DExEU: An Insider’s View

PatMrex

Active Member
Ben Knight worked as a civil servant at the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) between 2017 and 2019, shines a light onto the workings of that department under the May administration. DExEU’s young civil servants tried in good faith to carry out the tasks they were given, but were continually hamstrung by government secrecy and dysfunctionality. This article was originally published by Brexit Central and is reproduced with kind permission.

I worked for two years as a civil servant at the Department for Exiting the European Union. I cannot fault the staff I worked with, who represent the very best and brightest that the British Civil Service has to offer. DExEU felt more like a start-up business than a lumbering ministry of state: it was full of the young, the fresh and the energetic, the crème de la crème of the British labour market. They come from diverse backgrounds and have diverse ambitions; but my experience of my colleagues was that they were single-mindedly devoted to the task in hand and committed to doing as they were asked, whatever their private views might have been.

Let’s not kid ourselves either, though: this is a Department with no offices outside of London; the average age of its staff is around 30, and almost everybody there was educated at a top university. It’s far from a Brexiteer’s natural home. Indeed, when people joked about cities burning and aeroplanes falling out of the sky, one was never entirely sure whether they were joking or expressing a sincerely-held fear.

But they did their jobs and they did them well, even as they were strangled by the Cabinet Office’s consistent refusal to engage under Olly Robbins. David Davis and Steve Baker have spoken at length about the extent to which they were mere flotsam in a tidal wave of secrecy and duplicitousness at the heart of Whitehall. Suffice it to say that nothing these men have claimed about their treatment is to my knowledge untrue or exaggerated. Indeed, the record will show in twenty years’ time that it was often far worse than they expressed.

Finding out what the negotiators were doing, or even what they were aiming for, was an impossible task. Those charged with lobbying the EU’s member states had no line of sight into what Robbins’ cabal actually wanted to achieve. DExEU was downgraded quickly from the negotiator-in-chief to a mere passenger in events, so much so that a ConservativeHome leak revealed that the Department had been drawing up its own version of the infamous Chequers White Paper only to be knocked to the ground by Number 10’s bouncers and stuffed like a Christmas turkey with the Cabinet Office alternative. I have heard senior officials describe the whole process as ‘threaded with paranoia’ and declare in no uncertain terms that much of their efforts were rendered ‘dysfunctional’ – or, to use the popular civil service vernacular, ‘distinctly sub-optimal’.

All in all, the abiding sense was that nobody quite knew exactly what we were supposed to be doing. Under the May administration, delivering Brexit was the stated aim of the Government – but the reality was very different. Britain was sleepwalked into an agreement which tied the UK into a ‘common rulebook’ rather than establishing mutual recognition of standards; which subordinated defence and security structures to the EU; which obliterated the nation’s freedom of action under the Northern Ireland backstop; which would continue to give the European Court of Justice a role in arbitrating UK law; and which would sell British farmers and fishermen down the proverbial river.

The core problem at the heart of our failure to secure a good, strong deal was that Brexit was seen by the people in power as a Pandora’s Box of problems, as a challenge to be mitigated rather than an opportunity to be embraced. That is how we ended up with a Withdrawal Agreement which would deliver a Brexit in name only: because the objective was always to minimise the risks of Brexit, at the expense of any potential gains.

I had anticipated, expected even, that after the referendum result the country would accept the decision taken as a decision made, and rally round to support the future for which the public had voted. I was wrong and naive. In truth, whilst the battle of 23rd June 2016 was won, the wider war was not: from dawn on the 24th, it was necessary to remake the case for Brexit and to fight hard for the vision of Britain outside the European Union anew. Every single day between referendum and delivery, the Government should have been seeking to bring the nation with it, persuading and convincing those who voted Remain that Brexit was an opportunity to cherish far more than it was risk to be feared. We failed to step up to the crease.

But it is never too late to make amends for our mistakes. If we frame Brexit as the staging post for a much broader vision which puts the United Kingdom at the centre of the world and which sets its people free, we can and will bring the country with us.

Brexit means the end of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and of EU law, returning sovereignty to Britain. It is a fundamental principle of democracy that rulers should be chosen by the ruled; but no voter elects the Presidents of the European Parliament, Commission or Council, nor any one of the European Union’s 20 Vice Presidents. The only elected organ of the Union, the Parliament, has no powers to initiate legislation and only limited powers to scrutinise the Commission.

The extension of Qualified Majority Voting means that Britain’s voice can be routinely overruled, and that the British people can be subject to laws for which not a single British individual has voted. This is plainly an aberration and an assault upon the core tenets of basic political rights. No: the only legitimate form of governance is one in which those with the power to make laws are directly accountable to every individual to whom those laws apply. The restoration of full parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom will mean that our 650 MPs, each of whom we directly elect, are solely responsible for deciding the laws of the land.

Many fear that this will lead to a decline in standards; that our MPs cannot be trusted to maintain environmental protections, save us from the horrors of chlorine-rinsed chicken or prevent workers from being forced to perform 25-hour shifts. But the principle of democracy will always apply: the people will be able to elect a government which pledges to do what they feel is right. At the moment, that level of control simply does not exist.

Brexit will allow Britain to make its economy more open, more flexible and more competitive than ever before, with new power to abolish VAT, strike up its own free trade deals around the world or even pursue unilateral tariff liberalisation, and set its own rules on state aid and the regulation of markets. This need not herald a race to the bottom but instead a race to the top: lower taxes, a fairer, freer and more open economy which rejects corporatism and vested interests, and which protects innovation and Britain’s natural talent for technological advancement from increasingly ham-fisted EU directives. And of course, should Britons dislike the direction in which their government is taking their newly liberated economy, they may well elect a new one: at present, the voters of Britain have no power to choose on what basis our international trade policy is set.

Brexit abolishes the insane and racist doctrine of passport discrimination, which allows predominantly white European migrants to enter the country unconditionally but which prevents people from the rest of the world from competing on a level playing field for visas, jobs and homes. Brexit will also deliver control of immigration, allowing the nationally elected government to decide on the criteria for admission. I am, despite the myriad stereotypes about xenophobic Brexit voters, extremely pro-immigration and would favour relatively relaxed restrictions: the point is that it should be the British government, elected by British voters, which decides – and that a doctor from Hong Kong should have the same opportunity as a doctor from Germany to come to build his or her career in the United Kingdom, rather than being subjected to second-class status because of a protectionist European model which seeks to shield the continent of Europe from investment, both economic and cultural, from outsiders.

Fundamentally, Brexit gives us freedom.

The freedom to liberalise trade and open our economy up to new markets, serving as an open and competitive counterweight to the politics of Donald Trump and China, and forging for Britain a role as a global beacon of free enterprise and achievement.

The freedom to revamp our tax system in the way that we choose, delivering savings for the poorest and the just-about-managing by bringing down rates and replacing VAT – a freedom that will be increasingly diminished by the spectre of increasing fiscal harmonisation should we stay in the EU.
The freedom to allow our society to soar, with an immigration policy defined not by your origin but by what you
have to offer.

The freedom to liberalise our agricultural industry along the lines of what New Zealand has done with great success, whilst protecting our fishermen from the abusive slicing up of our coastal waters.

The freedom to go further than the EU on environmental protections and on technological innovation, defending such concepts as free expression and creativity which have been most effaced by the EU in its numerous ludicrous legislative programmes, most notably the recent attempt to ban memes.
The freedom to chart our own course, choose our own destiny, and be ruled by our own elected masters: if we don’t like what they’re doing, we can get rid of them.
The freedom to revive our proud common law system, which protects individual freedom and corporate innovation, by doing away with the extensive acquis communautaire.

The freedom to save billions from ceasing to fund the protectionist Common Agricultural policy, to move nimbly and quickly in the field of foreign trade deals to make the most of the £300 billion in exports that Britain sends to countries outside the EU, where 90% of world growth over the next decade will be happening.
It is the freedom to forge our own future, write the next pages of our own national story – leaping enthusiastically into our globalised and interdependent world, far from shutting ourselves away from it as Remainers fear.

Brexit should not be treated as a catch-all cure in and of itself. It is, as I always said in DExEU, neither panacea nor pogrom. What it represents is an opportunity to begin to do things radically differently in this country. It is a risk, but any good businessman will tell you risks are part of any journey to success. If embraced, pursued proactively with enthusiasm and treated as an opportunity to be made the most of – rather than a challenge to be mitigated and an exercise in damage limitation – Brexit can be a bright moment of ignition, the first spark in a blazing inferno of national revival.

I hope that the Government will learn from the mistakes of the last two years, and make the case for pursuing its policy anew: and I hope that my former colleagues at DExEU will be empowered, once and for all, to do their jobs.

A young civil servant at the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) gives an insight into the on-goings of a hapless, remain-led government at the pivotal time in our "negotiations".
 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member

A young civil servant at the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) gives an insight into the on-goings of a hapless, remain-led government at the pivotal time in our "negotiations".
It seems less of an insight into the department than a pro-Brexit manifesto.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
It seems less of an insight into the department than a pro-Brexit manifesto.

Fair play to the guy, he went from “Tills Supervisor/Toiletries Department Leader” in the Biggleswade Wilko in October 2017, to the “Corporate Governance Manger” of DexEU in November 2017 so that’s quite the career change. Wonder what experience he brought to the UK Governments’ Brexit negotiations? o_O

 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
Fair play to the guy, he went from “Tills Supervisor/Toiletries Department Leader” in the Biggleswade Wilko in October 2017, to the “Corporate Governance Manger” of DexEU in November 2017 so that’s quite the career change. Wonder what experience he brought to the UK Governments’ Brexit negotiations? o_O

That grade C Economics A Level has carried him far into the world of finance and trade negotiations.

I might use this as a warning to my kids. "If you don't work hard at school and end up with just a C in your A-Levels then you could end up working for the UK's trade negotiating team!" That should frighten them enough to get them studying harder.
 
Last edited:

richp007

Distinguished Member
It seems less of an insight into the department than a pro-Brexit manifesto.
Yep. Guy was obviously watching Braveheart and got the word "Freedom" stuck in his head.

These things are ten a penny, I see Brexiter's on social media linking to them all the time.

Only point of interest, something that is always rebutted by the Tory supporters on here -

Every single day between referendum and delivery, the Government should have been seeking to bring the nation with it, persuading and convincing those who voted Remain that Brexit was an opportunity to cherish far more than it was risk to be feared. We failed to step up to the crease.

Nice at least to see someone from within rightly critical of the Tory process. They are 100% accountable for the mess we're in, and if Johnson doesn't get Brexit over the line, the dangers to the future of the Tory party are very clear after what the nation has been through.
 

PatMrex

Active Member
An insight into the view of remainers.

If you don't like the message shoot the messenger.

Unless of course, you can cherry pick something you do like and claim it as the 'only' point of interest.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
An insight into the view of remainers.

If you don't like the message shoot the messenger.

Unless of course, you can cherry pick something you do like and claim it as the 'only' point of interest.
Is anything I posted factually incorrect?

It’s hardly insightful to ask about the guy’s political experience when his own public CV shows a complete lack of it prior to his move into the Civil Service. The article does read like the usual pro-Brexit propaganda, delivered by an “insider” to give it more gravitas, but sharing the same message shared numerous times previously that it was all the fault of a Remainer PM and her team.
 

PatMrex

Active Member
Is anything I posted factually incorrect?

It’s hardly insightful to ask about the guy’s political experience when his own public CV shows a complete lack of it prior to his move into the Civil Service. The article does read like the usual pro-Brexit propaganda, delivered by an “insider” to give it more gravitas, but sharing the same message shared numerous times previously that it was all the fault of a Remainer PM and her team.
I don't know what you're trying to achieve with this line of thought - other than try to delegitimise his opinion and experience via an assassination of his CV.

Do you sincerely think that his lack of experience (attacking the messenger) as you clearly allude to prevents him from having an opinion on how he saw DExEU being run?
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
I don't know what you're trying to achieve with this line of thought - other than try to delegitimise his opinion and experience via an assassination of his CV.

Do you sincerely think that his lack of experience (attacking the messenger) as you clearly allude to prevents him from having an opinion on how he saw DExEU being run?
I didn’t sincerely think anything, I linked to his public experience and asked how it helped his move into the Civil Service.

As for attacking the messenger, that’s what you’re also doing to me too. I’ve commented on the article, and the information it proposes, and said that it’s a similar situation shared previously by other outlets too. I haven’t said it’s wrong, just not exactly unbiased. Considering you linked it from BrexitCentral, that’s pretty obvious.
 

PatMrex

Active Member
I didn’t sincerely think anything, I linked to his public experience and asked how it helped his move into the Civil Service.

As for attacking the messenger, that’s what you’re also doing to me too. I’ve commented on the article, and the information it proposes, and said that it’s a similar situation shared previously by other outlets too. I haven’t said it’s wrong, just not exactly unbiased. Considering you linked it from BrexitCentral, that’s pretty obvious.
Okay, so your links to his prior experience have nothing to do with the article other than, at best sarcastically try and smear his view, or at worst delegitimise his opinion because of it. That's how it's come across.

Secondly, you haven't really commented on the gist of the author's view other than to bemoan it as Brexit propaganda based on the views and where it has come from. I wouldn't expect news outlets like The Independent, Guardian, FT or the BBC to either endorse or express such views, would you? Doesn't quite fit the narrative does it.

It seems, you haven't entered this thread to honestly debate the merits of the view points in the article, but rather more to spoil and smear. Largely because you don't like what this Civil Servant had to say on Brexit regarding his personal experience.

Now, if you are genuinely interested in discussing the view points in the article then fine by me; if you would rather deflect, smear and obfuscate further don't expect me to indulge you.
 
Last edited:

Ruperts slippers

Distinguished Member
Soo, here we have the two main protagonists attacking the veracity of this article because the writer used to work in a supermarket.
The biased attacking the biased for the sake of, it couldn't be funnier, the article is well written in a civil service academic social scientific manner. Unlike our two resident sh*t stirrers who search the net for newspaper links, misquoting and misunderstanding basic political language. All because they vote didn't go the way they wanted it to.
Chuckle. :rolleyes:
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
Okay, so your links to his prior experience have nothing to do with the article other than, at best sarcastically try and smear his view, or at worst delegitimise his opinion because of it. That's how it's come across.

Secondly, you haven't really commented on the gist of the author's view other than to bemoan it as Brexit propaganda based on the views and where it has come from. I wouldn't expect news outlets like The Independent, Guardian, FT or the BBC to either endorse or express such views, would you? Doesn't quite fit the narrative does it.

It seems, you haven't entered this thread to honestly debate the merits of the view points in the article, but rather more to spoil and smear. Largely because you don't like what this Civil Servant had to say on Brexit regarding his personal experience.
Don't worry about it. It is what he does very often, attempts to change the viewpoint by suggesting to look 'over there ...' and when brought to a discussion it will result in only highlighting the truth like only his opinion represents some facts.

As someone who has been in central government for quite a while, I think the chap has a good sense of interpretation of what is going on. Perhaps a little naive if he thinks that the team he worked in is the best of the civil service but I guess you don't know what you don't know. The reality is that he has highlighted a lot of very valid points, points that I may say I have been highlighting for a long time now.

Where I have concerns with this story is him going public. That is very strange. I could write some books but would never do such a thing. And I have not checked out his past, but if he truly has such limited experience then he is either super smart as I've never seen before, or it was someone else writing this. To me, that is why I find the story a bit fishy. But I could be wrong, I am not that bothered either way.
 
Last edited:

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Soo, here we have the two main protagonists attacking the veracity of this article because the writer used to work in a supermarket.
The biased attacking the biased for the sake of, it couldn't be funnier, the article is well written in a civil service academic social scientific manner. Unlike our two resident sh*t stirrers who search the net for newspaper links, misquoting and misunderstanding basic political language. All because they vote didn't go the way they wanted it to.
Chuckle. :rolleyes:
wow, any need for the name calling? Are we not allowed to post humourous responses here (you may have missed the emoji I put at the end of my first post). I’ve already commented on the article, and the detail within it, and said that it’s been said before by other people, that Brexit would have worked if it wasn’t for that pesky Remainer PM.

The fact that the article has been written like an A Level politics essay is irrelevant, we’re all allowed to have our own opinions, if that’s ok with you?
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Don't worry about it. It is what he does very often, attempts to change the viewpoint by suggesting to look 'over there ...' and when brought to a discussion it will result in only highlighting the truth like his opinion represents some facts.

As someone who has been in central government for quite a while, I think the chap has a good sense of interpretation of what is going on. Perhaps a little naive if he thinks that the team he worked in is the best of the civil service but I guess you don't know what you don't know. The reality is that he has highlighted a lot of very valid points, points that I may say I have been highlighting for a long time now.

Where I have concerns with this story is him going public. That is very strange. I could write some books but would never do such a thing. And I have not checked out his past, but if he truly has such limited experience then he is either super smart as I've never seen before, or it was someone else writing this. To me, that is why I find the story a bit fishy. But I could be wrong, I am not that bothered either way.
and now you’re piling in too. It was a humorous first response, as I thought his career rise, coupled with his suggestion that the team he worked in was the best to offer (as you’ve highlighted too) was interesting. Again, I’ve also commented on the content of the article, and shared my thoughts. Why is everyone so delicate, just because I dared to question the narrative.

You yourself have questioned the validity of the article, and the author, but I’m the one trying to change the viewpoint? :confused: It’s apparently ok for you to highlight the exact same points I did (questionable career progression, self-confidence, same old reasoning etc), because it’s you and not me..
 
Last edited:

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Okay, so your links to his prior experience have nothing to do with the article other than, at best sarcastically try and smear his view, or at worst delegitimise his opinion because of it. That's how it's come across.

Secondly, you haven't really commented on the gist of the author's view other than to bemoan it as Brexit propaganda based on the views and where it has come from. I wouldn't expect news outlets like The Independent, Guardian, FT or the BBC to either endorse or express such views, would you? Doesn't quite fit the narrative does it.

It seems, you haven't entered this thread to honestly debate the merits of the view points in the article, but rather more to spoil and smear. Largely because you don't like what this Civil Servant had to say on Brexit regarding his personal experience.

Now, if you are genuinely interested in discussing the view points in the article then fine by me; if you would rather deflect, smear and obfuscate further don't expect me to indulge you.

Ok, let me comment further on the content of the article. Who do you think his intended audience was for it? His use of passionate words like “freedom to liberalise”, “insane and racist doctrine”, “ham fisted EU directives” etc reads like a political campaign leaflet, and not an impartial Civil Servant doing what’s best for the country.

Whilst clearly a passionate writer, and making some good points with regards to risk being part of good business, it reads more like a speech that he delivered in his head, rather than a genuinely argued insight into the Uk Civil Service. I raised his previous experience, as he writes like he and his team were the best of the best, held back only by a PM intent on thwarting them. As I said, many other outlets, and political groups, have said exactly the same, hence it not being particularly “new”.

I’m sorry you find my personal opinion of the piece different to yours. It’s not specifically because I voted to Remain, or because I’m trying to “look over there”, I simply found it to come across like campaign rhetoric as we’ve seen numerous times already.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Well this was all a thoroughly entertaining breakfast read this morning :smashin:

An insight into the view of some remainers.

If you don't like the message shoot the messenger.

Unless of course, you can cherry pick something you do like and claim it as the 'only' point of interest.
(FTFY. Forum etiquette now didn't you know).

An insight into the view of some leavers.

Everyone is wrong but me. And why wouldn't someone believe my propaganda piece from a pro-Brexit website?

Oh and as for the messenger. If I think the messenger is talking rubbish, I'll happily point out my view that he's talking rubbish. I don't remember you being anointed to decide on what's credible and what is not o_O

Thankfully though not all messengers of Brexit talk such trash.

Unlike our two resident sh*t stirrers who search the net for newspaper links, misquoting and misunderstanding basic political language. All because they vote didn't go the way they wanted it to.
Chuckle. :rolleyes:
Chuckles indeed. :laugh:

Still struggling to understand judicial process by the way? Yeah I imagine so.

I do look forward though to your providing of evidence as to what I've highlighted. Especially for Weavie, whose contributed more quality to this section than you could ever dream of doing.

Otherwise I'll expect an apology to him for labelling him a sh*t stirrer (I don't require one, personally I care nothing for your sentiment). Totally uncalled for. Just exposes your character more than anything else.

And as for our resident Brexiter cheerleader, it amazes me how he never misses an opportunity :laugh:

I'm glad you poured scorn on the chap though, and I will also label the story a bit fishy. As I know you haven't been criticised by others in here for such, so nor will I be ;)
 

Ruperts slippers

Distinguished Member
Well this was all a thoroughly entertaining breakfast read this morning :smashin:



(FTFY. Forum etiquette now didn't you know).

An insight into the view of some leavers.

Everyone is wrong but me. And why wouldn't someone believe my propaganda piece from a pro-Brexit website?

Oh and as for the messenger. If I think the messenger is talking rubbish, I'll happily point out my view that he's talking rubbish. I don't remember you being anointed to decide on what's credible and what is not o_O

Thankfully though not all messengers of Brexit talk such trash.



Chuckles indeed. :laugh:

Still struggling to understand judicial process by the way? Yeah I imagine so.

I do look forward though to your providing of evidence as to what I've highlighted. Especially for Weavie, whose contributed more quality to this section than you could ever dream of doing.

Otherwise I'll expect an apology to him for labelling him a sh*t stirrer
(I don't require one, personally I care nothing for your sentiment). Totally uncalled for. Just exposes your character more than anything else.

And as for our resident Brexiter cheerleader, it amazes me how he never misses an opportunity :laugh:

I'm glad you poured scorn on the chap though, and I will also label the story a bit fishy. As I know you haven't been criticised by others in here for such, so nor will I be ;)
Evidence of posting partisan newspaper links, nearly every post has a spurious link to a sponsored media anti Brexit sentiment.

Domestic analogy: “The argument from the experience of individual men in domestic society to the experience of states, according to which states, like individuals, are capable of orderly social life only if, to use the Hobbesian expression, they stand in awe of a common power.” Common power relates the application of sovereignty, justice, intuitions and freedoms relating to the common man. This is what democracy envelopes. Research West-phalian sovereignty for further insights.
But you knew all that anyway.

Just like your knowledge of the Kantian, public law, constitutional law, cosmopolitan law, which has been the established system of administering justice between individuals, nation states and relationships within supranational groupings. This is ultimately what the vote is testing, individuals within nation states, right, to decide the rule of law they wish to abide and consent to live under.
The vote and subsequent effects were a clear cut example of negative and positive liberty within a state. The fundamentals of sovereignty and justice were well established long ago before the guardian and the observer came into print.

Non of that matters because you didn't get your own way in the vote. How sad is that. There are lots of arguments made for remain, some of which have merit, non of which have been posted by either you or weavie, your information and knowledge on political, economics is certainly less than A-level. No apologies for my opinion.
 
Last edited:

EarthRod

Distinguished Member
The author of the article moved from a Wilko supervisor/section leader job to some civil service job. Unclear what grade or position he held in the DExEU for a couple of years, but never mind.

What is clear, in fact transparently clear, is his hard-line Brexit stance and deep dislike of the current government's policies, or at least what he considers the government's poor handling and lack of execution.

Also his personal opinions, although fairly well expressed, indicate his own lack of understanding and confusion how to handle his DExEU job requirements. This reflects in his opinion of the government's lack of understanding and how to handle Brexit requirements.

Basically, the article is a personal moan & groan piece, nothing more.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Evidence of posting partisan newspaper links, nearly every post has a spurious link to a sponsored media anti Brexit sentiment.

Domestic analogy: “The argument from the experience of individual men in domestic society to the experience of states, according to which states, like individuals, are capable of orderly social life only if, to use the Hobbesian expression, they stand in awe of a common power.” Common power relates the application of sovereignty, justice, intuitions and freedoms relating to the common man. This is what democracy envelopes. Research West-phalian sovereignty for further insights.
But you knew all that anyway.

Just like your knowledge of the Kantian, public law, constitutional law, cosmopolitan law, which has been the established system of administering justice between individuals, nation states and relationships within supranational groupings. This is ultimately what the vote is testing, individuals within nation states, right, to decide the rule of law they wish to abide and consent to live under.
The vote and subsequent effects were a clear cut example of negative and positive liberty within a state. The fundamentals of sovereignty and justice were well established long ago before the guardian and the observer came into print.

Non of that matters because you didn't get your own way in the vote. How sad is that. There are lots of arguments made for remain, some of which have merit, non of which have been posted by either you or weavie, your information and knowledge on political, economics is certainly less than A-level. No apologies for my opinion.
Ignoring the first part of your post, which appears to be a selection of OU Politics words thrown together, with no actual evidence to back up your childish name calling, your last point is the most relevant.

You shouldn’t need to apologise for your opinion, and neither should I. In the outside world, everyone sees things differently, and has their own opinions.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Evidence of posting partisan newspaper links, nearly every post has a spurious link to a sponsored media anti Brexit sentiment.

Domestic analogy: “The argument from the experience of individual men in domestic society to the experience of states, according to which states, like individuals, are capable of orderly social life only if, to use the Hobbesian expression, they stand in awe of a common power.” Common power relates the application of sovereignty, justice, intuitions and freedoms relating to the common man. This is what democracy envelopes.
But you knew all that anyway.

Just like your knowledge of the Kantian, public law, constitutional law, cosmopolitan law, which has been the established system of administering justice between individuals, nation states and relationships within supranational groupings. This is ultimately what the vote is testing, individuals within nation states, right, to decide the rule of law they wish to abide and consent to live under.
The vote and subsequent effects were a clear cut example of negative and positive liberty within a state. The fundamentals of sovereignty and justice were well established long ago before the guardian and the observer came into print.

Non of that matters because you didn't get your own way in the vote. How sad is that. There are lots of arguments made for remain, some of which have merit, non of which have been posted by either you or weavie, your information and knowledge on political, economics is certainly less than A-level. No apologies for my opinion.
Tell me, does it take a lot of practice to be this pompous, or are you a natural?

Your risible attempt at gaining superiority too by attempting to dazzle with talk of law and sovereignty is also quite pathetic.

But alas your diversion falls flat when you reach the final paragraph. And you expose yourself there as nothing more than an individual who holds all those who voted Remain in contempt.

How sad.

See I believe that we're better off in the EU, but I'm willing to accept the EU is not perfect and in the long term I may be wrong.

You on the other hand believe the opposite, yet are absolutely unwilling to accept you could possibly be wrong. Your word is truth and anyone who questions it is incorrect - and then worse, inferior.

There's a term for that, and it isn't complimentary.

Finally as you have so much disdain for partisan newspaper links, I'll look forward to your condemnation of partisan Leaver articles from similar publications in future. As you're not a hypocrite are you?

Edit: Oh and it looks like another poster has now questioned the credibility of the article too. A Leave voter I believe as well.

How startling hey? :rolleyes:
 

gavinhanly

Well-known Member
Evidence of posting partisan newspaper links, nearly every post has a spurious link to a sponsored media anti Brexit sentiment.
And much can also be said of the Brexit supporters on here (although the percieved "partisan" nature of links is usually in the eye of the beholder).

Both sides of the argument do this. Either side are backing up an argument with evidence (and often challenged to do so by the other side), and either side can be questioned/challenged on the evidence provided. Much like that of the first post in this thread. It's how things work around here.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
And much can also be said of the Brexit supporters on here (although the percieved "partisan" nature of links is usually in the eye of the beholder).

Both sides of the argument do this. Either side are backing up an argument with evidence (and often challenged to do so by the other side), and either side can be questioned/challenged on the evidence provided. Much like that of the first post in this thread. It's how things work around here.
I'm very much looking forward to Ruperts presentation of evidence based on his "nearly every post has a spurious link" statement.

I very rarely post with links anyway, and nor does Weavie much.

Plus I've never seen Weavie sh*t stir once on this forum, so equally his evidence for that will be eagerly anticipated.

I suspect he's all mouth and no trousers slippers. Purely because of his contempt for anyone who dares question Brexit is already laid bare in this section.
 

Ruperts slippers

Distinguished Member
Ignoring the first part of your post, which appears to be a selection of OU Politics words thrown together, with no actual evidence to back up your childish name calling, your last point is the most relevant.

You shouldn’t need to apologise for your opinion, and neither should I. In the outside world, everyone sees things differently, and has their own opinions.
Tell me, does it take a lot of practice to be this pompous, or are you a natural?

Your risible attempt at gaining superiority too by attempting to dazzle with talk of law and sovereignty is also quite pathetic.

But alas your diversion falls flat when you reach the final paragraph. And you expose yourself there as nothing more than an individual who holds all those who voted Remain in contempt.

How sad.

See I believe that we're better off in the EU, but I'm willing to accept the EU is not perfect and in the long term I may be wrong.

You on the other hand believe the opposite, yet are absolutely unwilling to accept you could possibly be wrong. Your word is truth and anyone who questions it is incorrect - and then worse, inferior.

There's a term for that, and it isn't complimentary.

Finally as you have so much disdain for partisan newspaper links, I'll look forward to your condemnation of partisan Leaver articles from similar publications in future. As you're not a hypocrite are you?

Edit: Oh and it looks like another poster has now questioned the credibility of the article too. A Leave voter I believe as well.

How startling hey? :rolleyes:
Comparatively a poster such as Tapzilla2k has a much greater insight, very rarely has this poster deliberately used liberal fiction or called into question the intelligence of voters choices.

My point is this, a question was asked by the government, the answer was given by the people, the answer should be carried out without delay. That's it. Democracy.

However I also reject the notion that the UK should become a quasi-nation sate under the umbrella of the Eu and its Eurocratic aims. Trade yes, adoption and adaptation of laws, yes upon discussion, adoption of liberalism and political correctness. Most certainly not.

I do not have party affiliations, nor do I have any allegiances to persons or representatives.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Comparatively a poster such as Tapzilla2k has a much greater insight, very rarely has this poster deliberately used liberal fiction or called into question the intelligence of voters choices.

My point is this, a question was asked by the government, the answer was given by the people, the answer should be carried out without delay. That's it. Democracy.

However I also reject the notion that the UK should become a quasi-nation sate under the umbrella of the Eu and its Eurocratic aims. Trade yes, adoption and adaptation of laws, yes upon discussion, adoption of liberalism and political correctness. Most certainly not.

I do not have party affiliations, nor do I have any allegiances to persons or representatives.
And what does any of that have to do with your accusation that I'm a sh*t stirrer, or that my feelings towards the article shared are somehow wrong, because they differ from yours? You accuse me of bias, and using bias sources, yet clearly state your own bias with regards to the Referendum and therefore the validity of the article. You're no different to me, yet suggest that I'm wrong and resort to name calling.
 

Ruperts slippers

Distinguished Member
And what does any of that have to do with your accusation that I'm a sh*t stirrer, or that my feelings towards the article shared are somehow wrong, because they differ from yours? You accuse me of bias, and using bias sources, yet clearly state your own bias with regards to the Referendum and therefore the validity of the article. You're no different to me, yet suggest that I'm wrong and resort to name calling.
You accuse the writer of the post piece of having no knowledge, working in a supermarket, yet yours and 007 lacks even basic fundamental political and economic insights. Then try to frame the comments by saying its all about opinions. However, you started the personal assertions about me in another thread. So there you go and here we are bickering.

Basically you were poking fun at someone and I've poked fun back. Now what.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
You accuse the writer of the post piece of having no knowledge, working in a supermarket, yet yours and 007 lacks even basic fundamental political and economic insights. Then try to frame the comments by saying its all about opinions. However, you started the personal assertions about me in another thread. So there you go and here we are bickering.

Basically you were poking fun at someone and I've poked fun back. Now what.
So, back to my first response, was anything I said incorrect? I didn’t accuse him of having no knowledge, I linked to his public LinkedIn account and asked about his apparent rise to the
DexEU. The same query was raised by Bl4ckGryphon, including suggesting that the guy didn’t even write the article himself, yet you’re not showing the same aggressive posting towards him, what’s the difference? Surely you’re not just targeting me because we have different opinions regarding Brexit.

I also haven’t seen you poke fun back at me, just real off a random selection of political wording in the hope that you come across as superior. I’m not sure what thread I’ve already shown personal assertions towards you either?
 

IronGiant

Moderator
Both you and rich skirt the line all the time. Rupert is doing the same. I would suggest all three of you drop it.
 

Ruperts slippers

Distinguished Member
Bl4ckGryphon has a working knowledge that other posters should take note of, so I have quite a bit of respect when he posts.
That'll be the end from me.
 

Trending threads

Latest news

Use of EU satellite decoders to become an offence after Brexit
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 21st October 2019
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
LG Display OLED only strategy sees first job losses
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
New Nvidia Shield devices 25 percent faster and add Dolby Vision
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom