Actual Police State

We are seeing people being arbitrarily detained for offending people, if that's not a police state I don't know what is.

The ECHR is such a woefully written document that governments like the UK simply quash the "qualified rights" with impunity.
You're absolutely right.
Police are even visiting people at home to warn them because they had pointed out a fact on Twitter than men cannot become women.
In South Yorks, the police are asking people to report when people are merely offending them.
Some people have had their houses ransacked by the police just for saying something - not a crime - subsequently found not to be against the law.
In some cases, policing over language has been outsourced to corporations, by way of people being sacked for saying something which the government doesn't like.
We do live in a police state, even if it is not a total police state such as exists in North Korea.
 
That's very cute, anyone not on board with you is a remainer
Anyone who wishes to remain in the EU in any form, is a remainer.
I don't make the rules, as doesn't anyone else.
It exists all by itself.

and still can't get the words of your party out of your mouth for the 4th time.
My party?
I haven't voted for them yet.

As for the rest. WHAT A LOAD OF.
You're quite religious, aren't you?

So much talk before the referendum about how easy it would be to get a better deal. That didn't happen in your world.
What happened in my world, which is exactly the same as your world, is that we were offered a free trade treaty, but arch traitor Theresa May refused it because she wanted to keep the UK in the EU.

In your world the referendum was clearly understood as a no deal exit of the EU and everyone fully comprehended that to give a small majority to the "leave" side.
In my world, as in yours, deal or no-deal was not part of the referendum question; it is entirely separate matter.

No. There was no public majority aligned for a no deal exit of the EU and there isn't now and there won't be after.
There's no such thing as a "no deal Brexit".

You are as I described, one of the people happy to describe the referendum result as fully supporting your version despite no versions being set forth as the specified direction at the referendum.
There are no such things as versions.
There is only one version of leave, which is to leave.
 
I have no idea where you live but feel compelled to ask why you don't pack your bags and sally forth to some place more to your liking?
You could take Dis86 with you :)
I don't think it would be decent to flee my country.
We should stay to endure, and to set things right; not to flee.
My life and well-being are negligible compared to the bigger picture.
Our ancestors suffered and fought to give us this land and our way of life. We should honour them by trying to pass it on to our descendants in a preferably improved and certainly undamaged condition.
 
Anyone who wishes to remain in the EU in any form, is a remainer.
I don't make the rules, as doesn't anyone else.
It exists all by itself.

My party?
I haven't voted for them yet.

You're quite religious, aren't you?

What happened in my world, which is exactly the same as your world, is that we were offered a free trade treaty, but arch traitor Theresa May refused it because she wanted to keep the UK in the EU.

In my world, as in yours, deal or no-deal was not part of the referendum question; it is entirely separate matter.

There's no such thing as a "no deal Brexit".

There are no such things as versions.
There is only one version of leave, which is to leave.

Everything you've said is dodging responsibility. Every single bit of it.

You make a massive deal out of not naming the "one party" that offers "leave" then go a step further to say it's not your party.

You don't want to specify what we leave for as if it's an irrelevance and not an immense business and life disruption. Simply saying that your chosen description of the word "leave" overrides all actual intentions and sales pitches of the "leave" voters.

You don't believe a "no deal brexit" exists but want no form of "remaining" in the EU.

And finally, anything you don't like is "remaining" despite many "leave" voters wanting a better deal with the EU however misinformed they were in the reality of it.

I'd love to see a legally binding referendum where this unicorn "leave" is forced to be fully described and put next to remaining. Because it sure wasn't done in the 2016 referendum.
 
You make a massive deal out of not naming the "one party" that offers "leave" then go a step further to say it's not your party.
I haven't voted for it yet, since we have not had the election yet. I am not a donator to this party.
Therefore, it is not my party.
I don't have a party. I spoiled by ballot at the last election.

You don't want to specify what we leave for as if it's an irrelevance and not an immense business and life disruption. Simply saying that your chosen description of the word "leave" overrides all actual intentions and sales pitches of the "leave" voters.
Intention doesn't come into it. We voted to leave.
It was a binary choice: remain or leave.
It wasn't a multitude of questions:
Do you want to leave for the principle of being a self-governing nation?
Do you want to leave to control our borders?
Do you want to leave because you don't fancy Merkel much?
The reasons for leaving are irrelevant.

You don't believe a "no deal brexit" exists but want no form of "remaining" in the EU.
There is no such thing as "no deal Brexit", since any treaty we have with the EU after we leave, is something we have AFTER WE LEAVE.

And finally, anything you don't like is "remaining" despite many "leave" voters wanting a better deal with the EU however misinformed they were in the reality of it.
No, it's nothing to do with what I do or don't like.
If we are still in the EU 80%, then this is a version of remaining.
If we are still in the EU 10%, then this is a version of remaining.
There is only one version of leave and that is LEAVING. The clue is in the word LEAVE. It isn't possible to leave a little or a lot.

I'd love to see a legally binding referendum where this unicorn "leave" is forced to be fully described and put next to remaining. Because it sure wasn't done in the 2016 referendum.
Yes, it was; it was quite clear.
The question was "Should the UK remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".
 
Intention doesn't come into it. We voted to leave.
It was a binary choice: remain or leave.
It wasn't a multitude of questions:
Do you want to leave for the principle of being a self-governing nation?
Do you want to leave to control our borders?
Do you want to leave because you don't fancy Merkel much?
The reasons for leaving are irrelevant.


There is no such thing as "no deal Brexit", since any treaty we have with the EU after we leave, is something we have AFTER WE LEAVE.


No, it's nothing to do with what I do or don't like.
If we are still in the EU 80%, then this is a version of remaining.
If we are still in the EU 10%, then this is a version of remaining.
There is only one version of leave and that is LEAVING. The clue is in the word LEAVE. It isn't possible to leave a little or a lot.


Yes, it was; it was quite clear.
The question was "Should the UK remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".

All of that. All of it, completely whitewashes all the intentions and sales pitches given before the referendum and claims the entirity of the "leave" voters as wanting what you want. Breaking all arrangements with the EU (and by extension, the world through the EU agreements) and starting from zero was NOT the sales pitch. Yet here you are claiming as do politicians who disagree with each other, that the result supports what THEY say.
 
All of that. All of it, completely whitewashes all the intentions and sales pitches given before the referendum and claims the entirity of the "leave" voters as wanting what you want. Breaking all arrangements with the EU (and by extension, the world through the EU agreements) and starting from zero was NOT the sales pitch.
You still don't understand it.
Or rather, your religious side will not allow you to accept it. Anything which harms your feelings, is bad.

There was a binary question in a referendum. It was answered. It must be delivered.

What an opportunity for us.
No longer a province of the new German empire, a project conceived of in early 1940s Germany, by Nazis who knew that they were losing the war.
No longer a member of a club dreamed up by "ex"-Nazis and commies.
We can finally serve ourselves.
We can compete.
We can control our borders.
We can make our own laws.
But only if we leave the EU, of course.

You think that only your vote counts.
You do not realise that by not respecting the result of the referendum, they are not respecting anyone's vote, because they are saying that any vote which goes against what THEY want, is not valid.
Maybe in the future they will not respect your vote, if you are in the majority. Then what will you do? Will you be a hypocrite and complain?
What will your descendants think of you, that you wanted them to live in a dictatorship.
What is it about your personality which makes you want your descendants to live as serfs?
What went wrong with you?
Was it the 30% nurture which made you into a miniature authoritarian, or was it the 70% nature which did it?
 
You still don't understand it.
Or rather, your religious side will not allow you to accept it. Anything which harms your feelings, is bad.

There was a binary question in a referendum. It was answered. It must be delivered.

What an opportunity for us.
No longer a province of the new German empire, a project conceived of in early 1940s Germany, by Nazis who knew that they were losing the war.
No longer a member of a club dreamed up by "ex"-Nazis and commies.
We can finally serve ourselves.
We can compete.
We can control our borders.
We can make our own laws.
But only if we leave the EU, of course.

You think that only your vote counts.
You do not realise that by not respecting the result of the referendum, they are not respecting anyone's vote, because they are saying that any vote which goes against what THEY want, is not valid.
Maybe in the future they will not respect your vote, if you are in the majority. Then what will you do? Will you be a hypocrite and complain?
What will your descendants think of you, that you wanted them to live in a dictatorship.
What is it about your personality which makes you want your descendants to live as serfs?
What went wrong with you?
Was it the 30% nurture which made you into a miniature authoritarian, or was it the 70% nature which did it?


I venture into this very tentatively, hopefully with extreme caution.
It seems painfully obvious to me, that a lot of you guys know one hell of a lot more about what’s involved in this EU in or out than I thought that that I did, which is why I follow the thread, hoping to educate myself just a bit.
However, can I ask the tiniest of questions, is the EU really a club dreamed up by ex Nazis and Communists?
Is this just a supposition, or is there some evidence of it, real, or just circumstantial in your head?
 
vanillaface, can I assume you are familiar with ad hominem, definition fallacy types, hasty generalization, straw man, petitio principii, the basic cooperative debate process fallacies (eg. avoiding being unclear, uncharitable, failing to retract when wrong) and the like?
 
You still don't understand it.
Or rather, your religious side will not allow you to accept it. Anything which harms your feelings, is bad.

There was a binary question in a referendum. It was answered. It must be delivered.

What an opportunity for us.
No longer a province of the new German empire, a project conceived of in early 1940s Germany, by Nazis who knew that they were losing the war.
No longer a member of a club dreamed up by "ex"-Nazis and commies.
We can finally serve ourselves.
We can compete.
We can control our borders.
We can make our own laws.
But only if we leave the EU, of course.

You think that only your vote counts.
You do not realise that by not respecting the result of the referendum, they are not respecting anyone's vote, because they are saying that any vote which goes against what THEY want, is not valid.
Maybe in the future they will not respect your vote, if you are in the majority. Then what will you do? Will you be a hypocrite and complain?
What will your descendants think of you, that you wanted them to live in a dictatorship.
What is it about your personality which makes you want your descendants to live as serfs?
What went wrong with you?
Was it the 30% nurture which made you into a miniature authoritarian, or was it the 70% nature which did it?

That's a load of BS disconnected from reality and the amount of chaff you're throwing into the air is disgusting.

To cap it all off you've added the diversion and lie that I'm religious. Among the other diversions and lies of course.

I'm thinking you're banned from speakers corner where the serious and intended discussion of Brexit is kept.
 
I venture into this very tentatively, hopefully with extreme caution.
It seems painfully obvious to me, that a lot of you guys know one hell of a lot more about what’s involved in this EU in or out than I thought that that I did, which is why I follow the thread, hoping to educate myself just a bit.
However, can I ask the tiniest of questions, is the EU really a club dreamed up by ex Nazis and Communists?
Is this just a supposition, or is there some evidence of it, real, or just circumstantial in your head?
Well, the idea of a thing called "pan-Europeanism" came from a man called Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, a man born of Japanese and noble European blood.
He devoted his life to the concept of a European superstate, and wrote many books about it.
The success of this proposed superstate would require the eradication of national identities, so he wrote that the European ethnicities must be destroyed (genocide).
To achieve this, he said that not only must the European peoples be mixed together (this is where free movement of peoples comes from) but Africans and Asians must be imported en masse, to breed with the Europeans to create a new race of people which he called "Eurasian-Negroids". This new race of people, with no national identity, would be less intelligent than the Europeans and would be easily ruled over by an elite group of people, who he referred to as "Jews".
This is why the EU imports as many Africans and Asians as it can get away with.
He was wrong about Jews though, as the EU ruling class are not Jews; they are a mix of mostly non-Jews, and some Jews.
So, that was where the concept of the EU came from.

In the early 1940s, when Germany still thought that they were going to win the war, they came up with a plan for the governance of the post-war German European empire. Since this is from memory, I cannot remember the name of this plan in German, but it translated as something like "European Economic Community".
By 1943, they realised that they would not win [those pesky T34s and over-extended supply lines], so this plan was kept anyway, because it represented an opportunity for the future, perhaps.
As soon as the war was over, preparations were made for the creation of a European superstate, and this Nazi plan was resurrected as a blueprint for the creation of this new proposed superstate. It formed the basis for the Treaty of Rome.
The men who created this new plan for a superstate were a mix of "ex"-Nazis, commies, corporatists, and globalists. Not all their intentions were evil, as they believed that to stop Germany and France from fighting again, the two countries would need to be forced together.
In any case, for this new proposed superstate to succeed, it would still need to eradicate the ethnicities and national identities, so that a person would not think of himself as German, or English, or Swedish, but rather "European".
The importation of the Africans and Asians in the millions would also afford other opportunities: it would keep the people living in Europe squabbling amongst themselves, allowing the authorities to create a security apparatus to "keep the peace", for the good of the people!
Eventually, the people living in Europe would coalesce into Kalergi's "Eurasian-Negroid race", resembling the Ancient Egyptians, and the EU could last forever - a thousand year Reich, if you will.

As well as the main current members of the EU, the EU also has a couple of side projects on the go. It has plans to expand into Asia via Turkey. Erdogan has thrown a spanner into the works because of his desire to resurrect the Ottoman Empire, but when he is gone, it will be full speed ahead for Turkey to join the EU. We in Britain have been sending "aid" to Turkey for years, helping them to prepare for joining.
There is also a project called "Union for the Mediterranean": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_the_Mediterranean
Here is the graphic showing the countries of North Africa and the Levant which the EU eventually intends to incorporate into the EU empire:
mapa-1920x530.jpg

Note the inclusion of Libya and Syria. It may not surprise you when you realise why the EU funded the rebels in each country against their leaders who were none too keen on joining this new EU empire: Gaddafi and Assad.
The eventual aim is to incorporate all of Africa. China might not like this, but the EU has begun to create its own army for this very purpose.
If your children or grandchildren are at any point drafted into this army to fight and die for the glory of EU expansion, then do not feel sorrow, as they will die for a good cause - the EU bureaucrats enjoy enormous salaries and benefits, with an income tax rate of only 15%.
Germany has been very clever, as it has spent little to maintain its own army, to the extent that when units from the German army went on joint training exercises, they had to train with broomsticks rather than rifles. why spend money on your own army, when you can lay claim the armies of your conquered provinces? In the UK, we have been deliverately running down our armed forces, so that the excuse can be made: "look, chaps, it's going to cost billions to modernise our forces, so maybe we should create an EU army instead - think of the savings which we can spend on the NHS (sorry, our NHS) and foreign aid."
Germany does however manufacture excellent weapons, which it sells to EU provinces like Greece with money lent to Greece by German banks.
When Greece cannot pay back these loans, this is not a problem, because all the EU provinces have to chip in to send aid to Greece, which then goes straight into the coffers of the German banks which made the loans to Greece in the first place.
Greece itself receives nothing, but is now in debt to Germany via the EU, and Merkel can then effectively control Greece from Germany. Clever? You bet it's clever.

Guy Verhofstadt, the one with the gappy teeth and curtains, came to the UK last month to talk at the Liberal Democrats [sic] conference. This man is thoroughly evil, but he does have one redeeming feature: he is honest in his evil. At the conference, he talked about the need for an EU empire, removing any doubt as to the intentions of the EU.
He also loves to talk about how the EU provinces need to transfer more and more sovereignty to the EU, and about how the EU needs its own army. On the one hand, the EU is not a country, oh no, but on the other hand, it needs its own army, embassies, unified tax code, revenue-raising powers, foreign policy. Oh, and nukes. France's nukes are now under the control of Germany, even though you will never read about this in the Guardian.

The EU is very clever, as where before it used force of arms to try and enslave the Europeans, now it uses money. "EU" is, of course, shorthand for "continuation of Germany by other means", or just "German empire".
Here's how it works: the UK sends money to the EU. This money is then distributed as "aid" to the most recent countries to join, so that the populations there can become richer and learn to love the EU for the new clothes and cars.
The EU also spreads this money around various institutions: business organisations such as the CBI, media organisations such as the BBC, farmers, anyone who wants it. The condition for receiving this money is that the recipient must not criticise the EU, must actively promote the EU, or the money tap gets turned off. Retired EU employees must not criticise the EU, or they will lose their pensions. So, no whistle-blowers then!

It has been third time lucky for Germany. Finally, they have achieved what they wasted millions of men on trying to achieve before.

When it came to the referendum, you may have heard the phrase "we didn't vote to be poorer".
Let me translate this for you.
It means, "I have a comfortable life. I have a car. My wife has a car. We can change our cars every couple of years. We can afford a nice house. We can pay our mortgage. Our life is comfortable. Oh, and don't forget the holidays! We can afford a couple of foreign holidays a year. We post the pictures on Facebook so that all our old school friends can be jealous of how well we are doing, and wish that they were us. I do not want anything to change, because this might be a threat to my comfort level. Maybe I will have to holiday in Mablethorpe for one of my holidays if we leave the EU. I don't know what the EU is. I don't want to know what the EU is. I don't care what the EU is. All I care about is my comfort. AND MY HOLIDAYS! Leavers say that the EU is a dictatorship, but they are just uneducated bigots and racists, so what do they know, and they are too stupid to know what they are voting for. I love authority. I have comfort, and authority takes care of my thinking for me."

Ok, so that's enough of that for now. There is loaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaads more though.

Just one last nugget. This is a good one.
A few months ago, a deal was concluded with Russia for the supply of gas to the EU (maybe you have heard about the near completion of Nordstream).
Germany has negotiated a special low price for its own gas, to be subsidised by higher prices for the rest of the EU provinces. When France found out about this, they hit the roof, but I haven't heard any more about this little spat lately, so I would imagine that some deal has been made to keep France sweet for the moment. Naughty, naughty, Germany!
France gets upset about things like this, because they were told by Germany that the EU would be run for both of their benefits, to the cost of everyone else, but as time goes on, France is being treated more and more just like all the other provinces. Poor, conquered France.
 
Last edited:
It means, "I have a comfortable life. I have a car. My wife has a car. We can change our cars every couple of years. We can afford a nice house. We can pay our mortgage. Our life is comfortable. Oh, and don't forget the holidays! We can afford a couple of foreign holidays a year. We post the pictures on Facebook so that all our old school friends can be jealous of how well we are doing, and wish that they were us. I do not want anything to change, because this might be a threat to my comfort level. Maybe I will have to holiday in Mablethorpe for one of my holidays if we leave the EU. I don't know what the EU is. I don't want to know what the EU is. I don't care what the EU is. All I care about is my comfort. AND MY HOLIDAYS! Leavers say that the EU is a dictatorship, but they are just uneducated bigots and racists, so what do they know, and they are too stupid to know what they are voting for. I love authority. I have comfort, and authority takes care of my thinking for me."

And this is what you were angling at all the time - a rant at people who've done a little better in life than you.
 
vanillaface, can I assume you are familiar with ad hominem, definition fallacy types, hasty generalization, straw man, petitio principii, the basic cooperative debate process fallacies (eg. avoiding being unclear, uncharitable, failing to retract when wrong) and the like?
Yes, so educate me.
 
Yes, so educate me.

No. The best advice I can give given your knowledge is to inspect your posts above for the few errors I specifically mentioned. It should take you less than 30 minutes or so. You can post your findings here if you wish to discuss them.
 
And this is what you were angling at all the time - a rant at people who've done a little better in life than you.
No, because I'm in the comfortable category.
I don't care about money though.
I'd lose money for freedom.
I'd lose my life for freedom.
This land and society doesn't belong to me, or to you. It belongs to our descendants and the descendants of my people.
If it costs me money or comfort or health or life to do my duty to pass it on in good condition, then so be it.
Money buys you time and opportunity and comfort, but if the cost is serfdom for my descendants and people, then it's worthless.
 
No. The best advice I can give given your knowledge is to inspect your posts above for the few errors I specifically mentioned. It should take you less than 30 minutes or so. You can post your findings here if you wish to discuss them.
Done it. No problems there.
Thanks for caring though.
 
Back
Top Bottom