Comments by "Iazzaboyce" (@Iazzaboyce) on "Merkel Says She Will Fight to the End for an Orderly Brexit" video.

@quantumcomputation4963 No! The ballot paper said 'leave' and the Oxford definition of the word 'leave' is "depart from permanently"... No one knew what the word 'stay' meant in 1975 but that didn't prevent the politicians joining the UK to the EU.
2
@quantumcomputation4963 Everyone understood that voting leave would mean leaving the single market and leaving the customs union, as they were told so by the then prime minister. Also the government leaflet sent to every voter said the following: "Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.The EU’s Single Market has over 500 million customers and an economy over five times bigger than the UK’s. The Single Market makes it easier and cheaper for UK companies to sell their products outside the UK, creating jobs as a result.Losing our full access to the EU’s Single Market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs. Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs. The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world... So people were informed about what they were voting for.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 And Nick Clegg said there was no plans for an EU army - so what? The question on the ballot was clear to every voter. What did you think it should have said - 'Should the UK really really really really leave the EU'?
1
@quantumcomputation4963 Recently, in Australia many politicians were forced to stand down when it was revealed they held dual citizenship. The idea being their constitution only allows only 100% loyal citizens to make decisions for the nation: “Any person who - is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power - shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.” Our MPs are 1/100,000, they each had one vote in the referendum. They have been selected by political organisations before voters had opportunity to vote for them. The UK membership of the EU has never been the people’s choice, it has been imposed on the people by a political elite. The loyalty to UK of pro EU MPs sitting in the UK parliament was under question before the referendum. The referendum result has rescinded their vision for the UK and removed their legitimacy to govern the people with 100% trust. They should now be forced to stand down. Imagine how different it would be if parliament were made up of MPs like Kate Hoey and Esther Mcvey and loyal to the UK more than any foreign power.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 Any foreign power - the people of the UK have voted to be independent. So any power that is not the UK is foreign to the UK people.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 The UK is not independent while it is a member of the EU, as the EU makes laws which apply in the UK. The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are two different countries, but until 1922 all of Ireland was a part of the UK, so it's more complex.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome in January 1973 and the UK joined what was then called the Common Market. It was done on the basis of a commitment that we would retain our national sovereignty. Indeed, in June 1971, a leaflet had been sent to every home in the UK, promising that: “there is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty”. Then, in a TV broadcast in January 1973, Edward Heath went even further saying: “There are some in this country who fear that, in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.” Two years later, there was a referendum, on June 5, 1975, and the majority of voters supported the UK’s continued membership of the Common Market, now the European Union. But that vote was on the basis of assurances which were dishonest. Both Edward Heath and Harold Wilson knew that, in joining the Common Market they were ceding sovereignty and joining a political project with the end goal the creation of a federal united states of Europe. The preamble to the Treaty of Rome clearly stated that the objective was “ever-closer union”. From the release of government papers under the 30-year rule, we now know that both Labour and Conservative governments were briefed about the loss of national sovereignty. They were also warned the ultimate aim was political union across Europe. The loss of national sovereignty was confirmed by Judge Bruce Morgan on April 9, 2001. He said that, when the UK joined the Common Market parliament and the British people “quite voluntarily surrendered the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom”. So, when Remoaners talk about deception and misrepresentation in relation to Europe, the greatest deception of all was that it is just a ‘Common Market’ and ‘just about trade’ and not much more. That was the basis on which 67% of voters backed the European Community in 1975, but it was a lie.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 I can speak for myself perfectly well. Is there something I have posted that you can prove to be factually incorrect? Or are you simply unable to deal with the truth?
1
@quantumcomputation4963 The vote was not about leaving the world - it was about leaving the EU. Is this how you think you win arguments by changing the premise? Now come up with some relevant response as irrelevance hardly merits reply.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 So, you claim that: “The UK is an independent and sovereign nation” Judge Bruce Morgan said the British people “quite voluntarily surrendered the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom”. Plainly, Judge Bruce Morgan is more capable than you to decide such matters, therefore your first point is proved wrong. You then claim it is "untrue" to suggest that voting Leave meant leaving the customs union: “asserting that it also meant leaving the customs union is untrue". Here’s what the ‘easy read version’ of the government leaflet said voting leave would mean: “What happens if we leave? Voting to leave the EU could also lead to years of not knowing what is going to happen to our trade with the EU. If the UK left the EU, our trade deals with over 50 other countries around the world would also stop. The UK would then have to make new ones. In the meantime, we could still trade with them but it could be more expensive. Agreeing all of these deals could take up to 10 years or more.” And here’s what the BBC says the EU customs union is: “A trade agreement under which two or more countries do not put tariffs (taxes) on goods coming in from other countries in the union. The countries also decide to set the same tariff on goods entering from outside the union. The EU customs union includes EU member states and some small non-EU members and forbids members from negotiating trade agreements separately from the EU. Instead trade agreements are negotiated collectively.” So, you see, read together the two paragraphs make it unequivocally true that a vote to leave the EU means a vote to leave the customs union. (“If the UK left the EU, our trade deals with over 50 other countries around the world would also stop. The UK would then have to make new ones” and “forbids members from negotiating trade agreements separately from the EU”) Thus, proving your second point to be also wrong... I can see why you don’t like people cut&pasting facts though.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 Does or does not the customs union forbid all members from making independent trade deals?
1
@quantumcomputation4963 So, according to you the BBC is not accurate when it states the customs union: “forbids members from negotiating trade agreements separately from the EU”.... Anyway, what's your preferred outcome?
1
@quantumcomputation4963 The problem with a general election is we've just had one and it did not help. It just told us that 85% of the electorate voted for parties with hard Brexit sounding manifestos. I'm not against a second referendum, but the question should be: Should the UK leave the EU to be an independent country? Yes [ ] No [ ]... If it was a three way question with the highest amount of votes winning, I would prefer the following options: no-deal/remain adopt euro/remain keep pound. As the 2016 vote did not make it clear what Remain voters wanted in terms of the EU single currency and this would clear that up.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 Thing is - this question has been answered. Was this or was this not the point of the referendum? This idea the country is 'divided' is just pro-EU spin. The term is pushed over and over, but had Remain won with 52% the words used would be along the lines of: 'Now the electorate has decided the EU question'. We had a national vote in which all of the main political parties asked the people to back their collective vision for the country's future. The fact these parties could not get a majority is democratically perverse. The reason I have always opposed the UK's membership is that the people have never wanted it. Why else would pro-EU MPs have been against a people's vote since they alone voted to join in 1972?
1
@quantumcomputation4963 The wording on the ballot was simple because the question was fundamental: 'Did the British people want a future as part of the European Union'. The democratic response was they did not. The evidence of the true interest of the British in the European federal project lies in the voting figures. In the 2014 UK/EU elections only 35.6% of the UK electorate bothered to vote - two years later around half of those voted to not live under EU jurisdiction... I think this leaves around 18% that actively do.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 Your point about Nigel Farage is moot, as at the time Farage was leader of a political party with the prime objective of Brexit. Had the referendum gone 52% Remain then UKIP would have had a significant electoral endorsement. This though is quite different from MPs refusing to implement the result of the referendum. Here's what an overly optimistic Paddy Ashdown had to say on the matter whilst the votes were being counted: “Here’s the single point: Those that asked for this and I was the first leader ever to ask for a referendum way back in 89/90, have said so because they believe it to be an act of democracy. I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken. Whether it’s by 1% or 20%, once they’ve taken it, it is our duty, as those who serve the public to make the best use and to make sure that our country does the best it can with the decision the people have given us. I’ve heard Mr Farage say tonight: ‘We’re coming back even if we lose’. Excuse me! He’s the person that complained about lack of democracy in Europe! If he will not accept the sovereign voice of the British people, whatever they say, then I think he does not have the national interest at heart.” ... Says it all really.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 What do you think would happen if the 'hard Brexiteers' were a majority in parliament? Isn't this the problem - that parliament does not reflect a majority of the electorate? Just look at the pro-EU tactics - establishment fear based propaganda - nothing about the long-term objectives of the EU. All we're allowed talk about is the economy and trade when in reality these are unknowns in any event. All we hear from pro-EU establishment is fear and lies - in the end people would rather be free.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 One solution could be a referendum with the following conditions: The question shall be: Should the UK leave the EU? Yes [ ] No [ ] The government shall not declare a position The parties must not declare a position MPs must declare a position An equal number of MPs will campaign for each side Any MP on the losing side must resign their parliamentary seat
1
@quantumcomputation4963 The Scottish are free - they have just had a referendum to determine Scotland's relationship with the UK... Presumably, you think had they voted to leave the UK the result would be void, as 'Yes' voters would have had differing ideas as to what "independent country" actually meant. For example, some would have wanted Scotland to join the EU and some would have believed this would infringe on Scotland's independence.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 Your idea the people of the UK can never vote to leave the EU by referendum because it could never be agreed what those voters wanted is disingenuous. The word 'leave' in context of the question meant 'cease to be member'. It was very obvious to Leave voters this would mean the UK becoming an independent nation with a similar relationship to the EU as Australia (A country referenced during the campaign).
1
@quantumcomputation4963 How would you prevent MPs from campaigning? You wouldn't entirely - as each MP would have stated their position, this would be known and there would be limitations to campaigning. However, it is a fact that a majority of MPs are pro-EU activists and this exerts undue influence. Each side would have an official campaign and an equal number of MPs could be chosen by each side. All other MPs would be prevented from official campaign activities, such as TV debates, collective gatherings for publicity etc.. The reason for losing MPs standing own is their 'vision' for the country will have been rejected by the electorate and there has to be a process which allows the country to move forward.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 The UK has 66 million people and is the 5th largest economy in the world. Switzerland and Norway have 14 million people between them. The idea Leave voters wanted the same relationship as those countries have with EU is simply not realistic.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 This is the point! A general election will not work on the matter of Brexit, as people vote for the main parties that ignore the people's attitude towards sovereignty (which is the reason we are in this mess).
1
@quantumcomputation4963 Wanting the UK to be in the EU and not wanting the UK to be in the EU are two incompatible ideologies. The idea of holding a referendum, is to decide which ideology will prevail. Forcing the defeated ideologues to stand down from parliament would demonstrate to the electorate that, their political vision for the country's future is not in accordance with the future democratically determined by the electorate. The country will have made a decision and can move forward.
1
@quantumcomputation4963 If the EU thinks this deal is the best they can get it will instruct the quislings to vote it through and that will be the end of the Tory Party. If the Tory Party changes leader and moves toward no-deal and there's an emergency Brexit general election - then there will be Tory deselections, Labour would offer new referendum, the Labour Leave and UKIP (50% Tory/50% Lab in 2017) vote will go Tory and Tory Remain vote will not go Corbyn, Lib Dems will split the anti-Brexit vote and the EU will not get what it wants.
1