UKC

So here is one of the six unelected EU Presidents, Jean-Claude Juncker, wanting to restrict freedom of the Press -- especially UK press –– and lamenting that the Commission had not been allowed to 'intervene' in the 'pitiful' British vote. https://bit.ly/2O6kSHI

Such arrogance and contempt for free media. And people wonder why a majority voted to leave.

“If the commission intervened, perhaps the right questions would have entered the debate,” Juncker told a group of Austrian newspapers. “Now you discover new problems almost daily, on both sides. At that time, it was already clear to us what trials and tribulations this pitiful vote of the British would lead tor

Doubtless voices on here would love to silence the Mail and other papers they dislike or disagree with. 

Speaking personally I don't mind the political position or style of any serious paper as long as the vast majority of their stories are based on fact (and when proved not, they apologise correctly). The Fail, Excess and Scum all fail grandly in that respect. Maybe the Fail's new editor and the Excess new ownership will improve things, I hope so. I've known journalists who worked for some of those publications who tried their best in their work and I acknowledge not all their stories were b*llocks.

Are you referring to the idea of restricting the freedom of the press to print lies repeatedly and on such a scale as to unfairly bias the course of democratic decision making?

Why, of course it should be restricted, and indeed it is (albeit extremely poorly, allowing papers to get away with tiny retractions/apologies at the foot of page 12). That much should be obvious to anyone.

The quote above was Junker's response to Cameron's refusal to allow the EU to set out a case for remain, nothing to do with curbing press freedom. He did express annoyance at being reported as drunk when he had a medical condition. You probably knew all that though, since it was in the link. Are you trying to get a job writing for the express?

Have you even read the article?

In summary - the press shouldn't carry out personal attacks on people, especially by printing unsubstantiated rumours.

What right-thinking person has a problem with that?

...but Juncker IS an arrogant bell end though...

unlike our unelected monarch, prime minster, and two speakers

The censorious posters on UKC have an ideal home in an EU that would restrict the freedom of the media to scrutinise the private and public lives of unelected presidents and commissioners. Like the arrogant posters on here, Juncker is of the view that, if only the 'pitiful' British had been given the opportunity to hear the words of the EU masters, all would be well. Tell that to the Greeks who are the beneficiaries of an EU rescue package that has wracked up youth unemployment rates of 60 percent --- down today to 40 per cent --- with close to half a million leaving to find work elsewhere in EU ( no wonder the commission wants free movement, to disguise the harm its policies are doing and to force other countries to cope with the challenge). And this is an economic success. And who would we entrust to curb the freedom of the newspapers and the media? The EU commission or its appointees no doubt.  Perhaps supported by a self-righteous committee of UKC numpties? 

Possibly.  He is not, however, unelected.

So the majority of the news stories in all three of those newspapers are untrue. Can you back up this claim with evidence?  Or is it just and Arran style comment that the Mail repeatedly print lies -- let's have a good list from Arran over the last five days and see how the number of lies compares to the number of 'true' stories -- and who would be the arbiter. The reality is, you guys don't like the the politics of these papers -- look at the ugly words you use to describe them.....language they would never get away with....bunch of whingeing hypocrites who couldn't back up there false claims with evidence. 

I don't even bother reading your posts now, I just give them an arbitrary dislike.

Christ on a bike, do you have a life? Or have you dedicated it to becoming a parody of an anti-everything Little Englander who only has one volume and only has one viewpoint?

How is it in the Larry GRU?

He sounds like Radio Tirana back in the 70s, oh those long lost days of all those Cold war stations

The bio linked to your articles on UKC says you were (are?) employed by a newspaper. Do you think that experience has shaped your views on this? It's just that not so many people seem willing to defend the factual veracity of the Express - one of their frozen winter stories, always quoting the same forecasting company that has been fisked a number of times, was being discussed here recently for example. But perhaps journalists and editors inside the industry do see where papers do strive to report "the facts" that us consumers miss?

Other than the fact I agree that  'pitiful' was a very unwise word to use (would be interesting to know if the word - presumably not English - he used is capable of another translation) I don't think the piece  supports your claims, John.

On EU intervention in the referendum he merely seems to be saying that he wishes the EU had been allowed to make its own case for Remain. I think there is a general acceptance that Cameron and Osborn did not do it very well so he is probably entitled to be miffed at being restricted to the role of helpless spectator when, as he points out,  the damage of the UK leaving is not restricted to the UK alone but will also affect, albeit to a much lesser extent, the other EU27. They did have a very real  stake in outcome of the vote

As for privacy laws, you know perfectly well that other European countries have different privacy laws (eg those that meant Mitterand's long-term mistress was never reported on in France), Again it is reasonable for him to make a case for it. He does not seem to be seeking his own powers to enforce it.

You’ve got some kind of persecution complex haven’t you old boy. Pity Dacre’s been sacked, you’d be a shoe-in at the Daily Hate-Mail.

Theresa May not elected. More lies. 

Why bother at all rude boy?

A full and enjoyable one. So kind of you to ask. Until I ventured on this good natured site I hadn’t realised Christ was such a keen cyclist. X

Don’t believe everything you read on the net! Left daily journalism a long time back. But thanks for looking. Good research. My experience does however make me smile at the ill informed commentary and unsubstantiated allegations made published on this site that would never get by a need desk, let alone seen in print or on air. 

What a lot of bollocks.  The UK has many similar roles, we just don't use the word 'President'. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_institutions_of_the...

'President of the Court of Justice'  - in the UK do we elect Supreme Court judges directly?

'President of the European Central Bank'  - do we elect the Governor of the Bank of England?

'President of the European Court of Auditors' - (not a court, an audit agency) do we elect accountants?

'President of the European Parliament' - do UK voters elect the speaker of the House of Commons?

That’ll be the same mail that campaigned to free a Muslim wrongly imprisoned in Guantanamo, who risked the wrath of the courts by naming the killers of Stephen Lawrence, that published a front page with the headline ‘the model British family’ and it was a Hindi family.. talk about prejudice. Much more of it on here than in The Daily Mail. 

Not as PM, no. 

Well it's arguable  that she was not elected PM.  She got to No 10 without facing the voters (as did Brown before her of course) and  was rejected by the electorate at the polls  (as was Brown) at the first chance they got.  The result of that  election was None of the Above. She stayed in office - can't really say 'power' can we? - only thanks to a massive bribe to the DUP, not thanks to the voters

Clutching at straws. She is directly elected. Junckers is not. She even went to the country to assure her legitimacy. And there’s a big assumption here that I favour unelected officials in the UK. I’m a republican not a Monarchist; am not in favour of an unelected second chamber. Believe however Gordon Brown was right to give Bank of Engkand Governor independence but wrong to split the regulatory function to a new body, the FSA. The EU is deeply undemocratic. It’s an old boys network. Listing unelected officials in the UK to be undermine a critique of them

in the EU is strange. Do I assume Tom or Dick in Jockand who favours an unelected EU President is happy with an unelected UK Monsrch. I favour neither. Come on Tom..

As they do with other UKCers who dare to disagree with their left of centre ideology.

Tom you make an assumption that I think these unelected roles are good in the UK and bad in the EU. I do not. Two wrongs do not make a right. I am not a Monarchist. But if you think an unelected President with more direct political power than the Queen is a good, I presume you have no objections to the Monarchy. The second more serious point and one for OMG is that all the positions you cite are essential ingredients of a state. The EU wants to be a super state. Thats a goal many favour. I do not. But don’t pretend as many do that the EU is some NATO or IMF type organisation. It is a political entity with the sole purpose of ever closer union. The ‘pitiful’ UK vote was a clear sign that a majority would like their country back. Suck it up. 

Nor is the head of the UK civil service. You're arguing apples and oranges. The EU has an elected assembly , like our parliament, and an executive assembly , like our civil service.

Yes your vote is diluted, but do you really think there is something unique among your beliefs and desires not echoed by our European compatriots? We all want trade, jobs, good health, low crime. Ideally with less beaurocracy, but any sensible person will see that if 28 countries had their own institutions instead of EU ones we would all be paying far more for beaurocracy.

Yes the 70s had less regulations, but that doesn't mean 28 countries wouldn't have invented them anyway and even more convoluted and incompatible forms.

Can you name one personal desire which you feel is possible under an non-EU UK government (red or blue) that is impossible while in the EU.  Must be something you personally want, don't trot out bent bananas or a trade deal with Australia (unless you personally need something currently embargoed or taxed unfunfairly).

No, just basic knowledge of our constitution. No PM is elected. You clearly have no general objection to leaders not being directly elected. Why not just accept its foreigners you have a problem with. At least it would be honest. 

It's a win win for me. I get to register disapproval of your angry, bizarre and blinkered posts without wasting time and energy on actually reading them.

I've got to the point where I simply can't help screaming obscenities at the brexiteer f***wits on the telly - the whole business so angers and disgusts me.

I'm actually hoping for no deal (or a deal that gets rejected by the commons), because, however utterly stupid this country has been to get to this point, surely there would have to be enough collective sanity still around to pull back from the cliff edge by grovelling to the EU for an extension - I think it is the only hope for an outbreak of sanity, a deep breath, an eventual second referendum and staying in. And if, having stared down the barrel of the gun, we are still insane enough to pull the trigger, I'm beginning to think it will be time to abandon ship and vote for Scottish independence and a return to the EU.

Oh yes. Forgot, I hate foreigners. That’ll be it. Forgive me. Funny how, when you run out of feeble reasons to stay in the EU, you and your fellow travellers resort to the racist slur.  My favourite European city is London because it is so magnificently polyglot and diverse. Edinburgh? Glasgow? Atavistic, monocultures increasingly looking to a nationalistic distortion of the past to map its future. SNP European. Bollocks. Just a ruse to break the Union. 

Turn your TV off then. Better for your health Bobby. Also stay  away from the guns and take it easy on the metaphors. They can be addictive if not used in moderation. 

A lot of words typed but no discernable positives yet for leaving the EU. Do you have any? Are they secret? 

You're probably right.

And don't call me Bobby.

Top bloke is Jean-Claude!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/12/why-good-europeans-de...

Well Unilever’s shareholders beg to differ. Only a few days ago folks on here were citing its bosses’ decision to quit London for Rotterdam as a consequence of Brexit. Its shareholders voted this week to remain in London. All the worst forecasts the remainers believed in have turned to be hollow. But a return to self government is s bloody good start. 

I thought you were in favour of self determination and against unions?

Oh God. I don’t read the papers any more. But that is utterly depressing on so many counts. And he’s the EU’s top dog? No wonder the left don’t bloody like it. How do Arran and Co justify this. As the author says, he should have been barred from office. It’s worse than a gravy train. Sick. 

Oh dear.   Sorry but Unilevers decision had nothing to do with Brexit, as has been pointed out in news.

I guess it all boils down to what you think the fundamental units of interaction / organisation are.

I think our future lies in ever larger agglomerations of people and this is why  I voted to stay in the Union*, to stay in the EU and why my Futurama style disembodied head will vote for a world government and a united federation of planets.

Do you think the nation state is the best we can do?

*I got that one wrong.

Even his one attempt at a positive (which actually is something that would have been the case even had the vote been to Remain) turns out to be unrelated.

Any other positives you're looking forward to John? Or do they all, like those of prominent Brexiters, involve personal wealth or political advancement at the expense of almost everyone else in the UK?

Read the post. It was cited here as Brexit impact when it looked like they would leave. You prove my point by then saying it has nothing to do with Brexit when they stay. The indisputable fact is that despite all the poisonous negativity of the remainders a major multinational is remaining in the UK. You cannot contest that. Or can you!! 

See my reply to Bell End. The point is major multinational stays in UK despite remainer hysteria about cliff edges. Get with the programme Johnny Boy. 

Are you the same Dave Kerr who has stopped replying to my posts? Or his long lost twin brother? 

Sorry missed that... Link to thread?  

Please leave out the insult. 

I was under the impression the unilever board were keen for an eu hq. However the shareholders, small private shareholders grouping together and insurance companies etc wanted unilever to remain a London and ftse registered company. The board in effect work for the shareholders. 

The point you seem determined to miss is that this (rare example of apparent confidence in a post-Brexit economic environment) would have happened equally after a Remain vote. It isn't really a brexit benefit, is it? Be honest.

How about providing a Brexit benefit for us all to look forward to? Just one would be a good start, something to begin to counter all of the well forecast and predicted drawbacks.

It already had one. It is an anglo dutch company. The decision was about the structure of the company and protecting itself from hostile takeovers. But it would then have had a knock on effect as it would have had to leave the ft index... Impacting it. 

Not much of a reaction from the empty-shelvers on that article so far.
Give em time

Ha. Empty-shelvers. You remembered? 

Agree. The decision is complex. With recent mess over failed merger with Kraft. Not helped by UK government. I’m simply saying  that the decision confounds the gloomier prognostications of the remainers. Nothing more. 

It is not rare. My point is you and your loony mates seem to think the world is going to end in March. Unilever’s decision flatly contradicts that. Had it been the other way you and your gobby mates would have been screaming Brexit. Go on. Admit it. 

No direct election. Stop dissembling. 

Unilever's decision doesn't "flatly contradict" anything of the sort. Apart from being a notable exception to the emerging trend of companies expressing serious concerns over their post-Brexit future in the UK, it's already been pointed out in this very thread that Unilever's decision wasn't even anything to do with Brexit.

And to add to that, Unilever are now going to do exactly the same thing post-Brexit as they would have been doing post-Remain.

I'm still waiting for that elusive Brexit benefit that justifies your being so keen on the idea; care to share it with us?

Where's Jockand?

You do realise that Juncker is the president of the Commission don't you? He's not the president of the EU. He is the head of the Union's executive body, although unlike the head of the UK civil service, the commissioners are proposed by the Council of Ministers (all elected officials in the member states) and then approved by vote in the European Parliament (again, all elected members). 

The ‘neutral’ FT first reported the board decision as a blow to the PM on Brexit and that board was hostile to Brexit. It could be seen as a massive vote of confidence in UK.  But not on this site!! 

You don't hate only foreigners, it seems you also hate the Scots for wanting to separate from your precious union (hypocritical much ?). At least, it's nice, you are not discriminating when you dish out your hatred, everybody gets his share. 

I just stopped reading them, I don't need to read them to reply to them because your posts are entirely predictable.

Can I just add that there is a history of having members of the house of lords as ministers in our government and even in cabinet. There is at least one now. None of our government is directly elected.

Making the point that he is unelected isn't clever, it undermines the legitimacy of your point, not the EU.

Please read the thread. I am not in favour of unelected political roles - whether UK or the EU. Two wrongs do not make a right. 

That's right Rom, I'm an equal opportunity bigot/racist/xenophobe.  But if you've read my comments on Jockland, you will see I am entirely in favour of them seceding -- they just need to muster the votes of enough of their kinfolk to win a referendum. When given the opportunity they bottle it. Scots nationalism is nasty, atavistic and backward looking. Where is there a city in Scotland that compares to London for its diversity and energy. Nowhere. Nowhere like it indeed in the EU. London is the sixth largest French city. So you are dead wrong. I do not hate the Jocks for wanting to become independent. But they have yet to pluck up the  bottle to give up on two things -- having England as a barbarian and the gate; and having English taxpayers as a subsiding tit to suck on. Or it might just be that there is a majority of sensible Socttish people who realise the SNP are leading them backwards to some English hating enclave....

So you would be in favour of a having an elected head of state in the UK then ?

Have any of those companies that are 'expressing concerns' left? Airbus has not left. JLR has not left. You clearly don't think the return of self government is important. 17 million of your fellow countryman and women do. I would have thought that an open minded and fair person such as yourself, who is capable of seeing the other point of view (you can see the huge tongue in my cheek from the Ariege cant you?) would at least have begun to doubt the evidence base against leave. There has been no recession; inward investment is at record levels; UK manufacturing is growing -- all despite being told the world was about to end. UK could be both a more prosperous and generous place outside the EU than inside --- Spanish youth and Greek youth have paid a very heavy price for being in the EU; the rise of the far right in the EU is alarming - the result of a project that is doomed to failure. Perhaps that is the biggest benefit, get off the burning deck before the ship goes down.

I don't claim to be clever. I just don't like powerful, unelected officials anywhere talking about limiting the freedom of the press to delve deep into the conduct of politicians. Most people here seem to have a touching faith in the honest and integrity of our leaders. I do not. I'm with Tony Benn on this. The power to kick the bastards out of office is a very powerful tool: we have pretty much surrendered that in terms of the EU. Read the Guardian story an earlier poster sent a link to, and tell me JCJ is just like a uk civil servant -- its bollocks. And you Eu-Philes are being dishonest to pretend they are one and the same. 

A good post and thanks. The press in France is pretty supine. My point, missed maybe because of how I express it, is that I don't even trust elected politicians, and certainly not unelected ones. When a powerful unelected President suggest freedom of the press should be limited -- that's the point where we say that for all its many faults, the UK press is good at holding our 'representatives' to account. The EU is a nascent state. As you rightly say it has a different view on media control than we do. I believe we should make our own laws, own regulations. As I says elsewhere I am with Tony Benn on this; it is important to retain the power of the people to boot these bastards out. We are losing that -- if not already have lost -- that with the EU. And for me, that loss  of freedom is too high a price to pay. Its interesting that many of those who are most pro EU on this site are not residents in the UK.

She went to the country to establish her democratic credibility (not that it worked as you say, but that is the point). She was not rejected. She got more votes than Blair in his landslide and was able to form a minority government. If you think that is the same as JPJ then you live in la la land.  

I am not about to re-write the UK constitution on UKC.  But if we were to have a ceremonial head of state, I would much prefer that he or she was elected by the people. I find the sycophancy, power and patronage of the Monarchy deeply disturbing. But then I find the same with celebrity. 

There's more hate on here in a month that a year in the Daily Mail.

Lets agree to disagree in comparative politics -- the Commission and the EU is a very different beast to Civil Service and House of Commons. But one thing we agree on -- the EU is a nascent, or even fast growing State. It's core leadership want a United States of Europe. We joined a Common Market. Not a Common Country. That is was getting our country back means guys. And that doesn't mean turning the clock back to some rose-tinted time that never happened, it means looking to the future with optimism, hope and a generosity of spirit dismally lacking on this s(h)ite.

I am bone head. Would love Jockland to be independent -- SNP just cant gerrymander the votes to make it happen. 

Well you must be a liar as your response clearly indicates you read the post. You cant make a statement the says  'I don't read or respond to your posts', and then respond to a post you have just clearly read. More of the nasty hypocrisy that is so characteristic of the posters on this thread. Not one of you has replied to my request for evidence of sustained and repeated lies in the news titles you can't even bring yourselves to name. I have often felt there is fascistic tendency to the ultra-europhile middle classes: utterly intolerant and disrespectful of the views of the 17 million stupid people who had the temerity to think differently to themselves. Better to cut them off from the newspapers they chose to read by restricting what they can and and cant say. If this site is a guide, we would be living a hate filled, hostile country with central control of the media. Ugh

You don't half regurgitate some rot, John.

I know it won't have escaped your notice, being a bright chap and all, but we haven't actually left the EU yet and there's a growing chance that the People will be given the choice to decide not to go through with it, now that the harsh reality is becoming ever more apparent. In such a situation, it's hardly surprising that companies aren't going to commit to the enormous upheaval of relocating. As for self-government, you know full well the UK is fully self-governing right now. Yes, there are agreements that it will align its laws in harmony with other EU countries, but these are agreements entered into voluntarily in order to benefit from closer ties, not unlike (but no doubt better than) the kind of agreements it would inevitably need to reach with the US and other countries, were it to find itself desperate for friends next year. And yes, you can cherry pick a few statistics to mislead the gullible into thinking all in the UK is becoming rosy, but deep down you know it's a lie, albeit a useful one if you have personal interest in benefitting from Brexit.

Which reminds me, you still haven't answered my repeated questions yet: What's in it for you personally, John? And how about listing a very short list of one Brexit benefit that even starts to go some way to justify the national bullethole in the foot.

I am no nationalist, but that is generally entirely untrue. The SNP position is of an outward looking, modern progressive country within Europe, an ideal I can certainly buy into now that it looks like the UK is heading, with Brexit and it's divisive politics, in the opposite direction. 

Yes, there certainly is a nasty, inward looking, anti-English element minority which reared its ugly head during the independence referendum and which the mainstream should do more to distance itself from, and which, among other things makes me uneasy about Scottish independence. Just as there was a key, nasty xenophobic side to the leave side in the EU referendum, which really does, I think, threaten the future of the UK.

Just for information, to counter the implication that press regulation is working well and there's really nothing at all to be gained by imposing further disincentives to print lies:

https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/statistics-show-that-da...

As an Englishman in Glasgow for almost 30 years that's not the nationalism I encounter. 

You make some good points about remain voting London though. 

Mail. 37 breaches on accuracy. 37 in a year. Just look back at what you claimed. To ‘print lies repeatedly and such a scale as to unfairly bias the course of democratic decision making.’ 37 breaches. Less than one a week. How is that such a scale to threaten democracy. Bull. Shit. 

Is that it? That's your argument, that a relatively small number of something can't produce a significant effect, no matter how influential those small number of exceptions might be?

You really are cleverer than that, John, so why pretend to be stupid? What's in this whole Brexit thing for you personally?

Just look at the way nasty nationalism is poisoning the minds of young people in Scotland. Brexit politics are not divisive. The referendum has exposed divisions that were already there. I disagree on English nationalism. It has never been a force. Never will be. Scotland, my friend, risks being very insular. Ethnic minority population in Edinburgh 8% max. Largest minority group in Scotland is Asian and is 3%. Less than 150,000 people. Doesn't sound outward looking to me. Only one SNP candidate was BME. Only two attending an English University. I rather agree with Claire Huechan writing in our beloved Guardian of the Scottish referendum campaign.... echoing my point about the contradiction in SNP nationalist politics over EU..

"The relentlessness of nationalists’ need to distance Scotland from the rest of the UK on the grounds that we were not like them filled me with anything but hope. The message of difference, that it must lead to separation, forced me to question how people of colour and migrants fitted into their idea of Scottish society at a time when purism governed understanding of Scottish identity and belonging. Scottish nationalism in its present state rests on a fundamental contradiction: seeking separation from the United Kingdom, and unity within the European Union.

Bradford, my city, is 40% minority, with 20% Asian (as if my wife) and close to 10% black...Leeds 

So of the less than 40 breaches in the year which of them had a discernible and evidential effect on our democracy. You are full of bluster and claim but cant even accept that this is --- to quote your beloved President --- a 'pitiful' number. 

How many breaches go moment by moment undetected and uncorrected in the world wide web... you are looking in the wrong place and the wrong problem. As ever. 

I'll leave the DM reading to you, John.

Would be nice if you could answer my questions though. What's in Brexit for you personally? And what actual benefits are ordinary people going to see in their lives and livelihoods as a result?

A friend of mine, very wealthy, who spends most of his time giving his money away to what he considers good causes, was once asked by a fellow Yorkshireman, the late Ken Morrison, 'what's in it for you Paul.' There was nothing in it for Paul. Like there is nothing in this for me. I just don't think you guys should get away with your scaremongering, hatred and abuse. It's what Sam Beckett called one of his short stories 'More pricks than kicks' but I feel someone should prick and puncture the pompous arrogance of people like yourself who can't even admit that less than 40 accuracy issues does not reflect systemic inaccuracy in the press as you claim (and as for affecting democracy -- how many of those 40 had anything to do with politics. Do you know?) I am not clever. But I am determined to challenge assumptions and prejudices on this site, even if it results in unfounded accusations of being a racist. Nothing in it for me. Much easier to butt out and go to the crag -- which is what I am about to do. See you x

You really do spout garbage. What on earth has the proportion of minorities in Scotland, London or anywhere got to do with how outward looking a place is?

You keep ignoring my response to this. Just look back at the thread. What others see as significant benefits, you regard as trivial. 

You actually have a point here. The problem is not so much lies as the insidious poisoning of readers with obnoxious opinion.

I am glad that that is the case for you. Your point on London is a good one. More like 60/40 split there. I would like to think that post-negotiations we develop a migration policy that works in all our interests and that London remains (forgive the pun) the vibrant and dynamic city that it currently is. I would also like to think that we can do something to deal with the intense pockets of poverty in certain districts of the city which are shaming for a capital city. I am not in favour of raising the drawbridge; I just think that certain strategically important decisions should be made at the level of the nation state, where democratic accountability, flawed as it is, has some chance of making an impact on policy. 

No scaremongering, hatred or abuse from me, sorry. I'll leave those to you and others.

I know you really would like people to believe you when you make claims like DM lies have no effect on public opinion or voting outcomes, or that you've actually elucidated any Brexit benefits for ordinary people, but you of all people will know that wordcount is no substitute for meaningful content.

So please. Make good your allegation that there is systemic inaccuracy -- not proven by your figures -- and, more important, demonstrate where it has had a negative impact on the democratic process. You wont, because you can't. 

Your posts are full of gloom and doom. You often mock the leave voter for either her stupidity or gullibility. But true, to me at least, you are rarely abusive. My pricks about the Jocks are just that --poking fun at nationalists who haven't the voter numbers to get what they want....and the contradiction that the want to keep their national identity but don't back the UK majority in wanting to keep theirs (the latter is a big positive by the way). 

To repeat -- show evidence of systemic inaccuracy --- sub 40 a year is not systemic; and show how it has subverted democracy. Better Dacre than JCJ. 

As you well know, the influence papers such as the DM have is more down to the partial reporting of facts and one-sided impressions presented to readers. The outright lies are bad, of course, but don't tell the whole story. I have no doubt that all papers exhibit some editorial bias, although most don't feel the need to include outright lies, as often as they can get away with, to reinforce the propaganda.

Your attempt to pass the buck of responsibility would suggest that, either you believe the DM hasn't systematically presented a misleading view to its readers over many years (which would be Fox News level of intellectual integrity) or you recognise that it has but want to portray something different to others (in which case I might reserve the right to be abusive after all.) The fact that Wikipedia last year stopped regarding the DM as a reliable reference should tell most people what they need to know.

In any case, didn't you say you were off climbing a couple of hours ago? You weren't lying about that, were you?

Unless there is an extraordinary crisis that completely stops their business why would they move out of the UK all at once?   That would be a difficult, costly and disruptive thing to do.   The way this will happen is that when they are thinking about where to produce new models a site on the continent will win.  When they need to make cuts the UK will be cut first.   Over a period of years their UK presence will shrink.

There is nothing contradictory about that at all.   The choice is not between 'united' and 'separate' it is about finding the optimal level of integration.    The EU has a better offering for Scotland than the UK.  It provides a much larger market, it seeks to control far fewer aspects of member states, it has far more modern and far less centralised governance and it recognises that member states can choose to leave.

Well, if we get a second referendum let me suggest that Leave campaign on stopping immigration from the EU so that we can build a country with the same ethnic breakdown as Bradford.    It's another area where, because Leave was not forced to specify what Brexit would mean beyond leaving the EU, it was able to make diametrically opposite promises to different groups.

A better offering? Is that what this is about? A bigger tit to suck on? Depressing. But good luck with it. Scotland has generations to go before it becomes as entrepreneurial, dynamic and open as its neighbour. Does the EU even want Scotland. I suppose they could come in when Albania join. 

Obviously not.   If we were looking for the biggest tits we would stick with the present Tory government.

Or grow. Truth is, you’re just putting a finger in the air. You don’t know. So why pretend decline is inevitable. Because it suits your political purposes. 

Ouch. I’m at Shipley Glen. So, you withdraw your calumny against the Mail,  and replace it with one riddled with caveats. Truth is, you have no evidence to support what are your own biases and prejudices about the tabloid press. No comments on what a tax dodging shyster JPJ is. To its credit the Mail has been vociferous in attacking Amazons tax evasion. Unlikely they will win when El Presidente has created a bomb proof tax haven for them. No wonder Junckers wants to limit the powers of the press. Take the blinkers off Johnny. 

Haha. Wikipedia cited as a reliable source on politics!! What are you inhaling. The toxic fumes coming out of your bottom? Come on John. Wiki is authoritative? Nature suggests  80% accuracy. Well below the DM figure. Way, way way below. Try harder. 

Nice try John, but grow up. Nobody suggested Wikipedia was a reliable source of info, political or otherwise. You know that. You chose to deliberately misinterpret it for a schoolboy-level attempt at point-scoring. You used to be better than that.

If you think about it for a microsecond rather than trying to score kneejerk points: That even an organisation with such a poor record of information accuracy would not stoop so low as to consider DM references worth having, is indeed a truly damning indictment of the paper's well-earned reputation for dishonest reporting.

Read what I said. Point is that when board was talking of moving, the remainers including FT linked it to Brexit. So it’s fair to point to the fact that a major mumtinational’s sharehokders have outvoted the board’s preferred option and the company is staying in the UK. You guys would have been rubbing you hands in glee if it had gone the other way and no bloody compunction about linking it to the B word. So B Off. X

You cited Wiki in the case of the DM not me. My you’re slippery. Ever thought of politics? 

That's a pretty disingenuous response, even for you.

For years Unilever’s shareholding structure has been complicated and there have been varioos tries to resolve it..it was an attempt to do that which went wrong because shareholders objected.nothing to do with either remain or brexit.

Less than 40 a year. Maybe half of those political. 20 a year. Admit that isn’t the repeated sowing of lies that you claimed. And my point was simply that the evidence, based on Nature’s survey, is an accuracy rate of 80%. Lower than the Mail’s. 

Yes, sure it was.

John, I don't think anyone on this site would judge me to be a nationalist. But that description is, in general,  simply wrong.

There are nasty atavistic and backward looking nationalists but they are a small minority. 

That's what you don't get. EU membership doesn't prevent the UK from keeping its national identity. Frankly, after 40 years of EU membership, it doesn't seem to me that national identity has been eroded at all.

I don’t recall me getting a say!  

Did you vote for your MEP?

Erm probs cos no one asked the people until  40 years, brick brain. If we all thought we were EU citizens 17 million wouldn’t have said eff off so loudly. The problem is you don’t get it. 

Don’t read the post then. 

You mean opinion you don’t agree with? 

I wasn’t judging you. 

I am not judging you either but I think you are wrong in your dismissal of Scottish nationalists. Equally I think others are wrong in their dismissal of leave voters.

In both cases  there are rational and reasonable, but in my view mistaken reasons to vote that way. 

The problem is 16 million (and rising) do see themselves as EU citizens, and none of your charm offensive seems to be effective in persuading them that your brexit is worth the pain it will cause.

Let me get this straight, you started a thread with a complete fabrication (EU president wants to restrict freedom of the press") in order to paint a scary picture of the EU and remainers are accused of project fear?

The strange thing about all this is that I started this process with a fairly luke warm attitude to the EU. Like any organisation there's lots to criticise but if, after three years, even intelligent Brexiters can only come up with obvious bullshit like this to depict a bleak picture of it, I wonder if I was doing it a disservice.

There is no contradiction between identifying as an EU citizen and as a British citizen.

The same way it's possible to identify as both Scottish and British.

An in any case there is no obligation for anyone to identify as European either. Again the same way that some Scots dont identify as British.

And that's all fine by me, anybody should be free to identify as what they want.

You should f*ck off and leave people alone. If you don't feel part of the European family of nation, fine, be my guest, just don't, just leave others who do alone, and we'll leave you alone. 

Besides, you haven't even adressed the point. There is no evidence whatsoever that British national identity has been eroded in any way by EU membership. British culture is everywhere you look and widely exported, including in the EU.

Well for a start I have never heard a Scottish nationalist arguing that we should stop freedom of movement within the UK to stop the evil English coming in.

however when it comes to brexiteers stopping evil Europeans from coming it seems to be a rather high priority, and it looks like they are getting what they want.

I think there is a fundamental difference between both movements.

I think you missed the point of my post!

Where did your use of the word 'evil' come from? 

(As you raised it I think there are fundamental similarities between brexit and nationalism. The drivers are the same, get away from the controlling 'other'  make our own decisions, make things fairer, get wealthier.) 

There are clear differences between a time limited president, even one with executive powers who is nominated by our heads of government then directly elected by the parliamentarians we ourselves elect to act on our behalf and a hereditary monarch in power for life.

jk

I just think it'll get worse. We will lose freedoms and opportunities we have today , gradually at first but the effect will compound over time. And all that in exchange for nothing of any value.

Sell me your brexit John. What do we get that is worth what it's costing? Now convince me we'll be getting anything like that version, not Rees-Mogg's or Gove's or May's version, not Farage's nasty little England, not a rancorous disunited-kingdom spiralling apart in slow motion as NI looks increasingly to it's open European neighbour and Scotland looks to return to to a union that works for it over one that has failed it.

jk

Ah.  Is Philip Davies your MP by any chance? 

I'm not dissembling, I'm merely pointing out that you are wrong. 

There's more than one form of democracy, and none of them is perfect.  We have a representative democracy in which we elect a named person, almost always a member of a party standing on a manifesto, and we entrust them to best represent our interests.  The EU is also a democratic organisation, and the President of the European Commission is no more unelected than our Prime Minister or cabinet ministers are.

I know you don't trust Wikipedia but have read through this and then see how 'unelected Jean-Claude Juncker is.

"Jean-Claude Juncker (Luxembourgish: [????klo?t ?ju?k?]; born 9 December 1954) is a Luxembourgish politician serving as President of the European Commission since 2014. From 1995 to 2013 he served as the 23rd Prime Minister of Luxembourg; from 1989 to 2009 he was also Minister for Finances.

By the time he left office, he was the longest-serving head of any national government in the EU, and one of the longest-serving democratically elected leaders in the world, his tenure encompassing the height of the European financial and sovereign debt crisis.[1]From 2005 to 2013, Juncker served as the first permanent President of the Eurogroup.

In 2014, the European People's Party (EPP) had Juncker as its lead candidate, or Spitzenkandidat, for the Presidency of the Commission in the 2014 elections. This marked the first time that the Spitzenkandidat process was employed.[2] Juncker is the first President that prior to the election has campaigned as a candidate for the position, a process introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon. The EPP won 220 out of 751 seats in the Parliament. On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker for the position,[3][4][5] and on 15 July 2014, the European Parliament elected him with a majority of 422 votes from a total of 729 cast.

Maybe you'd like to have a presidential system were we directly elected our Prime Minister, but we don't.  We also don't elect our judges and fire chiefs.

You are right there are similarities. But there are also differences. I might not care that much about brexit if it was only about breaking away politically from the EU (even though I think it's a betrayal of the geopolitical and economic interests of the continent).

But it seems to me (and the evidence supports that) that it is driven mostly by an identitarian (europhobic ?) claim and a rejection of freedom of movement.

I'm a bit warmer to Scottish nationalism in that sense as it seems to be more based on a civic sense of nationalism, and not about keeping foreigners out. Although I'm not really convinced especially given that there is a significant minority for which, indeed it is about a narrow sense of Scottish identity. This minority wasn't really voiced during indyrel but seem to have been emboldened by the brexit vote. (In fact those will usually be in favour of brexit AND Scottish independence). In the light of that I do not support Scottish independence any longer.

Many of my friends who live in Scotland are English, and I am appalled by the idea that they would be left feeling the same way that EU citizens are feeling in the UK right now. I was mildly supportive of the original indyref, but given the rate at which the identitarian section of the Scottish nationalist movement is growing, not in my name.

We are more or less in the same space. What bothers me is that if there is a second referendum on the EU (and I swither on the rights and wrongs of that), is that the amount of insult that has been heaped on leave voters will have hardened positions and make persuasion impossible. It is quite possible to have voted leave without being a xenephobe or being stupid. Many 'remainers' don't seem to appreciate that.

A bit of perspective on Juncker and democracy. Luxembourg is hardly a hot bed of democratic and political activity which affects mainstream politics. Its a small town with a bit of land around it with oddles of money.

What makes you think this, Rom? Where are you seeing it?

I can't say it's something I've noticed at all.

My experience is that a large number of moderate, mostly pro-EU people have shifted or are thinking about shifting from being against independence to supporting it, as long as it's 'Yes' to an independent Scotland in, or seeking to rejoin, the EU - but that another large number of anti-EU people have shifted from supporting Scottish independence (and often the SNP) to supporting staying in a Brexiting UK (and sometimes voting Tory, or Labour, as the parties in Scotland which support that).

I don't know how it balances up, but I know the SNP's pro-EU stance has cost it significant support amongst the group you're talking about (and gained some from "the centre ground"). I can't say I'm sad about that positioning.

Hahahahahahahaha.

I’m sorry you feel that way Rom, but I also sympathise. While the primordial anti English nationalists (Scottish gammons if you prefer) may be more vocal (there were a few out in Edinburgh on Saturday, but then there would be), they are still a tiny minority, in the same way that not all brexit voters wear Free Tommy Robinson T-shirts. Independence and nationalism are linked but far from absolutely, a Venn diagram would have a small overlap. What about English (and other non-Scots) Yes voters? The most rabid pro independence campaigners I know are mostly English and identify as such, irrespective of them having made their homes here.

You are correct about identity politics though. In the indyref, I voted Yes for a variety of reasons but identity wasn’t one of them. Post brexit vote, identity has become very important as I want the rest of the world to see me and this country as distinct from Britain. Please note, I said Britain not England. 

That said, I’d happily forget about it and get on with my pretty good life if brexit was junked. 

The point of a ratification referendum from the public's perspective is to deliver (or withhold) informed consent for (practically) irrevocable constitutional change. Importantly it also pulls parliament out of the hole it stumbled (or was pushed) into in the aftermath of the brexit referendum, the 'will of the people rhetoric' they rushed to in shock at the result has tied their hands taking essential options off the table, preventing them from acting in an organised way in the national interest. If we give informed consent and leave, that's fine, that is a democracy working out its issues. It isn't what I want but nor does it strip me personally of all options. I could continue to work toward a Britain I want to call home or more likely vote with my feet for a fresh start.

I don't think it much matters if some voters hold others in disdain, that's life, there's nothing much can be done about it and let's not pretend it's a one way street. Opinions will no doubt have been hardened by the last two years in both groups but there are too those at the intersection who voted each way for very specific reasons, people who may in light of where the chaotic negotiation process has taken us have revised their opinion. Votes are always decided by these few, that others around them have polarised further does not mean we cannot make the choice, ultimately someone has to, parliament can't and I'd argue for an informed choice over an uninformed one every time.

jk

Nah. You’re just a sour loser. If remain had won by the same narrow margin it would have been end of the story. 

That's not what your mate Farage said.

I agree. But there won't be a second EU referendum. I can guarantee you that.

I am not saying it's not possible to vote leave without being a xenophobe, but it's not really possible to have voted leave without considering FoM between European as unimportant, or at least as an acceptable collateral damage.

English Nats could never muster  a political party. There you it. No one complained when Blair, Brown and Cook we’re dragging the country into America’s gulf wars that they were all bloody Scots. Labours problem was it treated Scotland like a one party state. 

Try being factually correct sometimes https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/17/labour.uk

On what grounds can you guarantee it?

Lots of people complained, me for one.

However that’s by the by. You aren’t worth responding to. You use the terms Scots and Jocks in the same way many use the word Paki. F*ck off.

For me yes it would have been settled had we picked a known no-change future on the basis of a reasonably honest campaign.

For Nigel '52:48 is unfinished business' Farage not so much.

I'm quite sure had the tables been turned we would today be doing a little better economically and still ignoring the festering austerity issues brexit doesn't solve. I'm sure you'd also still be here charming us all with a subtly different line in paranoid belligerence.

jk

I’m sure. But not sure about what. 

Having seen this mess, no politician would be that stupid. But then again? 

I can't help feeling that rather sums up the entire approach of the Leave campaign and its supporters. 

Yep, you sound like you have a complaint. You need to adjust your intolerance threshold. En Ecosse? Och Aye. 

What does your brexit vision deliver that makes it worth the cost and the risk John? Sell me a nett positive and realistically deliverable brexit future. If you can keep this civil I will too.

jk

(_*_)

You are unfailingly civil and reasonable on these forums jk but in this instance I’d go and show your dog some card tricks. 

Experience has shown that you'll need to ask the same question quite a few times before getting any reply. Then you'll get a response that he's already answered it in some undisclosed locations further upthread. Then you'll get accused of being slippery.

I'm with Stuart on this one.

 It would be to clear up this mess in the event of no deal or a deal rejected by parliament. With all the arguments now well aired for more than two years, remainers would accept "leave" and remain would be simple - we just remain with no mess - obviously some leavers would feel cheated, but they would just have to accept that people, this time, knew what they were voting for.

Cook under fire from EU partners over Iraq bombing raid. Cook had personal reasons to quit and was a dreadful man. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1323355/Cook-is-defiant-over-Iraq-a...

Arrogant as ever. The poor fools who voted leave didn’t know what they were doing. They did. Grow up and accept it. You lost the argument. Despite relentless pressure from the establishment support for leave has only been nudged back a bit. 

The Gang of Four x

Jk civil?!!! Hahaha

Touchy touchy. Bear got a sore head? 

Fabrication? He said it. He wants to limit the freedom of the press. No one here thinks he’s wrong. An unelected President whose got rich turning his country into a tax haven for shysters. And you half wits defend him and attack me! 

Course not. They create the wealth! 

It’s a swamp for tax evaders. 

I don’t have an MP. God you guys are desperate! 

Many voted for one thing, not realising what else they were voting for. And most were not fools; they just had incomplete information or had been lied to.

Read the Guardian piece on JCJ not the lickspittle bollocks on Wiki Whacky 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jea...

c

At what point does the information, as you quaintly put it, become complete. I love the way remainer propaganda is described as information and the leaver information described as lies. My guess, as has happened in the past, the information becomes complete when the voters vote the way the EU wants them to. As in Ireland. Which, incidentally, has been completely f*cked over by the EU. 

I'll take this as an example of your warped view of Europe. By any reasonable measure Ireland has prospered under the EU. Cross border projects were supported by the EU. The Irish electorate are pretty enthusiastic about membership.

But hey that doesn't fit your polemic.

On the grounds that it simply isn't materially possible to arrange one before brecit, and in the grounds that parliament voted quite comfortably in favour of article 50.

If you look at the number, and previous votes, there is a majority in parliament who will vote for hard brexit, and no majority for a second referendum. So hard brexit is what we'll get, although I'll suspect we'll get locked in semi-permanent vassal state transition before it happens.

Just to be clear, I'm not a big fan either.  He's nobody's idea of a man of the people, very protective of Luxembourg's secretive tax arrangements and has been accused of being tired and emotional on duty.

But he's not unelected.

Never, obviously, but we can do an awful, awful lot better than the first time round.

What a strange reply. For a start who are you replying to?

I assume from: 'In reply to Dave Garnett:' that it was his post about Jean-Claude Juncker's history as an elected representative of Luxembourg.

So why say "God you guys are desperate!", who is you guys?

I think it was my crack about his MP being the delightful Philip Davies if he was local to Shipley.

And third time? 

Was that a crack? Wow. I was at Curbar on Friday, Egerton Quarry (damp) Saturday  and the Glen Sunday. Does that mean I have three MPs? Looks like I not only don’t share your politics but also your humour. Pasbury makes me laff though. You’re not related to Alf are you? 

Yes, fabirciation, Juncker never said he wanted restrict press freedom or anything like that, he lamented the state of UK press reporting.

He did not

If he did he never said that in the interview, he said "They do not respect the human rights of political actors at all. I will not miss it,” and “Press freedom also has its limits … One should not bring people in privacy in distress.” Given that we have laws (UK laws not EU laws) which state exactly that its hardly controversial. Far from wanting to restrict the press he said " journalists should be able to “feel what you are allowed to do”, can you imagine the outcry if Leveson had come out with something as non-committal as that? I've seen one report where he allegedly he said he would "stand up" to attempts to suppress press freedom, not sure if that is true but if you have a full transcript of the interview we can check? As it is all evidence points to you lying/being misled/misrepresenting the truth, call it what  you will.

Given the quotes I printed above where do *you* think he is wrong? 

Surely not? Any country would not have the freedom for such policy making under the tyrannical Soviet-like yoke of the EU.

Its not about defending him, I don't particularly like him, its about combating the constant stream of lies and project fear from Brexiters.

No direct election then. Nominated by council and then ratified by Parliament. 

You're just wasting everyone's time aren't you. You have nothing positive to say.

No

This was a report in the pro Remain Guardian. If you chose to interpret his comments in that way, that’s your choice. I prefer to go with the way The Guardian and other sensible papers reported it. He wants to limit press intrusion into the lives of politicians. No thanks. You defend him though. 

If 17m people really knew what they were voting for do you think it might be possible to find just one of them who could tell the govt what it was because there seems to be some dispute, even within Cabinet let alone the wider got or Parlilament as a whole as tro exactly what it was.

Leave the EU.

I'm not sure we share a common language.

Wow. I don't anyone's tried that one since about 1973.  

That's the easy bit. The clever bit, given there were so many undeliverable promises and contradictory ideas  on offer, is discovering how they wanted to leave the EU because that is sort of important in the overall scheme of things

It's really not a case of interpretation, it's a case of simple fact. I notice you have moderated your original 'interpretation' from "wanting to restrict freedom of the Press" to the less hyperbolic "limit press intrusion into the lives of politicians", however, there is still nothing in his words to say this is what he wants to do  or will attempt to enact.

I don't want "defend" juncker I just want people like you to stop lying over and over again simply because the economic arguments have been lost. At least "you lost, get over it" has some truth to it, desperately scrabbling around for untruths like this to spin is pathetic. There must be a case for Brexiter you can make or have you been reduced to blind faith as well? 

Let’s disagree. He says British press does not respect the human rights of politicians ‘at all’ and there must be limits to the freedom of the press. Ergo, the current absence of respect must be rectified by imposing limits. Thus restricting freedom of the press. If he is just saying I’ll miss the UK press it’s not really a story. Are you really saying he thinks that the British press has not exceeded the limits and should be brought to heel. For me nowt to do with Brexit and much to do with an odious unelected politician who would like to curtail press freedom. Depressing you rise to his defence. He’s hardly your common man. 

You’re now saying not one of the 17m knew what they were voting for!! Eye watering arrogance. One reason many voted leave was probably to stick two fingers up to know-it-all know nothing’s like you. 

Obviously they didn't or there wouldn't be the current negotiations taking place.

Not at all. I am not saying that 17m people did not know what they were voting for but, rather messily and inconveniently,  it turns out they were voting for a lot of different things. So many in fact that even the high priests of Leave cannot agree among themselves what people voted for. Some insist that all 17m were voting for a clean break, others argue it was for Canada +++, yet more say no its was Norway-style or was it Swiss? . Not at all cry the others it was a soft Brexit. Rubbish, comes back the reply, it was absolutely definitely a hard Brexit yet even now, after more than 2 years the govt insists it is implementing the Will of the People even though it still can't agree what the Will of the People actually was, never mind might be now.

John, please feel free to push the Leave argument as hard as you like - there are logical reasons for it, though I happen to think they are far outweighed by the arguments to Remain and in light of the dog's breakfast we are currently presented with, even more arguments for a vote on the final terms - but  nobody who has followed this  pantomime can honestly pretend anything  in the referendum was crystal clear, any more than it is now.

The how is also easy. Continue EU benefits with frictionless trade, stop FoM, ECJ oversight and get an independent trade policy. This is a summary of both LAB and CON positions on how they wanted to leave and most of the UK supported this in the 2017 election by voting either LAB or CON.

The problem is that 80% of the people voted for hopelessly incompetent parties. They were incompetent in deciding to send an a50 notification without a plan and without considering the implications of a fixed timeline. They were incompetent in writing (CON) or allowing to write (LAB) an a50 letter that specifically states that the UK will leave the single market and ECJ oversight without having a series of discussions in parliament about what the UK wants to achieve with brexit. And finally they were (are) incompetent in not realizing what trade-offs the EU allows in a future EU-UK relation and communicate this with the people.

So the problem is: given that UK citizens are not going to get what they want, which option is favored? EEA+CU or basic free trade deal+NI backstop? Or try to stop it all together (but then the UK needs to come to terms with european integration)?

I think there is a slight contradiction between your first sentence and your last paragraph. And I have to say the last paragraph rings an awful lot more true to me than your (over-?) optimistic first sentence

I meant to say that the answer to the question "how did leavers want to leave the EU in 2016?" is easy, because the answer was given by the 2017 election. The answer to the question "how do leavers (or more relevantly all UK citizens) want to leave now it is clear that tough choices between sovereignty and prosperity have to be made?" is not easy.

On that we can agree

well then they really were f*cking thick weren't they?

As ever a thoughtful response but I do think it matters that some voters hold others in contempt. It impoverishes debate and life.

There are very very few people for whom there should be no respect and even then that is such a dangerous concept  I am not sure that I should entertain it. I doubt any fall into that category for their views on brexit. 

'JockLand' . A racists name for the home of Scots. 

This much has always been clear to those willing to understand.

I don't buy the election result meaning 80% support brexit. I voted labour and I'm strongly opposed to brexit. My choices were limited by the candidates available and fptp. I pragmatically picked my weapon from what was available as many others are forced to.

Jk

If someone takes away from you something hold dear - such as the freedom to move within Europe - are you still obligated to show respect ?

Not so sure. At the very least I don't feel an obligation to feel particularly bad about seeing them being grandiosely shafted by the EU and utterly betrayed by the government in the Brexit process. Sad but true.

Yes, but I am not obligated to agree with them. 

That's a very good question. Any significant political decision will have an adverse effect on someone. If people don't respect other view points then we'd never reach workable solutions on anything.

I understand the sentiment entirely, but it's a polarising viewpoint.

Indeed. Quite a lot of it posted by you.

And yes, that does mean I read one of your posts but it was only a tiddler.

So the decision to leave the EU was, for many, absolutely nothing to do with leaving the EU, but a reaction against some imagined section of society who they don't like?  And you wonder why some 'remainers' view 'leavers' as retards?

But that's what happen in a functioning parliamentary democracy. The interests of each are balanced and individual rights guaranteed.

That is not the case here. It's a tyranny of the majority and rights are being trampled on.

Well if you start removing some of what I consider essential individual freedoms, then this will be damn well polarising, justifiably and necessarily so.

And to those not willing to understand? As long as the government and the opposition don't spell out the consequences, public opinion won't change and brexit continues.

I think LAB and CON voting with a supermajority for the a50 notification legitimizes brexit. More than the 50%-50% 2016 referendum.   

I am sorry your choices were limited.

Oh dear. You really are deaf, blind and possibly dumb. The leavers are retards now? My point is that the silent majority had for decades been denied a vote on this key issue; for decades they had been fed lies by the know-it-all brigade that the EU was a land of milk and honey, prosperity and freedom and that our wise masters in Brussels would always make the right decisions for us. Well you had a rude awakening. Very rude. But its got to the point where the best the Remoaners can do is slander and slur their fellow citizens -- but this is the first time I have heard them described as retards... a stupid or mentally slow person. Sick. 

Further confirmation that you are both a hypocrite and a liar. Keep them coming. 

And to Rom. This was not an act of theft. It was a democratic plebiscite. The reality is that you and your type have never shown any understanding of,  or respect for, those of your fellow citizens who take a very different view. You have identified with a different political organisation the the nation state and seen that as in almost all ways as superior. Continuing to disrespect your fellow countrymen and women is understandable and predictable, but what have been more useful in these divisive times is a little contrition and humility. Qualities utterly absent from the site.

Perhaps because you hold them yourself? 

''The reality is that you and your type have never shown any understanding of,  or respect for, those of your fellow citizens who take a very different view. '

What type - as in 'your type' - would that be then? To the best of my knowledge you have never met anyone here; why do you suspect that remainers are any more homogenous than brexiters? 

I'm fascinated by your the apparent depth of your bitterness and vituperation, which you have never explained other than continued ranting against 'you types' - I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether you aren't part of the Kremlin sh*t stirring campaign that we saw over during the Scottish referendum. Certainly not worth taking seriously.

And if you take something from another that they hold dear, such as Parliamentary Sovereignty, should they treat you with contempt? 

Yes, they'd be entitled to do so. But the EU never took away parliamentary sovereignty. The EU is simply an international treaty parliament willingly entered in - and was able to withdraw at any time as demonstrated.

I don't have a massive problem with that although I think it's a mistake - happy to find a ground in the middle. However I do have a problem with individual rights such as freedom of movement being rescinded.

Yes. It is a serious problem, a failure of leadership.

I don't. They (particularly the opposition) allowed their hands to be tied in the aftermath of the referendum limiting their ability to discharge their duty. I consider it a mistake forced on May's part, unforced on Corbyn's, not as a choice to legitimise any and all versions of brexit come what may. It is a mistake that needs to be dealt with, parliament needs to free itself of the 'will of the people' rhetoric it has bound itself up in if it is to act in the national interest. The only way they can do that is to test that will and while Labour's position remains unrealistic an election will not suffice.

If in the cold light of day after clear examination of it we as an electorate want the brexit we have been able to negotiate we should have it, if we don't it should not be forced upon us by a vocal minority in parliament, the press and Conservative associations.

Me too but that is the reality people faced, they had to vote tactically if not for overt brexit opposition then to limit outright support for May's headlong rush. We shouldn't misrepresent the election result as brexit support, it isn't, it is in large part an artefact of our broken electoral system bound up with all the other issues and loyalties that shape a GE result.

jk

Our parliament is sovereign, they say as much in their own report.

jk

You may not think so, but others genuinely believe it is so. It is a very stateable case that it has. Those people quite likely are and were as upset about that as you (and I) are over FOM. 

I cannot see either view as worthy of contempt. 

Self awareness not your strong point is it?

Acting on beliefs built on lies where the actual facts are clearly available is not something I think we should be showing much respect for. That isn't respect, it's indulgence and it has proved very dangerous.

jk

Well zctizlly there is no stateable case that it has. At all. As exemplified by the fact that we are able to leave the EU. It's an international treaty parliament got into willingly. And is able to leave willingly.

In contrast to Scotland which couldn't leave the UK unless it was granted permission to do so. The UK is and was sovereign and always had the power to do anything it wants.

Well if you think that the EU has infringed parliamentary sovereignty, that's just factually wrong.

Which are the facts concerning parliamentary sovereignty or ever closer union? I don't think that you can declare it a 'fact' that the EU doesn't erode parliamentary sovereignty or a 'fact' that the EU doesn't wish 'ever closer union'. Acting on those beliefs is quite reasonable. 

Would you say that about Islam ?

I think I could argue the case but if the other side had a half decent lawyer I would lose. Doesn't mean it is not stateable. 

I agree with you (apart from the use of factually) others don't.

Are you really defending Brexit by likening it to religious adherence? Is that what the debate has been reduced to?

No

Whew, that's a relief. 

I don't think of existing religions as built on lies so much as myths and delusions perpetuated by conditioning, community and utility. Brexit is more akin to a modern cult.

So no, I would describe Islam similarly but differently.

jk

Our parliament produced a report clearly stating it is sovereign. I'd take that as fact, when the body you wish to be sovereign tells you it already is I'd want to hear a very clear rebuttal indeed. I haven't to date.

They have clearly pooled some sovereignty with others in the EU and we could simplistically consider that a loss but then the question would be why do that? The answer is that by pooling some sovereignty we are able to achieve more, we are more powerful in a group than notionally autonomous outside the group. Frankly I don't buy the sovereignty argument, power we cannot use is not power.

The EU has a stated goal of ever closer union, one I happen to approve of but that is a direction of travel, not a state and there is no timetable. It is a direction and pace we as a member had much sway over. The EU is its members, us included. We of course also hold the power of veto.

jk

Well it certainly seems to have become an article of faith  that defies all logical argument for some supporters

So would I.

But the leave / remain choice is not the same.

You generally suggest that it is - lies, myths, and delusions.

No, of course it isn't the same as a religion. As I said, the brexit movement is more like a cult, it is directed.

No I did not. I said religions are built on myths and delusions. Support for brexit is built on misrepresentations and lies, without belief in those lies its popularity would collapse. Belief in lies is very hard to shake where it has been very publicly expressed, used as the basis of a personal and group identity. That much is in common with religion, the myths are rarely examined by the believers for fear of damaging their identity.

jk

Perhaps you could turn that kind of critical thinking on your own ideas / approach and see where it leads you?

You accuse others of hate but your posts are filled with it. Despite getting what  you wanted you still seem to be spitting mad at the EU, it's representatives and those who voted to remain. It's like an ugly divorce where one party doesn't just want to be free but wants to see the other party hurt.

You have mentioned that we should try to move forward in hope and optimism (or words to that effect) but there is very little of those two qualities in your contributions.

You continually use derogatory and inflammatory language towards individuals and groups on here. I know others do too but that's really no justfication for a grown up. As Barry Goldwater said 'to disagree one doesn't have to be disagreeable'.

I have to say I don't hold out much hope for an agreeable response to the above but the choice is yours.

There is a simple choice. The question could equally have been "do we want to become part of the USA ?".

But you think that one of the options is right and the other a religion.  Are you sure you don't mean blasphemy ?

Every time you make a deal with someone you limit your future options and voluntarily limit your 'sovereignty'.    Leaving the EU is just going to replace the rules of the single market with rules under new trade deals.

The key practical factors when assessing sovereignty are that the UK can (and has) unilaterally decide to leave the EU and the EU has no physical means to force its will on the UK.   The EU has no army where the UK has a large army and nuclear weapons.   

Contrast this with the Scotland which has conceded sovereignty to Westminster.  Westminster can override Holyrood decisions and limit the powers of Holyrood or even dissolve it entirely and enforce direct rule. Holyrood does not have the legal power to decide unilaterally that Scotland will leave the UK and Westminster retains control of the armed forces and has the ability to physically impose its will.   

I think you know full well that a binary choice isn't nearly that simple nor that conclusive. If I asked whether you wanted your new car in 1) white, or 2) colour, you might reasonably choose 'colour', imagining all sorts of possible cool-looking shades. When it later turned out that the only colour available was pink, you'd quite rightly be wanting an opportunity to rethink your decision.

Edit: Of course, you could then tell yourself, and anyone else who might listen, that pink was what you had in mind all along, so you could feel happy that you'd still made the 'right' choice.

You would lose because it isn't the case. You can state it. It's still completely untrue and demonstrably so.

The fact is that whether in the EU or not parliament can pass any law it likes. This was always the case.

Fact: parliament can pass any law it likes (even if it breaches EU law)

Fact: the "ever closer union" is in fact the "ever closer union of the people of Europe". 

Fact: Any further political integration would require the consent of ahem.. parliament.

The fact is that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty hasn't changed one bit as part of the EU treaties.

Well yes but it wasn't and the choice is not simple as we have seen. You're losing me a bit here.

Quite sure.

I don't think one answer was right and one wrong, I think if people want the version of brexit that is realistically actually available to them, warts and all they should have it. If they don't they shouldn't. I believe a responsible democracy should ensure momentous decisions are not made in haste with inadequate scrutiny. My guess is since leaving the EU doesn't actually address the majority of the public's driving concerns and it makes our life worse in a number of respects we might not in the clear light of day decide it is the right solution to our challenges.

jk

Yes, a binary choice is that simple.

Norway is outside the EU but you don't support an approach like that taken by Norway do you. 'Leave' is not simple, it is the start of a decision making tree with a huge variety of choices, a huge variety of possible outcomes, none obviously better than where we start from.

jk

Then I hope you grow to like your new pink car.

It seems like you do.

Both answers were perfectly reasonable. Denying that is not reasonable. Opinion, or even fact, that we will be worse off, does not change it.

That would have been a dumb question to ask if we hadn't already consulted the USA on whether they might agree to this or what the terms could be, or what the options were if more than one possibility existed.

Sound familiar?

Except that the EU don't have to agree with anything for us to leave.  We are just hoping they do. Since it's in their interest as well.

I would just like to point out that Junckers widely viewed inappropriate behaviour and unsteadiness on his feet are down to his sciatica. This is official, and I can concur that I saw him yesterday and he was as sciatic as a newt.

And John and Rom

I agree with you about the end conclusion,otherwise I wouldn't have spent a considerable part of 2016 knocking on doors and arguing for Remain.

I do think there is an argument that can be made for brexit I happen to think it is weak and unsubstantiated but that doesn't mean I shouldn't recognise it  or treat those who don't agree with me with contempt. 

Then you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not inclined to try again, we've done this several times and debating you is like debating a conspiracy theorist lost in their own world.

I'm not denying a vote to leave could be could be a reasonable choice. I don't think it is today in response to the concerns motivating voters. That doesn't make it 'wrong', it means I don't think it does what the majority of people want, I think they were mis-sold a solution to their real problems.

What I'm saying is we have not completed an informed decision making process, we have started it with our simplistic binary choice. The people driving brexit do not want the process concluded democratically because they know full well the marginal public support they mustered for brexit is founded on contradictions and lies, that support may well crumble when faced with one reality rather than a thousand and one possibilities many different hopes and grievances could be pinned upon.

jk

I agree that there's an argument that can be made for Brexit, even if I remain highly sceptical it adds up. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be hearing any detail of that argument, since the most prominent people pushing it seem to be those with political and/or financial personal interest in leaving and who, quite understandably, would rather not disclose their true motives, relying instead on unfounded depictions of rosy futures.

You are still saying you don't think it is reasonable to disagree with you.

No argument from me there! 

You mean the one that was Elected in 2014?

sounds like you've been reading made up stories in our press

I have no idea how that is what you've taken from what I wrote. Sorry, I'm simply not interested in debating with you on this basis.

jk

Depend on your point of view. If some people's "point of view" was that you shouldn't be allowed  to move freely to another part of the UK other than where you live, would you still "respect" them ? I'd bet that not, and you would most likely fight tooth and nail to keep that valuable freedom that you have.

Depends if you see the EU as being effectively a single nation. 

It's not, as it's member states can decide to leave as the UK, (wrongly IMHO), has done. Free movement is an international agreement between co-operating nations, not a right of citizenship.

Until they depart democratic process yes, respect and opposition are not mutually exclusive. When they depart democracy then I will take a more extreme view. 

I bet you're not.

So you don't think a vote to leave could be a reasonable choice.  Anybody that voted leave is unreasonable, deluded, irrational.

That leads to "You are still saying you don't think it is reasonable to disagree with you." ?

jkarran is not open to debate.

jkarran: " I'm not denying a vote to leave could be could be a reasonable choice."

David Riley "So you don't think a vote to leave could be a reasonable choice."

This sort of ridiculous "debate" is what make people think brexiters are simply dishonest.  You have completely reversed jkarran's statement and then somehow tried to claim that is what he said.

He said " I don't think it is" !

I think you'll find what he actually said was a little bit more nuanced than that:

"I don't think it is today in response to the concerns motivating voters. That doesn't make it 'wrong', it means I don't think it does what the majority of people want, I think they were mis-sold a solution to their real problems."

Your dishonesty in misrepresenting his position does you few favours and does not paint you in a positive light. 

I love the drily witty understatement of your last phrase ...

I am making the point most leave voters would have no problem stating that people made a reasonable, rational choice based on what they thought was best. But some remain voters are so obsessive that they cannot even make such a statement.  Let alone believe it.  Instead of saying "a vote to leave is a reasonable choice" he says "it could be could be" "I don't think it is." (Can't bring himself to type the words).

Are remainers here prepared to state that leave voters made a reasonable, rational choice based on what they thought was best ?

If you wish to make a serious point, you might want to avoid such blatant misrepresentation. I do, of course, understand that misrepresentation is de rigueur in all these tiresome discussions, but I'm not sure it need be compulsory. 

I think if you read carefully you will see I was not dishonest or misrepresenting.

I am perfectly happy to support you there... even as a remainer.

I’ve not called remainers retards. Yet. 

Nothing in it for me. As I’ve said ad nauseum. 

You may think so. I disagree. 

Utter rubbish. You now make unfounded attack’s based on unsubstantiated claims that people in favour of leave are in it for financial gain. If it weren’t so poisonous it would be risible as, on the other hand, you claim leaving will be an unmitigated disaster. 

I am simply pointing out that you said you don’t read or reply to my posts. And then you read and reply to my posts. So, this makes you either a hypocrite or a liar. Nothing more. A third option might be that you are a moron. But that can’t be true as you are a remainer. And remainers are supreme beings gifted with wisdom and insight denied to the masses. 

Scotland is not a sovereign state. At least not the last few years. It’s in a parlous state. But that’s another matter. 

Just been rumbled. Damn. 

If you'd bothered to read, you'd have noticed I said they "seem to be" those with such personal motives, which I don't think many right minded people would disagree with. Surely you don't honestly believe that people such as Dacre and Boris are backing Brexit purely for the love of queen and country?

I would not presume to know. Nor should you, yet you impute motives with no evidence. You’d never get that by a news desk. Very sloppy. And for the record, for the third time. No interest. Other than the pure joy if taking the piss out of the Remoaner hordes on here. Better than eating bogies. 

... so you agree then

Instead of dicking about with your ridiculous inversions of logic and cheap point scoring you could perhaps say why you think it is a reasonable choice.

Something you and Mr Yates have signally failed to do.

I'm struggling to think what you hope to achieve, in terms of articulating your views, by posting the above comment.

Maybe step away from the keyboard or don't open that second bottle of Toilet Duck.

And never start a sentence with a conjunction.

I am not in favour of Juncker or the EU having ever more control over Europe.  It will end badly.

The EU (i.e. its member states, UK included) has control over those aspects of EU member states' interactions as agreed by those self same member states. Nobody has "control over Europe", certainly not an administrator-in-chief. I think you must have been reading something misleading.

Well I think it depends what you mean by democratic process. Just because voted for something, doesn't mean it's "democratic."

For example if racist laws were voted following due process through parliament, woth support from a majority of the public, would you consider it "democratic" ?

If that's just tyranny of the majority, that's not democratic. Democracy also requires a certain respect for individual freedoms.

What about the possibility that they did not ?

By saying that you are proving my point.

The EU has some control over Europe and can therefore have "ever more control" as I claimed.  What is misleading ?

Your insistence on 'otherising' the EU so as to suggest the UK is somehow an unwilling party subject to strictures it had no control over, when in reality almost all EU developments are introduced by broad consensus of member state input. Indeed, many of them will have been started off by the UK - does this mean the UK is 'controlling' all of the other EU states when they finally are approved at EU level?

Oh, and your implication that somehow Juncker has some kind of authority to act against the declared wishes of member states.

I don't follow that. Can you quote what I said that you are referring to please ?

As I understand it a constitutional democracy has to respect the human rights of individuals, not arbitary 'freedoms'.

I don't believe FoM is classed as a human right, otherwise we wouldn't be able to deport criminals and prevent re-entry, whereas we can't deport to countries that breach human rights.

The above in no way implies that the current situation isn't a shit state of affairs for the people affected.

Quite right but I don't think that voting to leave a treaty organisation is undemocratic. 

OK, put it this way seeing as you are being so obtuse.

1. The EU only has power over those policy areas the member states have all agreed to.

2. The EU does not have tax raising powers in member states

3. The EU does not control govt spending of member states in the EU, so things like austerity, NHS spending etc. are 100% in control of the UK govt in the UK 

4. No individual in the EU, be it Juncker or anyone else has the power to introduce laws and impose them on member states .

5. The UK has power of veto over new EU legislation

Do you agree or not?

I don't want them to have that power.

The entire EU budget is provided by taxes in member states.

Although people frequently claim that EU budget expenditure in the UK cannot be included in the amount we pay to the EU, even though we do not control how it is spent.

I only talked about Juncker having some control. If he has no control over anything then what does he do ?

That will be reworded until it is not vetoed.

Half truths and evasions. Take tax. This from Wiki which you guys seem to think of as some kind of Bible..

The European Union value added tax (or EU VAT) is a value added tax on goods and services within the European Union (EU). The EU's institutions do not collect the tax, but EU member states are each required to adopt a value added tax that complies with the EU VAT code. Different rates of VAT apply in different EU member states, ranging from 17% in Luxembourg to 27% in Hungary.[1] The total VAT collected by member states is used as part of the calculation to determine what each state contributes to the EU's budget.

So it does raise taxes and has a say on levels. 

More bollox of Walt. Treaty of Lisbon big changes. Might want to look at this table in the EU Bible https://bit.ly/28iJBdc

Big shift to QMV from Nice. 

This from the horses mouth --- so not all have to agree. Hmm

The adoption of acts by the Council now requires the approval of 55% of Member States (16) (72% if the act has not been proposed by the Commission), which must represent at least 65% of the EU's population (currently approximately 328.6 million of a total 505.5 million). 

The effect is to give bigger countries bigger clout. And yes, that includes the UK

I completely agree and said so before.

My point of contention is on the removal of free movement rights.

More Tyler shite about austerity being nowt to do with the EU. This from our beloved Guardian Greece. You could substitute Italy etc and you could look at the EU rules governing budgets. But hell, don't let facts get in the way of politics/

The European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund loaned Greece a total of €289bn ($330bn) in three programmes, in 2010, 2012 and 2015.

The economic reforms the creditors demanded in return brought the country to its knees with a quarter of its gross domestic product (GDP) evaporating over eight years and unemployment soaring to more than 27%.

Tyler, just read the last paragraph and then tell me that the EU has nowt to do with austerity. Note the word demanded.