Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Government admits UK must take part in European elections" video.

  1. They're going to hold another referendum, with both parties blaming the other for it. The referendum will once again include the option to remain. But with the leave vote split between two options. The tactic is that Leave has to win each and every time. While Remain only has to win once.
    40
  2.  @downwiththatsortofthing624  The 1975 referendum result was upheld. The UK remained within the EU for 40 years. I'm fine with having another referendum in 40 years time after we leave, are you?
    6
  3.  @Pining_for_the_fjords  Not in a second referendum they wont. There will be 3 options. 1 will be to remain. The others will be to leave on May's deal. Or leave with no deal.
    5
  4.  @jorgeborges7707  No deal is not impossible. Or illegal. The UK's decision to leave the EU does not rest on permission given by Brussels. Neither does it rely on a deal. How could it? After all, if what you say is so, then that would mean that Brussels ultimately overrides the will of the UK electorate. Are you sure you want to be making that argument?
    3
  5. ​ @jorgeborges7707  A Brexit with no deal is not ideal, but the idea that the UK cannot leave the EU without the EU offering a deal is ridiculous. There are many countries within the WTO that are not members of the EU, and I have heard no serious commentator claim that the WTO would sanction the UK in the event of a no deal Brexit. In no way does the GFA prevent the UK from leaving the EU. It couldn't possibly, as the only areas where the GFA was put to a referendum were the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The rest of the UK had no say. Are you really claiming that a small part of the UK and a foreign country decided the UK's membership of a political union for evermore? Even against the wishes of the electorate? As to who would be responsible for breaking the GFA in a no deal Brexit, that really depends on the demands of either side, and whether or not they are acceptable to the other. If they are not, and one side isn't prepared to compromise on their demands (such as the EU demanding the effectual splitting up of the UK), then no agreement can be made (just as if the UK were to demand the EU split to serve its own interests). Neither is the GFA enforceable through international law. Agreements between sovereign states are made and unmade all the time. There is no international body that can force a country to remain within a treaty against its will. And I really can't see many countries that would be willing to irreparably damage their relations with the UK for no reason. And I can't remember the remain campaign campaigning on the issue of leaving the EU being illegal under international law, can you? As for illegal and corrupt practices during the referendum campaign, we only have to look at the half-truths and lies, not to mention the funding from corrupt insider traders and crooks the remain campaign indulged in, and continues to indulge in, to realise that such things were far from one sided. And you can trot out your tired old mantra about it being only an advisory referendum, but parliament voted to enact the result, the government has said it will do just that, and the vast majority of MPs pledged to honour the result and were elected on the promise to make it so. Compared to that, what have you got?
    1
  6.  @jorgeborges7707  To recap - 1. A no deal Brexit is not illegal. It would simply be the result of either side making unacceptable demands of the other. 2. You are having a hard enough time getting to grips with the referendum result, so how you claim to know how most people in the country think about a no deal Brexit I dont know. 3. It would certainly start off by saving £40+ billion 4. Project fear turned out to be nothing but lies.
    1
  7.  @downwiththatsortofthing624  I. Yes, we understand that you are against leaving the EU. But that is not an argument in favour of it being illegal. 2. We know that the majority voted to leave the EU. Not respecting the democratic process because you lost, or because you prefer not to concentrate on the various crooks that financed the remain campaign (not to mention the millions of taxpayers cash the remain campaign helped itself to) is not a good enough reason to overturn a democratic vote. 3. Project fear turned out to be nothing but hysteria from the start. And it worked, as most people, like you were scared witless. As for extra for the NHS, the UK hasn't left the EU yet, so I suggest you go ask them where any potential extra NHS funding went.
    1
  8.  @jorgeborges7707  Most people who understand the law and international trade agree with you that the UK leaving the EU is illegal? - Article 50 is contained within the Lisbon Treaty. Its signatories include all member states of the EU. Are you now ruling the Lisbon treaty null and void? We already had a far more precise poll. It was the referendum. And the country voted to leave. The EU's demand for £40 billion from the UK taxpayer was anything but precise. And the UK has the lowest unemployment for 40 years, not to mention being a top destination for foreign investment - Despite Brexit lol.
    1
  9.  @downwiththatsortofthing624  Britain Stronger in Europe (remain campaign) also broke EU referendum finance rules. And was fined for doing so. Open Britain (remain campaign) was also fined for breaking election spending rules. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/party-and-election-finance-to-keep/liberal-democrats-fined-18,000-for-breaches-of-campaign-finance-rules And as has already been pointed out, the remain campaign got a huge boost of £9 million of taxpayer cash. I think 'Michael Crick on election expenses 1997' - Newsnight Archives may be of interest to you in regards to campaign spending rules and the frequency with which they are avoided by creative accounting.
    1
  10.  @jorgeborges7707  Hardly a 'straw man argument'. It's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the remain campaign. And your argument seems now to have shifted away from claiming that article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is illegal, to now saying that it is unreasonable to expect the EU to do the very thing it demands of the UK. Why? As for your threats, why do you think WTO countries would damage their relations with the 5th largest economy in the world simply because the EU and the UK can't come to an agreement over the border issue in Ireland? Why wouldn't the WTO sanction the EU? After all, it would be as responsible for the collapse of the GFA as the UK. Because as you said of the Republic of Ireland, what if the UK doesnt want to have its regulatory powers set in Brussels? The Good Friday Agreement commits all sides to work towards a solution as equals. It is not a tool for Brussels to split up the UK and force its legislation down the throats of UK citizens.
    1