# Portugal plans for brexit



## siobhanwf

LISBON — Portugal’s government on Friday laid out proposals to protect rights of British citizens living in the country if there’s a no-deal Brexit but made clear it expects similar treatment for the around 300,000 Portuguese living in Britain.


https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-to-welcome-brits-even-without-brexit-deal-contingency/


https://www.portugal.gov.pt/download-ficheiros/ficheiro.aspx?v=7b2a13aa-b1ae-4d06-995a-1e81b36e5eee


----------



## larrys3255

*Why Oh Why*

I first must admit that I do not understand why the UK has decided to undergo Brexit. I have always found the idea of the European Union to be very attractive as well as useful and is probably the main reason that there have been no world wars since the end of WWII. I know that there was a referendum and the Leave won by 52% to 48%. But Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. 

Can someone from the UK explain to me what the reasons are for wanting to leave the EU. It seems to me that there are many good reasons to stay in the EU: tariff-free trading with over 500 million consumers, 44% of UK exports go to the EU and 53% of all UK imports come from the EU, the free movement of labor without visa or immigration restrictions has benefited the UK in terms of unskilled labor as well as skilled professional labor, UK residents have free healthcare in any EU country, there is equal pay between men and women and there are many other benefits. I also read that there were many problems with the original referendum including the lack of truth in advertisements, and the involvement of Trump-like figures such as Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and others. In fact it appears that a new referendum would be overwhelmingly Remain rather than Leave, and of course, there is the presence of incompetent politicians such as Theresa May and Boris Johnson and their followers.

I realize that the political situation in the US is even worse than that in the UK. We have a moronic pathological liar and totally incompetent leader who has almost destroyed all democratic institutions in two years. But the UK can simply have a new referendum and not leave the EU. It is that easy. 

But the US must remove Trump from office by the cumbersome impeachment procedure, which is made difficult by Trump essentially having taken over the Justice Department, the State Department, the Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court, and by the existence of the uniquely American National Rifle Organization with its “gun lobby”. It is that difficult. 

Go for it, Britain! You can do it!


----------



## travelling-man

The UK Embassy are also doing a truly brilliant job of supporting us immigrants in every possible way including online Q&As, Q&A visits to various parts of Portugal & having dedicated teams focusing on things such as helping those who are having difficulty registering residency or obtaining Utente numbers & NHS registration etc.................. and despite the way things change so quickly, they're really on the ball. 

You can follow all their updates on the link below but be cautious to follow that page & that page only for this as there are several other groups that purport to have links to the Embassy but are in reality simply claiming kudos for someone else's work & in some cases even soliciting donations etc. 

https://www.facebook.com/BritsInPortugal/


----------



## Strontium

The electorate of the UK was invited to take part in a legally binding referendum, any person who decided to vote and many who didn't vote all had their own different opinions and reasons. There was not one opinion of those voting for and one opinion of those voting against and one opinion of those choosing not to vote, this is democracy and how it works. Scotland and Northern Ireland did not vote separately, the UK electorate voted - you should not make up facts even if you don't understand the process It is a legally binding referendum and, possibly erroneously for some, not some game where you can keep repeating the question till you get a different answer (also see Scottish independence vote).





larrys3255 said:


> I first must admit that I do not understand why the UK has decided to undergo Brexit. I have always found the idea of the European Union to be very attractive as well as useful and is probably the main reason that there have been no world wars since the end of WWII. I know that there was a referendum and the Leave won by 52% to 48%. But Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU.
> 
> Can someone from the UK explain to me what the reasons are for wanting to leave the EU. It seems to me that there are many good reasons to stay in the EU: tariff-free trading with over 500 million consumers, 44% of UK exports go to the EU and 53% of all UK imports come from the EU, the free movement of labor without visa or immigration restrictions has benefited the UK in terms of unskilled labor as well as skilled professional labor, UK residents have free healthcare in any EU country, there is equal pay between men and women and there are many other benefits. I also read that there were many problems with the original referendum including the lack of truth in advertisements, and the involvement of Trump-like figures such as Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and others. In fact it appears that a new referendum would be overwhelmingly Remain rather than Leave, and of course, there is the presence of incompetent politicians such as Theresa May and Boris Johnson and their followers.
> 
> I realize that the political situation in the US is even worse than that in the UK. We have a moronic pathological liar and totally incompetent leader who has almost destroyed all democratic institutions in two years. But the UK can simply have a new referendum and not leave the EU. It is that easy.
> 
> But the US must remove Trump from office by the cumbersome impeachment procedure, which is made difficult by Trump essentially having taken over the Justice Department, the State Department, the Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court, and by the existence of the uniquely American National Rifle Organization with its “gun lobby”. It is that difficult.
> 
> Go for it, Britain! You can do it!


----------



## baldilocks

larrys3255 said:


> I first must admit that I do not understand why the UK has decided to undergo Brexit. I have always found the idea of the European Union to be very attractive as well as useful and is probably the main reason that there have been no world wars since the end of WWII. I know that there was a referendum and the Leave won by 52% to 48%. But Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU.
> 
> Can someone from the UK explain to me what the reasons are for wanting to leave the EU. It seems to me that there are many good reasons to stay in the EU: tariff-free trading with over 500 million consumers, 44% of UK exports go to the EU and 53% of all UK imports come from the EU, the free movement of labor without visa or immigration restrictions has benefited the UK in terms of unskilled labor as well as skilled professional labor, UK residents have free healthcare in any EU country, there is equal pay between men and women and there are many other benefits. I also read that there were many problems with the original referendum including the lack of truth in advertisements, and the involvement of Trump-like figures such as Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and others. In fact it appears that a new referendum would be overwhelmingly Remain rather than Leave, and of course, there is the presence of incompetent politicians such as Theresa May and Boris Johnson and their followers.
> 
> I realize that the political situation in the US is even worse than that in the UK. We have a moronic pathological liar and totally incompetent leader who has almost destroyed all democratic institutions in two years. But the UK can simply have a new referendum and not leave the EU. It is that easy.
> 
> But the US must remove Trump from office by the cumbersome impeachment procedure, which is made difficult by Trump essentially having taken over the Justice Department, the State Department, the Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court, and by the existence of the uniquely American National Rifle Organization with its “gun lobby”. It is that difficult.
> 
> Go for it, Britain! You can do it!


A large part of the problem is down to the UK government. Every time it wants to push something it knows will be less than popular with the population, it blames the EU and in their ignorance a large part of the population, just accept that without question. Another part of the problem is the UK's representatives in the EU - take the UK fisheries' question: The EU is free to fish almost unrestricted in UK waters to the detriment of UK fishermen - who was the UK's representative on the EU Fisheries Committee? - Nigel Farage one of those who was pushing for the UK to exit the EU but that didn't stop him from getting himself back in there to get the money that was on offer.


----------



## Tigerlillie

Strontium said:


> The electorate of the UK was invited to take part in* a legally binding referendum*, any person who decided to vote and many who didn't vote all had their own different opinions and reasons. There was not one opinion of those voting for and one opinion of those voting against and one opinion of those choosing not to vote, this is democracy and how it works. Scotland and Northern Ireland did not vote separately, the UK electorate voted -* you should not make up facts even if you don't understand the process* It is a legally binding referendum and, possibly erroneously for some, not some game where you can keep repeating the question till you get a different answer (also see Scottish independence vote).


That is overwhelmingly untrue.

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/



> *The referendum was not legally binding.* There’s no one source that can prove this statement true (although here’s a respectable one). That follows from the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one.


The brex**** referendum was a Non Binding Advisory Referendum AKA Glorified Opinion Poll.

Cameron, with his 'we will implement what you decide' because no one in their right mind ever thought that such a binary question with no plan or very little information about the ramifications a leave vote win would bring, decided to make it politically binding which is very different from legally binding.

You can find the briefing paper and the full report here:

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP14-55#fullreport

PS... *I'd advise you to take your own advice.*


----------



## Strontium

In the case of the EU referendum the PM, David Cameron, said the result would be binding, something endorsed by Parliament when it passed the referendum bill. 


Goodbye


----------



## Mac62

Excellent riposte Tigerlillie!

I imagine it is must be somewhat difficult to stand upright for someone with such a massive intellect, so much so it strains the neck muscles...and they become a pain.


----------



## travelling-man

The remainers can get as upset as they like but it won't affect the decision of the majority one iota and sooner or later, that majority will have their way even if it means voting for a different party who will honour the democratic decision. 

Personally, I don't care much about Brexit either way as it won't affect me much but I do care deeply about democracy & the sacrifices made by so many to establish it.


----------



## Mac62

Then the parties should have honoured the Truth in their campaign ads, which undermined the democratic vote. 
Like you Travelling Man, I care deeply about democracy, but without Truth there is none. I'm more of a Truther than a Remainer.


----------



## travelling-man

Both sides could only speculate as no-one can see into the future & the fact is the majority voted to leave. 

It's as simple as that although the remainers have the right to petition their elected representatives for a rejoin motion in the future after Brexit is complete which is how the UK version of democracy works.


----------



## Mac62

Ah, if it was only speculation, I might agree with you.


----------



## travelling-man

Of course it was all speculation on both sides. Absolutely no-one can see into the future & both sides were predicting their own version of what they thought was going to happen if the UK left the EU. 

One side predicted WWIII & total disaster whilst the other all sunshine & roses but of course, neither were probably anywhere near correct. 

What matters is that democracy as per the rules of the day, prevails.


----------



## Tigerlillie

Strontium said:


> In the case of the EU referendum the PM, David Cameron, said the result would be binding, something endorsed by Parliament when it passed the referendum bill.
> 
> 
> Goodbye


If you had read my post properly you would have seen that I said Cameron made it *politically* binding, that is very different to legally. 

I notice in this post you do not use the word 'legally'......and Parliament didn't endorse it in the referendum bill as you can see below.

I think you are talking about the Statutory Instrument which in fact brings into law the actual date for leaving The EU and has now been amended twice and will probably again be amended before the 31st Oct.

And what's with the 'goodbye' ...is that your way of trying to shut down debate when you're proved wrong?

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7212



> 25* European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16*
> 
> *5. Types of referendum*
> 
> This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017.* It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.* The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.





travelling-man said:


> The remainers can get as upset as they like but it won't affect the decision of the majority one iota and sooner or later, that majority will have their way even if it means voting for a different party who will honour the democratic decision.
> 
> Personally, I don't care much about Brexit either way as it won't affect me much but I do care deeply about democracy & the sacrifices made by so many to establish it.


What are you wittering on about?

Do you not like facts either?

I wasn't arguing about who won or what majority there was or even about democracy, I merely pointed out that the referendum was not legally binding and that people cannot go around making up 'alternative facts' to suit their own agenda.

If you care about democracy so much would you not agree then that the people should have all the facts, good and bad before being asked to make a decision of such importance or do you think facts do not matter?
I do agree with you on one point however, and that was the fact both sides were somewhat economical with the truth, one side a lot more than the other.


----------



## travelling-man

Get over yourself...... It's going to happen eventually whether the minority like it or not. 

It's called democracy.


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> Get over yourself...... It's going to happen eventually whether the minority like it or not.
> 
> It's called democracy.


And that's the extent of your reasoned argument and debate is it?

Words fail me.


----------



## travelling-man

I don't need to argue or debate anything. The decision was made more than 3 years ago.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> Get over yourself...... It's going to happen eventually whether the minority like it or not.
> 
> It's called democracy.


Have you noticed how over the past 3 years, Brexiters have suddenly become passionate about democracy, and respecting "the will of the people"? 
They had absolutely no intention of respecting the "will of the people" before the referendum, when they thought they would lose, and said so many times.

I think its called hypocrisy!!


----------



## Mac62

Tigerlillie said:


> If you had read my post properly you would have seen that I said Cameron made it *politically* binding, that is very different to legally.
> 
> I notice in this post you do not use the word 'legally'......and Parliament didn't endorse it in the referendum bill as you can see below.
> 
> I think you are talking about the Statutory Instrument which in fact brings into law the actual date for leaving The EU and has now been amended twice and will probably again be amended before the 31st Oct.
> 
> And what's with the 'goodbye' ...is that your way of trying to shut down debate when you're proved wrong?
> 
> https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7212
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you wittering on about?
> 
> Do you not like facts either?
> 
> I wasn't arguing about who won or what majority there was or even about democracy, I merely pointed out that the referendum was not legally binding and that people cannot go around making up 'alternative facts' to suit their own agenda.
> 
> If you care about democracy so much would you not agree then that the people should have all the facts, good and bad before being asked to make a decision of such importance or do you think facts do not matter?
> I do agree with you on one point however, and that was the fact both sides were somewhat economical with the truth, one side a lot more than the other.


I live in a country that has built a so called "Administration" on 'alternative facts', and I just heard that their building a brand spanking new Alternative 'Fact'ory in Alabama, of course it'll be non-union


----------



## Tigerlillie

Naaling said:


> Have you noticed how over the past 3 years, Brexiters have suddenly become passionate about democracy, and respecting "the will of the people"?
> They had absolutely no intention of respecting the "will of the people" before the referendum, when they thought they would lose, and said so many times.
> 
> I think its called hypocrisy!!


I've given up trying to have serious, intelligent, grown-up debates with them, you get absolutely nowhere because the only things they can say are soundbites like:

'We won get over it'

'Democracy innit'

'Sovereignty' ...even the Governments' own white paper on this admits that it never lost its sovereignty, it just *felt* like it had.

'Laws' ...around 12% of laws that are proposed in Brussels are forced upon the member States, most of the time the UK agrees with the laws that are proposed and can tweak them a little to put them into UK law in line with the constitution of the UK.

'Control our Borders' ...not knowing the UK can already do that, there are mechanisms within FOM rules that allow this the UK just chooses not to use them.

'Control our own money' ....not realising the UK gets a lot more in concessions and rebates and grants and funds...........

'Freedom' ...from what I have no idea but the freedom to live and work in 31 other countries with no restrictions apart from some qualifying factors seems to me to be more than enough freedom.

and so on and so on....when you ask them what laws stop you from enjoying your 'freedom' or what laws do you specifically disagree with they can't answer.
When you point out that whenever you enter into an FTA with anyone you always relinquish a little sovereignty they look dumbstruck and have no idea that this is the way FTA's work. If they think the ECJ is bad wait until the USA demands in any FTA a system known as ISDS and American companies can sue the UK Government. Here I'm thinking specifically about the UK's NHS.

I am in no way saying The EU is perfect, it is far from that and corruption is rife but show me any large corporation or Institution that isn't.

I think the main reason that some politicians do not like being part of The EU probably stems from the fact they can't be in charge of it (that comes from plundering much of the world under the guise of helping those poor people who can't govern themselves properly aka as the British Empire) and having to compromise and share.


----------



## Tigerlillie

Mac62 said:


> I live in a country that has built a so called "Administration" on 'alternative facts', and I just heard that their building a brand spanking new Alternative 'Fact'ory in Alabama, of course it'll be non-union


I know a couple of Americans where I live and they are absolutely horrified by what's happening in their home country.


----------



## Mac62

Right on Sister! :rockon:


----------



## Strontium

So why don't they do something about it?


----------



## Strontium

Septics!


----------



## Mac62

Because "AMERICA IS NOT A COUNTRY, IT'S A BUSINESS." as Brad Pitt succinctly put in the movie 'Killing Them Softly'.


----------



## Naaling

Strontium said:


> Septics!


Have you also noticed that when Brexiters lose an arguement, they resort to name calling?


----------



## Mac62

I've noticed they lie to their Queen.


----------



## baldilocks

Mac62 said:


> I've noticed they lie to their Queen.


They lied to the electorate as well


----------



## Weebobsgrampa

scotland didnt vote to remain, it was a UK vote,


----------



## Mac62

As did the North Irish, who I'm afraid are being forced to confront once again terrors that were inflicted on both sides, that they thought had been consigned to history.


----------



## Tigerlillie

Mac62 said:


> As did the North Irish, who I'm afraid are being forced to confront once again terrors that were inflicted on both sides, that they thought had been consigned to history.


If only it had been a vote where the separate nations votes overruled the whole Kingdom. As Gibralter were allowed to vote it would then have been 3 against 2 for remain but alas as it was an advisory referendum and rules like super majorities etc were not deemed relevent so it came to pass that the UK now finds itself in the ****e show it is in.


----------



## travelling-man

The vote couldn't have been any more pure democracy in that everyone who had the right to vote had the opportunity to vote and every vote counted the same as every other vote and a simple majority of even one vote would be enough the determine the decision & the majority vote would win........ and there was a clear majority. 

That aside, perhaps those remainers here might mention what it is they like so much about the EU and what their reasons are for not wanting the UK to leave?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> The vote couldn't have been any more pure democracy in that everyone who had the right to vote had the opportunity to vote and every vote counted the same as every other vote and a simple majority of even one vote would be enough the determine the decision & the majority vote would win........ and there was a clear majority.
> 
> That aside, perhaps those remainers here might mention what it is they like so much about the EU and what their reasons are for not wanting the UK to leave?


The reason is simple. Everyone who earns, and has their life savings, in pounds will be worse off. 
Surely the onus lies with the Brexiters to explain the advantages of leaving? (without resorting to unsupported, pie in the sky BS)


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> The reason is simple. Everyone who earns, and has their life savings, in pounds will be worse off.
> Surely the onus lies with the Brexiters to explain the advantages of leaving? (without resorting to unsupported, pie in the sky BS)


On what evidence to you make that statement or put another way, How do you KNOW the GBP will weaken and/or KNOW the Euro will strengthen?

Come to that, no-one even knows if the Euro currency or any other currency will even survive & it's undeniable that the Euro has been looking dodgy for some considerable time. 

The truth is you don't know because you can't see into the future & are therefore speculating. 

Perhaps others who voted to remain might also mention what it is they like so much about the EU and what their reasons are for not wanting the UK to leave? 

This is a perfectly genuine question.......... We should all be discussing this reasonably & politely & no one opinion is worth more than another & just because someone might have a different opinion to you, doesn't mean they're stupid............... It just means they have a different opinion to you.


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> On what evidence to you make that statement or put another way,* How do you KNOW the GBP will weaken* and/or KNOW the Euro will strengthen?
> 
> Come to that, no-one even knows if the Euro currency or any other currency will even survive & it's undeniable that the Euro has been looking dodgy for some considerable time.
> 
> The truth is you don't know because you can't see into the future & are therefore speculating.
> 
> Perhaps others who voted to remain might also mention what it is they like so much about the EU and what their reasons are for not wanting the UK to leave?
> 
> This is a perfectly genuine question.......... We should all be discussing this reasonably & politely & no one opinion is worth more than another & just because someone might have a different opinion to you, doesn't mean they're stupid............... It just means they have a different opinion to you.


First things first, we KNOW that will happen to GBP because it has happened as we've seen it weaken first hand since the referendum. That was a bit of a silly statement to make don't you think.

Just today this:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/08/pound-slumps-against-euro-dollar-brexit-chaos-bites

Secondly, here's 98 reasons to stay for you to be getting on with:

https://smallbusinessprices.co.uk/remain-eu/

I won't copy and paste because it's quite a long list, some you may agree with, some you may not.

Now list me just 10 benefits of leaving without using the words 'Sovereignty' ... 'Borders' .. 'Laws' ... 'Money' ...'Trade Agreements' (remember those 40 or so that DFDS Liam Fox promised, well there's only 8 so far).... and other useless soundbites... over to you


----------



## Mac62

Here's my personal reason(s) for wanting to stay, not in any particular order. 

I absolutely love the freedom to move around Europe without any border controls or money changes. 

I believe we will only confront climate change as a unified system of countries that share the same goal.

I really want to live in Portugal, or any other E.U. country if the whim takes me and enjoy the same rights and benefits as a national, and wish any other E.U. national to enjoy the same if they choose to live in the U.K.

I want to avoid any deal trade deal with the U.S.

I love hearing different languages, even though I can only speak English, or two if you count Scots. Or three if you count profanities:smile:


----------



## travelling-man

Tigerlillie said:


> First things first, we KNOW that will happen to GBP because it has happened as we've seen it weaken first hand since the referendum. That was a bit of a silly statement to make don't you think.
> 
> Just today this:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/08/pound-slumps-against-euro-dollar-brexit-chaos-bites
> 
> Secondly, here's 98 reasons to stay for you to be getting on with:
> 
> https://smallbusinessprices.co.uk/remain-eu/
> 
> I won't copy and paste because it's quite a long list, some you may agree with, some you may not.
> 
> Now list me just 10 benefits of leaving without using the words 'Sovereignty' ... 'Borders' .. 'Laws' ... 'Money' ...'Trade Agreements' (remember those 40 or so that DFDS Liam Fox promised, well there's only 8 so far).... and other useless soundbites... over to you


You DON'T actually KNOW what will happen in the future & if you did, you'd have won the lottery so that argument doesn't even begin to hold water does it? 

10 benefits is easy: 

Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy
Democracy


----------



## travelling-man

Mac62 said:


> Here's my personal reason(s) for wanting to stay, not in any particular order.
> 
> I absolutely love the freedom to move around Europe without any border controls or money changes.
> 
> I believe we will only confront climate change as a unified system of countries that share the same goal.
> 
> I really want to live in Portugal, or any other E.U. country if the whim takes me and enjoy the same rights and benefits as a national, and wish any other E.U. national to enjoy the same if they choose to live in the U.K.
> 
> I want to avoid any deal trade deal with the U.S.
> 
> I love hearing different languages, even though I can only speak English, or two if you count Scots. Or three if you count profanities:smile:


1) At the very most, all that will be required is a simple visa between the UK & EU member states & if you have a UK passport & reside in the EU then no visa required either way & both the GBP & Euro will still exist. 

2) How on earth will it affect climate change? The UK & EU will still be signatories of the same unattainable agreements so no change there either. 

3) You will still have the same rights if you're a resident of Portugal or elsewhere in the EU & immigrants to the UK might have to prove their worth to the country just as it works in most countries in the world from the US to Africa to Australia & that's not unreasonable at all. 

4) Why do you want to avoid trade deals with the US or any other country for that matter? - Surely any trade deal that benefits both parties is a good thing? 

5) I promise that Brexit won't make you or anyone else deaf.

Who's next?


----------



## RichardHenshall

travelling-man said:


> ... At the very most, all that will be required is a simple visa between the UK & EU member states ...


.. and a limit of 90 days in every 180 anywhere in the Schengen zone.



travelling-man said:


> You will still have the same rights if you're a resident of Portugal or elsewhere in the EU ...


I could be wrong but I don't think a third country national who is resident in an EU country has any additional freedom of movement rights to _live_ elsewhere in the EU.



travelling-man said:


> ... Surely any trade deal that benefits both parties is a good thing? ...


Doesn't the UK already have a mutually beneficial trade deal with the rest of the EU?



travelling-man said:


> ... I promise that Brexit won't make you or anyone else deaf. ...


.. but it may affect your eligibility for attention to your worsening hearing, depending on where you are when you need it.


----------



## travelling-man

RichardHenshall said:


> .. and a limit of 90 days in every 180 anywhere in the Schengen zone.
> 
> Even now you have to register residency after 3 months & before 4 months.
> 
> 
> 
> I could be wrong but I don't think a third country national who is resident in an EU country has any additional freedom of movement rights to _live_ elsewhere in the EU.
> 
> Yes. You are wrong.
> 
> 
> Doesn't the UK already have a mutually beneficial trade deal with the rest of the EU?
> 
> It does but count the EU member states & non EU member states & you'll find the number of non EU member states is significantly more. Hence a larger market.
> 
> .. but it may affect your eligibility for attention to your worsening hearing, depending on where you are when you need it.


I promise you, it definitely won't make anyone go deaf. 

At the end of the day, it's simple democracy & the majority opted to leave so like it or not, that's what eventually must & will happen.


----------



## Mac62

_This is a perfectly genuine question.......... We should all be discussing this reasonably & politely & no one opinion is worth more than another & just because someone might have a different opinion to you, doesn't mean they're stupid............... It just means they have a different opinion to you._

You asked for posters reasons to remain. I gave you my personal ones. As your own words stated above, mention people with different opinions to others, like yourself Traveling Man, aren't stupid. 

But apparently it makes them deaf??!


----------



## travelling-man

Mac62 said:


> _This is a perfectly genuine question.......... We should all be discussing this reasonably & politely & no one opinion is worth more than another & just because someone might have a different opinion to you, doesn't mean they're stupid............... It just means they have a different opinion to you._
> 
> You asked for posters reasons to remain. I gave you my personal ones. As your own words stated above, mention people with different opinions to others, like yourself Traveling Man, aren't stupid.
> 
> But apparently it makes them deaf??!


Not at all. I've repeatedly said Brexit won't make anyone deaf. 

At the end of the day, it's simple democracy where the will of the majority prevails & why would anyone think the will of the minority over rules that of the majority? 

I fully appreciate it must annoy those that voted to remain but that doesn't give them the right to over turn the decision of the majority. 

That's how our extremely hard won democracy works.


----------



## Naaling

Mac62 said:


> _This is a perfectly genuine question.......... We should all be discussing this reasonably & politely & no one opinion is worth more than another & just because someone might have a different opinion to you, doesn't mean they're stupid............... It just means they have a different opinion to you._
> 
> You asked for posters reasons to remain. I gave you my personal ones. As your own words stated above, mention people with different opinions to others, like yourself Traveling Man, aren't stupid.
> 
> But apparently it makes them deaf??!


Its not deafness, but selective hearing. Brexiters only hear what they want to hear!


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> Its not deafness, but selective hearing. Brexiters only hear what they want to hear!


That's nothing more than a cheap 'ad hominem' attack & equally the same could be said of the remainers but it doesn't defeat the principles of democracy or the fact that the majority voted to leave. 

Next?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> That's nothing more than a cheap 'ad hominem' attack & equally the same could be said of the remainers but it doesn't defeat the principles of democracy or the fact that the majority voted to leave.
> 
> Next?


How can it be a cheap anything, when you have already demonstrated the truth of the statement? 
You have consistently ignored questions you don't want to answer, and facts that don't support your arguement.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> How can it be a cheap anything, when you have already demonstrated the truth of the statement?
> You have consistently ignored questions you don't want to answer, and facts that don't support your arguement.


You obviously don't know what ad hominem means so In suggest you ask that nice Mr Google. 

My argument is quite simple in that the will of the majority over rules the will of the minority. 

Next?


----------



## RichardHenshall

travelling-man said:


> ... At the end of the day, it's simple democracy & the majority opted to leave so like it or not, that's what eventually must & will happen.


As a fall-back defence for Brexit, that argument has some merit, even if many other arguments for Brexit don't.

I stated earlier _"I could be wrong but I don't think a third country national who is resident in an EU country has any additional freedom of movement rights to live elsewhere in the EU."_

You told me I was wrong. Could you evidence your statement, please? For example, what gives an American living in Portugal the right to go and _live _in Germany? https://ec.europa.eu/immigration/general-information/already-eu_en states that if you are a non-EU citizen who wishes _"to move from one EU country to another for more than 90 days, you will need a long-stay visa or a residence permit for that country. If you wish to work, study or join your family in the second country, you may have to fulfil more conditions."_


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> You obviously don't know what ad hominem means so In suggest you ask that nice Mr Google.
> 
> My argument is quite simple in that the will of the majority over rules the will of the minority.
> 
> Next?


I know what it means, you've used it often enough. In fact its straight out of the "Brexit speak" handbook!
As for your final comment, I disagree with your argument, because you have failed to consider a multitude of facts, relavant to the referendum, that aren't to your liking.

Next?


----------



## baldilocks

I think we all would be happier with the result of the referendum if the voters had been given the facts rather than a pack of lies and that is not only in the run up to the vote but all the way through. It is a fact that every time the government wanted to introduce something they knew would be unpopular, they blamed it on the EU when, more often than not, it was something of their own evil devising.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I know what it means, you've used it often enough. In fact its straight out of the "Brexit speak" handbook!
> As for your final comment, I disagree with your argument, because you have failed to consider a multitude of facts, relavant to the referendum, that aren't to your liking.
> 
> Next?


There is only one fact to consider & that is the will of the majority prevails & the majority voted to leave.................... It's that simple. 

Next?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> There is only one fact to consider & that is the will of the majority prevails & the majority voted to leave.................... It's that simple.
> 
> Next?


Its the only fact that you want to consider. 

Do you remember one of your Brexiter mates saying, before the referendum, that if Leave lost by a narrow margin, say 52 to 48. then that result wouldn't be conclusive and that the leave campaign would continue. 

Where was the respect for democracy then?


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> Its the only fact that you want to consider.
> 
> Do you remember one of your Brexiter mates saying, before the referendum, that if Leave lost by a narrow margin, say 52 to 48. then that result wouldn't be conclusive and that the leave campaign would continue.
> 
> Where was the respect for democracy then?


The only thing to consider is the rules of the day and those rules were that everyone entitled to vote had the chance to, every vote counted equally & a majority of even one was enough to decide the majority and a significant number more than that one vote necessary voted to leave.

What puzzles me is why this particular vote has caused so much argument. 

When the original referendum to join what was then the EEC happened the losers accepted the result as they did with every GE since & the various other referendums including the FPTP/PR one........ Everyone simply accepted the result & decision of those referendums & no-one squealed like a stuck pig.......... But this one has caused all kinds of hullabaloo.


----------



## RichardHenshall

travelling-man, https://www.expatforum.com/expats/14965352-post47.html awaits your reply.


----------



## travelling-man

RichardHenshall said:


> As a fall-back defence for Brexit, that argument has some merit, even if many other arguments for Brexit don't.
> 
> I stated earlier _"I could be wrong but I don't think a third country national who is resident in an EU country has any additional freedom of movement rights to live elsewhere in the EU."_
> 
> You told me I was wrong. Could you evidence your statement, please? For example, what gives an American living in Portugal the right to go and _live _in Germany? https://ec.europa.eu/immigration/general-information/already-eu_en states that if you are a non-EU citizen who wishes _"to move from one EU country to another for more than 90 days, you will need a long-stay visa or a residence permit for that country. If you wish to work, study or join your family in the second country, you may have to fulfil more conditions."_


I missed that one. Desculpe.

I told you that you were wrong about a UK passport holder & unless I misunderstood your question....... the situation is that UK passport holders already registered as resident in the EU will retain the right to move elsewhere in the EU & register residency in the EU member states & you'll find all that in the europa website and similar other websites. 

If you mean UK passport holders wanting to reside in the EU member states after Brexit then the worst case scenario will probably be that the cheapest option for that (in the case of Portugal for example) will be one of the Type D visas where the main applicant has to prove an income or earning ability equivalent to the minimum wage of €700 per month + 50% for the spouse + 30% per dependent child................. Which is exactly the same rules as currently apply to holders of other non EU member state passports. 

But none of that is an argument against Brexit itself as the only thing that matters is the will of the majority prevails.


----------



## travelling-man

As far as Portugal is concerned you'll get the latest news on the SEF website & on Brexit in particular on the Brexit page (top right) of that site. 

https://imigrante.sef.pt/en/ 

Further info on visa options etc on the links below & note the latest stage of Simplex currently kicking in. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/index_en 

https://www.simplex.gov.pt/


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> You DON'T actually KNOW what will happen in the future & if you did, you'd have won the lottery so that argument doesn't even begin to hold water does it?
> 
> 10 benefits is easy:
> 
> Democracy
> Democracy
> Democracy
> Democracy
> Democracy
> Democracy
> Democracy
> Democracy
> Democracy
> Democracy


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## RichardHenshall

travelling-man said:


> I missed that one. Desculpe.
> 
> I told you that you were wrong about a UK passport holder & unless I misunderstood your question....... the situation is that UK passport holders already registered as resident in the EU will retain the right to move elsewhere in the EU & register residency in the EU member states & you'll find all that in the europa website and similar other websites.
> 
> [...]
> 
> But none of that is an argument against Brexit itself ...


Thank you for your apology.

I have searched and failed to find the evidence to support your contention that a UK national (resident in one EU country) will have elevated rights of free movement when compared to any other third country national, when wishing to move to live in another EU country. It may work out that way if there is an appropriate deal but ...

A long-term EU-resident third country national does appear to gain some rights of movement as described in https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/legal-migration/long-term-residents_en but those rights of free movement to live in another EU country appear less than _currently _available to a UK national (while still an EU national).

I conclude that a UK national, whether resident in the EU or not, will NOT retain full freedom of movement as claimed by you in https://www.expatforum.com/expats/14965294-post38.html (point 3). In short, EU residency is not the same as EU nationality.

To answer your last comment - this point (reduced freedom of movement rights) _is_ an argument against Brexit, just as it is an argument for Brexit if you're that way inclined.


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> The only thing to consider is the rules of the day and those rules were that everyone entitled to vote had the chance to, every vote counted equally & a majority of even one was enough to decide the majority and a significant number more than that one vote necessary voted to leave.
> 
> What puzzles me is why this particular vote has caused so much argument.
> 
> When the* original referendum to join what was then the EEC* happened* the losers accepted the result* as they did with every GE since & the various other referendums including the FPTP/PR one........ Everyone simply accepted the result & decision of those referendums & no-one squealed like a stuck pig.......... But this one has caused all kinds of hullabaloo.


*That is incorrect.*

*So is that*.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> The only thing to consider is the rules of the day


Does that incude the rule about how much you are legally allowed to spend on an official campaign?


----------



## travelling-man

RichardHenshall said:


> Thank you for your apology.
> 
> I have searched and failed to find the evidence to support your contention that a UK national (resident in one EU country) will have elevated rights of free movement when compared to any other third country national, when wishing to move to live in another EU country. It may work out that way if there is an appropriate deal but ...
> 
> A long-term EU-resident third country national does appear to gain some rights of movement as described in https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/legal-migration/long-term-residents_en but those rights of free movement to live in another EU country appear less than _currently _available to a UK national (while still an EU national).
> 
> I conclude that a UK national, whether resident in the EU or not, will NOT retain full freedom of movement as claimed by you in https://www.expatforum.com/expats/14965294-post38.html (point 3). In short, EU residency is not the same as EU nationality.
> 
> To answer your last comment - this point (reduced freedom of movement rights) _is_ an argument against Brexit, just as it is an argument for Brexit if you're that way inclined.


You'll find it under the free movement and in effect, it's the same as UK to EU member state now where they ask you to register residency not before 3 months & before 4 months (although it can be done sooner) so that won't change.


----------



## travelling-man

Tigerlillie said:


> *That is incorrect.*
> 
> *So is that*.


Well it is true. I remember all of them & in all cases except this one, everyone accepted the result & it cannot be denied that this one has caused an immense hullabaloo.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> Does that incude the rule about how much you are legally allowed to spend on an official campaign?


If you believe that, I suggest you go to the Electoral Commission & complain to them & see what they have to say.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> If you believe that, I suggest you go to the Electoral Commission & complain to them & see what they have to say.


I don't have to!
Are you aware that they have already been found guilty and fined?

While their actions were not found to be criminal, they most definately disregarded the referendum rules that you are so passionate about respecting.


----------



## RichardHenshall

travelling-man said:


> You'll find it under the free movement and in effect, it's the same as UK to EU member state now where they ask you to register residency not before 3 months & before 4 months (although it can be done sooner) so that won't change.


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...02003L0109-20110520&qid=1472219910415&from=EN seems to include for the situation you describe but it only applies to those who are long-term residents (ie 5 yrs plus), so clearly involves restricted freedoms of movement when compared to an EU national (ie a UK national now). So a third country national has to obtain residency in one EU country and keep it for 5 years before they gain any elevated freedoms of movement in the EU and nowhere does it suggest that a UK national (post Brexit) will have greater rights than any other third country national.

So it's not the same as UK to EU member state now. But if everything was to be the same, there would be no point in Brexit.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I don't have to!
> Are you aware that they have already been found guilty and fined?
> 
> While their actions were not found to be criminal, they most definately disregarded the referendum rules that you are so passionate about respecting.


You ummmmmm conveniently left out the rest of the findings where it said both sides had infringed the rules but neither side's actions were enough to affect the decision. 

IIRC, one part of the remainer infringement was that brochure that was sent to every house in the UK. 

Still the good news is that those laws of democracy that some would like to overturn, also ensure the remainers the democratic right (after Brexit is complete) to petition their elected representatives to propose a motion for a rejoin referendum & I'd encourage them to do that if they feel the need. 

Yet again. That's how democracy works.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> You ummmmmm conveniently left out the rest of the findings where it said both sides had infringed the rules but neither side's actions were enough to affect the decision.
> 
> IIRC, one part of the remainer infringement was that brochure that was sent to every house in the UK.
> 
> Still the good news is that those laws of democracy that some would like to overturn, also ensure the remainers the democratic right (after Brexit is complete) to petition their elected representatives to propose a motion for a rejoin referendum & I'd encourage them to do that if they feel the need.
> 
> Yet again. That's how democracy works.


So its OK for the Leave campaign to break the rules?
Who then has to respect the rules?


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> So its OK for the Leave campaign to break the rules?
> Who then has to respect the rules?


No-one should have done but both did & I refer you to my previous comment but also for the sake of accuracy, it was the remain side that broke them first when they sent out that flyer to every household. 

At the end of the day, it was a simple democratic process & the majority voted to leave & why on earth would any remainer think their vote should count more than anyone else's vote when the rules were very clearly laid out way before the referendum. 

Just to remind you, they were that everyone entitled to vote had an opportunity to do so & every vote counted the same as every other vote & even a majority of just one would be enough to decide the vote & as it turned out there was a majority of well over a million that voted to leave. 

So it was a perfectly clear cut decision.


----------



## Naaling

Did the leave campaigns over spending affect the result of the referendum?


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> Did the leave campaigns over spending affect the result of the referendum?


I think you'll find that the verdict was that whilst both sides had infringed the rules, neither side had done anywhere near enough that could have changed the decision but again, if you disagree I'd suggest you contact the Electoral Commission & see what they have to say.


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> Well it is true. I remember all of them & in all cases except this one, everyone accepted the result & it cannot be denied that this one has caused an immense hullabaloo.


Well it's not true.

The UK joined what was then known as the European Economic Community in January 1973 and it wasn't via a referendum.

A referendum was not held until 2 and a half years later in June 1975 to see whether UK citizens wished to remain.

67% of UK citizens voted to remain with 33% against on a 65% turnout.

If as you claim that everybody accepted this why was it widely not accepted by the Eurosceptics at that time and many others calling for referendums on the issue since?

I'm not denying that the 2016 referendum has caused a massive rift in society in the UK but with a result that close it was bound to especially with the disinformation and outright lies coming from the Leave campaign that have been disproved time after time.

Again, I'm not saying the Remain campaign were innocent in their campaign either and some ridiculous things were claimed by them but nowhere on the scale of the leave campaign.

As for your 'one part of the remainer infringement was that brochure that was sent to every house in the UK' every referendum that's been held in the UK has had a government leaflet printed and sent out to every household. 

It may have been unwise for Cameron to use taxpayers money producing that leaflet after having promised he wouldn't but it wasn't an infringement and it wasn't illegal.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> I think you'll find that the verdict was that whilst both sides had infringed the rules, neither side had done anywhere near enough that could have changed the decision but again, if you disagree I'd suggest you contact the Electoral Commission & see what they have to say.


Where did you get this from?
The court made no such verdict, because it refused to hear the case. It took the view that the Brexit referendum was only an advisory vote and there are no legal channels to challenge the result.

So the question illegal influence is still open

Why would anyone spend all that money for no effect. Clearly their advisors told them that it would impact the outcome, and it probably did. It would only have needed to effect 1% of voters to change the result.

It probasly doesn't matter now, because a 2nd referendum is just about inevitable.


----------



## travelling-man

If you're so sure then you need to go to the Electoral commission but I think you'll find that one was put to bed some time ago but hey. Go for it!

As for the remainer claims being unimportant, they included all kinds of hysterical BS including WWIII & a mars bar shortage................ but the fact is, neither side could see into the future so both had to present their opinion of how things would turn out...................... In other words, they speculated and a blind man on a galloping horse should have been able to see that right from day 1. 

You can't put the genie back into the bottle now because the vote has been taken & counted & the leave side won. 

It's that simple.


----------



## baldilocks

I think one of you asked what has been the advantage of the Common Market/European Union? Answer: Peace! Apart from internal squabbles and upsets within the former Soviet bloc, we have all been behaving ourselves - no wars. True there have been punch-ups immediately outside the borders of the EU and we have, occasionally, interfered but, on the whole, we have all been relatively peaceful. That is something that was not the case when I was born, 78 years ago.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> If you're so sure then you need to go to the Electoral commission but I think you'll find that one was put to bed some time ago but hey. Go for it!
> 
> As for the remainer claims being unimportant, they included all kinds of hysterical BS including WWIII & a mars bar shortage................ but the fact is, neither side could see into the future so both had to present their opinion of how things would turn out...................... In other words, they speculated and a blind man on a galloping horse should have been able to see that right from day 1.
> 
> You can't put the genie back into the bottle now because the vote has been taken & counted & the leave side won.
> 
> It's that simple.


Can you provide some deails of the verdict you talking about? I checked Google and can't find any.


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> If you're so sure then you need to go to the Electoral commission but I think you'll find that one was put to bed some time ago but hey. Go for it!
> 
> As for the remainer claims being unimportant, they included all kinds of hysterical BS *including WWIII* & a mars bar shortage................ but the fact is, neither side could see into the future so both had to present their opinion of how things would turn out...................... In other words, they speculated and a blind man on a galloping horse should have been able to see that right from day 1.
> 
> You can't put the genie back into the bottle now because the vote has been taken & counted & the leave side won.
> 
> It's that simple.


That in fact was De Piffle Johnson, Cameron said peace in Europe could be at risk (maybe he was talking about Ireland?..maybe he was referring to Ukraine?) and the idiot Johnson twisted Cameron's words to suit his own agenda. As much as I detest Cameron he never once mentioned the word 'war'.

https://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-09/boris-johnson-brexit-would-not-cause-ww3-in-europe/


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> Can you provide some deails of the verdict you talking about? I checked Google and can't find any.


You can't find anything on Google about it? - Really? 

But if you can't, I suggest you hotfoot it over to the Electoral Commission & blow the gaff on the whole evil conspiracy & I'm sure they'll overturn the decision! lol!


----------



## travelling-man

baldilocks said:


> I think one of you asked what has been the advantage of the Common Market/European Union? Answer: Peace! Apart from internal squabbles and upsets within the former Soviet bloc, we have all been behaving ourselves - no wars. True there have been punch-ups immediately outside the borders of the EU and we have, occasionally, interfered but, on the whole, we have all been relatively peaceful. That is something that was not the case when I was born, 78 years ago.


Ummmmm....... At the risk of putting fact in front of ill informed misinformation, I rather think you'll find that had nothing at all to do with the EU and everything to do with the United Nations that was formed in 1945 just after WWII finished and with the intent of ensuring a similar thing couldn't happen again. 

The EEC was only formed in the late 1950s & the EU in 1993.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union 

What is interesting to see is that 4 people liked your comment which proves that (with all due respect) they're as misinformed as you are. 

Next?


----------



## baldilocks

travelling-man said:


> Ummmmm....... *At the risk of putting fact in front of ill informed misinformation,* I rather think you'll find that had nothing at all to do with the EU and everything to do with the United Nations that was formed in 1945 just after WWII finished and with the intent of ensuring a similar thing couldn't happen again.
> 
> The EEC was only formed in the late 1950s & the EU in 1993.
> 
> What is interesting to see is that 4 people liked your comment which proves that (with all due respect) they obviously know as little about history as you do.
> 
> Next?


Whatever that gobbledegook is supposed to mean, the fact is, if your next door neighbours are your best customers and/or supply you with the essentials for your daily life needs in the form of fruit and veg or electricity or gas or water... There is no point in going to war because all the other neighbours will be affected as well.

As far as the UN is concerned, it went straight into involvement in the Korean War followed by the Suez crisis, Israeli conflicts, etc. and elsewhere


----------



## travelling-man

baldilocks said:


> Whatever that gobbledegook is supposed to mean, the fact is, if your next door neighbours are your best customers and/or supply you with the essentials for your daily life needs in the form of fruit and veg or electricity or gas or water... There is no point in going to war because all the other neighbours will be affected as well.
> 
> As far as the UN is concerned, it went straight into involvement in the Korean War followed by the Suez crisis, Israeli conflicts, etc. and elsewhere


My statement was perfectly clear & I simply gave you the true facts & corrected your glaring misunderstandings of history. 

The EU had nothing whatsoever to do with maintaining peace after WWII because it didn't even exist until several decades later.

As for what you call 'gobbledegook' that was my way of trying to be reasonably polite whist at the same time, point out that you were talking absolute, misinformed nonsense.............. Which you were!


----------



## baldilocks

travelling-man said:


> My statement was perfectly clear & I simply gave you the true facts & corrected your glaring misunderstandings of history.
> 
> The EU had nothing whatsoever to do with maintaining peace after WWII because it didn't even exist until several decades later.
> 
> As for what you call 'gobbledegook' that was my way of trying to be reasonably polite whist at the same time, point out that you were talking absolute, misinformed nonsense.............. Which you were!


The only thing that maintained peace immediately after WWII was we were all broke.

The European Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of what would become the EEC) was formed in 1952, not several decades later. My so called glaring misunderstandings of history (according to you) were not history at the time, they were current happenings - I was there. As for misinformed nonsense, try getting some facts under your belt. Bl**dy kids!


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> You can't find anything on Google about it? - Really?
> 
> But if you can't, I suggest you hotfoot it over to the Electoral Commission & blow the gaff on the whole evil conspiracy & I'm sure they'll overturn the decision! lol!


So you can't find it either!


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> So you can't find it either!


There's loads on Google about it if you care to look.........


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> There's loads on Google about it if you care to look.........


Why can't you just tell me? I'm sure others would benefit from the education too.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> So you can't find it either!


Well bearing in mind that you like Badli's misinformed claptrap comment about how the EU saved Europe from war when it was formed in the 1990s, I'm not in the least surprised you can't find it......... But I'll look tomorrow as I've been working with my animals most of the day & now intend to put my feet up but in the meantime, keep looking & if you can't find anything you should write a stiff letter of complaint to the Electoral Commission to ask why they haven't taken any action & over turned the democratic decision. lol!


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> Well bearing in mind that you like Badli's misinformed claptrap comment about how the EU saved Europe from war when it was formed in the 1990s, I'm not in the least surprised you can't find it......... But I'll look tomorrow as I've been working with my animals most of the day & now intend to put my feet up but in the meantime, keep looking & if you can't find anything you should write a stiff letter of complaint to the Electoral Commission to ask why they haven't taken any action & over turned the democratic decision. lol!


Why do you need time to look for it, if its so easy to find? Why not just post the url and be done with it?


----------



## baldilocks

tm sounds as though he is in training to compete with trump


----------



## Naaling

baldilocks said:


> tm sounds as though he is in training to compete with trump


I think he completed his training long ago!


----------



## travelling-man

baldilocks said:


> tm sounds as though he is in training to compete with trump


Bearing in mind you thought the EU that was formed in the 1990s saved Europe from war after WWII sounds to me as though you might perhaps need to seek help in obtaining a test for Oldtimer's disease................. But as far as President Trump goes, I think you'll find that result was also an example of democracy in action. 

Next?


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> Why do you need time to look for it, if its so easy to find? Why not just post the url and be done with it?


As it happens, I did look & surprise, surprise I simply Googled Electoral Commission findings on Brexit + remain & then the same + leave & found several thousand links that say both sides infringed the rules but neither enough to materially affect the vote & that it wasn't in the national interest to take things further. 

So try those searches & you'll find squillions of hits & the reason that you couldn't find them is (I assume) the same reason that caused you to like a statement that claimed the EU (formed in the 1990s) had saved Europe from WWIII immediately after WWII. 

That nice Mr Google really does make things easy if you care to ask him.

Next?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> Next?


Have you found the information I was asking about?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> As it happens, I did look & surprise, surprise I simply Googled Electoral Commission findings on Brexit + remain & then the same + leave & found several thousand links that say both sides infringed the rules but neither enough to materially affect the vote & that it wasn't in the national interest to take things further.
> 
> So try those searches & you'll find squillions of hits & the reason that you couldn't find them is (I assume) the same reason that caused you to like a statement that claimed the EU (formed in the 1990s) had saved Europe from WWIII immediately after WWII.
> 
> That nice Mr Google really does make things easy if you care to ask him.


I don't need several thousand, just one would do. Surely posting a single url isn't beyond someone of you Trumpian intellect.

No lets put an end to this

If the High Court has ruled that it is unable to hear matters concerning the legitimacy of an adviory referendum, then how could any court produce the rulings you claim have been made?

You haven't found a single reference because none exist!


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> Have you found the information I was asking about?


Yes. See my previous reply. 

But if it makes you happier the link below gives you 214 Million results in 0.68 seconds, so feel free to sift through that little lot!

https://www.google.com/search?clien...+commission+findings+or+brexit+leave+&+remain 

Next?


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I don't need several thousand, just one would do. Surely posting a single url isn't beyond someone of you Trumpian intellect.
> 
> No lets put an end to this
> 
> If the High Court has ruled that it is unable to hear matters concerning the legitimacy of an adviory referendum, then how could any court produce the rulings you claim have been made?
> 
> You haven't found a single reference because none exist!


I've just posted a link to 214M of them........ How many more do you want? 

And it wasn't advisory..... If you are unable to master the intricacies of Google try youtube where you'll find endless vids of politicians of all parties saying if the majority vote is to leave that's what will happen entirely.

Next?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> Yes. See my previous reply.
> 
> But if it makes you happier the link below gives you 214 Million results in 0.68 seconds, so feel free to sift through that little lot!
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?clien...+commission+findings+or+brexit+leave+&+remain
> 
> Next?


Checked the link and as expected, there is no reference to any court ruling that irregularities during referendum campaign didn't affect the result. The non legally binding, advisory nature of the referendum prevents such rulings.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> And it wasn't advisory.....
> Next?


A quote from one of your references

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44856992

"The referendum was *not legally binding*, merely *"advisory,"* according to a Supreme Court judgement in December 2016, so it can't be ordered to be re-run by a court - any decision to have a fresh referendum would have to be made by the government and Parliament would have to pass a referendum act."

By the way thats how an educated person provides information when its asked for.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> Checked the link and as expected, there is no reference to any court ruling that irregularities during referendum campaign didn't affect the result. The non legally binding, advisory nature of the referendum prevents such rulings.


I'm impressed. You checked 214 MILLION links in just a few minutes....... Wow! 

They are there & all you have to do is look but if not, you need to go straight to the Electoral Commission & demand they over turn the result! 

Good luck & I look forward to seeing the news headlines on how you saved democracy. 

Or maybe not! lol!


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> A quote from one of your references
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44856992
> 
> "The referendum was *not legally binding*, merely *"advisory,"* according to a Supreme Court judgement in December 2016, so it can't be ordered to be re-run by a court - any decision to have a fresh referendum would have to be made by the government and Parliament would have to pass a referendum act."
> 
> By the way thats how an educated person provides information when its asked for.



So ummmm. Why haven't they done anything about it do you think?

Oh my. This is fun!

Next?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> I'm impressed. You checked 214 MILLION links in just a few minutes....... Wow!
> 
> They are there & all you have to do is look but if not, you need to go straight to the Electoral Commission & demand they over turn the result!
> 
> Good luck & I look forward to seeing the news headlines on how you saved democracy.
> 
> Or maybe not! lol!


I shouldn't have to check 214 million links! (unless you are sending me on a wild goose chase) 
Why is it so difficult to provide one link? The one you used.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> So ummmm. Why haven't they done anything about it do you think?
> 
> Oh my. This is fun!
> 
> Next?


Who knows why parliament hasn't done anything. Its got nothing to do with the court rulings that you claim exist.

I'm glad your having fun, I can keep this up all night.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I shouldn't have to check 214 million links! (unless you are sending me on a wild goose chase)
> Why is it so difficult to provide one link? The one you used.


You just said you had checked the link......... are you now saying you didn't? 

If not........ why not?

All that said why do you think the will of the minority should over rule that of the majority?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> You just said you had checked the link......... are you now saying you didn't?
> 
> If not........ why not?
> 
> All that said why do you think the will of the minority should over rule that of the majority?


I obviously checked the link I quoted from.

Now are you going to provide the link in question?


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I obviously checked the link I quoted from.
> 
> Now are you going to provide the link in question?


I gave you a link to 214M of them FCS..... what more do you want?

But yet again I ask why do you think the will of the minority should over rule that of the majority? 

Either way, if you're so sure you have that right you need to contact the Electoral Commission & tell them they must over turn the vote & I await with bated breath for their decision. 

BTW, what happened to the others? - Did they all fall asleep in their armchairs or are they all trying to find that nice Mr Google or are they still trying to find the difference between the EU & UN?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> I gave you a link to 214M of them FCS..... what more do you want?
> 
> But yet again I ask why do you think the will of the minority should over rule that of the majority?
> 
> Either way, if you're so sure you have that right you need to contact the Electoral Commission & tell them they must over turn the vote & I await with bated breath for their decision.
> 
> BTW, what happened to the others? - Did they all fall asleep in their armchairs or are they all trying to find that nice Mr Google or are they still trying to find the difference between the EU & UN?


Just one more link. You do have it don't you?


----------



## RichardHenshall

travelling-man said:


> ... BTW, what happened to the others? ...


I got bored after I won the point we were discussing. 

I look forward to the outcome of your current challenge. :focus:


----------



## baldilocks

So come on TM, after claiming that we are all talking rubbish, what do you see as the advantages of leaving the EU?


----------



## Tigerlillie

baldilocks said:


> So come on TM, after claiming that we are all talking rubbish, what do you see as the advantages of leaving the EU?


Don't start him off Baldi.... :faint:

Democracy innit.......


----------



## travelling-man

baldilocks said:


> So come on TM, after claiming that we are all talking rubbish, what do you see as the advantages of leaving the EU?


As I said before, I really don't care much about Brexit either way as it won't affect me much if at all......... BUT (note the big BUT) I do care deeply about the principles of democracy and the immense number of sacrifices (over centuries) made by so many people to establish that democracy & that to me is what matters & why the decision of the majority be respected.................... & I'm surprised you don't understand that as you're the age you are?

You must have been born in about 1941 & therefore your early years were during & immediately after WWII...... In that war alone there was immense sacrifice & probably some made in your own family....... So yes. Democracy is extremely important to me & it should be to you also. 

I'll ask again....... why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?


----------



## baldilocks

travelling-man said:


> As I said before, I really don't care much about Brexit either way as it won't affect me much if at all......... BUT (note the big BUT) I do care deeply about the principles of democracy and the immense number of sacrifices (over centuries) made by so many people to establish that democracy & that to me is what matters & why the decision of the majority be respected.................... & I'm surprised you don't understand that as you're the age you are?
> 
> You must have been born in about 1941 & therefore your early years were during & immediately after WWII...... In that war alone there was immense sacrifice & probably some made in your own family....... So yes. Democracy is extremely important to me & it should be to you also.
> 
> I'll ask again....... why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?


You are singing the same song, not answering the question. Your minority/majority argument rotates around those who voted but of the entire population, it is far from a majority and doesn't take account of those who couldn't/wouldn't vote.

Yes I was born 1941 and came within 100 yds of being killed by one of Hitler's V2s.


----------



## travelling-man

baldilocks said:


> You are singing the same song, not answering the question. Your minority/majority argument rotates around those who voted but of the entire population, it is far from a majority and doesn't take account of those who couldn't/wouldn't vote.
> 
> Yes I was born 1941 and came within 100 yds of being killed by one of Hitler's V2s.


The rules of the day were perfectly clear and I've stated them before but you STILL haven't answered my question which was: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?

Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?


----------



## baldilocks

travelling-man said:


> The rules of the day were perfectly clear and I've stated them before but you STILL haven't answered my question which was: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?
> 
> Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?


You are still dodging the question - Why should we leave?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> The rules of the day were perfectly clear and


 completely diregarded Vote Leave and its scabby mates!


----------



## travelling-man

baldilocks said:


> You are still dodging the question - Why should we leave?


I have answered it but will do so again: We should or rather must leave because it is the will of the majority of those that had the right & took the trouble to vote. 

But neither you nor anyone else has had the courage to answer my questions which (just to remind your failing memory) were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?

Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?


----------



## Naaling

baldilocks said:


> You are still dodging the question - Why should we leave?


TM won't answer the question because he knows he can't. All of the FACTS are against him. 

Leavers have manufactured one referendum win using highly immoral and illegal tactics. Now they want that one win to stand forever. They harp on about democracy, but how democratic is it to force the country down a path the people no longer want, simply because they voted for it 3 years ago? The notion that "we voted for it 3 years ago so it must happen" is as ludicrous as it is undemocratic. 
For whatever reason Brexit hasn't happened yet, and if the people have changed their mind they have a right to be heard and respected.
If Brexiters are so sure that the electorate still wants Brexit, why are they so opposed to a second referendum? Surely the people will vote for it again and that will be that?
The argument that a second referendum is a betrayal is a nonsense. The same people will vote in both referendums. How can the people betray themselves? If they vote differently in a second referendum then it simply means that they have changed their minds, which is their democratic right, and by itself sufficiant justification for a second vote.

I could support leave, if Brexiters were able to provide a factual and logical arguement for doing so.
After over 3 years of constant listening, I haven't heard one. 
Every informed senerio indicates that the country and the people will be poorer (if you don't include the money people who have squirrelled their wealth offshore, and are looking forward to making a killing - Its called Disaster Capitalism!)

Of course TM will ignore everything I've said, because none of it supports his position.
He will simply regurgitate the same old Ill-informed, unsupported, prejudiced mantra he has been spouting unchanged for over 3 years.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> TM won't answer the question because he knows he can't. All of the FACTS are against him.
> 
> Leavers have manufactured one referendum win using highly immoral and illegal tactics. Now they want that one win to stand forever. They harp on about democracy, but how democratic is it to force the country down a path the people no longer want, simply because they voted for it 3 years ago? The notion that "we voted for it 3 years ago so it must happen" is as ludicrous as it is undemocratic.
> For whatever reason Brexit hasn't happened yet, and if the people have changed their mind they have a right to be heard and respected.
> If Brexiters are so sure that the electorate still wants Brexit, why are they so opposed to a second referendum? Surely the people will vote for it again and that will be that.
> The argument that a second referendum is a betrayal is a nonsnse. The same people will vote in both referendums. How can the people betray themselves? If they vote differntly in a second referendum then it simply means that they have changed their minds, which is their democratic right, and by itself sufficiant justification for a second vote.
> 
> I could support leave, if Brexiters were able to provide a factual and logical arguement for doing so.
> After over 3 years of constant listening, I haven't heard one.
> Every informed senerio indicates that the country and the people will be poorer (if you don't include the money people who have squirrelled their wealth offshore, and are looking forward to making a killing - Its called Disaster Capitalism!)
> 
> Of course TM will ignore everything I've said, because none of it supports his position.
> He will simply regurgitate the same old Ill-informed, unsupported, prejudiced mantra he has been spouting unchanged for over 3 years.


On what basis of fact do you make those ridiculous statements or put it another way, how do you KNOW the country has changed it's mind? 

But I also notice that you lack the courage to answer my questions? 

I won't ignore everything you've said because none of it supports my position but rather will ignore all of it because it's utter rubbish..................... There simply is NO way you can KNOW the country has changed it's mind. 

As for misleading people the whole Project Fear thing was utterly ridiculous & promised everything from WWIII to no mars bars to no toilet rolls etc etc etc. 

You need to get over it because sooner or later, it's going to happen whether you like it or not but if it helps, I promise you that after Brexit is complete the sky is unlikely to fall in & the sun & moon will probably rise & fall & even the tides will continue to ebb & flow.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> On what basis of fact do you make those ridiculous statements or put it another way, how do you KNOW the country has changed it's mind?


I don't know, but I'm willing to find out. Are you??


----------



## baldilocks

perhaps if I rephrase the question, why do YOU think we would be better off outside the EU? What would the UK gain? if anything?


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I don't know, but I'm willing to find out. Are you??


The decision was made neary 3 1/2 years ago and that must & will (eventually) be honoured one way or another but as I said before you do have the democratic right (after Brexit is complete) to petition your elected representative to propose a motion for a rejoin referendum & I'd encourage you to do that if you wanted to. 

But in the meantime, how about you answer my questions as everyone else appears to be dodging it.

Which (just to remind your failing memory) were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?

Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> The decision was made neary 3 1/2 years ago and that must & will (eventually) be honoured one way or another but as I said before you do have the democratic right (after Brexit is complete) to petition your elected representative to propose a motion for a rejoin referendum & I'd encourage you to do that if you wanted to.
> 
> But in the meantime, how about you answer my questions as everyone else appears to be dodging it.
> 
> Which (just to remind your failing memory) were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?
> 
> Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?


I'm willing to find out. Are you??


----------



## Tigerlillie

Naaling said:


> TM won't answer the question because he knows he can't. All of the FACTS are against him.
> 
> Leavers have manufactured one referendum win using highly immoral and illegal tactics. Now they want that one win to stand forever. They harp on about democracy, but how democratic is it to force the country down a path the people no longer want, simply because they voted for it 3 years ago? The notion that "we voted for it 3 years ago so it must happen" is as ludicrous as it is undemocratic.
> For whatever reason Brexit hasn't happened yet, and if the people have changed their mind they have a right to be heard and respected.
> If Brexiters are so sure that the electorate still wants Brexit, why are they so opposed to a second referendum? Surely the people will vote for it again and that will be that?
> The argument that a second referendum is a betrayal is a nonsense. The same people will vote in both referendums. How can the people betray themselves? If they vote differently in a second referendum then it simply means that they have changed their minds, which is their democratic right, and by itself sufficiant justification for a second vote.
> 
> I could support leave, if Brexiters were able to provide a factual and logical arguement for doing so.
> After over 3 years of constant listening, I haven't heard one.
> Every informed senerio indicates that the country and the people will be poorer (if you don't include the money people who have squirrelled their wealth offshore, and are looking forward to making a killing - Its called Disaster Capitalism!)
> 
> Of course TM will ignore everything I've said, because none of it supports his position.
> He will simply regurgitate the same old Ill-informed, unsupported, prejudiced mantra he has been spouting unchanged for over 3 years.


Yes, you're correct, an answer will not be forthcoming apart from regurgitated soundbites and 'alternative facts'.
I posted a couple of replies in answer to his posts refuting his claims with easily found information.
The first being his statement that the UK had a referendum to join the EEC in 1973 which was untrue.
Then another statement that the government 'infringed the rules' by producing a leaflet delivered to all households, again I refuted that with facts.
I even posted a video link to his WW3 claim that proves Cameron did not state anything of the kind but was in fact one of the Leave campaigners who said it, namely one Al Johnson who is now PM of the UK.
There have been several polls over the last year or so showing that the people have no appetite anymore for leaving the EU now they know what it entails and how it will affect their lives.

Brexiteers would do well to look to Switzerland for properly conducted and democratic referendums, they have much more experience and know how on how to organise and implement them.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...-swiss-the-brexit-referendum-wasnt-legitimate

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/13/switzerland-hold-second-referendum-voters-misled-9197690/

We are all wasting our time trying to get an answer....Mark Twain said it best and ever so succinctly;

'Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> The decision was made neary 3 1/2 years ago and that must & will (eventually) be honoured one way or another but as I said before you do have the democratic right (after Brexit is complete) to petition your elected representative to propose a motion for a rejoin referendum & I'd encourage you to do that if you wanted to.
> 
> _Since you obuiously didn't read my previos post
> "Leavers have manufactured one referendum win using highly immoral and illegal tactics. Now they want that one win to stand forever. They harp on about democracy, but how democratic is it to force the country down a path the people no longer want, simply because they voted for it 3 years ago? The notion that "we voted for it 3 years ago so it must happen" is as ludicrous as it is undemocratic.
> For whatever reason Brexit hasn't happened yet, and if the people have changed their mind they have a right to be heard and respected.
> If Brexiters are so sure that the electorate still wants Brexit, why are they so opposed to a second referendum? Surely the people will vote for it again and that will be that.
> The argument that a second referendum is a betrayal is a nonsnse. The same people will vote in both referendums. How can the people betray themselves? If they vote differntly in a second referendum then it simply means that they have changed their minds, which is their democratic right, and by itself sufficiant justification for a second vote."_
> 
> But in the meantime, how about you answer my questions as everyone else appears to be dodging it.
> 
> Which (just to remind your failing memory) were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?
> 
> _When a real referendum is held , that is free and fair. The result will be, and should be, honoured whichever way it goes._
> 
> Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?
> 
> _This is a insult to the memory of my father, who actually fought in the war!_


Just to address a few points you raised.


----------



## Tigerlillie

Naaling said:


> Just to address a few points you raised.


Can you highlight the bits you have inserted into his post, it's a bit confusing otherwise


----------



## travelling-man

baldilocks said:


> perhaps if I rephrase the question, why do YOU think we would be better off outside the EU? What would the UK gain? if anything?


I didn't say I did think that but what I think or what you or anyone else thinks is totally irrelevant because the decision to leave has been made already.

However, I yet again notice that not one of you has sufficient backbone to answer my questions which were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?

Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority? 

I'll even welcome the reply of our ancient sage (and onion perhaps?) in chief who believes that it was the EU that saved Europe from WWII immediately after WWII when the EU was formed in the 1990s rather than the UN which was formed immediately after WWII. lol! 

I'm NEVER going to forget that ridiculous statement. lol!


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> The decision was made neary 3 1/2 years ago and that must & will (eventually) be honoured one way or another but as I said before you do have the democratic right (after Brexit is complete) to petition your elected representative to propose a motion for a rejoin referendum & I'd encourage you to do that if you wanted to.
> 
> _Since you obuiously didn't read my previos post
> "Leavers have manufactured one referendum win using highly immoral and illegal tactics. Now they want that one win to stand forever. They harp on about democracy, but how democratic is it to force the country down a path the people no longer want, simply because they voted for it 3 years ago? The notion that "we voted for it 3 years ago so it must happen" is as ludicrous as it is undemocratic.
> For whatever reason Brexit hasn't happened yet, and if the people have changed their mind they have a right to be heard and respected.
> If Brexiters are so sure that the electorate still wants Brexit, why are they so opposed to a second referendum? Surely the people will vote for it again and that will be that.
> The argument that a second referendum is a betrayal is a nonsnse. The same people will vote in both referendums. How can the people betray themselves? If they vote differntly in a second referendum then it simply means that they have changed their minds, which is their democratic right, and by itself sufficiant justification for a second vote."_
> 
> But in the meantime, how about you answer my questions as everyone else appears to be dodging it.
> 
> Which (just to remind your failing memory) were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?
> 
> _When a real referendum is held , that is free and fair. The result will be, and should be, honoured whichever way it goes._
> 
> Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?
> 
> _This is a insult to the memory of my father, who actually fought in the war!_


Just to address a few points you raised.


----------



## Naaling

Tigerlillie said:


> Can you highlight the bits you have inserted into his post, it's a bit confusing otherwise


Sorry. I tried to put my words in italics, but for some reason it put everything in italics.

I didn't want to bold the text, because it would have given the wrong idea. I tried to fix it, but ended up posting the same thing again.


----------



## Tigerlillie

Naaling said:


> Sorry. I tried to put my words in italics, but for some reason it put everything in italics.
> 
> I didn't want to bold the text, because it would have given the wrong idea. I tried to fix it, but ended up posting the same thing again.


It's all in italics because if you quote a post it automatically transcribes it into italics, what many of us do rather than bolding is to put insertions in a different colour, I quite like navy, some do red but I don't think that's appropriate.


----------



## travelling-man

The real referendum was held & it was free & fair........ it might not have been the result you wanted but nevertheless it was free & fair & also incidentally not only complied with the rules of the day but could not have been a better example of democracy in it's purest form.

It's not me that's insulting the memory of your father or all those who gave their lives, limbs & minds in defence of democracy but rather you remainers that are doing that so trying to burden me with your guilt isn't going to work.

But how about even one of you answering those few questions I keep asking & you all keep avoiding like the plague?


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> The real referendum was held & it was free & fair........ it might not have been the result you wanted but nevertheless it was free & fair & also incidentally not only complied with the rules of the day but could not have been a better example of democracy in it's purest form.
> 
> It's not me that's insulting the memory of your father or all those who gave their lives, limbs & minds in defence of democracy but rather you remainers that are doing that so trying to burden me with your guilt isn't going to work.
> 
> But how about even one of you answering those few questions I keep asking & you all keep avoiding like the plague?


Since when has feeding people lies and misinformation been classed as 'fair'... :confused2:


----------



## travelling-man

Tigerlillie said:


> Since when has feeding people lies and misinformation been classed as 'fair'... :confused2:


Strewth....... Really? We've been through all that several times FCS. Neither side had a crystal ball that sees into the future because there's no such thing so both sides had to speculate & both sides did............... Project Fear claimed everything from apocalypse to no bog roll to the Game of Thrones dragons invading from their secret nests in France whilst the Daleks would invade & rape all the letter boxes! 

But that aside: I yet again notice that not one of you has sufficient backbone to answer my questions which were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?

Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?


----------



## baldilocks

travelling-man said:


> I didn't say I did think that but what I think or what you or anyone else thinks is totally irrelevant because the decision to leave has been made already.
> 
> However, I yet again notice that not one of you has sufficient backbone to answer my questions which were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?
> 
> Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?
> 
> I'll even welcome the reply of our ancient sage (and onion perhaps?) in chief who believes that it was the EU that saved Europe from WWII immediately after WWII when the EU was formed in the 1990s rather than the UN which was formed immediately after WWII. lol!
> 
> I'm NEVER going to forget that ridiculous statement. lol!


I just want to know why you, whom, up to now I have respected as a sage person, have gone over to pursuing this stupid idea of leaving the EU.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> The real referendum was held & it was free & fair........


From post#95. Did you read it??

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44856992

"The referendum was *not legally binding*, merely *"advisory,"* according to a Supreme Court judgement in December 2016, so it can't be ordered to be re-run by a court - any decision to have a fresh referendum would have to be made by the government and Parliament would have to pass a referendum act."


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> Strewth....... Really? We've been through all that several times FCS. Neither side had a crystal ball that sees into the future because there's no such thing so both sides had to speculate & both sides did............... *Project Fear claimed everything from apocalypse to no bog roll to the Game of Thrones dragons invading from their secret nests in France whilst the Daleks would invade & rape all the letter boxes!*
> 
> But that aside: I yet again notice that not one of you has sufficient backbone to answer my questions which were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?
> 
> Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?


*Now you're just making ****e up* 

The following are not predictions, speculations or whatever other name you wish to call them, they are lies:

We send £350m a week to Brussels

We can’t stop Turkey joining

We can’t stop a European army

We are still liable to pay eurozone bailouts

The UK rebate can be changed against our will

Our VAT exemptions will be ended

Cameron’s deal was not legally binding

EU law is adopted by unelected bureaucrats

We can’t control our borders in the EU

Criminals arriving in Germany can get EU passports and come over here

Health tourism costs us billions

EU needs UK trade more than vice versa

Past referendum results have been ignored

Auditors still refuse to sign off the accounts

CAP adds £400 to British food bills

British steel suffers because of the EU

Irish border will be unaffected by Brexit

UK can’t deport EU criminals

UK is always outvoted

60-70% of laws come from EU

Renationalisation of industries is impossible

We get no veto on future treaty change or integration

The budget ceiling can increase without our consent

*I challenge you to prove they're true.*

*PS.... I live in France, rest assured we don't have dragons here.*


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> From post#95. Did you read it??
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44856992
> 
> "The referendum was *not legally binding*, merely *"advisory,"* according to a Supreme Court judgement in December 2016, so it can't be ordered to be re-run by a court - any decision to have a fresh referendum would have to be made by the government and Parliament would have to pass a referendum act."


I did read it & replied to it & the argument of it being advisory was well & truly put to bed a long time ago but if you think otherwise, you need to inform & explain it to the Electoral Commission & I recommend you do just that. 

But that aside: I yet again notice that not one of you has sufficient backbone to answer my questions which were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?

Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> I did read it & replied to it & the argument of it being advisory was well & truly put to bed a long time ago but if you think otherwise, you need to inform & explain it to the Electoral Commission & I recommend you do just that.
> 
> But that aside: I yet again notice that not one of you has sufficient backbone to answer my questions which were: why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual?
> 
> Also, do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?


Change the record mate, we've all told why we think there should be another referendum several times, if you're not intelligent enough to grasp that, that's hardly our fault is it.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> But that aside: I yet again notice that not one of you has sufficient backbone to answer my questions ?


OK I will!
which were: 

why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority?

We don't, and it won't when a real referendum is held.

&

why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual

It shouldn't and won't when a real referendum is held.

Any more questions?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> the argument of it being advisory was well & truly put to bed a long time ago


 Yes, by the Supreme Court! Do you know of a higher authority?


----------



## travelling-man

Tigerlillie said:


> Change the record mate, we've all told why we think there should be another referendum several times, if you're not intelligent enough to grasp that, that's hardly our fault is it.


So yet again the attacking remainer snaowflakes STILL lack the backbone to answer my questions............. Presumably because they do acknowledge that they really do think the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & that their vote should count more than the vote of all other individuals who disagree with them. 

And they must also think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) really were unimportant & that they don't matter just as long as their minority rules over the majority.

Which really does make every one of you absolute 110% snowflake bigots from bigotville!

Oh & it also makes you dumber than a sack of spuds because you all agreed with Baldi when he tried to tell me the EU which was formed in the 1990s saved Europe from WWIII in 1945 rather than the UN who are an entirely different & far older organisation & that was formed in 1945 after WWII to perform that very function. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry


----------



## baldilocks

travelling-man said:


> !
> 
> https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry


We didn't need a link to your CV.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> So yet again the attacking remainer snaowflakes STILL lack the backbone to answer my questions............. Presumably because they do acknowledge that they really do think the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & that their vote should count more than the vote of all other individuals who disagree with them.
> 
> FCS read post #134
> 
> And they must also think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) really were unimportant & that they don't matter just as long as their minority rules over the majority.
> 
> Stop insulting my dad. He fought against fascists, not for them.
> 
> Which really does make every one of you absolute 110% snowflake bigots from bigotville!
> 
> Oh & it also makes you dumber than a sack of spuds because you all agreed with Baldi when he tried to tell me the EU which was formed in the 1990s saved Europe from WWIII in 1945 rather than the UN who are an entirely different & far older organisation & that was formed in 1945 after WWII to perform that very function. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> 
> https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry


I think our friend TM has finally lost it!


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> I did read it & replied to it & the argument of it being advisory was well & truly put to bed a long time ago but if you think otherwise,





Naaling said:


> Yes, by the Supreme Court! Do you know of a higher authority?


I explained all that in my first post on this thread and then again in a second post because another poster couldn't grasp the fact that the idiot PM who allowed this farce of a referendum made it politically binding. I also provided a link to the referendum act which specifically states that the referendum was consultative and advisory.... doesn't seem to sink in though.


----------



## Tigerlillie

Naaling said:


> I think our friend TM has finally lost it!


This is the second phase, when the endless rinse and repeat yourself tactics don't work and they can't refute facts the insult phase starts.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I think our friend TM has finally lost it!


I think I've finally won the case & proved my point because not one of you has had the backbone to answer my questions. 

But don't worry. All you snowflakes will melt away when Brexit finally happens. lol!


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> I think I've finally won the case & proved my point because not one of you has had the backbone to answer my questions.
> 
> But don't worry. All you snowflakes will melt away when Brexit finally happens. lol!


The problem with ignorance is that the knowledge, ignorant people are most ignorant of, is that of their own ignorance.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> The problem with ignorance is that the knowledge, ignorant people are most ignorant of, is that of their own ignorance.


This from someone who liked a halfwitted comment from someone who thought post WWII peace had been maintained by the EU that was set up in the 1990s rather than the UN. 

Oh the irony! 

Bwahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> This from someone who liked a halfwitted comment from someone who thought post WWII peace had been maintained by the EU that was set up in the 1990s rather than the UN.
> 
> Oh the irony!
> 
> Bwahahahahahahahaha!


I expected you to chime in and prove my point.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I expected you to chime in and prove my point.


A blind man on a galloping horse could see the irony & bigotry of your remark(s) so how could I resist! lol!!


----------



## baldilocks

Methinks that it is time for sensible people to leave this thread.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> A blind man on a galloping horse could see the irony & bigotry of your remark(s) so how could I resist! lol!!


I have to bow to your Trumpian intellect. Is there anything you don't know?

I hope you don't mind if I get back to looking after my 2 year old son. Its so much more rewarding to interact with someone who actually listens to others and is open to new ideas.

Can we get back to this after the referendum?


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> This from someone who liked a halfwitted comment from someone who thought post WWII peace had been maintained by the EU that was set up in the 1990s rather than the UN.
> 
> Oh the irony!
> 
> Bwahahahahahahahaha!


I think you'll find that's not what he said at all, it was you that twisted it out of context.



baldilocks said:


> I think one of you asked* what has been the advantage of the Common Market/European Union? * Answer: Peace! Apart from internal squabbles and upsets within the former Soviet bloc, we have all been behaving ourselves - no wars. True there have been punch-ups immediately outside the borders of the EU and we have, occasionally, interfered but, on the whole, we have all been relatively peaceful. ...............





baldilocks said:


> The only thing that maintained peace immediately after WWII was we were all broke.
> 
> *The European Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of what would become the EEC)* was formed in 1952,.......................
> !


The whole point of the ECSC was to *maintain* peace and *avoid* conflict in Europe.

And the EEC was the forerunner to the EU.

Nowhere in any of his posts has he stated that the EU was set up to prevent war...you were the one that twisted things and came up with that rubbish.

If that is what he said can you please reference the post he made it in because I can't find it.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I have to bow to your Trumpian intellect. Is there anything you don't know?
> 
> I hope you don't mind if I get back to looking after my 2 year old son. Its so much more rewarding to interact with someone who actually listens to others and is open to new ideas.
> 
> Can we get back to this after the referendum?


I think I detect more than a little Ad Hominem sneaked in there & I also hope you don't have to hang your head in shame when your son eventually grows up & realises his parent betrayed or rather tried to betray the democracy that had been so very hard won over several centuries by so many people.


----------



## travelling-man

baldilocks said:


> Methinks that it is time for sensible people to leave this thread.


This from the man who held the halfwitted opinion that post WWII peace was maintained by an organisation that was only formed in the 1990s. 

Blimey...... Ya couldn't make it up! ROTFLMAO!


----------



## travelling-man

Tigerlillie;14966960I think you'll find that's not what he said at all said:


> Yes he did say that, yes you did like his uninformed comment & no I didn't twist it out of context at all. I just pointed out he was entirely wrong & incredibly misinformed[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the ECSC was to *maintain* peace and *avoid* conflict in Europe.
> 
> And the EEC was the forerunner to the EU.
> 
> Nowhere in any of his posts has he stated that the EU was set up to prevent war...you were the one that twisted things and came up with that rubbish.
> 
> If that is what he said can you please reference the post he made it in because I can't find it.


*Actually what he said was the thing he liked about the EU was that it had preserved the peace since WWII when in fact it was the UN who were formed immediatley after WWII and did that................... The EU wasn't formed until the 1990s & didn't even exist at the time he thought they'd maintained world peace*


----------



## Strontium

Oh no 

Banned


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> I think I detect more than a little Ad Hominem sneaked in there & I also hope you don't have to hang your head in shame when your son eventually grows up & realises his parent betrayed or rather tried to betray the democracy that had been so very hard won over several centuries by so many people.


Must be getting desperate, a Brexiter has triggered the "Ad Hominem" defence.
What's the next move in the "Brexitspeak" handbook?


----------



## Tigerlillie

travelling-man said:


> *Actually what he said was the thing he liked about the EU was that it had preserved the peace since WWII when in fact it was the UN who were formed immediatley after WWII and did that................... The EU wasn't formed until the 1990s & didn't even exist at the time he thought they'd maintained world peace*


No that's not what he said and I quoted his posts, stop making ****e up.


----------



## Naaling

Tigerlillie said:


> No that's not what he said and I quoted his posts, stop making ****e up.


He's buried so deep in ****e, that he doesn't know anything else exists!


----------



## travelling-man

Yaaaaawwwwn. More Ad Hominem. 

I'm not at all buried in ****e but rather defending democracy & whether the snowflakes like it or not........ Democracy will eventually prevail so you might as well get used to it.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> Yaaaaawwwwn. More Ad Hominem.
> 
> I'm not at all buried in ****e but rather defending democracy & whether the snowflakes like it or not........ Democracy will eventually prevail so you might as well get used to it.


I have no doubt democracy will prevail, but it won't be your ignorant, self serving, hypocritical version.

With that thought I'll say goodnight.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I have no doubt democracy will prevail, but it won't be your ignorant, self serving, hypocritical version.
> 
> With that thought I'll say goodnight.


Yet again...... Oh the irony & the bigotry. 

Moronic logic at it's finest............... Sweet dreams of golden unicorns & snowflakes to you............. And remember, it was those so many sacrifices of lives, limbs & minds that gave you the freedom to sleep safely at night & express the halfwitted opinions you do & that you now wish to betray just to get your own way. 

I'm actually surprised you can sleep at all with that much guilt on your conscience.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> Yet again...... Oh the irony & the bigotry.
> 
> Moronic logic at it's finest............... Sweet dreams of golden unicorns & snowflakes to you............. And remember, it was those so many sacrifices of lives, limbs & minds that gave you the freedom to sleep safely at night & express the halfwitted opinions you do & that you now wish to betray just to get your own way.
> 
> I'm actually surprised you can sleep at all with that much guilt on your conscience.


I think you need to put a nappy on your head!


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> I think you need to put a nappy on your head!


I was thinking the same about you but the differences between us are I'm right & you're wrong, I won't have a snowflake meltdown when the inevitable happens & I'll defend democracy until my dying breath whilst you will betray it at the drop of a hat. 

How will you explain such betrayal when he's old enough to understand what you tried to do?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> I won't have a snowflake meltdown when the inevitable happens


You won't need to. You're having one now!!


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> You won't need to. You're having one now!!


More Ad Hominem BS. 

Next?


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> More Ad Hominem BS.
> 
> Next?


Just the truth. How many times have you lost it already?
I'm just having fun. I thought you were too last night.


----------



## travelling-man

Naaling said:


> Just the truth. How many times have you lost it already?
> I'm just having fun. I thought you were too last night.


I always have fun but will ALWAYS defend democracy because I have (unfortunately) witnessed what happens when it fails. 

Trust me when I tell you that when that happens the most appalling violence always eventually occurs. 

Which is why the principles of democracy is of ultimate importance. 

It's not about Brexit or not but rather about the principles of simple democracy & how high a price was paid to establish it.

But I yet again note that not a single one of you has had the testicular fortitude to answer a single one of my questions............. Funny that hey?


----------



## RichardHenshall

travelling-man said:


> ... why do any of you remainers think that the will of the minority should win over the will of the majority & why should your vote count more than the vote of any other individual? ...


I don't recall anyone claiming that the will of the minority should hold sway - more that there are indications that there is sufficient probability of a majority in favour of remaining now; and that this should be tested to provide proof before any irrevocable actions. I don't recall anyone ever claiming that any one vote counts more than any other.

While on this particular subtopic, isn't the current UK Government a minority government?



travelling-man said:


> ... do you think all those lives, limbs & minds that were sacrificed to protect democracy (in that war alone) were so unimportant that they don't matter just as long as the minority rule over the majority?


Thankfully there have been other more peaceful processes that have emerged and evolved since that have continued and enhanced that protection while requiring fewer sacrifices.


----------



## Naaling

travelling-man said:


> But I yet again note that not a single one of you has had the testicular fortitude to answer a single one of my questions............. Funny that hey?[/QUOTE
> 
> I answered your questions in post #134.
> 
> This is pointless. I've got better things to do than waste any more time on you!


----------

