There is only one Brexit

I’m sure everyone is fixated with the circus that is UK politics at the moment.  The problem as I see it is the desire to “have a deal”.  The stark reality is that there are no deals to be had – certainly no better deals.

Talking to a UK based friend last year about why she voted remain there were three points:

  1. She favoured close economic ties with Europe – that is a bigger market argument,
  2. She perceived many of the Leave arguments to be racist – yes, there was an element of racism in some of the Leave arguments,
  3. She hoped the EU would get a wake up call and negotiate a better deal for the UK after the referendum.

Point 3 is worth discussing. The fact is that the UK already has a preferential deal, many deals, with the EU. They can legitimately ask the question, “More? You want more?”. Then David Cameron went to Brussels a few weeks before the vote and tried to get a better deal and the Europeans said no.  So there was no better deal on the table if the UK had voted to remain.

But we know the UK voted to leave. The Remainers put up a whole bunch of legal challenges but in big pictures terms lost the fight. The UK parliament passed legislation that takes the UK out of the EU at the end of March. That part of the process is on automatic pilot and will occur unless the legislation is amended.

Now let’s look at some incentives. From the EU as an organisation perspective it doesn’t pay for the UK to successfully exit the EU. Bigger is better and successful exit will only encourage other defectors. That undermines the whole notion of the EU. So it pays them to play hard ball – as hard as they can get away with and they have. In their shoes I would act in precisely the same way – get the UK to blink before March 29. After March 29, it is more or less game over.  For individual EU members, however, the incentive structures are different. In the first instance it would be better if the UK remained in the EU, but if they exited it would be ideal to maintain good economic ties with the UK. Imposing any economic damage on the UK is not good policy. Especially for those economies that have many of their citizens working in the UK – they might come home and swell the ranks of the unemployed.

From the UK perspective. There were two choices: remain or leave. The electorate chose to leave. I view that as a shake-the-dust-from-your-sandals leave. Enjoy-the-rest-of-your-life leave. Instead of spending the last two years trying to negotiate a we’re-not-really-getting-divorced leave the UK should have been negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world,* and side deals with EU members. Now I understand that people are going to say that you’re not allowed to do side deals with EU members. But my view is that you make the offer and people accept or they don’t. It is simply astonishing that the Irish border is being negotiated in Brussels with EU officials and not directly and  solely with the Irish government. Have they got no pride? Ditto the EU telling the Irish what their corporate tax rates should be. Sovereign nations set their own tax rates and maintain (economically, legally, and militarily) their own borders.

Long story short – there is no “better” deal available to the UK. There never was – it doesn’t pay the EU bureaucracy to provide a better deal. To the contrary it pays them to inflict as much damage as they can to the UK economy. The UK government should have realised this ex ante and acted accordingly. The problem is that they had a remainer as PM.

*or adopt a unilateral free trade policy.

Update: Krugman on the EU:

Part of the problem is that there don’t seem to be many rational actors out there. Much has been written about the fantasies of many Brexiteers; I don’t have anything to add to all that.

But we should also note the fantasies of the Eurocrats, who have behaved at every step of this process as if Britain were Greece, and could be bullied into capitulation.

Minor gestures could have saved Remain in 2016; a bit of flexibility, a bit less determination to impose humiliating terms, might have led to a soft Brexit now. But it was arrogance all the way.

Now we hear that EU officials are horrified by the scale of May’s defeat, and my sense is that European leaders are starting to realize that a disorderly break would do a lot of damage to a fragile eurozone, too. No kidding.

This entry was posted in International. Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to There is only one Brexit

  1. That undermines the whole notion of the EU.

    As good a reason to leave as any. Actually, the best reason imaginable. Next the UN.

  2. Pyrmonter

    How disruptive will ‘no deal’ be? How much of London’s basis as the financial services centre of Europe depends on European non-discrimination? (and on discrimination against other competitors – don’t assume the UK hasn’t gained something from the de facto exclusion of foreign competition). I guess we’ll find out if there’s ‘no deal’ and Brexit proceeds; I’d still rate that as an ‘if’.

  3. Rae

    The EU doesn’t want Brexit and any “deal” they do will be as much to their own advantage as they can make it. That has always been the case. Teresa May should now tell them that the best and only option for Britain is a “no deal” exit by invoking Article 50 on 20 March 2019. And yes, the British Government should negotiate Northern Ireland border issues directly with the Irish Government.

  4. Infidel Tiger

    German & French industry are absolutely shitting themselves.

    They are about to lose one of their biggest clients.

  5. Roger

    Sovereign nations set their own tax rates and maintain (economically, legally, and militarily) their own borders.

    But EU member states cede quite a lot of their sovereignty to Brussels, from border control down to having the EU flag on their car licence plates..

  6. wal1957

    And politicians around the world wonder why they are hated so much.
    The people voted to leave.
    Leave!

  7. Roger

    German & French industry are absolutely shitting themselves.

    They are about to lose one of their biggest clients.

    With Germany heading into recession and the de facto opposition party proposing a DEXIT.

    Things are not going to settle in Europe for some time yet.

  8. Infidel Tiger

    At this rate Bavaria will split before Brexit.

  9. Infidel Tiger

    Infuriating that the political class only talk of Brexit in economic terms rather than what it really was: everyday Britons longing to rest back a bit of control of their lives from an unaccountable centralised bureaucracy.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AmandeepBhogal/status/1085250333692039168

  10. Tel

    She favoured close economic ties with Europe – that is a bigger market argument,

    The EU operates as a walled garden, with low friction and consistent rules inside the group, and then a centrally planned approach to negotiation outside the group (no individual member country is allowed to negotiate independently). Over the years a lot of sclerosis and central planning has also been settling into the EU economies… making it a rather sterile walled garden.

    By far the world outside the EU is bigger than what’s inside the EU. The bigger market argument would certainly point to Brexit.

  11. Andre Lewis

    The remainer avalanche of catastrophic outcomes if the British Public had the temerity to vote leave was arrant nonsense and none of the predicted economic failures came about. The UK political class (most of them anyway) and the biased media (all of it) have continued the mantra of ruin and disaster outside of the EU unelected totalitarian regime non-stop for two and a half years. None of this stands up to scrutiny.

    May and her cohort of advisers and negotiators had no intention of leaving and planning a future under WTO rules. They simply connived with the EU mandarins to bodge up a complex and untenable
    deal that left the UK in the EU but worse than being a member state. It got what it deserved in yesterdays vote.
    Traitors used to get summary justice but that is not allowed today so political wilderness for the remainer PM and her peers is the only answer.

  12. A Lurker

    The problem is that they had a remainer as PM.

    This disconnect is exactly the problem with modern Western countries (including Australia).
    The political elites represent only themselves and the interests of minority pressure groups, and not the majority whom they claim to represent.

  13. Infidel Tiger

    Tim Montgomerie
    Tim Montgomerie
    @montie
    ·
    1h
    This govt tells voters one thing in public and big business another thing in private – and I bet big business is getting the truth

    The foul hand of corporatism is at play.

    Hammond is a disgraceful piece of shit.

  14. Bruce of Newcastle

    The behaviour of the EU in this process shows they are a totalitarian bunch of Marxists. The EC isn’t elected and the EU Parliament is toothless in the face of the vast nanny state bureaucracy – like the foul ECJ.

    The UK must get out while it still can.

  15. duncanm

    Ditto the EU telling the Irish what their corporate tax rates should be. Sovereign nations set their own tax rates and maintain (economically, legally, and militarily) their own borders.

    … another reason to leave

  16. Infidel Tiger

    Live Monitor
    @amlivemon

    Britain was the largest single export market for German manufacturers, who sold 800,000 new cars there, or 20 percent of their overall global exports. They will pressure German politicians.

    Any EU propaganda agents saying otherwise should be ignored

  17. Pyrmonter

    @ Live Monitor, Infidel Tiger etc

    Presumably a post no deal Britain will abide by its WTO commitments; about what then do the exporters of motor vehicles have to be concerned? This ‘the Germans have too much to lose’ line was run pre-referendum; so far, the Germans (French, Italians, Spaniards) have seemed fairly content either to acquiesce in the Commission’s negotiation position, or to stake claims that either seek to advance particular sectors within their own countries (Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt contending as the replacement financial services sector) or revive historical claims – such as the Spanish on Gibraltar.

  18. mh

    Never send a woman to do a man’s job.

  19. Roger

    Presumably a post no deal Britain will abide by its WTO commitments…

    Nothing can be presumed.

    The EU will impose tariffs on British goods and Westminster will be under pressure to reciprocate.

    German car makers are already issuing profit warnings largely due to falling sales in China and there is still the prospect of US tariffs this year.

  20. Infidel Tiger

    The global car industry is cooked.

    Massive recession looming.

  21. Roger

    Massive recession looming.

    Just in time for a Labor government here.

    Fewer levers to adjust, though.

    It could get ugly.

  22. Iampeter

    Instead of spending the last two years trying to negotiate a we’re-not-really-getting-divorced leave the UK should have been negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world,* and side deals with EU members.

    This is exactly correct, but I don’t think they have failed in this because they have a “remainer” PM.
    The reason they failed to negotiate any deals is because they don’t have any ideas in this area. Brexit isn’t about freer markets or more limited government, or economics.
    They aren’t against the welfare and regulatory state, they are just against immigrants.

  23. Bruce of Newcastle

    It’s always fun to observe the dog that didn’t bark.
    In this case it’s calls for May’s resignation.
    Almost none, certainly not in the MSM.
    Isn’t that interesting?

  24. Roger

    …they are just against immigrants.

    Or, to put it another way, they are pro-British.

    A sovereign nation has an inherent right to control its borders, which is a large part of what constitutes sovereignty.

    In contrast, people outside of those borders have no right of entry that is not granted by the sovereign state

  25. Leigh Lowe

    Now let’s look at some incentives. From the EU as an organisation perspective it doesn’t pay for the UK to successfully exit the EU. Bigger is better …

    Really?
    Like the very successful 20th century amalgamation to the East … The USSR?
    .

    and successful exit will only encourage other defectors.

    Well, yes.
    That is what Junkers is shitting his lederhosen over.
    Brussels can try to enforce punitive EU – Brit trade deals on remaining members. However, there will be disparate weighting in trade relationships already between EU states and the Poms. What happens when some Kraut in Brussels tells Spain that their very lucrative trade in paella pans with Britain now carries a 200% tariff and Madrid says “Fuck off, Hans”?

  26. John Constantine

    The existing transfer payments from Britain to the eurofilth can be argued to be a form of tarrif.
    Pay this extortion fee to access europe

    Isn’t it illegal for Britain to negotiate free trade deals while it is still locked into europe?.

    Britain will have Many, Many Fries.

  27. Tim Neilson

    Infidel Tiger
    #2909674, posted on January 17, 2019 at 11:07 am

    And remember that about a fortnight before the Brexit vote some Euro-ponce announced that all EU members wold be obliged to take an annual EU dictated quota of “refugees” (i.e. middle eastern muslim single males of military age) or be fined hundreds of millions of euros.

    At the time I seriously wondered whether the EU actually wanted the UK out.

  28. mh

    Roger
    #2909734, posted on January 17, 2019 at 12:19 pm

    A red rag to Iampeter….

    🍿

  29. Iampeter

    A sovereign nation has an inherent right to control its borders, which is a large part of what constitutes sovereignty.

    What does that even mean? Border control is no more related to the free movement of people, than law and order within a country, is related to the right to own property, or go about your business in countless other ways without violating anyone’s rights.
    It’s like you saying, “since one plus one equals two, we should be able to regulate immigration”. The first statement is correct, but how did you jump to the second?
    This is a consequence of having no theory of government or politics and is why Brexit is such a mess. It’s full of people who don’t know what they’re doing and supporters who are just as confused.

  30. Confused Old Misfit

    Isn’t it illegal for Britain to negotiate free trade deals while it is still locked into europe?.

    Should be OK to “negotiate”.
    Might be naughty to actually sign one while still in the (ph)EU.

  31. Infidel Tiger

    Here we go… autism flare up in coming.

  32. Iampeter

    Here we go… autism flare up in coming.

    I always know I’m hitting the nail on the head when I get these triggered comments from snowflakey conservatives 😛

  33. Confused Old Misfit

    …people who don’t know what they’re doing…

    The ultimate projection by the ultimate projector.
    An ego that knows no limit.

  34. Infidel Tiger

    Iampeter how do you propose implementing this mythical political process you propose?

    You can spout Randian nonsense all you like, reality is a colder bitch than that disgusting old soulless witch

  35. quod erat demonstrandum

    1. Majority UK vote to leave EU because sick of being told what to do by Brussels
    2. Remainer PM goes to Brussels to be told of ‘best terms’
    3. Majority UK parliament say deal sucks
    4. Apoplexy over no deal Brexit
    .
    Wasn’t this always the only possible (and best) outcome?

  36. Iampeter

    The ultimate projection by the ultimate projector.

    This is rich coming from someone proving my point, demonstrating both ignorance and projection, while accusing me of the same thing. You’ve never made any arguments and only ever jab ad hominems at me.
    How did you get so old and remain so hopelessly clueless and snowflakey?
    Why are you even on a political blog when you are so easily triggered by different viewpoints?
    GetUp is more the place for someone like you.

    Iampeter how do you propose implementing this mythical political process you propose?

    You’re right, individual rights, rights protecting government and capitalism are “mythical political process”.
    So, you concede you’re just a socialist?

    You can spout Randian nonsense all you like, reality is a colder bitch than that disgusting old soulless witch

    I’m not the one arguing against reality.

  37. Infidel Tiger

    You can never answer basic questions buddy.

    How are you getting this “rights protecting government” put in place?

    Define a “right”?

    Who decides what “rights”?

    I know the sacred text books are infallible, but this should be very easy for a student of your intellect to answer.

  38. Rohan

    Infidel Tiger
    #2909664, posted on January 17, 2019 at 10:57 am
    German & French industry are absolutely shitting themselves.

    They are about to lose one of their biggest clients.

    But why? It’s not like the UK, France and Germany can’t negotiate Free Trade deals prior to Brexit. If their respective governments can’t, then they’re incompetent idiots.

    Oh wait…

  39. Tim Neilson

    Border control is no more related to the free movement of people, than law and order within a country, is related to the right to own property, or go about your business in countless other ways without violating anyone’s rights.

    The person who posted this incoherent drivel accuses other people of being “confused”.

    Iampeter, suppose someone who is suffering an incurable, fatal and highly contagious disease arrives at the border of a sovereign nation with the intention of entering that nation’s territory.
    Does the sovereign nation have the right to prevent that person from crossing the border into its territory?

  40. Confused Old Misfit

    How did you get so old

    By being a hell of a lot smarter than you have demonstrated yourself to be.
    You are an ignorant little pissant.
    Clearly some one told you that you’re a clever young man and it went to your head.
    Well, young fellow-me-lad, you’re nowhere near as smart as you think you are.
    Your debating technique is based purely on the argumentum ab auctoritate. Yours.
    Very uninteresting.
    However, as your arguments are so vacuous, it amuses me to critique your personality as there is a vast and fetid field to be plowed.

  41. Tim Neilson

    Infidel Tiger
    #2909787, posted on January 17, 2019 at 1:04 pm

    Iampeter once posted on this blog that WN Hohfeld and Sir John Salmond “clearly” (his word) had no idea about “rights”.

    Messrs Dunning and Kruger were unavailable for comment.

  42. Dianeh

    Why did the partliament vote for a default no deal brexit, if it was something that they could never allow?

    Did they believe any deal would be acceptable ie any deal is a good deal? Or we they expecting that a reasonable deal would be negotiated either due to their trust in the EU leadership, or perhaps were promised it. Were they assured that a true Brexit could be avoided by negotiating a deal.

    It really doesn’t make sense that they even voted for it at all.

  43. Fat Tony

    Iampeter
    #2909765, posted on January 17, 2019 at 12:39 pm
    Here we go… autism flare up in coming.

    I always know I’m hitting the nail on the head when I get these triggered comments from snowflakey conservatives

    Bit of consistency please – aren’t you always saying that there are no conservatives on this site, only socialists??

  44. max

    Nation What is a Nation?

    The nations are not something eternal. They had their beginnings and they will end.

    a nation is “a daily referendum,” and that nations are based as much on what the people jointly forget, as what they remember.

    When Renan asks: What is a nation? he means: What should determine the boundaries of the various states? And his answer is: Not the linguistic community, not the racial kinship founded on parentage from common ancestors, not religious congeniality, not the harmony of economic interests, not geographical or strategical considerations, but—the right of the population to determine its own destiny. The nation is the outcome of the will of human beings to live together in one state. The greater part of the lecture is devoted to showing how this spirit of nationality originates.
    The nation is a soul, a moral principle. A nation, says Renan, daily confirms its existence by manifesting its will to political coöperation within the same state; a daily repeated plebiscite, as it were. A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants. Boundary disputes should be settled by plebiscite.
    It is important to realize how this interpretation of the right of self-determination differs from the principle of nationality. The right of self-determination which Renan has in mind is not a right of linguistic groups but of individual men. It is derived from the rights of man. “Man belongs neither to his language nor to his race; he belongs to himself.”
    https://fee.org/articles/liberty-opposes-nationalism/

  45. Tel

    I’m not the one arguing against reality.

    When you claim that the entire world is socialist and has not idea about anything, except for perhaps a small handful of Randians. That does come across as a teensy bit unrealistic… or at the very least it has a whiff of extremism about it.

  46. Iampeter

    You can never answer basic questions buddy.
    How are you getting this “rights protecting government” put in place?

    I’d love to actually be talking about HOW we implement policy, but we need to agree on it first.
    You don’t agree with me and have no counter arguments. What little arguments you do put forward, are something I’d expect to hear from any cookie-cutter leftists.
    You’re using “how” questions to avoid conceding and I’m not letting you evade it.

    Define a “right”?
    Who decides what “rights”?

    Sigh. This right here is the actual issue. How long have you been reading about politics to still need to ask something like this? Why are you asking me “how” questions then followed up by asking what rights are?
    Do you come into a group discussing quadratic equations and get angry with them because YOU don’t know how to add or subtract? Do you then also accuse them of being the ones ignoring reality because of your ignorance of even the basics of the subject?

    Do you see why I might be quite justified in taking exception to the tone of experts you and many others take here, as you try to dismiss what I’m saying, including trying to insult, while yourselves being at THIS low level of understanding?

    By being a hell of a lot smarter than you have demonstrated yourself to be.
    You are an ignorant little pissant.

    Yawn. So doubling down on the ignorance, ad hominem and projection?
    Look, I understand where you’re coming from COM. If I was retiree-aged and it turned out I was as ignorant as the cringiest teenage SJW, I’d be angry too.
    I would just have the intellectual honesty to not take it out on others. Hmm, I wonder if that has something to do with why I’m not in your situation?

    Bit of consistency please – aren’t you always saying that there are no conservatives on this site, only socialists??

    To clarify, I’m saying the cat is overrun with conservatives, but conservatives are not an alternative to socialists, just religious and politically illiterate, versions of them. Conservatives are people not smart enough to be socialists. Hence the confusion about why they are on what is meant to be Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog.

  47. Confused Old Misfit

    Iampeter is a communist. (And probably queer.)

  48. JohnA

    It seems that the British people need to find another Cromwell:

    “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

    Address to the Rump Parliament (20 April 1653)

    And this Parliament manifests itself as such a rump (please substitute your own euphemism).

  49. Infidel Tiger

    So in conclusion, he is incapable of answering basic questions.

    He doesn’t actually know.

  50. A Lurker

    Don’t feed the Iampeter troll, guys.

  51. Iampeter

    So in conclusion, he is incapable of answering basic questions.

    He doesn’t actually know.

    More than happy to answer any question you want, only once you concede you don’t know anything about politics.
    What I’m not going to be doing, is helping you PRETEND you’re discussing politics, when you clearly don’t know the first thing about it.

  52. Dorothy

    As bad as May’s deal its better than no deal
    If Britain leaves without a deal the economy will tank
    Richard North, ( EU referendum blog) Pete North ( peternorth.blogspot.com) and Christopher Booker (UK Daily Telegraph) know more than any about how the EU works than anyone else, Sinc you would do well to read them, especially Richead Norths blog
    Right a the beginning May should have opted for the Norway option along with Lichtenstein, Iceland and Norway which meant being a member European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) which would have given Britain full access to the EU single market, guaranteeing very limited restrictions to trade with the EU. Over the years things could have been tweaked to suit Britain’s requirements.

  53. Tim Neilson

    More than happy to answer any question you want,

    Except the ones he’s actually asked.

    Like suppose someone who is suffering an incurable, fatal and highly contagious disease arrives at the border of a sovereign nation with the intention of entering that nation’s territory.
    Does the sovereign nation have the right to prevent that person from crossing the border into its territory?

    He hides under the bed when that one’s asked, because even he understands that to answer “no” is howling at the moon stuff, but to answer “yes” blows his open borders absolutist lunacy clear out of the water.

    Define a “right”?
    Who decides what “rights”?

    Sigh. This right here is the actual issue. How long have you been reading about politics to still need to ask something like this?

    This from a person who dismissed Hohfeld and Salmond as clearly knowing nothing about rights.

  54. Infidel Tiger

    More than happy to answer any question you want, only once you concede you don’t know anything about politics.
    What I’m not going to be doing, is helping you PRETEND you’re discussing politics, when you clearly don’t know the first thing about it.

    I put it to you, young whippersnapper, that it is indeed yourself who knows nothing of politics and is in fact conflating politics with ideology.

    Politics is largely the art of the possible.

    How would you make your ideology possible?

    GO!

  55. Infidel Tiger

    If Britain leaves without a deal the economy will tank

    Rubbish.

  56. Tim Neilson

    Dorothy
    #2909844, posted on January 17, 2019 at 2:21 pm

    Apart from the economics, would the Norway option leave the UK still having to take its quota of EU mandated [email protected]!sts?

  57. Iampeter

    I put it to you, young whippersnapper, that it is indeed yourself who knows nothing of politics and is in fact conflating politics with ideology.

    Just stop dude. There’s only so much cringe I can handle as you embarrass yourself.
    I’m not “conflating” anything. Unlike you, I actually know what the words “politics” and “ideology” mean, and how they relate to each other.
    Politics is the science of people living among each other.
    Ideology is a coherent set of ideas.
    Politics is a very abstract science, which means to succeed you need to have very coherent ideology and the thinking skills to back it up.

    Sadly, faced with the terrible but coherent ideas of socialism, conservatives had nothing to offer and so decided to reject ideas altogether.
    Embracing “art of the possible” as a smart of way of saying “we are politically illiterate”.

    This is why I say conservatives are “not smart enough to be socialists”.

  58. Dr Faustus

    It is simply astonishing that the Irish border is being negotiated in Brussels with EU officials and not directly and solely with the Irish government. Have they got no pride?

    Not really.

    Anything to do with the border is a red hot potato in Irish politics.

    It suits pretty much everyone in the Oireachtas to outsource the decision-making to Brussels. The political and personal risk that would be faced by the parties of government in dealing direct with Westminster gets passed off to unaccountable EU processes. And (as we have seen), potentially, the eventual outcome imposed by the EU negotiators might be some form of customs union with the North – which is a useful step towards a unified Ireland, which all parties carry as policy.

    An Irish variation on ‘free stuff’.

  59. Confused Old Misfit

    Don’t bother Iampeter With the Facts! He Has a Narrative He Needs to Flog!
    HE is the smartest person in the Room!
    In the building!
    In the world!

  60. jupes

    Iampeter doesn’t understand the effect border control has on the “free movement of people”.

    He then accuses others of ignorance.

    Seriously, what a tool.

  61. Iampeter

    If Britain leaves without a deal the economy will tank

    Rubbish.

    Hurampf, good call indeed sir!
    Rubbish indeed. Clearly your knowledge of British economy is superior.
    I say, do you smoke a pipe while discussing politics?
    Shall we talk about nation statehood? What about Churchill?
    Maybe some other political sounding words or people that we’ve heard, so we can imitate what we think talking politics sounds like?
    Indubitably.

    This is what you sound like, trying to talk politics with no supporting ideology.

    There is NOTHING this bad on the left.

  62. Dr Faustus

    1. Majority UK vote to leave EU because sick of being told what to do by Brussels
    2. Remainer PM goes to Brussels to be told of ‘best terms’
    3. Majority UK parliament say deal sucks
    4. Apoplexy over no deal Brexit
    .
    Wasn’t this always the only possible (and best) outcome?

    It seems that this was exactly the desired outcome.

    Ms May is expressly ‘fighting on’, nominally to deliver the Exit demanded at referendum. The reality however is there is no better, or other, ‘deal’ available in the next 10 weeks that will satisfy the various demands of the parliamentary warlords. (Micron’s own political crisis demands that Team Barnier holds firm on shagging the UK as hard as possible.)

    The obvious impact point, then, is a hard Brexit, which would see the Tories tossed, and the prospect of two terms of Marxist-Corbynism ‘fixing’ the resulting crisis.

    Perhaps more likely that May (or her replacement) will ‘reluctantly’ propose a delay to the March 29 Article 50 exit – and a second referendum on the grounds of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, ‘National Unity’, and so on. The outcome is likely to be Remain – although at the expense of shredding the political compact with perhaps 40% of the UK’s population.

    Whichever way, the genie will not fit back in the bottle.

  63. Infidel Tiger

    So you can’t answer the basic questions.

    Sad!

  64. Ellen of Tasmania

    The behaviour of the EU in this process shows they are a totalitarian bunch of Marxists

    Which is why they would rather the economies of the individual nations (states) tank than let the Brits leave peaceably. That should alert people to what it is really all about.

    Try leaving the UN and you will find the same thing. The world powers don’t give up their powers easily.

  65. Dorothy

    Iampeter you are an idiot

  66. Tim Neilson

    This is what you sound like, trying to talk politics with no supporting ideology.

    How about we test your ideology?

    We can start with a simple question (which you’ve failed to answer in any of your four lengthy rants since it was first posted on this thread).

    Suppose someone who is suffering an incurable, fatal and highly contagious disease arrives at the border of a sovereign nation with the intention of entering that nation’s territory.
    Does the sovereign nation have the right to prevent that person from crossing the border into its territory?

    A simple “yes” will do, unless you want to go full retard and answer with a simple “no”.

    Once you’ve answered we can explore the ramifications of the answer for your open borders ideology.

  67. Ellen of Tasmania

    Infidel Tiger,

    This is a bit off-topic, but I’ve been reading a few of you posts lately, and wondered if you’ve ever looked at the ‘Distributists’ which was a popular political idea at the start of the last century. GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were proponents of the theory. They believed that if you let a capitalist market alone it would inevitably concentrate ownership into the hands of a few, but they were equally against socialism.

    The name is a bit unfortunate, because it makes one think of ‘redistribution’.Still – it does include a lot of the elements you write about and I sometimes wonder if you are joining Chesterton in your political outlook.

  68. mh

    Mutty Merkel stated that “Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty”.

    Enoch declares that if you agree to that you can never be a patriot.

  69. Infidel Tiger

    This is a bit off-topic, but I’ve been reading a few of you posts lately, and wondered if you’ve ever looked at the ‘Distributists’ which was a popular political idea at the start of the last century. GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were proponents of the theory. They believed that if you let a capitalist market alone it would inevitably concentrate ownership into the hands of a few, but they were equally against socialism.

    America was very much of this model until they went mad.

    I am auditing many of my beliefs.

    I downloaded all of Chesterton’s writings recently but haven’t got into yet.

  70. Ellen of Tasmania

    America was very much of this model until they went mad.

    Yes. Sadly, I think their civil war changed a lot in terms of centralising power and I think the EU is on the same projectory.

    Certainly, the Distributists were right about more and more power and wealth falling into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people. I don’t know if their ideas would or could halt that, but it seems to me that the crapitalist system we have now is nothing like what we mean when we think of a ‘free market’.

    Brexit is wanted by the small businesses, by the little people who see their communities and culture falling apart. They vote accordingly, but something stops the pollies from delivering what the people want. What is that? Perhaps it’s one of those ‘follow the money’ things.

    But the MSM won’t ‘follow the money’ and the small, independent media who do get called conspiracy theorists. But there must be reasons, and there is certainly money and power.

  71. Bruce of Newcastle

    something stops the pollies from delivering what the people want.

    Class warfare:

    Donald Trump is a symptom of a new kind of class warfare raging at home and abroad (15 Jan)

    What’s happening in America is an echo of what’s happening in democracies around the world, and it’s not happening because of Trump.

    To understand events around the world today, one must think in terms of the class struggle.

    This sentence sounds like something that could be written by a doctrinaire Marxist. But it is nonetheless true. Much of the current tension in America and in many other democracies is in fact a product of a class struggle. It’s not the kind of class struggle that Karl Marx wrote about, with workers and peasants facing off against rapacious capitalists, but it is a case of today’s ruling class facing disaffection from its working class.

    But the New Class isn’t limited to communist countries, really. Around the world in the postwar era, power was taken up by unelected professional and managerial elites. To understand what’s going on with President Donald Trump and his opposition, and in other countries as diverse as France, Hungary, Italy and Brazil, it’s important to realize that the post-World War II institutional arrangements of the Western democracies are being renegotiated, and that those democracies’ professional and managerial elites don’t like that very much, because they have done very well under those arrangements. And, like all elites who are doing very well, they don’t want that to change.

    Britain too. The pollies, one and all, are members of the New Class.

  72. Confused Old Misfit

    Some pessimism on whether or not Brexit will really happen over at Samizdata.
    Anger too at the prospect of it not happening.
    Some sympathy there too for Ellen of Tasmania’s “‘follow the money” observation given that several CEO’s of the large globally oriented businesses have come out against a WTO based Brexit. I think very definitely that “big Business” is concerned that it might have to work a little harder to earn a pound.
    Likely they (the biggies) would be stridently against Sinc’s free trade area policy.
    I think it could work.

  73. feelthebern

    Enoch Powell.
    Not a nice guy.

  74. Confused Old Misfit

    Well may you may consider Enoch Powell to not have been a “nice guy”.
    However, in those three minutes and seven seconds of his life he was absolutely correct.

  75. calli

    Ellen of Tasmania
    #2909917, posted on January 17, 2019 at 3:33 pm

    Yes, Ellen. Stimpy posted a Chesterton quote a few weeks ago so, intrigued, I looked it up.

    I would love to see a discussion here on the subject.

  76. Slayer of Memes

    Confused Old Misfit
    #2909875, posted on January 17, 2019 at 2:55 pm

    Don’t bother Iampeter With the Facts! He Has a Narrative He Needs to Flog!
    HE is the smartest person in the Room!
    In the building!
    In the world!

    Iampeter is Malcom Turnbull…?

  77. Iampeter

    America was very much of this model until they went mad.

    I am auditing many of my beliefs.

    I downloaded all of Chesterton’s writings recently but haven’t got into yet.

    HAHAHAHA…SMH.

    You are worse than my parody of you earlier in this thread. I can’t make this stuff up.

    Deep stuff. Deep, deep stuff.

  78. Dr Fred Lenin

    Brexit was supported by 52 per cent of those who voted,when was the ladt time an Australian party got 52 per cent of the primary vote ? Even with compulsory voting governments are elected on preferences . Abolish compulsory voting and preferential voting and see how thebuggers go. Make it hard for them ,make them work hard for their miserable little careers.

  79. Infidel Tiger

    I knew that would bait the Autistic Bot!

  80. Ivan Denisovich

    This is a bit off-topic, but I’ve been reading a few of you posts lately, and wondered if you’ve ever looked at the ‘Distributists’ which was a popular political idea at the start of the last century. GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were proponents of the theory.

    Bob Santamaria’s inheritors have been interested/keen on this, promoting advocates such as Allan Carlson:

    http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=3576

    I thought IT might have been reading David Warren’s blog:

    https://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2019/01/09/restoring-risk/

  81. Confused Old Misfit

    But Fred,
    There were only two (2) questions on the ballot.
    One of them HAD to get a majority! (Suppose a tie was theoretically possible)
    A plurality wasn’t going to happen, was it?

  82. Ellen of Tasmania

    “As a young man, Chesterton flirted with socialism, but he soon realized that it was mostly a reactionary idea. The rise of socialism and its attendant evils was a reaction against industrial capitalism and its attendant evils. The danger of fighting injustice is that if the battle is misguided, even a victory is a defeat. Good motives can have bad results. …

    The conservatives and the liberals have successfully reduced meaningful debate to name-calling. We use catchwords as a substitute for thinking. …

    It is interesting, it is fitting, that the philosophy which Chesterton embraced as the only real alternative to socialism and capitalism (as well as to liberalism and conservatism) goes by a name that is utterly awkward and misunderstood. … The troublesome title is “Distributism.” It has to do with property. It has to do with justice. And it has to do with everything else. …

    The distributist ideal is that the home is the most important place in the world. Every man should have his own piece of property, a place to build his own home, to raise his family, to do all the important things from birth to death: eating, singing, celebrating, reading, writing, arguing, story-telling, laughing, crying, praying. The home is above all a sanctuary of creativity.”

    https://distributistreview.com/g-k-chestertons-distributism/

  83. Bruce of Newcastle

    The interconnectors to NSW from Qld and Vic are going flat chat, wholesale price is $300/MW (more than my retail price) and AEMO has declared:

    Actual Lack Of Reserve Level 1 (LOR1) in the NSW region – 17/01/2019

    An Actual LOR1 condition has been declared under clause 4.8.4(b) of the National Electricity Rules for the NSW region from 1530 hrs.
    The Actual LOR1 condition is forecast to exist until 1700 hrs.
    The contingency forecast capacity reserve requirement is 1320 MW.
    The minimum capacity reserve available is 1148 MW.

    So we’re one power station failure away from brownouts.
    Welcome to the third world.

  84. Bruce of Newcastle

    Oops, wrong thread.

  85. 2dogs

    With the UK gone, Ireland would be expected to become a net contributor to the EU budget.

    They are not likely to be happy about that.

    So, Brussels had better not push them on the border.

  86. Confused Old Misfit

    Mentioned up-thread was the matter og this backstop thing about the Northern Ireland/Eirie border and how is it that the Irish are not negotiating this directly with the UK.
    There seems to be a body of opinion that claims there will be a resumption of “the troubles” if a border is re-established.
    Why would this be so?

  87. dopey

    …know more than any about how the EU works than anyone else.
    Thanks for making that clear Dorothy.

  88. Roger

    Border control is no more related to the free movement of people, than law and order within a country, is related to the right to own property, or go about your business in countless other ways without violating anyone’s rights.

    Only an intellectual could write & believe such nonsense.

  89. CountingCats

    Iampeter at 12:09 pm
    Brexit isn’t about freer markets or more limited government, or economics.
    They aren’t against the welfare and regulatory state, they are just against immigrants.

    Just more remainer smear and propaganda. Pity about the reality.

  90. Boambee John

    But the New Class isn’t limited to communist countries, really. Around the world in the postwar era, power was taken up by unelected professional and managerial elites.

    The kind of people that m0nty wants to govern us, as set out in his “manifesto” in a moment of drunken weakness. m0nty sees himself as one of them.

  91. wal1957

    Iampeter is sounding like a hyped up version of Krudd.

    I know everything!
    My way is best!
    You’re all morons!

    Take a Bex and lie down you idiot!
    Better yet, I’ll send you a carton!
    Enjoy!

  92. 2dogs

    Iampeter at 12:09 pm
    … they are just against immigrants.

    Globalists have essentially no response to the fundamental arguments of polyarchists (like the argument for subsidiarity in democracy).

    The only one which could be legitimate is the pressing externality argument, but to use that they have to invent things like global warming.

    Otherwise, they just resort to smearing polyarchists them as racists. It doesn’t matter whether it is truthful or not. They just can’t provide any other response.

  93. Fat Tony

    Iampeter
    #2909891, posted on January 17, 2019 at 3:07 pm

    This is what you sound like, trying to talk politics with no supporting ideology.

    There is NOTHING this bad on the left.

    Maybe you haven’t heard of:

    Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot……

  94. Dr Faustus

    There seems to be a body of opinion that claims there will be a resumption of “the troubles” if a border is re-established.
    Why would this be so?

    There is a lot of raw history around the Irish border; not even slightly under the surface.

    The Irish War of Independence, the partition, and the work of the Boundary Commission is only just now passing out of living memory. The Irish nationalist symbolism and the fact that the political compromise of a controlled border fucked people’s lives around is still exactly just there.

    The Troubles formally finished 20-odd years ago, but the hard men and psychopaths of the PIRA, RIRA and INLA have not gone away – and people still tread carefully. In a passionate, sectarian country, where for some people the Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1652 might have happened just last year, it wouldn’t take much of a miscalculation to set a range of nutters going active.

  95. Confused Old Misfit

    There is a lot of raw history around the Irish border; not even slightly under the surface.

    Yes, I know that. I’m quite familiar with the history of “The Troubles”. I an myself of distant Northern Irish heritage.
    However, the proposals put forward by the May government seem, on a quick perusal, very bland and benign. It’s having a border without having a border. It’s a border for me as an Australian if I want to cross from Eire into Northern Ireland but, if I’m Irish it’s only line on the pavement and I can come and go on my lawful business as I please, South to North or North to South.
    I suppose people are envisaging Ian Paisley manning customs barrier and demanding anyone coming from the south swear that they are not papists!

  96. I have thrashed Iampeter on multiple threads over immigration. He never learns. He believes that a free people that enjoy self-government over a defined territory simple cannot exclude a non-citizen of their nation from entry. In fact, he considers such a denial an infringement of that foreigner’s rights. He is however silent as to how that foreigner came to enjoy such a right, how a self-governing people who have jurisdiction over their territory never attain a right to allow or exclude entry as they please, and so on.

  97. Correction: simply cannot exclude a non-citizen entry to their nation.

  98. Dr Faustus

    However, the proposals put forward by the May government seem, on a quick perusal, very bland and benign.

    COM: As I’m sure you appreciate, I was commenting on your question about theoretically reestablishing a hard Irish border, rather than Ms May’s landing place with M. Barnier. Not all non-Mick readers understand the cultural issues at play.

    I’m not sure the Brexit proposal is that ‘benign’ from a UK perspective. The major problem of the Barnier/May ‘backstop’ proposal is that it locks Northern Ireland into an EU customs union with the Republic of Ireland, and actually sets up an EU customs barrier between the mainland UK and NI. I personally quite like it, but it would be a perpetual clusterfuck of epic proportions for the UK.

    As I mentioned in my original post, an independently agreed separation between NI and the UK would be very acceptable to Fine Gael and Sinn Fein alike.

  99. Dr Faustus

    I have thrashed Iampeter on multiple threads over immigration. He never learns.

    You assume he is here to learn and improve.
    It’s a Catholic weakness.

  100. CountingCats

    A failure by parliament to deliver a clean Brexit will be the destruction of the credibility of British democracy. The people will continue to vote, sure, but only for which set of quislings administer the province of Britain on behalf of the unaccountable commisars in Brussels, and they will know this, as well.

    Personally, I’m investing in yellow jacket futures.

  101. Confused Old Misfit

    …a perpetual clusterfuck of epic proportions for the UK.

    In other words SNAFU. In typically British fashion.
    Sorry, I missed your earlier post.

  102. Dr Faustus

    A failure by parliament to deliver a clean Brexit will be the destruction of the credibility of British democracy.

    This is true.
    But never forget that 97% of parliamentarians are there for the salary, perks, and jollies.

  103. Cynic of Ayr

    The point that really shows up like a beacon, is “From the EU as an organisation perspective it doesn’t pay for the UK to successfully exit the EU. Bigger is better and successful exit will only encourage other defectors.”
    IMO, that’s the whole point of the EU’s bloody mindedness. I think they know there will be others hot on the heels of the UK.
    Another fear, or fearmongering, is that the UK will run out of food.
    Oh yeah… right!
    When Trumpy sees the situation as it turns out, he’ll be in there, sticking it to the EU, with plane loads of food and nappies from the US.
    He hasn’t said anything about it, which to me just means he’s not telling what he’s thinking
    Even ScoMo will probably offer a Dollar Fifty. Maybe even Two Dollars, if there’s anything left after Power Prices and Indonesia’s little pressies.

  104. Bosnich

    Drive from Melbourne to Torquay,nice beachside town.House prices probably averaging around 750 thou.
    As you arrive at the first set of traffic lights there is a sign which proclaims,”Refugees Welcome”. Not only have I never seen a “refugee” in Torquay but if there ever was How the f**k could they afford a house.
    I dare say that those responsible for the welcome have nice warm feelings about helping the poor asylum seekers etc. Iampete would fit in quite well there.

  105. HP

    Now we hear that EU officials are horrified by the scale of May’s defeat, and my sense is that European leaders are starting to realize that a disorderly break would do a lot of damage to a fragile eurozone, too. No kidding.

    Krugman does not get it.
    The eurocrats are playing for keeps – scorched earth. Brexit cannot succeed on any level. Brexit must end a smoking hole in the ground.

    There will not be a successful exit precedent? Scrap that.
    There will be NO precedent of any exit out of the EU.
    If anyone gets out the eurocrats lose control (and it could become a success), that’s the beginning of the end.
    There cannot be any other outcome of the Brexit than a complete, utter disaster so as to pre-emptively get the minds right of any other EU-member who is likely to get “ideas”.

    These EU countries have given up their sovereignty in favour of the EU. And now they want it back? Haha. No.
    Nobody leaves.

  106. Tel

    HP #2910244, it might be worth remembering that a determined majority always wins in any country and the Brussels bureaucrats have an elaborate bluff going… convincing people that they are doing what is in Europe’s best interest. If they go for a very obvious policy of spite in an attempt to punish disobedience they will then have to face their own people and explain why they did that.

    The eurocrats are playing for keeps – scorched earth. Brexit cannot succeed on any level. Brexit must end a smoking hole in the ground.

    Sure, but the exact location where that smoking hole will open up is a bit difficult to guess right now. Could be awkward if Germany goes into recession and the UK discovers that they are quite happy driving around in South Korean cars. Suppose the Greek banks trigger the Italian banks and the Italian banks take out the German and French banks. Then the City says, “Good thing we escaped from exposure in Europe!”

  107. HP

    it might be worth remembering that a determined majority always wins in any country

    The French referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was held on 29 May 2005 to decide whether France should ratify the proposed Constitution of the European Union. The result was a victory for the “No” campaign, with 55% of voters rejecting the treaty.

    A consultative referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was held in the Netherlands on 1 June 2005 to decide whether the government should ratify the proposed Constitution of the European Union. The result was a victory for the “No” campaign, with 61.6% of voters rejecting the treaty.

    The response of the Eurocrats:
    1. No more referenda
    2. Adopt the Treaty
    A determined majority does not win in the EU. If the EU players are losing the game, they change the rules. And if you can make the rules, why would you lose?

    If they go for a very obvious policy of spite in an attempt to punish disobedience they will then have to face their own people and explain why they did that.

    EU bobo’s are not elected and don’t have to explain anything.

    The smoking hole may be in the UK, maybe in Germany, maybe anywhere… except in the EU offices in Brussels. Moreover, a German recession would be great from the eurocrats’ perspective as long as they can blame it on the Brexit.

    EU Banks do not collapse. The euro is a political tool, first and foremost. Money second. The euro is not allowed to fail. Again: If the EU players are losing the game, they change the rules. And if you can make the rules, why would you lose?

    Remember this with regards to leaving the EU/euro:
    The Greeks lied about their financial situation; that’s how they got into the euro pact. When things went bad, they were bankrupt, needing bailout upon bailout. That will never be repaid. The EU was manifestly better off without Greece. But even Greece, lying and bankrupt as it was, was not allowed to leave; not allowed to leave the EU, not the euro.

    No precedent.
    Nobody leaves.

  108. GoWest

    This gnashing of teeth over the no brexit exit is the usual vested interest beat-up.

    See Matt Ridleys blog on the 8th of jan THE PROS AND CONS OF NO DEAL.

    Stop worrying, get the bureaucrats out of the way and let the country sort itself out, anyone would think the govt drives the economy!

  109. fred

    If the uk votered to exit the eu, why would anyone be negotiating with the eu at all. Just get out! Simples.

  110. Iampeter

    Globalists have essentially no response to the fundamental arguments of polyarchists (like the argument for subsidiarity in democracy).

    You mean aside from the argument that the Brexiters don’t have any political or economic ideas and focusing on just banning immigrants has crippled the movement, because immigration isn’t an issue?

    Also, “globalism” is the same kind of nonsense as “global warming”. Non-existent issues, design to justify leftist, rights violating, government policies.

  111. CountingCats

    Iampeter @ January 18, 2019 at 1:54 pm

    You mean aside from the argument that the Brexiters don’t have any political or economic ideas.

    You can make that argument all you wish, but you will be recognised by anyone who actually understands the arguments put as completely delusional.

    I’m sorry, but this is naught bar a repetition of the misrepresentation, smears and baseless propaganda which the sore losers have been spewing ever since they woke up to find themselves to be losers.

    If you can’t offer an argument which persuades, smear. Right?

    If you support the democracy loathing, unaccountable and eleutherophobic European Union, that is your choice, but please accept that your fantasies about those of us who don’t share your dislike of accountable government are worthy of nothing but derision.

  112. Iampeter

    You can make that argument all you wish, but you will be recognised by anyone who actually understands the arguments put as completely delusional.

    Then feel free to put an argument.

    If you can’t offer an argument which persuades, smear. Right?

    That’s what other cat posters here do, not me.

  113. dover_beach

    You do it all the time, Iampeter.

  114. Iampeter

    You do it all the time, Iampeter.

    You’re claiming this in a thread where I’ve made arguments and received nothing but smears in return NOT the other way around. In other words, you’re OBVIOUSLY wrong here, but you posted this anyway.

    This is why there’s no point discussing anything with you.
    Not only are you completely ignorant of everything but you are a proper imbecile.

  115. dover_beach

    You’re claiming this in a thread where I’ve made arguments and received nothing but smears in return NOT the other way around.

    No. You are again making stuff up. Here is your first comment:

    The reason they failed to negotiate any deals is because they don’t have any ideas in this area. Brexit isn’t about freer markets or more limited government, or economics.
    They aren’t against the welfare and regulatory state, they are just against immigrants.

    None of that is an argument, it is a bare assertion, that clearly indicates your complete ignorance of key Brexiters like Rees-Mogg. Further, Brexiters are not in charge of the negotiations, Remainers are, unfortunately.
    And then in your penultimate comment above you say:

    You mean aside from the argument that the Brexiters don’t have any political or economic ideas and focusing on just banning immigrants has crippled the movement,

    You simply repeat your earlier unjustified and ignorant smear re Brexiters.

    Your record of avoiding arguments and smearing opponents is manifest in this thread and other threads.

  116. Iampeter

    None of that is an argument, it is a bare assertion, that clearly indicates your complete ignorance of key Brexiters like Rees-Mogg.

    Even if that were true, it still wouldn’t constitute “if you can’t offer an argument which persuades, smear. Right?”
    Examples of that would be things like this or this or this.
    No arguments, just smears. Examples that morons like you have no issue with.
    But it’s not true anyway, do you know how I know? Because you idiots got immediately triggered.
    You know it’s right, don’t want to concede, have no arguments and so just smear.

    Then accuse me of doing exactly what your doing and proceed to argue the point when every bit of facts is against you and you KNOW you are wrong.

    Now I can’t wait for your next moronic response of as you continue to argue a point you’ve completely lost, but I’m going to let you have the last word because you are too retarded to discuss anything with and I’m not wasting anymore time with you in anymore threads.

  117. Fisky

    Why am I not surprised to learn that Iampeter supports the EU. What a joke the libertarian movement has become.

  118. 2dogs

    Brexiters don’t have any political or economic ideas

    Polyarchism has a tradition going back to at least 1555, and subsidiarity is so well founded it is in the EU constitution itself (not that the EU pays anything more than lip service).

    But in your echo chamber, you don’t hear of such things.

  119. Iampeter

    Fisk, you’re stated position on politics is “what people can grab at any given time, using whatever justification suits,” so on what grounds are you going to be opposing the EU?
    Is it because they aren’t as honest about being evil leftists as you are?

    Polyarchism has a tradition going back to at least 1555, and subsidiarity is so well founded it is in the EU constitution itself (not that the EU pays anything more than lip service).
    But in your echo chamber, you don’t hear of such things.

    I don’t remember the last time I had to do so much Googling to try and find the definition of a word, but from what I can tell polyarchism means some nonsense about government investing power in more than one person? Correct me if I’m wrong, since it doesn’t look like anyone outside my echo chamber has heard of this obscure term either.
    In any case, it looks like another attempt to create a political ideology not based on an understanding of the fundamentals of politics (individualism vs collectivism) but based on some non-essential, technicality of a governing body.

    Also, I’m not sure why you bring it up since Brexit is not poly-whatever, it is nationalist.
    Just good old fashioned, early 20th century, ugly collectivism and leftism.

  120. dover_beach

    Even if that were true

    It is true. Even in the paragraph you deny it you write:

    Examples that morons like you have no issue with.
    But it’s not true anyway, do you know how I know? Because you idiots

    You just can’t help yourself, which is typical of liberals such as yourself.

  121. Iampeter

    Dover, a sentence that you think is unsupported because you don’t understand the issue being discussed, is in no way “smearing because no argument”. Therefore you are wrong.
    The examples I provide, ARE examples of smearing with no arguments.
    You seem to have no problem with them. Therefore you are dishonest too.
    The fact that I even have to explain this is what demonstrates you are a moron/idiot/take your pick, on top of being dishonest.

    So, you are wrong. Obviously and easily proven so. But in typical cat, crank fashion, you’re going to keep arguing regardless.

    OK. Now you can have the last word.

    Dumbo.

  122. dover_beach

    No, Iampeter. I clearly understand the issues involved. If you think I don’t you need to demonstrate that I don’t rather then merely asserting so and expecting everyone reading to simply take your word for it. If you engage in a smearing manner you shouldn’t be surprised that many of your interlocutors do so in kind. Maybe you could reflect on the manner in which you pretend to argue your case on this and other threads if you want this to change but I doubt you will. You show no sign of critical self-reflection.
    I will happily, though, continue to demonstrate your errors in any thread on which you appear. It has been easy so far and will continue to be if the past is any guide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.