Essay talk:Why I oppose the EU

Palaeonictis' impressions
The loss of national autonomy is always a no-no, but my impression, as an outsider, is that Britain has assimilated itself into the EU, and so leaving it would be a disaster simply because the UK's economy has grown to be so intertwined with the rest of the EU's. I personally think that Brexit is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situations because from my POV neither option seems beneficial to the UK. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  15:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, the economic ties between the EU and the UK are pretty imbedded by now. I suspect there will be short term consequences from Brexit (growth will probably be slow, minimal job creation over the next year or so) but in the long term I think that we will be fine. I see Brexit as more of an "abandon ship before its too late" scenario. --RWRW (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, but I already fear it's too late. Our entire global civilization is going down in flames, and the current societal decline matched with climate change will ultimately bring us to another Dark Ages, and that's not a good thing. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha! You seem even a lot more pessimistic than I am. --RWRW (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"The loss of national autonomy is always a no-no" That sounds great, but is this ever true? To be sovereign, you either have to dominate all other nations (like Athens in the Delian League) or you have to be so destitute that no one else takes an interest in you (Albania tried this once...)

Otherwise, you have to interact with other nations, and therefore - especially as a middle-sized European nation - has to make compromises and lose some of your autonomy. You have to chose how much and to whom. UK is member of the NATO: loss of sovereignty, but it was better than becoming a member of the Warsaw Pact. Each trade deal brings a further loss, and all these losses are codified in your laws.

Wilbur Ross has told you what to expect from a trade deal with the US: it will bring changes to the way you handle your agriculture and your NHS.

Yes, many of your laws originated in the EU. But the UK shaped them during while being in the EU.

--larron (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I`m not British, so... Anyways, even trade deals don't necessarily lead to a loss of autonomy, because as per the Westphalian theory of statehood, countries in trade deals are still able to regulate their own affairs without (overt) outside interference, so while I understand where you're coming from, I think you're a bit misguided on the issue at hand. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  13:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And I think that you are completely right - but only theoretically.
 * Even WTO rules prohibit you from completely regulating your own affairs. The EU-Canada deal is more intrusive, the Norway model even more. --larron (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But none of those result in a loss of sovereignty, the original states themselves are still in existence, and as far as I am aware are still regarded as "sovereign", and those rules only go so far, countries can always revoke treaties, and even the ones bound by those treaties still are autonomous/sovereign to some degree. It should be noted that sovereignty is different from autonomy, because regions can still be autonomous to varying degrees, such as Greenland or even to a certain extent each of the fifty individual states of the United States, and still not be regarded as "sovereign". —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  14:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

EU Army
Why do so many of these leaders want an EU army? Their forces already cooperate under NATO, and I doubt that any US president would oppose shifting to a more locally-manned European defense. As far as I know, the only country the EU should really be worried about is Russia. The idea that Europe has something to fear from the US is absurd. I don't understand their reasoning on any of this. 17:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The U.S. is an agressive superpower (Not unlike China and Russia) that is currently helmed by an unstable manchild. Why wouldn't the leaders of other countries be worried? 18:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even with Trump at the helm I doubt we're gonna suddenly start nuking our allies. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  20:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @DuceMoosolini My best guess is they want an EU superstrate. A worrying number of people want a United States of Europe. The EU seems to want this too. Did you know that the President of the European Commission delivers a 'State of the Union Address' every year in a vain attempt to copy the Americans?
 * @GrammarCommie @Palaeonictis There's no chance Europe and America will go to war, and the EU leadership are fools to be worried about the US. In fact, if you look at Trump's peace with North Korea and his withdrawal of troops from the Middle East, it could be argued that Trump is the closest thing to a pacifist to ever occupy the White House. --RWRW (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting point, Trump definitely seems to have the most hawkish rhetoric but his policy suggests otherwise... I think Trump is more of an incomprehensible force of nature rather than a person, able to do things no one else can because he's Trump, and that's an understatement. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think its clever diplomacy. He acts tough and fearsome, but at his heart he's an isolationist. Its probably how I'd govern if I somehow found myself leading the country (which is about as likely as me becoming an astronaut but oh well). --RWRW (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There won't be a EU army. An EU army would never exist in the sense of the US army. The EU army is only for the integrity of the EU's inner goals, against those armies of the ethnic Nation States with ethnic gardists, who would never use violence against their own ethnic brothers. Relevant, when there is a breakdown to secure corrupt money. The ambition of a European army is supporting an anti-communist US-president against Putin, who is a major destabilizer of the EU and nation states, what is one big reason why European states are targeted so heavily over Western Intelligence pacts. That's why Germans know much about commies in the US, and the US knows about commies in Germany. An "army" could also be done otherwise, but Europeans try to use the EU for everything what would make greater discussions on the ethnic State level of politics. It's used by all politicians, to get things done over the EU, when they don't have a chance getting them done in the own parliament. Without the EU, being a successor of European Community (when there is no thing as a community for real), friendships however still exists. That's the case for Germany and France. E.g. they made deals to secure ethnic surpressed French nationals who are not the majority French National group, what would have 0 relevance on a corrupt UN, and was surpressed under Socialist rule and will be also alive after a possible EU breakdown, further integrating both nations. That socialist rule however is dead, like Democrats dead, not only because of demographics. The Army is just to be seen virtually now, cause France, Britain and US have nuclear weapons and friendships with Germany and Italy. Germany also not doing things wrong with their defensive budget, because Germany's defensive budget is used for migration, what is a price for fighting Putin and others, who use migration as a weapon. Because all powers have to work together inside NATO, the real problem of NATO is from a US perspective not Germany, but France and the US ignored (Brexit)UK (without the Dukes, who are supported by the youth and military aware), because they favor another State republic system what contradicts with further cooperation. Because Austria on the other hand has a full deal giving them legal sovereignty, however eating a lot of grass from Putin, their stance is pretty important cause of the old vienna diplomacy, which is far more important today than Washington or Brussel. Trump is not only a deal maker, but also a realist and not clumsy like most Republicans when it comes to military interventions, who just see their $ ringing when bombs are dropped unnecessary. The best "hawk" is not typical American doing things for the sake of doing things. Europeans are also not interested in multipolarity, but cooperation. That's the opposite of what de facto Socialists like Putin and China want, and the whole bunch of failed states leaders of Iran, Turkey, and and and, who sacrifice their own people on behalf of a "Elite"... --OKWIS (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that a common EU foreign policy and military forces have been both a wet and a pipe dream (at least among some sections within the polity) pretty much since the Coal and Steel Community days, should indicate that picking this topic as a key argument against the EU, because it supposedly shows the EU as an immanent super state shows either a lack of knowledge of the EU and its history, a complete lack of a sense of realism and proportions, or an outright bad faith argument.

As to the question of why these two areas are so popular among certain EU politicians, I’d suggest it’s because they are classic “high politics” and thus carry much prestige as one of the hallmark of international standing for states. Basically, it’s a combination of sort of political penis envy and keeping up with the Joneses. The irony, of course, is that the EU’s substantial powers when it comes to trade negotiations in particular and international economics more generally are much more relevant measures and tools of international power in most instances. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it interesting that all descriptions of a proposed army is not an army at all but something along the lines of nato or even un peace keeping forces. that's not an altogether bad idea considering putins Russia and the unreliability of the us as an ally. even that would require unanimous support from member states, something far from likely at the present. its also worth mentioning that it is an area that European commission cannot propose law for, so its even more unlikely. its fantasy for anti eu types to rail against. in terms of Brexit its not even worth discussing AMassiveGay (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt in my mind that an EU army will happen. The EU has been morphing more and more into a Untied States replica, and its own standing army is the next logical step. Only a few years ago Nick Clegg was telling us that an EU army was a "dangerous fantasy", now remainers say things like "It will be different to what you think" or "the UK can't be forced into it". They move the goal posts each time. --RWRW (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * oh im sure you are sure, but you are still not explaining why you are so sure, still not explaining how it will come about, still not explaining what you think it actually is. you are just repeating the same old shit like a mantra, the same old irrelevant nonsense, anything to avoid discussing any thing that might have real consequences  AMassiveGay (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I can only join AMassiveGay in asking the question of why — when initiatives pertaining to the creation of common defence and military policies, let alone actual, common military forces, as well as anything beyond the most tenuous common foreign policy (outside of trade and tariffs, of course) have been abject failures throughout the history of the EU and its preceding incarnations (ECSC/EURATOM/EC etc.) — do you think things are radically different this time, RWRW? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sovereignty and Democracy
All of these assertions of "loss of sovereignty" and "opposition to democracy" are absurd. Whether you take the 60% number (which your citation link calls misleading, by the way) or the 13% number, all EU laws are written with the advice and approval of British delegates to the EU. The "EU Bureaucrats" that you're complaining about are people that you elected to send to Brussels. If you don't like what they're doing, vote for somebody else.

The UK already has more sovereignty than any other EU nation: it gets to keep its own money, it's own immigration policy, and it is exempt from certain duties and taxes. There is no such thing as a more favorable deal than the one the UK has right now: you get to vote on taxes and policies that the rest of the EU has to follow, while being exempt from them yourselves thanks to the method of the UK's entry in 1973.

And you talk of Democracy, that 52% of the British population two years ago need to be obeyed to the letter forever. Do you really think that *this* is what they wanted? All they voted for was "leave", they didn't say under what circumstances. If the voters were presented instead with three options: hard brexit (resumption of the troubles), May's plan (loss of voting rights but everything else stays the same), and remain, do you think they would really choose hard brexit? Given the demographics of the 2016 vote, the majority of the voters still alive probably voted remain, while that winning 2% of leavers flip us off from their graves.

Not to mention the fact that the election itself was not particularly democratic: Russian agents manipulated social media through Cambrige Analytica to stoke extreme nationalist sentiments, while the official Leave campaign used outright falsehoods in their advertising ("a leave deal with the EU will be the easiest thing in history", "EU is stealing £350 million/week from the NHS", "Turkey is about to join and the streets will be filled with Muslims", "don't worry, we'll never leave the single market"). Hannasanarion (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * lets not forget the veto. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed my main argument. The UK shouldn't have any laws made by the EU and it shouldn't have to pay any taxes to the EU.
 * The British people voted to leave. Everyone (David Cameron, George Osborne, Labour, the Lib Dems) said that it was a once in a lifetime referendum. If we have a second referendum and Remain wins, what is to stop Farage and the millions of leavers demanding a third referendum? where does it end? Best of 5?
 * The whole Russian connection is nought but a conspiracy. Have you noticed that the left blames Russia every time they lose an augment? Yeah, Vote Leave made misleading arguments. If I remember rightly the Remain camp said we'd be in a recession right now and we'd end up at war with Germany. In 2010 the Lib Dems infamously lied when they pledged to not raise tuition fees, only to triple them months later. Does that mean the 2010 election was invalid? --RWRW (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Correction above, MEPs don't make laws. All they can do is vote to approve or reject a legislative proposal. The unelected EU commission drafts the laws. So yes, the EU certainly isn't democratic and that is one of the reasons the majority of people voted for Brexit i.e. a two-fingers up at the "the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels"... If you support democracy it doesn't make any sense to be pro-EU.Arcticos (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @RWRW I agree with some, but not all your essay points, but I'm puzzled why you mentioned the undemocratic EU in your essay when you claim to support monarchism on your user page. Read this article: to see how anti-democratic the British monarchy is i.e. the Queen still retains unaccountable powers.Arcticos (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been to the EU parliament and was a guest of an MEP, 8 or 9 years back. Their attendance record was pretty low, but I remember them telling me that there's not much point MEPs even show up to vote on legislative bills (only the important ones, maybe 2 or 3 a times year), since they cannot draft them and most of them are such nonsense they're not even worth time voting for/against but abstaining. Only reason MEPs actually attend is to sign a document to get paid benefits (I think the MEP told me it was something like £500 every sign in) hence EU is widely considered a gravy train.Arcticos (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh, I'd not actually made the connection until you mentioned it. I guess its more of a question as to whether the Monarchs actually use their powers. Besides, if we abolished the Monarchy we'd just have May or Corbyn as the Head of State as well as Head of Government. Literally nothing would change in peoples lives but the country will lose a considerable amount in tourist revenue and culture.
 * That's pretty cool. Yeah, the EU Parliament is a bit of a farce. Still, the do basically nothing and get paid heaps for it - I can see why it would be an attractive career move --RWRW (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sovereignty was also decribed by me in this version, which got reverted without reason?!. It's about having access to all decisions, and is not about autonomy. A large driver of Brexit is the loss of taxation possibilities (in both ways). You had the Trotzkist, with no plan in mind, as Brexiteers. And you had the supporters of the Inner City on London, as protectionists as Brexiteers who want no taxes to avoid regulation and responsibity. Britain however lost sovereignty with Brexit, and a no Deal brexit is the best option for "regular British" friendly people, because a no deal option helps to eliminate "increased" taxation standards and public fraud, what happened through centralization and voodoo economics across all European states. Than the loss of sovereignty, but the gain of autonomy for the super rich (no ethnic English), could be balanced for the UK. It's also important to mention, that British sovereignty is increased under a no May brexit, because the British socialists lose their influence over Germany's socialists into Eastern Europe, what is a large driver for foreign investment in UK after the Brexit and for the average UK worker, who has more money for e.g. more expensive cars. The main driver for all Brexit friendly forces in Europe is to higher real wages for all the workers, who work anti-protectionist but cooperative. It's the opposite of why Britains Socialists favored to join the EC in the 70's under Germanys 'Ostpolitik'.--OKWIS (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This Ostpolitik was largely antisemitic, through importation of Islam as a sellout for no direct terrorist hits on German soil, after 1972 Munich attacks. There were also money laundering and theft of monetary reserves in Middle Eastern countries, occupied or with heavy ties to Soviet Russia.--OKWIS (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I always find it hilarious when Brits, who come from a country in which elected politicians still ritually grovel before a monarch, its Parliament still comprises an unelected House of Lords and its electoral system effectively disenfranchises most of those not keen on the top two parties whine about how undemocratic the EU is.


 * First off, while the Commission does formulate the laws, the legislative procedure isn’t simply a fait accompli where the EP rubber stamps everything (or, conversely has to reject proposals with no options in between). I suggest you start by reading a fucking book or even a website that outlines how the various legislative procedures actually work — and it’s a pretty good rule of thumb that the loudness of the moaning about the “democratic deficit” of the EU is inversely proportional to the knowledge of EU legislative procedures, not to mention the understanding about the variety between how national democratic systems work. A good place to start is this EP overview and this explanation of the most prevalent procedure (the ordinary legislative procedure).


 * Basically, most of the criticism of the “democratic deficit” in the EU tends to say more about how the EU system differs from the national quirks of the critic’s home country, which tend to be taken as a more or less implicit standard of what a “real” democracy is supposed to look like, than it says about the absolute level of democracy of the EU. In general, few of these critics know much about democratic systems work, apart from that in their home country and have not thought much about either what actually constitutes “a democracy” (the demos as well as the cracy/kratos parts), the cross-cutting complications of trying to align or at least accommodate national sovereignty considerations within EU governance, or the fact that a lot of the kind of international politics that the EU deals in has traditionally tended towards little involvement of parliaments and a lot by governments (note that unlike most of the post-WWII European organisations that all had a parliamentary assembly, two notable exceptions are the UN and NATO; while a NATO Parliamentary Assembly does exist, it was created outside of and independently from and is still not recognised as a formal part of NATO’s institutional setup).


 * To take just one example in which the EU is arguably more “democratic” (depending on your definition/conceptualisation of democracy, of course) is the by which an element of direct democracy legally requires the Commission to consider how to propose legislation. Apart from Switzerland, such elements are extremely rare in most European democracies, yet the EU introduced it with the same Lisbon Treaty that Eurosceptics love to carp about.


 * In short, before you start criticising the EU for its supposed lack of democracy (and it is not a complaint wholly without merit, btw.), you should first consider how you define democracy and how differently democratic systems have been and do work. The most moronic complaint I’ve come across is the one that ties democracy to the nation state, because the complaint tends to simply define any type of supranational setup as inherently undemocratic (because only the nation state is supposed to have a “real” demos). This is no different from any kind of No True Scotsman style argument in that it relies on framing the discussion in a way that you win by default, or rather by definition (see Sye Ten Bruggencate for a particularly moronic apologetic parallel). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * any talk about sovereignty and democracy as a valid rationale for Brexit, after the behaviour of the current uk government, with its lies, its refusal to release relevant information, the prorogation, the assault on the integrity of the judiciary, literally everything they have done is last month or so, is but a sick joke AMassiveGay (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, I can’t be blamed for that. I don’t like the House of Lords any more than the next person. I'd also not be opposed to its abolition. And the Monarchy is constitutional so cannot be used to ‘prove’ how undemocratic we are. When you have the EU insisting countries vote again on referendums to get the 'right' results, when you have the EU trying to force member states to do as it commands, and when you have the EU laying down laws that would prevent a potential Prime Minister from fulfilling the mandate on which they was elected, then I call it undemocratic--RWRW (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * member states agreed to treaties, and agreed to obligations with that. they also agreed to the ecj as arbiter in disputes. this is the case in the linked case concerning refugee quotas. this is not the eu 'forcing' anyone to do anything other than abide by the treaties that they signed up to. this is but one instance of a country not getting its own way on something. you need more than that for it become problematic, we are not children. especially when it is functioning exactly how it should. it does always go the eu's way, the ecj for example ruled in favour of some the same countries over them deporting refugees. they can always leave if its something they cant live, though I suspect any desire for that might have been dampened seeing our experience of it.
 * as for corbyns supposed problem of the eu banning privatisation, that's just arse, and even with a view on railway nationalisation, where incoming legislation might pose a problem, thats far from certain. we'd have to wait and see if it ever does become a problem. not an issue till then. you'd have question the judgement of any potential government that was elected with a promise to do things it knew it could not do while in the eu, and whether they communicated that fact to the electorate what they proposed to do about it. they'd either have to be already advocating for leaving the eu, or they simply lied about their intent and trying frame the eu as the villain to excuse their lies and/or incompetence. again, not an issue until its happened or about to with potential legislation fundamental to a governments mandate that is actually in conflict with the eu.
 * this is more dubious and hypothetical justification not actually rooted in any real or looming problem to hide behind the fact that no concrete irreconcilable problem exists that justifies what we have embarked on, with no thought out plan to make it happen or recognition of the challenges that lie ahead. I am so sick of the delusion and lies that brought us here and continues to prevent any progress in any direction. it is not the eu, with all its faults that is the cause of any of thisAMassiveGay (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

”And the Monarchy is constitutional so cannot be used to ‘prove’ how undemocratic we are.”?!? What. The. Fuck? What kind of argument is this supposed to be? If the argument is that things that are “constitutional” can’t, by definition, be undemocratic, then the EU has little or no democratic deficit, since it’s treaty based, (see AMassiveGay’s points) and these treaties, just like national constitutions, clearly spell out its powers and decision making processes (curiously unlike the UK’s unwritten constitution based on precedence and tradition, btw).

”When you have the EU insisting countries vote again on referendums to get the 'right' results,” Source, please. Note that the Dutch and French no’s to the quite effectively killed it and that “second referenda” tend to be prompted by the national level, such as the Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty, that was followed by negotiations resulting in opt-outs that was then put to a new referendum, which ended up approving the 1992 Edinburgh Agreement.

Then there’s the continuing bitching about ”the EU trying to force member states to do as it commands.” That’s a complaint that is equivalent to carping about how your national parliament doesn’t always make the kind of laws you happen to like and act all shocked when it tries to “force [insert target here] to do as it commands”. You may not agree with the decision of nation states to delegate some of their powers to the EU, but that does not make the EU using these powers and attempting to enforce its decisions illegitimate.

Finally, you keep citing Hungary and Poland as examples of stalwart nation states standing up the the nasty EU bullies, using the case of their rejection of the rather prosaic numbers of refugees as a case. This is a very, ahem, selective view of both that particular conflict between the EU and these two countries and the larger problems in these that this conflict is merely a symptom or case of.

As regards the first perspective, the attitude that Hungary and Poland can just pick and choose the aspects of the EU they like (funding and the direct access to the rich markets of Northwestern Europe) and then pass the buck when demands are made of them is either a misunderstanding of how these things work in general (you accept responsibilities along with benefits) or simply hypocritical (these objections to “foreigners” being forced upon them by the EU is exactly the problem a significant slice of the populace in Northwestern Europe has with people coming in from countries like Poland and Hungary; a view that is not shared by the Polish or Hungarian governments who think it’s completely fine for the EU to force other countries to accept free mobility).

As regards the second perspective of the larger conflict between the EU and Hungary/Poland, it’s curious that this tale of plucky little Poland and Hungary standing up to the EU bully consistently fails to include these particular countries’ (or rather their ruling parties’) rather dubious relationship with democracy, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and media, and a whole series of similar tendencies towards something that’s beginning to look more like a slightly more benign version of a Putin style than, you know, an actual democracy. Thus, if your concerns are about the democratic deficit, choosing Hungary and Poland as your bedfellows is rather, eh, quaint. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The nature of the problem
The 'EEC and related bodies' were established in 1957 - WWII was very recent history; there was the Cold War (expansion of areas under USSR's control, the Hungarian Uprising, Mao in China etc) and colonialism/end of Empire (Suez and independence of Gold Coast/Ghana in 1957) etc) with only 6 members. There was good reason for the Common Agricultural Policy.

The expansion of the EEC/EU was going to cause some structural problems - even with just the UK/Ireland/Austria/Nordic countries with their similar established democracies; the inclusion of Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the countries of Eastern Europe, with their variously smaller scale economies and 'wish to be stabilised against recent dictatorships' would contribute destabilising elements. By the 1970s formal empire was effectively ended, food security had been reached, and WWII and war in Europe was a distant memory. By the 1990s the Cold War Mark 1 was effectively ended. There has also been the impact of going to 28+ members (Andorra, Monaco and San Marino are 'special cases' and the various regionalist activities etc).

There is also the transition from 'top down government' to more 'involvement by the people' (the wikiverse, gilets jaunes, minor parties etc, etc). Anna Livia (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Lisbon Treaty and Second Referendum
Hello,

Lisbon Treaty

Concessions were made to Ireland, we didn't have to take part in the EU army. We were basically allowed to keep abortions illegal among other questionable laws (no gay marriage) at the time despite it being decried within the EU (since been appealed anyhow). The EU couldn't interfere in our taxes. We got to keep our sweet sweet 10% corporation tax haven. (Despite this hated by the World, never mind the EU). See here page 3

I mean exiting the Union is the right of any nation that doesn't feel it is in their interest anymore. Not liking the Lisbon Treaty is fine and legitimate.

Saying Ireland was "forced" to vote again is horse shit peddling. The implication that we are such droolers as to vote yes to the same thing the second time is not appreciated.

Feel free to skip these two paragraphs below just an example of "no thanks EU" in our constitution. Also that feel when your referenda are legally binding.

"9° ní ghlacfaidh an stát cinneadh arna dhéanamh ag an gcomhairle eorpach chun comhchosaint a bhunú de bhun airteagal 42 den chonradh ar an aontas eorpach i gcás go mbeadh an stát san áireamh sa chomhchosaint sin."

"9° the state shall not adopt a decision taken by the european council to establish a common defence pursuant to article 42 of the treaty on european union where that common defence would include the state."

Second Referendum

In regards to you being against another referendum on brexit. I mean, tough, opinions change and that has to be reflected.

If governments can change every four years due to elections and it's not like the opposition then poofs out of existence (unless you're a lib dem lol), then maybe it is not too unreasonable to have another referendum in four years ONLY if the government thinks it is worthwhile, and NO SOONER.

In Ireland abortion was banned in the Eight amendment, modified so as not to restrict a woman's right to travel in the Thirteenth amendment. modified so information about abortion services abroad weren't censored in the Fourteenth amendment before finally being repealed altogether in the Thirty Sixth amendment (literally just deletes the previous three mentioned amendments). All by referenda. Albeit over a space of oh, thirty years.

It's messy but a consequence of having decisions taken directly by the people.

86.40.166.234 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Edit 86.40.166.234 (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Economics
One might argue from sovereignty or other points of view, but from a strictly economic perspective, I fail to see what advantages there could be. Norway has been reluctant to join the EU because fish and petroleum are main industries, and those are liable to be set back by joining the EU. But the UK's petroleum is in Scotland, which will probably separate almost as soon as the UK leaves the EU. And fishing is not going to make a comeback in so heavily overfished an area. Other top industries in the UK – finance, IT, and education – will all suffer, and some have been already. City jobs will head and have been heading for Amsterdam, Dublin, etc. already. And not being able to recruit scholars, students, teachers, and researchers from the EU easily will harm innovation, education, etc. So one is left without any free market to sell goods into, lower competitiveness and productivity, job losses, and GATT courts. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * True, at this point the UK is so entangled with Europe that leaving would likely hit both sides in the short term. But such things are difficult to predict. Before June 2016 there was talk about a recession the day after the referendum, something which obviously didn't happen. Boris Johnson still maintains he can get a deal with the EU. There's only a month to go so it'll be close, but only time will tell. --RWRW (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We will take Northern Ireland, and push it somewhere else!!!! — Oxyaena Harass  17:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect they will join Eire soon enough too. So, some shipping and aerospace will leave the UK, among other things. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't get why NI doesn't just accept a customs border between them and the rest of the UK, they're not even legally aligned anyway. In fact it's being used as a threat by Westminster. In the Republic it's often brought up how NI absorbs a lot of cash, and the fact we'd suddenly be sharing a nationality with the likes that vote for the DUP. Féinléiriú (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * because it moves ni further from the uk and closer to the republic of Ireland. its difficult to view it as not being a step towards leaving the Uk proper and reunification with Ireland. this is unacceptable to unionists. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but it may have to do with something called "The Troubles." — Oxyaena Harass  21:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No shit. Féinléiriú (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the one that brought it up, genius. — Oxyaena Harass  20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

But did "the UK vote to leave"?
OK, I understand that you need to make the rules before you count the votes but I get a bit irritated by politicians who feel they have some overwhelming mandate for this process.

As the essay points out, of the people who voted, 51.89% voted to leave and 48.11% voted for remain. That's already a pretty thin mandate.

But then you need to consider that the turnout was 72.21%.

If you do a bit of maths then you find that the percentage of the eligible population who actually went to the ballot box gave a positive leave vote was about 37%. Which is an even thinner mandate for radical change.

But if you look at this chart its even worse.

So did "The UK" vote to leave? And, if the government does have a mandate, do they have a mandate for the hardest of all brexits?Hubert (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 72% is a pretty big turnout, given that most general election turnouts are in the mid 60's. I've seen those charts make the rounds on Twitter before. There will always be a large number of people who don't vote (some not old enough, some can't be bothered or abstain etc). If we use the logic of "it only counts if it is the majority of the entire population wants" then no election/referendum would ever be valid, since nobody would ever get more than 33 million votes. Believe it or not, I'm on record as saying I would rather aa deal than no-deal Brexit. Its just at this point I don't know how likely a deal is, and I'd rather have a no-deal Brexit over a no Brexit. --RWRW (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I think that for referendums of this type the bar should be set a lot higher so that we can know that these life-changing events really have majority support.Hubert (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * that's because you are an idiot. there no is no cogent argument for Brexit anywhere on any grounds and certainly none have made here.
 * there is no deal available where Britain wins. there is no situation where we succeed economically. all arguments over sovereignty and democracy are absolute dogshit that have no real effect outside of little England fantasies, and considering what the noted liars and 'champions' of democracy brexiters have been up to of late, the democracy angle is but a sick joke.
 * the only figures from the referendum that matter are 51.89% voted to leave and 48.11% voted for remain. thats hardly a landslide. and with the outright lies of the leave, and the sheer terribleness of what Brexit will be, no matter what deal we get, especially the no deal, it is prudent to reconsider and I wager many people have.
 * so I ask you, what do you want out of Brexit that isn't based on lies or fantasy or absolute dogshit? or have merely aligned yourself with the vermin like rees-moog, and the Britannia unchained cunts whose dreams of stripping us of all rights, destroying all legislation that protects us, dreams you help make come true, dreams that will see the death of the uk.
 * show me how your vague notions of sovereignty and democracy, both bullshit and meaningless in this context, and not all real, will keep the nhs afloat, or how it will get us a trade deal that doesn't involve us being fucked roughly with no lube by your paramour trump. maybe you found a way that your fantasies manufacture much needed medications and food. I hope so, because unless your one boris's pals hoping to get rich shorting the pound, literally banking on the failure of no deal, you will be just as fucked as the rest of us AMassiveGay (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With regards to sovereignty and democracy, look at my most recent editions to the essay and see for yourself how the EU is creeping closer and closer to becoming a superstate.
 * As I said above, a good deal is preferable. But in the event of a no-deal things are being done to keep the NHS afloat (stockpiling of medicines, £ millions of extra funding). As for trade deals, its been made clear that the NHS isn't up for grabs (something that would be political suicide for any government to do) --RWRW (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought for second there you were linking to something resembling a valid argument, but clicking on it I dashed my hopes. nope. no decent argument has been made. a quote from a speech is the best you got?
 * and the nhs not being up grabs is complete bullshit. its been up for grabs for years. recent overtures by trump wanting it opened up to foreign investors, rebuffed by the liar boris, where unnecessary. its already open to foreign companies (its not the foreign bit I have issue with btw). do you have any clue at all at how the nhs run? more and more services are contracted out to private firms, to the detriment of the service. selling off the whole thing in one go would suicide, but its also not the issue, its death by a thousand cuts that's the issue. its been starved of funding for years. that's been the plan for years. its been sold off piece meal for years. with no trade deals insight, with no trades deals possible that wont put disadvantageous to us, do you think for second with current cunts in government wont continue that? do you think any state run service is safe? open your fucking eyes. Brexit makes it all the more possible.
 * and I still do not see what you want from Brexit. I still do not see what sort of deal you think can be had. you doom us all for a fantasy AMassiveGay (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It certainly is a valid argument. We now have the heads of France and Germany and the incoming Commission President (the three most powerful EU figures) expressing support for an EU Army. Its not like these are unverified leaks or conspiracy theories, they are openly admitting that they want it.
 * I've never claimed to be an expert in NHS management, but from what I've seen lots of steps are being taken to keep it ticking over. It survived the 2008 financial crisis, I'm sure it can survive this --RWRW (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * no it isn't valid criticism, and it certainly isn't justification for Brexit. where is the outline of what this army will look like? where does it say the rules for how and where for it to deployed? all that I have seen makes any prospect of an army not an army at all, but something more along the lines of a joint intervention force along the lines of nato, something that when you look at putins Russia and with trumps weakening of nato and showing himself to be an unreliable ally at best, it makes a lot of sense. its also at this stage nothing more than fantasy without the full cooperation of the nation states of the eu, something far from likely at present and nothing can happen without that support from those, and heres the key word, sovereign, nations. and we would have had zero obligation to be part of it.
 * sure, the nhs survived the 2008 financial crisis, but would it have survived if we were outside the eu? would we have been able to weather the storm? would it have survived without all the eu nationals employed in the nhs? its more wishful thinking that you display about Brexit. what I am not seeing is any clear idea of what it is you want from Brexit. no clear idea of a plan or how to bring it about. no realistic of what we are actually dealing with, what is achievable or what the problems are.
 * this is what angers me. you don't like the eu? fine, lets have Brexit. but every brexiter has consistently failed to provide anymore than lies and fantasy about what lies ahead, lies and fantasy about what we gain. that's all they can give because we gain nothing.
 * so I ask again, please tell me what it is you expect from Brexit? what it is you hope we will gain? tell me ow we would go about achieving this, and please for once ground it in reality with none the wishful thinking and fantasy you've so far provided AMassiveGay (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The 3 most powerful people in the EU are actively calling for an army and you want me to believe it will never happen? It won't be implemented suddenly, rather it will come into affect slowly (slow enough that nobody notices until too late). Just like how the European Community slowly evolved into the European Union.
 * In the short term? For Britain to once again have full control over its laws, borders and money. In the long run I'd like to see the EU dissolved completely, but that is something the remaining countries will have to oversee. --RWRW (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * you've got nothing but empty assertions. nothing. tell me how it will be implemented if you are so certain. tell what will be implemented. and you still cannot tell what you want from Brexit or how to achieve it or even if its possible. nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Say, did you ever read our denialism page ("I've never claimed to be an expert in NHS management, but…"): Politicians use variations of the phrase "I'm not a scientist but…" to proclaim that they are proudly and willfully ignorant of science while at the same time sportingly showing willingness to offer policy opinions in other areas where they also have no expertise, especially economics or religion. Bongolian (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My argument was that measures were being put in place to protect the NHS post-Brexit. Different kettle of fish than climate change deniers sticking their fingers in their ears. --RWRW (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * what measures? measures to prevent complete collapse in the short term? what about long term? will measures put in place be safe from tory assault in a post Brexit uk? fingers are in ears which is quite a feat when your head is up own arsehole AMassiveGay (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Responding to a slightly different RWRW point, he notes that NHS survived the financial crisis so it can survive Brexit; I have heard others saying that london survived the blitz so it can survive Brexit.
 * I am sure that both these points are true. The question is: Would you invoke the financial crisis or the blitz on your country if you had the opportunity to avoid it?
 * To put it another way - I'm sure I could survive the amputation of a leg, but it's not a experience I would go out of my way to inflict on myself.Hubert (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * oh we are literally going to have our own amputations, with Scotland and probably ni as the amputated members. im sure that will make the uk ever more triumphant, after all what doesn't kill us can only make us stronger (or severely weakened, sick, with a dramatic shortening of our lives and a marked diminishing of its quality). but you know, on the brightside, something something sovereignty AMassiveGay (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * do you know that in the space of one week, I was diagnosed with HIV, lost my job, and Britain voted to leave the eu. worst. week. ever. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Hubert The Blitz? Never. 2008-style crash? Also no. But a short and small economic downturn would be worth it in the long run. --RWRW (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * worth it? why? what do we gain? still waiting for an answer for that one. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * and 'short and small' is yet more wishful thinking. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As noted above, full sovereignty is a good start. Interestingly (since the prospect of a deal has been mentioned) well find out today what sort of deal we're looking at, and how likely it is to happen. --RWRW (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The only way to enjoy full sovereignty is to withdraw from all international agreements (NATO, UN, WTO, etc), not enter any new trade treaties, and detach as much as possible from the rest of the world. This will greatly weaken the UK's economy, security, environmental protection, and many other things, but as every 12 year old loves to say "Nobody tell me what to do! Waaaa!" --Annanoon (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 'don't tread on me' --RWRW (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean you do know all this sovereignty nonsense is stupid right? Either climate change will make the concept obsolete through mass dying, or globalization will with increased communication between populations. Nationalists are fighting a losing battle, one they literally cannot win. 13:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The struggle against globalization is not yet lost. I'd argue it has been on the decline in recent years, and long may that continue. --RWRW (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * please explain to me your issue with sovereignty rwrw. please explain to me just what we have lost. please explain how if we regained what you think we have lost, how it will help us. there are some areas that only the eu can legislate on. these generally concern trade and worker rights. this is sensible. these things cross borders, that don't only affect one country or region. trading standards, consumer protections, competition rules need to be uniform across the eu or the single market doesn't work. its fundamental to the whole existence of the eu. its why the backstop is an issue. parliament ceded control over these areas because we are not children. we cannot demand things our way in all things all the time and still get to play with others. we still get a say. we still get our veto when applicable. we are not out of the loop. the eu doesn't decide a whole range of policy areas. it doesn't decide health. it doesn't decide policing. it doesn't decide education, or foreign policy, or on our army or how its deployed. we haven't lost sovereignty. we freely gave some up because it suited us to do so. and the reasons we did so still hold true today, and we have and still do economically benefit from.
 * so tell me what we have lost by all this. tell me what we gain from reclaiming this small slice of sovereignty? we don't gain anything. a regained ability to make trade deals is worthless when its doubtful we can get any deals better than we already had, or worse are hideously one sided - any trade deal with the us for example. consumer protections, trading standards will still need to in line with the eu if we want to trade with them, and why wouldn't we want to trade with the eu? your notion of sovereignty is a fantasy, an intangible irrelevance that has no real effect on anything. it only makes sense if we are under the boot of some all powerful state, dictating all our laws, giving us no say in anything, going against our best interests, actively harming us. a fantasy of sovereignty based on a fantasy of an eu caricature for a fantasy benefit.
 * is there anything concrete you can point to for Brexit? anything at all? its depressing that this shite is all too common from brexiters. if you said you only wanted Brexit because you wanted a blue passport, at least that would be an actual concrete change that's achievable and wont fuck us. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * when you talk about things like sovereignty and democracy, you might think you are talking about weighty issues with strong principled positions, or taking a stand for fundamental values in some epic clash of culture, with a righteous zeal against barbarian hordes, for the good of humanity, but you would be mistaken. they are irrelevant to the argument, so far removed from anything resembling the facts of the situation, having zero discernible effects on any of it to make it something worth considering. here they are not high ideals, nor are they deeply held principles. they are simply a veneer of righteousness for an argument that is dogshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My issue with sovereignty? I don't like how up to 60% of our laws aren't made in this country. I don't like how the government has no control over immigration from Europe. I don't like how Britain pays tens of millions a week to the EU (regardless on what some would have you believe, the rebate the UK receives is far smaller than what it gives. Its a net loss). --RWRW (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the 60% figure is both inaccurate and misleading. your own link from your essay doesn't support that figure, and say nothing of what those laws are, whether regulations or directive or even so minor that they not really what you call law, whether they are laws we already have being formalised to fit with the eu, whether we supported or not, whether they are good, effective laws or not. it omits that these laws are not spread across the board, but restricted to the few areas that the eu has precedence over. nr does it say what laws it refers to in the uk - statute law? national? local? its a scary figure picked to make the eu look scary because you don't like the eu but you havnt looked beyond that figure to see if was accurate or what it actually means - nothing, its inaccurate and impossible to say what the significance of what ever an accurate figure maybe without scrutinising all those laws and their context.
 * as for what we pay the eu, and the rebate, what about it? its not a cash machine. that money goes to the maintenance of the eu and funding its projects. why do you think if we put money we would money directly back? what we get is strength, stability, trade, growth. what we is less than a percentage point of gdp. its a pittance. outside the eu there is near unanimous agreement of long term harm to the economy ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 percent off gdp, and the uk governments own analysis sees economic growth stunted by 2 - 8 percent fr 15 years. versus a less than a percentage point saved from no eu fees.
 * your immigration gripe is similarly context free nonsense. unemployment rates are unaffected by it. effects on wages are miniscule and limited to a few low income industries, and more likely to effect other immigrants. effects on services seems imprecise, but immigrants pay there share financially and more than their share in provision - the nhs for example is dependant on foreign born staff. services depend on their allocation by the relevant authorities. social housing is in short supply because successive governments have done nothing or not enough and in a poorly thought out way (for years in London, where this has been acute for years, they've plumped for luxury flats rather than the needed low cost builds due to easy profit from a housing boom) or services, whether they be drs, schools and the like, you can look no further than the tories own policy austerity for any strain rather than the eu and immigrants. its not clear either way, yet the strident blaming of immigration for all ills insists it gospel truth. its a problem of perception more than reality, its a problem so egregiously scapegoated with so little reference to fact that the rise in hate crimes and Nazis-in-all-but-name was inevitable. so again, you regurgitate an empty talking point without looking any deeper, without even making clear what the argument is, let alone whether it is true or not.
 * Brexit is lurching ever closer. at what point are you going to actually look at what brought it us here. its not the failings of the eu. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The governments new plan has been revealed. Whilst I haven't looked too deeply into it, from what I have seen it looks decent. Looks like the DUP intend on supporting it and a couple of Labour MPs (who presumably represent pro-Leave constituencies) have also signalled their support. It may have more of a chance than Theresa May's deal in a Commons vote, but we shall see. --RWRW (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A Very Irrational Essay By A Very Irrational Person
"Slowly but surely British sovereignty has been eroded. A prime example of this is the fact that up to 60% pf UK laws are made by the EU."

RWRW links Opinion: Fact Check: are 60% of UK laws really imposed by the EU? as if it confirms his statement. The very verdict of that page he linked to confirm his statement says: "The only way to produce a figure anywhere approaching 60% for the amount of British law that comes from the EU is to follow a seriously flawed methodology. If this sort of work were submitted for academic peer review, it would be rejected at the first hurdle as manifestly unscientific."

I am not exactly sure if I need to say that, but: if a mod on rationalwiki isn't capable of reading his sourced material or disingenuously uses that source to confirm the statement disregarding any honest reading of it... Maybe the person isn't mod material. Who knows. Futhermore, in the same source: "The 60% figure derives from a methodology reported by the House of Commons Research Library, and as the report’s author admits “it is impossible to achieve an accurate measure”. The methodology includes EU “regulations” which can have immediate effect in UK law without being implemented by Westminster, the idea being that a methodology which only focused on directives and decisions that require formal adoption into national rules would underestimate EU influence. But as our commentator notes, this also risks including a large number of technical regulations and amendments." RWRW could've instead linked that, but maybe (probably) he didn't read it either.

Aside from this crass error in using sourced material, let's talk about sovereignty. Sovereignty, as defined by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the 7th paragraph in the section ''1. A Definition of Sovereignty'', says: "Supreme authority within a territory." That means: The UK still maintains supreme authority within its territory despite whatever EU regulations legislate, because the EU can't coerce the UK into obeying whatever EU law dictates. By that effect, RWRW would need to reject the United Nations framework, the human rights charter, and so forth. This argument is firstly immoral because of its implications (Milosevic and Serbia would be justified to massacre Bosnians and Bosniaks because of UN violating their sovereignty in Srebrenica) and secondly, it is factually false.

"While I do admit that other estimate this figure as low as 13%, I would argue that any laws that affect Britain that aren’t created by British lawmakers is unacceptable."

Here, RWRW says "I would argue" but doesn't in any way argue. Why is it unacceptable? What makes a specific law unacceptable? Does RWRW believe that Britain should have the right to massacre Irish people because he rejects the UN charter that says, in Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." Since RWRW declines to argue, we can only assume that he holds some notions of national or racial (anglo-saxon) superiority, because nothing else is being offered here for his legal theory (or lack thereof).

"In September 2019 Guy Verhofstadt MEP (the former leader of the European Parliament Liberals) gave a speech at the Liberal Democrat Party conference. In this speech he claimed that the time of Nation States is over, and "the world of tomorrow is a world of Empires". Disappointingly (though unsurprisingly) his calls for a 'European Empire" was met with a loud applause by the Lib Dem conference."

This is absolutely irrelevant and does not make the case in either way. MEPs are not a monolith and you can quote many MEPs with similar nonsense like that of RWRW or Geert Wilders. This is irrational and disqualifying for a mod on this website.

I wrote all of this and I am only done with the first point listed. There is so much nonsense packed in tight sentences and this is a classic use of a gish gallop. If I create more courage and patience to indulge in this painful endeavor of untangling right-wing propaganda on a website with a left leaning stance, I may do it later, responding to this comment of mine. Godless Raven 🌹 Heretic 18:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * doesn't he win his points by default if u don't rebut tho 🤔 EK (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter to me if your pet Raven thinks he has won. I've responded to many question on the topic, both here and at the bar. Raven is a pretty well-known troll from Discord (he's currently banned from the RW Discord, for anyone reading this unaware of who he is) and I don't engage with him on any platform. --RWRW (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You just called me a pet, yet you refused to answer my arguments because my remarks were allegedly snide. This is very irrational, and I don't think you have the right to eclipse my comment just because you don't want to respond. This is, again, unbecoming of a mod. There was no personal information that I exposed or bigoted language that should lead to content warning. Godless Raven 🌹 Heretic 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * just on a purely procedural level u should probably have responded (even with a no comment) rather than hatting tho, since essays here are open invitations for anyone to comment even if you personally dislike the people commenting. EK (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want I can write all of it without any snide or sass. | RW's Community standards even mention: "Snarky point of view". If a mod can't fulfill even the own community standards... Oh well. Godless Raven 🌹 Heretic 18:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't need Godless Raven telling me that your first source doesn't support your claim at all. Why did you cite it? It opens to why the 60% figure was cited; that's not a reason to stop reading there and just claim it's "fact". That's super dishonest and undermines the rest of your article. This was pointed out to you three times now yet you've yet to correct your own sources compared to quickly collapsing someone else that's making the same argument as above, because they happen to misbehave on Discord. 20:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * there is nothing here that has not been discussed more fully and more pertinently elsewhere on this page. the criticism of this essay is a rehashed irrelevance over six months too late, with the essay itself now an irrelevance of ancient history being unconcerned with a still uncertain future. nothing has been gained by the dredging of this dead conversation, no answers should be expected to questions effectively closed months ago from the addition of smug sanctimony with a baseless and snide accusation of racism of which I would have responded with something stronger than a collapse and I can assure you i am no fan of this essay nor RWRW's politics. 4 years since the referendum and we are no further forward than the same old bullshit point scoring. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * it should be noted that 'snarky point of view' does not mean 'be a prick' AMassiveGay (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Brexit however is a mostly racist project (if you look at the campaign by Farage and others fearmongering about an "immigrant takeover"). As LGM said, he maintains the essay as it is despite being proven wrong several times. And LGM is no fan of mine. Again, if you or RWRW don't/can't respond, that is fine. Just don't whine about it. Also, I think my arguments were done pretty well. So why not attack them instead of complaining that this topic is old? Godless Raven 🌹 Heretic 23:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * racism present within Brexit supporting parties is irrelevant to the contents of this essay and broad statements tell us nothing useful. the accusations of racism in your critique are baseless, depending on bogus comparisons to the UN drawing hyperbolic and flatout bullshit conclusions RWRW's arguments 'must' mean support for genocides and massacares and a complete disregard for human rights, and support of some kind of white supremacy. its absolute dogshit that I do not wonder why he has chosen not to respond to your piss poor argument. it is not worthy of response. I am not going to respond to what little remains of legitimate criticism as I have already said what I have to say on sources and sovereignty elsewhere on this page. read through the page if you must.

I repeat - this essay is redundant. we have left the eu. what little hope remaining vanished with labours collapse, and ive long been personally satisfied that arguments for Brexit presented are a sham. what we still do not know, what the essay does not tell us is the cost of Brexit nor what we gain, nor what the effect of coronavirus will be on this. you getting your digs in just tells us what little we have learned from all of this. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)