FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The Greening Plan
The Greening Plan
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Parliament gave us a binary vote. The public gave them an answer. Now Parliament has its own binary vote. Mrs May's deal or no deal. It ain't rocket science. I just wish they'd get on with it and stop ducking the issue. i agree with you they should just get on with it instead of fannying about.if one thing this has shown people that politicians get paid a decent wage for not doing there job.got a funny feeling this is gona end a lot of carears on all sides of the house.also think you gona see a rise in far left and far right partys " | |||
"Conservative MP Justine Greening has joined the clamour for a "People's vote" should the Prime Minister's EU plan get voted down on December 11th. Her proposal is for our withdrawal be postponed for four months until July 29th. Legislation is pushed through Parliament for a referendum on May 30th. This referendum would ask the voter to choose from three options:- Remain in the EU Leave under Mrs May's proposal Leave with no deal This plan would split the Leave vote, thus increasing the chance of Remain. However, as a disillusioned but pragmatic Leaver, I feel it has merit and much more preferable than just crashing out on March 29th." There is no reason for the Greening plan split the leave vote, unless those designing the ballot deliberately frame the question to do that. Let me show how a final vote allowing for all options can be achieved without gerrymandering the result. Question: Should the UK leave the EU? (binary choice) leave or remain (no positive slanting of the question). Question: If the UK is leaving the EU how should we leave? (binary choice) accept deal on offer or reject deal on offer (again no use of language that would lead to a positive bias in the ballot). Now if I can work this out I am sure that our government (with all the expertise they can call on) can do the same. | |||
"if we dont leave at the end of march i will not be voting again in any election and i know quiet a few others who feel the same .reamainers and leavers. typical goverment and e.u ploy keep voting until they get the answer they want.they done it in ireland greece and italy.wats the point in voting if the gona ignore the result if its not the result they want." So do you accept that come March 30 if we have not left the EU and you stick by the above statement about never voting again you will no longer have a right to criticise any politician or any decision made or law passed ever again? | |||
 | |||
"if we dont leave at the end of march i will not be voting again in any election and i know quiet a few others who feel the same .reamainers and leavers. typical goverment and e.u ploy keep voting until they get the answer they want.they done it in ireland greece and italy.wats the point in voting if the gona ignore the result if its not the result they want. So do you accept that come March 30 if we have not left the EU and you stick by the above statement about never voting again you will no longer have a right to criticise any politician or any decision made or law passed ever again?" yep thats about the size of it.either dont vote.or see what other party appear after these clowns fuck it all up.may go extreme right or extreme left who knows | |||
"Will every voter be sent a copy of a 500-page legal treaty to read before deciding where to put their X ? "This is where we need to listen from experts from both sides of the argument. Not just from the political side of the fence but from economists and the business world. I would even advocate inviting experts in from the EU to state their case, what the EU has done and can do for the UK. May be too radical for some but we have to break the impasse in this debate. | |||
| |||
"So if all these remainers get another vote and they lose again will they all promise to stop banging on about remaining or just want another vote? " of course they will want another vote.didnt you know if your a leaver we as thick as pig shit.only remainers know whats best for us uneducated fuckwits  | |||
"So if all these remainers get another vote and they lose again will they all promise to stop banging on about remaining or just want another vote? " If we must have another vote it should be May's deal No deal Though no deal is so bad maybe should be May's deal EFTA / Norway deal | |||
| |||
"if we dont leave at the end of march i will not be voting again in any election and i know quiet a few others who feel the same .reamainers and leavers. typical goverment and e.u ploy keep voting until they get the answer they want.they done it in ireland greece and italy.wats the point in voting if the gona ignore the result if its not the result they want." Why would you voluntarily give up your right to vote? The only person you punish with it is yourself. It's tantrum material. If you look at a direct democracy like Switzerland they vote on certain topics over and over again because circumstances have changed and nobody shouts it's anti-democratic, quite contrary... | |||
| |||
"A People's vote is inevitable.Its the only way out of this situation. It absolves parliament of responsibility.
"Your wrong Bob, a peoples vote on the final deal is the only logical thing to do. But May is an autocrat, and she has decided that she is forcing brexit through regardless of consequences. So unless forced from office she will see the process through to the bitter end. | |||
"if we dont leave at the end of march i will not be voting again in any election and i know quiet a few others who feel the same .reamainers and leavers. typical goverment and e.u ploy keep voting until they get the answer they want.they done it in ireland greece and italy.wats the point in voting if the gona ignore the result if its not the result they want. i thought if u vited in yhis country who ever got the majority won.obviously not so wats the point in voting if those in power ignore the vote.like i said i finished with mainstream politics.will wait and see wat emerges after this circus.see wat comes from the extreme left or right Why would you voluntarily give up your right to vote? The only person you punish with it is yourself. It's tantrum material. If you look at a direct democracy like Switzerland they vote on certain topics over and over again because circumstances have changed and nobody shouts it's anti-democratic, quite contrary..." | |||
"if we dont leave at the end of march i will not be voting again in any election and i know quiet a few others who feel the same .reamainers and leavers. typical goverment and e.u ploy keep voting until they get the answer they want.they done it in ireland greece and italy.wats the point in voting if the gona ignore the result if its not the result they want. Why would you voluntarily give up your right to vote? The only person you punish with it is yourself. It's tantrum material. If you look at a direct democracy like Switzerland they vote on certain topics over and over again because circumstances have changed and nobody shouts it's anti-democratic, quite contrary. i thought if u voted in yhis country who ever got the majority won.obviously not so wats the point in voting if those in power ignore the vote.like i said i finished with mainstream politics.will wait and see wat emerges after this circus.see wat comes from the extreme left or right ..." How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. " There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. | |||
"A People's vote is inevitable.Its the only way out of this situation. It absolves parliament of responsibility.
Your wrong Bob, a peoples vote on the final deal is the only logical thing to do. But May is an autocrat, and she has decided that she is forcing brexit through regardless of consequences. So unless forced from office she will see the process through to the bitter end."It looks like that scenario is the most likely. Despite growing opposition from many camps, there just isn't a plan B coming from Government. I haven't met anyone yet who has said "yes, Mrs May's deal is exactly what I wanted from Brexit and is what I voted for". | |||
"Is it in the control of the UK Government to remain in the EU? That question would need answered before you raise any sort of expectations in a referendum. I suspect the answer will be it also requires the agreement of the EU27. And I doubt very much their terms for the UK's return will be the same as when the UK wanted to depart. " To leave and return later will be problematical - for sure. However, next week the Advocat General will give a preliminary view on the case that was heard last week at the ECJ. If the initial view leans in the direction that the U.K. can unilaterally revoke A50 then the terms would remain unchanged. To add that the AG opinion may not necessarily be the final ruling but the final ruling is more than likely going to be very close. | |||
"Will every voter be sent a copy of a 500-page legal treaty to read before deciding where to put their X ? "Actually we got one from the British embassy - we get all gov't papers - loads of it! Good contraception  | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. " I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Will every voter be sent a copy of a 500-page legal treaty to read before deciding where to put their X ?
This is where we need to listen from experts from both sides of the argument. Not just from the political side of the fence but from economists and the business world.
I would even advocate inviting experts in from the EU to state their case, what the EU has done and can do for the UK.
May be too radical for some but we have to break the impasse in this debate."There are no experts on the Leave side as Gove pointed out... | |||
"I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. " It really is quite simple. The fact is while the leaders or even a significant number of them (on either side) oppose a second referendum any such vote could only confirm the last referendum result without being labeled antidemocratic, causing a political crisis, more than likely leading civil unrest and maybe even civil war (not likely but possible). While so many of our political elite are holding to the line, 'You voted for brexit, you're getting brexit regardless of cost.' There is no way to reverse course. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The next vote offered the people will be binary. Mays deal will be rejected by parliament and then the people will get a vote. Mays deal can't be in the people's referendum because it's been rejected.. It will be a choice of 1 .No deal 2.No brexit" That will need Parliamentary legislation. As it stands at the moment....it's either the deal or no deal. That's why Mrs May is playing Jeremy Corbyn in this "TV debate". If he opposed the "deal", then he is for "no deal" And she knows that the majority of the country, and the EU, don't wish for no deal. Now we have some quite heavyweight cross-party intervention, led by Hilary Benn, in putting forward a motion that, in the event of a no deal, Parliament has to consider other options rather than default to no deal. Interestingly, Donald Tusk has just spoken at the G20, and has stated that they are still open to a "no Brexit" option. | |||
| |||
"The next vote offered the people will be binary. Mays deal will be rejected by parliament and then the people will get a vote. Mays deal can't be in the people's referendum because it's been rejected.. It will be a choice of 1 .No deal 2.No brexit That will need Parliamentary legislation. As it stands at the moment....it's either the deal or no deal. That's why Mrs May is playing Jeremy Corbyn in this "TV debate". If he opposed the "deal", then he is for "no deal" And she knows that the majority of the country, and the EU, don't wish for no deal. Now we have some quite heavyweight cross-party intervention, led by Hilary Benn, in putting forward a motion that, in the event of a no deal, Parliament has to consider other options rather than default to no deal. Interestingly, Donald Tusk has just spoken at the G20, and has stated that they are still open to a "no Brexit" option. " Yep I just heard that he said it no brexit or no deal if the uk walks away from mays plan. | |||
| |||
"So tusk is banking on a no brexit exactly what they have wanted from the start.Leave with no deal will do me." You'll get to vote on it if you live here.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Tusk may be "open" to the idea. But what will the terms be to surrender Article 50? The public could vote for No Brexit, only for the UK Government to discover it could not stomach the terms. " " The terms of surrender " has a nice ring to it... | |||
| |||
| |||
"Justine Greening first put the question of a second vote to the Prime Minister a couple of months ago. Personally, I am of the opinion that if Parliament were to go back to the people with a second vote, the only options on the ballot should be those that respect the original vote. i.e. Remaining in the EU should be left OFF the ballot paper, otherwise it will be blatantly obvious that this is a remainers ploy to frustrate the outcome of the original vote. Let's consider the options. If we were to be given the options, as proposed by Justine Greening, then the likelyhood would be that the leave vote would be split, between those who think the PM's deal is workable, and those who want a No Deal Brexit, whereas remainers will seize the opportunity to again vote to stay in. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that everyone who voted would choose an option that reflected their vote in 2016. Unless all 17.4 million leave voters all opted for 'No Deal', it is very unlikely that either of the 'leave' options would secure in excess of 16 million votes, and thereby handing victory over to Remainers. Can you just imagine the civil unrest that would result? Now, if, on the other hand, it was made clear that if votes for both brexit options combined still received greater support than remaining, that, of these two options, that with the greater support would be the position the government would take, then that might seem fair. But let's face it, our Politicians aren't smart enough to work that out. " So you are suggesting that if our Politicians said something like... "Look, we are responsible for the future well being of this country and everyone who lives in it. We are unable to progress the Brexit issue because every conceivable scenario will have a detrimental economic and/or other negative effects on the country and no Government in history has taken direct action to make their country poorer and less influential in the world. We need a further mandate from the people before we take any additional action that may be damaging to this country." You are saying that something so pragmatic, sensible and uhhmmm democratic will result in civil unrest? I can understand civil unrest happening if a Govt took actions that were directly damaging to its people without such a mandate - but not with a mandate. Remember that ALL of the arch Brexiteers pitched a land of milk & honey. "There will be no downsides to Brexit - only upsides" That is clearly NOT going to be the case. | |||
| |||
"What happened to all the cards we were holding? Why haven't we played any yet?" They were all jokers. | |||
"What happened to all the cards we were holding? Why haven't we played any yet?" the rest of the world is playing high stakes five card stud while divided britain is cheating at bottom trumps and still managing to lose to themselves | |||
"if we dont leave at the end of march i will not be voting again in any election and i know quiet a few others who feel the same .reamainers and leavers. typical goverment and e.u ploy keep voting until they get the answer they want.they done it in ireland greece and italy.wats the point in voting if the gona ignore the result if its not the result they want. Why would you voluntarily give up your right to vote? The only person you punish with it is yourself. It's tantrum material. If you look at a direct democracy like Switzerland they vote on certain topics over and over again because circumstances have changed and nobody shouts it's anti-democratic, quite contrary. i thought if u voted in yhis country who ever got the majority won.obviously not so wats the point in voting if those in power ignore the vote.like i said i finished with mainstream politics.will wait and see wat emerges after this circus.see wat comes from the extreme left or right ... How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. " That sort of common sense thinking doesn't go down well with the folks in this forum DH | |||
"You are saying that something so pragmatic, sensible and uhhmmm democratic will result in civil unrest? I can understand civil unrest happening if a Govt took actions that were directly damaging to its people without such a mandate - but not with a mandate. Remember that ALL of the arch Brexiteers pitched a land of milk & honey. "There will be no downsides to Brexit - only upsides" That is clearly NOT going to be the case." If he isn't I am. For the last 40 years this country has been fed a diet of baseless anti EU propaganda by the mail and news international. It has ranged from the size of bananas and how straight a cucumber has to be to totally false claims about the EU being to blame for our government failing to enforce EU migration restrictions because they were able to blame Brussels for the implementation of their unpopular policies. As a result something round 1/3 of the country have been so totally conditioned that any attempt to change course will result in civil unrest. It will probably take a catastrophic recession to force many to admit that they have been conned for the last 40 years and some will die before admitting that they have been had. | |||
"Conservative MP Justine Greening has joined the clamour for a "People's vote" should the Prime Minister's EU plan get voted down on December 11th. Her proposal is for our withdrawal be postponed for four months until July 29th. Legislation is pushed through Parliament for a referendum on May 30th. This referendum would ask the voter to choose from three options:- Remain in the EU Leave under Mrs May's proposal Leave with no deal This plan would split the Leave vote, thus increasing the chance of Remain. However, as a disillusioned but pragmatic Leaver, I feel it has merit and much more preferable than just crashing out on March 29th." I absolutely support this proposal. Democracy is respected because it's going back to the people. Also, the leave vote isn't split at all, it's just clarified. If the majority of people vote leave (across both options) then we leave. We just know under what terms. | |||
| |||
"So if all these remainers get another vote and they lose again will they all promise to stop banging on about remaining or just want another vote? " We'll probably do exactly the same as Leave did in 1975. Accept the result, after all no one can say after over two years, that people didn't have a chance to know the real issues. There is also another big difference, this time it will be clear what the Leave choices are. No Leave campaign will be able to say that we've going to get a better trade deal with the EU after we leave, they will be honestly saying that Leaving is leaving with 'no deal' (or possibly May's deal or possibly both) but not that we'll be able to get a better trade deal with the EU if we vote Leave. However, when the 'no deal' shit hits the fan, don't expect us to not tell the people why and who and what's to blame. But you don't need to worry about that because either Remain wins the next vote and you can carry on winging for another 40 years or Leave wins and, according to you, everything will be fine. | |||
"Is it in the control of the UK Government to remain in the EU? That question would need answered before you raise any sort of expectations in a referendum. I suspect the answer will be it also requires the agreement of the EU27. And I doubt very much their terms for the UK's return will be the same as when the UK wanted to depart. " That very matter was before the ECJ Tuesday this week. There should be a ruling on it before Christmas. Nearly all legal opinion is that Article 50 can be revoked and most legal opinion is that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. However we'll have to wait to see what the ECJ finally rules. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. " But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. | |||
"Is it in the control of the UK Government to remain in the EU? That question would need answered before you raise any sort of expectations in a referendum. I suspect the answer will be it also requires the agreement of the EU27. And I doubt very much their terms for the UK's return will be the same as when the UK wanted to depart. That very matter was before the ECJ Tuesday this week. There should be a ruling on it before Christmas. Nearly all legal opinion is that Article 50 can be revoked and most legal opinion is that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. However we'll have to wait to see what the ECJ finally rules. " Deja Vu. Weren't you saying last week that a decision should be made on Tuesday
The BBC seems to think it'll take months for the ECJ to make a final ruling on this. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. " The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. | |||
"Actually what ought to happen is the 2nd referendums bluff called and actually have one but under a second preference system. A binary choice is not an option is it. So let's think of likely outcome. If Remain got say 45% of first vote but Leave with deal got 35% and leave with no deal say got 20%. Now none of Leave people are going to say ooooh yes lets stay in the EU so all their 20% goes to Mays deal as their second preference. Net result 55% May's deal. 45 % remain in EU. That of course everyone assumes everyone understands such a system and doesn't spoil their ballot paper writing out their argument why they don't want one of the other options like everyone seems to do in here. Obviously my argument is flawed if May's deal gets knocked out in the first round but it makes you think doesn't it." And that's the problem with Single Transferable Vote systems. They always favour the middle route, even when it's not actually liked or wanted by anyone. I quite like the idea someone said further up the thread. A two question ballot. 1 Leave or Remain. 2 If we leave May's deal or 'no deal'. Although, if May can't get here deal through Parliament, I'd still rather go for a straight Leave (no deal) or Remain vote. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. " Why don't we ask the will of the people now? Do you make choices now based on circumstances almost two and a half years ago? | |||
"Tusk may be "open" to the idea. But what will the terms be to surrender Article 50? The public could vote for No Brexit, only for the UK Government to discover it could not stomach the terms. " It's more than likely, although not definite, that the ECJ is going to rule not only that Article 50 is revokable but also we can revoke it unilaterally. We may not know for sure by 11 December but we will early in the New Year. If the ECJ rules that Article 50 can be revoked but not Unilaterally then we'd have to see what the EU's terms were. I reckon they'd happily have us back in as we were but if not, or if the ECJ rules it's not revokable, then we can look again at May's deal. | |||
"Is it in the control of the UK Government to remain in the EU? That question would need answered before you raise any sort of expectations in a referendum. I suspect the answer will be it also requires the agreement of the EU27. And I doubt very much their terms for the UK's return will be the same as when the UK wanted to depart. That very matter was before the ECJ Tuesday this week. There should be a ruling on it before Christmas. Nearly all legal opinion is that Article 50 can be revoked and most legal opinion is that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. However we'll have to wait to see what the ECJ finally rules. Deja Vu. Weren't you saying last week that a decision should be made on Tuesday
The BBC seems to think it'll take months for the ECJ to make a final ruling on this. "No, I said last week that the matter was going to the ECJ on Tuesday. It did. | |||
"Actually what ought to happen is the 2nd referendums bluff called and actually have one but under a second preference system. A binary choice is not an option is it. So let's think of likely outcome. If Remain got say 45% of first vote but Leave with deal got 35% and leave with no deal say got 20%. Now none of Leave people are going to say ooooh yes lets stay in the EU so all their 20% goes to Mays deal as their second preference. Net result 55% May's deal. 45 % remain in EU. That of course everyone assumes everyone understands such a system and doesn't spoil their ballot paper writing out their argument why they don't want one of the other options like everyone seems to do in here. Obviously my argument is flawed if May's deal gets knocked out in the first round but it makes you think doesn't it. And that's the problem with Single Transferable Vote systems. They always favour the middle route, even when it's not actually liked or wanted by anyone. I quite like the idea someone said further up the thread. A two question ballot. 1 Leave or Remain. 2 If we leave May's deal or 'no deal'. Although, if May can't get here deal through Parliament, I'd still rather go for a straight Leave (no deal) or Remain vote. " I think this works better than a 3 way question. | |||
" Weren't you saying last week that a decision should be made on Tuesday
The BBC seems to think it'll take months for the ECJ to make a final ruling on this.
No, I said last week that the matter was going to the ECJ on Tuesday. It did."Lol Centy = faux pas | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. " In law the Government is the servant of Parliament and Parliament is the sole representative of the people. In law Parliament can not be bound and, with the Queen, is solely and wholy sovereign. The will of the people, as expressed in the referendum, was to Leave the EU and negotiate a trade deal better than the one we currently have. That's what the Leave campaign said it would deliver. Neither leaving with no deal nor Leaving with May's deal delivers a better trade deal with the EU than the one we currently have. You can not claim to be delivering the will of the people if you're not delivering after the votes have been cast, what you said you would deliver prior to the vote being cast. 52% of the people (who voted) did not vote for a 'no deal' BREXIT, 52% of the people did not vote to 'Leave but Remain' with less control and a worse trade deal with the EU than we currently have, and 52% of the people did not vote to Remain. Non of the 3 options fulfill the mandate to Leave the EU and negotiate a better trade deal than the one we currently have. We need a new mandate. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. " Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. In law the Government is the servant of Parliament and Parliament is the sole representative of the people. In law Parliament can not be bound and, with the Queen, is solely and wholy sovereign. The will of the people, as expressed in the referendum, was to Leave the EU and negotiate a trade deal better than the one we currently have. That's what the Leave campaign said it would deliver. Neither leaving with no deal nor Leaving with May's deal delivers a better trade deal with the EU than the one we currently have. You can not claim to be delivering the will of the people if you're not delivering after the votes have been cast, what you said you would deliver prior to the vote being cast. 52% of the people (who voted) did not vote for a 'no deal' BREXIT, 52% of the people did not vote to 'Leave but Remain' with less control and a worse trade deal with the EU than we currently have, and 52% of the people did not vote to Remain. Non of the 3 options fulfill the mandate to Leave the EU and negotiate a better trade deal than the one we currently have. We need a new mandate. " No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. In law the Government is the servant of Parliament and Parliament is the sole representative of the people. In law Parliament can not be bound and, with the Queen, is solely and wholy sovereign. The will of the people, as expressed in the referendum, was to Leave the EU and negotiate a trade deal better than the one we currently have. That's what the Leave campaign said it would deliver. Neither leaving with no deal nor Leaving with May's deal delivers a better trade deal with the EU than the one we currently have. You can not claim to be delivering the will of the people if you're not delivering after the votes have been cast, what you said you would deliver prior to the vote being cast. 52% of the people (who voted) did not vote for a 'no deal' BREXIT, 52% of the people did not vote to 'Leave but Remain' with less control and a worse trade deal with the EU than we currently have, and 52% of the people did not vote to Remain. Non of the 3 options fulfill the mandate to Leave the EU and negotiate a better trade deal than the one we currently have. We need a new mandate. No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. " There was nothing on the ballot paper regarding leaving the single market or customs Union either. The question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. In law the Government is the servant of Parliament and Parliament is the sole representative of the people. In law Parliament can not be bound and, with the Queen, is solely and wholy sovereign. The will of the people, as expressed in the referendum, was to Leave the EU and negotiate a trade deal better than the one we currently have. That's what the Leave campaign said it would deliver. Neither leaving with no deal nor Leaving with May's deal delivers a better trade deal with the EU than the one we currently have. You can not claim to be delivering the will of the people if you're not delivering after the votes have been cast, what you said you would deliver prior to the vote being cast. 52% of the people (who voted) did not vote for a 'no deal' BREXIT, 52% of the people did not vote to 'Leave but Remain' with less control and a worse trade deal with the EU than we currently have, and 52% of the people did not vote to Remain. Non of the 3 options fulfill the mandate to Leave the EU and negotiate a better trade deal than the one we currently have. We need a new mandate. No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. " Is this a full 180? You normally refer back to promises made. I’m guessing you’re fully supportive of Mays deal then. Given it delivers what’s on the ballot paper. | |||
" No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. Is this a full 180? You normally refer back to promises made. I’m guessing you’re fully supportive of Mays deal then. Given it delivers what’s on the ballot paper. "I know, it's like beating him about the head using his own statements & logic, or total lack of.... | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise?" It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. | |||
"H In law the Government is the servant of Parliament and Parliament is the sole representative of the people. In law Parliament can not be bound and, with the Queen, is solely and wholy sovereign. The will of the people, as expressed in the referendum, was to Leave the EU and negotiate a trade deal better than the one we currently have. That's what the Leave campaign said it would deliver. Neither leaving with no deal nor Leaving with May's deal delivers a better trade deal with the EU than the one we currently have. You can not claim to be delivering the will of the people if you're not delivering after the votes have been cast, what you said you would deliver prior to the vote being cast. 52% of the people (who voted) did not vote for a 'no deal' BREXIT, 52% of the people did not vote to 'Leave but Remain' with less control and a worse trade deal with the EU than we currently have, and 52% of the people did not vote to Remain. Non of the 3 options fulfill the mandate to Leave the EU and negotiate a better trade deal than the one we currently have. We need a new mandate. No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. Is this a full 180? You normally refer back to promises made. I’m guessing you’re fully supportive of Mays deal then. Given it delivers what’s on the ballot paper. "Can almost hear the cogs crunching trying to figure out how he explains himself out of his own statements
Will be interesting | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. In law the Government is the servant of Parliament and Parliament is the sole representative of the people. In law Parliament can not be bound and, with the Queen, is solely and wholy sovereign. The will of the people, as expressed in the referendum, was to Leave the EU and negotiate a trade deal better than the one we currently have. That's what the Leave campaign said it would deliver. Neither leaving with no deal nor Leaving with May's deal delivers a better trade deal with the EU than the one we currently have. You can not claim to be delivering the will of the people if you're not delivering after the votes have been cast, what you said you would deliver prior to the vote being cast. 52% of the people (who voted) did not vote for a 'no deal' BREXIT, 52% of the people did not vote to 'Leave but Remain' with less control and a worse trade deal with the EU than we currently have, and 52% of the people did not vote to Remain. Non of the 3 options fulfill the mandate to Leave the EU and negotiate a better trade deal than the one we currently have. We need a new mandate. No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. Is this a full 180? You normally refer back to promises made. I’m guessing you’re fully supportive of Mays deal then. Given it delivers what’s on the ballot paper. "I prefer to leave on No deal to May's deal, but May's deal is the 2nd best option available. I'd prefer May's deal to remaining. I see remaining in the EU as the worst outcome. | |||
| |||
"Totally avoided the question I see "He asked me if I supported May's deal. I answered his question. | |||
" No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. Is this a full 180? You normally refer back to promises made. I’m guessing you’re fully supportive of Mays deal then. Given it delivers what’s on the ballot paper.
"This is where you've boxed yourself in | |||
 | |||
" No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. Is this a full 180? You normally refer back to promises made. I’m guessing you’re fully supportive of Mays deal then. Given it delivers what’s on the ballot paper.
This is where you've boxed yourself in "Try scrolling back up the thread. I answered the post in question. | |||
" No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. There was nothing on the ballot paper regarding leaving the single market or customs Union either. The question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of." There, that's the full version | |||
| |||
| |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. " Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? | |||
"Just for clarity... It refers to your many posts about the leave vote was to leave the Single Market & Customs Union then others saying that wasn't on the ballot paper and you saying it didn't matter, that was what was promised. Just incase you're struggling to remember "Just to add for more clarity.... When I've made those statements in the past remoaners always trot out the....."but that wasn't on the ballot paper, it only said leave or remain on the ballot paper" line. But now when it suits remoaners on this thread are saying "You promised a better deal outside of the EU than in it and you don't have a mandate to leave unless you deliver on it". So I'm just playing you and your remoaning cohorts at your own game here Andy, by using your own tried and tested line......"that wasn't on the ballot paper though, it only said leave or remain". It takes two to tango and 2 can play this game, so if you're accusing me of double standards you're own side are also guilty of double standards around the same issue, you say I boxed myself in but it's actually you who has boxed your own side in here. | |||
| |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now?" You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented. | |||
| |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented. "
I don't. The High Court does.
It's a ruling by the independent, sovereign, British judiciary.
Are you above the law? Is government?
What was it you said that Brexit was all about?
Apparently you don't like getting what you want | |||
"Thing is, I never argued about what wasn't on the ballot paper, you did , so you failed again. When I'm comparing the double standards that YOU post you then try and lump me with anyone else that suits you to try and prove your point. You cannot argue you points in any clear coharent way ever, you contradict yourself alomst on a daily basis on here "Andy go back and read the post again. Slowly. So. It. Sinks. In. I said you "AND your remoaning cohorts" many of whom have trotted out the "it wasn't on the ballot paper" line. So it was clearly a reference to a wider group than just you alone. This is the company you keep on here and you're guilty by association. | |||
| |||
"Just for clarity... It refers to your many posts about the leave vote was to leave the Single Market & Customs Union then others saying that wasn't on the ballot paper and you saying it didn't matter, that was what was promised. Just incase you're struggling to remember
Just to add for more clarity....
When I've made those statements in the past remoaners always trot out the....."but that wasn't on the ballot paper, it only said leave or remain on the ballot paper" line.
But now when it suits remoaners on this thread are saying "You promised a better deal outside of the EU than in it and you don't have a mandate to leave unless you deliver on it".
So I'm just playing you and your remoaning cohorts at your own game here Andy, by using your own tried and tested line......"that wasn't on the ballot paper though, it only said leave or remain".
It takes two to tango and 2 can play this game, so if you're accusing me of double standards you're own side are also guilty of double standards around the same issue, you say I boxed myself in but it's actually you who has boxed your own side in here. "Given that the referendum said leave and that May's deal is leaving, why are most leavers whining? Referendum was a binary choice and May's deal takes us out. Where's the problem? | |||
"Thing is, I never argued about what wasn't on the ballot paper, you did , so you failed again. When I'm comparing the double standards that YOU post you then try and lump me with anyone else that suits you to try and prove your point. You cannot argue you points in any clear coharent way ever, you contradict yourself alomst on a daily basis on here
Andy go back and read the post again. Slowly. So. It. Sinks. In.
I said you "AND your remoaning cohorts" many of whom have trotted out the "it wasn't on the ballot paper" line. So it was clearly a reference to a wider group than just you alone. This is the company you keep on here and you're guilty by association. "You really drop yourself in it every post you make... yet you never learn. What did you post about Einstein the other day  | |||
| |||
"If you actually remember I've stated many times on here that it didn't matter that leaving the SM & cu wasn't on the ballot paper, we all knew what leave meant. So if you're going to try and accuse me of double standards you've failed yet again. You're not really cut out for online forum debating are you "What part of you "AND your remain cohorts" did you fail to understand? I also referred to "remoaners" (notice the "s" on the end which makes it plural) so wasn't just a reference to you alone was it Andy. The language used is clear as day pointing to a wider group of remainers than just you alone. If you can't even take in basic English like this then there really is little point in trying to debate further with you. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented.
I don't. The High Court does.
It's a ruling by the independent, sovereign, British judiciary.
Are you above the law? Is government?
What was it you said that Brexit was all about?
Apparently you don't like getting what you want "I'm actually agreeing with you here that the High Court was right to call it advisory but you seem so utterly determined to disagree with whatever I say on here you can't even see what's right in front of you! The high court called it advisory but the government said they would carry out the decision/instruction of the people and implement the result of the referendum. The people ADVISED the government and parliament to leave the EU. It's called Democracy and the government are now delivering on the will of the British people. | |||
"But you still included me ... Are you really that mentally challenged Read that slowly somit might sink in." What was it you were saying on another thread earlier, ah yes, when you insult someone it's more a reflection on yourself. | |||
"If you actually remember I've stated many times on here that it didn't matter that leaving the SM & cu wasn't on the ballot paper, we all knew what leave meant. So if you're going to try and accuse me of double standards you've failed yet again. You're not really cut out for online forum debating are you
What part of you "AND your remain cohorts" did you fail to understand? I also referred to "remoaners" (notice the "s" on the end which makes it plural) so wasn't just a reference to you alone was it Andy. The language used is clear as day pointing to a wider group of remainers than just you alone. If you can't even take in basic English like this then there really is little point in trying to debate further with you. "I. Try. To. Make. This. As. Easy. For. You. As. P.o.s.s.i.b.l.e I, as in ME, Andy, never argued about things on or not on a ballot paper. I have always said everyone knew what leave means. I've argued against fellow Remainers about it on here while YOU agreed that things like leaving the SM & CU didn't need to be on the ballot paper. So we actually agreed on that long ago. Now you're saying the only thing that matters is WHAT WAS ON THE BALLOT PAPER, totally changing your time while mine has stayed consistent. Now you're saying me and fellow Remainers we're saying that wasn't on the ballot paper so it doesn't count. I've never ever argued about the ballot paper, I've always been in agreement that everyone knew what leave means. So it's YOU Centy that has the problem comprehending the English language, try reading the other 27 languages, it might help you somewhat. | |||
"Just for clarity... It refers to your many posts about the leave vote was to leave the Single Market & Customs Union then others saying that wasn't on the ballot paper and you saying it didn't matter, that was what was promised. Just incase you're struggling to remember
Just to add for more clarity....
When I've made those statements in the past remoaners always trot out the....."but that wasn't on the ballot paper, it only said leave or remain on the ballot paper" line.
But now when it suits remoaners on this thread are saying "You promised a better deal outside of the EU than in it and you don't have a mandate to leave unless you deliver on it".
So I'm just playing you and your remoaning cohorts at your own game here Andy, by using your own tried and tested line......"that wasn't on the ballot paper though, it only said leave or remain".
It takes two to tango and 2 can play this game, so if you're accusing me of double standards you're own side are also guilty of double standards around the same issue, you say I boxed myself in but it's actually you who has boxed your own side in here.
Given that the referendum said leave and that May's deal is leaving, why are most leavers whining? Referendum was a binary choice and May's deal takes us out. Where's the problem?"If Parliament votes in favour of May's deal on December 11th then great we can leave the EU with her deal. If not and it gets voted down we should leave on No deal as that is the legal default position and still respects the result of the referendum. | |||
"But you still included me ... Are you really that mentally challenged Read that slowly somit might sink in. What was it you were saying on another thread earlier, ah yes, when you insult someone it's more a reflection on yourself. "Yeah, you're bringing me down to your level | |||
| |||
"But you still included me ... Are you really that mentally challenged Read that slowly somit might sink in. What was it you were saying on another thread earlier, ah yes, when you insult someone it's more a reflection on yourself.
Yeah, you're bringing me down to your level "Nah, it's as I said on the other thread, your holier than thou bullshit just doesn't wash, and it was only a matter of time before your mask slipped. | |||
"But you still included me ... Are you really that mentally challenged Read that slowly somit might sink in. What was it you were saying on another thread earlier, ah yes, when you insult someone it's more a reflection on yourself.
Yeah, you're bringing me down to your level
Nah, it's as I said on the other thread, your holier than thou bullshit just doesn't wash, and it was only a matter of time before your mask slipped. "Go on then, this is your big shot, shoot me down on this forum, show, quote, print where, how, why my holier than thou mask has slipped and in what way..... C'mon it's your big chance to really stick it to me and humiliate me, show that I'm wrong and you've been right all the time. Or are you just upset that I stick to a solid line but you are all over the road like a d*unk driver and I call you out on your bullshit. | |||
"But you still included me ... Are you really that mentally challenged Read that slowly somit might sink in. What was it you were saying on another thread earlier, ah yes, when you insult someone it's more a reflection on yourself.
Yeah, you're bringing me down to your level
Nah, it's as I said on the other thread, your holier than thou bullshit just doesn't wash, and it was only a matter of time before your mask slipped.
Go on then, this is your big shot, shoot me down on this forum, show, quote, print where, how, why my holier than thou mask has slipped and in what way..... C'mon it's your big chance to really stick it to me and humiliate me, show that I'm wrong and you've been right all the time.
Or are you just upset that I stick to a solid line but you are all over the road like a d*unk driver and I call you out on your bullshit."Jeez, and you just accused me of having a meltdown on another thread, do yourself a favour, make a cuppa and calm down a bit.
As for your holier than thou mask slipping, it's slipped several times tonight after you said insulting people is more a reflection on yourself.
You've called me mentally challenged, said you don't like to make people look stupid unless they do it themselves and said enough of debating with the afflicted. Is that all a reflection on yourself then Andy. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented.
I don't. The High Court does.
It's a ruling by the independent, sovereign, British judiciary.
Are you above the law? Is government?
What was it you said that Brexit was all about?
Apparently you don't like getting what you want
I'm actually agreeing with you here that the High Court was right to call it advisory but you seem so utterly determined to disagree with whatever I say on here you can't even see what's right in front of you!
The high court called it advisory but the government said they would carry out the decision/instruction of the people and implement the result of the referendum. The people ADVISED the government and parliament to leave the EU. It's called Democracy and the government are now delivering on the will of the British people. "Actually old chap, you didn't agree with me. "You can call it advisory..." However, if this 180 works for you then fine
...and apparently you and your Brexit chums don't like what the government negotiated on your behalf so you'd rather have a chaotic Brexit.
That was never even suggested during the referendum.
You don't think that any new information about the reality of Brexit has come to light in the last two years?
If the government can't get its deal through then it should be another vote, unless you don't trust the British public now that they can see that the fantasy promises are just that?
Alternatively, Parliament decides on its own, but that seems even less likely than the current bill passing. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. In law the Government is the servant of Parliament and Parliament is the sole representative of the people. In law Parliament can not be bound and, with the Queen, is solely and wholy sovereign. The will of the people, as expressed in the referendum, was to Leave the EU and negotiate a trade deal better than the one we currently have. That's what the Leave campaign said it would deliver. Neither leaving with no deal nor Leaving with May's deal delivers a better trade deal with the EU than the one we currently have. You can not claim to be delivering the will of the people if you're not delivering after the votes have been cast, what you said you would deliver prior to the vote being cast. 52% of the people (who voted) did not vote for a 'no deal' BREXIT, 52% of the people did not vote to 'Leave but Remain' with less control and a worse trade deal with the EU than we currently have, and 52% of the people did not vote to Remain. Non of the 3 options fulfill the mandate to Leave the EU and negotiate a better trade deal than the one we currently have. We need a new mandate. No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. " And there was nothing on the ballot paper about leaving EFTA, EEA, customs union or single market either. EEA+Customs Union works for me. Does it work for you?
| |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. " Oh no. You didn't just quote a deltapoll survey again did you Centaur? Read a headline and didn't understand the questions and answers again? Go and read it. The "don't know" proportion is so high that it's meaningless 18% However, as you have such confidence in polls, what are you worried about? | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. " Parliament, the sovereign body in this country, did not agree to carry out the result of the referendum. Quite the opposite, Parliament insisted that the law be drawn up such that it was absolutely clear that the result of the referendum was advisory and not legally binding. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. In law the Government is the servant of Parliament and Parliament is the sole representative of the people. In law Parliament can not be bound and, with the Queen, is solely and wholy sovereign. The will of the people, as expressed in the referendum, was to Leave the EU and negotiate a trade deal better than the one we currently have. That's what the Leave campaign said it would deliver. Neither leaving with no deal nor Leaving with May's deal delivers a better trade deal with the EU than the one we currently have. You can not claim to be delivering the will of the people if you're not delivering after the votes have been cast, what you said you would deliver prior to the vote being cast. 52% of the people (who voted) did not vote for a 'no deal' BREXIT, 52% of the people did not vote to 'Leave but Remain' with less control and a worse trade deal with the EU than we currently have, and 52% of the people did not vote to Remain. Non of the 3 options fulfill the mandate to Leave the EU and negotiate a better trade deal than the one we currently have. We need a new mandate. No the question on the ballot paper said leave or remain in the EU. End of. There was nothing on the ballot paper about trade deals. The people instructed the government (and Parliament) to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. Is this a full 180? You normally refer back to promises made. I’m guessing you’re fully supportive of Mays deal then. Given it delivers what’s on the ballot paper.
I prefer to leave on No deal to May's deal, but May's deal is the 2nd best option available.
I'd prefer May's deal to remaining.
I see remaining in the EU as the worst outcome. "So, despite the other Leave promise of "Take back Control" you're willing to give up control. So that's all three BREXIT promises ditched now. We're not getting £350 million a week for the NHS, we're not getting a better trade deal than the one we currently have and we're not "taking back control" we're actually giving it away. Vive Le BREXIT!! | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented. " It said the Government would implement it. The Government is not Parliament and it's parliament that is wholly and solely sovereign and Parliament said it's advisory. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented. It said the Government would implement it. The Government is not Parliament and it's parliament that is wholly and solely sovereign and Parliament said it's advisory. " Parliament has voted to implement it though. Parliament voted by majority to trigger article 50. Then Parliament voted to implement it in UK law. It's called the EU Withdrawal bill and has been given Royal ascent by the Queen. It's now UK law that we must leave the EU and Parliament voted by majority for it. If May's deal is rejected by Parliament leaving on No Deal in March is the default legal position. | |||
"Anyway, enough arguing with the afflicted. If there is another binary leave or remain vote, I wonder if the 1.5 million expats living abroad over 15 years will be allowed to take part ? Could be a major swing in the result." In my opinion they should have been and should be, along with the 3 million EU tax paying citizens living here. However they won't be. To include the disenfranchised UK citizens in the EU would require new legislation and registers to be made. I can't see that happening. Including EU citizens resident here would be quite easy because they are already on the electrical registers for local and EU elections but politically it could be problematic. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented. It said the Government would implement it. The Government is not Parliament and it's parliament that is wholly and solely sovereign and Parliament said it's advisory. Parliament has voted to implement it though. Parliament voted by majority to trigger article 50. Then Parliament voted to implement it in UK law. It's called the EU Withdrawal bill and has been given Royal ascent by the Queen. It's now UK law that we must leave the EU and Parliament voted by majority for it. If May's deal is rejected by Parliament leaving on No Deal in March is the default legal position. " Until parliament says otherwise. And it's totally the default position. If May's deal falls on the 11 December then the Government has to come back to Parliament, within 21 days, with a proposal as to what it's going to do next. That proposal has to be agreed by Parliament. If May's (or who ever is then PM) comes back to the house with a proposal to sit on its arse and do nothing until we crash out at 23:00 on 29-March-2019, Parliament isn't going to approve it. Parliament may not be able to initiate anything without out the Government but Parliament can change the government, even without another general election. The Government has to and will have to govern in accordance with the will of Parliament or stop governing. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented. It said the Government would implement it. The Government is not Parliament and it's parliament that is wholly and solely sovereign and Parliament said it's advisory. Parliament has voted to implement it though. Parliament voted by majority to trigger article 50. Then Parliament voted to implement it in UK law. It's called the EU Withdrawal bill and has been given Royal ascent by the Queen. It's now UK law that we must leave the EU and Parliament voted by majority for it. If May's deal is rejected by Parliament leaving on No Deal in March is the default legal position. Until parliament says otherwise. And it's totally the default position. If May's deal falls on the 11 December then the Government has to come back to Parliament, within 21 days, with a proposal as to what it's going to do next. That proposal has to be agreed by Parliament. If May's (or who ever is then PM) comes back to the house with a proposal to sit on its arse and do nothing until we crash out at 23:00 on 29-March-2019, Parliament isn't going to approve it. Parliament may not be able to initiate anything without out the Government but Parliament can change the government, even without another general election. The Government has to and will have to govern in accordance with the will of Parliament or stop governing. " The problem is that we cannot simply stay as an unwanted guest in the EU as we have already given notice to quit and the EU seem adamant that this is the final deal. We won't be staying as there is no EU mechanism in place for us to do so, nor do the EU want to give the impression to the countries remaining that article 50 status is a bargaining point. So we will be in limbo. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented. It said the Government would implement it. The Government is not Parliament and it's parliament that is wholly and solely sovereign and Parliament said it's advisory. Parliament has voted to implement it though. Parliament voted by majority to trigger article 50. Then Parliament voted to implement it in UK law. It's called the EU Withdrawal bill and has been given Royal ascent by the Queen. It's now UK law that we must leave the EU and Parliament voted by majority for it. If May's deal is rejected by Parliament leaving on No Deal in March is the default legal position. Until parliament says otherwise. And it's totally the default position. If May's deal falls on the 11 December then the Government has to come back to Parliament, within 21 days, with a proposal as to what it's going to do next. That proposal has to be agreed by Parliament. If May's (or who ever is then PM) comes back to the house with a proposal to sit on its arse and do nothing until we crash out at 23:00 on 29-March-2019, Parliament isn't going to approve it. Parliament may not be able to initiate anything without out the Government but Parliament can change the government, even without another general election. The Government has to and will have to govern in accordance with the will of Parliament or stop governing. The problem is that we cannot simply stay as an unwanted guest in the EU as we have already given notice to quit and the EU seem adamant that this is the final deal. We won't be staying as there is no EU mechanism in place for us to do so, nor do the EU want to give the impression to the countries remaining that article 50 status is a bargaining point. So we will be in limbo." Don't worry it'll be alright - and if it isn't well we will be sovereign! As Michael Cain said "I'd rather be poor and free ..." So he's probably going to be donating his millions to the food banks? Just like Mogg ? We all know Farage is skint so he'll be claiming benefits... | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented. It said the Government would implement it. The Government is not Parliament and it's parliament that is wholly and solely sovereign and Parliament said it's advisory. Parliament has voted to implement it though. Parliament voted by majority to trigger article 50. Then Parliament voted to implement it in UK law. It's called the EU Withdrawal bill and has been given Royal ascent by the Queen. It's now UK law that we must leave the EU and Parliament voted by majority for it. If May's deal is rejected by Parliament leaving on No Deal in March is the default legal position. Until parliament says otherwise. And it's totally the default position. If May's deal falls on the 11 December then the Government has to come back to Parliament, within 21 days, with a proposal as to what it's going to do next. That proposal has to be agreed by Parliament. If May's (or who ever is then PM) comes back to the house with a proposal to sit on its arse and do nothing until we crash out at 23:00 on 29-March-2019, Parliament isn't going to approve it. Parliament may not be able to initiate anything without out the Government but Parliament can change the government, even without another general election. The Government has to and will have to govern in accordance with the will of Parliament or stop governing. The problem is that we cannot simply stay as an unwanted guest in the EU as we have already given notice to quit and the EU seem adamant that this is the final deal. We won't be staying as there is no EU mechanism in place for us to do so, nor do the EU want to give the impression to the countries remaining that article 50 status is a bargaining point. So we will be in limbo." The EU is adamant that there is no other deal to be negotiated other than May's deal. However the EU has also made clear that 'no BREXIT' is their preferred option. The ECJ should rule soon exactly what the law is on revoking Article 50 but nearly all legal opinion is that it can be and most legal opinion is that the UK can revoke it unilaterally. | |||
"Is it in the control of the UK Government to remain in the EU? That question would need answered before you raise any sort of expectations in a referendum. I suspect the answer will be it also requires the agreement of the EU27. And I doubt very much their terms for the UK's return will be the same as when the UK wanted to depart. That very matter was before the ECJ Tuesday this week. There should be a ruling on it before Christmas. Nearly all legal opinion is that Article 50 can be revoked and most legal opinion is that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. However we'll have to wait to see what the ECJ finally rules. Deja Vu. Weren't you saying last week that a decision should be made on Tuesday
The BBC seems to think it'll take months for the ECJ to make a final ruling on this. "The Advocat General is planning to issue the preliminary ruling on Tuesday. It won’t be the final ruling as that will take time to be further discussed and a formal, final ruling issued in heavy legal speak. That said, the preliminary ruling will highly likely indicate which way the the final ruling will go and historically it has been an indicator of the direction of travel. | |||
"Is it in the control of the UK Government to remain in the EU? That question would need answered before you raise any sort of expectations in a referendum. I suspect the answer will be it also requires the agreement of the EU27. And I doubt very much their terms for the UK's return will be the same as when the UK wanted to depart. That very matter was before the ECJ Tuesday this week. There should be a ruling on it before Christmas. Nearly all legal opinion is that Article 50 can be revoked and most legal opinion is that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. However we'll have to wait to see what the ECJ finally rules. Deja Vu. Weren't you saying last week that a decision should be made on Tuesday
The BBC seems to think it'll take months for the ECJ to make a final ruling on this.
The Advocat General is planning to issue the preliminary ruling on Tuesday. It won’t be the final ruling as that will take time to be further discussed and a formal, final ruling issued in heavy legal speak. That said, the preliminary ruling will highly likely indicate which way the the final ruling will go and historically it has been an indicator of the direction of travel."Let's just say for arguments sake a final ruling is made before the new year (I don't think it will be btw) then Brexiters will have the right to appeal the decision. The appeal process could take several more months to go through and is usually a long drawn out process. I just can't see this being resolved before March 29th and that is the deadline for article 50 to be withdrawn and is the date we leave the EU. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented. It said the Government would implement it. The Government is not Parliament and it's parliament that is wholly and solely sovereign and Parliament said it's advisory. Parliament has voted to implement it though. Parliament voted by majority to trigger article 50. Then Parliament voted to implement it in UK law. It's called the EU Withdrawal bill and has been given Royal ascent by the Queen. It's now UK law that we must leave the EU and Parliament voted by majority for it. If May's deal is rejected by Parliament leaving on No Deal in March is the default legal position. Until parliament says otherwise. And it's totally the default position. If May's deal falls on the 11 December then the Government has to come back to Parliament, within 21 days, with a proposal as to what it's going to do next. That proposal has to be agreed by Parliament. If May's (or who ever is then PM) comes back to the house with a proposal to sit on its arse and do nothing until we crash out at 23:00 on 29-March-2019, Parliament isn't going to approve it. Parliament may not be able to initiate anything without out the Government but Parliament can change the government, even without another general election. The Government has to and will have to govern in accordance with the will of Parliament or stop governing. The problem is that we cannot simply stay as an unwanted guest in the EU as we have already given notice to quit and the EU seem adamant that this is the final deal. We won't be staying as there is no EU mechanism in place for us to do so, nor do the EU want to give the impression to the countries remaining that article 50 status is a bargaining point. So we will be in limbo. The EU is adamant that there is no other deal to be negotiated other than May's deal. However the EU has also made clear that 'no BREXIT' is their preferred option. The ECJ should rule soon exactly what the law is on revoking Article 50 but nearly all legal opinion is that it can be and most legal opinion is that the UK can revoke it unilaterally. " Not going to happen though Is it because the uk government have already issued a statement saying the conclusion of the case will be a hypothetical as the UK government has no intention of withdrawing article 50 even if we are allowed to do it. | |||
"How did the people in power ignore the vote? If they had ignored it, the UK wouldn't be in the mess that it is now. The May deal on the table gives a way clearer picture of what Brexit looks like rather than the bunch of lies nicely dressed up with a union jack bow in 2016. Also people have a better idea of what a hard brexit means. So give the people a say again over those matters because the landmarks have changed pretty dramatically. There is a fundamental flaw in what you say... For there to be a second vote our leaders (not just the leaders remain camp, but also a significant majority of the leaders of the leave camp) need to be united in wanting a second vote. Or failing that the whole of the population need to be on the point of open revolt before those forcing brexit through will stop. This will not happen because it is much easier for a con artist to con someone than it is for anyone to convince the victim of the con that they have been conned (and to be honest sometimes it is impossible for a victim to admit they have been conned and survive). Fact is if brexit proves to be anything like as harsh as some think it will be there is going to be a massive rise in the suicide rate and the clinical depression numbers are going to go through the roof. I don't really get your point why the leaders in both camps have to want another referendum. As far as I could work out there's no defined mechanism in the Uk to trigger a referendum but the government deciding to do so. But Parliament can change the government. People seem to have forgotten that the Government is meant to govern (technically advice the Queen to govern) in accordance with the will of Parliament. It is the Government that is the servant of Parliament, not Parliament the servant of the Government. If the Government refuses to follow the will of Parliament then Parliament can and must remove the Government. I don't think it will reach that stage but it could if the Government won't govern in accordance with the will of Parliament. The government is the servant of the people, and must carry out the will of the people. Thereby Parliament is also the servant of the people. The will of the people say we must Leave the EU as instructed in the referendum result. Nope. We live in a representative democracy. That's our sovereignty. That's the control that we're taking back. Do you actually understand how our country works? MPs make decisions on our behalf based on the information that they have available. The information that they, and we, have available now is fundamentally different to the information that we had two years ago. You can whine as much as you like, but they absolutely should make the most appropriate decision based on today's information, informed by the the fact that the vote to Leave was marginal. You do not want another referendum because you are well aware of the fact that it could easily go the other way. Why pretend otherwise? It appears you don't understand how the country works. MP's usually make decisions on our behalf but that isn't always the case. In this instance MP's passed this decision over to the people to decide. Parliament voted by a very large majority to let the people make this choice and agreed they would carry out the instruction of the people in the referendum. Also as far as another referendum goes the latest Deltapoll survey when comparing No Deal to remain showed the following result.... Leave with no deal 52% Remain 48% Those numbers look familiar and I think we've been here before. Be careful what you wish for when calling for another referendum on this. Really? In Miller vs The Crown the High Court ruling was very clear: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. That was a ruling from a British court. Don't like those either now? You can call it advisory but again I go back to the government £9 million quid taxpayer funded leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. It clearly said the decision/instruction of the people in this vote would be acted upon and implemented. It said the Government would implement it. The Government is not Parliament and it's parliament that is wholly and solely sovereign and Parliament said it's advisory. Parliament has voted to implement it though. Parliament voted by majority to trigger article 50. Then Parliament voted to implement it in UK law. It's called the EU Withdrawal bill and has been given Royal ascent by the Queen. It's now UK law that we must leave the EU and Parliament voted by majority for it. If May's deal is rejected by Parliament leaving on No Deal in March is the default legal position. Until parliament says otherwise. And it's totally the default position. If May's deal falls on the 11 December then the Government has to come back to Parliament, within 21 days, with a proposal as to what it's going to do next. That proposal has to be agreed by Parliament. If May's (or who ever is then PM) comes back to the house with a proposal to sit on its arse and do nothing until we crash out at 23:00 on 29-March-2019, Parliament isn't going to approve it. Parliament may not be able to initiate anything without out the Government but Parliament can change the government, even without another general election. The Government has to and will have to govern in accordance with the will of Parliament or stop governing. The problem is that we cannot simply stay as an unwanted guest in the EU as we have already given notice to quit and the EU seem adamant that this is the final deal. We won't be staying as there is no EU mechanism in place for us to do so, nor do the EU want to give the impression to the countries remaining that article 50 status is a bargaining point. So we will be in limbo. The EU is adamant that there is no other deal to be negotiated other than May's deal. However the EU has also made clear that 'no BREXIT' is their preferred option. The ECJ should rule soon exactly what the law is on revoking Article 50 but nearly all legal opinion is that it can be and most legal opinion is that the UK can revoke it unilaterally. Not going to happen though Is it because the uk government have already issued a statement saying the conclusion of the case will be a hypothetical as the UK government has no intention of withdrawing article 50 even if we are allowed to do it. " Not forgetting that the EU may also have a say - they may not allow it - we will see. Not long to wait now, 11th is first step, and once we know what the result is, we move on to the next step! | |||
" Not going to happen though Is it because the uk government have already issued a statement saying the conclusion of the case will be a hypothetical as the UK government has no intention of withdrawing article 50 even if we are allowed to do it. " And the UK Government also says it will be a choice between no-brexit and hard-exit if the deal is rejected. So not THAT hypothetical. Also, keep in mind the reason this case is taking place at all is because the UK Government refuses to disclose its own legal advice on the revocability of Article 50. | |||
" Not going to happen though Is it because the uk government have already issued a statement saying the conclusion of the case will be a hypothetical as the UK government has no intention of withdrawing article 50 even if we are allowed to do it. And the UK Government also says it will be a choice between no-brexit and hard-exit if the deal is rejected. So not THAT hypothetical. Also, keep in mind the reason this case is taking place at all is because the UK Government refuses to disclose its own legal advice on the revocability of Article 50. " You are living in cloud cookoo land as I already stated earlier even if the ECJ rule we can withdraw article 50 then Brexiters will have right to appeal the decision. The appeal process could drag on for many months and by the time it's all sorted we'll already be out of the EU in March anyway. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think we’re in agreement, this is not BINO, but BBD (brexit by definition). As long as we’re not a member of the EU the will of the people has been delivered. Mays deal is not “not what the people were promised” but exactly what the people voted for. Brexit was never about immigration (because you can be out the Eu and have FoM) not payments (because you can be out of the EU and pay for access into it) but simply not having a say in the EU via MEPs. " | |||
"I think we’re in agreement, this is not BINO, but BBD (brexit by definition). As long as we’re not a member of the EU the will of the people has been delivered. Mays deal is not “not what the people were promised” but exactly what the people voted for. Brexit was never about immigration (because you can be out the Eu and have FoM) not payments (because you can be out of the EU and pay for access into it) but simply not having a say in the EU via MEPs. "May's deal completely ends free movement so that's one aspect of her deal she has got right. Another aspect of May's deal is not paying an annual membership fee to the EU either. Cameron in his renegotiation with the EU before the referendum tried to get concessions from the EU on free movement but they said no. But that is exactly what the EU will end up with if we enter the backstop. The UK will be in the customs union without free movement and without getting an annual membership fee from us. | |||
"I think we’re in agreement, this is not BINO, but BBD (brexit by definition). As long as we’re not a member of the EU the will of the people has been delivered. Mays deal is not “not what the people were promised” but exactly what the people voted for. Brexit was never about immigration (because you can be out the Eu and have FoM) not payments (because you can be out of the EU and pay for access into it) but simply not having a say in the EU via MEPs.
May's deal completely ends free movement so that's one aspect of her deal she has got right. Another aspect of May's deal is not paying an annual membership fee to the EU either. Cameron in his renegotiation with the EU before the referendum tried to get concessions from the EU on free movement but they said no. But that is exactly what the EU will end up with if we enter the backstop. The UK will be in the customs union without free movement and without getting an annual membership fee from us. "I’m not saying any of this isn’t true. I am saying that I think you are saying had we ended up with FoM, then brexit, and the will if the people would still have been delivered. | |||
"I think we’re in agreement, this is not BINO, but BBD (brexit by definition). As long as we’re not a member of the EU the will of the people has been delivered. Mays deal is not “not what the people were promised” but exactly what the people voted for. Brexit was never about immigration (because you can be out the Eu and have FoM) not payments (because you can be out of the EU and pay for access into it) but simply not having a say in the EU via MEPs.
May's deal completely ends free movement so that's one aspect of her deal she has got right. Another aspect of May's deal is not paying an annual membership fee to the EU either. Cameron in his renegotiation with the EU before the referendum tried to get concessions from the EU on free movement but they said no. But that is exactly what the EU will end up with if we enter the backstop. The UK will be in the customs union without free movement and without getting an annual membership fee from us. "I also agree Mays deal has seen the EU give ground. Well done her | |||
"I think we’re in agreement, this is not BINO, but BBD (brexit by definition). As long as we’re not a member of the EU the will of the people has been delivered. Mays deal is not “not what the people were promised” but exactly what the people voted for. Brexit was never about immigration (because you can be out the Eu and have FoM) not payments (because you can be out of the EU and pay for access into it) but simply not having a say in the EU via MEPs.
May's deal completely ends free movement so that's one aspect of her deal she has got right. Another aspect of May's deal is not paying an annual membership fee to the EU either. Cameron in his renegotiation with the EU before the referendum tried to get concessions from the EU on free movement but they said no. But that is exactly what the EU will end up with if we enter the backstop. The UK will be in the customs union without free movement and without getting an annual membership fee from us. "So you want May's deal now but you definitely don't want the British people or Parliament to decide on another course of action if they disagree?
Sovereignty has a very unique definition for you doesn't it? | |||
"I think we’re in agreement, this is not BINO, but BBD (brexit by definition). As long as we’re not a member of the EU the will of the people has been delivered. Mays deal is not “not what the people were promised” but exactly what the people voted for. Brexit was never about immigration (because you can be out the Eu and have FoM) not payments (because you can be out of the EU and pay for access into it) but simply not having a say in the EU via MEPs.
May's deal completely ends free movement so that's one aspect of her deal she has got right. Another aspect of May's deal is not paying an annual membership fee to the EU either. Cameron in his renegotiation with the EU before the referendum tried to get concessions from the EU on free movement but they said no. But that is exactly what the EU will end up with if we enter the backstop. The UK will be in the customs union without free movement and without getting an annual membership fee from us.
So you want May's deal now but you definitely don't want the British people or Parliament to decide on another course of action if they disagree?
Sovereignty has a very unique definition for you doesn't it? "The People already decided in 2016, and they chose to Leave the EU. Parliament will vote on May's deal on 11th December, so if Parlaiment vote in favour of the deal will you accept Parliaments sovereign decision? Because i will accept it if Parlaiment votes in favour of it. If Parliament rejects May's deal then the default legal position is to exit the EU in March on No deal, and No deal still respects and fulfills the referendum result, as expressed on the ballot paper.....Leave the EU. | |||
| |||
"I think we’re in agreement, this is not BINO, but BBD (brexit by definition). As long as we’re not a member of the EU the will of the people has been delivered. Mays deal is not “not what the people were promised” but exactly what the people voted for. Brexit was never about immigration (because you can be out the Eu and have FoM) not payments (because you can be out of the EU and pay for access into it) but simply not having a say in the EU via MEPs.
May's deal completely ends free movement so that's one aspect of her deal she has got right. Another aspect of May's deal is not paying an annual membership fee to the EU either. Cameron in his renegotiation with the EU before the referendum tried to get concessions from the EU on free movement but they said no. But that is exactly what the EU will end up with if we enter the backstop. The UK will be in the customs union without free movement and without getting an annual membership fee from us.
So you want May's deal now but you definitely don't want the British people or Parliament to decide on another course of action if they disagree?
Sovereignty has a very unique definition for you doesn't it?
The People already decided in 2016, and they chose to Leave the EU. Parliament will vote on May's deal on 11th December, so if Parlaiment vote in favour of the deal will you accept Parliaments sovereign decision?
Because i will accept it if Parlaiment votes in favour of it.
If Parliament rejects May's deal then the default legal position is to exit the EU in March on No deal, and No deal still respects and fulfills the referendum result, as expressed on the ballot paper.....Leave the EU. "And equally it stands to reason that you would also support Parliament if after a rejection in the 11th December of May's current deal there is a vote to have either a people's vote, or they go for the Norway plus option being touted yes? | |||
" May's deal completely ends free movement so that's one aspect of her deal she has got right. Another aspect of May's deal is not paying an annual membership fee to the EU either. Cameron in his renegotiation with the EU before the referendum tried to get concessions from the EU on free movement but they said no. But that is exactly what the EU will end up with if we enter the backstop. The UK will be in the customs union without free movement and without getting an annual membership fee from us. "FOM stops when we leave the Single Market, nothing to do with Customs Union. | |||
" May's deal completely ends free movement so that's one aspect of her deal she has got right. Another aspect of May's deal is not paying an annual membership fee to the EU either. Cameron in his renegotiation with the EU before the referendum tried to get concessions from the EU on free movement but they said no. But that is exactly what the EU will end up with if we enter the backstop. The UK will be in the customs union without free movement and without getting an annual membership fee from us. "Apparently, at the same time he was trying to reform the UK's place in the EU, Cameron was also telling his fellow leaders he was confident of a 70-30 vote to remain in the EU. Which sums up how stupid a politician he was. Why would the other leaders bother giving any ground when there was little prospect of the UK leaving? As negotiating tactics go, a precursor of what was to come. | |||
| |||
"Indeed, if he was trying to reform FOM while staying in the Single Market then he needed to have a bloody better tactic than he employed. " Nothing wrong with EU FoM - as we can see that less EU migrants are now coming to the UK because the economy is no longer the powerhouse of the EU - simple economics. A bit like when the UK economy was on its knees in the 70's - British bricklayers went to work in Germany! Whichever economy is doing well it will attract workers (supply & demand). | |||
"Indeed, if he was trying to reform FOM while staying in the Single Market then he needed to have a bloody better tactic than he employed. Nothing wrong with EU FoM - as we can see that less EU migrants are now coming to the UK because the economy is no longer the powerhouse of the EU - simple economics. A bit like when the UK economy was on its knees in the 70's - British bricklayers went to work in Germany! Whichever economy is doing well it will attract workers (supply & demand)." Exaxtly this as poland are telling thier people to come on home as thier economy is booming and not surprising as the amount of money that has been flooding into thier country from the UK. | |||
"Indeed, if he was trying to reform FOM while staying in the Single Market then he needed to have a bloody better tactic than he employed. Nothing wrong with EU FoM - as we can see that less EU migrants are now coming to the UK because the economy is no longer the powerhouse of the EU - simple economics. A bit like when the UK economy was on its knees in the 70's - British bricklayers went to work in Germany! Whichever economy is doing well it will attract workers (supply & demand)." FOM has it's pros & cons but overall I believe the pros outweigh the cons. | |||
| |||
" Not going to happen though Is it because the uk government have already issued a statement saying the conclusion of the case will be a hypothetical as the UK government has no intention of withdrawing article 50 even if we are allowed to do it. And the UK Government also says it will be a choice between no-brexit and hard-exit if the deal is rejected. So not THAT hypothetical. Also, keep in mind the reason this case is taking place at all is because the UK Government refuses to disclose its own legal advice on the revocability of Article 50. You are living in cloud cookoo land as I already stated earlier even if the ECJ rule we can withdraw article 50 then Brexiters will have right to appeal the decision. The appeal process could drag on for many months and by the time it's all sorted we'll already be out of the EU in March anyway. " I'm not sure BREXITERS will have the right to appeal. While we're all saying the ECJ is going to make a "ruling" that's not strictly true. The ECJ is actually going to make a "direction"; the "ruling" will be made by the Court of Session in Scotland. The parties involved in Scotland are The Government and a group backed by The Good Law Group. BREXITERS are not involved in the matter so can't appeal against the ruling. The Government Could possibly appeal but on what grounds; it's argument against The Good Law Group was that it was irrelevant but that point has already been decided against The Government. I also think that The Government will have far more things to worry about and, quite possibly after 11 December, will no longer be quite such a pro BREXIT Government as it is now. | |||
"Indeed, if he was trying to reform FOM while staying in the Single Market then he needed to have a bloody better tactic than he employed. Nothing wrong with EU FoM - as we can see that less EU migrants are now coming to the UK because the economy is no longer the powerhouse of the EU - simple economics. A bit like when the UK economy was on its knees in the 70's - British bricklayers went to work in Germany! Whichever economy is doing well it will attract workers (supply & demand). Exaxtly this as poland are telling thier people to come on home as thier economy is booming and not surprising as the amount of money that has been flooding into thier country from the UK." As many have said on the whole migration issue, the best way to stop people coming is not to restrict them but to help make their own countries a better place for them to want to stay in. | |||
"Parliament gave us a binary vote. The public gave them an answer. Now Parliament has its own binary vote. Mrs May's deal or no deal. It ain't rocket science. I just wish they'd get on with it and stop ducking the issue. " | |||
| |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. " But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? " If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. " Ffs they couldn't even get 48 MP'S together - spent force! With regards to Euro not a currency expert like you. Funny though before the referendum I was getting 1.42€ to the £ - now its 1.12€ so i think your wrong! But secretly hope your right. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. " Which article in which paper? It's much easier to go straight to the organ grinder rather than go via the monkey | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. Which article in which paper? It's much easier to go straight to the organ grinder rather than go via the monkey "It wouldn’t suprise me if there is such a clause. But like tech driven borders and the like, it’s not coming up with these ideas that is the hard part, it is having an idea that is acceptable by the Eu who have been quite clear on their position. It’s playing to the crowd. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. " However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. | |||
" With regards to Euro not a currency expert like you. Funny though before the referendum I was getting 1.42€ to the £ - now its 1.12€ so i think your wrong! But secretly hope your right." When the £ sinks, it drags down the €. When the € sinks, it drags down the £. Their health is interdependent because of the volume of trade and transactions. | |||
" However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. " The British nationalists were probably thinking of the days when they could just bully Ireland. Now, with the collective clout of 26 other countries, it can "bully" the UK. The Republic has got a grip on the northern counties and isn't going to let go so long as it's punching above its weight as the EU. | |||
" However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. The British nationalists were probably thinking of the days when they could just bully Ireland. Now, with the collective clout of 26 other countries, it can "bully" the UK. The Republic has got a grip on the northern counties and isn't going to let go so long as it's punching above its weight as the EU. " Of course, this is also the clout that we are giving up. Wait, I got confused. We'll have more influence on our own because, because... | |||
| |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. " We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. " They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds." We can substitute the trade we do with the EU for trade with other countries around the rest of the world. You just know Donald Trump would love to take the Uk's trade away from the EU and transfer it towards American businesses. That's not good for the EU. You just can't seem to accept that we're not dependent on the EU, time to cut the apron strings and make our own way in the world. The world is our oyster outside of the EU as a free, independent trading country. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds. We can substitute the trade we do with the EU for trade with other countries around the rest of the world. You just know Donald Trump would love to take the Uk's trade away from the EU and transfer it towards American businesses. That's not good for the EU. You just can't seem to accept that we're not dependent on the EU, time to cut the apron strings and make our own way in the world. The world is our oyster outside of the EU as a free, independent trading country. " We have a trade surplus with the USA now. That means that the UK is "winning" and the USA is "losing". Think happy thoughts about how your hero will view that? Just wishing really, really hard that you want something won't make it happen. Even if you're a good little boy. Germany export $86bn to China from within the EU. The UK exports $18bn. We already have the most comprehensive free trade agreement with one of the richest regions in the world. It is currently our HOME market. It is not becoming less wealthy even though the rest of the world is catching up. The fastest growing economy in the world is Ethiopia. Will that compensate? What will we be selling them more of? What will we sell anybody more of? | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds. We can substitute the trade we do with the EU for trade with other countries around the rest of the world. You just know Donald Trump would love to take the Uk's trade away from the EU and transfer it towards American businesses. That's not good for the EU. You just can't seem to accept that we're not dependent on the EU, time to cut the apron strings and make our own way in the world. The world is our oyster outside of the EU as a free, independent trading country. We have a trade surplus with the USA now. That means that the UK is "winning" and the USA is "losing". Think happy thoughts about how your hero will view that? Just wishing really, really hard that you want something won't make it happen. Even if you're a good little boy. Germany export $86bn to China from within the EU. The UK exports $18bn. We already have the most comprehensive free trade agreement with one of the richest regions in the world. It is currently our HOME market. It is not becoming less wealthy even though the rest of the world is catching up. The fastest growing economy in the world is Ethiopia. Will that compensate? What will we be selling them more of? What will we sell anybody more of?" You can't stand Donald Trump and you can't stand the fact that he's President. Because of this you don't even want to begin to look into how he might think or how he might operate or use certain tactics. Trump has an immense dislike of the EU, let's face it he's not the only one and the EU is becoming more unpopular by the day not only around the rest of the world but within Europe too, so it stands to reason Trump would offer the UK a bumper free trade deal to make Brexit a success. Why would he do this you may ask? Not only because he's half British and he's a self confessed Anglophile, and a supporter of Brexit and wants to see it a success, but also because it would then tempt other disgruntled countries in the EU (and let's face it there are a few) to leave as well over time, to follow a successful Britain's lead, weakening the EU and making America great again.
So it's not about the USA "winning" over the UK in the short term, Trump wants to see the USA "win" over the EU in the long term. Personally I wish him every success because I'd like to see the EU consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. So its not about wishing really really hard about wanting something to happen as you put it, it's about understanding how Trump thinks and operates, what tactics he may employ and what his long term goals are, which it seems you've not even began to consider or think about.
| |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds. We can substitute the trade we do with the EU for trade with other countries around the rest of the world. You just know Donald Trump would love to take the Uk's trade away from the EU and transfer it towards American businesses. That's not good for the EU. You just can't seem to accept that we're not dependent on the EU, time to cut the apron strings and make our own way in the world. The world is our oyster outside of the EU as a free, independent trading country. We have a trade surplus with the USA now. That means that the UK is "winning" and the USA is "losing". Think happy thoughts about how your hero will view that? Just wishing really, really hard that you want something won't make it happen. Even if you're a good little boy. Germany export $86bn to China from within the EU. The UK exports $18bn. We already have the most comprehensive free trade agreement with one of the richest regions in the world. It is currently our HOME market. It is not becoming less wealthy even though the rest of the world is catching up. The fastest growing economy in the world is Ethiopia. Will that compensate? What will we be selling them more of? What will we sell anybody more of? You can't stand Donald Trump and you can't stand the fact that he's President. Because of this you don't even want to begin to look into how he might think or how he might operate or use certain tactics. Trump has an immense dislike of the EU, let's face it he's not the only one and the EU is becoming more unpopular by the day not only around the rest of the world but within Europe too, so it stands to reason Trump would offer the UK a bumper free trade deal to make Brexit a success. Why would he do this you may ask? Not only because he's half British and he's a self confessed Anglophile, and a supporter of Brexit and wants to see it a success, but also because it would then tempt other disgruntled countries in the EU (and let's face it there are a few) to leave as well over time, to follow a successful Britain's lead, weakening the EU and making America great again.
So it's not about the USA "winning" over the UK in the short term, Trump wants to see the USA "win" over the EU in the long term. Personally I wish him every success because I'd like to see the EU consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. So its not about wishing really really hard about wanting something to happen as you put it, it's about understanding how Trump thinks and operates, what tactics he may employ and what his long term goals are, which it seems you've not even began to consider or think about.
"Oh and just to add to that I don't see the EU as "our HOME market" as you put it. You may see it like that but don't project how you see the EU onto me! You may see yourself as European, again I don't! I see myself as English first and British second, End of! My home market is the single market of the UK and I see the EU as a foreign body which we are now thankfully leaving. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds. We can substitute the trade we do with the EU for trade with other countries around the rest of the world. You just know Donald Trump would love to take the Uk's trade away from the EU and transfer it towards American businesses. That's not good for the EU. You just can't seem to accept that we're not dependent on the EU, time to cut the apron strings and make our own way in the world. The world is our oyster outside of the EU as a free, independent trading country. We have a trade surplus with the USA now. That means that the UK is "winning" and the USA is "losing". Think happy thoughts about how your hero will view that? Just wishing really, really hard that you want something won't make it happen. Even if you're a good little boy. Germany export $86bn to China from within the EU. The UK exports $18bn. We already have the most comprehensive free trade agreement with one of the richest regions in the world. It is currently our HOME market. It is not becoming less wealthy even though the rest of the world is catching up. The fastest growing economy in the world is Ethiopia. Will that compensate? What will we be selling them more of? What will we sell anybody more of? You can't stand Donald Trump and you can't stand the fact that he's President. Because of this you don't even want to begin to look into how he might think or how he might operate or use certain tactics. Trump has an immense dislike of the EU, let's face it he's not the only one and the EU is becoming more unpopular by the day not only around the rest of the world but within Europe too, so it stands to reason Trump would offer the UK a bumper free trade deal to make Brexit a success. Why would he do this you may ask? Not only because he's half British and he's a self confessed Anglophile, and a supporter of Brexit and wants to see it a success, but also because it would then tempt other disgruntled countries in the EU (and let's face it there are a few) to leave as well over time, to follow a successful Britain's lead, weakening the EU and making America great again.
So it's not about the USA "winning" over the UK in the short term, Trump wants to see the USA "win" over the EU in the long term. Personally I wish him every success because I'd like to see the EU consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. So its not about wishing really really hard about wanting something to happen as you put it, it's about understanding how Trump thinks and operates, what tactics he may employ and what his long term goals are, which it seems you've not even began to consider or think about.
Oh and just to add to that I don't see the EU as "our HOME market" as you put it. You may see it like that but don't project how you see the EU onto me! You may see yourself as European, again I don't! I see myself as English first and British second, End of! My home market is the single market of the UK and I see the EU as a foreign body which we are now thankfully leaving. "Have you done an Ancestry DNA test? You should. It may make you vomit uncontrollably st the outset, but once you realise who you are - you may chill out. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds. We can substitute the trade we do with the EU for trade with other countries around the rest of the world. You just know Donald Trump would love to take the Uk's trade away from the EU and transfer it towards American businesses. That's not good for the EU. You just can't seem to accept that we're not dependent on the EU, time to cut the apron strings and make our own way in the world. The world is our oyster outside of the EU as a free, independent trading country. We have a trade surplus with the USA now. That means that the UK is "winning" and the USA is "losing". Think happy thoughts about how your hero will view that? Just wishing really, really hard that you want something won't make it happen. Even if you're a good little boy. Germany export $86bn to China from within the EU. The UK exports $18bn. We already have the most comprehensive free trade agreement with one of the richest regions in the world. It is currently our HOME market. It is not becoming less wealthy even though the rest of the world is catching up. The fastest growing economy in the world is Ethiopia. Will that compensate? What will we be selling them more of? What will we sell anybody more of? You can't stand Donald Trump and you can't stand the fact that he's President. Because of this you don't even want to begin to look into how he might think or how he might operate or use certain tactics. Trump has an immense dislike of the EU, let's face it he's not the only one and the EU is becoming more unpopular by the day not only around the rest of the world but within Europe too, so it stands to reason Trump would offer the UK a bumper free trade deal to make Brexit a success. Why would he do this you may ask? Not only because he's half British and he's a self confessed Anglophile, and a supporter of Brexit and wants to see it a success, but also because it would then tempt other disgruntled countries in the EU (and let's face it there are a few) to leave as well over time, to follow a successful Britain's lead, weakening the EU and making America great again.
So it's not about the USA "winning" over the UK in the short term, Trump wants to see the USA "win" over the EU in the long term. Personally I wish him every success because I'd like to see the EU consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. So its not about wishing really really hard about wanting something to happen as you put it, it's about understanding how Trump thinks and operates, what tactics he may employ and what his long term goals are, which it seems you've not even began to consider or think about.
"Nice speech So, what is it we are going to be selling lots of to the USA? | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds. We can substitute the trade we do with the EU for trade with other countries around the rest of the world. You just know Donald Trump would love to take the Uk's trade away from the EU and transfer it towards American businesses. That's not good for the EU. You just can't seem to accept that we're not dependent on the EU, time to cut the apron strings and make our own way in the world. The world is our oyster outside of the EU as a free, independent trading country. We have a trade surplus with the USA now. That means that the UK is "winning" and the USA is "losing". Think happy thoughts about how your hero will view that? Just wishing really, really hard that you want something won't make it happen. Even if you're a good little boy. Germany export $86bn to China from within the EU. The UK exports $18bn. We already have the most comprehensive free trade agreement with one of the richest regions in the world. It is currently our HOME market. It is not becoming less wealthy even though the rest of the world is catching up. The fastest growing economy in the world is Ethiopia. Will that compensate? What will we be selling them more of? What will we sell anybody more of? You can't stand Donald Trump and you can't stand the fact that he's President. Because of this you don't even want to begin to look into how he might think or how he might operate or use certain tactics. Trump has an immense dislike of the EU, let's face it he's not the only one and the EU is becoming more unpopular by the day not only around the rest of the world but within Europe too, so it stands to reason Trump would offer the UK a bumper free trade deal to make Brexit a success. Why would he do this you may ask? Not only because he's half British and he's a self confessed Anglophile, and a supporter of Brexit and wants to see it a success, but also because it would then tempt other disgruntled countries in the EU (and let's face it there are a few) to leave as well over time, to follow a successful Britain's lead, weakening the EU and making America great again.
So it's not about the USA "winning" over the UK in the short term, Trump wants to see the USA "win" over the EU in the long term. Personally I wish him every success because I'd like to see the EU consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. So its not about wishing really really hard about wanting something to happen as you put it, it's about understanding how Trump thinks and operates, what tactics he may employ and what his long term goals are, which it seems you've not even began to consider or think about.
Oh and just to add to that I don't see the EU as "our HOME market" as you put it. You may see it like that but don't project how you see the EU onto me! You may see yourself as European, again I don't! I see myself as English first and British second, End of! My home market is the single market of the UK and I see the EU as a foreign body which we are now thankfully leaving. "No, I don't like Trump. If he is so desperate to pull apart the EU, as your other hero Putin is, then it is because they see it as a threat. They do not see the individual EU states as a threat. I understand that cooperation and team work appear to be difficult concepts as does logic. However, if you try really hard you will be able to work out that this means that they view the EU as a stronger organisation on the international stage than the UK alone
You seem to want to go from a powerful voice within a powerful organisation to a U.S.client state with no voice or power
If we have free and unfettered access to the EU then as far as business is concerned, not small minded, small dreaming, parochial nativists such as you, that is our home market.
Come the next global recession and the drawbridges go up, as it will again and again, we'll have a lot of people able and willing to easily by both our goods and services.
However I doubt you'll even notice when England is sold out from beneath you as you'll be too busy stitching another star to the US flag. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds. We can substitute the trade we do with the EU for trade with other countries around the rest of the world. You just know Donald Trump would love to take the Uk's trade away from the EU and transfer it towards American businesses. That's not good for the EU. You just can't seem to accept that we're not dependent on the EU, time to cut the apron strings and make our own way in the world. The world is our oyster outside of the EU as a free, independent trading country. We have a trade surplus with the USA now. That means that the UK is "winning" and the USA is "losing". Think happy thoughts about how your hero will view that? Just wishing really, really hard that you want something won't make it happen. Even if you're a good little boy. Germany export $86bn to China from within the EU. The UK exports $18bn. We already have the most comprehensive free trade agreement with one of the richest regions in the world. It is currently our HOME market. It is not becoming less wealthy even though the rest of the world is catching up. The fastest growing economy in the world is Ethiopia. Will that compensate? What will we be selling them more of? What will we sell anybody more of? You can't stand Donald Trump and you can't stand the fact that he's President. Because of this you don't even want to begin to look into how he might think or how he might operate or use certain tactics. Trump has an immense dislike of the EU, let's face it he's not the only one and the EU is becoming more unpopular by the day not only around the rest of the world but within Europe too, so it stands to reason Trump would offer the UK a bumper free trade deal to make Brexit a success. Why would he do this you may ask? Not only because he's half British and he's a self confessed Anglophile, and a supporter of Brexit and wants to see it a success, but also because it would then tempt other disgruntled countries in the EU (and let's face it there are a few) to leave as well over time, to follow a successful Britain's lead, weakening the EU and making America great again.
So it's not about the USA "winning" over the UK in the short term, Trump wants to see the USA "win" over the EU in the long term. Personally I wish him every success because I'd like to see the EU consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. So its not about wishing really really hard about wanting something to happen as you put it, it's about understanding how Trump thinks and operates, what tactics he may employ and what his long term goals are, which it seems you've not even began to consider or think about.
Oh and just to add to that I don't see the EU as "our HOME market" as you put it. You may see it like that but don't project how you see the EU onto me! You may see yourself as European, again I don't! I see myself as English first and British second, End of! My home market is the single market of the UK and I see the EU as a foreign body which we are now thankfully leaving.
No, I don't like Trump.
If he is so desperate to pull apart the EU, as your other hero Putin is, then it is because they see it as a threat.
They do not see the individual EU states as a threat.
I understand that cooperation and team work appear to be difficult concepts as does logic. However, if you try really hard you will be able to work out that this means that they view the EU as a stronger organisation on the international stage than the UK alone
You seem to want to go from a powerful voice within a powerful organisation to a U.S.client state with no voice or power
If we have free and unfettered access to the EU then as far as business is concerned, not small minded, small dreaming, parochial nativists such as you, that is our home market.
Come the next global recession and the drawbridges go up, as it will again and again, we'll have a lot of people able and willing to easily by both our goods and services.
However I doubt you'll even notice when England is sold out from beneath you as you'll be too busy stitching another star to the US flag."Once again it's not 'our home market". Don't project your vision and views about the EU onto me. My home market is the UK and the EU is a foreign body which we're now leaving. You talk about business calling it our home market, would that be the 8% of British businesses that trade with the EU then? Because the 92% of British businesses that don't trade with the EU don't see the EU as our home market. As for having a powerful voice within a powerful organisation what a load of codswallop. In the EU you have 1/28th of a voice of which other members hold a veto over you, that's called a whisper not a voice. To get our voice back on the world stage we need to leave the EU so we can look after and voice our own interests independently again. If you think having a free trade deal with the USA would make us an American client state, does that mean you think the EU is a client state of Japan? Because the EU has a free trade deal with Japan. There appears to be no logic to your thinking what so ever. As for your glib throw away comment about stitching another star to the US flag, I'd rather that than have our star stitched to the EU flag. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds. We can substitute the trade we do with the EU for trade with other countries around the rest of the world. You just know Donald Trump would love to take the Uk's trade away from the EU and transfer it towards American businesses. That's not good for the EU. You just can't seem to accept that we're not dependent on the EU, time to cut the apron strings and make our own way in the world. The world is our oyster outside of the EU as a free, independent trading country. We have a trade surplus with the USA now. That means that the UK is "winning" and the USA is "losing". Think happy thoughts about how your hero will view that? Just wishing really, really hard that you want something won't make it happen. Even if you're a good little boy. Germany export $86bn to China from within the EU. The UK exports $18bn. We already have the most comprehensive free trade agreement with one of the richest regions in the world. It is currently our HOME market. It is not becoming less wealthy even though the rest of the world is catching up. The fastest growing economy in the world is Ethiopia. Will that compensate? What will we be selling them more of? What will we sell anybody more of? You can't stand Donald Trump and you can't stand the fact that he's President. Because of this you don't even want to begin to look into how he might think or how he might operate or use certain tactics. Trump has an immense dislike of the EU, let's face it he's not the only one and the EU is becoming more unpopular by the day not only around the rest of the world but within Europe too, so it stands to reason Trump would offer the UK a bumper free trade deal to make Brexit a success. Why would he do this you may ask? Not only because he's half British and he's a self confessed Anglophile, and a supporter of Brexit and wants to see it a success, but also because it would then tempt other disgruntled countries in the EU (and let's face it there are a few) to leave as well over time, to follow a successful Britain's lead, weakening the EU and making America great again.
So it's not about the USA "winning" over the UK in the short term, Trump wants to see the USA "win" over the EU in the long term. Personally I wish him every success because I'd like to see the EU consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. So its not about wishing really really hard about wanting something to happen as you put it, it's about understanding how Trump thinks and operates, what tactics he may employ and what his long term goals are, which it seems you've not even began to consider or think about.
Oh and just to add to that I don't see the EU as "our HOME market" as you put it. You may see it like that but don't project how you see the EU onto me! You may see yourself as European, again I don't! I see myself as English first and British second, End of! My home market is the single market of the UK and I see the EU as a foreign body which we are now thankfully leaving.
No, I don't like Trump.
If he is so desperate to pull apart the EU, as your other hero Putin is, then it is because they see it as a threat.
They do not see the individual EU states as a threat.
I understand that cooperation and team work appear to be difficult concepts as does logic. However, if you try really hard you will be able to work out that this means that they view the EU as a stronger organisation on the international stage than the UK alone
You seem to want to go from a powerful voice within a powerful organisation to a U.S.client state with no voice or power
If we have free and unfettered access to the EU then as far as business is concerned, not small minded, small dreaming, parochial nativists such as you, that is our home market.
Come the next global recession and the drawbridges go up, as it will again and again, we'll have a lot of people able and willing to easily by both our goods and services.
However I doubt you'll even notice when England is sold out from beneath you as you'll be too busy stitching another star to the US flag.
Once again it's not 'our home market". Don't project your vision and views about the EU onto me. My home market is the UK and the EU is a foreign body which we're now leaving. You talk about business calling it our home market, would that be the 8% of British businesses that trade with the EU then? Because the 92% of British businesses that don't trade with the EU don't see the EU as our home market.
As for having a powerful voice within a powerful organisation what a load of codswallop. In the EU you have 1/28th of a voice of which other members hold a veto over you, that's called a whisper not a voice.
To get our voice back on the world stage we need to leave the EU so we can look after and voice our own interests independently again.
If you think having a free trade deal with the USA would make us an American client state, does that mean you think the EU is a client state of Japan? Because the EU has a free trade deal with Japan.
There appears to be no logic to your thinking what so ever.
As for your glib throw away comment about stitching another star to the US flag, I'd rather that than have our star stitched to the EU flag.
"Actually (probably you were a kid) it was once muted that we become a state of the U.S. by an American - things were so good in the UK - NOT! | |||
| |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. They need us more than we need them? 44% of our trade vs 6% of theirs? That and the fact that they can substitute their lost trade with each other. We cannot. The German car industry will demand a different deal? Not so far it seems. Disaster for us vs bad for them. Your self regard and vanity has no bounds. We can substitute the trade we do with the EU for trade with other countries around the rest of the world. You just know Donald Trump would love to take the Uk's trade away from the EU and transfer it towards American businesses. That's not good for the EU. You just can't seem to accept that we're not dependent on the EU, time to cut the apron strings and make our own way in the world. The world is our oyster outside of the EU as a free, independent trading country. We have a trade surplus with the USA now. That means that the UK is "winning" and the USA is "losing". Think happy thoughts about how your hero will view that? Just wishing really, really hard that you want something won't make it happen. Even if you're a good little boy. Germany export $86bn to China from within the EU. The UK exports $18bn. We already have the most comprehensive free trade agreement with one of the richest regions in the world. It is currently our HOME market. It is not becoming less wealthy even though the rest of the world is catching up. The fastest growing economy in the world is Ethiopia. Will that compensate? What will we be selling them more of? What will we sell anybody more of? You can't stand Donald Trump and you can't stand the fact that he's President. Because of this you don't even want to begin to look into how he might think or how he might operate or use certain tactics. Trump has an immense dislike of the EU, let's face it he's not the only one and the EU is becoming more unpopular by the day not only around the rest of the world but within Europe too, so it stands to reason Trump would offer the UK a bumper free trade deal to make Brexit a success. Why would he do this you may ask? Not only because he's half British and he's a self confessed Anglophile, and a supporter of Brexit and wants to see it a success, but also because it would then tempt other disgruntled countries in the EU (and let's face it there are a few) to leave as well over time, to follow a successful Britain's lead, weakening the EU and making America great again.
So it's not about the USA "winning" over the UK in the short term, Trump wants to see the USA "win" over the EU in the long term. Personally I wish him every success because I'd like to see the EU consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. So its not about wishing really really hard about wanting something to happen as you put it, it's about understanding how Trump thinks and operates, what tactics he may employ and what his long term goals are, which it seems you've not even began to consider or think about.
Oh and just to add to that I don't see the EU as "our HOME market" as you put it. You may see it like that but don't project how you see the EU onto me! You may see yourself as European, again I don't! I see myself as English first and British second, End of! My home market is the single market of the UK and I see the EU as a foreign body which we are now thankfully leaving.
No, I don't like Trump.
If he is so desperate to pull apart the EU, as your other hero Putin is, then it is because they see it as a threat.
They do not see the individual EU states as a threat.
I understand that cooperation and team work appear to be difficult concepts as does logic. However, if you try really hard you will be able to work out that this means that they view the EU as a stronger organisation on the international stage than the UK alone
You seem to want to go from a powerful voice within a powerful organisation to a U.S.client state with no voice or power
If we have free and unfettered access to the EU then as far as business is concerned, not small minded, small dreaming, parochial nativists such as you, that is our home market.
Come the next global recession and the drawbridges go up, as it will again and again, we'll have a lot of people able and willing to easily by both our goods and services.
However I doubt you'll even notice when England is sold out from beneath you as you'll be too busy stitching another star to the US flag.
Once again it's not 'our home market". Don't project your vision and views about the EU onto me. My home market is the UK and the EU is a foreign body which we're now leaving. You talk about business calling it our home market, would that be the 8% of British businesses that trade with the EU then? Because the 92% of British businesses that don't trade with the EU don't see the EU as our home market.
As for having a powerful voice within a powerful organisation what a load of codswallop. In the EU you have 1/28th of a voice of which other members hold a veto over you, that's called a whisper not a voice.
To get our voice back on the world stage we need to leave the EU so we can look after and voice our own interests independently again.
If you think having a free trade deal with the USA would make us an American client state, does that mean you think the EU is a client state of Japan? Because the EU has a free trade deal with Japan.
There appears to be no logic to your thinking what so ever.
As for your glib throw away comment about stitching another star to the US flag, I'd rather that than have our star stitched to the EU flag.
"I'm not sure I've come across people as unable to take in information or evolve their views as on this site. Again, Centaur, not everyone thinks in us or them, win or lose terms like you do. I'm not sure where you developed this attitude that everyone is out to get you and you only look out for number one. It's unfortunate as it seems to have you in a state of constant fear. Fighting or running away. A "home" market, if that makes you happier, is the one in which you can sell your goods and services with absolutely no impediments. Transport distances are also relatively small allowing quick response times. The bigger this is in terms of wealth and population the better. Can you agree with that or is any form of agreement unacceptable? The size of "home" market becomes even more important in times of economic stress when companies, individuals and countries will tend to focus their transactions in markets that require the least risk and provide the highest reward. If your home market is large and wealthy then you are in luck as you will be better able to ride out the bad times. Trump may have a genius master plan to destroy the EU by giving the UK a "big, beautiful" trade deal. However, if he does it is because he sees the EU a greater challenge to US dominance than individual, isolated states. Do you agree or is there another reason for his cunningly crafted stratagem? Trump has stated many times that he considers a trade imbalance against the US as losing. As we currently have a trade surplus with them do you think he'd like to be a loser? Weak? The countries within the EU are of a similar scale so that no one party overwhelms the others with regards to setting rules. The UK, France and Germany have always had more influence due to being relatively larger but not excessively so due to the rules in place. The EU is of a similar scale to China, Japan and the US economically so that as an organisation it can stand it's ground. The UK on it's own is not of a similar scale to any of those economies so it is difficult to understand how this gives us more power. If as one of the wealthiest states in the EU you think that we have no influence then your logic is that alone amongst 167 states we'll have more influence? Of course the last comment was flippant. Silly Centaur. We are not a client state of the EU. We set it's rules. We've agreed with approximately 92% of them. We will not be setting any rules when we go to try and negotiate with the EU or the USA or China will we? | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. " What part of backstop is it that you and other BREXITERS don't understand. A backstop in which one side alone can terminate without the consent of the other is not a backstop. The EU and Ireland simply will not accept any deal that doesn't include either a customs union between Northern Ireland and the Republic or the backstop. | |||
"The problem, I think, is a majority of MPs wanted to stay in the EU. Yes, they passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. But when it comes to how we leave, they cannot stomach either option, because they know it is inferior to what they cannot have. So they cannot bring themselves to vote FOR something, only to vote AGAINST. But what do you think will happen? We know that she will lose the vote on 11th - but what will that achieve? The problem is the Irish border - just break the GFA? Just watch the pound tank. EU won't cave in and so who knows what will happen? If there is no deal then the Euro will also tank in the markets. It was reported in the press last week that ERG members are putting pressure on Theresa May to go back to the EU and put in a backstop termination clause to the withdrawal agreement which would allow the UK to leave the backstop unilaterally without needing permission from the EU. It's reported that attorney general Geoffrey Cox had this termination clause drawn up months ago with the then Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Theresa May tore it up and refused to put it in for negotiation and that's the main reason Raab resigned as Brexit secretary. If this backstop termination clause is put in the withdrawal agreement the ERG will vote for her deal. However a unilateral backstop termination clause would never be acceptable to the EU and Ireland in particular. We'll see about that when the EU is looking down the barrel at the prospect of a No Deal exit. " OMG!! Ha, ha ha ha. You clearly don't which end the barrel of the gun is. The worst the EU will get is the recoil while we get both barrels. (10% of EU trade - 45% of UK trade) | |||
| |||
"I love the way Centy just keeps on rolling out the same old BREXIT lies again, and again, and again. We already pointed out on another thread that the claim that only 8% of UK businesses trade with the EU is a totally false figure based on a false analysis of VAT data and that it doesn't even take into consideration trade in services at all. But like a good little BREXITER Centy just keeps in trotting it out regardless. They say if you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it. In the short term this is often true but it's also true to say that eventually the truth wins through. Another reason why Leave had steadily lost the BREXIT argument. They just keep repeating the same lies (AKA alternate facts) and more and more people simply don't believe them any more. " Let's not mention how you try to mislead people then shall we Kraken.
Such as the fact the EU doesn't even have a single market in services which you were told about on another thread and yet you trot out the same line here again in a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking there is.
Just like your deliberately deceptive attempt to convince people we have a trade deal with China, only you fail to mention it's very limited in scope because EU rules prevent it being a fully inclusive and comprehensive free trade deal.
Just like a lot of remainers you patronise people, talk down to them as if you're sitting in some sort of moral high chair when you're deliberately misleading and deceiving people yourself all along. | |||
"If you exclude the Germans landing in the Channel Islands during WW2, the last country whose troops landed on these shores was . . . the United States of America. Whitehaven, 1778 " the french at fishguard in 1797 | |||
"I love the way Centy just keeps on rolling out the same old BREXIT lies again, and again, and again. We already pointed out on another thread that the claim that only 8% of UK businesses trade with the EU is a totally false figure based on a false analysis of VAT data and that it doesn't even take into consideration trade in services at all. But like a good little BREXITER Centy just keeps in trotting it out regardless. They say if you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it. In the short term this is often true but it's also true to say that eventually the truth wins through. Another reason why Leave had steadily lost the BREXIT argument. They just keep repeating the same lies (AKA alternate facts) and more and more people simply don't believe them any more. Let's not mention how you try to mislead people then shall we Kraken.
Such as the fact the EU doesn't even have a single market in services which you were told about on another thread and yet you trot out the same line here again in a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking there is.
Just like your deliberately deceptive attempt to convince people we have a trade deal with China, only you fail to mention it's very limited in scope because EU rules prevent it being a fully inclusive and comprehensive free trade deal.
Just like a lot of remainers you patronise people, talk down to them as if you're sitting in some sort of moral high chair when you're deliberately misleading and deceiving people yourself all along. "What article have you skim-read today Centaur? It's such a tidal wave of nonsense that you regurgitate that's it's impossible to keep up
What services cannot be traded freely Centaur?
Why don't you tell us who China's biggest international trading partner is?
Are there any negotiations underway?
Why don't you ever do any research before getting shouty?
I predict you'll fail to answer unless at least one of these questions because you'll look silly if you do | |||
"I love the way Centy just keeps on rolling out the same old BREXIT lies again, and again, and again. We already pointed out on another thread that the claim that only 8% of UK businesses trade with the EU is a totally false figure based on a false analysis of VAT data and that it doesn't even take into consideration trade in services at all. But like a good little BREXITER Centy just keeps in trotting it out regardless. They say if you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it. In the short term this is often true but it's also true to say that eventually the truth wins through. Another reason why Leave had steadily lost the BREXIT argument. They just keep repeating the same lies (AKA alternate facts) and more and more people simply don't believe them any more. Let's not mention how you try to mislead people then shall we Kraken.
Such as the fact the EU doesn't even have a single market in services which you were told about on another thread and yet you trot out the same line here again in a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking there is.
Just like your deliberately deceptive attempt to convince people we have a trade deal with China, only you fail to mention it's very limited in scope because EU rules prevent it being a fully inclusive and comprehensive free trade deal.
Just like a lot of remainers you patronise people, talk down to them as if you're sitting in some sort of moral high chair when you're deliberately misleading and deceiving people yourself all along. "I never said there was a complete single market in services (in fact I don't think I even said there was a single market in services in my OP. However we do have financial passporting which makes selling those services into the EU far easier than it would be. But, in order to show that it's you who always over states your facts while I normally under state mine, I am going to show that there is a single market in services and it's existed since 2009. "The Services in the Internal Market Directive 2006/123/EC (also called the "Bolkestein Directive") is an EU law aimed at establishing a single market for services within the European Union (EU). The Directive, was adopted on 12 December 2006 by the Council and the European Parliament. The Services Directive requires all EU Member States to establish web portals so that anyone who provides a service will have a "point of single contact" where they can find out what legal requirements they need to meet to operate in the country in question. Service providers can also use the web portals to apply for any licence or permit they need. The Directive makes it easier for EU service providers to operate in any other EU Member State." | |||
"I love the way Centy just keeps on rolling out the same old BREXIT lies again, and again, and again. We already pointed out on another thread that the claim that only 8% of UK businesses trade with the EU is a totally false figure based on a false analysis of VAT data and that it doesn't even take into consideration trade in services at all. But like a good little BREXITER Centy just keeps in trotting it out regardless. They say if you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it. In the short term this is often true but it's also true to say that eventually the truth wins through. Another reason why Leave had steadily lost the BREXIT argument. They just keep repeating the same lies (AKA alternate facts) and more and more people simply don't believe them any more. Let's not mention how you try to mislead people then shall we Kraken.
Such as the fact the EU doesn't even have a single market in services which you were told about on another thread and yet you trot out the same line here again in a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking there is.
Just like your deliberately deceptive attempt to convince people we have a trade deal with China, only you fail to mention it's very limited in scope because EU rules prevent it being a fully inclusive and comprehensive free trade deal.
Just like a lot of remainers you patronise people, talk down to them as if you're sitting in some sort of moral high chair when you're deliberately misleading and deceiving people yourself all along.
What article have you skim-read today Centaur?
It's such a tidal wave of nonsense that you regurgitate that's it's impossible to keep up
What services cannot be traded freely Centaur?
Why don't you tell us who China's biggest international trading partner is?
Are there any negotiations underway?
Why don't you ever do any research before getting shouty?
I predict you'll fail to answer unless at least one of these questions because you'll look silly if you do "It's common knowledge that the EU doesn't have a single market in services. The single market in goods is established but the single market in services in the EU is incomplete. Where did I get shouty? I don't recall using any exclamation marks or capital letters to emphasise shouting, so why do you imagine there is? You often accuse others on here who disagree with you of shouting? It's very odd. Maybe you need to start a night class in English language as it's clear you don't understand it. On your last point looks like yet another one of your predictions has turned out to be false again. | |||
"I love the way Centy just keeps on rolling out the same old BREXIT lies again, and again, and again. We already pointed out on another thread that the claim that only 8% of UK businesses trade with the EU is a totally false figure based on a false analysis of VAT data and that it doesn't even take into consideration trade in services at all. But like a good little BREXITER Centy just keeps in trotting it out regardless. They say if you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it. In the short term this is often true but it's also true to say that eventually the truth wins through. Another reason why Leave had steadily lost the BREXIT argument. They just keep repeating the same lies (AKA alternate facts) and more and more people simply don't believe them any more. Let's not mention how you try to mislead people then shall we Kraken.
Such as the fact the EU doesn't even have a single market in services which you were told about on another thread and yet you trot out the same line here again in a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking there is.
Just like your deliberately deceptive attempt to convince people we have a trade deal with China, only you fail to mention it's very limited in scope because EU rules prevent it being a fully inclusive and comprehensive free trade deal.
Just like a lot of remainers you patronise people, talk down to them as if you're sitting in some sort of moral high chair when you're deliberately misleading and deceiving people yourself all along.
I never said there was a complete single market in services (in fact I don't think I even said there was a single market in services in my OP. However we do have financial passporting which makes selling those services into the EU far easier than it would be.
But, in order to show that it's you who always over states your facts while I normally under state mine, I am going to show that there is a single market in services and it's existed since 2009.
"The Services in the Internal Market Directive 2006/123/EC (also called the "Bolkestein Directive") is an EU law aimed at establishing a single market for services within the European Union (EU).
The Directive, was adopted on 12 December 2006 by the Council and the European Parliament.
The Services Directive requires all EU Member States to establish web portals so that anyone who provides a service will have a "point of single contact" where they can find out what legal requirements they need to meet to operate in the country in question. Service providers can also use the web portals to apply for any licence or permit they need.
The Directive makes it easier for EU service providers to operate in any other EU Member State."
"That doesn't show there is a single market in services though. Do you even bother to read what you copy and paste? The key part being...."an EU law aimed at establishing a single market in services". Aiming to establish something doesn't make it complete and it's still not complete to this day. | |||
"I love the way Centy just keeps on rolling out the same old BREXIT lies again, and again, and again. We already pointed out on another thread that the claim that only 8% of UK businesses trade with the EU is a totally false figure based on a false analysis of VAT data and that it doesn't even take into consideration trade in services at all. But like a good little BREXITER Centy just keeps in trotting it out regardless. They say if you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it. In the short term this is often true but it's also true to say that eventually the truth wins through. Another reason why Leave had steadily lost the BREXIT argument. They just keep repeating the same lies (AKA alternate facts) and more and more people simply don't believe them any more. Let's not mention how you try to mislead people then shall we Kraken.
Such as the fact the EU doesn't even have a single market in services which you were told about on another thread and yet you trot out the same line here again in a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking there is.
Just like your deliberately deceptive attempt to convince people we have a trade deal with China, only you fail to mention it's very limited in scope because EU rules prevent it being a fully inclusive and comprehensive free trade deal.
Just like a lot of remainers you patronise people, talk down to them as if you're sitting in some sort of moral high chair when you're deliberately misleading and deceiving people yourself all along.
I never said there was a complete single market in services (in fact I don't think I even said there was a single market in services in my OP. However we do have financial passporting which makes selling those services into the EU far easier than it would be.
But, in order to show that it's you who always over states your facts while I normally under state mine, I am going to show that there is a single market in services and it's existed since 2009.
"The Services in the Internal Market Directive 2006/123/EC (also called the "Bolkestein Directive") is an EU law aimed at establishing a single market for services within the European Union (EU).
The Directive, was adopted on 12 December 2006 by the Council and the European Parliament.
The Services Directive requires all EU Member States to establish web portals so that anyone who provides a service will have a "point of single contact" where they can find out what legal requirements they need to meet to operate in the country in question. Service providers can also use the web portals to apply for any licence or permit they need.
The Directive makes it easier for EU service providers to operate in any other EU Member State."
That doesn't show there is a single market in services though. Do you even bother to read what you copy and paste?
The key part being...."an EU law aimed at establishing a single market in services".
Aiming to establish something doesn't make it complete and it's still not complete to this day. "I've never said it's complete but, as shown, it's there. More importantly, when we can't use it any longer, it will be harder to trade our services into the EU so therefore they should be included in any estimate of trade done between the UK and the EU, which is the important point here. | |||
"I love the way Centy just keeps on rolling out the same old BREXIT lies again, and again, and again. We already pointed out on another thread that the claim that only 8% of UK businesses trade with the EU is a totally false figure based on a false analysis of VAT data and that it doesn't even take into consideration trade in services at all. But like a good little BREXITER Centy just keeps in trotting it out regardless. They say if you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it. In the short term this is often true but it's also true to say that eventually the truth wins through. Another reason why Leave had steadily lost the BREXIT argument. They just keep repeating the same lies (AKA alternate facts) and more and more people simply don't believe them any more. Let's not mention how you try to mislead people then shall we Kraken.
Such as the fact the EU doesn't even have a single market in services which you were told about on another thread and yet you trot out the same line here again in a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking there is.
Just like your deliberately deceptive attempt to convince people we have a trade deal with China, only you fail to mention it's very limited in scope because EU rules prevent it being a fully inclusive and comprehensive free trade deal.
Just like a lot of remainers you patronise people, talk down to them as if you're sitting in some sort of moral high chair when you're deliberately misleading and deceiving people yourself all along.
What article have you skim-read today Centaur?
It's such a tidal wave of nonsense that you regurgitate that's it's impossible to keep up
What services cannot be traded freely Centaur?
Why don't you tell us who China's biggest international trading partner is?
Are there any negotiations underway?
Why don't you ever do any research before getting shouty?
I predict you'll fail to answer unless at least one of these questions because you'll look silly if you do
It's common knowledge that the EU doesn't have a single market in services. The single market in goods is established but the single market in services in the EU is incomplete.
Where did I get shouty?
I don't recall using any exclamation marks or capital letters to emphasise shouting, so why do you imagine there is?
You often accuse others on here who disagree with you of shouting? It's very odd. Maybe you need to start a night class in English language as it's clear you don't understand it.
On your last point looks like yet another one of your predictions has turned out to be false again. "
Common knowledge? This is the first time you have ever mentioned it, so you've obviously jist read it somewhere.
It's "common knowledge" to flat-earthers that the world is not flat. It's "common-knowledge" to anti-vaxers that you don't need vaccinations.
You are completely transparent because you do this over and over again
So what if it's still developing? That's normal. So are regulations for trade in goods, medicines, communications and the internet.
It's complicated. I know that you like everything to be really simple and written in crayon, but the world doesn't work like that. There is nothing else on the planet that is as integrated. You expect to snap your fingers and magic everything together?
Everything you write is angry and shouty. It doesn't require exclamation marks and capital letters to read your anger at everyone and everything that has the audacity to challenge your position of utter certainty. You regularly shoot your mouth off without understanding the topic in hand then swear blind that everyone else is wrong
Four questions, all unanswered as predicted 
What article have you skim-read today Centaur?
What services cannot be traded freely Centaur?
Why don't you tell us who China's biggest international trading partner is?
Are there any negotiations underway? | |||
