Starker on 20/6/2016 at 11:32
He talks a lot of sense. Honestly, it's a mystery to me how anyone can think that Britain will be able to renegotiate trade terms at a more advantageous position or get access to the single market just like that. Especially as it won't be able to use the threat of leaving the EU as a bargaining chip.
nickie on 20/6/2016 at 11:37
Thank you, faetal. Pity that those who should watch that, won't.
Tony_Tarantula on 20/6/2016 at 14:37
Its all idle speculation anyway. A rigged vote is near guaranteed, and even if they don't the EU has historically ignored anti EU votes or replaced politicians who are anti EU.
That's what the guy in Faetals video is missing. Just because Britain is a sovereign entity on paper doesn't mean it actually is: the EU has done plenty of things that they "can't do". It's the same problem I run into frequently with lawyers where they get so caught up in the letter of the law that they completely ignore what the practical reality is.
Vivian on 20/6/2016 at 14:43
Examples?
faetal on 20/6/2016 at 14:59
In what Dunning-Krüger black hole are you able to dismiss the opinions of someone who has worked in his field for as long as he has?
"That's what the guy in Faetals video is missing"
You don't know if he is or not as you don't have anywhere near to his level of experience with the actual functioning of the EU. You talk about speculation as being a reason why x has no meaning, and you justify it with...speculation.
If you want to get into the debate in response to a 25 minute seminar from an academic expert, you need to offer more. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but in what sense do you imagine that video gets dismissed just on your say so?
Tony_Tarantula on 20/6/2016 at 15:07
I said that he's absolutely correct from a legal standpoint. How is that dismissing his expertise? The issue is that the EU doesn't seem too bothered by its own rules.
It's kind of like saying that complaints about search and seizure violations are completely unfounded because they're forbidden by the US Bill of Rights when you're dealing with someone like Joe Arpio. You would be completely right but it would mean nothing with regards to how he operates.
faetal on 20/6/2016 at 15:11
Evidence it. It's a REALLY broad statement and is either ideological or based on specific things which have happened.
The best way to confer your point would be to reference those things.
Vivian on 20/6/2016 at 15:12
What's that taken from Tony? Best match I can find is from a book called 'Why Vote Leave', by Daniel Hannan. Is there any backup from a more objective source?
I mean, here's wikipedia's take on the Denmark Maastrich treaty thing, and it sounds like them being 'made to vote again' is a particularly loaded interpretation of what happened: "In Denmark, two referendums were held before the treaty of Maastricht passed. The first was held on 2 June 1992, had a turnout of 82.9% with approval of the treaty of Maastricht denied by a slim margin of 50,7%, with 49.3% in favour of the treaty.
After that defeat of the treaty, Denmark negotiated and received the following four opt-outs from portions of the treaty: Economic and Monetary Union, Union Citizenship, Justice and Home Affairs and Common Defense. A new referendum was held on 18 May 1993. There was a turnout of 85.5% of which the 56.8% voted in favour of the treaty with the opt-outs."
