Sir Elton Speaks

Don't you get bored of constantly arguing with people on this forum?

Must be utterly exhausting and time consuming.

 

We always had the ability to vote against EU laws, but voted for something like 97% of them anyway.

Generally speaking that was because they were a good thing, you know things that benefited the environment (which in turn will help future generations, not selfish little englanders who couldn’t give a toss about global warming and future generations, as long as they can have a more powerful hoover) or gave workers much better rights.

 

Nope.

Why should I?

 

Absolutely fair of you to say that. But what kind of argument is it?

Clearly, given what you say and the outcome of the referendum, the majority of people were not happy with that situation. At the first opportunity they had, since the formation of the EU was enacted in 1993, the people of the UK said they did not want a situation where their government was agreeing to 97% of laws devised by the EU. You are only describing something that most people thought was a major part of the problem.

It is your opinion that EU laws were good things (and many of them were, and many wimilar laws will be part of UK law where it suits us), but it is not one that the majority would agree with, it seems.

 

I have spoken reasonably and politely to everyone who has replied to me, even saying that their opinions are fair, and stated my opinions without belittling those of others, but virtually everyone has had some negative thing to say about the fact I am bringing up my opinions on here, yet my opinions are pretty much in line with half of the country.

 

Fair enough, if that's what you choose to do in your free time. Whatever makes you happy.

 

Just because people wanted it (and they wanted it because that was the narrative that was pushed, along with preventing 80m Turks from coming here and making sure the NHS got an extra £350m every week) doesn’t make it right or sensible. People don’t want the EU setting our laws, because they’d rather the Conservative party do it for them instead? The very epitome of cutting your nose of to spite your face.

 

Thank you. I am happy.

 

I don't understand that.

The people are now expecting whatever government we have to create laws that are best for this country, without having to balance everything out with 27 other countries and then vote for either the least damaging compromise or have no new laws.

I think that is what the people voted for with Brexit. I think saying that government should vote for EU compromise all the time is a far more compelling case of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

The EU are currently arguing about the system becoming unworkable with the difference between northern and southern Europe, and they are also seriously raising the idea of removing the one country veto. So it is not just a problem for us, and the way things appear to be headed is exactly where critics of the Union feared it could go.

 

Missed your edit before I replied.

Problem is that Brexiteers understood the 80 million Turks argument, where as remainers did not, and deliberately so.

Brexiteers understood that it was an additional 80 million people who would have free access to this country, in addition to the 470 million odd that already had access. Whereas remainers had to feign the belief that he was saying that all 80 million people would be coming here. Not a single leaver believed for a single second that all 80 million would make their way over here. That suggestion was purely a remainer construct, and it wasn't an argument that fooled anyone for any amount of time. It was pure BS, and the only people that held any store in it were those remainers who wished to view leavers as racist dim wits. Reciprocally, it simply led leavers to consider that remainers were na*ve dim wits.

But even then, the issue was free access, not access. A common Brexit argument was that we would and could (and are planning on doing so, as our trade deals testify) bring in more people from around the world who were qualified and tailored to our needs, rather than free movement of people that were not. And still, those in Europe who fit the bill are equally as welcome as those from India, Australia, wherever; a far more outward looking policy than the protectionist EU version. Note, an interesting aside in the politics section when discussing freedom of movement was that it was in part perceived as a mitigation for adoption of the Euro, allowing countries to exploit low paid workers by substituting cheap labour for unilateral fiscal policy (an impossibility for Eurozone countries); that is not my insinuation, it was posted on the politics section coming from the mouth of one of the people who managed introduction of the Euro.

And people believed the NHS would get the 350 million about as much as they believed anything coming from project fear, such as gonorrhoea epidemics, medicine shortages, empty food shelves, mega cues around ports, massive job losses the day after the vote, when we exited, and on the 1 Feb 2021. Or that no one would make trade agreements with us, or if they did they would take ten years (like they do with the EU!) or everyone would pariah us for standing up to the EU.

Sydney was right about the hyperbole on both sides, and anyone that took it seriously did so at their own risk. It is not fair to claim that Brexiteers were exaggerating and lying without considering the fact leavers were doing the same. It's unfortunate, but it is politics.

 

Please go away.

 

Hilarious how on a deliberately political thread started by an anti brexiteer with an anti-brexit article - against the wishes of the mods, there is no criticism of the original poster or of those posters that agree with him, there are only attempts trying to stop posters with alternative views contributing.

It is almost like they are scared of hearing alternative views.

I think it is becoming obvious that the whole movement to "ban politics" on this forum is actually about banning anything not "anti government", "remain" or "woke".

 

Yeah, hard to imagine why that is….

 

Why?

I have not been offensive, I have treated every response civilly and I have explained every opinion I have expressed.

why don’t you like hearing opinions that do not agree with your own on a discussion forum? Particularly when it is clear that your response to what I am saying will be welcomed and treated fairly. I am happy to discuss what you have to say.

Clearly what I am saying worries you for some reason, but rather than address it, you would just rather I did not say it or even think it. You could even ignore me if you wanted to, but it is more important to stop me. The only conclusion is that you have no counter argument.

I think the point being made is that the politics section was not being ruined by those who wanted a discussion, but by those who wanted to avoid hearing things they do not like.

 

He does keep bees however so that's a plus.

 

The problem isn't with being "woke", it is with their mistaken belief that they are the only opinions worth listening to, and anything else should be suppressed.

 

I'm sorry I contributed to this dumpster fire now. Will avoid dipping my toe in future.

 

The word woke, these days, is used ironically.

It used to be a way of describing having become aware that we are all equal and should be treated equal. People who consider themselves woke these days are intolerant and racially motivated.

They themselves are the ‘anti-woke’, and their views are narrower than those of the people they oppose and criticise.

Modern day “civil rights” is the most anti woke anathema to what was being fought for in the sixties. It’s ideologies, driven by Critical Theory, are identical in intent to those of the nazis and the KKK.

Martin Luther King’s “Judge a person by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin” is as offensive to the modern day woke as it was to the white racist bigots who stood against him then.

Unfortunately, that most blatant and undisguised fact appears almost impossible for people see, it being placed under a label that implies virtue.

 

LOL

 

Really?

Why is that? You are entitled to find it funny. But are you able to explain why you find it funny?

Edit: without resorting to insults or please to shut up.