Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Remind me again of the advantages of Leaving..?

• Weakens the EU
• The EU will not have supremacy over British law or decide British regulations
• Or for that matter decide Britain's trade deals with the rest of the world
• In fact, Britain will actually be able to make trade deals, given the EU's failure to do so
• The EU will no longer incrementally creep upon British sovereignty
• EU army will not include British forces
• Schengen will never include the UK, no open movement will ever include the UK
• EU will never gain command over UK intelligence
• Ayyy lmao we can deport 100% of Swedes
• Last one is a joke
• UK free trade will not conflict with EU protectionism, with the UK as a member of the EU, the EU's authority over Europe would be undermined at every turn. If this does not kill the EU, then Yuropeans can go about pursuing global hegemony without inside interference.
• British legislation dating as far back as time immemorial will no longer be repealed and replaced with legislation decided not by parliament elected by Britons, but by unelected bureaucrats from Brussels bamboozling all with a bonanza of bollocks.
• Normies get the fuck out my fishing waters
• We'll finally stop paying into a system that has seen us as a threat in spite of our great contributions

Happs time

Apparently, on a visit to Bahrein, May said something about a 'red-white-blue Brexit'

wut, she planning on having the UK join the Netherlands? I'm all for it as long as that means we get rid of the euro. I'm sure we can work out fishing rights.

Makes no sense out of context

So in the UK the Libdems have been fighting for what they call a soft brexit, calling what the Tories want a hard brexit. The times chippered in and said what about a black, grey and white brexit.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

May was talking to our armed forces with the colours flying in the background talking about how the armed services will continue their policing of international trade - and on the topic of Brexit, she went on about how there's been talk of hard brexit, soft brexit, grey, black and white brexit, when she says that it should be red white and blue. Makes sense if you know the context and could see the colours flying besides her, as all she's saying is she wants the deals that best benefit the UK

[Starver]

Remind me again of the advantages of Leaving..?

• Weakens the EU Good(!), that'll help with various forms of threat from the likes of Russia, IS-or-its-successors, China, maybe even Trumpopia...
  
• The EU will not have supremacy over British law or decide British regulations For most of the ones which matter, Britain has led the direction of those regulations, but obviously our Olive Oil industry can now do what they want...
  
• Or for that matter decide Britain's trade deals with the rest of the world ...now we can fail to get good deals on our own behalf.
  
• In fact, Britain will actually be able to make trade deals, given the EU's failure to do so Good luck with that, there's far too much protectionism, and now we'll have a punitively protectionist EU (and probably US) to deal with
  
• The EU will no longer incrementally creep upon British sovereignty A meaningless phrase but, if you insist, it also means we can't proportionally impinge upon the other EU counties' soverignties to our own benefit,
  
• EU army will not include British forces Is that even a bad thing? But let us withdraw from NATO while we're at it.
  
• Schengen will never include the UK, no open movement will ever include the UK No sign of that happening, the number of exemptions we'd arranged (which would be null and void if we're forced to accept 'associate EU membership' to regaon lost advantages, so we could end up more open).
  
• EU will never gain command over UK intelligence Command? And we in turn lose useful access to EU intelligence (see also Europol)
  
• Ayyy lmao we can deport 100% of Swedes Hands off Ulrika!
  
• Last one is a joke There are plenty of jokes in this, why single that one out?
  
• UK free trade will not conflict with EU protectionism, with the UK as a member of the EU, the EU's authority over Europe would be undermined at every turn. If this does not kill the EU, then Yuropeans can go about pursuing global hegemony without inside interference. I think you're missing a negative, somewhere, but note I already mentioned protectionism.
  
• British legislation dating as far back as time immemorial will no longer be repealed and replaced with legislation decided not by parliament elected by Britons, but by unelected bureaucrats from Brussels bamboozling all with a bonanza of bollocks. British legislation, upon(/in the lead up to) Brexit will have every current EU commandment added into it, on the presumption that we'll eventually start to repeal the bits 'we' do not like.  FCVO 'we'. And 6th July 1189 isn't exactly so special,  any more.
  
• Normies get the fuck out my fishing waters (Normies? Normans/Norsemen, is that? And fish know no boundaries, so the chances are that we'll be overfished just outside our borders, e en while our own fishing industry remains self-suppressed.)
  
• We'll finally stop paying into a system that has seen us as a threat in spite of our great contributions You know nothing, Jon Snow.
  

I expected you to give me the better reasons to leave (not that I agree with them, but at least I know what they are). Most of what you've given can be classified as throwing toys out of a pram because you don't want to play.  And I've tuned my rebuttals accordingly.

But I'll give you this: Not an original argument for leaving, but the killer reason right now for completing the leaving process is because every single bit of political good will that we have nurtured (and defended against our continual thumb-nosing at our partners) has pretty much been smashed to pieces by our attrocious incomptence. if we stay, it'll be uncomfortable. No more easy exemptions.

[Neonivek]

It sounds like a lot of the reasons for leaving boils down to paranoia and not understanding how the EU functions.

And you know... the whole... Other reasons that we don't talk about.

[Neonivek]

Y'know, not wanting to get into an argument on a topic and then still pointing towards it after several months since the last kerfuffle is not not wanting to get into an argument on a topic.

Yes but no one knows what it is and no one ever gets my hints anyhow. What are the genius chances that someone will find out that the other reason is scapegoating the UK's current situation and blaming it on the EU as a way to politically maneuver?

Which come to think of it... Whatever party Brexits basically becomes KING AND QUEENS OF ENGLAND!

Ok probably not... too many parties have their hands in the pot now.

---

Edit: Mind you, there are serious legitimate reasons for someone to vote Leave. Sorry for making it seem otherwise.

[Loud Whispers]

*Weakens the EU Good(!), that'll help with various forms of threat from the likes of Russia, IS-or-its-successors, China, maybe even Trumpopia...

British troops stationed in Eastern Europe will do more for peace in that regards, whereas I saw the EU deliberately provoke Russia where no other Western nation would. When Bush wanted to extend NATO membership to Ukraine, France and Germany interceded, warning the USA that this was an unnecessary provocation that would split Ukraine apart. Russia is currently weak; I do not want it to be forced into desperation & madness. ISIS and its successors have been made stronger by the European Union's policing - or lack thereof, its destruction of national borders and its inability to accept responsibility for allowing veteran fighters to set up domestic cells and training networks in Europe. The UK is much more capable of helping Europe from outside the incompetence of the European Union - I'm immediately reminded of the ISIS mole working for German intelligence, the French police covering up the scale of the Bataclan tortures, the Germans and Swedish authorities covering up migrant murders etc. if their response to jihadists openly returning to Europe was to make it easier, there is nothing the UK can do from within the EU that would not simply put the UK at risk of befalling their same fate. In regards to China, I do not want the UK to follow the EU in combating China, personally even I am learning Mandarin so you should know where I stand on that. I want the European nation states to be powerful, not the European Union.

*The EU will not have supremacy over British law or decide British regulations For most of the ones which matter, Britain has led the direction of those regulations, but obviously our Olive Oil industry can now do what they want...

For most? I don't know what numbers you're referring to or how you've quantified what matters, but I will certainly agree with your general sentiment that Britain has led at the very least, many of those regulations or laws. I don't care, I don't benefit from the UK being a master of Europe, whilst I am actively hurt by my PM capable of using EU law to override British law without having to subject his or herself to opposition from Parliament, or actively hurt by European leaders deciding what regulations and laws the British must follow. Losing a say over what Greeks do with their olives is of no concern to me, losing a say over what my own country does is of highest concern to me.

*Or for that matter decide Britain's trade deals with the rest of the world ...now we can fail to get good deals on our own behalf.

The choice is between having no trade deals or deciding the terms of our own trade deals; I'm quite excited to have our failure and our success in our own hands. Much safer with us, than with people who will not be harmed at all if they give the UK a shit deal. Unless you genuinely believe the United Kingdom is somehow uniquely positioned in the world to be the only nation that cannot enter into favourable trade deals because...? As it stands, the only impediment is the EU.

*In fact, Britain will actually be able to make trade deals, given the EU's failure to do so Good luck with that, there's far too much protectionism, and now we'll have a punitively protectionist EU (and probably US) to deal with

I look forward to the EU becoming increasingly protectionist, destroying European industries will help speed up the collapse of the EU. The USA is a wildcard but I cheered Trump's election victory, for he was the only candidate across the pond besides Cruz who said if they won, the UK would be at the forefront of trade negotiations. <3

*The EU will no longer incrementally creep upon British sovereignty A meaningless phrase but, if you insist, it also means we can't proportionally impinge upon the other EU counties' soverignties to our own benefit,

Meaningless? ahaha, just look at the European sovereign debt crisis to compare the impact between countries that didn't fight the EU's sovereignty creep versus those that did. Likewise I don't want to impinge on the other EU countries sovereignty! The UK helping the commission grow more powerful at the expense of European nations would be a nightmare to me, like my own body being used to manufacture viral pathogens! It would be a most undesirable outcome

*EU army will not include British forces Is that even a bad thing? But let us withdraw from NATO while we're at it.

Yes, it is an incredibly bad thing to not control your own military. Why withdraw from NATO? The only rival to NATO's existence is creation of an EU army.

*Schengen will never include the UK, no open movement will ever include the UK No sign of that happening, the number of exemptions we'd arranged (which would be null and void if we're forced to accept 'associate EU membership' to regaon lost advantages, so we could end up more open).

We won't end up more open if the Libdems are defeated, I don't want associate EU membership, don't want single market membership or any of that, don't care for it - EU powers have only been taken away from nations and given to the commission, the creation of Frontex that was capable of operating without the consent of national governments and the reaction against Hungary's border control are signs enough. All it'd take if we were still going to be members would be one more Tony Blair and we'd be in, never to leave.

*EU will never gain command over UK intelligence Command? And we in turn lose useful access to EU intelligence (see also Europol)

We're the leader in intelligence and security within the EU, the five eyes nations are where intelligence cooperation are best. Working with Europol, not being a part of Europol, that is safest for the UK.

*Ayyy lmao we can deport 100% of Swedes Hands off Ulrika!

Linking back to the earlier point (and more seriously) we can deport terrorists and stop them from coming to the UK or coming home to the UK without EU membership, dumping the EU convention on human rights

*Last one is a joke There are plenty of jokes in this, why single that one out?

Because it's a matter of >yes

*UK free trade will not conflict with EU protectionism, with the UK as a member of the EU, the EU's authority over Europe would be undermined at every turn. If this does not kill the EU, then Yuropeans can go about pursuing global hegemony without inside interference. I think you're missing a negative, somewhere, but note I already mentioned protectionism.

Nah, no negatives. If Europeans managed to build themselves a superstate good on them, if they're willing to pay the price for it without the UK's blood and shillings

*British legislation dating as far back as time immemorial will no longer be repealed and replaced with legislation decided not by parliament elected by Britons, but by unelected bureaucrats from Brussels bamboozling all with a bonanza of bollocks. British legislation, upon(/in the lead up to) Brexit will have every current EU commandment added into it, on the presumption that we'll eventually start to repeal the bits 'we' do not like.  FCVO 'we'. And 6th July 1189 isn't exactly so special,  any more.

No concern to me, the current year is not every year, going from having EU legislation to having EU legislation in the process of repealment seems like a matter of time I'm quite happy with.

*Normies get the fuck out my fishing waters (Normies? Normans/Norsemen, is that? And fish know no boundaries, so the chances are that we'll be overfished just outside our borders, e en while our own fishing industry remains self-suppressed.)

Fishermen know boundaries, and by God we'll make them known. Protect your marine habitats and your fish stocks replenish, the only thing saltier than the ocean is me after I hear of Spanish trawlers destroying our coastline to ensure that the borderless fish become nonexistent fish. Fuck up the habitat and they're not even coming back. I'll take my chances with people beholden to British laws and prisons than those who are not. In our waters where the EU has no supremacy, we have done an amicable job. I want the standards we've done in warmer oceans brought to our colder coasts.

*We'll finally stop paying into a system that has seen us as a threat in spite of our great contributions You know nothing, Jon Snow.

Stannis > Secret Targs

I expected you to give me the better reasons to leave (not that I agree with them, but at least I know what they are). Most of what you've given can be classified as throwing toys out of a pram because you don't want to play.  And I've tuned my rebuttals accordingly.

Out of the EU and into the world, the pram next to us has begun to stink with the corpse of Grecian children. Tis a grim sight to behold

But I'll give you this: Not an original argument for leaving, but the killer reason right now for completing the leaving process is because every single bit of political good will that we have nurtured (and defended against our continual thumb-nosing at our partners) has pretty much been smashed to pieces by our attrocious incomptence. if we stay, it'll be uncomfortable. No more easy exemptions.

-David Cameron, resigned
-Matteo Renzi, resigned
-Francois Hollande, stepped down
-Hillary Clinton, never won
-Angela Merkel, (), now banning burkas

How is selling the UK for the goodwill of terminated politicians in any way a good thing

Which come to think of it... Whatever party Brexits basically becomes KING AND QUEENS OF ENGLAND!

wew lads i found king arthur's sword king me

*EDIT

Spoiler: Normans = Normies (click to show/hide)

[Starver]

So, LW, I'm cutting down my reply by mostly not quote-tagging your verbiage. And, yay, also thou nounage, adjectivage and the rest.

"losing a say over what my own country does is of highest concern to me." - Nobody ever gets a completely untrammelled say. Your arguments lead us to the logical chain of events being increasingly dismantled government at national, regional and local levels. Then when City States (including a feudal catchment of rural areas, or not) are deemed too oppressive, district-by-district localisation, street-level governance, even neighbourly separation. Though as long as I get my techno-skateboard (Snowcrash) and supersonic canine cyborgs, why not?  (I tell you why not, it's dystopian. It's a sort-of-ok dystopia, and there are also nightmarish utopias at the other end of the scale, but it looks to me like social vandalism.)

"Unless you genuinely believe the United Kingdom is somehow uniquely positioned in the world to be the only nation that cannot enter into favourable trade deals because...?" - This is the trouble here. You say it as if the raison d'etre of the EU was to ensure the UK member was the sole fall-guy for any failings. Yet somehow it will look favourably upon a non-member UK, in future dealings. At least one of these is wrong, and both are simplifications of whatever truth they're based upon.

"destroying European industries will help speed up the collapse of the EU" - again, the presumption that the EU is better off destroyed. To that, I say, ^{[citation needed]}

"British sovereignty" "just look at the European sovereign debt crisis" - you do realise that sovereign debt crises can only happen when the national sovereignty is nsufficiently subsumed into the whole? The problem with Greece would never have happened in the Superstate Europe that you fear in your particularly polarised view.

"Yes, it is an incredibly bad thing to not control your own military." - When does this happen? if we get a European Army (rather than the current coalition of member forces, pretty much exactly like NATO) then it's the same as saying that, as a person living on the banks of the Tweed, 'you' have lost control of the Coldstream Guards regiment as it now gets used to undertake military manouevers on behalf of the British government in the defence of British interests in the world.

And the EU's current military coalition is, as you say, much the same as NATO's in basic principle, which you appatently like. So I fail to see your point of contention in either case.

"I don't want associate EU membership, don't want single market membership or any of that, don't care for it" - So, you can dish it out when a decision you like is unpopular with many people, and speciously tell them that they are overriden and must suck it up, but when something that may yet be popular with many people is mooted (but that you personally do not want) you complain at the mere possibility of you not getting your perfectly photoshopped image of the future...

It's really not up to you. No more than it is up to me, that is. If done properly then a decision (at a level above both oir paygrades) will be made about what perks we try to bargain for. Given that one prime Leave promise (amongst many others, including an exact opposite promise aimed at a completely different target audience) was that Brexit did not mean leaving the Common Market, etc, it is certainly the case that many of your fellow Leavers probably do want Single Market membership, or something very similar.  If we actually have a competent government (the jury is still out on that, but let's give the benefit of the doubt, assuming there's no internal plotting and the setting up of each other to fail) the then they'll need to take that into consideration as they form their position.  I have no doubt this position will dissappoint me. I believe it will also dissappoint you as well, but for differing reasons.  (I remind you that, whilst still in my initial appalled disappointmemt at the result, I actually asked for super-hard immediate Brexit, no negotiations, no caveats, get it over with immediately. I think you would have found that more painful than I would have. And for such imagined potentiality of projected schadenfreude I shall apologise.)

"Working with Europol, not being a part of Europol, that is safest for the UK." - This is your cake and eating it.

"dumping the EU convention on human rights" - This is the more worrying aspect. Ok, so my inner lizard doesn't mind, but if that's not a skinsuit you're wearing, you're probably not aware of what you're letting yourself in for.

"Because it's a matter of >yes" - 4chan formatting reference? Or an actual "greater than"? Memetic fail, sorry.

"Fishermen know boundaries"  - as already said, fish do not. I counterargued you on that point before you even said it. Or do I need to explain?

"Grecian children" - Greek children.  "Grecian" implies of or about ancient Greece.  Not that what you said here made for a competent point worth arguing about, anyway, but you're at risk of getting penalty points upon your Poetic Licence if you drive recklessly through arguments like that all the time.

[Loud Whispers]

So, LW, I'm cutting down my reply by mostly not quote-tagging your verbiage. And, yay, also thou nounage, adjectivage and the rest.

No worries famalam whatever format suits you

"losing a say over what my own country does is of highest concern to me." - Nobody ever gets a completely untrammelled say.

I don't get the leap from "nobody gets a completely untrammelled say" to "fuck democracy and shit, we enlightened bureaucracy now." You need to explain how that makes sense to you, because that thinking is completely alien to me

Your arguments lead us to the logical chain of events being increasingly dismantled government at national, regional and local levels.

Nah, but it does support as much delegation of authority as is possible to allow for the most efficient management. As a believer in a nationstate I believe the nation state is the largest boundary, largest social unit in which a community can have individuals act against their own self-interest for the benefit of their peers - as long as they care for their peers and their peers care for them, this sacrifice is incentivized to improve the nationstate for their own children.

Then when City States (including a feudal catchment of rural areas, or not) are deemed too oppressive, district-by-district localisation, street-level governance, even neighbourly separation.

That's pretty retarded

You say it as if the raison d'etre of the EU was to ensure the UK member was the sole fall-guy for any failings. Yet somehow it will look favourably upon a non-member UK, in future dealings. At least one of these is wrong, and both are simplifications of whatever truth they're based upon.

I don't give a shit what the reasoning of the EU is, it has failed the UK and I'm glad it will soon be incapable of failing it any longer. The nature of the EU is that its motives are largely unknowable to me, I don't know the names of the people who acted thus, nor can I find out. Alarm bells for me right there, nor do I care whether the EU looks favourably upon the UK, as the EU is not the world and this is a reality it will have to face.

"destroying European industries will help speed up the collapse of the EU" - again, the presumption that the EU is better off destroyed. To that, I say, [citation needed]

Again, the presumption that the EU is better off enduring. To that, I say, [citation needed]
Where's your list of reasons why the EU should exist? I'm happy to go on, but it is an interesting note to make. Maybe if Remain had spent less time going on about how Great Britain is useless and full of invalids who need enlightened European rule and made a better case as to why the EU is a worthy project, they would've had better odds
(It's worth noting, they had great odds and still lost lmao)
Man, I think I've still got the serial killer leaflets Remain sent me somewhere XD

"British sovereignty" "just look at the European sovereign debt crisis" - you do realise that sovereign debt crises can only happen when the national sovereignty is nsufficiently subsumed into the whole? The problem with Greece would never have happened in the Superstate Europe that you fear in your particularly polarised view.

How am I supposed to realize anything if you neglect to demonstrate just how the EU wouldn't have failed Greece by taking MORE control of European nations? I can point to the reality, if you're going to assert your hypothetical will work you better have at the very least, an explanation. Evidence is better but I'll settle for an explanation of the rationale. Otherwise all I have to observe is the reality where the EU took up the sovereignty of European nations and has consistently fucked them over; when asked to return the sovereignty or reform, the EU has always responded by taking more sovereignty and the cycle repeats. Why would I be convinced to throw the UK into the same fires when it has shown no success and I've heard no explanation as to why at the end of all that suffering and humiliation, there would be this bold and prosperous European superstate? Dysfunction begets dysfunction. Maybe you know something I don't, I can't read minds - you'll have to tell me

"Yes, it is an incredibly bad thing to not control your own military." - When does this happen? if we get a European Army (rather than the current coalition of member forces, pretty much exactly like NATO) then it's the same as saying that, as a person living on the banks of the Tweed, 'you' have lost control of the Coldstream Guards regiment as it now gets used to undertake military manouevers on behalf of the British government in the defence of British interests in the world.

Ahahahaha, imagine telling that to the former colonies of the UK. "Oh yeah you're not dependencies if your militaries are controlled by the UK, nah nah nah, it's just a coalition." They didn't buy it because no one is that foolish. There's not a people or nation alive in this world that thinks it can be in charge with its armed forces controlled by a foreign power, hell, we've even got a recent example in the UK - Scottish Nationalists for example have rather useful examples to point to, with its hypothetical plans to divide the British armed forces. The armed forces are the final arbiter of the state abroad and the state at home, the right arm of the law if the civil law court should ever fail in times of crisis. Heck, that's how the British Empire took over Egypt. Soldiers arrive to police Egypt, never leave, oh shit suddenly British army controls the law, controls the country.

And the EU's current military coalition is, as you say, much the same as NATO's in basic principle, which you appatently like. So I fail to see your point of contention in either case.

EU army is a threat to NATO, basic principle means jack shit in organization and authority. NATO is a military alliance, an EU army is an army under one authority, the authority of the European Commission, serving the European Commision's whims. No thanks, they can do it without the UK
If for example that NATO wanted to centralize into a NATO superstate I would have a very long list of objections

"I don't want associate EU membership, don't want single market membership or any of that, don't care for it" - So, you can dish it out when a decision you like is unpopular with many people, and speciously tell them that they are overriden and must suck it up, but when something that may yet be popular with many people is mooted (but that you personally do not want) you complain at the mere possibility of you not getting your perfectly photoshopped image of the future...

I have opinions and I talk freely of them on public forums, don't get what's so morally objectionable about that
All the stuff you brought up that would be cons for the UK, I don't want that - so they're not cons to me. If you want my honest opinion why would I seek to leave the EU and keep a hold of everything I want to leave? Doesn't really make sense :]
As for overriding, this is a rather binary options list. There is no way to please both sides, you will merely end up failing both. Leave the European Union, or stay in the European Union. Leave won, and so I shall continue fighting for that, against even the possibility of Brexit not happening. You must understand politically I'm used to defeat and frankly expected decades of defeat that would end up nowhere, so the idea that suddenly the stuff I like is victorious and consolidating victory as a rather fun prospect, thus I explore ways in which it could fail or fruit. Admittedly I would probably act the same if I lost, as I just find discussing this stuff a fun use of spare time that keeps me informed of stuff

It's really not up to you. No more than it is up to me, that is.

I acknowledge that, however it does not stop me from discussing my hopes, fears and desires, nor putting in a mild modicum of effort to ensure I influence the outcome in whatever way. Every shitpost helps, and I love discussing with those I have polar opposite views on stuff

If done properly then a decision (at a level above both oir paygrades) will be made about what perks we try to bargain for. Given that one prime Leave promise (amongst many others, including an exact opposite promise aimed at a completely different target audience) was that Brexit did not mean leaving the Common Market, etc, it is certainly the case that many of your fellow Leavers probably do want Single Market membership, or something very similar.

[Citation needed]
Where is this prime leave promise, hmm? I'm getting flashbacks to the ez bait
The people who promised the UK would remain a member of the single market if the UK left the EU were the Remain campaign, unsurprisingly. Boris, Gove, even the unofficial Farage - all promised the UK would leave the single market, and even Osborne on the Remain campaign said we'd leave the single market if we voted to Leave. No issues there
Straight from the Leave campaign's framework

Free Trade Bill. This would require that by the next election, the UK leaves the EU’s ‘common commercial policy’. That would restore the UK Government’s power to control its own trade policy. That would create jobs. The UK would take back its seat on the World Trade Organization, becoming a more influential force for free trade and friendly cooperation. After we Vote Leave, we would immediately be able to start negotiating new trade deals with emerging economies and the world’s biggest economies (the US, China and Japan, as well as Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, and so on), which could enter into force immediately after the UK leaves the EU.

If we actually have a competent government (the jury is still out on that, but let's give the benefit of the doubt, assuming there's no internal plotting and the setting up of each other to fail) the then they'll need to take that into consideration as they form their position.

Aye, for things like mutual protections for current emigres and immigrants, for things like the single market there's no way about it without siding with one and going against another. Cabinet's sided with the victorious side, commons it's heads or tails ~o.o.~
Court has sided with the LAW

I have no doubt this position will dissappoint me. I believe it will also dissappoint you as well, but for differing reasons.

Such as...? I care not for vague statements, there's no risk or dishonour in being wrong or disagreeing lol. Will I be disappointed? Nah, I keep my expectations realistic - no dreams, only ambitions, there's a lot of working to be done. Actually one of the things that surprised me post-referendum was how normal everything had seemed, the worst thing I had seen happen was Tescos and Marmites get into a pricing/stock dispute, which impacted the price of PG Tips - yet I had already switched to Yorkshire tea by 2015, and was thus unaffected.

(I remind you that, whilst still in my initial appalled disappointmemt at the result, I actually asked for super-hard immediate Brexit, no negotiations, no caveats, get it over with immediately. I think you would have found that more painful than I would have. And for such imagined potentiality of projected schadenfreude I shall apologise.)

It would literally be impossible to do a "super-hard" Brexit "immediately" with "no negotiations." There is no preexisting process or framework for leaving the European Union, we have to create one from scratch. This is really the precedent, and our guys have to stack as many cards as they can in the UK's favour; we needed only so many cards as we needed to rid the EU of negotiators who wanted to start a war with the UK

"Working with Europol, not being a part of Europol, that is safest for the UK." - This is your cake and eating it.

That would be the point, it's good cake. European intelligence agencies are of a lesser capability and are compromised with ISIS moles, giving them open access to our information out of playground notions of fairness would just be playing into our mutual enemies' hands. Cooperation outside of their framework allows us to warn them of attacks without opening ourselves to the infiltrators they let in

"dumping the EU convention on human rights" - This is the more worrying aspect. Ok, so my inner lizard doesn't mind, but if that's not a skinsuit you're wearing, you're probably not aware of what you're letting yourself in for.

We're a rainy socialist island camera state, all the oppressive apparatus is in place, yet it is failing to function in its purpose of removing jihadists because of the EU convention on human rights. If the EU convention is not dealing with the oppressive apparatus, but is instead nullifying its value, I oppose it to unlock that value - until such time, if ever, Britons decide it important enough to fight against being a rainy socialist island camera state.

"Fishermen know boundaries"  - as already said, fish do not. I counterargued you on that point before you even said it. Or do I need to explain?

I counterargued you on that point before you even said it. Fishermen know boundaries and you really do need to explain how protecting our habitats does not preserve fish stocks - as it has been proven to do so in our waters already. I've presented evidence and explanation, where's yours m9

"Grecian children" - Greek children.  "Grecian" implies of or about ancient Greece.

Spoiler: Keats is my bossman of beats (click to show/hide)

It's all a part of the flight plan

Not that what you said here made for a competent point worth arguing about, anyway, but you're at risk of getting penalty points upon your Poetic Licence if you drive recklessly through arguments like that all the time.

Yeah sorry mate I don't know what your arguments are or else I thought I adequately answered them with a quick rundown of why I believe what I do with all my explanations and evidence so you can scrutinize it and attack it. You gotta provide your own explanations and evidence if you want a more thorough addressing of what you believe, because I don't know enough from your post to say
Thus I go back to giving you stuff to sink your teeth into, so that you may better build a counter-argument for me to sink my teeth into
Create a feedback loop like a lichen

[Starver]

"I don't get the leap from "nobody gets a completely untrammelled say" to "fuck democracy and shit, we enlightened bureaucracy now." You need to explain how that makes sense to you, because that thinking is completely alien to me" -Europe is democratic as much as UK is. The bits everyone complain about as 'undemocratic', like the Commissioners departments, are equivalent to Whitehall's ministries.  A 2/3rds vote of No Confidence by the fully-elected EU Parliament can even sweep them clean. (I'm not sure if Westmister has that sort of power, though the PM, only actually vaguely voted for, insofar as they could easily be just the anonymous bod who happens to head the current political zeitgeist, does of course appoint.)

UK's Ministers do not even need to be elected MPs (though in practice they often are, and those that aren't come from the Lords maybe with prior experience as MPs before going to The Other Place) and even the Prime Minister and Chancellor do not need to be, it is merely a century-and-a-bit unbroken peacetime tradition that they are.

Whatever. I have no problem with a meritocracy over an often fickle public popularity contest.

"Nah, but it does support as much delegation of authority as is possible to allow for the most efficient management." - Now who wants 'layers upon layers of beaurocracy'... You say "efficient management", but it is clear that your depth-first approach would make the more egregious examples of NHS overmanagement look like a smoothly-running village collective idyl.

"As a believer in a nationstate I believe the nation state is the largest boundary, largest social unit in which a community can have individuals act against their own self-interest for the benefit of their peers" - That's arbitrary.  Luxembourg-sized, is that? Or Brazil, maybe? China's probably too big to be properly social, but trying hard anyway, and Russia arguably not quite fit for purpose without a domineering leader, either. It'll be fractal, though. The ideal system is variously scalable to look self-similar upon the local national scale as the normalised national scale of any other nation, whatever the relative size differences.

"The nature of the EU is that its motives are largely unknowable to me, ..." - I believe you've never tried. (Not knowing what questions you probably never even asked, I can't give you your answers right now, obviously.)  Should I dismiss you like you dismiss the EU? I'm no Europhile, but your reactionary Europhobic reachings have over the course of our 'discussions' actually got me to educate myself a lot in the 'hidden' mysteries of the various EU bodies. An education. (And, it must be said, they're not entirely streamlined, but if such streamlining means removing moderating mechanisms then I'd be as against it as aboloshing the House Of Lords or neutering the High Court.)

"Again, the presumption that the EU is better off enduring. To that, I say, [citation needed]" - Summary of my position: Better to be within a power-block pissing out than on our own, pissing on a bunch of other disconnected nations who are in turn pissing on us and each other.  (Unless you're into that sort of thing, of course.)

"Maybe if Remain had spent less time going on about how Great Britain is useless and full of invalids who need enlightened European rule" - Doesn't sound familiar...  Neither do "the serial killer leaflets Remain sent".  OTOH, you ought to have seen the stuff Leave tried to fob off on me. Maybe it's perspective, but this was while I was largely ambivalent about the vote, so I'm not sure I can so easily ascribe my selective interpretations upon my own biases.

"Evidence is better but I'll settle for an explanation of the rationale." - A single banking system (which I'm no fan of... definitely I would Keep The Pound, for whatever reason, so unpegging the UK always was easy enough) removes 'national' (now 'state') differentials, rather than having to trust to members being truthful and frank at all times about their independent pots of dependent currency.  Compare and contrast with the Clydesdale Bank, maybe...

Problems occured due to not grabbing as much overarching control as they could (maybe should) have done. Lessons learnt.

"There's not a people or nation alive in this world that thinks it can be in charge with its armed forces controlled by a foreign power," - You entirely miss the point. The EU Army wouldn't be controlled by a foreign power. It'd be controlled by our power.  (Scotland, going independent, would need to look to simultaneously devolve/whatever things like the Scots' Regiments. It couldn't be done overnight, but so couldn't the national split, so it would be be made part of the same dependency timeline.)

"EU army is a threat to NATO" - Does not parse.

"If for example that NATO wanted to centralize into a NATO superstate I would have a very long list of objections" - Something here makes me think were talking apples and oranges...

"I have opinions and I talk freely of them on public forums, don't get what's so morally objectionable about that" - Nothing. It's just the absolutist air. I'm being asked to demonstrate the clear fallacies within your position, and this leaves me desperately trying to not just give you the opposing POV for you to see, but (from my more central position) you're not really encouraging me to present you with "...and the better argument for your case would be <foo>" response, because every time you drift off into "fam" territory it erodes my will to help you.  Which only coincidentally has anything to do with the point you were not quite responding to, which was actually about how you, as a Leaver, dare not admit that any Remain point is valid in order to maintain your stand. You're obviously scared of defeat being snatched from the jaws of victory, a threat many others are now beyond the reach of, given the way things went.

"Every shitpost helps," - I respectfully disagree. Like all the Fakenews we've been seeing created recently for the other side of the Pond (but often by the other side of Europe, ironically, for clickbait revenue generation purposes), unsincere posting just devalues the currency of conversation and discussion.


(Skipping the Youtube link that I can't currently follow.)

"The people who promised the UK would remain a member of the single market if the UK left the EU were the Remain campaign, unsurprisingly." - You have that wrong.  Remain had no interest in making Leave sound like a better deal. Leavers (I have in mind that it was Gove, BICBW and I can't check until I have a better bandwidth for the time needed to view likely clips) were clearly saying that despite Remain's dire warnings that we'd lose out on trading union, we could Leave for <insert reason tailored to current audience, here> but retain EEA membership to avoid the imposition of tarifs, thus declaring Remain's various objections demolished, La La La, I'm Not Listening...

"This would require that by the next election, the UK leaves the EU’s ‘common commercial policy’. That would restore the UK Government’s power to control its own trade policy. That would create jobs." - (Like I said, whilst some Leavers were saying "don't worry, of course we won't lose out on Europe's few really good things", others were spinning the opposite message for those whose concerns were in other directions.)  Faith is a wonderful thing. "A begats B begats C, and so it is prophecised, and so it will surely be. Honest guv'nor!"


"It would literally be impossible to do a "super-hard" Brexit "immediately" with "no negotiations." There is no preexisting process or framework for leaving the European Union, we have to create one from scratch." - Start with Article 50 the morning after the night before, and if sovereignty is so important then command that "EU-only" channels get relabelled to "UK-only" ones at (air)ports, hire/overtime more C&E personnel immediately to increase goods and transit checks, advise financial institutions that export/import fees may now be payable on certain currently exempt transactions (TBA!), start/enhance various necessary papertrails ready for the anticipated influx of clerical staff to work out what to grab back...   Loads of little things. Then deal with representations from EU countries, collectively or not (only slightly more shocked than they actually were in the genuinine timeline) .  Meanwhile, increased employment, increased taxes, boom time, we're seen as a go-get-'em country and our falling currency doesn't fall so much and perhaps even rises higher than before...  (It's as good a story as any other 'A begat B begat C' one, and you can't argue otherwise...)

"That would be the point, it's good cake." - Point missed.

"Cooperation outside of their framework allows us to warn them of attacks without opening ourselves to the infiltrators they let in" - I find myself unable to define your naïveté sufficiently. Why do 'push-only' cooperation (gaining nothing for ourselves in the process) at the exact same time as risking revealing to the supposed external moles enough detail to compromise our own 'moleless' operations.

"all the oppressive apparatus is in place, yet it is failing to function in its purpose of removing jihadists because of the EU convention on human rights." - There's nothing wrong with Due Process in arguable cases. Better than Undue Process in far too many cases to argue about.  You will no doubt mention the one or two higher-profile cases where it was a tricky balancing act, but Hard Cases Make Bad Laws.

"I counterargued you on that point before you even said it. Fishermen know boundaries and you really do need to explain how protecting our habitats does not preserve fish stocks - as it has been proven to do so in our waters already. I've presented evidence and explanation, where's yours m9" - You're swimming in circles.  "Our" habitats are not solelly within our waters.  In extremis just look up eel migration...

Fuggit I'm fed up of this disinginuity, my morning alarm just went off.

Actually scanning it, nothing else you said was verging on sensible and so needed a resonse, thus I'm done anyway, barring tidy-editing which I'll leave off unless it looks really bad once posted.

[Loud Whispers]

-Europe is democratic as much as UK is.

Yeah that's neat we're talking about the European Union though

The bits everyone complain about as 'undemocratic', like the Commissioners departments, are equivalent to Whitehall's ministries.  A 2/3rds vote of No Confidence by the fully-elected EU Parliament can even sweep them clean. (I'm not sure if Westmister has that sort of power, though the PM, only actually vaguely voted for, insofar as they could easily be just the anonymous bod who happens to head the current political zeitgeist, does of course appoint.)

Ahahaha continental governance modeled on the Whitehall ministries what a democracy
When you strip away the Prime Minister and the Commons and you leave yourself only with the Whitehall ministries, you're left with the Ministry of Defence and Ministers appointing Ministers. Omitting the Prime Minister who is beholden to the electorate is where it all fails <3

UK's Ministers do not even need to be elected MPs (though in practice they often are, and those that aren't come from the Lords maybe with prior experience as MPs before going to The Other Place) and even the Prime Minister and Chancellor do not need to be, it is merely a century-and-a-bit unbroken peacetime tradition that they are.

Yeah we've only had a century long tradition of elected ministers what a fucking shitshow

Now who wants 'layers upon layers of beaurocracy'... You say "efficient management"

You, your the one in favour of a bureaucratic government xD
What I'm in favour of is already in place. My local councillors manage everything in my area from education to social services and waste disposal, my mayor manages the greater strategic plans for the whole of London such as major infrastructure development with new bridges or tube extensions, my Prime Minister and their cabinet decide on the stuff that affects the whole nation from policing, to fiscal policy, taxation and migration. This is simple efficient management, local managers are at a superior position to direct resources in their area far better than a distant bureaucrat in the continent can, which would further require people explaining all the issues already known to the local manager, and require such explaining to be flawless. This is not a new concept, we've had it for the last thousand years

but it is clear that your depth-first approach would make the more egregious examples of NHS overmanagement look like a smoothly-running village collective idyl.

Under this system my area went from a shithole where people were dying of malaria to a borough where 40% of the area is under regeneration, with new libraries, schools, houses - they even do planning on the neighbourhood level.

As you can see, this success does not lend me to believe that my situation would be improved with the addition of European bureaucracy overriding all of us because hurr durr poor people can't plan for themselves they need six figure bureaucrats to do it for them, because nothing says efficient management than distant management with more red tape.

That's arbitrary.

Exactly

Luxembourg-sized, is that? Or Brazil, maybe? China's probably too big to be properly social, but trying hard anyway, and Russia arguably not quite fit for purpose without a domineering leader, either. It'll be fractal, though.

Geographical size doesn't matter, what matters is geographical boundaries and the people within them

The ideal system is variously scalable to look self-similar upon the local national scale as the normalised national scale of any other nation, whatever the relative size differences.

Why? You're pretty consistently running into the problem where you expect me to just take your word for it that you're right, which is pretty haram in basic discourse

I believe you've never tried. (Not knowing what questions you probably never even asked, I can't give you your answers right now, obviously.)

Simple, same one you asked me: Why shouldn't the UK leave the European Union, why is the European Union worth preserving?

Should I dismiss you like you dismiss the EU? I'm no Europhile, but your reactionary Europhobic reachings have over the course of our 'discussions' actually got me to educate myself a lot in the 'hidden' mysteries of the various EU bodies.

Reactionary europhobe, ahaha that's a new one
Cheers mate you're clearly englightened by your superior knowledge you've told no one gj gj add one smug to the pile

Summary of my position: Better to be within a power-block pissing out than on our own, pissing on a bunch of other disconnected nations who are in turn pissing on us and each other.  (Unless you're into that sort of thing, of course.)

Your position is literally piss
Why is it better to be in this power bloc, why do you think in terms of piss? What does the EU actually offer? What possible basis do you have for believing it is intrinsically better to make the EU more powerful at our expense?

Maybe it's perspective, but this was while I was largely ambivalent about the vote, so I'm not sure I can so easily ascribe my selective interpretations upon my own biases.

Most my neighbourhood voted Remain and they were creeped out by Remain's leaflets, that's the point. Literally giant A4 pieces of black paper with red blotched text warning us not to vote Leave lmao

A single banking system (which I'm no fan of... definitely I would Keep The Pound, for whatever reason, so unpegging the UK always was easy enough) removes 'national' (now 'state') differentials, rather than having to trust to members being truthful and frank at all times about their independent pots of dependent currency.  Compare and contrast with the Clydesdale Bank, maybe...
Problems occured due to not grabbing as much overarching control as they could (maybe should) have done. Lessons learnt.

If you assume that the European Union is intrinsically good and that it taking more soveriegn powers would have not completely fucked over European countries more than it did, then you are left with a conflict. Either the EU takes away more sovereignty from nation states, or it takes away more sovereignty from nation states. Always responds the same way, and is why it's irrelavent what we want for our country as long as our country is a member of the EU - soveriegnty drifts one way within.

The EU Army wouldn't be controlled by a foreign power. It'd be controlled by our power.

Is the European Commission my government of my people? Nope, it's a power bloc as you said full of Europeans, who are not my people. Get culturally enriched m8 I'd rather be ruled by Malaysians or Nigerians than the EU

"EU army is a threat to NATO" - Does not parse.

Creating a rival to NATO is not a threat to NATO? I don't see Europeans intending to pay for two more militaries than they need any time soon.

Something here makes me think were talking apples and oranges...

Yeah, the difference between an alliance and an Empire

Nothing. It's just the absolutist air. I'm being asked to demonstrate the clear fallacies within your position, and this leaves me desperately trying to not just give you the opposing POV for you to see, but (from my more central position) you're not really encouraging me to present you with "...and the better argument for your case would be <foo>" response, because every time you drift off into "fam" territory it erodes my will to help you.

That's pretty smug m8
Yeah it's "clear" how wrong I am and how right you are, so clear you haven't given any evidence for the validity of anything you've said or explanation. Yet you're the one complaining about absolutism? I'm asking for your side of things lmao xD
By all means continue being smug helping poor folk like me, I thought we were talking as equals here but evidently you see things otherwise. As it stands you're happy to hear my words and go on and on about how wrong I am without explaining why or giving any evidence of substance - but no, you're not "just" giving me the opposing POV.

Which only coincidentally has anything to do with the point you were not quite responding to, which was actually about how you, as a Leaver, dare not admit that any Remain point is valid in order to maintain your stand.

I literally have no idea what points you have made that I could admit are right. You really want me to just take your word as gospel when I keep teling you, human beings do not work like that. Provide evidence, provide explanation, I don't agree with people for the sake of it.

You're obviously scared of defeat being snatched from the jaws of victory, a threat many others are now beyond the reach of, given the way things went.

Fully agreed, though I don't think anything is beyond the reach of reality; a stark lesson to learn from Remain is to always assume the highest chance of failure and never stop fighting until you have actually won. Leave's victories do not yet mean Victory.

"Every shitpost helps," - I respectfully disagree. Like all the Fakenews we've been seeing created recently for the other side of the Pond (but often by the other side of Europe, ironically, for clickbait revenue generation purposes), unsincere posting just devalues the currency of conversation and discussion.

Pretty haram to compare the noble art of shitposting with Fakenews giving Hillary a 98% victory chance, I actually provide evidence for my arguments

You have that wrong.

You have no evidence, you are wrong. Liberal Democrats, Remain, leading these efforts as we speak.

Remain had no interest in making Leave sound like a better deal.

Ahahaha better deal for Remain, you'll enjoy the youtube link then - it's got George Osborne going on about how the UK will leave the single market as if that was a thing to be scared of xD

Leavers (I have in mind that it was Gove, BICBW and I can't check until I have a better bandwidth for the time needed to view likely clips) were clearly saying that despite Remain's dire warnings that we'd lose out on trading union, we could Leave for <insert reason tailored to current audience, here> but retain EEA membership to avoid the imposition of tarifs, thus declaring Remain's various objections demolished, La La La, I'm Not Listening...

Yeah it wasn't Gove, Gove was in favour of leaving the single market. Again it's in the youtube clip

(Like I said, whilst some Leavers were saying "don't worry, of course we won't lose out on Europe's few really good things", others were spinning the opposite message for those whose concerns were in other directions.)  Faith is a wonderful thing. "A begats B begats C, and so it is prophecised, and so it will surely be. Honest guv'nor!"

Like you said, but I'd like to see some actual evidence please, otherwise you're just spreading fakenews.

Start with Article 50 the morning after the night before, and if sovereignty is so important then command that "EU-only" channels get relabelled to "UK-only" ones at (air)ports, hire/overtime more C&E personnel immediately to increase goods and transit checks, advise financial institutions that export/import fees may now be payable on certain currently exempt transactions (TBA!), start/enhance various necessary papertrails ready for the anticipated influx of clerical staff to work out what to grab back...   Loads of little things. Then deal with representations from EU countries, collectively or not (only slightly more shocked than they actually were in the genuinine timeline) .  Meanwhile, increased employment, increased taxes, boom time, we're seen as a go-get-'em country and our falling currency doesn't fall so much and perhaps even rises higher than before...  (It's as good a story as any other 'A begat B begat C' one, and you can't argue otherwise...)

Yeah I can easily. What you're arguing for is impossible

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

It would only favour the European Union to follow your plan, no thanks for me. Rather happy with negotiating all we can to ensure the UK is not murdered by irate commissioners tyvm

"That would be the point, it's good cake." - Point missed.

Basic wordplay

I find myself unable to define your naïveté sufficiently.

That's ok, you've failed in defining anything so far. At any rate I struggle to see how open door Europe is the pinnacle of cynical intelligence gathering that you seem to be championing, after all if they weren't so naive, they would not be in this mess to begin with - and our help would be superfluous

Why do 'push-only' cooperation (gaining nothing for ourselves in the process) at the exact same time as risking revealing to the supposed external moles enough detail to compromise our own 'moleless' operations.

Europeans being murdered when we have information that could prevent that is not exactly something I want to use as a bargaining chip, it's a simple matter of security in that letting the cells grow in influence in Europe is bad for us in the UK. Giving EU intelligence access to our intelligence opens us to their moles, what information we give them would be at our discretion, as opposed to compromising everything we have.

There's nothing wrong with Due Process in arguable cases.

I'm not arguing against due process

You're swimming in circles.  "Our" habitats are not solelly within our waters.  In extremis just look up eel migration...

You've confused habitats with migratory fish stocks, our maritime habitats are by definition, within our waters. Well, not the ones currently administered by the EU lmao

Actually scanning it, nothing else you said was verging on sensible and so needed a resonse, thus I'm done anyway, barring tidy-editing which I'll leave off unless it looks really bad once posted.

Oioi goodnight

[martinuzz]

Makes no sense out of context

I found it funny though. I haven't heard someone from the UK refer to their flag that way before. Usually, I hear Brits refer to it as Union Jack. The French refer to their red-white-blue as 'tricolore'. We Dutch refer to our flag as 'red-white-blue' most often. I guess we just lack the imagination to call it anything less factual and more fanciful.

[Neonivek]

Here is one that is a factor that a lot of you missed.

Taking down the EU prevents the apocalypse.

As IF YOU REMEMBER the requirement for it is a "One World Government"

Plus there are a lot of people who hate the idea of governments that run more than one country (unless it is colonialism)

[Starver]

-Europe is democratic as much as UK is.

Yeah that's neat we're talking about the European Union though

The bits everyone complain about as 'undemocratic', like the Commissioners departments, are equivalent to Whitehall's ministries.  A 2/3rds vote of No Confidence by the fully-elected EU Parliament can even sweep them clean. (I'm not sure if Westmister has that sort of power, though the PM, only actually vaguely voted for, insofar as they could easily be just the anonymous bod who happens to head the current political zeitgeist, does of course appoint.)

Ahahaha continental governance modeled on the Whitehall ministries what a democracy
When you strip away the Prime Minister and the Commons and you leave yourself only with the Whitehall ministries, you're left with the Ministry of Defence and Ministers appointing Ministers. Omitting the Prime Minister who is beholden to the electorate is where it all fails <3

You're obtusely ignoring the simile.  Strip away the President Of The European Parliament and the EP and you could equate to removing the PM and MPs from the British system.  They are all elected. As are the European Council, elected at source, being the elected HoS/HoGs of the member countries, at times accompanied by the nation's foreign minister.  We elect these people, as much as we directly elect anyone in a representive democracy. But it is hard to keep track of all the branches.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered. I read the rest of your responses and found similar near-misses all over the shop. I've got more interesting things to do during my break than extract the few decent points, give youself a cookie for driving me back into unofficially ignoring you again.

[Dorsidwarf]

Honestly I feel like LW is closer to the truth here but in the same way that we're closer to Djibouti than Cape Horn.

On the one hand screaming and giggling about Keks and saying the EU is an evil empire is not helping LW at all, but the other side implying/imagining that it doesn't have some fairly deep systemic flaws is just as bad.

[Starver]

(I was really hoping that those flaws would get raised to get discussed, but you have it with the Evil Empire thing being seemingly the only basis. But that's not why I'm here again...)

I'll have a Luxemburger with cheese, please... One interesting  business 'move' to the UK. I'm wondering what the hidden deal is.  Apart from "Getting the hell out of (Tax) Dodge", of course.

[Leafsnail]

Sleaford results are in.  Unsurprisingly it was Conservative (it's one of the safest seats in the country). However, in spite of it being a heavily Leave constituency all the pro-Leave parties (UKIP, Con, Labour) lost ground while the Lib Dems gained some.