The battle of Brexit!

[FORMBY]

Hows brexit coming along !

I doubt anyone knows.

[Double Edge]

No, I am repeating Annan’s and Blix’s words.

You need to stop doing that because as pointed out those words are worthless. I can sense the cognitive dissonance in you. Yeah, this will happen a lot when you read things here. That is what makes this place different to other places.

Bottom line: You cannot challenge the reasons given on this board, you just disagree. Does not count.

That's ok because in the last ten years nobody has been able to challenge it. It means one thing, does not matter how many disagree, what counts is who can challenge and if none can then the point stands. That makes it valuable, i've used it loads of times and met with similar results. Its a winning argument.

This is how we figure out what happens in the world.

WMD’s. A pretext. Do I sense a flippant demeanour? Was the lie of WMD’s a means to the greater good? I hope snapper is paying attention now because Adolf placed a few corpses in Polish uniforms, dumped them within the German frontier and immediately crossed into Poland on the pretext of an invasion initiated by the Poles. I reckon Hitler considered the guise to be for the benefit of a greater good as well

WMD's weren't the reason for the Iraq war.

Look, you're not the first guy to use large size fonts on this topic, its been brought up before and debunked.

[Double Edge]

Hows brexit coming along !

This ?

[Double Edge]

Way i look at brexit and even Trump is its the triumph of the have nots over the haves. If anyone was wondering as to the state of democracy in the UK or US, these results show it is working.

It's not surprising for an Indian because if the price of onions stays high for too long or we've had one too many bad monsoons, does not matter how well the govt did, its gone at the next election.

The winner will be the one offering sops

[FORMBY]

You need to stop doing that because as pointed out those words are worthless. I can sense the cognitive dissonance in you. Yeah, this will happen a lot when you read things here. That is what makes this place different to other places.

Bottom line: You cannot challenge the reasons given on this board, you just disagree. Does not count.

That's ok because in the last ten years nobody has been able to challenge it. It means one thing, does not matter how many disagree, what counts is who can challenge and if none can then the point stands.

Challenge what? The words of those who have had their say? The ones who made the rules? It is very simple to understand that your point does not stand against them. The UN inspection team was tasked to inspect the 12 sights pointed out by the Americans who "had proof" of their existence. The invaders did not allow the inspection to take place. It's a no-brainer. The invasion was illegal. Want more proof? OK > > > > >

By your own admission:

WMD's weren't the reason for the Iraq war.

Correct. The invaders lied. There were no WMD's and (as WMD's were a pretence) the invasion was illegal.
It cannot be simpler than that.
1). Lies of WMD's
2). Sabotage of the inspection that would have silenced all doubts.

Oh, there is a third, a fourth, a fifth, etc. but two is good enough. It would require an insincere mind to refute that the two points alone qualify to demonstrate without any doubt that the invasion was illegal.

I understand that if you put your fingers into your ears you can pretend that "your point stands" but that is a matter between you and your conscience. It has nothing to do with the truth. If you can live with it then carry on.

[FORMBY]

You need to stop doing that because as pointed out those words are worthless. I can sense the cognitive dissonance in you. Yeah, this will happen a lot when you read things here. That is what makes this place different to other places.

Bottom line: You cannot challenge the reasons given on this board, you just disagree. Does not count.

That's ok because in the last ten years nobody has been able to challenge it. It means one thing, does not matter how many disagree, what counts is who can challenge and if none can then the point stands.

Challenge what? The words of those who have had their say? The ones who made the rules? It is very simple to understand that your point does not stand against them. The UN inspection team was tasked to inspect the 12 sights pointed out by the Americans who "had proof" of their existence. The invaders did not allow the inspection to take place. It's a no-brainer. The invasion was illegal. Want more proof? OK > > > > >

By your own admission:

WMD's weren't the reason for the Iraq war.

Correct. The invaders lied. There were no WMD's and (as WMD's were a pretence) the invasion was illegal.
It cannot be simpler than that.
1). Lies of WMD's
2). Sabotage of the inspection that would have silenced all doubts.

Oh, there is a third, a fourth, a fifth, etc. but two is good enough. It would require an insincere mind to refute that the two points alone qualify to demonstrate without any doubt that the invasion was illegal.

I understand that if you put your fingers into your ears you can pretend that "your point stands" but that is a matter between you and your conscience. It has nothing to do with the truth. If you can live with it then carry on.

[snapper]

NATO (read the U.S.) most certainly did create both of them. Now you can pull out the razor and split a few hairs but NATO is butt hole of the U.S. When America farts NATO goes into action. NATO is, therefore doing America’s bidding through the whole gauntlet of … today supporting/supplying/funding, tomorrow thwarting the creating of America’s black flag manoeuvring of/with both ISIS and Al Qaida. Off hand I cannot think of any American operation on the continent that does not include NATO support. Perhaps there are?

Such a blanketing and insulting response says more about your ignorance than anything else. First Iraq, Libya and Syria are very different events and to blanket label all as "illegal" is so inncurate as to be untrue. As DE has explained Iraq was not "illegal" per se. Libya actually was supported by a UNSC resolution so could not have been "illegal" and Syria has been largely an addition to support for Iraq in resisting Daesh.

None were NATO operations. Nor did the US "create NATO" which actually originates from the 1947 Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistanceof signed at Dunkirk Dunkirk between Britain and France. It then included the then Benelux (Belgium and Luxembourg) under the Treaty of Brussels in 1948 before the North Atlantic Treaty, bringing in the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland was signed in 1949. West Germany joined in 1955 as a direct consequence of the creation of the Warsaw Pact in 1954. So to say that the US "created" NATO is historical distortion of the facts.

Nor do you seem to understand the entire purpose of NATO which derives from the innitial 1947 Treaty of Dunkirk for mutual assistance if Germany or the Soviet Union invaded France or Britain. NATO does NOT have a mandate or constitution that permits it to act aggressively: in order for NATO to act Article 5 must be invoked - one of the member countries must be attacked. Article 5 has only been invoked once - following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. That is why the Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian actions were not NATO actions; they could not be. But no - such minutae of detail that makes truth is too difficult for you... Much easier to insult those who preserved liberty in Europe with blanket lies.

[Double Edge]

Challenge what? The words of those who have had their say? The ones who made the rules? It is very simple to understand that your point does not stand against them. The UN inspection team was tasked to inspect the 12 sights pointed out by the Americans who "had proof" of their existence. The invaders did not allow the inspection to take place. It's a no-brainer. The invasion was illegal. Want more proof? OK > > > > >

Challenge what OOE said. Why are you avoiding doing that ? because you obviously cannot. Neither can I for that matter and this is not for a want of trying. So i go with his position and throw it every one and see who can challenge it. Nobody has to date. Hence his point stands. This is basic argumentation that you better understand if you want to make use of this board.

Rules are only so good as they are followed. Americans are not going to trash a system they played a key role in creating. Think!

Repeat after me, the UNSC did not say it was illegal. That's the only group that counts. Whether you like it or not.

By your own admission:

Correct. The invaders lied. There were no WMD's and (as WMD's were a pretence) the invasion was illegal.
It cannot be simpler than that.
1). Lies of WMD's
2). Sabotage of the inspection that would have silenced all doubts.

Oh, there is a third, a fourth, a fifth, etc. but two is good enough. It would require an insincere mind to refute that the two points alone qualify to demonstrate without any doubt that the invasion was illegal.

I started with saying WMDs were a pretext. You don't see how cunning this ploy was. It forced Saddam into proving a negative and more importantly he interfered in the inspections because by Saddam's own admission after capture that if Iraq showed it had no chems then Iraq would be vulnerable to Iran.

How could the invaders prevent inspections ?!?! it was Saddam that interfered with inspections giving the perception he was hiding something.

I understand that if you put your fingers into your ears you can pretend that "your point stands" but that is a matter between you and your conscience. It has nothing to do with the truth. If you can live with it then carry on.

Actually, you're the one doing that. Repeating what you started off with.

I'm showing you a tested position that holds value. It's not my point. I'm using OOE's arguments and they've held pretty well.

I don't care what the opposition thinks and you are in their camp, i'm only interested in understanding the thinking of those that got ahead. Students of this conflict would be better served by understanding that instead of wasting time with the oppositions view. Why bother, they lost.

Only time the opposition counts is when they can affect things. Take Spain, decided they would not be a part of GWOT. They stayed out of it. That's an opposition that matters at least for Spain.

[FORMBY]

Challenge what OOE said. Why are you avoiding doing that ? because you obviously cannot. Neither can I for that matter and this is not for a want of trying. So i go with his position and throw it every one and see who can challenge it. Nobody has to date. Hence his point stands. This is basic argumentation that you better understand if you want to make use of this board.

Rules are only so good as they are followed. Americans are not going to trash a system they played a key role in creating. Think!

Repeat after me, the UNSC did not say it was illegal. That's the only group that counts. Whether you like it or not.


I started with saying WMDs were a pretext. You don't see how cunning this ploy was. It forced Saddam into proving a negative and more importantly he interfered in the inspections because by Saddam's own admission after capture that if Iraq showed it had no chems then Iraq would be vulnerable to Iran.

How could the invaders prevent inspections ?!?! it was Saddam that interfered with inspections giving the perception he was hiding something.



Actually, you're the one doing that. Repeating what you started off with.

I'm showing you a tested position that holds value. It's not my point. I'm using OOE's arguments and they've held pretty well.

I don't care what the opposition thinks and you are in their camp, i'm only interested in understanding the thinking of those that got ahead. Students of this conflict would be better served by understanding that instead of wasting time with the oppositions view. Why bother, they lost.

Only time the opposition counts is when they can affect things. Take Spain, decided they would not be a part of GWOT. They stayed out of it. That's an opposition that matters at least for Spain.

How many NATO member-states were involved in the illegal occupatiion of Irak?

[snapper]

J.K Rowling on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party:

"And lo, unto her did appear a host of Corbyn defenders, who did descend upon her mentions, and she was not sore afraid, because she was used to it. And the host did sing with one voice, ‘ungodly woman, thou foolest us not. We know the true reason thou despisest Saint Jeremy.’

And she did say unto them ‘share thy hot take.’ And with righteous wrath they did declare, ‘thou fearest Saint Jeremy, friend of the poor, because he shall take from thee in taxation much more even than Herod, and so thou attackest the meek and honest saviour of this land.’

And she did reply, ‘I shall not call ye dimwits, for it is the season of goodwill, but tis not Saint Jeremy who shall tax me, nay, not even if he enters the house of Number Ten, for my tax rates are set by Queen Nicola, in whose kingdom I do abide, and unto her I do pay my full portion, seeking neither to flee to Monaco nor to hide my gold in far flung lands, like St Jacob, Patron Saint of Filthy Hypocrites.’ ‘Speak not of hypocrites!’ cried the host, ‘for thou dost claim to care about the poor yet doth rail against their champion, St Jeremy!’

And she did answer, ‘How shall the poor fare under Brexit, which thy Saint hath always in his secret heart desired, yet he hath not admitted what was in his heart, lest fewer attend his next Sermon on the Glastonbury B Stage.’ And they did answer, ‘Saint Jeremy will achieve a miracle, and he shall bring forth a Jobs First Brexit and all the land shall rejoice.’ And she did answer, ‘bollocks.’ But she bethought her of the season of goodwill, and repenting of her ire she did speak further. ‘I have, for all my life, voted Labour, yet now I cannot.’

‘But his goodness doth shine out of his every orifice!’ cried the host, swarming anew into her mentions. ‘Behold his beard! Look upon this picture of him being led off by police when he was protesting racism in all its forms!’ And she did say, ‘I have looked upon his beard...and also upon this picture. It is a good picture and I do like a beard, as I have oft declared. Yet must I protest, thou it breaketh my heart so to do, that this party of Labour, which I have so long loved, has become, under St Jeremy -‘

‘Speak not of the Jews!’ cried the host. ‘Why must thou speak so oft of the Jews?’ ‘Yea, I must speak,’ said she, ‘for when Jews no longer feel safe in Labour then I too must leave.’ And one of the host did shout something about the Rothschilds and he was hastily hushed by his brethren, who did declare, ‘he is not one of ours, thou he sports a #JC4PM halo.’ And another did speak and he said, ‘it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel,’ and she did put her face in her hands and want to weep.

But she did then look up and see many stars shining brightly in the sky and lo, they did arrange themselves before her eyes into a ‘who would make the best Prime Minister poll’ and she did cry, ‘Will ye not raise up your eyes to the Heavens? See there the People’s mind!’

And they did look up at the stars and read there that St Jeremy was, as for ages past, in third place after Pontus May and Don’t Know. And she spake further, ‘do ye not see that St Jeremy is hurting your party, yea, that his inability even to organise a vote of no confidence doth embolden and strengthen this calamitous government, of which all despair?’ But they did close their eyes to the stars and some did answer, ‘you are a fool who doth not understand St Jeremy’s master plan’

and others still did beseech the woman to descend from the ivory tower in which, for the purposes of this story, they would wish her to dwell. And they besought her to descend into Bethlehem, and go to a certain allotment, where she would find the Messiah busy with his marrows and she would be filled with the spirit of Momentum. But she did shake her head and declare that she was and would remain an unbeliever, yet full sorrowful she was, for Labour had been her home.

And the host did despise and condemn her, and many did tell her to fuck off and join the Tories, and before they did depart one of their number cried unto her, ‘it’s because he’ll tax you more, isn’t it,’ and she did sigh and wished him a Merry Christmas."

[tankie]

Hey.......maybe this will explain to you remoaners why we need to leave this god forsaken EU. It’s so simple even you lot will get the gist of it. Brexit explained in simple terms:
Mr Britain is at the golf club returning his locker key when Mr Barnier, the membership secretary sees him.
Hello Mr Britain", says Mr Barnier. "I'm sorry to hear you are no longer renewing your club membership, if you would like to come to my office we can settle your account"
"I have settled my bar bill" says Mr Britain.
“Ah yes Mr Britain", says Mr Barnier, "but there are other matters that need settlement"
In Mr Barnier’s office Mr Britain explains that he has settled his bar bill so wonders what else he can possibly owe the Golf Club.
"Well Mr Britain" begins Mr Barnier, "you did agree to buy one of our Club Jackets".
“Yes" agrees Mr Britain "I did agree to buy a jacket but I haven't received it yet. As soon as you supply the jacket I will send you a cheque for the full amount".
“That will not be possible" explains Mr Barnier. "As you are no longer a club member you will not be entitled to buy one of our jackets"!
“But you still want me to pay for it" exclaims Mr Britain.
"Yes" says Mr Barnier, "That will be £500 for the jacket. There is also your bar bill".
“But I've already settled my bar bill" says Mr Britain.
“Yes" says Mr Barnier, "but as you can appreciate, we need to place our orders from the Brewery in advance to ensure our bar is properly stocked. You regularly used to spend at least £50 a week in the bar so we have placed orders with the brewery accordingly for the coming year. You therefore owe us £2,600 for the year".
“Will you still allow me to have these drinks?" asks Mr Britain.
“No, of course not Mr Britain. You are no longer a club member!" says Mr Barnier. "Next is your restaurant bill" continues Mr Barnier. "In the same manner we have to make arrangements in advance with our catering suppliers. Your average restaurant bill was in the order of £300 a month, so we'll require payment of £3,600 for the next year".
“I don't suppose you'll be letting me have these meals either?" asks Mr Britain.
“No, of course not," says an irritated Mr Barnier, "you are no longer a club member!"
"Then of course," Mr Barnier continues, "there are repairs to the clubhouse roof".
“Clubhouse roof!" exclaims Mr Britain, "What's that got to do with me?"
“Well it still needs to be repaired and the builders are coming in next week, your share of the bill is £2,000".
"I see," says Mr Britain, "anything else?"
“Now you mention it," says Mr Barnier, "there is Fred the Barman's pension. We would like you to pay £5 a week towards Fred's pension when he retires next month. He's not well you know so I doubt we'll need to ask you for payment for longer than about five years, so £1,300 should do it. This brings your total bill to £10,000" says Mr Barnier.
“Let me get this straight," says Mr Britain, "you want me to pay £500 for a jacket you won't let me have, £2,600 for beverages you won't let me drink and £3,600 for food you won't let me eat, all under a roof I won't be allowed under and not served by a bloke who's going to retire next month!"
“Yes, it's all perfectly clear and quite reasonable" says Mr Barnier.
"Piss off!" says Mr Britain.
And that, my friends, is how Brexit works...WE OWE NOTHING!

[kato]

Whoever wrote that up has never had any sort of legal dispute over a contract.

Because if they did they'd know that it wouldn't stop at the jacket, the food and drinks and the club roof.

[tankie]

Like it said , some will get the gist of it , others wont .

[zara]

Yes, clearly no deal is a deterrent to get people to accept her deal.



So remain's option now is to negotiate a better deal later ? there is no chance of remain left now after Article 50 has been invoked.

Brexit is happening whether people want it or not.

I wouldn't say there's no chance of remain, the bookies have a 2nd referendum at even odds today, though I agree it's pretty unlikely.

Although we are leaving Europe we don't have to go far. A few years in the wildnerness and then negoitate some kind of Norway style deal to re-introduce free movement. The young are very pro-EU.

[zara]

Hey.......maybe this will explain to you remoaners why we need to leave this god forsaken EU. It’s so simple even you lot will get the gist of it. Brexit explained in simple terms:
Mr Britain is at the golf club returning his locker key when Mr Barnier, the membership secretary sees him.
Hello Mr Britain", says Mr Barnier. "I'm sorry to hear you are no longer renewing your club membership, if you would like to come to my office we can settle your account"
"I have settled my bar bill" says Mr Britain.
“Ah yes Mr Britain", says Mr Barnier, "but there are other matters that need settlement"
In Mr Barnier’s office Mr Britain explains that he has settled his bar bill so wonders what else he can possibly owe the Golf Club.
"Well Mr Britain" begins Mr Barnier, "you did agree to buy one of our Club Jackets".
“Yes" agrees Mr Britain "I did agree to buy a jacket but I haven't received it yet. As soon as you supply the jacket I will send you a cheque for the full amount".
“That will not be possible" explains Mr Barnier. "As you are no longer a club member you will not be entitled to buy one of our jackets"!
“But you still want me to pay for it" exclaims Mr Britain.
"Yes" says Mr Barnier, "That will be £500 for the jacket. There is also your bar bill".
“But I've already settled my bar bill" says Mr Britain.
“Yes" says Mr Barnier, "but as you can appreciate, we need to place our orders from the Brewery in advance to ensure our bar is properly stocked. You regularly used to spend at least £50 a week in the bar so we have placed orders with the brewery accordingly for the coming year. You therefore owe us £2,600 for the year".
“Will you still allow me to have these drinks?" asks Mr Britain.
“No, of course not Mr Britain. You are no longer a club member!" says Mr Barnier. "Next is your restaurant bill" continues Mr Barnier. "In the same manner we have to make arrangements in advance with our catering suppliers. Your average restaurant bill was in the order of £300 a month, so we'll require payment of £3,600 for the next year".
“I don't suppose you'll be letting me have these meals either?" asks Mr Britain.
“No, of course not," says an irritated Mr Barnier, "you are no longer a club member!"
"Then of course," Mr Barnier continues, "there are repairs to the clubhouse roof".
“Clubhouse roof!" exclaims Mr Britain, "What's that got to do with me?"
“Well it still needs to be repaired and the builders are coming in next week, your share of the bill is £2,000".
"I see," says Mr Britain, "anything else?"
“Now you mention it," says Mr Barnier, "there is Fred the Barman's pension. We would like you to pay £5 a week towards Fred's pension when he retires next month. He's not well you know so I doubt we'll need to ask you for payment for longer than about five years, so £1,300 should do it. This brings your total bill to £10,000" says Mr Barnier.
“Let me get this straight," says Mr Britain, "you want me to pay £500 for a jacket you won't let me have, £2,600 for beverages you won't let me drink and £3,600 for food you won't let me eat, all under a roof I won't be allowed under and not served by a bloke who's going to retire next month!"
“Yes, it's all perfectly clear and quite reasonable" says Mr Barnier.
"Piss off!" says Mr Britain.
And that, my friends, is how Brexit works...WE OWE NOTHING!

I think a mobile phone contract is a better analogy than a Golf Club. Plus that 39 billion has to pay your hero Farages pension! You wouldn't want to deprive him of that would you?