Vote Remain if you're a faggot.
Vote Leave if you're not.
The rest doesn't matter.
Obviously I think we should vote to leave, reclaim our sovereignty and use the money for things far more useful.
Theo Filippo wrote:Not sure because every time I read an argument in favor of staying/leaving it's littered with false information or exaggerated repercussions.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:You don't need to listen to any terrible spun facts, you don't need to listen to the average man on the street or people on internet forums, all you have to do is look at who is on Project Fear and who is on Project Fantasy
Project Fear
Head of the Bank of England, Mark Carney
Current Prime Minister, David Cameron
Current Chancellor, Gideon Osbourne
Former Prime Minister and Chancellor, Gordon Brown
Former Prime Minister, Tony Blair
Former Prime Minister, Sir John Major
Current President of the United States, Barack Obama
The banks
Current Labour leader and Privy Council member, Jeremy Corbyn
Project Fantasy
Head of UKIP, Nigel Farage (never held elected office in the UK, never held a degree)
London Mayor, Alexander Johnson (he calls himself Boris because it's wacky)
Iain Duncan Smith
Michael Gove
George Galloway
I know who I'd rather trust in deciding the future of the country. Literally everyone living who has run the country from both sides of the political spectrum and everyone with access to the best information on public finances, thinks that leaving would be bad for this country's economy. It would be a total disaster, we shouldn't even be having a referendum on it.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:Appeal to authority is a perfectly valid form of argument.
Suppose I am arguing with somebody about black holes.
I say they have a strong gravitational pull and cite Stephen Hawking as agreeing with me, while the other person says "Nah, I don't reckon they have any gravity at all, they're just holes".
Do I need to post a scientific proof that both my opponent and I can understand to win the argument, or is it enough that I'm siding with Stephen Hawking and the rest of the scientific community and he's siding with only clueless bell ends?
I'm on the side of the experts here, you're on the side of the bell ends. Join us.
Is it? What ideologies are clashing here?The Zlatan wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:Appeal to authority is a perfectly valid form of argument.
Suppose I am arguing with somebody about black holes.
I say they have a strong gravitational pull and cite Stephen Hawking as agreeing with me, while the other person says "Nah, I don't reckon they have any gravity at all, they're just holes".
Do I need to post a scientific proof that both my opponent and I can understand to win the argument, or is it enough that I'm siding with Stephen Hawking and the rest of the scientific community and he's siding with only clueless bell ends?
I'm on the side of the experts here, you're on the side of the bell ends. Join us.
Except this is about ideology, and ideology is always open to be challenged, that way we can determine which we think is best and support it.
Keyser Söze wrote:What's encouraged you to vote leave, Zlatan?
It's the belief in democracy vs whatever the fuck the EU is trying to be.ResurrectionRooney wrote:Is it? What ideologies are clashing here?The Zlatan wrote:
Except this is about ideology, and ideology is always open to be challenged, that way we can determine which we think is best and support it.
Glen Miller wrote:I think I have a vote in this because I left the UK just under 15 years ago.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:The sovereignty argument is total bullshit. We still have sovereignty because our government or parliament can take the country at any time if it wishes to.
The only people trying to take away the government's right to act in the way it wishes are the people voting out.
The Zlatan wrote:Glen Miller wrote:I think I have a vote in this because I left the UK just under 15 years ago.
I think you need to have been on the electoral register.ResurrectionRooney wrote:The sovereignty argument is total bullshit. We still have sovereignty because our government or parliament can take the country at any time if it wishes to.
The only people trying to take away the government's right to act in the way it wishes are the people voting out.
Our parliament isn't supreme, EU laws and regulations are. Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon (has a degree) has admitted this.
You sound like a dictator.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:The Zlatan wrote:
I think you need to have been on the electoral register.
Our parliament isn't supreme, EU laws and regulations are. Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon (has a degree) has admitted this.
You sound like a dictator.
You don't understand what I'm saying. Ultimately Parliament has sovereignty because our acquiescence to EU law is at the discretion of Parliament. They could pass a law tomorrow saying that EU law no longer applies and that would be completely valid. They choose not to because they think it's in our best interests. That's what sovereignty is, a country's freedom to act in its best interests.
We are having a referendum to leave, to break every treaty we have entered into with regard to the European Union, we haven't needed to get permission from the EU to do this. Our membership is voluntary, EU laws only apply as long as we say they apply.The Zlatan wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:
You don't understand what I'm saying. Ultimately Parliament has sovereignty because our acquiescence to EU law is at the discretion of Parliament. They could pass a law tomorrow saying that EU law no longer applies and that would be completely valid. They choose not to because they think it's in our best interests. That's what sovereignty is, a country's freedom to act in its best interests.
They choose not to because we're bound by various treaties and to repudiate them would be in breach of EU law. That opens us up to being taken to court and facing a fine, just like they fined us £300 million for not meeting air pollution targets, and over £600 million for not managing CAP payments properly. We could only guess how big a fine would be if we were to start disregarding entire treaties.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:We are having a referendum to leave, to break every treaty we have entered into with regard to the European Union, we haven't needed to get permission from the EU to do this. Our membership is voluntary, EU laws only apply as long as we say they apply.The Zlatan wrote:
They choose not to because we're bound by various treaties and to repudiate them would be in breach of EU law. That opens us up to being taken to court and facing a fine, just like they fined us £300 million for not meeting air pollution targets, and over £600 million for not managing CAP payments properly. We could only guess how big a fine would be if we were to start disregarding entire treaties.
The Lisbon treaty just provides a mechanism for it, in reality we could say from tomorrow "EU Laws no longer apply", ignore all of the punishments and go our own way. We obviously won't, but we retain sovereignty because it's in our power to do so.The Zlatan wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:
We are having a referendum to leave, to break every treaty we have entered into with regard to the European Union, we haven't needed to get permission from the EU to do this. Our membership is voluntary, EU laws only apply as long as we say they apply.
I know, we don't need permission because it's part of the Lisbon Treaty that any member state can begin negotiations to leave the union. If we say the laws don't apply, we get punished.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:The Lisbon treaty just provides a mechanism for it, in reality we could say from tomorrow "EU Laws no longer apply", ignore all of the punishments and go our own way. We obviously won't, but we retain sovereignty because it's in our power to do so.The Zlatan wrote:
I know, we don't need permission because it's part of the Lisbon Treaty that any member state can begin negotiations to leave the union. If we say the laws don't apply, we get punished.
It wasn't, if you can stop obeying at any time and do you own thing you have sovereignty. The fact that you decide not to because it's not in your interest doesn't mean you don't have sovereignty.The Zlatan wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:
The Lisbon treaty just provides a mechanism for it, in reality we could say from tomorrow "EU Laws no longer apply", ignore all of the punishments and go our own way. We obviously won't, but we retain sovereignty because it's in our power to do so.
In 1972 the public was told that sovereignty would not be given away, in 1975 the referendum took place with this claim still at the forefront of the vote. The people were told that sovereignty would be preserved for them, clearly they were lied to and were conned into giving it up.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:It wasn't, if you can stop obeying at any time and do you own thing you have sovereignty. The fact that you decide not to because it's not in your interest doesn't mean you don't have sovereignty.The Zlatan wrote:
In 1972 the public was told that sovereignty would not be given away, in 1975 the referendum took place with this claim still at the forefront of the vote. The people were told that sovereignty would be preserved for them, clearly they were lied to and were conned into giving it up.
Here is one of the famous RR analogies, I hope this helps.
I love playing golf, so I join a golf club. That golf club says that in order for me to remain a member I have to pay an annual membership fee of £1000, conduct myself in a way that will not bring the golf club into disrepute and, due to a long standing rule nobody's sure who made not football matches. As part of my sign up I agreed that if I do any of these things my membership with the golf club will be terminated.
If I want to breach one of the rules of the golf club I still have the option to do so. The golf club can not prevent me from doing so, it has not infringed upon my personal sovereignty at all. There may, however, be consequences to my breaking of a rule in that the voluntary association between myself and the golf club will be terminated.
This is the situation between the UK and the EU. A voluntary association between two parties that confers obligations on each when the association is in effect.
The only scenario in which sovereignty could genuinely be said to have been given up to the EU was if the EU had soldiers or a police force on the streets of this country to enforce EU laws and this country could not leave without the permission of the EU.
The Zlatan wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:
It wasn't, if you can stop obeying at any time and do you own thing you have sovereignty. The fact that you decide not to because it's not in your interest doesn't mean you don't have sovereignty.
Here is one of the famous RR analogies, I hope this helps.
I love playing golf, so I join a golf club. That golf club says that in order for me to remain a member I have to pay an annual membership fee of £1000, conduct myself in a way that will not bring the golf club into disrepute and, due to a long standing rule nobody's sure who made not football matches. As part of my sign up I agreed that if I do any of these things my membership with the golf club will be terminated.
If I want to breach one of the rules of the golf club I still have the option to do so. The golf club can not prevent me from doing so, it has not infringed upon my personal sovereignty at all. There may, however, be consequences to my breaking of a rule in that the voluntary association between myself and the golf club will be terminated.
This is the situation between the UK and the EU. A voluntary association between two parties that confers obligations on each when the association is in effect.
The only scenario in which sovereignty could genuinely be said to have been given up to the EU was if the EU had soldiers or a police force on the streets of this country to enforce EU laws and this country could not leave without the permission of the EU.
That's actually a pretty good analogy, but I'll just change it up a bit.
"Hey son, do you want to go and play golf at the local club? Just say yes and we'll go and have a game, no strings attached."
"Are you sure, dad? Just a game of golf, nothing else?"
"Yes, son. Just a game of golf, would I ever lie to you?"
"Okay then, dad. Yes, let's play some golf!"
"Okay, son, here we are, let's play... Oh btw lol I signed you up 4life, theoretically you can leave any time you like but I'm your dad and I won't let you lol. btfo."
Fin
Good spot on Obama. I realised the other day I've been spelling Gideon Osborne's name wrong for about 6 years, adding a U where there should be no u. I'm sure you can imagine how mortified I was.Glen Miller wrote:You included Obama twice and did not use Anthony Blair's proper name.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:The Zlatan wrote:
That's actually a pretty good analogy, but I'll just change it up a bit.
"Hey son, do you want to go and play golf at the local club? Just say yes and we'll go and have a game, no strings attached."
"Are you sure, dad? Just a game of golf, nothing else?"
"Yes, son. Just a game of golf, would I ever lie to you?"
"Okay then, dad. Yes, let's play some golf!"
"Okay, son, here we are, let's play... Oh btw lol I signed you up 4life, theoretically you can leave any time you like but I'm your dad and I won't let you lol. btfo."
Fin
What do you mean, theoretically? We are having a fucking referendum on this issue in two months, what do you think happens if we vote to leave? Do you think we'll actually have to stay?
The Zlatan wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:
What do you mean, theoretically? We are having a fucking referendum on this issue in two months, what do you think happens if we vote to leave? Do you think we'll actually have to stay?
Repealing the European Communities Act 1972, which is what you've been talking about.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:The Zlatan wrote:
Repealing the European Communities Act 1972, which is what you've been talking about.
Do you think we won't repeal that act if we vote to leave in the referendum? If you don't your analogy fails. Us leaving is not theoretical, it is what is going to happen in reality if we vote for it.
We do and it can. The fact that it chooses not to because it doesn't think it's in the country's interests doesn't mean the sovereignty doesn't exist. Our government chooses not to nuke Argentina, doesn't mean it couldn't if it wanted to.The Zlatan wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:
Do you think we won't repeal that act if we vote to leave in the referendum? If you don't your analogy fails. Us leaving is not theoretical, it is what is going to happen in reality if we vote for it.
You were arguing that we retain sovereignty because parliament can choose to stop abiding by EU law whenever it wants, which theoretically it can and without the input of the citizens. That is what the analogy is referring to.
1975:
"Hey son, I've signed us up to the golf club, two years ago. We've been trying to get in for years, there are a few rules though so if you don't like it we leave"
"That's fine Dad, I like golf and I don't mind the rules let's stay in"
The family stays in
2016:
"The rules of this golf club have changed a lot, we have to do a lot more to stay in but we get to play a lot more golf. All our friends want us to stay in though. Are you still happy to stay in?"
"Yes Dad, I think we should stay in"
The family stays in
"No Dad, I think we should leave"
The family leaves
|
|