2. I see it differently (more like Barnier). There is Brexit, and then there is the future. Negotiate first Brexit, the future relation is a different thing.

Surely you can't be so naive as to think that the EU is negotiating in good faith rather than negotiating with the express intent of frustrating Brexit entirely.

I agree that to respect the vote of the people, Brexit must happen.

Great.

Who said Brexit is a constitutional reform? Brexit is Brexit > leaving the EU, which has nothing to do with a perhaps needed constitutional reform made strictly for compliance purposes.

You did when you invoked the explicit wording of the referendum. A new constitution implies constitutional reform, no?

I’m sorry but even Brexiters are not clear on single market or not.

And I've clarified the issue in a very concrete and straightforward way given the facts of the situation you've provided.

 

[f2wohf]

You did when you invoked the explicit wording of the referendum. A new constitution implies constitutional reform, no?

My mistake, I thought you were speaking of the UK constitution (which doesn’t really exist anyway) while you were referring to the SA referendum.

 

[Xarog]

My mistake, I thought you were speaking of the UK constitution (which doesn’t really exist anyway) while you were referring to the SA referendum.

Well, my mistake too, I misread your statement regarding the referendum.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

Here's the actual question. It doesn't matter what form the leaving of the EU takes. But given that the EU is attempting to prevent Brexit entirely, the negotiating table is stacked such that a hard Brexit may be the only possible way this goes. It doesn't make sense to claim that one is apart of the EU if the country's legal system is still bound by EU edicts. Surely you don't think that leaving the EU is simply a nominal (i.e. in name only) affair?

 

[f2wohf]

Well, my mistake too, I misread your statement regarding the referendum.


Here's the actual question. It doesn't matter what form the leaving of the EU takes. But given that the EU is attempting to prevent Brexit entirely, the negotiating table is stacked such that a hard Brexit may be the only possible way this goes. It doesn't make sense to claim that one is apart of the EU if the country's legal system is still bound by EU edicts. Surely you don't think that leaving the EU is simply a nominal (i.e. in name only) affair?

Reversing all the EU linked laws and creating new laws would probably take 5 or 10 years. The amount of legislation (and subsequent standards and inferior norms) is pretty insane.

That’s up to the British (more likely the MPs) to decide if they want to go back to a pre-1973 situation, or if a certain degree of normative alignment and collaboration is a better option.

 

[Xarog]

Reversing all the EU linked laws and creating new laws would probably take 5 or 10 years. The amount of legislation (and subsequent standards and inferior norms) is pretty insane.

That’s up to the British (more likely the MPs) to decide if they want to go back to a pre-1973 situation, or if a certain degree of normative alignment and collaboration is a better option.

Sure. But a decision of some sort must be made. So what we are now talking about is the real world and what is realistically feasible. So now the question is, is there such a thing as a feasible brexit that doesn't necessitate the UK disentangling itself from the common market to some degree? I say no. So now it's a question of "how much" rather than "if", unless you can provide a convincing reason why the real answer is "yes".

 

[Dave]

Just this one for fun, many high level Brexiters strongly disagree with you:

View attachment 505325

I posted those quotes yesterday, those that support brexit simply ignored them

If I have the same position as Pitbull and Chris, how can your references to their position also not be a reference to me insofar as you use "they" to refer to posters in this thread?

You are aware that "they" is actually usable as a singular pronoun for he/she?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/he-or-she-versus-they

Reversing all the EU linked laws and creating new laws would probably take 5 or 10 years. The amount of legislation (and subsequent standards and inferior norms) is pretty insane.

The current plan by the May government is to include and keep virtually all current EU legislation in UK law, as of the date of Brexit happening.

 

[Xarog]

I posted those quotes yesterday, those that support brexit simply ignored them

Well, like I outlined above, when you can show that the EU is negotiating in good faith instead of trying to stymie Brexit alltogether, then perhaps there will be a need to address the views of those politicians.

You are aware that "they" is actually usable as a singular pronoun for he/she?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/he-or-she-versus-they
Doesn't make sense when the gender of the person is explicitly known, and in this case we can clearly see that it was meant to be taken in its plural form.

The current plan by the May government is to include and keep virtually all current EU legislation in UK law, as of the date of Brexit happening.

May isn't exactly pro-Brexit.

 

[Dave]

Doesn't make sense when the gender of the person is explicitly known, and in this case we can clearly see that it was meant to be taken in its plural form.

Except this is an online forum, Chris could mean Chris or Christine, to the best of my knowledge they have never explicitly shown or proven their gender, or even the gender they actually identify with...

 

[Pitbull]

Except this is an online forum, Chris could mean Chris or Christine, to the best of my knowledge they have never explicitly shown or proven their gender, or even the gender they actually identify with...

Would you please stop arguing semantics and discuss the topic. This annoyed the hell out of me yesterday and the reason I'm not even part taking now. WTF does "they" actually add to this discussion?

 

[f2wohf]

I did mean a plural and I did not mean to include Xarog in it.

@Xarog > on what aspects specifically do you think the EU negotiates in bad faith? Qq

 

[Xarog]

I did mean a plural and I did not mean to include Xarog in it.

@Xarog > on what aspects specifically do you think the EU negotiates in bad faith? Qq

All of them. I don't think for one second that Juncker's offers are a sincere attempt to help the UK leave the EU. Positions are offered not according to their reasonableness, but according to how much political friction they will cause within the UK.

 

[C4Cat]

All of them. I don't think for one second that Juncker's offers are a sincere attempt to help the UK leave the EU. Positions are offered not according to their reasonableness, but according to how much political friction they will cause within the UK.

Why would Juncker be sincerely interested in putting UK interests ahead of EU interests? Brexit itself is not in the interest of the EU so why would they be interested in helping the UK? They are not negotiating in bad faith, they are negotiating to get the best possible deal for the EU out of this mess....

 

[Xarog]

Why would Juncker be sincerely interested in putting UK interests ahead of EU interests? Brexit itself is not in the interest of the EU so why would they be interested in helping the UK? They are not negotiating in bad faith, they are negotiating to get the best possible deal for the EU out of this mess....

Nobody said he should put the interests ahead of the UK ahead of the EU. But there is a difference between favouring the EU and bargaining along those lines, and favouring the EU such that you pretend to negotiate an equitable exit while doing everything in your power to subvert the entire process because you think the EU is better off being a monolithic entity that gets to dictate to the puny Brits what's what.

 

[C4Cat]

Nobody said he should put the interests ahead of the UK ahead of the EU. But there is a difference between favouring the EU and bargaining along those lines, and favouring the EU such that you pretend to negotiate an equitable exit while doing everything in your power to subvert the entire process because you think the EU is better off being a monolithic entity that gets to dictate to the puny Brits what's what.

Whatever... he represents the EU and is on the opposing side of the negotiating table to the UK - the UK's interests are not his concern...

 

[Xarog]

Whatever... he represents the EU and is on the opposing side of the negotiating table to the UK - the UK's interests are not his concern...

Great. Now that we've established something I never disagreed with, what's your point?