Obelix Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 That video is itself a lie, one of many by your side,. How do you know what my side was? Serious question. You appear to be cherrypickingh fruitloop quotations (much like your invocation of Breitbart to support your case once!) and ascribing them to you opponents when that simply isn't the case.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 18, 2017 Author Share Posted January 18, 2017 How do you know what my side was? Serious question. You appear to be cherrypickingh fruitloop quotations (much like your invocation of Breitbart to support your case once!) and ascribing them to you opponents when that simply isn't the case.. I was responding to Cyclone. He posted a link to a publicly discredited video full of remain lies. I do not blame you for them. You've not linked to them, nor endorsed them in any way. In your place I might distance myself from them (just as I did distance myself from that silly £350m/week claim), but I might not bother. I'm not cherrypicking anything. Open Britain put out a pack of lies. The BBC rightly exposed and demolished them. What's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Furthermore Farage was not part of the official leave campaign.So, after well over a decade of UKIP anti-EU politicial activity, Farage and his relevance to the referendum campaign and vote should be dismissed because he wasn't part of the "official" Leave campaign of what, 2 or 3 months? FFS! And he was referring to temporary continued membership of the single market as a transitional arrangement.Which is exactly what May asked for yesterday: "Instead, I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article Fifty process has concluded. From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest. This will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements. This might be about our immigration controls, customs systems or the way in which we cooperate on criminal justice matters. Or it might be about the future legal and regulatory framework for financial services. For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer. And the interim arrangements we rely upon are likely to be a matter of negotiation." Edited January 18, 2017 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 18, 2017 Author Share Posted January 18, 2017 After what, over a decade of UKIP anti-EU politicial activity?...could have fooled me! Which is exactly what May asked for yesterday: Sorry did you want me to comment on this? You seem to have taken my responses on specific matters as general comments. Perhaps look over the context from the earlier posts? I don't have a problem with a transitional arrangement within reason. Does that address your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I was responding to Cyclone. He posted a link to a publicly discredited video full of remain lies. You see there you go. Lumping everyone into the remainers/remoaners bucket.... For what it's worth - he never said that these were categorical promises made in advance of the referendum. The "refutation" if you like is nothing more than an example of brexit mendacity and spin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 18, 2017 Author Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) You see there you go. Lumping everyone into the remainers/remoaners bucket.... For what it's worth - he never said that these were categorical promises made in advance of the referendum. The "refutation" if you like is nothing more than an example of brexit mendacity and spin... How many times have I been challenged on the basis of the £350m/week claim which I condemned from the outset? This "lumping" is part of the reality of political debate. However I'm now on the record as saying you have nothing to apologise for as you did not endorse this video. Surely that should be satisfactory. Farage still didn't say we should remain in the single market except for raiding the possibility that we might do so for a short transitional period. I think my tone is generally milder than many of my opponents on here. There is inevitably a tendency to match ones opponents forcefulness. Recall that you complained to me a couple of months back when I first tried out the term "remoaner" and out of respect for you and my other opponents I apologised and I've not used it since. Cyclone claimed that we voted to leave on the understanding that we would remain in the single market. Statements from all the key figures on both sides during the campaign which contradict this claim are everywhere. He offered in support of this, the false evidence (I assume he didn't know it was false) from Open Britain. I provided ample evidence of the falseness of this evidence. No other evidence has been offered. The only reasonable conclusion from this is that we voted leave on the basis of leaving the single market. Now a campaign promise is not law, but when made by both sides it is a substantial mandate. Edited January 18, 2017 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Sorry did you want me to comment on this?Not really, as I see that comments routinely hop to a different train of thought/argument after certain of my posts. See e.g. #2403 and ensuing posts as a recent example. But hey-ho, I'm not precious about it, it's (still) a free world You seem to have taken my responses on specific matters as general comments.I haven't misquoted you, or abstracted the context of your post, if that its what you are getting at. Claiming that Farage was not part of the "official" leave campaign to support a dismissal of his Single Market-supporting position, is a less-than-feeble argument: his political activity through UKIP was as pivotal in bringing about the referendum and its outcome, as the influence of hardline Eurosceptic Tories of old. I don't have a problem with a transitional arrangement within reason. Does that address your point?Not really: it's starting a new one Personally, I'm hoping there won't be any transitional agreement at all. After all, out means out. Not half-out here, there and elsewhere over various periods of unspecified length. The EU needs certainty just as much as the UK, and just as fast. I'm quietly confident Barnier will remind Davis & Fox of the fact in due course, if need be Edited January 18, 2017 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 18, 2017 Author Share Posted January 18, 2017 Not really, as I see that comments routinely hop to a different train of thought/argument after certain of my posts. See e.g. #2403 and ensuing posts as a recent example. I haven't misquoted you, or abstracted the context of your post, if that its what you are getting at. Claiming that Farage was not part of the "official" leave campaign to support a dismissal of his Single Market-supporting position, is a less-than-feeble argument: his political activity through UKIP was as pivotal in bringing about the referendum and its outcome, as the influence of hardline Eurosceptic Tories of old. Not really: it's starting a new one Personally, I'm hoping there won't be any transitional agreement at all. After all, out means out. Not half-out here, there and elsewhere over various periods of unspecified length. The EU needs certainty just as much as the UK, and just as fast But Farage has not spoken in support of the single market. This is part of the debunking of the Open Britain video to which I have posted a link. So it hardly matters. I'd prefer to go straight out, but it's not up to me and I don't mind all that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 No ones challenging you personally on supporting the 350m a week claim. However every time you say we went into this with our eyes open it will be brought up as a demonstration that people did go in with theirs open to a complete pack of lies which invariably undermines the foundation on which the vote was made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 18, 2017 Author Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) No ones challenging you personally on supporting the 350m a week claim. However every time you say we went into this with our eyes open it will be brought up as a demonstration that people did go in with theirs open to a complete pack of lies which invariably undermines the foundation on which the vote was made. Nobody is challenging you personally on the Open Britain claims. I challenged Cyclone because he repeated them. I would agree, except that this claim (the £350m/week) was thoroughly discussed and qualified multiple times before the vote. It would of course have been far better if they'd stuck to the net figure. However today I have been more interested in debunking the profoundly false and often repeated claims by many of the remain hold-outs that the matter of single market membership was either not discussed at length, or spoken of positively in the event of a leave vote. The facts on this speak for themselves (provided Open Britain and others are prevented from promulgating their lies on the matter). I condemn lies by both sides, and I try to do so with fair forcefulness. Edited January 18, 2017 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts