Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Alastor]

Blind denialism. Either confront the criticism or admit you were wrong.

What criticism has not been confronted?

You have done no such thing. All you've done is lie about the nature of my part of the exchange in a desperate attempt to avoid conceding how abysmal your argument actually is.

There we go again with the "yes you have, no you haven't" quality arguments.

You've not bothered with much aside from deflecting and evading. You stopped partaking in the discourse some time ago: for you this is now about nothing more than protecting your ego and having the last word.

You have not contributed much worth bothering with.

This retort is irrelevant for the same reason that it was previously. Whether or not you were speaking about "all Brexiteers" has no bearing on your contradictory claims with respect to their alleged faults. On the one hand you want them to be hypocrites who ignore Westminster's deficiencies, but on the other you want them to be fools who don't understand what's going on.

How can it have no bearing? Why can't some be hypocrites, while others are ignorant.

You're continuing to flagrantly lie about having made PR amendments to your claims in an effort to make them appear less bigoted.

Did I not say that the tone was perhaps inflammatory? I said that. I moderated the tone, I did not change the meaning. Perhaps you can learn a thing or two from that.

You mean you've attempted to embellish your small minded comments out of embarrassment.

No, I mean I have elaborated my arguments in response to your small minded nitpicks.

So first you falsely complained that I hadn't offered any criticism, then when I restated the criticism that I supposedly had never provided you claim to have previously addressed it. What utterly laughable drivel. Just admit that you have no meaningful response rather than persisting with these attempts to sabotage the discussion in the hopes that eventually I'll go away and you can avoid having to own up to your dreadful arguments.

As I said before I have responded to criticism when that was provided. It would take a huge logical leap for you then to come and claim that means I claim none was ever provided. In this case though admittedly I forgot to put the quotations marks around "criticism".

Maybe if you read your own replies before rushing to respond for the sake of responding this wouldn't be an issue. When you make comments such as "As for people that disagree with me, being thick." (yes that's the full sentence) I have to point out that they're incoherent because they self-evidently are.

Right, a comma, your whole argument rests around a comma.

Yes, because spending more than 30 seconds considering the wording and relevance of statistics is pedantry. Maybe if you'd been more pedantic you'd have seen how your own use of the data was so patently absurd.

You know fully well what I meant. At least you are not disputing that.

Since your comment here is an irrelevant straw man of my previous remarks, allow me to refer to your previous "argument".

"So unlike what you said above it is indeed not a non sequitur. If the correlation is not wrong then it can't be."

Here you indicate that you actually believe that the existence of a correlation between two statements disallows the possibility that they can be non sequential. Rofl. This really is just degenerating into idiocy of the highest order from you now. I honestly hope you're trolling.

First you dismiss my argument without a response. Then you resort to more pedantry and insults. Right. The fact you admitted the facts I used are not irrelevant to my conclusion, which makes them relevant, shows it is not a non sequitur. You can focus on arguing that my conclusion was wrong. Indeed it is possible that it is wrong. But this pedantic nonsense has gone far enough.

Yeah, at how to be laughably wrong.

About bloody time.

Ow, zinger.

This comment is ironic, insulting, self-defeating, irrelevant and hilarious in equal measure. I thought you'd reached the epitome of you vacuousness with your comments on non sequential arguments, but no, the crescendo was still very much to come. Needless to say, I'm hardly surprised that you're employing these sort of bigoted anti-democratic arguments as part of an extended defense of the European Union. What's even more laughable is that you see this supposed lack of interest "in the nuances of politics" as an obstacle to proper engagement with ancient national parliaments but not to proper engagement with a lumbering dysfunctional confederation of 30 odd disparate countries which is role-playing as a superstate.

A pile of straw man arguments accompanied by a fair degree of insults. Nothing much to see here. Though that last one there was rather cute.

Because being familiar with rational political arguments is comparable to being a medical expert. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

Rational political arguments about a specialized subject yes. It might surprise you but some people do go to university to study politics.

You presented what you thought was an example but wasn't - which is what tends to happens when you're motivated by bigotry rather than reason.

Now the argument devolves to "was not/was" sprinkled with more insults.

I've literally just explained it to you. Stop wasting my time with this trolling.

I will, when you do explain it.

Ah, more newspeak. Do you actually think this attempt to anthropomorphize a series of word (ie. an argument) into something with moral agency is convincing? An argument can be inconsistent or self-defeating minus its maker, not hypocritical. Though it really doesn't matter because the context of your remarks proves that you're lying about what your intentions were and are. This is just a further attempt to walk back your previously made incendiary remarks.

An argument can also be repeated or parroted. Your aphorism is wrong.

"The European Union "blocking" things isn't the argument being made. It's that so long as the United Kingdom remains in the European Union any domestic reform is effectively irrelevant because British democracy is ultimately subservient to pan-European treaties."

It isn't that the treaties themselves contain specific clauses that explicitly restrict meaningful reform, its that they delegate power to the European Union both to make policy regarding, and to have the final say on, issues ranging from international labour flows to human rights. Lisbon, in particular, poses a significant democratic problem because it paved the way for the entry of the eastern bloc countries and instituted qualified majority voting. This simultaneously diluted the United Kingdom's influence within the EU whilst also empowering pro-EU adminstrations - which is of course exactly why they moved toward it.

First it's the treaties, then it's not the treaties. You can't even decide what your point is supposed to be and you are blindly reposting answered sections in a debate, which is disruptive. Meanwhile you have yet to give me one example of such meaningful democratic reform suggested to fix the UK's deficiencies and made impossible by the European Union or its treaties.

[Basil II the B.S]

Are you guys having fun btw? Because I don't think anyone else is reading, so to the very least I hope you two are enjoy it.

[Muizer]

Hehe, seriously though. Where is this vBulletin function that automatically splits a quote at every carriage return?

[Cope]

What criticism has not been confronted?

Quite a bit, but this specifically: ""What you've done is lifted a generalized trend, isolated it from all other variables and then applied it as evidence for the validity a specific accusation. And this you did in the most incendiary way possible without even bothering to offer an analysis of educational attainment as an independent factor. So that, my dear fellow, is why your point has all the intellectual trappings of a bait thread on 4Chan."

There we go again with the "yes you have, no you haven't" quality arguments.

Are you reading your own posts again?

You have not contributed much worth bothering with.

Yet here you are, responding to almost every line I post - albeit with very little substance.

How can it have no bearing? Why can't some be hypocrites, while others are ignorant.

More trite newspeak from you. Let's look at your original claims - which you've categorically denied walking back.

"What I implied is that Brexiteers seem to pretend this is an EU-only issue. And that is hypocritical to say the least.
" I have heard enough Brexiteers on the radio to know you must be quite high indeed if you think most of them even understand the meaning of the word sovereignty."

The first statement alone disqualifies the idea that your argument (minus subsequent PR stroking) ever made a distinction between different types of leave voters. Not that it even matters, because the argument, even in its most recent form - that leavers who voted on the basis of sovereignty were either hypocritical or ignorant - is offensive bollocks for which you've provided zero evidence. All you've done is desperately try to relate an educational trend with the conclusion in an attempt to convince - I think yourself more than me - that your position has any value whatsoever.

Did I not say that the tone was perhaps inflammatory? I said that. I moderated the tone, I did not change the meaning. Perhaps you can learn a thing or two from that.

See above. You aren't "moderating the tone". You're lying about having made broad brush statements which you were later forced to walk back - though you're continuing to pretend, for matters relating to your ego, that you aren't doing that.

No, I mean I have elaborated my arguments in response to your small minded nitpicks.

See above. Again.

As I said before I have responded to criticism when that was provided. It would take a huge logical leap for you then to come and claim that means I claim none was ever provided. In this case though admittedly I forgot to put the quotations marks around "criticism".

Another lie. Here is you, during the first part of this specific exchange, denying the existence of criticism which you later demanded was restated.

"You have levelled no relevant criticism, just accusations"

Right, a comma, your whole argument rests around a comma.

This isn't simply a question of pedantry: I don't have the inclination to study your poorly worded expressions, many of which are wild deviations from the points they purport to be responding to. Your ambiguous use of pronouns and determiners is particularly egregious - you persistently use words like "it" and "that" without it being clear what "it" or "that" is meant to refer to.

You know fully well what I meant. At least you are not disputing that.

Given your abysmal statistical interpretations, it's important that we get some accuracy.

First you dismiss my argument without a response.

Let's look at what you said:

"An assumption does not have to be a non sequitur if it is incorrect. It can be backed by erroneous findings for instance. It will logically follow but will still be wrong. In order not to be a non sequitur it's enough to follow logically, which it does."

The first part of your "argument" is a patent straw man. At no point did I suggest that an assumption had to be a non sequitur on the basis that its final conclusion was incorrect. So, as I stated, this is an irrelevant interjection which has no bearing on the conversation and requires no further debate.

The second part of your argument, ("in order not to be a non sequitur it's enough to follow logically, which it does") is a restatement of the lie that your conclusion was a logical extension of the first premise. I showed why it was not, and you still, after about 3 posts, haven't bothered addressing it. So I shall restate it again.

"What you've done is lifted a generalized trend, isolated it from all other variables and then applied it as evidence for the validity a specific accusation. And this you did in the most incendiary way possible without even bothering to offer an analysis of educational attainment as an independent factor. So that, my dear fellow, is why your point has all the intellectual trappings of a bait thread on 4Chan."

Then you resort to more pedantry and insults. Right.

My having to explain some basic features of argumentation isn't "pedantry"; though it is true that I insulted your amusing misunderstanding of what a non sequitur is.

The fact you admitted the facts I used are not irrelevant to my conclusion, which makes them relevant, shows it is not a non sequitur.

This is a hilarious repetition of the same idiotic claim that a correlation between two statements disqualifies them from being non sequential. And, by the way, I wasn't even saying that there's a correlation between your first premise and your second, I was saying that even if there was, that wouldn't automatically disqualify it from being a non sequitur.

You can focus on arguing that my conclusion was wrong. Indeed it is possible that it is wrong. But this pedantic nonsense has gone far enough.

Your conclusion is wrong and so is the logic you used to reach it. There is no reason to assume, as shown, that lower average formal educational attainment would lead to "most leave voters" being ignorant of the concept of sovereignty.

A pile of straw man arguments accompanied by a fair degree of insults. Nothing much to see here. Though that last one there was rather cute.

Yeah, better not bother addressing that in any substantive way - it kinda sorta definitely exposes how laughably offensive and also logically flawed your central arguments are.

Rational political arguments about a specialized subject yes. It might surprise you but some people do go to university to study politics.

What prattle. A person needs at least half a decade of specialist university training to qualify as a medical practitioner and countless more years of academic study to reach the status of consultant or professor. No such formal education is needed to become a politician - much less to understand basic concepts such as sovereignty. The leader of the opposition - who at the last generally election was statistically favoured by university graduates - has no degree. We've had Prime Ministers with no degree. Your comparison is as vapid as your assumptions.

Now the argument devolves to "was not/was" sprinkled with more insults.

You referred to an argument which had previously been debunked as though it had not been. Again. So we can put this under the category of mindless repetition on your part.

I will, when you do explain it.

The parts of the treaties which present an obstacle to that "elusive democratic reform" are the parts which oblige Westminster to delegate lawmaking powers to the European Union to such an extent that making any domestic constitutional change (other than that which encouraged the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union) would be functionally irrelevant in the bigger picture. Now are you going to demand that I say it again?

An argument can also be repeated or parroted. Your aphorism is wrong.

Whether an argument is hypocritical is contingent upon who's making the argument: it cannot be hypocritical in and of itself. It has no moral agency. According to the reasoning you provide here, even people who had spent their entire lives campaigning for domestic democratic reform would necessarily be hypocrites for voting leave on the basis of the EU's democratic deficiencies. This is because, according to your rationale (which was really just an attempt to backtrack) it isn't the argument maker but the argument itself which is hypocritical. So amusingly, in your attempt to convince me that your accusation of hypocrisy wasn't a personal attack, you've contradicted and compromised your other backtracking effort to convince me that you'd never argued that all leave voters who cited sovereignty as their rationale were hypocrites.

Bravo.

First it's the treaties, then it's not the treaties.

The United Kingdom's association with the treaties is the problem, but not because the treaties themselves include clauses which specifically "block" democratic reform. I've made this point as clearly as possible at least three times now.

You can't even decide what your point is supposed to be and you are blindly reposting answered sections in a debate, which is disruptive.

You don't bother to properly read the presented argumentation and then demand that questions which have previously been answered are answered again. Then, if I acquiesce to the demand, you'll just ignore the response and either move on, repeat the demand or use your misreading as a basis for straw man arguments - all the while accusing me of being disruptive. Pathetic.

Meanwhile you have yet to give me one example of such meaningful democratic reform suggested to fix the UK's deficiencies and made impossible by the European Union or its treaties.

For the nth time, the treaties don't make the UK's domestic deficiencies impossible to reform, they make them effectively pointless to reform. The only exception to this I can think of would be reform to reduce the over representation of remain voters in Parliament.

[Alastor]

Are you guys having fun btw? Because I don't think anyone else is reading, so to the very least I hope you two are enjoy it.

Well my interlocutor seems to be having the time of his life. Personally I don't particularly care either way. But I agree that probably nobody is reading all that anymore, indeed if they ever did. In the interest of not disrupting the flow of the thread I will attempt to cut out as much of the fluff as possible.

The first statement alone disqualifies the idea that your argument (minus subsequent PR stroking) ever made a distinction between different types of leave voters. Not that it even matters, because the argument, even in its most recent form - that leavers who voted on the basis of sovereignty were either hypocritical or ignorant - is offensive bollocks for which you've provided zero evidence. All you've done is desperately try to relate an educational trend with the conclusion in an attempt to convince - I think yourself more than me - that your position has any value whatsoever.

Nonsense. Saying "Brexiteers" is not synonymous to saying "all Brexiteers". So yet again this is pedantry.

Another lie. Here is you, during the first part of this specific exchange, denying the existence of criticism which you later demanded was restated.

"You have levelled no relevant criticism, just accusations"

That was a response to a specific segment of the debate. Try harder.

What prattle. A person needs at least half a decade of specialist university training to qualify as a medical practitioner and countless more years of academic study to reach the status of consultant or professor. No such formal education is needed to become a politician - much less to understand basic concepts such as sovereignty. The leader of the opposition - who at the last generally election was statistically favoured by university graduates - has no degree. We've had Prime Ministers with no degree. Your comparison is as vapid as your assumptions.

This is again you nitpicking the example instead of addressing the point. Aka using a straw man. The point was that it is not bigoted to claim the majority does not have expert knowledge on a subject.

The parts of the treaties which present an obstacle to that "elusive democratic reform" are the parts which oblige Westminster to delegate lawmaking powers to the European Union to such an extent that making any domestic constitutional change (other than that which encouraged the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union) would be functionally irrelevant in the bigger picture. Now are you going to demand that I say it again?

I will ask that you explain what those delegated powers are and why do they make such reform impossible. The UK inside or outside the EU is a sovereign state. In matters of the nature of its political system it is independent. This is a question of meaningful democratic reform, not simply of enacting legislation. So again I have to ask, why would that be impossible while inside the EU?

Whether an argument is hypocritical is contingent upon who's making the argument: it cannot be hypocritical in and of itself. It has no moral agency. According to the reasoning you provide here, even people who had spent their entire lives campaigning for domestic democratic reform would necessarily be hypocrites for voting leave on the basis of the EU's democratic deficiencies. This is because, according to your rationale (which was really just an attempt to backtrack) it isn't the argument maker but the argument itself which is hypocritical. So amusingly, in your attempt to convince me that your accusation of hypocrisy wasn't a personal attack, you've contradicted and compromised your other backtracking effort to convince me that you'd never argued that all leave voters who cited sovereignty as their rationale were hypocrites.

False. I did not argue they would necessarily be hypocrites. I argued their argument would be hypocritical.

For the nth time, the treaties don't make the UK's domestic deficiencies impossible to reform, they make them effectively pointless to reform. The only exception to this I can think of would be reform to reduce the over representation of remain voters in Parliament.

Provide an example of such a suggested "meaningful democratic reform" that the treaties of the EU make pointless.

[Cope]

Well my interlocutor seems to be having the time of his life. Personally I don't particularly care either way. But I agree that probably nobody is reading all that anymore, indeed if they ever did. In the interest of not disrupting the flow of the thread I will attempt to cut down as much of the fluff as possible.

By which of course you mean avoiding the most pertinent criticisms of your argument - as you illustrate by failing to respond, yet again, to the first point. That must be what, the fifth or sixth time?

Nonsense. Saying "Brexiteers" is not synonymous to saying "all Brexiteers". So yet again this is pedantry.

I'm actually laughing. This level of sophistry is beyond comical. Try replacing the word "Brexiteers" with a racial or religious minority group: that should aptly demonstrate how asinine this "refutation" is.

That was a response to a specific segment of the debate. Try harder.

The specific segment of the debate you're referring to was the genesis of the the argumentative tangent being discussed. Avoid harder.

This is again you nitpicking the example instead of addressing the point. Aka using a straw man.

Nitpicking isn't using a straw man lol.

The point was that it is not bigoted to claim the majority does not have expert knowledge on a subject.

More laughable rubbish. Even if I believed that was your intention - which it wasn't, and isn't - it would be totally irrelevant to the debate. Yeah, we know that the majority doesn't have an "expert knowledge" - that's what the modifying adjective "expert" indicates. But what does that have to do with your claim that ordinary voters aren't familiar enough with the rational political arguments to have voted in favour of the nation state from a position of reason rather than "bias"? Nothing - because that's not what you intended the comparison to show.

I will ask that you explain what those delegated powers are and why do they make such reform impossible. The UK inside or outside the EU is a sovereign state. In matters of the nature of its political system it is independent. This is a question of meaningful democratic reform, not simply of enacting legislation. So again I have to ask, why would that be impossible while inside the EU?

Ok, so you did demand that I said it again. Please re-read the comment you are responding to for an answer to your question.

False. I did not argue they would necessarily be hypocrites. I argued their argument would be hypocritical.

Which self-evidently makes no sense whatsoever! Congratulations, you've officially argued yourself into insanity.

Provide an example of such a suggested "meaningful democratic reform" that the treaties of the EU make pointless.

Not including reformatory ramifications which would accelerate the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, just about anything. Even moving toward PR, abolishing unelected Lords or demanding the election of the PM would be straining at a gnat - particularly, as I've said, in the light of creeping unionization.

[Alastor]

More laughable rubbish. Even if I believed that was your intention - which it wasn't, and isn't - it would be totally irrelevant to the debate. Yeah, we know that the majority doesn't have an "expert knowledge" - that's what the modifying adjective "expert" indicates. But what does that have to do with your claim that ordinary voters aren't familiar enough with the rational political arguments to have voted in favour of the nation state from a position of reason rather than "bias"? Nothing - because that's not what you intended the comparison to show.

We were discussing the rational arguments that explain the superiority of the nation state as a governing unit. That is expert knowledge.

Not including reformatory ramifications which would accelerate the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, just about anything. Even moving toward PR, abolishing unelected Lords or demanding the election of the PM would be straining at a gnat - particularly, as I've said, in the light of creeping unionization.

Creeping unionization that if it came the UK could reject, or indeed opt out from. As for the examples you mention. So, you are basically saying that electing the PM from the base for instance would be pointless while in the EU, but a meaningful democratic reform out of it. Ok, why?

[Cope]

We were discussing the rational arguments that explain the superiority of the nation state as a governing unit. That is expert knowledge.

No it isn't. You don't need "expert knowledge" to have a rational preference for the national polity for Christ's sake. Why don't you just come right out and admit that you'd prefer (despite not being able to rationally according to your own position) a technocracy. At least then we could have debate about the European Union where your fundamental principles were clarified.

Creeping unionization that if it came the UK could reject, or indeed opt out from.

But hasn't historically - for the most part.

As for the examples you mention. So, you are basically saying that electing the PM from the base for instance would be pointless while in the EU, but a meaningful democratic reform out of it. Ok, why?

Incoherent.

[Alastor]

No it isn't. You don't need "expert knowledge" to have a rational preference for the national polity for Christ's sake. Why don't you just come right out and admit that you'd prefer (despite not being able to rationally according to your own position) a technocracy. At least then we could have debate about the European Union where your fundamental principles were clarified.

To have knowledge of the rational arguments that make it superior as a governing unit over what the EU represents. Let's not forget that part.

But hasn't historically - for the most part.

Incoherent.

Which is irrelevant. The right is there, it's up to the UK to use it.

Well, if I must repeat: Why are the reforms you mentioned "meaningful democratic reforms" after Brexit, yet pointless before?

[Cope]

To have knowledge of the rational arguments that make it superior as a governing unit over what the EU represents. Let's not forget that part.

And after all that, it boils down to a vapid insult. What a surprise. Funny how this final remark bears virtually no resemblance to the original point of this tangent though. I suppose at least that's in keeping with the general sophistry of almost all of your posts.

Which is irrelevant. The right is there, it's up to the UK to use it.

The arguments being made against the European Union aren't predicated on the United Kingdom's present inability to reject further integration. So the only irrelevance is you raising this as an issue in the first place.

Well, if I must repeat: Why are the reforms you mentioned "meaningful democratic reforms" after Brexit, yet pointless before?

Because so long as Parliament allows itself to be domineered by a set of external institutions, whatever changes it makes to itself are irrelevant.

[Alastor]

Because so long as Parliament allows itself to be domineered by a set of external institutions, whatever changes it makes to itself are irrelevant.

So how the PM is elected is irrelevant while in the EU? Even though the PM and his/her government are the ones with the final say on the application of EU law in the UK. Even though parliament remains sovereign? That doesn't follow. And if your beef is with existing treaties, instead of future ones, I will remind that you haven't shown what in particular blocks meaningful democratic reform.

[Cope]

So how the PM is elected is irrelevant while in the EU? Even though the PM and his/her government are the ones with the final say on the application of EU law in the UK. Even though parliament remains sovereign?

Google the difference between de jure and de facto.

That doesn't follow. And if your beef is with existing treaties, instead of future ones, I will remind that you haven't shown what in particular blocks meaningful democratic reform.

Explained endlessly. See previous posts.

I do further notice that you've finally tuckered yourself out to the point that I no longer have to field an endless litany of asinine assertions, insults and deflections. I was going to say that there were times you came close to making some good points, but there really weren't. Nevertheless, I would still like to congratulate you on making arguments so dreadful that had you been making them publicly prior to June 23rd 2016, they almost certainly would have contributed in some small way to the leave campaign's victory.

All the same, God bless you.

[Alastor]

Google the difference between de jure and de facto.

Explained endlessly. See previous posts.

I do further notice that you've finally tuckered yourself out to the point that I no longer have to field an endless litany of asinine assertions, insults and deflections. I was going to say that there were times you came close to making some good points, but there really weren't. Nevertheless, I would still like to congratulate you on making arguments so dreadful that had you been making them publicly prior to June 23rd 2016, they almost certainly would have contributed in some small way to the leave campaign's victory.

All the same, God bless you.

Another arrogant deflection it is then. Your insinuations that the UK is effectively an occupied state, only nominally independent, are exaggerated and in line with the basest of Brexiteer propaganda. You have yet to show one proper example of a meaningful democratic reform made impossible by the European Union. You are mixing the policy areas the EU has a say in with matters that concern the nature of the political system. You forget that democracy, or what passes for one these days, is a core principle of the EU, so indeed it would be hypocritical of them to even try and interfere anyway. Sth any principled government in the UK could call them out on and indeed rebuke. My argument that if the UK is failing to deliver meaningful democratic reform, it has more to do with a domestic unwillingness to do so than the EU was not disproved. Yet you merrily carry on.

FYI I do not really agree with Brexit. I consider it an act of self-harm made largely possible by a failing political class and demagoguery. But I am not one of those that hope for its reversal, the opposite I want it over and done with as soon as possible. Had my arguments contributed to the "Leave" campaign, so be it, people often hear what they want to hear, as evidenced numerous times by your behaviour here, I can live with that.

[Cope]

Another arrogant deflection it is then. Your insinuations that the UK is effectively an occupied state, only nominally independent, are exaggerated and in line with the basest of Brexiteer propaganda.

I didn't say it was effectively occupied. I implied that the British electorate lack de facto sovereignty so long as Westminster continues to delegate some of its most significant responsibilities to external organizations and allows the legislation and judiciary of said organizations to take precedence over its own.

You have yet to show one proper example of a meaningful democratic reform made impossible by the European Union.

I haven't claimed that the European Union makes meaningful democratic reform "impossible"; your continued insistence that I have is irrelevant.

You are mixing the policy areas the EU has a say in with matters that concern the nature of the political system.

You say that as if the two don't intersect - as if policy isn't affected by the system and vice versa. If you can't see how arguing that "the EU not directly blocking the UK from leaving the EU is why the UK shouldn't leave the EU" is an amusingly ridiculous contention, then I really can't help you.

You forget that democracy, or what passes for one these days, is a core principle of the EU, so indeed it would be hypocritical of them to even try and interfere anyway.

This sounds like an admission that the European Union is only nominally democratic.

Sth any principled government in the UK could call them out on and indeed rebuke. My argument that if the UK is failing to deliver meaningful democratic reform, it has more to do with a domestic unwillingness to do so than the EU was not disproved. Yet you merrily carry on.

I know what your argument is, and its largely irrelevant for the reasons expressed repeatedly. It has been incessantly acknowledged that the United Kingdom's constitution is imperfect minus its attachment to the European treaties. But that isn't, wasn't and will never be, a good reason for opposing the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

FYI I do not really agree with Brexit.

You don't say?

I consider it an act of self-harm made largely possible by a failing political class and demagoguery.

What almost everyone who makes this embarrassing "argument" (its really just an insult) means is either that their shielded, comfortable bourgeois lives might be a little disrupted or that their ideological preferences have been offended. It's just a variation on the "leave voters are thick and/or irrational and/or hypocritical and/or (insert demeaning remark)". It doesn't constitute a meaningful analysis. The irony of people who suppose their own intellectual superiority being reduced to making such claims may be lost on you, but it isn't on me.

But I am not one of those that hope for its reversal, the opposite I want it over and done with as soon as possible. Had my arguments contributed to the "Leave" campaign, so be it, people often hear what they want to hear, as evidenced numerous times by your behaviour here, I can live with that.

You offered insults dressed up as arguments and then expected them to be convincing. Nevertheless, and were I inclined to be sympathetic, I'd say you presented, at best, poorly articulated negative defenses such as "Westminster is as bad as Brussels" and "all the smart people agree with me".

[Alastor]

I didn't say it was effectively occupied. I implied that the British electorate lack de facto sovereignty so long as Westminster continues to delegate some of its most significant responsibilities to external organizations and allows the legislation and judiciary of said organizations to take precedence over its own.

I haven't claimed that the European Union makes meaningful democratic reform "impossible"; your continued insistence that I have is irrelevant.

You say that as if the two don't intersect - as if policy isn't affected by the system and vice versa. If you can't see how arguing that "the EU not directly blocking the UK from leaving the EU is why the UK shouldn't leave the EU" is an amusingly ridiculous contention, then I really can't help you.

First of all the British electorate is not sovereign, parliament is. And you have yet to show which of these significant delegated responsibilities preclude meaningful democratic reform. And if your issue is with the word impossible, you definitely have claimed that it's pointless. So an example of that. An example of a meaningful democratic reform made pointless by the EU, or its treaties. Regarding intersection, again what i asked is for examples of this suggested effect to meaningful democratic reform. Finally, yes that the UK parliament can legislate to leave the EU is testament to its de facto sovereignty. Be as amused as you want to be. It doesn't change much.

This sounds like an admission that the European Union is only nominally democratic.

It was actually an observation that democracies at large are democratically deficient. Considering how many times we've spoken of deficiencies on both sides this should hardly come as a surprise to you. But as I said people will hear what they want to hear.

I know what your argument is, and its largely irrelevant for the reasons expressed repeatedly. It has been incessantly acknowledged that the United Kingdom's constitution is imperfect minus its attachment to the European treaties. But that isn't, wasn't and will never be, a good reason for opposing the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

The argument was not that the UK being democratically deficient is a good reason to oppose leaving (though it could have been if the EU was obviously superior in that respect). The argument was that, because of that fact, accusing the EU of being undemocratic because of similar deficiencies is hypocritical and/or lacks self-awareness. The repeated accusations regarding the election of the Commission comes to mind.

What almost everyone who makes this embarrassing "argument" (its really just an insult) means is either that their shielded, comfortable bourgeois lives might be a little disrupted or that their ideological preferences have been offended. It's just a variation on the "leave voters are thick and/or irrational and/or hypocritical and/or (insert demeaning remark)". It doesn't constitute a meaningful analysis. The irony of people who suppose their own intellectual superiority being reduced to making such claims may be lost on you, but it isn't on me.

You offered insults dressed up as arguments and then expected them to be convincing. Nevertheless, and were I inclined to be sympathetic, I'd say you presented, at best, poorly articulated negative defenses such as "Westminster is as bad as Brussels" and "all the smart people agree with me".

With Brexit the British economy will take a hit, as indeed it already has. That is self-harm. With Brexit a large number of people will lose rights. That is self-harm. With Brexit the people will gain... what exactly? A sovereign UK? They had it already. A UK that is allowed to fix its democratic deficiencies? Nope, already there. A UK that is willing to fix its democratic deficiencies? Brexit has no effect on that, so no. Really I have yet to see one good example of how Brexit will benefit the electorate at large in any tangible way. All I see is wishful thinking and harm. And making a mistake does not necessarily make one thick. Smart people can make mistakes, they can be misled etc. So again, what I'm saying has little to do with what you are twisting it into.

[mongrel]

When the WTO chief himself says the the UK will take a significant economic hit under no-deal/WTO rules , I'd say that anyone who says everything would be rosy if the UK is defenistrated from the EU and can manage on WTO terms is either wrong, badly misinformed, or is a liar.

Also thanks to Trump it's going to be difficult to dispute issues if the UK finds itself suffering unreasonable tarriffs under WTO. Thanks to him the WTO's appelate body isn't functioning.

[Cope]

First of all the British electorate is not sovereign, parliament is.

Parliament, in practice, derives its authority through the electorate. The empowerment of the British electorate provides the basis for the "sovereignty" argument as it relates to the European Union.

And you have yet to show which of these significant delegated responsibilities preclude meaningful democratic reform. And if your issue is with the word impossible, you definitely have claimed that it's pointless. So an example of that. An example of a meaningful democratic reform made pointless by the EU, or its treaties. Regarding intersection, again what i asked is for examples of this suggested effect to meaningful democratic reform.

Broken record alert. Replacing the word "impossible" with "preclude" is an irrelevant semantic adjustment.

Finally, yes that the UK parliament can legislate to leave the EU is testament to its de facto sovereignty. Be as amused as you want to be. It doesn't change much.

Another repetition of the "UK can leave the EU therefore the UK shouldn't leave EU" nonsense. And yes, I continue to be amused that you think this line of self-defeating rationale would be convincing to anyone.

It was actually an observation that democracies at large are democratically deficient. Considering how many times we've spoken of deficiencies on both sides this should hardly come as a surprise to you. But as I said people will hear what they want to hear.

Another repetition of the "don't leave the EU because all democracies are deficient" nonsense. Once again, I really have to wonder why on earth you'd think that an argument effectively predicated on a mutated form of the classic tu quoque fallacy is even remotely convincing.

The argument was not that the UK being democratically deficient is a good reason to oppose leaving (though it could have been if the EU was obviously superior in that respect). The argument was that, because of that fact, accusing the EU of being undemocratic because of similar deficiencies is hypocritical and/or lacks self-awareness. The repeated accusations regarding the election of the Commission comes to mind.

All claims made here have previously been exposed, for one reason or another, as being false, irrelevant or sophistic.

With Brexit the British economy will take a hit, as indeed it already has. That is self-harm.

Even if you could prove this to be true, you might as well be arguing that chemotherapy or the Second World War are/were acts of self harm. Then again, perhaps given your commitment to an ideologically imposed, democratically deficient, continental super structure dominated by the Germans you do think that WWII was an act of self-harm.

With Brexit a large number of people will lose rights. That is self-harm.

The right to national democratic sovereignty supersedes British membership of an obtuse and dysfunctional confederation of competing disparate economies and ethnically distinct populations whose most ardent proponents envisage the reduction of Europe's most ancient states to imperial provinces. The only self-harm was ever allowing the Europhile ideologues like Blair effective carte blanche to undermine the UK's historic constitution.

With Brexit the people will gain... what exactly? A sovereign UK? They had it already. A UK that is allowed to fix its democratic deficiencies? Nope, already there. A UK that is willing to fix its democratic deficiencies? Brexit has no effect on that, so no. Really I have yet to see one good example of how Brexit will benefit the electorate at large in any tangible way. All I see is wishful thinking and harm. And making a mistake does not necessarily make one thick. Smart people can make mistakes, they can be misled etc. So again, what I'm saying has little to do with what you are twisting it into.

More mindless repetition of the "UK is sovereign because it can leave and therefore shouldn't leave" nonsense.

[Alastor]

Parliament, in practice, derives its authority through the electorate. The empowerment of the British electorate provides the basis for the "sovereignty" argument as it relates to the European Union.

Parliament is an authority, what it derives from the electorate is legitimacy. For someone so interested in pedantry that's a funny one to miss. Though it does illustrate my earlier point that these are fairly complex matters and require some expert knowledge. The rest of your argument makes no sense.

Broken record alert. Replacing the word "impossible" with "preclude" is an irrelevant semantic adjustment.

Another repetition of the "UK can leave the EU therefore the UK shouldn't leave EU" nonsense. And yes, I continue to be amused that you think this line of self-defeating rationale would be convincing to anyone.

Another repetition of the "don't leave the EU because all democracies are deficient" nonsense. Once again, I really have to wonder why on earth you'd think that an argument effectively predicated on a mutated form of the classic tu quoque fallacy is even remotely convincing.

All claims made here have previously been exposed, for one reason or another, as being false, irrelevant or sophistic.

Even if you could prove this to be true, you might as well be arguing that chemotherapy or the Second World War are/were acts of self harm. Then again, perhaps given your commitment to an ideologically imposed, democratically deficient, continental super structure dominated by the Germans you do think that WWII was an act of self-harm.

More mindless repetition of the "UK is sovereign because it can leave and therefore shouldn't leave" nonsense.

Poor dodges and deflections. Straw man arguments and denial. Nothing that merits a proper response. Next.

The right to national democratic sovereignty supersedes British membership of an obtuse and dysfunctional confederation of competing disparate economies and ethnically distinct populations whose most ardent proponents envisage the reduction of Europe's most ancient states to imperial provinces. The only self-harm was ever allowing the Europhile ideologues like Blair effective carte blanche to undermine the UK's historic constitution.

The right? Where is that right defined? What supersedes British membership in the EU is the fact that the UK is a sovereign state. Not some nationalistic version of the charter of humans rights. And you are aware of course that the UK itself is a union of distinct nations right? By the same logic the Scots should have left the UK years ago. It's funny that here you are decrying the EU for allegedly attempting to do sth the UK has proven can actually work. That is to create a union of nations.

[Cope]

Parliament is an authority, what it derives from the electorate is legitimacy. For someone so interested in pedantry that's a funny one to miss. Though it does illustrate my earlier point that these are fairly complex matters and require some expert knowledge. The rest of your argument makes no sense.

Unless it is willing to use militarism to enforce its dictates, Parliament's authority is contingent upon its democratic legitimacy. By extension, the point you claim as pedantry isn't relevant and your contention that it requires expert knowledge to recognize the difference between authority and legitimacy is not only asinine, but also self-defeating in the sense that you also lack expert knowledge.

Poor dodges and deflections. Straw man arguments and denial. Nothing that merits a proper response. Next.

Another instance of you having no rebuttal to a series of statements which contradict your views. Dreadful debating on your part once again.

The right? Where is that right defined?

Well nowhere, sadly - as is evidenced by the United Kingdom's membership in the European Union.

What supersedes British membership in the EU is the fact that the UK is a sovereign state.

Another repetition of the "UK can leave the EU therefore the UK shouldn't leave EU" nonsense. And yes, I continue to be amused that you think this line of self-defeating rationale would be convincing to anyone.

Not some nationalistic version of the charter of humans rights. And you are aware of course that the UK itself is a union of distinct nations right? By the same logic the Scots should have left the UK years ago. It's funny that here you are decrying the EU for allegedly attempting to do sth the UK has proven can actually work. That is to create a union of nations.

You're right. The union of British nations is among one of the most successful in history. That said, and I'm not sure if you were aware, but our union was built off the back of more than two centuries of Anglo-Norman monarchical domineering which included cultural - and in the case of the RoI - literal, genocide. So if you're willing to tolerate copious amounts of blood letting, constitutional vandalism, cultural destruction and elitist power games then yes, I agree you might just be able to create a union of European nations which works. Although even then, the threat of them parting ways, either via parliamentary decree, democratic referenda, or militant rebellion would remain perennially existential.

[Alastor]

Well nowhere, sadly - as is evidenced by the United Kingdom's membership in the European Union.

So nationalism is not a right. Boo hoo.

Another repetition of the "UK can leave the EU therefore the UK shouldn't leave EU" nonsense. And yes, I continue to be amused that you think this line of self-defeating rationale would be convincing to anyone.

The argument is that the UK being able to leave the EU proves it remains sovereign. The UK should not leave the EU because leaving provides no tangible benefits, aside from wishful thinking, but carries many very real costs.

You're right. The union of British nations is among one of the most successful in history. That said, and I'm not sure if you were aware, but our union was built off the back of more than two centuries of Anglo-Norman monarchical domineering which included cultural - and in the case of the RoI - literal, genocide. So if you're willing to tolerate copious amounts of blood letting, constitutional vandalism, cultural destruction and elitist power games then yes, I agree you might just be able to create a union of European nations which works. Although even then, the threat of them parting ways, either via parliamentary decree, democratic referenda, or militant rebellion remains perennially existential.

The nationalist methods employed were awful. The end result, the successful union of nations, was not. But there is nothing that dictates that this way is the only way to get to that end result. This implies people can't learn from past mistakes. But having learnt from the past the EU operates differently. This is not an example of any one nation imposing its will on another. The EU only has whatever sovereignty it was willfully granted and is entirely dependent on the whims of its collective membership. That's what also makes the EU politically divided and weak and is one of the chief reasons why the project might fail. The method afterall is not tested. The EU has not yet succeeded. But irrespectively of whether the method can be improved, the goal is still a good goal as evidenced among other things by the benefits it brought to the UK. Yet here you are faulting the EU for it. I wonder if it's time to dig up the word hypocrisy again.